editorial new york f quarterly spring 2016 who should foot...

NEW YORK FRUIT QUARTERLY . VOLUME 24 . NUMBER 1 . SPRING 2016 1

5 11 15 20 24

Contents

NEW YORK Fruit Quarterly SPRING 2016Editorial

Who should foot the bill for food safety?

Irecently fell under some strong opinions from some people who felt I was an agent driving up their taxes by advocating for public matching funds for research. I concur with these people

that I do not like to see my taxes spent on meaningless programs. I do hold to the opinion that food safety and the advancement of food production is not simply the sole responsibility of farmers to fund.

Food is necessary to sustain life. We can live without almost any other thing. We do not need cell phones, televisions, or many other objects that today’s society has placed high on its must-have list. The availability of safe and nutritious food is not a luxury but a necessity. I have watched over the years as the desire to financially support such programs as Homeland Security has grown. People are in favor of this because they view this as a public security investment. I hold the security of our food supply at an equal level of importance.

We support research because it opens the secrets of nature to us. We really do not discover anything new; we simply unlock the se-crets of nature already existing. Mapping our chromosomes, while an astounding accomplishment, is only unlocking something that was always present. It is when we use sound research to better understand the secrets of life that we can better advance food security. Nature has guarded the ability of the planet to support life from the simplest single-cell creatures to the most advanced, that being man. With zero help from us, nature has sustained

forests and jungles for centuries. It is our task to learn these se-crets and apply them to the production of foods for human and animal consumption. Once again, all of the tools are there, we just need to unlock them through the practice of good science.

Today we use tools such as pesticides and fertilizers to produce our foods. Who knows what the future will hold? Such current practices are in fact very new when compared with how long man has attempted to feed himself. Today, because of research, fewer man-hours are spent on direct food production, and more on other forms of enterprise. I would argue that, because of good food research, we are freeing humanity to explore the rest of life’s secrets.

Money spent on food production research is some of the best use of our time and efforts. Can any one of us even venture a guess what food technology will be like in 100 years? I know this – it will be so different that today’s problems compared to those 100 years from today will make people shake their heads and only smile at how unaware we were. Investment in sound research is the key to a better tomorrow. Is this not the financial responsibility of all of us?

Paul BakerNew York State Horticultural SocietySanborn, New [email protected]

5 AStatewideCropEstimateEffortinNewYorkState MarioMirandaSazo,MattWells,AnnaWallis,Dan

Donahue,GemmaReig,CraigKahlkeandElizabethTee

11 TrackingtheBrownMarmoratedStinkBug inMichigan JuliannaWilson

15 PrecisionIrrigation:HowandWhyWeShouldIrrigate

JaumeLordan,TerenceRobinson,PolianaFrancescatto,GemmaReig,AnnaWallisandAlanLakso

20 Fermentation optimization and consumeracceptanceevaluationofNewYorkapplevarietiesasabaseforhardcider

ChristopherGerling,OlgaPadilla-Zakour,AnnaKatharineMansfield,DavidC.Manns,CortniMcGregor,BradRickardandMeaghanSugrue

COVER:Pressurechamberusedtoassesstreewaterstress.

24 OverviewofAppleResourcesatCornellUniversity SusanK.BrownandKevinE.Maloney

2 NEW YORK STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY

NEW YORK STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY

President ChuckMead, Mead Orchards LLC 15 Scism Road, Tivoli, NY 12583 PH: (845) 756-5641 (W), (845) 756-4211 FAX: (845) 756-4008, Cell: (845) 389-0731 E-Mail: [email protected]

VicePresident NedMorgan, Morgan Farms LLC 331 Pigeon Hill Road, Marion, NY 14505 Cell: 585-752-9771, FAX: (315) 926-7740 E-M ail: [email protected]

Treasurer/Sec. WardDobbins,H.H. Dobbins & Son 99 West Ave., PO Box 503, Lyndonville, NY 14098 PH: (585) 765-2271, FAX: (585) 765-9710, Cell: (716) 622-6636, E-Mail: [email protected]

ExecutiveDirector PaulBaker 3568 Saunders Settlement Rd., Sanborn, NY 14132 FAX: (716) 219-4089 Cell: (716) 807-6827 E-Mail: [email protected]

OfficeAdmin KarenWilson 630 W. North St., Geneva, NY 14456 PH: (315) 787-2404 (W), FAX: (315) 787-2216, Cell: (315) 521-0852, E-Mail: [email protected]

CornellDirector Dr.ArtAgnello, NYSAES Department of Entomology 630 W. North St. Geneva, NY 14456 PH: (315) 787-2341 (W), FAX: (315) 787-2326 Cell: (315) 719-4623, E-Mail: [email protected]

Director MikeBiltonen 3336 Podunk Road, Trumansburg, NY 14886 PH: 845-674-5124, E-Mail: [email protected]

Director PeterFleckenstein, Beak & Skiff Apple Farms 4472 Cherry Valley Tpk., LaFayette, NY 13084 PH: (315) 436-1045, FAX: (315) 677-3190 Cell: (315) 664-0391, E-Mail: [email protected]

Director DanSievert, Lakeview Orchards, Inc. 4941 Lake Rd., Burt, NY 14028 PH: (716) 778-7491 (W), FAX: (716) 778-7466 CELL: (716) 870-8968, E-Mail: [email protected]

Director JohnIvison, Helena Chemical Company 165 Platt St., Suite 100, Albion, NY 14411 PH: (585) 589-4195 (W), FAX: (585) 589-0257 Cell: (585) 509-2262 E-Mail: [email protected]

Director TedFurber,Cherry Lawn Farms 8130 Glover Road, Sodus, NY 14551 PH: 315-483-8529, FAX: 315-483-6408 E-Mail: [email protected]

Director AlishaAlbinder, Hudons River Fruit Distributors 65 Old Indian Road, PO Box 246, Milton, NY 12547 PH: (845) 795-2121, FAX: (845) 795-2618 Cell: (845) 518-3962, E-Mail: [email protected]

Director RandyHart, Hart Apple Farms LLC 2301 Rt. 22, Peru, NY 12972 Cell: (518) 524-5366, E-Mail: [email protected]

Director ElizabethMadison 5812 Middle Road, Sodus, NY 14551 PH: (315) 483-6155, E-Mail: [email protected]

NYS BERRY GROWERS BOARD MEMBERS

Chair DaleRiggs,Stonewall Hill Farm 15370 NY Rt 22, Stephentown, NY 12168 PH: 518-733-6772; [email protected]

Treasurer TonyEmmi, Emmi Farms 1572 S. Ivy Trail, Baldwinsville, NY 13027 PH: 315-638-7679; [email protected]

ExecutiveSecretary PaulBaker 3568 Saunders Settlement Rd., Sanborn, NY 14132 CELL: 716-807-6827; FAX: (716) 219-4089 [email protected]

BobBrownIII,Brown’s Berry Patch 14264 Rooseveldt Highway, Waterport, NY 14571 PH: 585-682-5569

BruceCarson,Carson’s Bloomin’ Berries 2328 Reed Rd. Bergen, NY 14416 PH: 585-494-1187; [email protected]

DavidCoulter, Coulter Farms 3871 N. Ridge Road, Lockport, NY 14094 PH: 716-433-5335; [email protected]

JohnCashin,Cashin Farm 225 Argersinger Road, Fultonville, New York 12072 PH: 518-281-6000; cashinsfarm.com

TerryMosher,Mosher Farms RD #1 Box 69, Bouckville, NY 13310 PH: 315-893-7173; [email protected]

ChuckMead,Mead Orchards LLC 15 Scism Rd., Tivoli, NY 12583 PH: 845-756-5641 (W); CELL: 845-389-0731 [email protected]

NEW YORK Fruit Quarterly SPRING 2016 • VOLUME 24 • NUMBER 1

MICHIGAN APPLES BOARD MEMBERS

Chair TonyBlattner Lowell, Michigan

ViceChair MarkYoungquist Kent City, Michigan

ExecutiveCommitteeMembers

GaryBartley Dowagiac, Michigan

DamonGlei Hillsdale, Michigan

BobGregory Leland, Michigan

ArtLister Ludington, Michigan

KevinWinkel Hartford, Michigan

ExecutiveDirector DianeSmith Michigan Apple Committee 13750 S. Sedona Parkway, Suite 3 Lansing, MI 48906 Ph. 800.456.2753 Fax 517.669.9506

SPRING 2016 • VOLUME 24 • NUMBER 1ThispublicationisajointeffortoftheNewYorkStateHorticulturalSociety,Cornell University’s NewYork State Agricultural Experiment Station atGeneva, the NewYork State Apple Research and Development Program,MichaganAppleCommittee,andtheNYSBGA.

Editor Dr.ArtAgnello Dept. of Entomology New York State Agricultural Experiment Station Geneva, NY 14456 PH: 315-787-2341; FX: 315-787-2326 CELL: 315-719-4623 [email protected]

Subscriptions KarenWilson &Advertising NYSHS, 630 W. North St., Geneva, NY 14456 PH: 315-787-2404; FAX: 315) 787-2216 [email protected] Design ElaineL.Gotham Gotham City Design, Naples, NY PH: 585-374-9585; [email protected] Production GemmaOsborne CALS Communications NYSAES, Geneva, NY PH: 315-787-2248; [email protected]

APPLE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ADVISORY BOARD

Chairman WaltBlackler,Apple Acres 4633 Cherry Valley Tpk. Lafayette, NY 13084 PH: 315-677-5144 (W); 315-729-3728 (C) [email protected]

AlanBurr,New Royal Farms 7577 Slayton Settlement Road, Gasport, NY 14067 PH/FX: 716.772.2469 ; [email protected]

SteveClarke,Sunshine Orchards 40 Clarkes Lane, Milton, NY 12547 PH: 845-795-2383; 845-901-7440(C); FX: 845-795-2383 [email protected]

RobertDeemer, Dr. Pepper/Snapple Group 4363 Rte.104 Williamson, NY 14589 PH: 315.589.4911 ext. 713; FX: 315-589-8048 [email protected]

MasonForrence,Forrence Orchards 2740 Route 22, Peru, NY 12972 PH: 518-643-9527; 518-726-6074 (C); FX: 518-643-9509 [email protected]

TedFurber,Cherry Lawn Farms 8099 GLover Rd., Sodus, NY 14551 PH: 315-483-9221; 315-573-4046 (C); FX: 315-483-6408 [email protected]

JeffreyLothian,Marketing Order Administrator NY State Dept. of Agriculture & Markets 10B Airline Drive, Albany, NY 12235 PH: 518-485-2014; FX: 518-457-2716 [email protected]

PeterTenEyck,Indian Ladder Farms 342 Altamont-Voorheesville Road Altamont, NY 12009 PH: 518-765-2956; 518-698-6258 (C); FX: 518-765-2700 [email protected]


FreeConsultationandQuoteCallMikeMagerat585-343-2678

RefrigeratedandVentilatedCoolingSystemsforFruitandVegetableStorages

•COMMERCIALREFRIGERATION•DESIGN,SALESANDSERVICE•SERVINGAGRICULTUREFOROVER65YEARS

REFRIGERATION CO. OF BATAVIA26 Cedar Street, Batavia, NY 14020www.arcticrefrigeration.com

80Years

BerryBestThe

Plants

www.noursefarms.com 413.665.2658

• Strawberries, raspberries, blueberries, blackberries, asparagus and more!

• Where the pros go for plans and plants.

• Call for a free catalog and plasticulture guide!

41 River Road South Deerfield Massachusetts 01373

Since 1932

STS-1073 GENERIC AD 4.75” x 7” OCT 2015

LOOKING FOR TREES? Make us your first call.BECAUSE YOUR TIME IS VALUABLE – Let us manage the details.

LET OUR HIGHLY QUALIFIED STAFF WORK FOR YOU!

BOOK FUTURE GROWER CONTRACTS FOR2018 AND BEYOND – BEAT THE SHOW SEASON!

THINK LONG TERMDON’T BE LEFT OUT - CALL TODAY!

800.424.2765 • www.summittreesales.com

Jan Melvin Katie Schuld Dawn Melvin Matthew Schuld

It’s our mission to help you findthe trees you need.

800.424.2765

Save the Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Cornell Fruit Field Day 2016

(See page 14 for details)

New York State Agricultural Experiment Station

Geneva NY


Increase Fruit Quality up to 60%Bin fi ller ensures that large bins are fi lled evenly, without bruising fruit

Sort the FruitPresort bin for culls

CompressorOnboard air compressor for pneumatic tools

Increase EfficiencyFour hydraulic adjustable platforms - pick at all levelsLeveling & Stability

Hydraulic leveling suspension

Removable ConveyersRemove to use for pruning

Bin TrailerTrailer holds up to 16 bins.

Two Sizes of Pluk-O-Trak!Senior (shown) and Junior models available.

Automatic Sensor Steering

YEARS

since

1954Call OESCO, Inc.for a demonstration

800-634-5557www.oescoinc.com P.O. Box 540, 8 Ashfi eld Road / Rt. 116, Conway, MA 01341

Scan to see the Piuma in action!

