Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:30:43.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparison of conventional and organic apple production systems during three years of conversion to organic management in coastal California

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Sean L. Swezey
Affiliation:
Extension Specialist, Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, University of California, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064.
Matthew R. Werner*
Affiliation:
Soil Ecology Specialist, Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, University of California, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064.
Marc Buchanan
Affiliation:
Research Associate, Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, University of California, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064.
Jan Allison
Affiliation:
Former Research Assistant, Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, University of California, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064.
*
Corresponding author is M.R. Werner (werner@zzyx.ucsc.edu).
Get access

Abstract

Conventional and organic semidwarf Granny Smith apple production systems were compared during three years of conversion to certified organic management. Because of differences in fruit load with hand thinning compared with chemical thinning, apple tonnage was higher in the organic production system (OPS) in 1989 and 1991. The organic system was higher than the conventional system in number and weight of fruit per tree, but smaller in average fruit size. Using grower-receivedfarmgate premiums of 38% (1990) and 33% (1991) for unsorted, certified organic apples, comparative cost accounting showed greater net return per hectare for the OPS. The OPS required higher material and labor inputs in all years.

Greater terminal growth in the conventional production system (CPS) in 1991 was the only significant difference in growth indicators between systems. N was generally higher in leaf and new wood bark tissues in the CPS. P was generally higher in the leaf and new wood bark tissues in the OPS. No decline in yield was associated with increased weed biomass in the OPS. There was no difference in fruit damage caused by codling moth between production system treatments (codling moth granulosis virus and pheromone-based mating disruption vs. synthetic insecticide). In 1991, secondary lepidopterous pests (apple leafroller and orange tortrix) caused greater fruit scarring in the CPS. In all years, tentiform leafminers caused greater leaf damage in the CPS. Apple leafhopper density and leaf damage were greater in the OPS in 1990 and 1991.

Soil nutrient levels showed few significant changes during conversion to organic management. Soil bulk density and water holding capacity were useful indicators of changes in soil physical characteristics. Potentially mineralizable nitrogen andmicrobial biomass-C were more sensitive indicators of system change than total N or organic C. Two soil biological ratios, the respiratory ratio and biomass-C/total organic-C, were similar in the two production systems. Earthworm biomass and abundance increased in the OPS in the third year. The introduction of Lumbricus terrestris into the OPS greatly increased litter incorporation rates.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Altieri, M.A., Davis, J., and Burroughs, K.. 1983. Some agroecological and socioeconomic features of organic farming in California: A preliminary study. Biological Agric. and Horticulture 1:97101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Anderson, T. H., and Domsch, K.H.. 1989. Ratios of microbial biomass carbon to total organic carbon in arable soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 21:471479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Anderson, T. H., and Domsch, K.H.. 1990. Application of eco-physiological quotients (qCO2 and qD) on microbial biomass from soils of different cropping histories. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 22:251255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Atkinson, D. 1983. The growth, activity, and distribution of the fruit tree root system. Plant and Soil 71:2335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Bolton, H. Jr., Elliott, L.F., Papendick, R.I., and Bezdicek, D.F.. 1985. Soil microbial biomass and selected soil enzyme activities: Effect of fertilization and cropping practices. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 17:297302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Borden, A.D. 1931. Some field observations on codling moth behavior. J. Economic Entomology 24:11371145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Bremner, J.M., and Mulvaney, C.S.. 1982. Nitrogen-total. In Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., and Keeney, D.R. (eds). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Methods. 2nd ed. Agronomy Series No. 9. Amer. Soc. Agronomy and Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 595624.Google Scholar
