So, I got the question of what a carton of ‘Meyer' lemons weighs

Because different types of fruit are different sized, but usually the container in which it is sold stays the same, the product is going to have a different weight for the same volume. Big fruited pummelos fit fewer fruit and weigh less in a given volume than little kumquats will.  However, some varieties are also sold by the weight.  California ‘Valencia' oranges for some reason used to weigh 37.5 pounds per carton until 2010 when it was restandardized to 40 pounds.  That kind of makes sense.

A local tangerine packer/grower says that they have always packed into half-bushel “cartons” which are 38-pound cartons.  More and more the “Cuties” and “Halos” go into 5-pound equivalent cartons.

A California carton is different from a Florida carton which is 4/5 of a bushel box or a ½ field box. There a field box is 1 3/5 bushel or a 2-compartment open-top wooden container equivalent to 90 pounds of oranges or 85 pounds grapefruit or 95 pounds tangerines.

From Google:

A bushel (abbreviation: bsh. or bu.) is an imperial and US customary unit of weight based upon an earlier measure of dry capacity. The old bushel was equal to 2 kennings , 4 pecks or 8 gallons.

The name comes from the Old French boissiel and buissiel, meaning "little box".  It may further derive from Old French boise, meaning "little butt".^[

The butt was a measure of liquid volume equaling two hogsheads. This equated to 108 imperial gallons (490 l) for ale or 126 imperial gallons (570 l) for wine (also known as a pipe), although the Oxford English Dictionary notes that "these standards were not always precisely adhered to".^[1][2]

The butt is one in a series of English wine cask units, being half of a tun.

The tun (Old English: tunne, Latin: tunellus, Middle Latin: tunna) is an English unit of liquid volume (not weight), used for measuring wine,^[1] oil or honey. Typically, a large vat or vessel, most often holding 252 wine gallons, but occasionally other sizes (e.g. 256, 240 and 208 gallons), was also used.

So that's what a carton of ‘Meyer' lemons weighs.

Avocados are usually packed into lugs which weigh 25 pounds and can hold a variety of different sized fruit, but they all fit into the same sized carton.

Mandarins, also known as “zipper skins” and “easy peelers” can have very fragile peels/skins/rinds/exocarp that make them easily subject to more damage than most oranges and lemons. Some are a bit tougher skinned than others, but some are so fragile that any rough handling often prevents them from going through conventional packing operations.

These skins were recently put to the test in the recent fires in Ojai. There was a mix of different varieties - ‘Pixie', ‘Gold Nugget', ‘W. Murcott', ‘Yosemite Gold', ‘Tahoe Gold' and others. Some of them were more sensitive than others, some were closer to the fire, all were affected by smoke to some degree. In Matilija Canyon where smoke was present for many more days than in the east of the Ojai Valley and possibly more ash, the trees have started flowering sooner. That might be temperature difference, either cooler or warmer, so it is hard to say how much effect the smoke has had versus, the ash and/or heat. Smoke has many different gasses in it, one of which is ethylene which is a naturally occurring ripening agent. Smoke not only has gasses, but it occludes the sun so less or more or altered light might have an effect on these fruit. It's not a controlled experiment, so some little scientist is going to have to come along and wriggle out these different effects. Whatever. Fire and smoke have an effect on mandarins as we have seen in other crops, such as cherimoya, avocados and other citrus.

Heat damage. Fruit facing the fire.

Ash effects on fruit coloring. Fruit was covered with ash for several days until rain washed it off. Might be a pH effect (ash is alkaline), temperature effect, uneven light radiation, or other…….

Same sort of uneven coloring, that actually looks like an ashy color, but the ash has washed off the cluster by rain

And here's something interesting where fruit facing the fire is much lighter colored than fruit facing away from the fire. Here are two pieces of fruit, one from the side directly facing the fire, and the other from the other side of the tree. The side of that fruit facing the fire was also lighter colored. So, it had an effect through the canopy (small tree). The canopy was otherwise intact, unaffected heat or flames.

Oh yeah, and there is the characteristic fruit drop from either the heat, smoke gases, water stress or ….

And then there's the fruit that looks like it had actual embers on the skin.

If the tree survives and keeps its green leaves, sometimes the fruit is affected in ways that don't appear for a while. The peel may be affected, but in many cases the fruit is just as sweet as it could be. It just looks terrible. That might even be a selling point. "Here have a wonderous piece of history that braved the horror of the Ojai fires."

PULLMAN, Wash. Soil pathogen testing - critical to farming, but painstakingly slow and expensive - will soon be done accurately, quickly, inexpensively and onsite, thanks to research that Washington State University scientists plant pathologists are sharing.

As the name implies, these tests detect disease-causing pathogens in the soil that can severely devastate crops.

Until now, the tests have required large, expensive equipment or lab tests that take weeks.

The soil pathogen analysis process is based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests that are very specific and sensitive and only possible in a laboratory.