Scan to see thePluk-O-Trak

in action!

THE PICKIN’ IS EASY WITH THESE MACHINESThe REVO Piuma 4WD Harvester

• For apple & pear high-density fruit orchards

• Compact 12’-6” footprint• Independent front & rear steering• 4-wheel drive system• Self-contained power and mobility;

no tractor needed

• Auto-drive, auto-levelling, auto-steering

• Whisper-quiet fuel effi cient diesel engine

• Onboard compressor for air-driven tools

• Flow-thru bin design

The Munckhof Pluk-O-Trak

©2014 Plantra, Inc.www.plantra.com | 800-951-3806

RUINED FRUIT FLAVOR AND

LOST TONNAGE

LOST PROFITS

Harvest Math 101

Protect blueberries, grapes, cherries, raspberries, blackberries and other crops 24/7 with AviGard ® Bird Netting from Plantra!

Professional Grower Supplies for Vineyards,Orchards, Nurseries and Wildlife Habitat

Grow Tubes • Bark Protectors • Weed MatsFertilizer Packets • Deer Repellent


“The industry really does not know how many acres of apples it had in the past, has today, or will have in the future, and this lack of information will make it difficult for the industry to forecast or extrapolate crop estimates.”

A Statewide Crop Estimate Effort in New York StateMario Miranda Sazo1, Matt Wells1, Anna Wallis2, Dan Donahue2, Gemma Reig3, Craig Kahlke1, Elizabeth Tee1 1CornellCooperativeExtension,LakeOntarioFruitProgram2CornellCooperativeExtension,EasternNewYorkCommercialHorticultureProgram3HorticultureSection,SchoolofIntegrativePlantScience,HudsonValleyResearchLaboratory,CornellUniversity,Highland,NY

The U.S. apple industry as a whole and the individual apple producing states rely on accurate pre-harvest crop estimates to successfully harvest and market each sea-

son’s crop. Un-fortunately, no one state has a reliable method to forecast their crops. In NY, the industry has his-torically relied on seasonal National Agricultural Sta-tist ics Ser vice

(NASS) publications, combined with input from industry or-ganizations and individual growers, to estimate the state’s crop. While in some seasons the industry’s pre-season forecast has been relatively accurate, there have been other times when the crop picked out much larger or smaller than anticipated. It is very important that the industry report the most ac-curate number possible. Both under- and overestimating the crop size has negative effects on the broader industry. In the case of the 2014 crop, buyers and marketers established early season pricing at lower prices than would have otherwise been established if the crop estimate had reflected a lower and more accurate number. In the case of 2012, the poor crop was un-derestimated, which forced some businesses to radically adjust

This research was partially supported by the New York Apple Research and Development Program

their marketing/sales plans, which could have been avoided with a better estimate. New York is known for growing high quality fruit by best-in-class growers. It is important for the NY apple industry to be known for accurate crop estimates and transparency. Having a less subjective, larger data set and a sound method for estimat-ing the crop will prevent false market pricing. It will also allow marketers to accurately portray the crop to the media and buyers. Lastly, the New York apple crop is expected to grow in volume as new acreage begins to increase in yields. Not only does the industry need to be able to determine crop changes from one year to the next, but it must be able to quantify the new volume that will bear in the future. This project researches two types of methods for predict-ing crop size. The first is a field methodology that determines whether growers can sample and count apples in orchards and extrapolate crop yields. The second method researches a web-based survey platform that solicits information from all NYS growers, which is used to extrapolate a state crop forecast.

Methods FruitCountandFruitSizeMethods: Two different fruit count extrapolation methods were trialed in McIntosh orchards. One, developed by C.G. Forshey (1977), that required selecting subsamples on limbs within trees and taking measurements; and the other, a simple fruit count of entire trees. In each trial orchard, a subsample selection of five trees was made at full bloom to ensure crop load potential was uniform. The five subsample trees that were selected would be used to test each method described above. To test Forshey’s three-year research on McIntosh crop prediction, the cooperators sampled fruit size on the sample trees by selecting two branches in the lower section, two branches in the middle section, and two branches in the upper section on August 1. Selected branches were well exposed to light and were on opposite sides of the tree. Only branches 10–15 cm in circumference (or less, in many cases) were selected. During fruit sampling, all of the fruits were harvested from the point at which circumference was determined on the branch. The fruits were picked, counted, and weighed (Figure 1) (combined weight of all fruits on a branch) and the circumference of the branch was determined (Figure 2). From this information, a crop load prediction could be made based on Forshey’s work. According to Forshey, “A crop load of less than 260 gr/cm of branch circumference (as in 1976) is indicative of a light McIntosh crop and a crop load of more than 290 gr/cm of branch circumference (as in 1975) is indicative of a heavy crop.”

Figure 1. Using the Forshey method, all the fruits on selected brancheswerepicked,counted,andweighed.


To test the simple fruit count method, the researchers counted all fruit on the five representative trees and then calculated the average number of fruit per tree. Additionally, each cooperator gathered information about planting density, tree age, rootstock, and the actual 2015 yield data. With the average fruit numbers per tree, the total number of fruits per acre could be determined. Estimating fruit size at 88 and 100 counts, the bushels per acre were extrapolated. StatewideElectronicSurveyofCommercialGrowersandFieldPersonnelMethod:An on-line survey was created using the Qualtrics on-line survey platform. The survey questions were designed to gather high level information regarding the 2015 crop and allowed respondents to complete the survey in less than 10 minutes. These questions also were designed to easily aggregate all responses and be able to extrapolate the total crop potential.The questions were focused on three areas:

• IndividualProductionForecast:Asked for actual volumes produced in 2014 and the forecast for 2015.

• Individual Variety Projection: Asked to describe each variety’s crop potential.

• Total State Crop Fore-cast: Asked respondents to estimate the total NYS crop.

A key component was using a survey platform that allowed anonymous responses, to pro-tect each grower’s privacy. Apple growers were informed of use of the survey by Cornell Cooperative Extension publi-cations and the Core Report. 506 NYS apple growers were mailed a survey notice on July 24. This list of growers was provided by NYS Ag & Markets via a freedom of in-formation (FOIL) request. The

survey was open for use on July 25 and closed on August 8. In addition to issuing the survey to NYS apple growers, an additional survey was created for businesses that employ field personnel who spend considerable time in orchards and would have a good perspective on the crop.

ResultsFruitCountandFruitSizeResults: The results of the Forshey predictive model were variable (Table 1). These mid-season fruit size measurements did not correlate with the results previously reported by Forshey in 1977. The results from the fruit count-yield extrapolation method are shown in Table 2. Like the Forshey method, there was variability in the results and no conclusive correlation. It should be noted that the Clarke and Staples sites both had hail events that negatively impacted yields. If those sites are discounted, and we only consider

the Coy and VanStrein sites, the fruit count extrapolation method was accurate. Statewide Electronic Survey of Commercial GrowersandFieldPersonnelResults:The survey results were reviewed, analyzed and reported to the industry on August 14, 2015. The full report can accessed at the Lake Ontario Fruit Team website: http://cce-at-prod.hosting.cornell.edu/ccecp-prod/htdocs/rvpadmin/uploads/doc_327.pdfThe overall participation rate was 17% of the potential 509 grow-ers (Table 3). While the response was lower than desired, the total acres represented was 19% of the state total. The survey was designed to see responses by each major apple region. The first series of questions asked for 2014 actual production and 2015 production forecast. From these quantitative responses, the year over year change by region could be determined (Table 4). From this information, it was clear that the Hudson Valley was expecting a much larger crop, while the Western and Champlain regions were expecting similar crops each year. The second series of questions allowed for the presentation of each variety relative

Figure2.Atapemeasure(2a)wasusedtomeasurethecircumference(2b)ofselectedbranches.

a b


Figure4.NewYorkStatecropprojection.

to each other and compared with an average crop (Figure 3). This data and chart gave a good visual representation of the crop potential by variety. The third question area asked respondents to give a crop forecast for the entire state; the distribution of the results are shown in Figure 4. While these results were subjective, it allowed growers to share their opinion on the total crop size. These questions gave the desired information to effec-tively analyze and illustrate results for the final report. One piece of information that was missing or not requested was the grower’s opinion on the last season’s crop size. The 2014 crop as reported by NASS was 31M bushels. If this had been the case, based on the respondents either reporting larger or similar crops to a year ago, the crop would likely pick out above 30M bushels. Yet, when growers estimated the crop, the average response was between 26–27M bushels. Either the 2014 crop was smaller than NASS reported, or growers were more pessimistic in their forecast for the entire state’s crop than for their own farm operation.

Discussion Harvesting, counting, and weighing all the fruit from each sample branch using the Forshey method was very time consum-ing. However, at a minimum, it seems that obtaining an accurate estimate of fruit size will involve measuring several fruits from the inner , mid- and outer sections of a branch located in the top, mid-section and bottom of the canopy. If we want to predict fruit size, we will have to collect good data from several orchards over several years to develop appropriate data for each cultivar. These efforts have been initiated in other apple industries around the world. The fruit count-yield extrapolation method was also very time

consuming, as it requires counting the all fruit on sample trees, but it is more accurate if a good fruit size prediction can be made in August. The tree is 3-dimensional and we can only see two dimensions, but we need to be able to see the fruit in the interior of the tree. Therefore, one area where we need additional research is in developing a method for accurately estimating number of

Table 2: Total Tree Fruit Count – Yield Extrapolation Method

Site Trees/Acre Rootstock

Yield Prediction

at 88 ct

Yield Prediction at 100 ct

Actual Yield

(bu./ac.)

Extrapolation vs. Actual Comments

Coy HV 691 M.9 2,180 1,980 1,940 Accurate

Clarke HV 242 Interstem 1,060 960 500 Overstated Hail damage

Staples WNY 182 Interstem 1,480 1,340 820 Overstated Hail damage

VanStrein

WNY 302 G.30 1,700 1,540 1,620 Accurate

Table 3: Survey Participation Statistics

Region Participation

Count Mailed Count

Percent Participation

Total Survey Acres

NYS Total Acres (NASS - 2011)*

Percent of Total

Acres Western 40 238 17% 6,400 26,871 24% Champlain 2 12 17% 758 3,268 23% Hudson 3 106 3% 470 7,744 6% Other 8 153 5% 287 3,826 8% Total 53 509 10.4% 7,915 41,709 19%

Figure3.2015projectionsbyvariety.

Table 4: Total Bushels 2015 Forecast vs. 2014 Actual

Region 2014

Actual 2015

Forecast Year over

Year Change Percent Change

Western 4,368,912 4,337,416 (31,496) -1% Champlain 365,500 372,000 6,500 2% Hudson 227,862 287,750 59,888 26% Other 155,895 208,750 52,855 34% Total 5,118,169 5,205,916 87,747 2%


fruit per tree. This effort will be easiest for high-density orchards and for those spindle orchards that are currently transitioning to fruiting walls via mechanical dormant and/or summer pruning in NY. Narrower canopies will allow us to see into the interior of the trees more easily. In addition, these types of canopies will also improve fruit size uniformity from the bottom to the top of the trees. Various machines and techniques (drones, image analysis software) will be developed for fruit counts and fruit size measurements for these types of tree canopies in the near future in Europe and the U.S. Recent image analysis conducted at Klein-Altendorf Research Station at the University of Bonn, Germany, have shown promising results for yield predictions (Stajnko and Blanke 2011). The researchers investigated a low-cost, low-resolution image with a simple digital camera, but used high-tech image analysis and orchard data records to process the information. The image analysis software was optimized over the three years for the majority of orchards (all fully grown Braeburn, Gala, Elstar, and Golden Delicious on M.9), with best results in the 25–50 ton/ha yield range. The upper limit for the image analysis software was 200 fruit/tree. Yields larger than 50 ton/ha were underestimated, because larger fruit loads on the tree resulted in overlapping fruit segments in the images, giving an underestimation of fruit number and yield; similarly, yields lower than 25 ton/ha were overestimated. State-wide Electronic Survey to Commercial GrowersandFieldPersonnelDiscussion: The design, implementation and reporting of the first-ever electronic statewide crop survey was very successful. However, it remains to be seen if the estimate was accurate. Based on conversations with growers and industry members, many feel the 2015 crop picked out “long”, due primarily to exceptional fruit size in Western NY, and secondarily, there were more apples as a result of increasing yields from new bearing surfaces. It’s possible the state’s crop will be reported by NASS to be above 30M bushels. If the crop did in fact pick out long due to fruit size that was not anticipated in late July (at the time of the survey), how could this be factored into the crop survey? Additionally, like most major apple producing regions in the U.S., New York has seen an increase in high-density fresh apple plantings, some of which are replacing existing blocks, while some farms are increasing in total acreage. However, the fact is that the industry really does not know how many acres of apples it had in the past, has today, or will have in the future, and this lack of information will make it difficult for the industry to forecast or extrapolate crop estimates.