8.Brookes, P.C., Powlson, D.S., and Jenkinson, D.S.. 1984. Phosphorous in the soil microbial biomass. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 16:169175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Caprile, J. 1992 Comparing organic and conventional Granny Smith apples. Proceedings, Organic '92 Symposium, Univ. of California, Small Farm Center. Pub. No. 3356. Div. of Agriculture and Natural Resources, pp. 107120.Google Scholar
10.Carter, M.R. 1986. Microbial biomass as an index for tillage-induced changes in soil biological properties. Soil Tillage Research 7:2940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.CCOF. 1990. Certification Handbook. California Certified Organic Farmers, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
12.CCOF. 1991. Grower's List and Crop Index, September. California Certified Organic Farmers, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
13.Cook, R., Norris, K., and Pickel, C.. 1989. Economic comparison of organic and conventional production. Coastal Grower (California). Fall.Google Scholar
14.Daly, M.J., and Thomas, W.P.. 1992. Organic apple production: Understory management, some preliminary findings after the conversion from conventional to organic management. Research Abstract, Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand, Ltd., Lincoln, New Zealand.Google Scholar
15.Daly, M.J., Beresford, R.M., Spink, M., Lorosy, E.P., Springett, J., and Gray, R.. 1991. Management strategies for hastening leaf litter disappearance in organic apple orchards. Annual Report, MAF Technology Agroecology Program, New Zealand, pp. 2224.Google Scholar
16.Duxbury, J.M., and Nkambule, S.V.. 1994. Assessment and significance of biologically active soil organic nitrogen. In Doran, J.W., Coleman, D.C., Bezdicek, D.F., and Stewart, B.A. (eds). Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. Spec. Pub. No. 35. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 125146.Google Scholar
17.Greenberg, A.E., Trussell, R.R., and Clesceri, L.S. (eds). 1985. Method 303A. In Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Amer. Public Health Assoc., Amer. Waterworks Assoc, and Water Pollution Control Federation, Washington, D.C. pp. 157160.Google Scholar
18.Hagley, E.A.C. 1974. The arthropod fauna in unsprayed apple orchards in Ontario II. Some predacious species. Proc. Entomological Soc. Ontario, Canada 105:2840.Google Scholar
19.Haines, P.J., and Uren, N.C.. 1990. Effects of conservation tillage farming on soil microbial biomass, organic matter and earthworm populations, in north-eastern Victoria. Australian J. Experimental Agric. 30:365371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Harris, D.C. 1979. The occurrence of Phytophthora syringae in fallen apple leaves. Annals of Applied Biology 91:309312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Helweg, A. 1988. Microbial activities in soil from orchards regularly treated with pesticides compared to the activity in soils without pesticides (organically cultivated). Pedobiologia 32:273281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Hirst, J.M., and Stedman, O.J.. 1962. The epidemiology of apple scab. III. The supply of ascospores. Annals of Applied Biology 50:551567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Hurlbutt, H.W. 1958. A study of soilinhabiting mites from Connecticut apple orchards. J. Economic Entomology 51:767–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Insam, H., and Domsch, K.H.. 1988. Relationship between soil organic carbon and microbial biomass on chronosequences of reclamation sites. Microbial Ecology 15:177188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Jenkinson, D.S., and Powlson, D.S. 1976. The effects of biocidal treatments on metabolism in soil. V. A method for measuring soil biomass. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 8:209213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Keeney, D.R., and Bremner, J.M.. 1966. Comparison and evaluation of laboratory methods of obtaining an index of soil nitrogen availability. Agronomy J. 58:498503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Klonsky, K., Tourte, L., Swezey, S.L., and Ingels, C.. 1994. Production practices and sample costs to produce organic apples for the fresh market, Central Coast. Dept. of Agric. Economics, Cooperative Extension, Univ. of California, Davis.Google Scholar
28.Knudsen, D., Peterson, G.A., and Pratt, P.F.. 1982. Lithium, sodium, and potassium. In Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., and Keeney, D.R. (eds). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Methods. 2nd ed. Agronomy Series No. 9. Amer. Soc. Agronomy and Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 225246.Google Scholar
