Have high-density plantings benefited the apple industry?
BY GERALDINE WARNER
The 1990s were a period of major change in North American fruit production.
Low prices for some major varieties and a need to reduce costs were among the reasons growers embraced intensive orchard management. The principle was that though the establishment costs for a high-density orchard were high, these could be offset by early production, high prices for new varieties, and lower interest costs.
Surveys by the fruit processor Tree Top, Inc., Selah, Washington, show that in 1986, 42 percent of the trees sold by Washington nurseries would be planted at densities of 200 trees per acre or less. By 2002, only 5 percent of the nursery trees sold were destined for low-density orchards, and 72 percent of the trees were to be planted at densities of 500 per acre or more.
Despite dramatic changes in tree density and varieties, the apple industry is going through some of its most difficult and trying times.
We asked growers and horticulturists if high-density systems have benefited the Washington apple industry.
DON LEWIS, grower, Prosser
Yes
Everybody else is moving that way, so we have to."
"We're obviously in an oversupply situation, and high density has had something to do with that," Lewis said. "But it gives the grower much more efficiency per acre on his given acres, so from the point of view of cost effectiveness, it's a benefit."
As far as the Washington State industry is concerned, he believes high-density systems have provided a boost in efficiency that growers needed
to stay competitive in the market.
STEVE ZEDIKER grower, Wapato
Yes & No
"I personally haven't seen the benefit that I thought I would see from it."
High-density is the way the industry has had to go because production has to be more efficient, Zediker said. Using ladders to work with large trees is very inefficient.
He expected higher and earlier production, more consistency, and lower operating costs from using higher-density systems, but they haven't met his expectations, given the high initial investment required.
"Why did we do it this way?" he asked. "We did it because we read about all these new varieties coming in. Experience told us we had to have dwarfing rootstocks and trellis systems to make them work, and we had all this big money coming in from the high returns, so we thought it was worth the investment. Now, given what our returns are, it doesn't look as favorable.
"I'm not sure I've seen what I thought I would see, when you include all the opportunity costs," he added. "That's the downfall. On the other hand, given our labor issues and government requirements, we had to go to a different system to reduce our risks."
But Zediker doesn't think the old systems are the answer, either.
"I still think there's a better system out there yet from what we're doing, but I'm not sure what it is. We have to do it cheaper."
He predicts that 20 years from now, an orchard will be more like a manufacturing plant and that means making better use of equipment, using mechanical devices to transport workers along the rows at a prescribed rate rather than ladders, and perhaps hiring day and night crews.
But such advances might only be practical on large, uniform acreages, he fears. "The average farm today will not necessarily fit into that scenario. That's what my concern is."
JIM COLBERT, field horticulturist, Chelan
Yes
I think time will answer whether it was good or bad."
One of the good things high-density production did was rekindle interest in fruit growing among growers and stimulate change, Colbert said.
"The flip side is it's brought us increasing production. It's brought us new plantings in areas that were not traditional apple-growing regions and that has provided challenges for the industry."
High-density production has led to high quality apples, new varieties, and new technology, and will ultimately make the industry stronger when the top four or five varieties are in balance with demand, he believes.
"But it hasn't been without a price, and we're not done paying the price."
MARK GORES, orchardist, Chelan
Yes
"But I can tell you about the dark side."
Gores said his initial reaction was, of course, high-density systems have benefited growers. It has enabled them to increase yields per acre, become more efficient, and make better use of capital, land, and other resources.
But there have been disadvantages. High-density systems can be mismanaged, and can put fruit in the box that should not be there, he said.
Gores' orchard has super spindle blocks with as many as 3,000 trees per acre, but a 13-year-old Gala block with only 580 trees per acre has been a tremendous success for him from a yield standpoint, he said. Establishment costs were lower, and the average annual production has been incredible. However, it takes a lot more pruning and thinning than a high-density block.
From an industry point of view, Gores said high-density systems have not been good because they have generated too much production--although this could have happened anyway because as long as there is land to plant, new orchards will go in.
BOB BRODY, grower, Brewster
No
"You can get earlier production, and you can get more bins per acre. There's no doubt about it. However, is it going to make the industry more profitable?"
Those who were among the first to move to high-density systems and benefited from high prices for new varieties are probably doing well, Brody said, but it makes less sense when apples are selling at a loss.
"It doesn't do any good if you produce more bins per acre. The more you produce, the more you lose. My firm opinion is, the problem we're having in the industry--and it's been four years running--is the supply outstrips demand."
He believes that with the current marketing situation, high-density plantings are having a negative effect.
"The problem I see today is too many people have planted thousands of acres of high density with no thought in mind about how you're going to market the fruit. I think the industry is doing a pretty good job as far as horticultural practices. Marketing is completely broke. High-density plantings are hurting more than helping."
A drawback of high-density production to the grower is the high up-front cost. It takes more trees per acre, but growers have to pay the same amount per tree, Brody said.
"The capital costs in high density are tremendously high. I can tell you what I'm doing. I'm getting away from high density."
His new plantings will be around 300 trees per acre--10-foot by 15-foot spacings on Malling 7 rootstocks or
8- by 15-foot spacings on Malling 9.
JOHN BIELE, orchardist, Oroville
No
"A lot of people have sunk that much money into trees and trellises, and they're struggling to get the original money repaid."
Biele said the high cost and high risk of plantings with 1,200 to 1,500 trees per acre make it difficult to recoup the investment, but a self-supporting planting with half that number of trees can be successful, partly because there's no need for the trellis.
Biele has planted up to 1,800 trees per acre but is now using 700 on a self-supporting system.
A positive effect of intensive orchard systems is they probably taught people to be better farmers, he said. When people were growing big trees on 20-foot by 20-foot spacings, there were many misconceptions about pruning and fruiting.
"With higher densities--even medium densities--you have to be a lot more precise in the understanding of what's happening," he said. "There's been a major growth in horticultural expertise in this business. We're always good farmers, but the margins are way less on all fronts.
"It used to be you needed the best land, the best varieties, and the best management, and if you were missing one of those, you could get by. But you can't any more."
