1 / 46

Organic Blackberry Production Research

Bernadine Strik Professor, Dept. Horticulture & NWREC. Organic Blackberry Production Research. Collaborators: Gil Buller and Emily Vollmer (Research Assistants) Renee Harkins, Javier Fernandez-Salvador, Emily Dixon (grad students) Luis Valenzuela-Estrada & George Cavender (Post-Docs)

jase
Download Presentation

Organic Blackberry Production Research

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Bernadine Strik Professor, Dept. Horticulture & NWREC Organic Blackberry Production Research

  2. Collaborators: Gil Buller and Emily Vollmer (Research Assistants) Renee Harkins, Javier Fernandez-Salvador, Emily Dixon (grad students) Luis Valenzuela-Estrada & George Cavender (Post-Docs) David Bryla & Chad Finn (USDA-ARS, HCRU) Yanyun Zhao and Mark Daeschel, Dept. Food Sci., OSU Penny Perkins-Veazie, Gina Fernandez, Charles Safley, Olha Sydorovych, Roderick Rejesus, Mara Massell (North Carolina State Univ.) Industry: Eric Pond (Riverbend farm, OR); Joe Bennett (formerly Small Planet Foods WA); Anthony Boutard (OR); Tom Avinelis (Homegrown Organics, CA, OR); Derek Peacock (Hursts Berry Farm, OR); Josh Beam (SunnyRidge, Dole, NC); Littau Harvesters Inc. and other industry contributors! Funding to date: OOCR $29,885 (2009) NCSFR $69,689 (2009-11) NIFA-OREI $2.4 million (2010-14)

  3. Sub-projects: Systems for processed blackberries: * Production system impacts on yield, quality, nutrient allocation Strik, Vollmer, Buller, Harkins, Fernandez-Salvador * Irrigation management & root growth – Bryla & Valenzuela * Economic evaluation – Strik, Safley & Sydorovych * Cultivar adaptation – Strik, Finn, & Fernandez-Salvador * Fruit quality & impact of processing - Zhao & Cavender * Food borne pathogens – Daeschel & Sales Systems for fresh blackberries (grower cooperator sites, OR & NC): Oregon: * Impact of cultivar 7 fertilizer source on yield & quality Strik, Bryla, Fernandez-Salvador * Economic evaluation – Strik, Safley & Sydorovych * Fruit quality & healthful properties (storage) - Zhao & Cavender * Food borne pathogens – Daeschel & Sales North Carolina: * Economic evaluation – Fernandez, Safley & Sydorovych * Fruit quality & healthful properties (storage) - Perkins-Veazie * Food borne pathogens – Massel Economic model to assess potential liability costs (food safety event) - ReJesus

  4. Bernadine Strik, David Bryla, and Renee Harkins Dept. Horticulture, OSU, USDA-ARS/HCRU Weed, Water, and Nutrient Management Practices forOrganic Blackberry Production

  5. Objectives • Impact of weed management on plant growth, weed pressure, and yield & 2. Biomass and nutrient accumulation and losses in establishing organic trailing blackberries

  6. Objectives 3. Effect of post harvest irrigation & • Impact of training time (August or February) on established trailing blackberries Note above treatments began in 2012

  7. Study site North Willamette Research and Extension Center, Aurora, OR Treatments Cultivar ‘Black Diamond’ ‘Marion’ Weed management ‘Control’ (weedy) ‘Hand weed’ ‘Weed mat’ • 1 acre planting • TC planted June 2010 (5’ x 10’) • Split-plot design with 5 reps • Non-treatment guard rows & end plots • A cereal rye/common vetch cover crop between rows • Single lateral drip tube either suspended on trellis or under weed mat June 2010

  8. Planting, May 17, 2012

  9. Methods July 2010 • Measurements • Soil nutrients (Oct.)

  10. February 2011 • Measurements • Primocane number • Primocane length • Primocane nutrients • Canes removed

  11. July 2011 • Measurements – “off year” • Soil moisture & temperature • Leaf water potential • Primocane leaf tissue nutrient conc. • Soil nutrients (Oct.) • Canes trained as they grew

  12. April 2012 • Measurements – “on year” • Primocane number • Primocane length • Primocane nutrient conc.

  13. July 2012 • Measurements “on year” • Soil moisture & temperature • Leaf water potential • Yield, berry weight, berry nutrient concentration • Floricane & primocane leaf tissue nutrient conc.

  14. August 2012 • Measurements – “on year” • Soil moisture & temperature • Leaf water potential • Floricane yield components & nutrient conc. • Soil nutrients (Oct.)

  15. Results

  16. April 20, 2011 May 5, 2012 • Weed management treatments • Weed pressure was not high in 2010 • Weed presence was greater by late 2011 and into 2012

  17. Primocane growth (DW)

  18. Primocane growth (DW) • Primocane growth (DW/biomass) on Feb. 2011 (reflecting growth in planting year), was not significantly affected by cultivar or weed management. • In Jan. 2012, primocane DW (growth in 2011) was greater in ‘Marion’ than ‘Black Diamond’. Also, weedy ‘Control’ plots had the least primocane growth.

  19. Primocane (leaf & cane) nutrients in winter 2011 There were no significant effects of cultivar or weed management on macronutrients N, P, & K. 2012 For macronutrients N, P, and K, canes from ‘Control’ or weedy plots had a lower %N, P, and K relative to hand weed and weed mat plots (P=0.04, <.0001, =0.002 respectively).

  20. Off year On year

  21. Floricane leaf sampling 2012

  22. Floricane leaf tissue nutrient concentration • Floricane leaves from weedy ‘Control’ plots had a lower %N than in either ‘Hand weed’ or ‘Weed mat’ plots. Floricane leaves collected 7 July 2012, at first black fruit. Note floricane leaves from ‘Control’ plots appeared yellow.

  23. Harvest 2012

  24. 2012 Machine-harvested yield by cultivar

  25. Weed management effects on yield

  26. 2012 Yield by weed management

  27. ‘Black Diamond’ ‘Marion’

  28. Berry weight • ‘Black Diamond’ berry weight was greater than that of ‘Marion’ on every harvest date • Plants in the weedy control had less berry weight on every harvest than in weed mat

  29. Berry Nutrient Concentration • ‘Black Diamond’ berries had a lower %Ca than ‘Marion’ berries (P<.0001). Similarly, ‘Black Diamond’ primocane leaves had lower %Ca than ‘Marion’ in 2011 and 2012 (P<.0001 and 0.0003 respectively). • ‘Black Diamond’ berries had higher %B than ‘Marion’ berries (P=0.002). Conversely, ‘Black Diamond’ primocane leaves and floricane leaves had lower %B than in ‘Marion’ in 2012 (P<.0001)

  30. Removal of macronutrients in harvested fruit

  31. Berries from weedy ‘Control’ plots had less moisture and higher soluble solids (°Brix) than berries from either ‘Weed mat’ or ‘Hand weed’ plots.

  32. Floricane biomass (DW) at caning out • Floricanes in weedy ‘Control’ plots had less DW at caning out than those in ‘Hand weed’ and ‘Weed mat’ plots (P<0.0001). • In 2012, nutrient concentration in floricanes was not significantly affected by weed management.

  33. July 3, 2012 ‘Control’ ‘Hand weed’ ‘Weed mat’

  34. Above-ground N gain & removal Data collected February 2012, July 2012, and August 2012. Fruit + from caning out • During spring 2011 and 2012, plants fertilized with 50 lb N/a • * Primocanes will be sampled in winter 2013 to determine total nutrient gain & removal for 2012

  35. Above-ground N gain & removal Data collected February 2012, July 2012, and August 2012. Fruit + from caning out • During spring 2011 and 2012, plants fertilized with 50 lb N/a • * Primocanes will be sampled in winter 2013 to determine total nutrient gain & removal for 2012

  36. Temperature, 2011 • No effect of weed management on soil temperature • There was a trend for higher daytime soil temperature in the ‘Control’ (weedy) treatment

  37. Soil nutrients, 2011, end of off-year • ‘Weed mat’ plots had higher soil ammonium-N than ‘Control’ or ‘Hand weed’ plots (P=0.0084) • ‘Weed mat’ plots had higher soil Ca than ‘Control’ and ‘Hand weed’ plots (P=0.0047).

  38. Temperature, 2012 • ‘Control’ and ‘Hand weed’ plots had higher soil temperature than ‘Weed mat’ plots (P=<0.0001).

  39. Soil nutrients, 2012, end of on-year • ‘Weed mat’ plots had higher soil K than ‘Control’ and ‘Hand weed’ plots (P=0.0002).

  40. Trends observed in soil, 2011-2012 Manganese was significantly greater in ‘Weed mat’ plots in 2011 and 2012 (P=<.0001 and 0.0002 respectively). • Magnesium was significantly greater in ‘Weed mat’ plots in 2011 and 2012 (P=0.0024 and 0.03 respectively).

  41. Trends observed in soil, 2011-20 Nitrate-N tended to decrease in all plots from 2011 to 2012. • pH tended to increase under ‘Weed mat’ from 2011 to 2012.

  42. Conclusions • ‘Black Diamond’ had larger berries and a greater yield than ‘Marion’. • Primocane and floricane DW of ‘Black Diamond’ was less than that of ‘Marion’ • ‘Black Diamond’ required less total N than ‘Marion’ Black Diamond Marion • ‘Black Diamond’ plants appear to be more nutrient efficient than ‘Marion’ plants.

  43. Conclusions cont. • Plants in weedy, ‘Control’ plots had fewer and longer primocanes with a lower nutrient concentration • In 2012, floricane nutrient concentrations were not significantly affected by weed management treatments • In 2012, floricane DW was least and yield the lowest in weedy ‘Control’ plots • Berry weight was less and fruit had a lower % moisture in weedy ‘control’ plots

  44. Conclusions cont. • ‘Weed mat’ plots had the greatest aboveground primocane and floricane DW in 2012 • ‘Weed mat’ plots had the highest yield in 2012 • Nitrogen removal in ‘Weed mat’ plots was highest • NH4-N, Ca, K, S, Mg, and Mn, concentrations in the soil were all greatest in ‘Weed mat’ plots

  45. On-going work • Impacts of post-harvest irrigation and training time evaluated in 2013 (now EY) • Adjust fertility rates • Monitor nutrient accumulation & losses Nov. 8, 2012

More Related