- Author: Ben Faber
California agriculture experienced a nearly three percent increase in the sales value of its products in 2012. The state's 80,500 farms and ranches received a record $44.7 billion for their output last year, up from $43.3 billion in 2011 and $37.9 billion during 2010. California remained the number one state in cash farm receipts with 11.3 percent of the US total. The state accounted for 15 percent of national receipts for crops and 7.1 percent of the US revenue for livestock and livestock products. Exports totaled $18.18 billion in value which represents an eight percent increase over the previous year.
California's agricultural abundance includes more than 400 commodities. The state produces nearly half of US-grown fruits, nuts and vegetables. Across the nation, US consumers regularly purchase several crops produced solely in California.
California's top-ten valued commodities for 2012 are:
- Milk — $6.9 billion
- Grapes — $4.449 billion
- Almonds — $4.347 billion
- Nursery plants — $3.543 billion
- Cattle, Calves — $3.299 billion
- Strawberries — $1.939 billion
- Lettuce — $1.448 billion
- Walnuts — $1.349 billion
- Hay — $1.237 billion
- Tomatoes — $1.170 billion
Please see complete statistics for 2012, reproduced as PDF files below, or use the link in the right column to access this report and others on the NASS website.
- Author: Ben Faber
Date: December 13, 2013
Time: 9:00 AM - 12:00 PM
Contact: Anita Hunt
Sponsor: Lindcove Research & Extension Center
Location: 22963 Carson Ave, Exeter, CA 93221, USA
Citrus growers and other Ag professionals are invited to attend the University of California, Lindcove Research and Extension Center Annual Citrus Fruit Display and Tasting on Friday December 13th starting at 9:00 A.M. During the Citrus Fruit Display day, you can see and taste more than 100 citrus varieties that are grown at Lindcove.
Education Building Activities 9 am - Noon
•Taste fruit at your leisure
Walking tour starts at 10 am
•Tour the Citrus Clonal Protection facilities that produce budwood with Dr. Georgios Vidalakis.
•View the action of the new fruit grading system in the packline that provides researchers with detailed information about fruit size, weight and quality demonstrated by Don Cleek
•Tour the demonstration orchard with Dr. Tracy Kahn who will discuss new citrus varieties
Directions: Take Highway 198 east to Mehrten Drive (approximately 15 miles) and follow the signs to our Event. The University of Lindcove Research and Extension Center is located at 22963 Carson Avenue Exeter, CA. The Education Building is located at the end of Carson Avenue. If you have any questions please contact Anita Hunt at 559-592-2408 Ext 151.
- Author: Craig Kallsen
It shouldn’t be news to local citrus growers and industry people that the Asian citrus psyllid (ACP) is being found with increasing frequency in the southern San Joaquin Valley. If this is news to you please follow the website at http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/acp/ and/or sign up for U.C. entomologist Dr. Beth Grafton-Cardwell’s blog at;
http://ucanr.edu/blogs/ucanrorgblogscitruspest/.
Go to Beth’s website and in the upper right corner you can subscribe and receive the blog each time she sends one out. She also has a twitter account ‘ucanrbethgc’ that you can follow. This blog covers more than just ACP and is a great source of information on citrus IPM and citrus entomology. At the CDFA website, or through links to the site at Dr. Grafton-Cardwell’s blog, you can find maps delineating quarantine areas around new ACP finds, such as the one surrounding the recent find in the Wasco area (see attached map as an example). Regulations related to what needs to be done related to harvesting fruit and selling nursery trees growing within the quarantine zone can be found at:
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/pe/interiorexclusion/acp_quarantine_sjv.html
So far, there is no sign of HLB disease in the San Joaquin Valley, but that can change on short notice. Where ACP shows up, HLB disease (spread by a bacterium) is usually only a few years behind.
- Author: Ben Faber
Who a thunk it, but coffee can grow in coastal California, because our latitude approximates the climate found in high altitude coffee growing areas found in Central America. And now there is a "small" industry growing here.
