UK Plum Production Data - NIAB EMR · 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Imports Home Production Marketed (HPM) UK PLUM SUPPLY Total annual supply (‘000 tonnes) of UK marketed

Sustainable Intensification of UK

Plum Production

Innovate UK Project No: 102133

1 February 2015 – 31 March 2019

OD

AREA Annual UK crop area (ha) of Prunus fruit 1985-2017

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000 Plums

Cherries

Other Prunus

OD

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Victoria

Marjorie's Seedling

Pershore Yellow

Damsons

Other

VARIETIES % of total annual UK plum crop area for different varieties 1985-2015

OD

28.9

8.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0 PLUMS

CHERRIES

OTHER PRUNUS

PRODUCTION Annual UK production ('000 t) of Prunus fruit between 1985 and 2017

OD

15.7

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

YIELD Average yield (t/ha) of total annual UK plum production 1985 - 2015

OD

YIELD Average yield (t/ha) of total annual UK plum and cherry production 1985 -

2015

OD

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0 PLUMS CHERRIES

0

5

10

15

20

25 PLUMS CHERRIES

TOTAL VALUE Annual total value (£mil) of UK Prunus production 1985 - 2017

OD

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500 PLUMS CHERRIES

FRUIT VALUE Annual fruit value (£/t) of UK Prunus production 1985 - 2017

OD

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200 Imports

Home Production Marketed(HPM)

UK PLUM SUPPLY Total annual supply (‘000 tonnes) of UK marketed plums 1988 - 2017 (excl. exports)

OD

UK PLUM IMPORTS Percentage (%) of annual UK Plum fruit market that was imported between 1988

and 2017

OD

86.1

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Gross margins of competing tree fruit crops UK average yields

Competitive profitability of growing different tree fruit

crops - UK av yields Apple (Gala) Cherry (protected) Plum (Victoria)

Yield (t/ha/y) 35 10 15

Value (£/t back to farm) 350 3000 700

Harvesting costs (£/t) 78 1000 300

Gross output (£/ha/y) 9516 20000 6000

Establishment costs (£/ha) 20000 70000 15000

Orchard life (y) 20 20 20

Annual establishment costs (£/ha/y)

1000 3500 750

Growing costs (£/ha/y) 4500 8500 3000

Fixed costs (£/ha/y) 2000 2000 2000

Gross margin (£/ha/y) 2016 6000 250

OD

Gross margins of competing tree fruit crops UK good yields

Competitive profitability of growing different tree fruit

crops - UK good yields Apple (Gala) Cherry (protected) Plum (Victoria)

Yield (t/ha/y) 50 15 22.5

Value (£/t back to farm) 350 3000 700

Harvesting costs (£/t) 78 1000 275

Gross output (£/ha/y) 13594 30000 9563

Establishment costs (£/ha) 25000 70000 20000

Orchard life (y) 15 20 20


1667 3500 1000

Growing costs (£/ha/y) 5500 8500 4000

Fixed costs (£/ha/y) 2000 2000 2000

Gross margin (£/ha/y) 4427 16000 2563

OD

Gross margins of competing tree fruit crops Yield/price needed to make plum competitive

OD

5 Competitive profitability of growing different tree fruit crops - yield/price needed to make

plum competitive

Apple (Gala) Cherry

(protected) Plum (Victoria)

Existing best 20% yield increase

20% price increase

Both

Yield (t/ha/y) 50 15 22.5 27 22.5 27

Value (£/t back to farm) 350 3000 700 700 840 840

Harvesting costs (£/t) 78 1000 275 275 275 275

Gross output (£/ha/y) 13594 30000 9563 11475 12713 15255

Establishment costs (£/ha)

25000 70000 20000 20000 20000 20000

Orchard life (y) 15 20 20 20 20 20


1667 3500 1000 1000 1000 1000

Growing costs (£/ha/y) 5500 8500 4000 4000 4000 4000

Fixed costs (£/ha/y) 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000

Gross margin (£/ha/y) 4427 16000 2563 4475 5713 8255

UK plum industry SWOT: Strengths

• Taste quality of UK plums though variable, can be excellent and greatly superior to imports

• Victoria is potentially high quality, reliable, recognized and liked by consumers

• UK consumers prefer UK produced plums

• Several other excellent varieties to span extended season

OD

UK plum industry SWOT: Weaknesses

• Plums in continuing decline, many old orchards, little new planting

• Output greatly reduced in frost years (1 in 5?)

