---

Quick Links

News | The Premier Online | Ministries & Organizations | Job Opportunities | Main Index

---

Contents

• B.C. Home
• Agriculture
• Tree Fruit
  • Industry Profile
  • Tree Fruit Production and Industry Development
  • Tree Fruit Replant Information
  • Tree Fruit Pests and Diseases
  • Business Management Information
  • Engineering Factsheets
  • Financial Programs
  • Newsletters
  • Home Garden
  • Tree Fruit Links
  • Tree Fruit Publications
  • Apple Variety Workshop

B.C. Home » Agriculture » Tree Fruits

Tree Fruit Leader, Vol. 5(1) April 1996

Peach and Nectarine Systems Trial

By Tim Watson, Horticultural Specialist BCMAFF, Oliver

There are advantages to higher density planting systems for peaches and nectarines. Although peach and nectarine trees bear crops early, additional yields can be obtained if densities are increased. Labour efficiency is increased as there is less ladder work with smaller trees.

Procedures

The BCMAFF initiated a peach and nectarine systems trial at the Test Orchard in 1989. Four systems, modified central leader (MCL), a two arm free standing palmette (TA), French axis (FA) and pillar (P) training systems were compared. The pillar system is essentially a central leader system. Two cultivars, Glohaven peaches and Redgold nectarines were included in the trial. Trees were spaced at 7 ft x 14 ft with a density of 445 trees/acre. The total trial area was 0.65 acres. As the trial progressed the MCL and TA systems were very similar as were the FA and P systems. The trial concluded at the end of 1994.

A number of factors influenced the performance of the trial: 
1989 -trial planted 
1990 -winter injury reduced third leaf yields 
1992- spring frost reduced the fourth leaf crop 
1993 -excellent yields in the fifth leaf 

Results:

Table 1.  Peach yields, lbs/acre

	MCL	TA	FA	P	Average	Projection
Year 1	0	0	0	0	0	0
Year 2	1358	336	707	484	721	1000
Year 3	7812	6841	7196	5181	6758	5000
Year 4	6143	3090	6353	5920	5377	10000
Year 5	29985	31382	30282	29602	30313	15000
Year 6	21890	21514	20765	20601	21193	19000
Cumulative	67189	63163	65303	61788	64361	50000

The cumulative yields from this trial (Table 1) exceeded yields projected for a 311 tree/acre planting in the Planning for Profit peach establishment budget published by the BCMAFF.

Table 2. Nectarine yields, lbs/acre

	MCL	TA	FA	P	Average	Projection
Year 1	0	0	0	0	0	0
Year 2	751	171	1138	896	739	1000
Year 3	1963	1952	1692	610	1554	5000
Year 4	2855	2954	9789	5846	5361	10000
Year 5	28824	27155	24287	27575	26960	15000
Year 6	26436	23204	28794	26150	26146	19000
Cumulative	60829	55436	65700	61077	60760	50000

Cumulative yields obtained for nectarines (Table 2) were similar to those obtained for peaches. The cumulative yield for peaches was approximately 65,000 lbs/acre and the yield for nectarines 61,000 lbs/acre.

If the peach and nectarine yields are combined, the French axis system had yields that were slightly higher than the modified central leader and the pillar systems. The two arm palmette system yield was slightly lower than the other systems. The two arm palmette and the modified central leader systems can be grouped as open systems and the French axis and the pillar systems can be grouped as leader systems. The two open systems averaged yields of 61,600 lbs/acre compared to 63,500 lbs/acre for the two leader systems. The nectarine open systems yields were lower than the leader systems.

Pruning

Figure 2 indicates that the pillar system required the greatest pruning time. The conventional modified central leader system required the least time. After six years the two leader systems required approximately 20 hrs/acre more cumulative pruning time than the two systems with lower tree height.

Summer pruning is important to maintain higher density peach and nectarine plantings within their allotted tree space. Summer pruning is not a time consuming task. The cumulative time for summer pruning after six years (Figure 3), averaged for the four systems is only 60 hrs/acre.

Thinning

Only minor differences among the four training systems were measured in the cumulative thinning times (Figure 4) for peaches. There were not any significant differences in the cumulative thinning times for the two open and the two leader systems. This was despite the fact that the leader systems required some ladder work. Thinning times for nectarines were similar to those for peaches.

Income and Cost Comparisons

Table 3 compares the results obtained from this trial to the projections in the 311 tree/ acre Planning for Profit peach establishment budget.

Table 3.

	Projected	Trial	Difference
Yield (lbs/acre)	50000	59508	9508
Price	$0.22	$0.22
Total Income	$11,000	$13,092	$2,092
Pruning	$1,240	$1,176	$64
Thinning	$845	$812	$33
Harvesting	$1,500	$1,785	($285)
			$1,904

This trial yielded 9,508 lbs more than the projected yields for the lower density planting. Total income exceeds the projection by $2092 per acre. Average pruning and thinning costs were slightly lower for the trial systems, but harvest costs were higher. The trial provided an advantage of $1904 per acre taking into consideration selected production expenses.

Summary

This systems trial indicates the value of planting peaches and nectarines at a tree density of approximately 450 trees per acre. There is no distinct advantage to any of the four systems evaluated in the trial. The trees in the open systems, modified central leader and the two arm palmette, however, are becoming more difficult to maintain within their space. This trial planting at a density of 450 trees per acre provided substantially greater cumulative yields in comparison to the 311 tree per acre planting projections in the Planning for Profit establishment budget.