Conclusions Two approaches were trialed as a means of estimating crops. The first was a very specific, individual orchard method, and the second was a more holistic statewide estimate method. In theory, if growers had a reliable field method, they would then be able to accurately estimate their individual crop, which would be reflected in the statewide on-line survey. The results of the fruit count and size methods were not conclusive, nor could the methods serve as a predictive model. Both methods were time-consuming, especially on larger trees.

The Forshey method did not correlate well to actual yields, and this may be due to tree size and planting systems that are much different today than when the method was developed. The fruit count method, in which all fruit is counted and used to extrapo-late yields, has the potential to be accurate if fruit size can be estimated, and would require less time to conduct on very small trees in a high-density system. A larger ground survey including the collaboration of CCE personnel with consultants and growers could be more costly and labor-intensive, and could incur some level of inaccuracy if not conducted properly. A simulation of apple yield in NY through the integration of remote sensing and ground data could increase the accuracy of the yield prediction in the future. The apple carbohydrate model (MALUSIM model developed at Cornell) simulates growth of an Empire tree by linking tree growth with maximum and minimum daily temperatures and solar radiation. A new approach with this model could take into account other factors that affect apple yield during normal and extreme weather seasons (late freeze events, low temperatures during pollination, dry summers, etc.). This new application for estimating apple yield on a regional scale (Western NY, Champlain, and/or Hudson Valley) could become a powerful tool for our NY apple industry. The electronic survey design and implementation was a relatively simple means to collect information from every apple grower in the state. With survey design work completed in the first year, future implementation of the survey will be inexpensive and should require minimal administration. It is believed that with industry backing, more growers will participate in the future, which will improve the data set and the accuracy of the forecast in future years.

Literature CitedForshey, C. G. 1977. McIntosh Apple Crop Prediction Grower

Sampling Instructions. New York’s Food and Life Sciences Bulletin, No. 65, March 1977. 3 pp. At: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/5069

Stajnko, D., and M. M. Blanke. 2011. Yield prediction in fruit crops using image analysis. Proc. IXth IS on Orchard Systems. Acta Hort. 903, ISHS 2011. pp. 1115–1120.

Mario Miranda Sazo is an Extension Associate who specializes in orchard management and orchard mecha-nization with the Lake Ontario Fruit Program, CCE.MattWellsis an Extension Support Specialist who specializes in production economics and business management with the Lake Ontario Fruit Program, CCE.AnnaWallisis an Extension Associate with the Eastern NY Commercial Horticulture Program, CCE. Dan Donahue is a Senior Extension Educator with the Eastern NY Commercial Horticulture Program, CCE. GemmaReig is a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Hudson Valley Research Lab. CraigKahlke is an Extension Associate who specializes in fruit quality management with the Lake Ontario Fruit Program, CCE. ElizabethTeeis the program aide for the Lake Ontario Fruit Program, CCE.


Every Farmer Needs Farm BureauFarm Bureau Needs Every Farmer

E�� F��

NYFB.org1-800-342-4143

Join or Renew Now to Support the Fruit Growing Community

Every Farmer Needs Farm BureauFarm Bureau Needs Every Farmer

Contact Us Today With Any Questions!

1.800.342.4143NYFB.org

Farm Bureau members are eligible for $500 off the purchase

or lease of qualified 2015 and 2016 Chevrolet, Buick or GMC

vehicles, from Silverado to Encore to Terrain and more!


Preparing payroll may not be most people’s idea of a good time, but for Farm Credit East payroll service expert Alleasa Hosmer, nothing says fun like preparing payroll. In fact, all of our payroll experts love helping our clients manage their payroll, whether you have five employees or 50, seasonal or yearly.

Sure, Alleasa’s love of payroll may seem a little unusual, but when it comes to making sure that your payroll is timely and accurate, we wouldn’t have it any other way — because WE ARE YOU.

Our associates love what they do. How about you? Send us your selfie at FarmCreditEast.com/WeAreYou.

800.562.2235FarmCreditEast.com/Payroll

horseback riding, family time, farm-to-table meals, andpayroll.


“We now know that BMSB is in 46 Michigan counties and that nuisance reports are on the rise. With this knowledge, growers in counties with high numbers of nuisance reports are being strongly encouraged to monitor for BMSB in their crops in 2016.”

Tracking the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in MichiganJulianna WilsonMichiganStateUniversity,EastLansing,Michigan

Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (BMSB), Halyomorpha halys (Figure 1), is an exotic pest that feeds on more than 300 different host plants, including many cultivated fruit,

vegetable, and field crops (Lee e t a l . 2 0 1 3 ) . Both adults and n y m p h s f e e d on plants and can cause major crop losses when populations reach threshold levels, particularly in apple and peach

orchards. One generation is expected in Michigan, but because all life stages except for eggs can cause damage in many crops as they approach harvest, this pest can be a game changer in terms of pest management programs.

Before the pest becomes one of agricultural con-cern, it becomes a nuisance pest in home s and other manmade structures when it seeks shelter for overwinter-ing (Figure 2). While this pest is well established in mid-Atlantic states (Leskey et al. 2012), it has only just started to cause some damage in Mich-igan orchards. A statewide moni-toring network of traps (Figure 3), begun in 2014,

and a citizen science reporting system, begun in September 2015, were set up to track populations of this pest in Michigan.

2015 Activities Trappingnetwork:More than 70 traps were deployed in 22 Michigan counties near commercial fruit and vegetable plantings adjacent to riparian habitats, woodland, soybean fields, or major transportation corridors. Pyramid traps (Figure 3) were baited with a commercially available lure (AgBio, Inc.) and set up in

apples, stone fruits (peaches, plums, sweet and tart cherries), blueberries, grapes, strawberries and a variety of vegetable crops, along with several urban locations where BSMB was reported last year. Traps were checked weekly beginning in July and continued through October. Weekly reports (11 total) were published on the MSU Extension News for Ag website and are archived here:(http://www.ipm.msu.edu/invasive_species/brown_marmo-rated_stink_bug). Citizensciencereporting:An article(http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/report_sightings_of_brown_marmorated_stink_bugs_in_your_home_or_business) was written and posted to the MSU Extension News for Ag website on September 25, requesting that Michigan citizens report sight-ings of BMSB in their home or business to the Midwest Invasive Species Information Network (MISIN) (www.misin.msu.edu).

Main Findings Trappingnetwork&reportsofcropdamage:A total of 1,079 stink bugs were captured and identified as BMSB, 1,052 of which came from 5 traps in Berrien County. The rest of the specimens came from traps in Kent, Van Buren, Kalamazoo, Grand Traverse, and Lenawee Counties, with the majority of traps catching no BMSB in 2015. We also received reports of suspected stink bug damage to apples and peaches in Kent, Berrien, and Shiawassee Counties. These results suggested that BMSB was still at very low numbers in most of the sites where we were trapping for the bugs. Citizensciencereports:BMSB is fairly simple to identify – particularly in the fall when it enters manmade structures for

Figure1. Adultsare½-inchlongby5/8-inchwide,withablackandwhitepatternalongthemargin of their abdomen and bandingon their antennae and legs; they alsohavesmooth“shoulders”comparedwithnativestinkbugspecies.

Figure2. BMSBadultsseekshelterinmanmadestructuresinthefallforoverwintering.Theyemergefromthesestructuresinthespringto find suitable hosts for feeding and laying eggs. Preferredhostsarenon-nativeornamentaltreesandshrubsthatbearseedpodsorfruit,butwhenpopulationsreachhighlevels,theywillgotocropplantsthatbearseedpodsorfruit.OnegenerationisexpectedinMichigan,butalllifestagesexceptfortheeggswilldodamage.(DiagramcourtesyNielsenLab,RutgersUniversity.)


Figure5. CountieswhereBMSBhasbeenreportedasof2015.Countiesareshadedbythenumberofcitizensciencereportsreceived.GrowersincountiesthatareshadedthedarkestshouldbemonitoringtheircropsforBMSBin2016.Countiesthatwerepartofthetrappingnetworkaremarkedwithatriangle.

Figure3. Pyramid trap used to monitor forBMSBin2014and2015.

Figure4. CitizensciencereportsinMISIN.ThisisascreencapturefromtheMISINwebsitefromJan25,2016showingthenumberofrecordsofBMSB.Individualrecordscanbeexaminedfortheirexactlocation(whenonthewebsite).

overwintering, a behavior that native stink bugs do not exhibit. Taking advan-tage of this unique behavior, I was able to solicit more than 2,700 new records for BMSB in the Midwest Invasive Species Network database (www.misin.msu.edu) via citizen scientists who responded to the article (Figure 4). Social media shar-ing helped the article go “viral” – it was viewed more than 100,000 times, increas-ing the number of counties where BMSB had previously been reported from 22 to 46. These new records have been used to generate a map showing areas of concern where growers should begin scouting for BMSB next season (Figure 5).

What does this mean for Michigan growers in 2016? Growers in counties with highnumbersofBMSBcitizenreportsarestronglyencouragedtoscoutforBMSBin2016.As of today, we now know that BMSB is in 46 Michigan counties and that nuisance reports are on the rise (Figure 5). With this knowledge, growers in counties with high numbers of nuisance reports are being strongly encouraged to monitor for BMSB in their crops in 2016. The same pyramid traps we used in the network are easy to use, but populations have to be fairly large nearby before traps draw in BMSB. Also, BMSB tend to be least active during the day and are therefore hard to see, but can be easily

dislodged from plants if jarred above a pan or beating tray. Growers in the eastern U.S. begin targeted control strategies when 10 BMSB are captured in a single trap in one week. Control options are provided in the recent edition of the Michigan Fruit Management Guide (E-154).

Adams County Nursery, Inc. • (800) 377-3106 • (717) 677-4124 fax www.acnursery.com • email: [email protected]

ACN_Specialized_NYFQ.qxp_Layout 1 3/5/15 10:49 AM Page 1


Well built and reliable, these boxes will protect your produce. In bulk, $7.00 each

Hamlin Sawmill1873 Redman Rd. Hamlin, NY 14464

[email protected]

www.OneBushelCrate.com

One Bushel CratesReferences Lee, D., B. D. Short, J. V. Shimat, J. C. Bergh, and T. C. Leskey.

2013. Review of the Biology, Ecology, and Management of Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in China, Japan, and the Republic of Korea. Environ. Entomol. 42:627–641.

Leskey, T. C. and 21 others. 2012. Pest status of the brown mar-morated stink bug, Halyomorpha halys in the USA. Outlooks on Pest Management – October 2012.

AcknowledgementsThis work was funded in part by MSU Project GREEEN and the Michigan Apple Committee. Brad Baughman, Carlos Garcia-Salazar, Amy Irish-Brown, Mark Longstroth, Ben Phillips, Em-ily Pochubay, Bob Tritten, and Ben Werling all helped with the monitoring network. Amos Ziegler maintains the MISIN website, and Mallory Fournier edited and posted the article that went viral to the MSU News for Ag website.

JuliannaWilson is a member of the Department of Entomology at Michigan State University. As the Tree Fruit Integrator/Outreach Specialist, she develops sustainable solutions for producing tree fruit in Michigan.


Save the Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Cornell Fruit Field Day 2016New York State Agricultural Experiment Station

Geneva NY

Allattendeesareinvitedtocomeseethelatestresearchandextensionadvances.

For more information:Contact Gemma Osborne by calling: 315-787-2248 or email [email protected]

http://events.cals.cornell.edu/ffd2016


Precision Management: How and Why We Should IrrigateJaume Lordan1, Terence Robinson1, Poliana Francescatto1, Gemma Reig2, Anna Wallis3 and Alan Lakso11HorticultureSection,SchoolofIntegrativePlantScience,CornellUniversity,NYSAES,Geneva,NY2HorticultureSection,SchoolofIntegrativePlantScience,HudsonValleyResearchLaboratory,CornellUniversity,Highland,NY3CornellCooperativeExtension,EasternNYCommercialHorticultureProgram,Plattsburgh,NY

“With more precise water management, growers will be able to limit plant water stress and more consistently achieve the optimum economic fruit size and calcium content for each variety.”

Irrigation is essential to prevent water stress and small fruit size of apples in dry summers, even in humid climates like New York State. In 2015, we carried out five trials across NY.