29.Koch, B.L., Covey, R.P. and Larsen, H.J.. 1982. Response of apple seedlings in fumigated soil to phosphorous and vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza. HortScience 17:232233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Kormanik, P.P. and McGraw, A.C.. 1982. Quantification of VA-mycorrhizas in plant roots. In N.C. Schenck (ed). Methods and Principles of Mycorrhizal Research. American Phytopathology Society. St. Paul, Minnesota, pp. 3745.Google Scholar
31.Koske, R.E., and Gemma, J.N.. 1989. A modified procedure for staining roots to detect VA mycorrhizas. Mycological Research 92:486488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.Lanyon, L.E., and Heald, W.R.. 1982. Magnesium, calcium, strontium, and barium. In Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., and Keeney, D.R. (eds). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Methods. 2nd ed. Agronomy Series No. 9. Amer. Soc. Agronomy and Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 247262.Google Scholar
33.Lee, K.E. 1985. Earthworms, Their Ecology and Relationships with Soils and Land Use. Academic Press, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
34.Leius, K. 1967. Influence of wild flowers on parasitism of tent caterpillar and codling moth. Canadian Entomologist 99:444449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.Linderman, R.G. 1988. VA (vesicular-arbuscular) mycorrhizal symbiosis. Institute for Scientific Information Atlas of Science: Animal and Plant Sciences 1(2):183188.Google Scholar
36.Lindsay, W.L., and Norvell, W.A.. 1978. Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese and copper. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 42:421428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.Liss, W.J., Gut, L.J., Westigard, P.H., and Warren, C.E.. 1986. Perspectives on arthropod community structure, organization, and development in agricultural crops. Annual Review of Entomology 31:455478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38.Little, T. M., and Hills, F.J.. 1978. Agricultural Experimentation. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
39.Maclellan, C.R. 1972. Codling moth populations under natural, integrated, and chemical control on apple in Nova Scotia. Canadian Entomologist 104:13971401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40.Maclellan, C.R. 1977. Trends of codling moth (Lepidoptera: Olethreutidae) populations over 12 years on two cultivars in an insecticide free orchard. Canadian Entomologist 109:15551562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41.Maier, C.T. 1982. Parasitism of the apple blotch leafminer, Phyllonorycter crataegella on sprayed and unsprayed apple trees in Connecticut. Environmental Entomology 11:603610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42.McGill, W.B., Cannon, K.R., Robertson, J.A., and Cook, F.D.. 1986. Dynamics of soil microbial biomass and water-soluble organic C in Breton L after 50 years of cropping to two rotations. Canadian J. Soil Sci. 66:119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43.Meyer, G.A., and Kellar, P.N.. 1992. An overview of analysis by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry. In Montaser, A. and Golightly, D.W. (eds). Inductively Coupled Plasmas in Analytical Atomic Spectrometry. VCH Publishers, Inc., New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
44.Micke, W. C., Yeager, J.T., Vossen, P.M., Bethell, R.S., Foott, J.H., and Tyler, R.H.. 1992. Apple rootstocks evaluated for California. California Agric. 46:2325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45.Nelson, D.W., and Sommers, L.E.. 1982. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., and Keeney, D.R. (eds). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Methods. 2nd ed. Agronomy Series No. 9. Amer. Soc. Agronomy and Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 539580.Google Scholar
46.Oatman, E.R., Legner, E.F., and Brooks, R.F.. 1964. An ecological study of arthropod populations on apple in northeastern Wisconsin: Insect species present. J. Economic Entomology 57:978983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47.Olsen, S.R., Cole, C.V., Watanabe, F.S., and Dean, L.A.. 1954. Estimation of available phosphorous in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA Circular 939. pp. 119.Google Scholar
48.Parkin, T.B., Doran, J.W., and Franco-Vizaino, E.. 1996. Field and laboratory tests of soil respiration. In Doran, J.W. and Jones, A.J. (eds). Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Spec. Pub. No. 49. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 231246.Google Scholar
