Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Changes in theCalifornia Citrus Industry
Mary Lu ArpaiaDept. of Botany and Plant Sciences
University of CaliforniaRiverside, CA 92521
Overview of Presentation
• CA Citrus Overview; where we have been and where are we going?
• Dealing with change and addressing the challenges
• Role of Citrus Research – the long view; planning for the future
California Citrus Industry; where we have been and where are we going?
Has it always been blue skies?Source: USDA-NASS; FAO
World United States California0
20
40
60
% of Total Production
OrangesTangerinesGrapefruitLemonsOther
Where we fit into the big picture of citrus production
Crop Season for CA Citrus
Source: CDFA, CA Agricultural Statistics Service
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Grapefruit
Lemons
Navel Oranges
Valencia Oranges
Tangerines
CA Ranking(350 Crops)
CA Share ofUS Production
Grapefruit 50 11%
Lemons 22 86%
Oranges, All 13 21%
Tangerines, All 57 25%
2
California Citrus Exports - 2001
Source: CA Agricultural Statistics Service, CDFA
Oranges(6)
Lemons(19)
Grapefruit(29)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Canada Hong Kong/China JapanSouth Korea Taiwan Other
Where do we grow Citrus?
• Grown commercially throughout state
• Historical Base is southern CA
• Industry has moved north (~70%) to SJV
• Wide range of soils, climate and other environmental constraints
CA Citrus Acreage 2002
Source: 2002 California Citrus Acreage Report, CA Agricultural Statistics Service
Navel Oranges
Valencia Oranges
Lemons
Grapefruit
Pummelos and Hybrids
Tangerines, All
Lime
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Acres (Thousands)
Bearing Non-Bearing
Regional Citrus Distribution - 2002
Source: 2002 California Citrus Acreage Report, CA Agricultural Statistics Service (12/02)
Navel Oranges
Valencia Oranges
Lemons
Grapefruit
Pummelosand Hybrids
Tangerines, All
Limes
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Desert So. CA Inland Sacramento ValleyCoastal San Joaquin Valley Other
Distribution of California Citrus 1930 - 2002
Source: CA Agricultural Statistics Service, CDFA
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1988 1998 20020
50
100
150
200
250
300
350Cartons (1,000)
Sacramento Valley San Joaquin Valley Southern California
Total peak acreage in 1940’sShift to San Joaquin Valley starting in 1950’s due to increased water availability and urban pressure in southern CA
Grapefruit, Pummelos and Hybrids Distribution 1930 - 2002
Source: CA Agricultural Statistics Service, CDFA
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1988 1998 20020%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sacramento Valley San Joaquin Valley Southern California
Lemon Distribution 1930 - 2002
Source: CA Agricultural Statistics Service, CDFA
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1988 1998 20020%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sacramento Valley San Joaquin Valley Southern California
Valencia Orange Distribution 1930 - 2002
Source: CA Agricultural Statistics Service, CDFA
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1988 1998 20020%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sacramento Valley San Joaquin Valley Southern California
Navel Orange Distribution 1930 - 2002
Source: CA Agricultural Statistics Service, CDFA
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1988 1998 20020%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sacramento Valley San Joaquin Valley Southern California
3
Navel OrangeExpanded rapidly including pigmented navels; market stretched to nearly 10 monthsMainly fresh
Primarily San Joaquin ValleyIncreasing urban pressure; environmental constraints; air pollution
Navel Orange Production, 1988-2001
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Production Year
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35Lbs (Thousands) per acre
Navel Orange Returns, 1988- 2001
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Production Year
0
2
4
6
8
10Value ($/carton)
Fresh Market Processing
Navel Orange Utilization, 1988- 2001
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Production Year
0
20
40
60
80
100Cartons (thousands) (Thousands)
Fresh Market Processing
Source: CDFA, CA Agricultural Statistics Service; 37.5 lb carton
Valencia OrangeOlder trees in southern CA; small fruit size; crease/puff problemsCompetition from navels and other fruit during summer mo.