Of all coffee species, Coffea arabica is considered to make the superior beverage. It accounts for more than three-quarters of the world production in spite of being prone to a devastating rust disease. C. arabica is indigenous primarily to the area around Kaffa in Ethiopia. For many years this area was "closed", and the genetic breeding pool was limited to one seedling taken to Amsterdam in 1706 from a planting in the East Indies. The resultant inbreeding still may be a significant factor in what cultivars are presently available.
The first "coffee" drink was made from fermented fruit pulp. Not until the 15th century were dried "coffee" beans roasted, ground and a beverage extracted. In 1650 coffee from Arabia reached England, and by 1675 there were more than 3,000 forerunners of StarbucksTM.
C. arabica thrives and produces the most prized beans in the moderate (maximum of about 70o F) climates encountered at higher, frost-free elevations. Excellent coffee is produced near the equator up to 6000 feet. Growing conditions at this elevation correspond approximately to the coastal conditions at 34 degrees latitude (Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties). A good tasting coffee has been made from beans grown in Santa Barbara backyards.
Challenges facing production in California include adapting cultural techniques to California conditions, marketing California specialty coffees, and minimizing labor costs attendant with picking and grading without significantly degrading product quality.
- Author: Elizabeth J Fichtner
Introduction
The economic sustainability and consequent longevity of California’s historic “black ripe” table olive industry is challenged by the crippling cost of hand-harvest, a cost that often exceeds 50-75% of gross return. Hand harvest costs are volatile due to dynamics in annual and regional crop load and labor supply, and are also influenced by competition between growers and producers of other commodities. Development of a mechanical harvesting method offers the only economically-feasible solution to long-term industry sustainability. Three interrelated factors contribute to successful development of mechanical harvest technologies: i) design of fruit-removal and catch methods that do not adversely affect fruit or tree, ii) tree training and pruning to facilitate mechanized harvest, and iii) design or discovery of abscission agents to enhance fruit loosening and removal from the tree. Although an abscission agent has yet to be found, fruit removal technologies and tree training innovations have fostered the advent of mechanical harvest for the table olive industry.
Impediments to Mechanical Harvest
Both the botany of the olive and industry processing standards impose impediments to implementation of mechanical harvest. ‘Manzanillo’ olives, the major cultivar utilized for black ripe processing, are harvested when physiologically immature; consequently, they require a higher “pull force” (~0.5 kg) for removal then mature fruit. Most traditional CA table olive orchards are comprised of tall trees (≥ 18 ft) with wide canopies (12-18 ft), and fruit is borne on the ends of multiple flexible pendulous shoots. Additionally, the fruit bruise easily, and excess damage adversely affects fruit value and grower return.
Developing and Evaluating Mechanical Harvesters
A multi-phase sequence is generally employed for either development of a new mechanical harvester or adaptation of an existing harvest technology from another crop. Fruit removal techniques are developed and then tested to ensure lack of damage to the commodity and the tree. Then a mobile platform is built to hold the driver and a catch frame and the final unit is tested for harvester efficiency and operating parameters (ie. ground speed, harvest rate, etc). Harvester efficiency is best conceptualized in comparison to hand harvest, with hand-harvest considered to achieve nearly 100% fruit removal, an overestimate-but appropriate standard for comparison. University of California Agricultural Economist, Dr. Karen Klonsky, estimates that a mechanical harvesting cost of $150/ton requires approximately 80% final harvester efficiency for economic feasibility. Studies conducted on two harvesters in 2012 suggest that harvester efficiency is nearing the 80% goal.
Two Mechanical Harvesting Technologies Identified for Olive
Trunk shaker and canopy-contact harvesters utilized in other cropping systems have been modified for use on olive with minimal tree and fruit damage. Trunk shaker technology may be more applicable to olive trees with a smooth trunk, upright growth habit, and short scaffolds, whereas canopy-contact harvesters may be better suited for hedgerow plantings managed with mechanical pruning. Evaluations conducted by UC researchers have demonstrated at least 75% fruit removal efficiency by both harvester types, and sensory and consumer panels are unable to distinguish between hand-harvested and mechanically-harvested fruit.