N o n - i r r i g a t e d trees in the Hud-son Valley had much more water stress, which re-sulted in consid-erably less yield and smaller fruit sizes. Failure to properly irrigate

our orchards, especially in dry years and those on light soils, can affect not only yield of the current season, but tree growth and return bloom, which in the long run will be an important loss per acre. The profit apple growers make per acre varies widely among growers and is affected by yield level, fruit size and fruit quality. The wrong fruit size or poor fruit quality greatly reduces the potential income per acre. Better management can achieve much higher returns per acre for a given variety of apple. For each variety and orchard, there is an optimum number of fruits per tree where yield, fruit size and fruit quality are optimized. Growers attempt to achieve desired fruit size by properly reducing crop load with chemical thinners in the spring, but if the summer turns out to be dry, they will still not achieve the desired fruit size, and crop value will be severely compromised. To precisely manage fruit size requires precision in both chemical thinning and in irrigation. A second critical value of irrigation is to improve and maximize growth of newly planted or young apple trees. The economic success of high-density orchards depends on obtaining significant yields

This research was partially supported by the New York Apple Research and Development Program

in the third, fourth and fifth years to repay the establishment costs. Good water status is essential to maximize fruit size at any given crop load. Water stress at any time of the season reduces fruit growth rate, with a permanent loss in fruit size that is difficult to recover later. Water stress also limits uptake of calcium into the fruit and can result in more bitter pit. With more precise water management, growers will be able to limit plant water stress and more consistently achieve the optimum economic fruit size and calcium content for each variety. Precision irrigation involves calculating the amount of water trees need for each day of the season based on temperature, sunlight level, wind speed and rainfall, using a web-based model (Dragoni and Lakso 2011) and then adding back to the soil the

Figure1. IrrigationModelwebsitewithsampledatafromGenevaduringthespringof2015.


correct amount of water to minimize water stress and maximize fruit size. The model takes into account factors such as sunlight, temperature, humidity and the tree’s responses to them to estimate how weather affects water use.

Cornell Apple Irrigation Model The Apple Irrigation Model (http://newa.cornell.edu/index.php?page=apple-irrigation) on the NEWA website allows users to select a weather station close to their farm and then enter information on the spacing and age of the orchard (Figure 1). The model will then calculate and display the amount of water needed for that orchard for each of the last 7 days and for the upcoming 6 days, based on the weather over the last 7 days (from the weather station data) and from forecasted weather data expected over the upcoming 7 days (Figure 1). The calculated water volume needed by the orchard is displayed in gallons/acre. If the number is negative, the grower should add that amount of water to his orchard. If the number is positive, it means that rainfall exceeded transpiration and more water is available than needed, and no more water should be added. The website also allows a user to enter his own recorded rainfall, as rainfall varies considerably within short distances, and the weather station data may not represent the actual rainfall at the farm. The Cornell model has the feature that rainfall is considered and subtracted from the water requirement of the trees. It also considers the effective rooting area of different age orchards to include only the portion of the rainfall that is available to the trees in the calculations of tree water requirement.

Precision Irrigation Management This new model and website will allow more precise management of tree water status in both wet and dry years than was previously possible. Precisely managing soil water supply will require:

1. The grower or consultant to weekly log onto the NEWA website and determine the daily water requirement for his specific orchard (spacing and age) for the previous week and the upcoming week.

2. Irrigate the orchard to fully replace the estimated water requirement of the particular orchard via trickle irrigation.

3. To avoid oversaturating the soil when irrigation water is applied just before a large rainfall event or just after a large rainfall event, we suggest not applying the suggested irrigation amount for 1 day before a predicted large rainfall event (0.5 inches or more) or for 3 days after a large rainfall event.

4. The frequency of addition of the required water depends on soil type. With sandy soils, water should be added either daily or every 2 days. With silt or clay soils, the daily amount of water needed can be added up for several days and then added in one irrigation cycle.

5. In the early part of the season (early May to mid-June), we suggest that water be supplied once per week for both sandy and clay soils.

6. From mid-June until the end of August, we suggest that water be supplied twice per week in clay soils and every other day with sandy soils.

Results from 2015 In 2015, we conducted an irrigation management trial on four apple farms (one each in Ulster and Orleans, Wayne and Clinton Counties) and one at the Experiment Station in Geneva, using the Cornell Apple Irrigation Model. Geneva was an Empire/B9 orchard planted in 2011 at 1,156 trees/acre. Hudson (Ulster) was a Gala/M9 orchard, planted in 2011 at 1,117 trees per acre. In 2015, a Plumac/B9 orchard was planted in Orleans, at 1,980 trees/acre. Wayne was another Gala/B9 orchard planted in 2009 at 838 trees/acre. In the Champlain Valley (Clinton) a NY1/B9 orchard was planted in 2010 at 1,037 trees/acre. At each site, we managed soil water level according to the irrigation model to minimize water stress while other trees were left unirrigated. We assessed tree growth and tree stress, plus crop yield, fruit size and fruit quality (flesh firmness and sugars) with irrigation and no irrigation. The difference between tree water requirement and rainfall is the water balance, with a negative number indicating the need for irrigation and a positive number indicating too much water. Daily effective rainfall was quite variable, but in general, 2015 was not an especially dry year, with frequent rains in June in Geneva that exceeded 5,000 gallons/day. In contrast, rainfall in Hudson was much less abundant, being mainly concentrated in June and a couple of weeks between August and September.

Figure 2. Cumulative tree transpiration, rainfall and irrigation from MaythroughOctoberinGenevaandtheHudsonValley,NYin2015.


Figure3. Pressurechamberusedtoassesstreewaterstressintheorchard.

Accumulating the water balance values from bud break gives cumulative water supply and water demand. In 2015 in Geneva, the cumulative graph showed that water supply from rainfall was sufficient to meet water requirements of the tree for the whole season, whereas in the Hudson Valley, water requirement exceeded supply from rain from August through October, indicating the need to irrigate the trees during the whole summer (Figure 2). A delay in irrigation under these conditions makes it very difficult to “catch up” later in the season, when the cumulative water deficit becomes large. Heavy irrigation in a short period to catch up can lead to water and nutrient leaching. The growth, function, productivity, and water use of trees are closely tied to tree water status. With the use of a pressure chamber (Figure 3), we can measure the suction force that is being exerted by the tree to obtain water. The more negative the value, the more tension the tree needs to exert, thus the more stressed it gets. We can consider that tree stress starts with values below about -1.6 MPa. No tree stress was observed in the Geneva, Wayne, Orleans and Champlain orchards, with slight differences between irrigated and non-irrigated trees (Figure 4). On the other hand, significant water stress was observed during all three summer measurements in Hudson for non-irrigated trees, with values lower than -1.6 MPa (Figure 4). Regarding the number of harvested fruits, yield and fruit size, no differences were observed in Geneva and Wayne (Figure 5), where no tree stress was observed (Figure 4). Conversely, even though no differences were observed for the number of fruits that were set early, yield and fruit size in Hudson were significantly much smaller for those non-irrigated trees (Figure 5). Irrigated trees had an average of 1.5 kg more per tree, with bigger apples weighing about 140 g vs 110 g (irrigated vs. non irrigated, respectively) (Figure 5). This also explains why the concentration of soluble solids was higher for stressed trees (Figure 6), as less water content was present in the fruits. Considering the results from the Hudson orchard in its 5th leaf, we can estimate a loss of 235 bu/ha (1,117 trees/acre) or 414 bu/ha in the case of a high-density orchard as in Orleans (1,980 trees/acre) (Table 1). In terms of crop value, the lack of irrigation showed a loss of $3,859– $6,809/ha, depending on tree density (Table 1). Usually, when the crop is light, Figure4. TreestressduringsummerinGeneva,WayneandOrleansCounties,andtheHudsonandChamplain

Valleysin2015.Asterisksindicatesignificantdifferences.


Email: [email protected] Web: [email protected]

Kinz

ONE CHANGE – PUT KINZE IN PLACE OF RHINO IN THE AD -THANKS

Figure5. Numberoffruits,fruitsize,andyieldinGeneva,WayneandHudsonValleyorchardsin2015.Asterisksindicatesignificantdifferences.


there can be some stress with little effect, but when the crop is heavy, any stress has a stronger effect. Losses due to water stress could be even worse for fully productive orchards and late varieties with a longer growing season, such as Fuji. Further

Figure6.SolublesolidsandfirmnessinGeneva,WayneandHudsonValleyorchardsin2015.Asterisksindicatesignificantdifferences.

research is needed regarding how the stress observed in 2015 will affect return bloom and growth during the next season, and how a drier summer can affect yield and fruit size in other areas like northern and western New York.

Summary Good water status is essential to maximize fruit size at any given crop load. In our trials, it was seen that in some locations irrigation was not necessary, but at the Hudson location, irrigation led to better fruit size and economic value. With more precise water management, growers will be able to limit plant water stress and more consistently achieve the optimum economic fruit size and calcium content for each variety. With the use of the updated Apple Irrigation website, growers can easily improve the yield of their orchards weekly by applying the right amount of water.

Literature CitedDragoni, D. and Lakso, A.N. 2011. An apple-specific ET model.

Acta Hort. 903:1175-1180.

Acknowledgements This research was partially supported by the New York Apple Research Development Program and the Northern New York Agricultural Development Program. We thank Cherry Lawn Farms, Forrence Orchards, Lamont Fruit Farm Orchards and Minard Farms. We would also like to thank Keith Eggleston and Art DeGaetano for support in developing the web version of the apple irrigation model.

TerenceRobinson is a research and extension professor at Cornell’s Geneva Experiment Station who leads Cornell’s program in high-density orchard systems, irrigation and plant growth regulators. AlanLakso is a Professor Emeritus located at Cornell’s Geneva Expreiment Station who specializes in apple and grape physiology. JaumeLordan and PolianaFrancescatto are Postdoc Associates at Cornell’s Geneva Experiment Station in Dr. Robinson’s program. GemmaReig is a Postdoc Associate at Hudson Valley Research Laboratory. AnnaWallis is an Extension Associate who specializes in orchard management with the Eastern NY Commercial Horticulture Program.

Table1.Yield and income per ha estimation for an irrigated vs non-irrigated orchard for different densities, according to resultsobtainedinHudsonin2015(5thleaf).Applepricewasestimatedaccordingtofruitsize:0.59$/kg(140g)and0.54$/kg(110g).

Perha Irrigated Non-irrigated Difference

Yield 11.2 kg/tree 9.7 kg/tree 1.5 kg/tree

Yield (2,778 trees) 31,236 kg 26,982 kg 4,254 kg

Yield (4,902 trees) 55,118 kg 47,611 kg 7,507 kg

Yield (2,778 trees) 1,722 bu 1,487 bu 235 bu

Yield (4,902 trees) 3,038 bu 2,625 bu 414 bu

Income (2,778 trees) 18,429 $ 14,570 $ 3,859 $

Income (4,902 trees) 32,520 $ 25,710 $ 6,809 $


Fermentation Optimization and Consumer Acceptance Evaluation of New York Apple Varieties as a Base for Hard CiderChristopher Gerling1, Olga Padilla-Zakour1, Anna Katharine Mansfield1, David C. Manns1, Cortni McGregor1, Brad Rickard2 and Meaghan Sugrue11DepartmentofFoodScience,CornellUniversity,NewYorkStateAgriculturalExperimentStation,Geneva,NY2DysonSchoolofAppliedEconomicsandManagement,CornellUniversity,Ithaca,NY

“As cider production and demand increases, it follows that demand for the necessary apples will also grow. Our goal is to provide new and established cideries with a “roadmap” regarding cider production with New York varieties, be it fermentation conditions, tannin adjustment, or blending.”

In the United States, fermented (“hard”) cider production has increased rapidly in recent years (Figure 1). Fermented ciders offer lower alcohol (and therefore lower caloric content)

than wine, a more a p p r o a c h a b l e f r u i t - f o r w a r d f l av o r p r o f i l e than beer, and the added advantage of being gluten-free. With the creation of the f a r m c i d e r y license and a new tax definition of cider, New York

State is now extremely well positioned to be a national leader in hard cider production. State officials report that there has been a 600% increase in new cidery licenses since 2011. This growth in new businesses does not count the many existing wineries and breweries that have added hard cider to their product offerings. New York is also already one of the largest apple-growing states (second only to Washington), giving the growing cider industry a more than adequate supply. Unfortunately, the most common apples in New York (as well as the entire country) have been planted not with cider, but with the fresh market or processing in mind. “Customary” cider varieties have different chemical characteristics than those intended for eating out-of-hand, including higher levels of acidity and astringency. In fact, one traditional way of determining if an apple is a cider apple is to take a bite; if you can imagine taking another bite, it’s not a true cider apple. Until the last few years, there has been almost no commercial production of these apples in the United States. The American market is relatively new to cider, however, and no strong or ingrained opinions have necessarily been formed regarding product preferences. Further, consumers have come to recognize and appreciate the apple varieties they are already buying as fresh fruit. Successful products based on eating apples exist in the marketplace now, and it seems reasonable to assume that there is space for more. Relatively little work has been done regarding optimizing the fermentation and blending of eating/processing (“culinary”)

This research was supported in part by the NY Apple Research and Development Program

apples for cider production. There is little published data on what North American consumers expect or prefer when it comes to apple varieties and blends included in hard ciders. Before apple producers take on the risk of investing in new varieties, it would be prudent to evaluate the possibilities for, and consumer attitudes towards, products made from what is currently available. This work will highlight options for creating desirable fermented ciders from established apple varieties in New York. The objectives for this project were:

1. Characterization of popular commercial ciders2. Single variety fermentations and evaluations3. Consumer attitudes toward commercial ciders4. Optimizing a cider based on data from objectives 1&3

Objective 1- Characterization of popular commercial ciders Thirteen ciders were selected from ten different cideries, nine of which are located in New York State. The ciders were analyzed for pH, titratable acidity, individual organic acids, residual sugar, carbonation, ethanol and total phenolics

Figure1. TotalgallonsofciderbottledintheU.S.