Rapid loss of southern CA acreage due to increasing urban pressure and alternative cropping
Valencia Orange Returns, 1988- 2001
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Production Year
0
5
10
15
Value ($/carton)
Fresh Market Processing
Valencia Orange Utilization, 1988- 2001
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Production Year
0
20
40
60
Cartons (thousands) (Thousands)
Fresh Market Processing
Valencia Orange Production, 1988-2001
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Production Year
0
10
20
30
40Lbs (Thousands) per acre
Source: CDFA, CA Agricultural Statistics Service; 37.5 lb carton
LemonsProduction +/- stable~45% processedIntl. Competition??????
Primarily coastal CA, north of Los Angeles, Southern CA deserts High urban pressure
Lemon Utilization, 1988- 2001
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Production Year
0
10
20
30
40
50Cartons (thousands) (Thousands)
Fresh Market Processing
Lemon Returns, 1988- 2001
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Production Year
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14Value ($/carton)
Fresh Market Processing
Lemon Production, 1988-2001
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Production Year
0
10
20
30
40Lbs (Thousands) per acre
Source: CDFA, CA Agricultural Statistics Service; 38 lb carton
Grapefruit Production, 1988-2001
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Production Year
0
10
20
30
40Lbs (Thousands) per acre
Grapefruit Utilization, 1988- 2001
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Production Year
0
5
10
15
20
25Cartons (thousands) (Thousands)
Fresh Market Processing
Grapefruit Returns, 1988- 2001
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Production Year
0
2
4
6
Value ($/carton)
Fresh Market Processing
GrapefruitProduction +/- stableMostly fresh marketReturns poor
Mainly Southern CA deserts and warm Inland valleysHigh urban pressure
Source: CDFA, CA Agricultural Statistics Service; 33.5 lb carton
CA Citrus Acreage 2002
Source: 2002 California Citrus Acreage Report, CA Agricultural Statistics Service
Navel Oranges
Valencia Oranges
Lemons
Grapefruit
Pummelos and Hybrids
Tangerines, All
Lime
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Acres (Thousands)
Bearing Non-Bearing
What a difference 4 years makesPummelos and Hybrids - 1998
Source: 1998 California Citrus Acreage Report, CA Agricultural Statistics Service (5/12/99)
Chandler
Melogold
Oro Blanco
Shaddock
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Acres
Bearing Non-Bearing
Pummelos and Hybrids - 2002
Source: 2002 California Citrus Acreage Report, CA Agricultural Statistics Service
Chandler
Melogold
Oro Blanco
Other
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Acres
Bearing Non-Bearing
4
TangerinesMany new plantings – knowledge base lackingPlaying catch-up
New UC releases – unknown potentialPlantings statewide – will know more in a few years
Tangerine Production, 1988-2001
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Production Year
0
5
10
15
20
25Lbs (Thousands) per acre
Tangerine Utilization, 1988- 2001
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Production Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6Cartons (thousands) (Thousands)
Fresh Market Processing
Tangerine Returns, 1988- 2001
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Production Year
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14Value ($/carton)
Fresh Market Processing
Source: CDFA, CA Agricultural Statistics Service; 37.5 lb carton
CA Citrus Acreage 2002
Source: 2002 California Citrus Acreage Report, CA Agricultural Statistics Service
Navel Oranges
Valencia Oranges
Lemons
Grapefruit
Pummelos and Hybrids
Tangerines, All
Lime
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Acres (Thousands)
Bearing Non-Bearing
Some estimate this number could be as high as 20,000 acres or double CDFA figures!
Tangerines, All - 1998 vs 2002
Source: 1998, 2002 California Citrus Acreage Report, CA Agricultural Statistics Service
1998
2002
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Acres (Thousands)
BearingNon-Bearing
1998 vs 2002
Tangerines, All - 2002Tangerines/Mandarins
ClementinesDancy
FairchildGold Nugget
SatsumasOthers
TangelosMinneolaOrlando
OthersTangors/Temples
Royal MandarinsOthers
0 1 2 3 4 5
Acres (Thousands)
Bearing Non-Bearing
Tangerines, All - 1998
Minneola Tangelo
Other Tangelo
Fairchild
Satsuma
Other Tangerines
0 1 2 3 4 5
Acres (Thousands)
Bearing Non-Bearing
Increased plantingMore diversified
No varieties for future – unknownpotential
Shasta Gold (TDE 2) Tahoe Gold (TDE 3)
Yosemite Gold (TDE 4) Delite (W. Murcott)
Postharvest PhysiologyDealing with change and addressing the challenges
5
Considerations:
Regional Concerns
Statewide Concerns
National Concerns
Global Concerns
Regional considerationsCrop Issues
Varietal/Rootstock selectionFruit qualityEnvironmental adaptation
EnvironmentalWater - availability/qualityGround water - pollutionPesticide regulationsAir pollution (San Joaquin Valley)
Urban Encroachment/AttitudeIncreased regulationsCompetition for resources
Nitrate Groundwater Pollution and management of yield and quality
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5TOTAL N APPLIED ANNUALLY (LBS/TREE)
1.6
2.0
2.4
2.8
3.2
LEA
F N
ITR
OG
EN (%
)
1 2
4
12
C12C
1
2C 12
C
12
41
2
4
1 2 1
Method of ApplicationFoliar onlySoil onlyFoliar and soilControl
2000
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5N SOIL APPLIED ANNUALLY (LBS/TREE)
0
20
40
60
80
NIT
RA
TE (S
S) B
Y SO
IL E
XTR
AC
T (M
G/L
)
124
12C
1
2
C 12C
1
2
C
1
2
4
12
4
1
2 1
Method of ApplicationFoliar onlySoil onlyFoliar and soilControl
LEAF ANALYSIS NITRATE N IN SOIL EXTRACT
Project funded by CRB; 1997 - 2002
Nitrate Groundwater Pollution and management of yield and quality
Project funded by CRB; 1997 - 2002
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5NITROGEN APPLIED - LBS/TREE
0
YIEL
D -
% O
F M
AX
FOR
YEA
R
12
412C
12C
12
C
12
C
12 4
12
41 2 1
Method of ApplicationFoliar onlySoil onlyFoliar and soil Control
Mean for 2000, 2001, 2002
Impact on Yield
4.44.64.85.05.25.45.65.86.06.26.46.66.8
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
NITROGEN APPLIED - LBS/TREE
Peel
Thi
ckne
ss (m
m)
Foliar onlySoil onlyFoliar and soilControl
Peel Thickness
Summary• Increasing N results in increasing NO3-N below
root zone• Method of application can influence this• Maximum yield, less NO3-N below root zone
with combination of foliar and soil applied
• Peel thickness increases, peel firmness decreases with increasing N
• No other consistent differences in fruit quality were detected following storage.
Statewide considerations
Pesticide RegistrationMaintaining current materialsRegistration of new materials
Exotic PestsExclusion/Public Education
Disease ContainmentResearch Funding
Citrus Research Board
6
Citrus Peelminer, Marmara gulosa prefers to infest fruit but will also attack leaves and twigs
Leaf
Fruit
Twig
Bean thrips inside navel orange revealed after thin slices are cut through the fruit. They may appear black with few distinguishing characteristics (banding is not visible).
Adult bean thrips bodies are uniformly dark grayish-black. The front wings have transverse white bands with brown tips. Newly emerged adults are a dirty yellowish-brown with a darker head and retain the crimson blotches from the pupal stage for a short period of time.
BEAN THRIPS – quarantined pest in Australia
When feeding, the glassy-winged sharpshooter excretes copious amounts of watery excrement, which dries to give plants a whitewashed appearance.
The insect is one of the largest sharpshooters found in California. At about 12 mm (1/2 inch) in length, it is twice as large as other common species. Overall it is brown to blackish in color. The eyes are yellow with dark speckles and the abdomen is yellow and black.
Glassy-winged Sharpshooter
Can be found in bins of harvested fruit
Citrus Thrips
California Red Scale
Controlled in field by - biological control- chemical control
High Pressure Washer augments field control measures and has allowed for increasing of field “economic threshold”
High Pressure Washer
7
High Pressure Washer• HPW technology developed in South
Africa and Israel• Introduced commercially into CA
approximately 5 years ago• Most orange houses now have a HPW unit• Houses w/out HPW may use OPP
(orthophenylphenate) over first few brushes or detergent with neutral cleaner
HPW Damage
Scale Removal Pre Wash
Post Wash
Green moldPenicillium digitatum
Sour rotGeotrichum candidum
Blue moldP. italicum
Wound pathogens are CA’s biggest concern –always looking for control alternatives
Before harvestMinimize woundsReduce grove inoculumPrompt transport to packline
After harvestMinimize wounds and fruit dropsReduce packinghouse inoculumUse soak tanks & fungicidesStore at 50°F or below as soon as possible
Green and Blue molds
Before harvestMinimize wounds, avoid fruit to soil contactHarvest in afternoon, avoid wet periodsPrompt transport to packline
After harvestMinimize wounds and packline inoculumUse carbonate soak tanks, wash with SOPP; wax with GA and/or 2,4-DStore at 50°F or below as soon as possible, use boxes that isolate fruit into small groups
Sour rot Brown rot Phytopthora spp.
8
Before harvestCopper or fosetyl-Al fungicidesAvoid splashing or standing water, good drainage under trees, skirt pruned upPrune tree to open canopyPrompt transport to packline
After harvestUse heat in soak tanks
Brown rot Maintaining existing fungicides and registering new materials
Re-visiting old methodologies, improving what we have – Dr. J. Smilanick– Optimizing tank/drench treatments – Near harvest grove treatments (Topsin)– Optimizing biocontrol agents in the
postharvest environmentNew fungicides and resistance management
strategies – Dr. J. Adaskaveg
Resulting effectiveness
HIGHEST
LOWEST
WARM/HOT WATER
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE WATER
LIGHT WAX
HEAVY WAX
Fungicide dissolved in
15 J. Smilanick – USDA,ARS
Resulting effectiveness
HIGHEST
LOWEST
Immersed in or pressurewashed with solution
Float in or drenched with solution
Brief overhead spray
Fungicide applied to fruit by
J. Smilanick – USDA,ARS
Grove spray fungicide to protect fruit during degreening
A thiophanate methyl (Topsin M) application one week before
harvest effectively protected the harvested fruit from green mold infection during degreening or
during storage.
J. Smilanick – USDA,ARS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Gre
en m
old
% a
fter d
egre
enin
g or
sto
rage
None 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000
Inoculum density
Topsin
Control Kern Co. Lindcove1 Lindcove2
J. Smilanick – USDA,ARS
9
Grove spray fungicide to protect fruit during degreening
It would greatly facilitate managementof the development of benzimidazole-
resistant molds that occurred as a result of grove applications
if more postharvest fungicides of other mode-of-action classes
were available.
J. Smilanick – USDA,ARS
New classes of fungicides for postharvest decay control in the US
Sterol biosynthesis inhibitors HydroxyanilidesPhenylpyrroles
Scholar(fludioxonil)
stone & pome fruit, kiwi, citrus,
pomegranate
- Reduced risk fungicides
Elevate (fenhexamid)stone & pome
fruit, kiwi, pomegranate
Elite (tebuconazole)
sweet cherry
Endura (boscalid)
Strobilurins
Abound (azoxystrobin,pyraclostrobin)
citrus
Pyridines
PH-066(pyrimethanil)citrus, stone, &
pome fruits
Anilinopyrimidines
Mixture: Pristine (stone fruit)
J. Adaskaveg – UC, Riverside
Efficacy of fungicides against postharvest decays
Fungicide Fungicide class Penicillium decay
Sour rot
Gray mold
Brown rot
Rhizopus, Mucor, etc.
Imazalil SI-Triazole +++ - +++ +++ ---
TBZ Benzimidazole +++ - +++ +++ -
SOPP Phenolic ++ ++ ++ - +
Tebuconazole SI-Triazole +++ ++ +++ +++ +
Fludioxonil Phenylpyrrole +++ - +++ +++ +++
Fenhexamid Hydroxyanilid - - +++ ++ -
Azoxystrobin Strobilurin ++ - + + +
BAS516 Strobilurin/Pyridine + - +++ +++ +++
PH-066 Aninilopyrimidine +++ - +++ ++ -
Overall ratings based on our efficacy evaluations during field and lab studies.Rating: +++ = excellent; ++ = very good; + = some activity; - not active.Color code: Pink = reduced risk, gray = not reduced risk.
J. Adaskaveg – UC, Riverside
- Follow the RULES of Fungicide Stewardship-
Rotate between different classes of fungicides or use mixtures prior to the development of resistance.Use labeled rates and use only when needed.Limit total number of fungicide applications of any one class to 1 per fruit lot.Educate yourself about fungicide activity, mode of action, and class.Sanitation with the use of multi-site mode of action materials (sanitizers and fungicides) is essential in an integrated management program .
Anti-Resistance Strategies for Postharvest Fungicides- Post-Registration Strategies -
Postharvest guidelines for the three new fungicides and currently registered fungicides will be in place for the 2003-2004 season.
J. Adaskaveg – UC, Riverside
National ConsiderationsCompetition for market share
With other commodities and Citrus ImportsMarketing and Promotion
TX and FL Promotional CampaignsImports
Trends in Produce Consumption5 a Day Program; Convenience FoodsFood Safety
Pesticide Regulations/EPAExotic Pests
Global ConsiderationsTrends in Citrus Production
Increase plantings of soft citrusExport Markets - How secure is the Pacific Rim?
The Japanese – Increased competitionHong Kong/China - What's the future
Global Trade AgreementsChanges at CODEX
10
Postharvest PhysiologyCoordinating strategic planning and meeting the
challenges
Citrus Research BoardThe Citrus Research Program (officially, the California
Citrus Improvement Program)Grower-funded and grower-directed program established in 1968 under the California Marketing Act as the mechanism enabling the state’s citrus producers to sponsor and support needed research. Administered by the Citrus Research Board
3 components to the program– General Research– Quality assurance (CCQC)– Variety improvement and registration (Citrus
Clonal Protection Program)
CA Citrus Quality Council (CCQC)Mission
Act as an advocate for the CA citrus industry in response to programs or problems which arise in state, national or international arenas and which affect the industry generally in areas of quality control, quarantine matters, technical assistance, international compliance or other related issues
Oversight of regulatory and registration activity that impacts citrus qualityReregistration of SOPP, 2,4-D and Section 18 activity
Works with NAPPO/CODEXDeals with quality assurance issues that arise
CRB funds ongoing research and activities in
Plant Management and PhysiologyPlant Improvement Plant Pathology EntomologyExotic PestsPostharvest
Citrus Clonal Protection Program (CCPP)
Funding responds to needs and strategic planning objectives
1968 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002
Funding Year
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%Percentage of budget
CCQC CCPP Plant ManagementPlant Improvement Plant Pathology EntomologyPostharvest Special Projects
1968 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002Funding Year
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000Amount Funded ($) (Thousands)
Funding has increased ~10 fold since 1968
The role of CRBCOORDINATION and VISION
• With decreasing state and federal funds, the CRB provides or assists in procuring funding for critical research efforts
• Funds both short and long-term research• Funds both research to solve today’s “real-
life” problems and also the “look to the future”
• Increasing coordination and assistance in outreach programs– Grower Seminars, “Breakfast With….”– Postharvest Seminars for packinghouses– Subtropical Fruit News and other printed
materials
11
Postharvest PhysiologyThank you for your attention