Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/57720
Pollination a backpack worn by the worker, which was more successful. Lewis said one grower who tested the thinner believed that wasn't the best con- figuration, either. He took two batteries out of a couple of wind machines, put them on an all-terrain vehicle, and plugged the thinners into those. Last year, in Lapins on Gisela 5 root- stocks, Lewis compared the handheld thinner at 70 to 90 percent bloom with green fruit clipping or no thinning. More than 50 percent of the mechanically thinned fruit was nine row, compared with less than 20 percent for the clipped fruit and less than 5 percent in the control. Trends were less clear with Sweetheart on Mazzard. Electroflor WSU collaborated with Matías Kul- czewski of Asesorias K & R to conduct tri- als in Chile. The WSU handheld overheated early in the project so the group tracked down a handheld thinner made by INFACO. The Electroflor is a battery-operated handheld which has a 10-foot telescoping pole and an optional 48-volt battery system. Kulczewski tested the Electroflor in Lapins on Maxima rootstocks on a central leader system. Electroflor treatments at 20 to 50 percent bloom and 70 to 90 percent bloom were compared with hand bud removal, hand bloom removal, and hand thinning of fruitlets. While hand bud removal and hand bloom thinning gave the greatest boost in fruit size, the mechanical thinning was as good as hand fruitlet thinning and much less labor intensive than any of the hand thinning treatments. For example, hand bud removal took 189 hours per acre, hand bloom thinning took 207 hours, and hand fruitlet thinning took 437 hours per acre, compared with only 42 hours for the Electroflor when used in early bloom. Lewis noted that fewer hours would be required in Wash- ington State, where workers are typically more efficient. In terms of net income, based on the price of the fruit as well as labor costs, hand thinning of buds was the most prof- itable followed by hand bloom thinning, then the Electroflor treatments and the control. Hand fruitlet thinning was the least profitable. Results were different in Sweetheart cherries, however. Hand fruitlet thinning was the most profitable and mechanical thinning the least profitable. Lewis concludes from these prelimi- nary results that both the WSU and Elec- troflor thinners are effective in cherries. Lapins appears to be a better candidate for mechanical thinning, or thinning in general, than is Sweetheart. "We really like the results we're getting in Lapins,"she said. Lewis said economics, and the grow- ers' cost structure or business model, will determine if they thin cherries and what with. Growers will probably use a combi- nation of methods. They might use the Darwin first and then follow up with a www.goodfruit.com Securities products and services such as investment banking and capital raising are offered by KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Member NYSE/FINRA/SPIC. Banking products are offered by KeyBank National Association. Banking products and services are offered by KeyBank N.A. Credit products are subject to credit approval. ©2012 KeyCorp. KeyBank is Member FDIC. ADL4485.05 GOOD FRUIT GROWER MARCH 15, 2012 15 handheld thinner or even chemical thinning. "These are tools," she said. "Our job is to bring tools to the toolbox and the more full your tool box, the more options you have year in, year out. We think there's an appropriate place for these in your crop load management toolbox, based on our data." • no matter how you slice it Agribusiness can be cyclical; our support is constant. KeyBank is one of the nation's leading Agribusiness lenders – and your first source for financial guidance or assistance. Every one of our bankers has the agricultural and financial savvy to identify the nuances of your business, whether you're a grower, processor, packager or distributor. We specialize in: your assets and capabilities Contact us today and help your business grow and thrive. go to key.com/agribusiness call Mike McKay at 800-346-8828