(tannin). The selected ciders were made with both traditional cider varieties and apples grown more widely in New York. The ciders ranged from a pH of less than 3.3 to just over 4.0, although most were between pH 3.5 and pH 3.8. The titratable acidity (TA) levels ranged from 4.5 g/L to 9.9 g/L and the organic acid profiles show that at least two ciders appear to have undergone malolactic fermentation. No cider had acetic acid levels anywhere near the legal limit of 1.5 g/L. The ciders had a wide range of residual sugar (RS), from completely dry (no sugar detectable) to more than 60 g/L (6%), with a mean of approximately 3%. Carbonation and alcohol levels were also highly variable (Table 1). Initial impressions suggest that there is no single chemical profile or style that defines these ciders. One unifying characteristic was the relatively low levels of total phenolics. The one exception was the cider made from a blend of traditional cider apples, which had nearly three times more tannin than the cider with the next highest amount and six times more than the median concentration. We were curious about whether this stark difference in total phenols would be a positive, negative, or have no effect on consumer preference in blind tastings.

Objective 2- Consumer attitudes toward commercial ciders A two-part panel was designed to gauge (1) consumer awareness and preferences related to apple varieties, including traditional cider varieties and better known apples available in grocery stores, and (2) preferred cider characteristics in a blind tasting. A station was set up in a winery tasting room where both wine and cider is sold. The targeted audience was people who are open to trying cider but who have not already formed strong beliefs. These people may or may not have consumed cider previously, but are not already regular cider drinkers. The first part of the survey consisted of a paper questionnaire that asked people whether or not they were familiar with certain apple varieties, and how they would feel about these varieties in a fermented cider. The next part consisted of a blind tasting of

Table1.ChemicalCompositionofCommercialCiders.

Cider pH CO2TA

(g/L)

CitricAcid(g/L)

MalicAcid(g/L)

LacticAcid(g/L)

AceticAcid(g/L)

TotalResidual

Sugar(g/L)

Sucrose(g/L)

Glucose(g/L)

Ethanol(%v/v)

TotalPhenols

per100ml

Cider 1 3.57 2.6 6.2 0.05 4.73 0.41 0.24 18 16.9 0.9 5.3 118

Cider 2 3.55 2.8 7.0 0.06 1.43 2.86 0.17 23 10.4 12.4 6.4 55

Cider 3 3.60 3.4 6.0 0.04 5.67 0.30 0.21 26 22.5 3.4 8.4 30

Cider 4 3.53 2.9 7.3 0.01 0.11 5.86 0.75 26 25.3 0.5 7.8 43

Cider 5 3.60 1.5 6.4 0.11 4.62 0.39 0.07 64 50.3 13.4 3.9 36

Cider 6 4.02 1.2 4.0 0.03 0.15 4.46 0.34 45 38.6 6.7 4 121

Cider 7 3.79 3.6 5.0 0.10 3.97 0.30 0.08 25 18.7 6.0 4.6 35

Cider 8 3.82 3.0 4.7 0.09 5.14 0.61 0.13 nd nd nd 4.6 56

Cider 9 3.69 2.3 5.3 0.08 3.92 0.63 0.27 nd nd nd 4.3 37

Cider 10 3.52 3.0 8.1 0.06 5.04 0.64 0.16 4 2.5 1.7 7.5 27

Cider 11 2.55 9.9 3.6 0.11 6.56 0.84 0.46 44 23.0 21.2 7.2 318

Cider 12 3.52 4.2 4.5 0.07 3.06 1.63 0.13 22 20.8 1.4 3.9 29

Cider 13 3.26 2.5 7.1 nd 3.45 nd 0.08 32 14.5 17.5 4.7 37

four ciders presented in random order. One cider was made exclusively from one traditional eating/processing apple; one was made from a blend of eating/processing apples; one was made from an apple that has been adopted for cider in NY; and the last was made from a blend of traditional cider apples. While the ciders had a wide range of residual sugar (RS) as initially bottled (Table 2), the level of RS was adjusted for the tasting to remove sweetness as a variable. While no strong preferences or trends seemed to appear from the questionnaire, the most preferred cider was the blend of cider apples, the cider with the highest total phenols. We inferred from this finding that while consumers may not have strong recognition of high-tannin cultivar names, they do seem to like the astringency that they provide. New York apples can produce ciders with optimal levels of sugar and acid, while final alcohol, RS, and carbonation are all adjustable by the cider maker. If consumers seem to prefer ciders with tannin, low-phenols ciders can in principle be supplemented with tannin from other sources. With the exception of one concentrate that has undergone a special extraction process, the only tannins available commercially are sourced from grapes, wood or nuts.

Objective 3 - Single variety fermentations and evaluations In the fall of 2014, six different apple cultivars were fermented in duplicate. Four of the cultivars — Empire, Jonagold, Idared, and McIntosh — are among the most commonly grown apples in New York, while two more were sourced from Dr. Susan Brown’s Cornell apple breeding program. These apples are thought to have characteristics more resembling “traditional” hard cider varieties. The commercially available varieties were fermented with two different yeast strains (Lallemand DV10 and R-HST, Scott Labs) for a total of four fermentations, while the quantity of available apples limited the research lots to just one strain (DV10). The


apples were milled and pressed, and then the juice was divided into equivalent containers for fermentation, and SO2 was added in the form of potassium metabisulfite. The juice was inoculated with yeast after 24 hours. All of the ciders had a pH at or below 3.5 (Table 3), which was optimal. Microbial spoilage risk is much lower when pH is below 3.5, and SO2 is more effective, allowing for lower doses. The experimental cultivars had the highest sugar levels and also the highest titratable acidity and greatest malic acid content. The combination of higher potential alcohol and also higher acidity are potentially positive traits for cider apples, but both of these characteristics are also adjustable in the cider-making process. Yeast assimilable nitrogen measurements (YAN) were below the recommended level for healthy fermentation (150–250 mg/L), which is much like what we observe in New York grapes. As a result, the juices were all supplemented with a mixture of organic (Go-Ferm, Fermaid-K) and inorganic nitrogen (diammonium phosphate) sources roughly one-third of the way through fermentation. The fermentations were carried out in a room with an ambient temperature of 16°C, and no sugar remained after 21–28 days. The ciders were first evaluated to compare the yeast strains and see if there was a perceived difference, and if the difference was significant. A randomized triangle test was conducted, wherein panelists received three samples, two of which were the same. If the panelists can accurately identify the odd sample more frequently than chance would dictate, the results are considered significant and there is a strong probability that the samples are sensorially different. In this case, panelists could successfully distinguish between the yeast strains in each of the ciders. One reason for the easily identified difference was probably a sulfur-like off-aroma in many of the R-HST fermentations, and as a result, the research group preferred the ciders made from the DV10 yeast and made from a base blend with equal amounts of each apple cultivar. This blend was then used in trials to optimize sweetness and tannin levels.

Objective 4- Optimizing a cider based on data from objectives 1&3 Most of the commercially available powdered tannin products are designed for use in red wines, where the sensory matrix is less delicate than in cider. An initial group of four tannins were added at the same rate to a base cider, and an informal panel of eight experts was convened to pick the most suitable tannin for further trials. The group chose Enartis Tan UVA, a product sourced from white grape seeds. A two-factor, paired-preference test was then designed using a fixed level of carbonation. For sweetness, the tannin level would be fixed in

Table2.Chemistryandpreferencerankforcommercialcidersevaluatedbyconsumers.

Acidityas Carbonation Residual Total Consumer MalicAcid Ethanol (Volumesof Sugars Phenols Relative (g/L) (%v/v) CO2@20°C) (g/L) per100ml Preference

Commercial Cider #1 5.6 7.2 2.6 44 318 1Commercial Cider #2 4.6 7.5 3.0 4 27 2Commercial Cider #3 4.0 4.7 2.5 32 37 3Commercial Cider #4 2.6 4.0 1.2 45 121 4

Table3.Chemistryofexperimentalcidersproducedin2014.

CiderOrganicAcidProfile(after JuiceAnalysis fermentation)

Total TA Malate Lactate Acetate Citric Phenols

Variety BRIX pH (g/L) (g/L) (g/L) (g/L) (g/L) per100ml

SKB 1 14.6 3.34 7.7 7.8 0.4 0.12 0.11 34 SKB 2 14.6 3.30 11.9 9.5 0.4 0.04 0.12 31 Empire 12.6 3.48 5.9 6.4 0.5 0.07 0.13 25 Jonagold 12.1 3.50 4.9 5.2 0.3 0.12 0.07 38 Ida Red 12.7 3.37 7.0 7.0 0.3 0.09 0.05 31 McIntosh 11.3 3.31 7.2 7.0 0.4 0.04 0.06 32

ConsumerPreference:TanninLevelsinCider

ConsumerPreference:SugarLevelinCider

PairTannin(mg/L) Preference Pair Sugar(g/L) Preference

1 0 1 10

1 75 StrongPreference 1 20 StrongPreference

2 75No Preference

2 20

2 150 2 30 StrongPreference

3 150No Preference

3 30

3 225 3 40 SlightPreference

4 225No Preference

4 40No Preference

4 300 4 50

Table4.Consumerpreferencesinpairedevaluationtrial.

mid-range (150 ppm) while tasters compared stepped levels of RS from 1 to 5%. The tannin trial set sweetness at mid-range (3% RS) and stepped from 0 to 300 ppm addition in 75 ppm increments (Table 4). Results showed that tasters clearly preferred 2% RS to 1%, and 3% over 2%. There was only a slight preference for 4% over 3%, and no real difference between 4 and 5%. There are many factors that would influence the appropriate sugar level in other ciders, including acid, alcohol and tannin level, but a range of 3 to 4% RS may provide a good starting point for those looking to produce ciders with common New York apples. The tannin trial showed a strong preference only between 0 and 75 ppm. There was no clear trend among the higher treatments, which may indicate that large additions are unnecessary (though not detrimental, as far as could be seen in this trial).

Future work In 2015, we procured two high-tannin cider cultivars, Dabinett and Harry Masters Jersey, for processing and

S i n d s 1 8 8 4

3-row Orchard & Vineyard/Berry Sprayer WW.MUNCKHOF.ORG

WWW.LAGASSEORCHARD.COM

• Do your spraying job in 1/3 rd of the time!• Savings on labour, fuel and tractor hours : -66% !• Low power requirement: Only 80 HP at axle on pump!

LaGasse Works5 Old State Route 31

Lyons, NY 14489

Phone: 315-946-9202

For further informationvisit our website orcontact our dealer:

M.A.S. 3-row Vino for berries & grapesM.A.S. 3-row Orchard sprayer

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

NYFQ_7,5in_x_4,875in_LaGasse.pdf 1 17-2-2014 14:41:29


fermentation. We plan to compare the effect of blending small amounts of these ciders with that of adding powdered tannins. We plan to continue the sensory trials, both in tasting rooms and in controlled laboratory spaces. We also plan to evaluate methods for creating a powdered tannin product sourced from apples.

Summary As cider production and demand increases, it follows that demand for the necessary apples will also grow. We hope that apple growers in New York will be able to find profitable markets for all of their fruit, and that this new source of demand will have a favorable impact on prices. Evidence suggests that there are many possibilities for apples already available in New York State. Cider producers currently have plenty of supply, but not a lot of information about the best ways to make cider from these apples. Our goal is to provide new and established cideries with a “roadmap” regarding cider production with New York varieties, be it fermentation conditions, tannin adjustment, or blending. There are many different production paths toward ciders that consumers will enjoy, and there is no single correct answer. While tannin is lacking from most apple cultivars that are currently in the ground, there are ways to produce successful products from those apples, with and

without tannin. The most essential characteristic that any cider can possess is balance. Balance among elements is almost always more important than the absolute amount of any single component.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the owners and staff of Leonard Oakes Estate Winery for allowing us the use of their tasting room for consumer sensory panels. This project was supported by the Apple Research and Development Program.

Chris Gerling is an extension associate who manages the Vinification & Brewing Laboratory in Geneva. OlgaPadilla-Zakour is professor and chair of Cornell’s Food Science department. Anna Katharine Mansfield is an associate professor in the department of Food Science. David Manns is a research associate in Dr. Mansfield’s lab. Cortni McGregor is a technician in the extension enology lab. Brad Rickard is the Ruth and William Morgan Associate Professor in the Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management. Meaghan Sugrue is a senior Food Science major in Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.


Overview of Apple Resources at Cornell UniversitySusan K. Brown and Kevin E. MaloneyHorticultureSection,SchoolofIntegrativePlantScience,CornellUniversity,Geneva,NY

“The depth and breadth of apple resources at Cornell is tremendous in its diversity of topics covered and expertise available, in both research and extension.”