• Price of plums low, undermined by poor quality, low cost imports

• Plums less profitable than other tree fruits, little incentive to plant

• 'Victoria' predominates & floods the market for ~3 weeks in August

• Quality undermined by harvesting practices

• No public investment in R&D to facilitate necessary intensification of plums

OD

UK plum industry SWOT: Opportunities

• UK market undersupplied with UK produced plums even in August

• High consumer demand for UK produced

• Taste quality of some plums (imports & home produced) poor: Opportunity to expand market with higher quality fruit

• Opportunity for price increase for higher quality

• Huge scope for import substitution through yield increase and season extension of high quality varieties

• New mechanical thinning methods available

• Opportunity to develop new sustainable, intensive, high output growing systems for high quality varieties harvested nearer to ripe over greatly extended season to out-compete imports

OD

UK plum industry SWOT: Threats

• Competition from other stone fruits and other fruits

• Undercutting of price by cheap poor taste quality plum imports

• Failure to reliably supply UK plum fruit of best eating quality

• Failure to invest consistently over longer term in R&D

• Innovations and best practices not adopted by some growers

OD

Innovate UK call Agri-Tech Catalyst Round 2 January 2014

SCOPE

Innovative ideas from any sector or discipline that demonstrate the potential to advance sustainable intensification of agriculture and deliver economic impact for the UK Agri-Tech industry by tackling domestic or international challenges. The scope of the Catalyst includes:

• Primary crop and livestock production, including aquaculture • Non-food uses of crops • Food security and nutrition challenges in international development • Addressing challenges in downstream food processing, provided the solution lies in primary production Topics include: all aspects of arable and horticultural food production……………………………………………………..

JVC

Sustainable Intensification of UK

Plum Production

Innovate UK Project No: 102133 1 February 2015 – 31 March 2019

JVC

Original partners

JVC

New partners (PCR Aug 2017)

S W Highwood

(Pluckley) Ltd

JVC

Project mission

In this project we will develop new intensive systems of plum production that will: • be financially attractive for UK growers to invest in • increase yields by up to 2 fold by optimised planting and tree

management • develop integrated methods to regulate fruit load (frost protection,

thinning) so that a larger fruit size can be assured and bienniality reduced

• extend the season so that the market is continually supplied with fresh product for 4 months rather than the current 2 months

• improve the uniformity of product size and eating quality, hence increasing the average selling price

• together these improvements will lead to a step change in the profitability of UK plum growing

• and incentivise the industry to expand

JVC

Objectives/Workpackages

WP1. Tree architecture manipulation and new rootstocks to maximise light interception and increase yield WP2. New varieties to improve quality and yield, and extend the season

WP3. Component integrated methods of frost protection, protected cropping, flower bud, floral and fruitlet thinning, use of PGRs, root pruning, nutrition, dormancy breaking treatments, spectral imaging to assess fruit quality WP4. Integrated Extended-Season, Sustainable Production WP5. Exploitation plans for improved plum production JVC

WP1: Tree architecture manipulation and new rootstocks to maximise light interception and increase yield

JL

WP1: Tree architecture manipulation to maximise light interception and increase yield

Oblique Fan Super spindle Narrow table top Narrow A frame

S spindle Double stem Triple stem Four stem Candelabra V shape

JL

WP1: Tree architecture manipulation and new rootstocks to maximise light interception and increase yield

• Two experimental orchards planted at FAST and NIAB EMR

• Combination of rootstock and training systems for each plot

JL


LIDAR developed in previous Innovate UK project

• Tree Area Index

• Tree Height

• Tree Row Volume

• Tree Width

Effect on fruit quality and yield

JL


JL


JL


anova Size Sugar Firmness Yield

%

marketabl

e

Height LAI

Training *** *** *** *** *** ***

Rootstock *** *** *** ** N.S *

• Dataset normalised per site => comparable and statistically robust results

• Rootstock genotype and training system equally important for crop performance

• Marketable yield (%) only driven by the training system

• Height and leaf area mainly driven by the training system

Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ N.S’ 1

JL


JL


JL


JL


JL


JL


PRUNING

• Super Spindle trees required more cuts but quick and simple – easy to train operatives