49.Plenchette, C., Furlan, V., and Fortin, J.A., 1981. Growth stimulation of apple trees in unsterilized soil under field conditions with VA mycorrhiza inoculation. Canadian J. Botany 59:20032008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50.Potter, D.A., Buxton, M.C., Redmond, C.T., Patterson, C.G., and Powell, A.J.. 1990. Toxicity of pesticides to earthworms (Oligochaeta: Lumbricidae) and effect on thatch degradation in Kentucky bluegrass turf. J. Economic Entomology 83:23622369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51.Powlson, D.S., Brookes, P.C., and Christensen, B.T.. 1987. Measurement of soil microbial biomass provides an early indication of changes in total soil organic matter due to straw incorporation. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 19:159164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52.Prokopy, R.J. 1991. A small low input commercial apple orchard in eastern North America: Management and economics. Agric, Ecosystems and Environment 33:353362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53.Raw, F., 1962. Studies of earthworm populations in orchards. I. Leaf burial in orchards. Annals of Applied Biology 50:389404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54.Rhoades, J.D. 1982. Soluble salts. In Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., and Keeney, D.R. (eds). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Methods. 2nd ed. Agronomy Series No. 9. Amer. Soc. Agronomy and Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 167179.Google Scholar
55.Rice, C.W., Moorman, T., and Beare, M.. 1996. Role of microbial biomass C and N in soil quality. In Doran, J.W. and Jones, A.J. (eds). Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Spec. Pub. No. 49. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 203215.Google Scholar
56.Ridgeway, N.M., and Mahr, D.L.. 1985. Natural enemies of the spotted tentiform leafminer, Phyllonorycter blancardella (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae), in sprayed and unsprayed apple orchards in Wisconsin. Environmental Entomology 14:459463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57.Sah, R.N., and Miller, R.O.. 1992. Spontaneous reaction for acid dissolution of biological tissues in closed vessels. Analytical Chemistry 64:230233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
58.Satchell, J.E. 1971. Earthworms. In Phillipson, J. (ed). Methods of Study in Quantitative Soil Ecology: Population, Production and Energy Flow. IBP Handbook No. 18. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, U.K. pp. 107127.Google Scholar
59.Schulte, E.E., and Eik., K. 1988. Recommended sulfate-sulfur test. In Recommended Chemical Soil Test Procedures. Bull. No. 499 (revised). North Dakota Agric. Exp. Sta.Google Scholar
60.Stephens, P.M., and Davoren, C.W.. 1997. Influence of the earthworms Aporrectodea trapezoides and A. rosea on the disease severity of Rhizoctonia solani on subterranean clover and ryegrass. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 29:511516.Google Scholar
61.Thistlewood, H.M.A. 1991. A survey of predatory mites in Ontario apple orchards with diverse pesticide programs. Canadian Entomologist 123:11631174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
62.Turco, R.F., Kennedy, A.C., and Jawson, M.D.. 1994. Microbial indicators of soil quality. In Doran, J.W., Coleman, D.C., Bezdicek, D.F., and Stewart, B.A. (eds). Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. Spec. Pub. No. 35. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 7390.Google Scholar
63.UCIPM. 1991. Integrated pest management for pears and apples. Univ. of California Statewide IPM Project, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Univ. of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
64.UCCE. 1988. Cost analysis for Granny Smith apples-free standing. Univ. of California, Cooperative Extension, Santa Cruz County.Google Scholar
65.UCCE. 1992. Commercial apple growing in California. Leaflet 2456. Univ. of California, Cooperative Extension, Berkeley.Google Scholar
66.U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1990. Management guide for low-input sustainable apple production. USDA Northeast LISA Apple Production Project and Cornell Univ., Rodale Research Center, Rutgers Univ., Univ. of Massachusetts, and Univ. of Vermont.Google Scholar
67.Varela, L.G., and Welter, S.C.. 1992. Parasitoids of the leafminer, Phyllonorycter nr. elmaella (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae), on apple in California: Abundance, impact on leafminer, and insecticide-induced mortality. Biological Control 2:124130.Google Scholar
68.Vossen, P., Blodgett, S., Jolly, D., and Meyer, R.. 1992. A comparison of apple production in conventional and organic systems. Proceedings, Organic '92 Symposium, Univ. of California, Small Farm Center. Pub. No. 3356. Div. of Agriculture and Natural Resources, pp. 138146.Google Scholar
69.Waring, S.A., and Bremner, J.M.. 1964. Ammonium production in soil under waterlogged conditions as an index of nitrogen availability. Nature 201:951952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
70.Werner, M.R. 1996. Inoculative release of anecic earthworms in a California orchard. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 11:176181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar