ing dramatically reduced the time required to dor- 

 mant prune, resulting in no increase in total pruning 

 time (summer plus dormant season). Summer prun- 

 ing resulted in significantly more fruit picked in the 

 first harvest (5.9 vs. 4.4 bushels per tree), signifi- 

 cantly fewer fruit lost to drop (1.7 vs 5.2 bushels per 

 tree), and a significant reduction in total yield (8.9 

 vs. 11.6 bushels per tree). This yield reduction can 

 be attributed to loss during the summer pruning 

 process, since there was no effect on fruit size. 



Table 1 shows the fruit packout from this study. 

 Chemical treatments had little impact on packout; 

 however, NAA increased the cull rate. The primary 

 reason for culling these fruit was excessive bruising, 

 presumably due to the enhanced ripening and sof- 

 tening normally associated with NAA treatment. 

 Summer pruning significantly increased the per- 

 cent in the U. S. Extra Fancy category and signifi- 



cantly reduced the percents in the U. S. Fancy and 

 cull categories. 



The important results of this study are the 

 differences in partial value associated with these 

 treatments (Table 1). Summer pruning alone and 

 Alar alone resulted in similar partial values, each 

 greater than $1000 more than the control. NAA 

 alone did not provide significant economic benefits 

 over the control. For summer-pruned trees, neither 

 chemical treatment provided significant benefit. 



These results accurately detail the benefits of 

 summer pruning in comparison with the use of NAA 

 and Alar, giving a clear picture of the packout and 

 costs. Summer pruning is an excellent alternative to 

 the use of Alar. It does not perform the same 

 function, but it compensates for not using Alar by 

 allowing earlier harvests of more highly colored 

 fruit. 



From: Thomai, J.J. 1906. The American Fruit 

 Culturitt. Orange Judd Company, New York. 



28 



Fruit Notes, Winter, 1991 