• Narrow A Frame and S System took more skill to prune

• Narrow A Frame, Narrow Table Top and S system longer to prune than Super Spindle

HUSBANDRY

• Narrow A Frame took longer to husband (bending and tying branches)

• S System vulnerable to breaking leaders when training and required skill

GROWTH

• S System trees did not gain any height between 2017 and 2018 (except STJA)

• St Julien A trees too vigorous to commence S System training at planting

HARVEST

• Spindle trees quick to pick

• Narrow A Frame and S Systems took longer to harvest and required more skill

JL


CONCLUSION:

Based on marketable Yield on two sites plus consideration for

labour saving on planting, pruning skill and husbandry:

– WAVIT Narrow Table Top and WAVIT Super Spindle

– VVA1 advantage for environmentally challenging sites (eg

where want to delay blossom or for shorter flowering

duration) ?

Analysis of planting costs at different tree spacing & skill level

of pruning and husbandry to be considered by growers

JL

WP2: New varieties to improve quality and yield, and extend the season

JVC

WP2: Preferred Varieties Introduction

24 varieties in an Excel database. The database includes: • Average quarter of each month for peak cropping • Flowering period, tree self fertility, vigour, tree habit,

productivity, cropping reliability and resistance to Plum Pox, Brown Rot and Bacterial Canker

• Fruit color, shape, average size, brix, firmness, sugar and acid concentration per 100g dry weight

• Tasting data • Aroma profile data An information sheet for each variety with illustrative graphs

JVC

WP2: Preferred Varieties Peak cropping times

This table shows the average cropping quarter (per month) for each variety.

JVC

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Herman

Katinka

P7-38

Juna

P6-19

Opal

Lancelot

Avalon

Jubileum (Jubilee)

Reeves

Ferbleu

Top Five

Victoria

Haroma

Seneca

Marjory

Top Taste

Coe’s Golden Drop

Laxtons Delicious

Top Hit

Guinevere

Verity

Haganta

Top End

VarietyJuly August September

WP2: Preferred Varieties Example of each variety

Left to right following the variety list from the previous slide.

JVC

WP2: Preferred Varieties New NIAB EMR very early variety: Malling P7-38

JVC Exceptionally early, heavy cropping, good taste quality

WP2: Preferred Varieties New NIAB EMR varieties: Malling P6-19

JVC Early, good cropping, exceptional taste quality

WP2: Preferred Varieties Tasting Definitions for Taste Panel Evaluation

Factor 1 2 3 4 5

Colour Very Pale Pale Light Dark Very dark

Colour Appeal Very Unappealing Unappealing No preference Appealing Very Appealing

Aroma No or very weak Mild Clear aroma Strong Very Strong

Aroma Appeal Very Unappealing Unappealing No preference Appealing Very Appealing

Firmness Very Soft Soft Some firmness Firm Very firm

Glossiness Very Waxy Some waxiness Mixture Glossy Very Glossy

Sweetness (S) Much less sweet Less sweet Same Sweeter Much Sweeter

Acidity (A) Much less acidic Less acidic Same More acidic Much more acidic

S/A balance Too acidic Mildly too acidic Good balance Mildly too sweet Too sweet

Flavour Weak flavour Mild flavour Clear flavour Strong flavour Very strong flavour

Flavour Appeal Very Unappealing Unappealing No preference Appealing Very Appealing

Texture Very soft Soft Some firmness Firm Very firm

Texture Appeal Very Unappealing Unappealing No preference Appealing Very Appealing

Overall Score Very poor Poor Average Good Very good

JVC

WP2: Preferred Varieties Victoria sugar and acid concentrations

An example of the graphs made to display the sugar and acid concentration data for each variety. Two acids were consistently detected but not identified • Malic acid is the dominant acid, as it is in most fruit. • Glucose is the dominant sugar, it is less sweet than Sucrose: 0.56x as sweet as

Sucrose.

JVC

WP2: Preferred Varieties The average release rate of volatiles for each variety

JVC

WP2: Preferred Varieties An example of an aroma profile graph.

JVC

WP2: Preferred Varieties Victoria tasting radar chart

• The tasting involved 5 or 6

participants answering questions with a scale of 1-5.