The new methods, designed by WSU plant pathologists, are not only portable and fast, but utilize testing materials easily available to the public. A paper by the researchers lists all the equipment and materials required to construct the device, plus instructions on how to put it all together and conduct soil tests.

Responding to growers needs

"We've heard from many growers that the time it takes to obtain results from soil samples sent to a lab is too long," said Kiwamu Tanaka, assistant professor in WSU's Department of Plant Pathology. "The results come back too late to be helpful. But if they can get results on site, they could make informed decisions about treatments or management changes before they even plant their crop."

Some diseases from soil pathogens may not be visible until weeks after the crop has sprouted, Tanaka said. That could be too late to treat the disease or could force farmers to use more treatments.

Magnetic breakthrough

WSU graduate student Joseph DeShields, a first author on the paper, said it took about six months of work to get their device to work in the field. It relies on magnets to capture pathogens' DNA from the soil.

"It turns out, it's really hard to separate and purify genetic material from soil because soil contains so much material for PCR tests," said DeShields "So we were thrilled when we made that breakthrough."

Rachel Bomberger is a WSU plant diagnostician who helped with the concepts of the machine testing. She said she's impressed by what Tanaka and the team accomplished.

"We removed a huge stumbling block when it comes to soil testing," said Bomberger, one of the co-authors on the paper. "We found the missing piece that makes the testing systems work in the field without expensive lab equipment or testing materials."

Worldwide application

The system was tested on potato fields around eastern Washington, Tanaka said, but it will work on soil anywhere in the world.

"It's a really versatile method," he said. "You could use it for nationwide pathogen mapping or look at the distribution of pathogens around the country. We started small, but this could have huge implications for testing soil health and disease."

Tanaka said it was important for this discovery to be available in an open-access video journal.

"We're always concerned about helping every grower and the industry as a whole," Tanaka said. "We want everybody to look at this and use it, if they think they'll benefit from it."

###

The results were published in the Journal of Visualized Experiments, an open-access journal that includes a video showing how to assemble and used the system and a full list of materials needed to use their method.

This research is supported by the Northwest Potato Research Consortium and the Washington State Department of Agriculture - Specialty Crop Block Grant Program.

See the video here:

https://www.jove.com/video/56891/on-site-molecular-detection-soil-borne-phytopathogens-using-portable

And the article here:

https://www.jove.com/pdf/56891/jove-protocol-56891-on-site-molecular-detection-soil-borne-phytopathogens-using-portable

This article first appeared in Sacramento Valley Orchard Source

http://www.sacvalleyorchards.com/blog/almonds-blog/why-you-should-irrigate-potted-trees-directly-onto-potting-media/

Missing the Target: Why you Should Irrigate Potted Trees Directly onto Potting Media

or

Why Emitters Should be Placed on the Root Ball at Planting

Dani Lightle, UCCE Orchards Advisor, Glenn Butte & Tehama Counties

N.B. potted trees are standard commercial container grown citrus and avocado trees

Generally, when I am working with growers on a problem related to potted-tree establishment, the cause is lack of water movement into the potted media, creating tree stress. This results from the difference in soil particle size at the boundary between the orchard soil and the tree's potting soil. When you plant a potted tree in your orchard, it has a substrate – some mix of peat and vermiculite – that is very different than your soil type. The change in texture and pore size inhibits water movement from the surrounding soil into the potting media. As a result, Irrigation water applied outside the potted soil media isn't getting to the roots.

The sequence of photos in Figure 1 demonstrates this phenomenon. I set up a mock orchard condition with soil (Tehama series silty loam) next to a potted tree (potting soil) in a ½ inch wide frame. I then slowly added water to match the soil infiltration rate, similar to a drip emitter, approximately 4 inches away from the potting soil in the ‘orchard' soil.

You will see that the water does not move into the potting soil (Figure 1C & D). Two forces – gravitational pull and capillary action – move water downward and laterally in the soil. Since the potting soil is not below the orchard soil, gravity does not move water into the potting soil. Capillary action is not strong enough to move water into the potting soil because the difference in pore size is too great. So, irrigation water goes where it can easily flow – downwards and laterally into dry, native soil but not into the potting soil. More water does not solve the problem, it will just move past your newly planted trees and wet more native soil.

For about the first month of growth, irrigation emitters should be located at the base of the potted tree to ensure the potting medium receives water. Frequently check to ensure that the potting soil stays wet – not the soil somewhere else in the tree row or mound – before, after, and between irrigation sets. The best way to do this is with a small trowel and your hands. Water will need to be applied at the base of the tree until the tree roots grow beyond the potting soil and into your orchard's native soil. The time required for this to happen will vary depending on factors such as temperature, but it should take roughly a month.

Figure 1. This sequence of photos shows the movement of water applied to Tehama series silty-loam soil. Water was applied at the blue arrow, approximately 4 inches from the potting soil. Total elapsed time was 51 minutes. Water moved downwards and laterally but did not cross the boundary into the potting soil.