-12- 



In addition, orchard visits will be performed as needed or by request 

 to address specific problem areas. Growers who feel they have experienced 

 control failures due to suspected pesticide resistance (re: Mites, fruit- 

 worms, apple scab, leafhoppers, etc.) in 1984, are encouraged to contact 

 appropriate extension workers in advance of the 1985 season. 



Finally, we continue to welcome grower contributions large or small, to 

 a continued Extension IPM effort. Such contributions will enable us to pro- 

 vide an ongoing IPM educational effort, despite reduced Federal funding for 

 Apple IPM. 



POMOLOGICAL PARAGRAPH 



William J. Lord 

 Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 



Spur-type Trees Can Reduce Pruning Time by 60% . Pruning apple trees is very 

 time consuming and may be the second largest cash cost for producing the 

 crop of apples. It is known that spur-type trees require less pruning than 

 non-spur trees of the same cultivar and age. However, we were interested in 

 actually recording the difference in time required to prune mature non-spur 

 and spur Delicious trees at the Horticultural Research Center (HRC) in 

 Belchertown, MA. 



Table 1. Time required to prune non-spur and spur-Delicious trees in 1980 

 and 1981.* 



*Trees pruned by Richard Clark of the HRC. 



**Trees planted in 1964. 



In Table 1 it is obvious that the spur-type trees were much smaller 

 than the non-spur trees. This fact plus the presence of fewer lateral 

 branches and watersprouts on the spur-type trees reduced the overall pruning 

 time for the 2 years by 60% on these type trees in comparison to the non- 

 spur trees. Thus, it appears that the reduction in pruning time on spur 

 trees should more than compensate for higher tree numbers/acre in plantings 

 of spur trees in comparison to non-spur trees. 