The depth and breadth of apple resources at Cornell is tre-mendous in its diversity of topics covered and expertise available, in both research and extension. Funding from

the industry aids our research and outreach efforts, and our talented Cornell Coop-erative Extension staff extends this information fur-

ther. From breeding of scions and rootstocks, control of pests and pathogens, optimizing growth and quality, through to food processing – our industry and consumers benefit from this re-search. The following overview is presented as a brief summary of the apple resources available through our programs.

Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) The Lake Ontario Fruit (LOF) Team: Debbie Breth (Team Leader, and Integrated Pest Management; retiring March 31, 2016, but position to be refilled), Mario Sazo (Cultural Practices), Craig Kahlke (Fruit Quality Management), Matt Wells (Production Economics & Business Management) host the Lake Ontario winter fruit schools and summer tours. They wrote a guide on Apple IPM for beginners (http://www.fruit.cornell.edu/orchard-ipm/index.html). Eastern New York Commercial Horticulture Program members working in apples include Dan Donahue (Hudson Valley), Anna Wallis (Northern NY) and Bob Weybright (Agriculture Business Development Specialist). CCE staff is actively involved in programming and presenting at the Empire State Producers Expo held annually in Syracuse, NY, writing newsletters and harvest maturity reports, and also hosting their own fruit schools, including the Northeastern NY Commercial Tree Fruit School and the Hudson Valley Commercial Fruit Growers School. In Long Island, Daniel Gilrein, Faruque Zaman, and Andrew Senesac (Weed Science) conduct research and assist in tree fruit extension.•Sazo, M. M., and Robinson, T. L. 2015. Measuring and extend-

ing the benefits of orchard mechanization in high-density orchards in western NY. New York Fruit Quarterly 23(2): 25–28.

EntomologyInsectControlinTreeFruits(Art Agnello): Art’sresearch is focused on solving insect control problems in tree fruits and assessment of seasonal management programs, us-ing a range of tactics: sampling and monitoring techniques, IPM/biological studies, insecticides (efficacy evaluation of new prod-ucts under development), implementation of currently labeled selective reduced-risk insecticides, testing tactics and products for organic apple production. He also does work on pesticide application technology, pheromone mating disruption (evalua-

tion of new products and dispenser technologies, determining best methods of incorporation into commercial production); biological control (use of entomopathogenic nematodes to help control a native weevil in apples); and invasive and exotic pests (e.g., brown marmorated stink bugs; spotted wing Drosophila; monitoring for exotic species). Additionally, Art has focused on ambrosia beetles: monitoring, distribution, and management tactics using pesticides and biologicals. Art’s extension responsibility is to provide arthropod pest management recommendations to the tree fruit industry. He is the coordinator and editor of the Cornell Pest Management Guidelines for Commercial Tree Fruit Production [http://ipm-guidelines.org/treefruits/], and the editor of “Scaffolds”, a weekly online fruit newsletter [http://www.scaffolds.entomology.cornell.edu/]. He speaks at multiple grower meetings, fruit schools, field meetings, research and extension conferences, and international conferences. He is co-chair of the CCE Fruit Program Work Team, co-chair of the NE IPM Tree Fruit Working Group [http://www.northeastipm.org/working-groups/tree-fruit/], and interim editor of the New York Fruit Quarterly [http://www.nyshs.org/fq.php].• Agnello, A., Breth, D., Tee, E., Cox, K., and Warren, H. R. 2015.

Ambrosia beetle – an emergent apple pest. New York Fruit Quarterly 23(1): 25–28.

• Agnello, A., Jentsch, P., Shields, E., Testa, T., and Keller, M. 2014. Evaluation of persistent entomopathogenic nematodes for biological control of plum curculio. New York Fruit Quar-terly 22(1): 21–24.

• Kain, D. P., and Agnello, A. M. 2013. Relationship between plant phenology and Campylomma verbasci (Hemiptera: Miridae) damage to apple fruit. Environ. Entomol. 42(2): 307–313.

TheDanforthLabinIthacastudiesBees(Bryan Danforth): Some of the research most relevant to apples are studies of the role of native pollinators.• Danforth, B. N., and van Dyke, M. 2015. The wild bees of New

York: Our insurance policy against honey bee decline. New York Fruit Quarterly 23(4): 17–22.

• Park, M. G., Raguso, R. A., Losey, J. E., and Danforth, B. N. 2015. Per-visit pollinator performance and regional importance of wild Bombus and Andrena (Melandrena) compared to the managed honey bee in New York apple orchards. Apidologie 1–16. [DOI: 10.1007/s13592-015-0383-9]

• Park, M., Danforth, B., Losey, J., Biddinger, D., Vaughan, M., Dollar, J., Rajotte, E., and Agnello, A. 2012. Wild pollina-tors of Eastern apple orchards and how to conserve them. Cornell Univ. / Northeastern IPM Center. 20 pp. http://www.northeastipm.org/park2012

ManagementofArthropodsinCropsandNaturalSystems(Jan Nyrop): The broad goal of Jan’s research is to develop concepts and


tools needed to improve management of arthropods in crops and natural systems. He is especially interested in improving the effectiveness of natural enemies for controlling pests, in improving how decisions are made to control pests, and in ap-plying quantitative tools to better understand the ecology of arthropod pests and the plants they feed upon. Biological control work has focused on understanding the basis for an outcome of plan-mediated interactions between pest and predator mites. Research in decision-making has addressed the optimal allocation of resources to monitor invasive species. Quantitative ecology work has focused on understanding, through simulation and mathematical modeling, how pest attraction to a trap crop and retention of these organisms by a trap crop influence the overall effectiveness of trap cropping as a pest management strategy. Jan has been co-teaching a course entitled “Invasions: Trading Species in a Shrinking World”, in collaboration with Ann Hajek. His extension efforts focus on biological control and developing pest management guidelines that promote sustainability.

PesticideApplicationTechnology(Andrew Landers and Re-search Associate Tomàs Pallejà Cabré): The goal of Andrew’s program is to develop methods to im-prove deposition within the fruit canopy and reduce off-target drift. Research includes the factors affecting airflow, speed and direction within the canopy. They develop new methods to ap-ply pesticides precisely, such as the use of GPS, GIS, RFID, etc., and improve traceability and management of sprayers. Their re-search thrust is on developing precision spraying techniques for horticultural crops. They have also developed a fully automatic sprayer controller for adjusting liquid and airflow on orchard and vineyard sprayers. They show growers, via field demonstra-tions, workshops and conference presentations how to monitor pesticide use, air direction and droplet penetration. Presenta-tions are made nationally and internationally each year. Andrew prepares a chapter on application technology for six Cornell Pest Management Guidelines each year. These are distributed through regional extension offices and posted online at: https://store.cornell.edu/c-875-pmep-guidelines.aspx. Website at http://web.entomology.cornell.edu/landers/pestapp/.• Landers, A., Zhai, C., Llorens, J., and Larzelere, W. 2015. The

development of a spray monitoring system for fruit crops as an aid to farm management and traceability. Julius-Kühn-Archiv 448: 74.

• Pallejà, T. and Landers, A. J. 2015. Real time canopy density estimation using ultrasonic envelope signals in the orchard and vineyard. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 115: 108–117.

• T. Pallejà, and Landers, A. 2014. Precision spraying in the orchard and vineyard: Measuring canopy density. New York Fruit Quarterly 22(4): 15–17.

Insect Behavior and Chemical Communication Systems (Charles Linn, Senior Research Associate): Current projects include: 1) Defining host fruit volatile blends for different parasitoid wasps that specialize on different Rhago-letis pomonella fly populations, 2) testing a protocol for rapid identification of cryptic Rhagoletis flies infesting different host fruit in the western U.S. to determine whether R. pomonella is infesting domestic apples in that region, 3) identifying host plant volatiles used by specialist and generalist moth species, testing

a model for host specialization, 4) identifying volatiles from the surface of plant tissues (shoots and fruit) that are produced by microbial agents and contributing to the volatile profile used by insects for host location, and 5) identifying below-ground vola-tiles and their sources that are involved in insect herbivory. All projects are collaborative.

Food ScienceFood Safety and Good Agricultural Practices (Betsy Bihn, Senior Extension Associate): Betsy is the director of the Produce Safety Alliance (www.producesafetyalliance.cornell.edu) and program coordinator for the National Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) Program. She will be actively involved in the new Institute for Food Safety at Cornell. Her primary focus is to help fruit and vegetable grow-ers implement produce safety practices to reduce microbial food safety risks, meet buyer demand for food safety practices including third party audits, and comply with new regulatory requirements that are part of the Food Safety Modernization Act’s Rule for Produce Safety. Her research focus has been on the microbial quality of water used to produce fruits and vegetables. Betsy’s extension program in NY is known for its multi-day GAPs training program that includes growers developing their own farm food safety plans (Figure 1). This training is in collabora-tion with CCE and NYSDAM. • Bihn, E. A., Wszelaki, A. L., Schermann, M. A., Wall, G. L.,

and Amundson, S. K. 2014. Farm food safety decision trees for fruit and vegetable growers (a training manual). 187 pp. Cornell University / National GAPs Program.

• Wall, G. L., and Bihn, E. A. 2015. Recommendations to regu-lations: Managing wildlife and produce safety on the farm. Food Safety Risks from Wildlife: Challenges in Agriculture, Conservation, and Public Health. Michele T. Jay-Russell, Michael P. Doyle (eds.). Springer, New York.

• National GAPs Program [www.gaps.cornell.edu]. This website houses a collections of educational materials to help grow-ers assess risks and implement produce safety practices on their farms. It also has a complete research and extension database with access to scientific literature and contact information for GAPs Collaborators nationwide.

Figure1.BetsyBihnconductinganoutreachclassonfoodsafety.


CornellEnologyExtensionLab(CEEL)(Chris Gerling): Chris is an extension associate in CEEL. He manages the Vinification and Brewing Laboratory as well as the NY Wine Analytical Lab, and creates educational programs for producers of fermented cider, wine, and distilled spirits. Chris hosts cider workshops and is conducting a study of sensory characteristics of single varietal ciders in contrast to commercially available ciders. He works with the wine, (fermented) cider and distilled spirits industries, with the goal of increasing quality, profitability and sustainability. Chris focuses mainly on beverage produc-tion from the time the fruit is harvested until the final product is bottled. CEEL activities include research fermentation trials, evaluation of new varieties, service lab analyses, short courses and workshops.

EnologyandFermentedBeverages (Anna Katharine Mans-field): Anna Katharine’s work centers on wine production and sensory evaluation, but often overlaps with related activities, like wine marketing and the production of other fermented beverages (cider, beer, and spirits.)

Food Safety, Microbiology and UV-pasteurization (Randy Worobo): Randy’s research and extension programs are focused on enhancing the microbiological safety and quality of fruit and veg-etable products. A large portion of his research is dedicated to evaluating new food processing technologies, such as ultraviolet light, high-pressure processing, and antimicrobials, to enhance the safety and quality of post harvest produce. The primary focus of his extension and outreach activities is to provide food safety training and direct assistance to the food and beverage industries. His extension training program includes certification training for Juice HACCP, current Good Manufacturing Prac-tices, and basic food and beverage sanitation. Randy developed a UV pasteurization system, widely used by cider producers to produce safe cider products, without the influence on taste that heat pasteurization may impart.• Usaga, J., Worobo, R. W., Moraru, C. I., and Padilla-Zakour,

O. I. 2015. Time after apple pressing and insoluble solids influence the efficiency of the UV treatment of cloudy apple juice. LWT-Food Science and Technology 62(1): 218 –224.

• Dong, Q., Manns, D.C., Feng, G., Yue, T., Churey, J. J., and Worobo, R. W. 2010. Reduction of patulin in apple cider by UV radiation. Journal of Food Protection 73: 69–74.

FoodChemistryandHumanHealth (Rui Hai Liu): Dr. Liu’s research program focuses on diet and cancer, ef-fect of functional foods/nutraceuticals on chronic disease risks, bioactive compounds in natural products, and herbal remedies for anticancer and antiviral activity. Specific interests include: 1) health benefits of phytochemicals in fruits, vegetables and whole grains; 2) food genomics and functional foods for disease prevention and health promotion targeted at cancers, aging, and inflammatory diseases. Some of his apple publications include:• Boyer, J., and Liu, R. H. 2004. Apple phytochemicals and their

health benefits. Nutrition Journal 3(5): 12.• Liu, R. H. 2013. Health-promoting components of fruits and

vegetables in the diet. Advances in Nutrition 4(3): 384S–392S.

• Nayak, B., Liu, R. H., and Tang, J. 2015. Effect of processing on phenolic antioxidants of fruits, vegetables, and grains –A review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 55: 887–918.