Tree shaker
A 2012 non-experimental evaluation of the Erick Nielsen Enterprises Inc. olive trunk shaker demonstrated an approximate 77.5% harvest efficiency in a mature, 180 tree/acre ‘Manzanillo’ block. Over the two years preceeding this evaluation, the block was adapted for mechanical harvest by hand-pruning limbs likely to interfere with the harvester, and mechanically hedging to reduce tree size. When operating at consistent speed, the trunk shaker harvested approximately 3 ton/hr without adverse affect on fruit quality. Conservative estimates suggest the trunk shaker harvest cost approximately $200/ton as compared to 2012 hand harvest costs estimated at $400/ton.
Canopy-Contact Harvester
A prototype canopy contact harvester, designed for jatropha (biofuel crop), was assessed in 2011 and 2012 in a hedgerow planting comprised of mechanically- and hand-pruned plots. The canopy contact harvester averaged 77% fruit removal; however, statistical comparison with hand harvested plots was not possible, in part because hand-pruned trees damaged the machine. The canopy contact harvester required 2-3 minutes harvest time per tree, and may yet prove to be of value to the olive industry.
Orchard Adaptation Strategies Studied
Orchard adaptation strategies for mechanical harvest have targeted both traditional plantings and the innovation of new orchard designs better suited for mechanical harvest.
Implementation of Mechanical Pruning: In 2011 and 2012, a hedgerow planting (12 X 18 ft; 202 trees/acre) at Nickels Soil Lab (Arbuckle, CA) was utilized to compare yield in mechanically-pruned and hand-pruned plots. Mechanically-pruned plots produced over 1.1 ton/acre more cumulative yield than hand pruned plots for an estimated >$1300/acre boost in crop value. Similar results were observed when mechanical pruning was compared to hand pruning in a traditional orchard (13 x 26 ft; 139 trees/acre) in Tulare County between 2008 and 2012. In this system, trees were mechanically topped at 12 ft. and hedged annually on alternate sides 6 ft. from the trunk. No significant difference in cumulative yield was observed between mechanically pruned and hand pruned plots from 2008 to 2012.
Orchard Design Innovations: Bill Krueger, Farm Advisor Emeritus, Glenn Co, established the innovative hedgerow planting (12 X 18 ft; 202 trees/acre) at Nickels Soil Lab in 2001, utilizing 4 training techniques: i) conventional; ii) free trained espalier, iii) espalier woven in wire trellis, iv) espalier tied to trellis. Based on 10 years of data, tree training had no affect on yield or crop value. This planting continues to be of service to the olive research community, having housed mechanical pruning and mechanical harvest trials in the 2011 and 2012 seasons.
Mutually Beneficial Economic Interest Fosters Cooperation
The successful development of a mechanical harvester has relied on cooperation between university researchers and the two groups ultimately benefiting from the technology: the commercial harvester industry and the grower industry. Funding supplied by the California Olive Committee, the olive grower supported Federal Marketing Order, supported synergistic efforts between UC Davis Departments of Plant Science1, Biological and Agricultural Engineering2, Food Science and Technology3, Agricultural Economics4, and UC Cooperative Extension5, University of Cordoba, Spain6, and the harvester7 and grower8, and processor industries9.
Collaborative Team of Researchers and Cooperators:
L. Ferguson1, J. Miles2 and U. Rosa2, J-X. Guinard3, K. Klonsky4, W.H. Krueger5, E.J. Fichtner5, N. O’Connell5, P.M. Vossen5 S.C. Garcia6, Erick Nielsen Enterprises Inc. 7, Dave Smith Engineering 7, Gold Country Hydraulics & Hose Inc7, Rocky Hill Ranch8, Burreson Orchards8, and Bell Carter Foods Inc9 and Musco Family Olive Company9.