ProcessingandValue-AddedProductsofAgriculturalCom-modities:(Olga Padilla-Zakour): Olga directs the NYS Food Venture Center, a major extension program of the Department of Food Science. She coordinates and develops outreach programs and activities to support new and established entrepreneurs, processors and farmers intro-ducing new products. She provides guidelines and assists in regulatory issues to ensure the safety of food products and acts as Process Authority to schedule process documentation to comply with federal and state regulatory requirements for new products (more than 1000 products per year). She develops and implements training programs for food entrepreneurs and organizes and teaches Better Process Control Schools annually. She develops and maintains the Northeast Center for Food Entrepreneurship at the Food Venture Center website: http://necfe.foodscience.cornell.edu/ Olga’s research program focuses on applied research in support of her extension program to add value and safety to agricultural commodities. Emphasis is on developing new products/processes, improving or retaining quality in processed foods, increasing economic viability of farm-based ventures, and identifying the key factors that affect the safety of specialty foods manufactured by small-scale processors.• Athiphunamphai, N., Bar, H. Y., Cooley, H. J., and Padilla-

Zakour, O. I. 2014. Heat treatment and turbo extractor rotational speed effects on rheological and physico-chemical properties of varietal applesauce. Journal of Food Engineer-ing 136: 19–27.

HorticultureAppleBreeding(Susan Brown): The apple breeding program spans basic to applied research, with an emphasis on improving consistency of quality in ad-vanced selections as potential apple varieties. ‘SnapDragon’™ and ‘RubyFrost’™ apples were released in concert with Crunch Time Apple Growers to offer New York State apple growers an exclusive license. Breeding goals included freedom from or reduction in storage disorders, slow flesh browning for fresh cut, improved nutritional properties, exceptional quality, and where possible, resistance to disease (Figure 2). Susan is part of RosBREED, and benefits from genotyping parents for traits such as acidity, bitter pit susceptibility, and other traits that allow her to predict the best combinations for crossing for new variety development. This program benefits from collaborations with Plant Pathology researchers, horticulturist Chris Watkins, and from access and research at the USDA/ARS. Graduate students and summer scholars add to the knowledge of genetic improve-ment. Kevin Maloney assists in all aspects of testing and trials.• Brown, S. K., and Maloney, K. E. 2015. Apple Breeding, Ge-

netics and Genomics. New York Fruit Quarterly 23(3): 5–7.

NutritionPhysiologyandStressPhysiology,SugarandAcidAccumulationandMetabolism(Lailiang Cheng): Lailiang’s group is focused on how nitrogen supply affects carbon metabolism and nitrogen metabolism in both apples


and grapes. Pome fruits of the Rosaceae family, such as apple, are unique in that sorbitol serves as a primary end-product of photosynthesis and a major translocated carbohydrate in the phloem. Sorbitol is also implicated in responses to environmen-tal stresses. Apple trees with decreased sorbitol synthesis are being used to understand the role sorbitol plays in carbohydrate metabolism, organic acid metabolism and nitrogen metabolism, and stress tolerance. They are very interested in both primary metabolism and secondary metabolism relevant to fruit quality during fruit growth and development, as well as their responses to nutrient stress and other environmental stresses. Sugar/acid accumulation and metabolism in apple fruit is one of the foci of current work. On the more applied side, research addresses uptake, translocation, storage, and remobilization and demand-supply relationship of nitrogen and other nutrients in apples and grapevines to provide a basis for optimizing nutrient inputs into both apple orchards and vineyards. The goal of their extension program is to effectively deliver research-based, up-to-date information and expertise concerning nutrient management to the apple industry in New York through collaborations with faculty, extension educators, and growers. A current focus is management of nitrogen, potassium, calcium and other essential nutrients to improve yield and quality of high-density apple plantings.• Li, M., Feng, F., and Cheng, L. 2012. Expression patterns of

genes involved in sugar metabolism and accumulation during apple fruit development. PLoS One. 7:e33055.

• Wu, T., Wang, Y., Zheng, Y., Fei, Z., Dandekar, A. M., Xu, K., ... and Cheng, L. 2015. Suppressing sorbitol synthesis substan-tially alters the global expression profile of stress response genes in apple (Malus domestica) leaves. Plant and Cell Physiology pcv092.

PostharvestPhysiology(Chris Watkins, Professor, and Director of Cornell Cooperative Extension): Chris conducts a postharvest science research program with a major focus on apple. His research and extension activities are statewide and include development and conduct of harvest maturity management, postharvest handling, and storage tech-nology from both basic and applied aspects. His current projects focus on the development of physiological disorders of apples such as internal browning, external carbon dioxide injury, and superficial scald.

• Doerflinger, F., Rickard, B., Nock, J. K., and Watkins, C. 2015. Early harvest is a critical factor in decreasing flesh browning development of Empire apples. New York Fruit Quarterly 23(3): 30–34.

• Gapper, N., Rudell, D., Giovannoni, J. J., and Watkins, C. B. 2013. Biomarker development for external CO2 injury pre-diction in apples through exploration of both transcriptome and DNA methylation changes. AoB Plants. 2013: 10.1093/aobpla/plt021 .

• Watkins, C. B., and Nock, J. K. 2012. Production guide for storage of organic fruits and vegetables. http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/organic_guide/stored_fruit_veg.pdf

SustainableAppleProductionandCiderResearch(Greg Peck): Greg is a new faculty member in Ithaca who comes to us from Virginia Tech and has a focus on sustainable orchards production systems and hard cider.• Biggs, A. R., and Peck, G. M. 2015. Managing bitter pit in

Honeycrisp apples grown in the mid-Atlantic United States with foliar-applied calcium chloride and some alternatives. HortTech. 25: 385–391.

• Farris, J., Peck, G., and Groover, G. E. 2013. Assessing the economic feasibility of growing specialized apple cultivars for sale to commercial hard cider producers. Journal of Ex-tension 53(5) / 5FEA10.

• Thompson-Witrick, K. A., Goodrich, K. M., Neilson, A. P., Hurley, E. K., Peck, G. M., and Stewart, A. C. 2014. Char-acterization of the polyphenol composition of 20 cultivars of cider, processing, and dessert apples (Malus x domestica Borkh.) grown in Virginia. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 62(41): 10181–10191.

Orchard systems (Terence Robinson, currently on leave; and postdoctoral fellows, Poliana Francescatto and Jaume Lordan Sanahuja): Terence is an applied fruit crop physiologist, with a goal of doing practical research and extension on tree fruit production problems to increase the profitability and strength of the NY fruit industry and fruit growers around the world. His research and extension efforts are in: 1) Orchard Systems, 2) Rootstocks, 3) Crop Load and Canopy Management, and 4) Extension Leader-ship. His research and extension program is aimed at solving practical fruit production problems to increase the profitability and strength of the NY fruit industry. The program is largely field oriented and of an applied nature (Figure 3). Six areas of emphasis include: orchard systems, rootstocks, maximizing new tree growth, crop load and canopy management, irrigation/fertigation, and economics of orchard systems. Poliana Francescatto is studying the role and effectiveness of plant growth regulators. Jaume Lordan’sresearch is focused on improving fruit tree orchard performance, selecting the right rootstock for each variety, and adapting their canopy manage-ment such as planting space, pruning, irrigation and crop load management techniques. • Dominguez, L. I., and Robinson, T. L. 2015. Strategies to im-

prove early growth and yield of tall spindle apple plantings. New York Fruit Quarterly 23(2): 5–10.

• Greene, D. W., Lakso, A. N., Robinson, T. L., and Schwallier, P. 2013. Development of a fruitlet growth model to predict thinner response on apples. HortScience 48(5): 584–587.

Figure2.TastingnewapplevarietiesatameetingoftheGreatLakesFruitWorkers.


Plantphysiology(Taryn Bauerle): Taryn concentrates on perennial plants and has examined drought responses in apples. • Bauerle, T. L., Centinari, M., and Bauerle, W. L. 2011. Shifts

in xylem aperture and safety in grafted apple trees of dif-fering growth potential in response to drought. Planta 234:1045–1054.

AppleGenomics(Kenong Xu): Kenong and his group emphasize research and extension in tree fruit genomics. Their research goal is to uncover the genes underlying traits of economic importance in apple so that ef-ficient tools and strategies can be developed for apple genetic improvement. The current research focus is on apple fruit quality and tree architecture traits, such as fruit acidity, storability, and columnar growth habit. They identified the fruit acidity gene, dubbed Ma, and developed a DNA marker capable of predict-ing fruit acidity levels at young seedling stages, making it useful for early selection in apple breeding. Extension program goals are to disseminate basic scientific information and information about the latest advances in plant biotechnology and genomics in layman’s term for the fruit industry and other groups from the general public. This will enable a better understanding of geneti-cally engineered crops and help the public to stay current with emerging biotechnology.• El-Sharkawy, I., Liang, D., and Xu, K. 2015. Transcriptome

analysis of an apple (Malus x domestica) yellow fruit somatic mutation identifies a gene network module highly associ-ated with anthocyanin and epigenetic regulation. Journal of Experimental Botany 66(22): 7359–7376.

• Xu, K. 2014. Precision genome editing may ease debate and regulatory burden on genetically modified fruit. New York Fruit Quarterly 22(4): 29–32.

Plant Pathology and Plant Microbe BiologyFruitDiseaseResistanceandManagement(Kerik Cox): Diseases severely compromise sustainable fruit production, and in the absence of sustainable host resistance and cultural management practices, growers need to rely on plant pharma-ceuticals such as fungicides and bactericides. However, the safest and most effective fungicides and bactericides are overcome by development of resistance in pathogen populations. Therefore,

Figure 3. Terence Robinson during an orchard platform demonstrationwithChamplainValleygrowers.

Kerik’sresearch and extension program focuses onthe identifica-tion, understanding, and mitigation of fungicide and bactericide resistance to promote a culture of pesticide stewardship in fruit production.• Cox, K., Breth, D., Borejsza-Wysocka, E., and Aldwinckle, H.

S. 2013. The presence of the fire blight bacterium Erwinia amylovora in asymptomatic apple bud wood: A potential threat to new apple plantings. Phytopathology 103(6): 31.

• Tancos, K. A., Villani, S. M., Kuehne, S., Borejsza-Wysocka, E., Breth, D., Carroll, J. E., Aldwinckle, H., and Cox, K. 2015. Prevalence of streptomycin-resistant Erwinia amylovora in New York Apple orchards. Plant Disease PDIS-09-15-0960-RE.

Virology(Marc Fuchs): Marc’s research and extension program focuses on the bi-ology and management of viruses of vegetable and fruit crops. Primary research goals are to determine the variability of virus populations for advancing our understanding of virus spread, develop robust detection methodologies, and to study interac-tions between viruses, vectors, and plant hosts, with the aim of developing innovative plant protection approaches. His exten-sion component focuses on the identification of emerging virus diseases and the dissemination of information to extension educa-tors, growers, regulators, horticulture inspectors, and agriculture service providers. • Gergerich, R. C., Welliver, R. A., Gettys, S., Osterbauer, N. K.,

Kamenidou, S., Martin, R. R., Gollino, D. A., Eastwell, K., Fuchs, M., Vidalakis, G., and Tzanetakis, I. E. 2015. Safe-guarding fruit crops in the age of agricultural globalization. Plant Disease 99(2): 176–187.

Dave Gadoury: David’s research program focuses on discoveries that help protect a broad array of crops from microbes that cause diseases with a special emphasis on powdery mildews. His efforts led to breakthroughs in how important crops like apples, grapes, strawberries, wheat, and hops, are protected from attacks by powdery mildews in NY and beyond. David co-teaches a 2-credit undergraduate course, “Agricultural Application of Plant Health Concepts” (Figure 4).

HudsonValleyResearchLab,Inc.:Peter Jentsch (Director and Entomologist), Dave Rosenberger (PPMB Emeritus), Gemma Reig Cordoba (postdoctoral fellow and Horticulturist), and Dan Donahue (CCE) at the Hudson Valley Research Lab (HVRL) in Highland, NY, are dedicated to solving agricultural production problems, and emphasize communication of time-sensitive in-formation to growers. Research programs focus on disease and insect pest management and horticultural production practices. http://www.hudsonvalleyresearchlab.org/Entomology(Peter Jentsch): The Jentsch Lab focuses on management of the beneficial and pest complex of insects and mites in tree fruits, small fruits, grapes and vegetable crops. Expertise includes field testing of experimental and conventional tools through integration of pest management of insects, employing biological controls and use of attractants to manage invasive pests in conventional and organic production systems. They study the woodland influence imposed on agricultural systems, coupled with a broadly diverse insect


ecology and the warmer climate in Eastern New York’s Hudson Valley region, which imposes significant pressure to agronomic systems unique in comparison with other regions of New York State, with studies that are specific and critical to region produc-ers. Extension activities include developing timely outreach materials on seasonal pest management events, participating in field and twilight meetings during the growing season, publish-ing extension articles for grower organization newsletters and bulletins, presenting through webinars, CCE sponsored fruit schools and workshops. Peter provides on-demand extension information using subscription based E-mail alerts linked to interactive ‘blog site’ articles containing recommendations and guidelines for management of timely IPM topics. This platform provides access to audio and video, and detailed images. Peter’s blog is found athttps://blogs.cornell.edu/jentsch/2016/01/.• Jentsch, P. 2015. A new threshold-based management tool for

brown marmorated stinkbug (BMSB) in New York. New York Fruit Quarterly 23(3):19–23.

• Leskey, T.C., Agnello, A., Bergh, J. C., Dively, G. P., Hamilton, G. C., Jentsch, P., Khrimian, A., Krawczyk, G., Kuhar, T. P., Lee, D. H. and Morrison, W. R. 2015. Attraction of the invasive Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) to traps baited with semiochemical stimuli across the United States. Environ. Entomol. p.nvv049.

PlantPathology(Dave Rosenberger):http://blogs.cornell.edu/plantpathhvl/2016/01/

Integrated Pest Management (http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/program/default.asp)andtheNortheastCenterforIPM(http://www.northeastipm.org/):Juliet Carroll (Senior Extension Associate, Fruit IPM Coordina-tor): Julie educates farmers on using tools to grow healthy fruit crops with the fewest possible pesticide sprays. Lowering inputs while reducing the risk of crop loss from insects, disease and weeds also reduces the risk to human health and the environ-ment. She delivers Cornell’s knowledge about fruit to farmers at www.fruit.cornell.edu. Juliet’s job is to learn from researchers, help with research, and deliver research knowledge to farmers for IPM—balancing farms, food and nature.

Figure4. Debbie Breth and Kerik Cox discussing apple diseases forstudentsduringasummerfieldcourse.

TheNetworkforEnvironmentandWeatherApps(NEWA) serves up open-access, user-friendly tools for farms at www.newa.cornell.edu. Juliet Carroll heads NEWA, now reaching across 16 states in the US. Forecasts on NEWA alert farmers about risk from damaging insects and deadly diseases so they can make smart decisions about monitoring, timing and protecting their crops. Farmers know the value of weather data is greater when it can be shared. NEWA makes it possible for farmers to share weather station data—building tools for farm decision support.http://newa.cornell.edu/ and the You’re NEWA blog is at http://blogs.cornell.edu/yournewa/

TheDysonSchoolofAppliedEconomicsandManagement(Brad Rickard): Brad’s teaching and research focus on the economic implications of policies, innovation, and industry-led initiatives in food and beverage markets. His extension program is tied to his research, and focuses on answering economic, marketing, and policy questions important to horticultural producers, particularly fruit and vegetable growers, in New York State. As part of his extension program, he works with researchers across units in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences to study issues in a multi-disciplinary framework.• Rickard, B. J., Richards, T., and Yan, J. 2016. University licensing

of patents for varietal innovations in agriculture. Agricultural Economics 47: 3–14.

• Rickard, B. J. 2015. On the political economy of guest worker programs in agriculture. Food Policy 52: 1–8.

FoodMarketingandDistribution(Miguel Gómez): Miguel’s research program concentrates on two interrelated areas under the umbrella of food marketing and distribution: 1) Supply chains competitiveness and sustainability, and 2) Retailing and channel relationships. Here, microeconomic theory is combined with quantitative methods, emphasizing key concepts such as price transmission, demand response, buyer-seller negotiations, market power, customer satisfaction, and retail performance.• Gómez, M., McLaughlin, E. W., and Park, K. S. 2014. Case

studies on local food supply chains: Apple case studies in the Syracuse, New York MSA. In: King, R. P., M. Hand, and M. I. Gómez (Eds.), Comparing the structure, size, and performance of local and mainstream food supply chains. Univ. Nebraska Press.

AgribusinessManagementandAgEconomicDevelopment(Todd Shmidt):CornellUniversityFoodandBrandLab(Brian Wansink, David Just and others, athttp://foodpsychology.cornell.edu/): The Food and Brand Lab is an interdisciplinary group of graduate and undergraduate students from psychology, food science, marketing, agricultural economics, human nutrition, education, history, library science, and journalism, along with a number of affiliated faculty. It focuses on better understanding consumers and how they relate to foods and packaged foods. Their research has driven the creation of the Smarter Lunchrooms Movement [http://smarterlunchrooms.org/] and the Cornell Center for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition Programs (BEN) [http://ben.cornell.edu/], two programs devoted to the


Figure5.Genevaapplerootstocksbeinggrowninacommercialnursery(photo:GennaroFazio)

funding, conduction, and dissemination of research concerning children’s health. A few of their studies on apples include: • Just, D. R., Hanks, A. S., and Wansink, B. 2014. Chefs move to

schools: A pilot examination of how chef-created dishes can increase school lunch participation and fruit and vegetable intake. Appetite 83: 242–247.

• Tal, A., and Wansink, B. 2015. An Apple a Day Brings More Apples Your Way: Healthy Samples Prime Healthier Choices. Psychology and Marketing 32(5): 575–584.

• Wansink, B., Just, D. R., Hanks, A. S., and Smith, L. E. 2013. Pre-sliced fruit in school cafeterias: Children’s selection and intake. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 44(5): 477–480.

USDAARSPlantGeneticResourcesUnit: The USDA PGRU maintains one of the world’s largest collections of apple germplasm (trees, cryopreserved buds, and seeds), including collections from the center of origin in apple (in China and Russia). The facility has over 3,900 apple accessions and is often referred to as a living library. USDA apple researchers with adjunct faculty status at Cornell include Gan Yuan Zhong (research leader), Thomas Chao (curator) and Gennaro Fazio (rootstock breeder).• Volk, G. M., Chao, C. T., Norelli, J., Brown, S. K., Fazio, G., Peace,

C., McFerson, J., Zhong, G.-Y., and Bretting, P. 2015. The vulnerability of US apple (Malus) genetic resources. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 62(5): 765–794.

AppleRootstockBreeding(Gennaro Fazio): This is a collaborative program between the USDA and Cornell University. The focus in this program has been to develop size-reducing rootstocks that also have resistance to replant disease, Phytophthora root rot, woolly apple aphid, scab, and fire blight (Figure 5). Information on the rootstocks commercialized and their attributes is at http://www.ctl.cornell.edu/plants/GENEVA-Apple-Rootstocks-Comparison-Chart.pdf. Gennaro’s research has indicated the importance of rootstock on apple mineral nutrition and has identified genes involved in apple dwarfing.• Fazio, G., Cheng, L., Grusak, M. A., and Robinson, T. L. 2015.

Apple rootstocks influence mineral nutrient concentration of leaves and fruits. New York Fruit Quarterly 23(2): 11–15.

• Robinson, T., Fazio, G., Black, B., and Parra, R. 2015. 2015 Progress report – Evaluation of the Cornell-Geneva apple rootstocks and other promising apple rootstocks. Compact Fruit Tree 48(1): 22–25.

OtherFacultyinvestigatingaspectsofapple: Joss Rose, a specialist in fruit skin (cuticles), is studying the cuticle of apples to understand apple surface defects associated with cuticle formation, such as russeting, wind-whip and weather-cracking. Retirees who have contributed to apple research include (in CCE): Allison DeMarree, Steve Hoying, Kevin Iungerman, Mike Fargione and (faculty): Alan Lakso, Ian Merwin, Harvey Reissig, and Dave Rosenberger. We are sure this list is incomplete, so our apologies if you were missed!

• Merwin, I. A. 2015. Growing apples for craft ciders. New York Fruit Quarterly 23(1): 5–9.

WebandPrintResources:• The Cornell Fruit website www.fruit.cornell.edu/ contains

links to Scaffolds Fruit Journal, IPM, CCE, organic guides, the New York Fruit Quarterly, and many other links.

•ScaffoldsFruitJournal, a weekly update on pest management and crop development is available at http://www.scaffolds.entomology.cornell.edu/.

•TheNewYorkFruitQuarterly is printed 4 times a year and is a joint effort of the New York State Horticultural Society, Cornell University’s New York State Agricultural Experiment Station at Geneva, and the New York State Apple Research and Development Program. Michigan researchers also contribute reports. http://www.nyshs.org/fq.php.

•2016CornellPestManagementGuidelinesforCommercialTreeFruitProduction:https://store.cornell.edu/p-193115-2016-cornell-pest-management-guidelines-for-commercial-tree-fruit-production.aspx.

•TheAppleResearchanddevelopmentProgram(ARDP) was established by the NY apple industry in 1990 in New York. In 2012, the ARDP voted to double research funding from just under $200,000 to nearly $400,00 per year. In 2014, it was successful in getting a $500,000 match from the NYS legislature and the Cuomo administration. Many articles in the New York Fruit Quarterly represent projects funded by ARDP.

Acknowledgments A special thanks to Julie Suarez and Theresa Sweeney for starting this outline of apple resources to be used in Albany, and to Chris Watkins (CCE) for his feedback on that draft.

SusanBrown is the Herman M. Cohn Professor of Agriculture and Life Sciences and Director of the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station. She leads the apple-breeding program at Cornell University. Kevin Maloney is a Research Support Specialist who works with Dr. Brown.


3

Figure 3. Modified sprayer and sensors in the trial orchard

2

Figure 2. RR test site, Wayne Co., NY using Gala trees on M.9 rootstock planted May 3, 2014.

NYSHSNewYorkStateHorticulturalSocietyEDUCATING, PROMOTING

and PROTECTING

New York’s Commercial Fruit Industry

NE

W Y O R K S TAT

E

HO

RT ICULTU R AL S

O

CIE

TY

Founded in 1855, the mission of the New York State Horticultural Society is to foster the growth, development and profitability of the fruit industry in New York State.

OBJECTIVES

Education-providingeducationprogramsformembersthatinclude:

• obtaining and disseminating information to the fruit industry• sponsor and/or cooperate with other groups to provide and

support tours• sponsor trade shows• cooperate with and encourage others to provide educational

opportunities

PromotingtheFruitIndustryby:• promoting ideas which will benefit the economic health of the

fruit industry• educate the general public about the New York fruit industry

RepresentingtheNewYorkfruitindustryby:• Have cemented our role as legislative voice in both Albany and

Washington, DC for the fruit industry• representing the industry’s interest as well as other agencies and

institutions

NYSHS ISSUES• Pesticide Registrations• Food Quality Protection Act• Integrated Pest Management• Agricultural Labor and

Immigration• Fruit Industry Economic

Development• Cornell Research and Extension• Education Public Officials• Educating Industry• Food Safety

NYSHS accomplishes this by:• Supporting educational opportunities for members• Promoting the industry• Representing the industry in matters of public policy

NYSHSMembership,Continuedonpage36


NYSHS MEMBERSHIPINVOICEYes!IwillsupporttheNYSHSanditsmissiontoEducate,PromoteandProtecttheNewYorkFruitIndustry.

Yearly membership includes Hort Flash Newsletter, and the New York Fruit Quarterly. Dues are paid once a year, good from July 1st until June 30th. Please enclose check or cash.

Growers Membship ....................................................$225Per Each Multiple Membership after 1st ...........$100Growers w/50 Acres or Less.....................................$100Industry Professional ................................................$225Academic Professional ..............................................$100

Sponsors:Bronze level ...................................................................$300Silver leve .......................................................................$500Gold level ......................................................................$1000Platinum .........................................................................$2500 and up

ADDITIONAL SUPPORT:

AREAS YOU’D LIKE NYSHS TO SPEND MORE EFFORT ON:

H2A Reform ...................................................................$100Speaker Programs .......................................................$100Your Thought________________________________________ ______________________________________ $____________

TOTAL AMOUNT.....................................................................$____________

Name_________________________________________________

Company______________________________________________

Mailing address_________________________________________

City_____________________________State_____ Zip__________

County __________________________

Phone______________________Fax________________________

E-mail ________________________________________________

Thank You for Your Support!!! Membership dues are not deduct-ible for Federal Income Tax Purposes. They may be tax-deductible under other provisions of the IRS Code. Please check with your tax advisor.

Please remit to: NYSHS630 W. North StreetHedrick Hall Geneva, NY 14456

WhattheNYSHSDoesforYou:

FRUITINDUSTRYEDUCATIONSponsor/Cosponsorof:• Annual Empire State Fruit & Vegetable Direct

Marketing Expo• Industry Leadership Forums• Cornell Extension Events• Sponsor of Labor ConferencesPublisherof:• The New York Fruit Quarterly• Hort Flash NewsletterPresentationsat:• Growers’ Meetings• Discussion in Albany on All Labor TopicsAchievements:• Twice awarded $500,000 for Applied Apple

Research• Cornell Apple Labor SurveyArticlesin:• Fruit Industry Publications

FRUITINDUSTRYPROMOTION• Empire State Council of Agricultural Organizations• NYS Berry Growers Association and NYS Ag

AffiliatesCooperatewith:• The U.S. Apple Association• The United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association• The New York Apple Association

FRUITINDUSTRYPROTECTIONSeatsonAdvisoryBoards:• Agricultural Affiliated; make certain all understand

our industry’s often unique concerns and needs.

www.NYSHS.orgToeducate,promoteand protect the

NewYorkStateFruitIndustry.

www.NYSHS.org

Contact Us: NYSHS630 W. North StreetHedrick Hall Geneva, NY 14456 www.NYSHS.org Ph 315-787-2404 Fx [email protected]

editorial new york f quarterly spring 2016 who should foot...

Documents