• The sweetness and acidity were compared to a reference sugar/acid solution, with a score of 3 being the same as the reference.

• The sugar/acid balance question is asking if the plum is too sweet/acidic or a good balance.

• On the ‘appeal’ and ‘overall score’ questions the higher the score the more appealing.

JVC

WP2: Preferred Varieties Aroma profiles.

• Aroma refers to the smell produced while flavour is the taste but is heavily linked to aroma.

• An aroma profile graph was made for each variety. • The graphs display the proportion that each compound contributed to the total

volatiles. • The flavour/aroma profile of compounds that contributed more than 5% are described.

Victoria aroma/flavour profile: • Butyl butyrate was the most abundant volatile, it has a flavour profile of ‘floral’. • Ethyl butyrate has apple, pineapple, banana, fruity and cognac flavours. • Hexyl butyrate has apple/apple peel, waxy, sweet, soapy, citrus and fresh flavours. • Ethyl hexanoate has apple peel, brandy, fruit gum, overripe fruit and pineapple

flavours. • Butyl hexanoate has fruit, grass and green flavours. • Ethyl 5,8-tetradecadienoate doesn’t have a flavour. • All other volatiles each contributed less than 5% to the total.

JVC

WP2: Preferred Varieties Tasting Canonical variance analysis biplot

• The majority of varieties were scored very similarly to each other.

• Some varieties more distinct e.g. Coe’s Golden Drop was scored differently to other varieties

JVC

WP2: Preferred Varieties Tasting Driving factors

JVC

WP2: Preferred Varieties Tasting Aroma/taste chemical effects on Taste

JVC

No.Tas

te A

ssess

ment

aldehyd

e

Ascorb

ic_ac

id

butyl_

aceta

te

butyl_

butyra

te

butyl_

hexanoate

butyl_

octan

oate

ethyl_

hexanoat

e

Fruct

ose

heptadeca

ne

hexanol

hexyl_

butyra

te

hexyl_

hexanoat

e

hexyl_

lact

one

Mali

c_ac

id

Sucr

ose

1 Colour -0.091 0.106 -0.119 -0.087

2 Colour_Appeal -0.033

3 Aroma 0.016

4 Aroma_Appeal -0.018

5 Firmness 3.532 -0.075 -0.050

6 Glossiness -0.096 -0.077 0.035 -0.070

7 Sweetness_S 0.059

8 Acidity_A 0.163 0.090 -0.037 -0.099 0.084

9 S_A_balance 0.045 0.031

10 Flavour -0.091 0.087 -0.769 -0.036

11 Flavour_Appeal -0.033

12 Texture -0.044 -0.058 0.048

13 Texture_Appeal -0.026

14 Overall_Score -0.043

Significance Negative Positive

<0.05

<0.01

<0.001

Slope

WP2: Preferred Varieties Conclusions

• We have 24 good quality plum varieties with a season from the beginning of July to the end of September/early October

• A unique data base of agronomic attributes and fruit quality has been compiled and a factsheet on each variety including its taste and chemical aroma profile prepared

• Some scored better than Victoria during taste testing. For example ‘Top Taste’ is very sweet

• Chemical composition of flavor profile have been identified, each variety having unique flavour profile

WP2: Preferred Varieties Perspectives

• Picking time affects quality: Plums that are picked under-ripe and stored

are of lower quality than those ripened on the tree. The lower quality will make them less palatable to consumers

• Plums picked under-ripe and kept in cold storage may not ripen enough which would reduce their quality while plums picked when ripe risk splitting and becoming unmarketable

• Further research could be conducted into picking timing to maximise quality and minimise risk of crop loss

• This could involve more extensive taste panels and chemical analysis, comparing fruit picked at different stages

WP3: Component integrated methods

Component integrated methods of frost protection, protected cropping, flower bud, floral and fruitlet thinning, use of PGRs, root pruning, nutrition, dormancy breaking treatments, spectral imaging to assess fruit quality

WP3: Thinning Vital to Profitable Plum Production

JVC

• Many plum varieties set excessive numbers of fruitlets in many seasons (when

no frost, good pollination and set) • Strong competition between fruitlets for the trees’ resources, results in

small and unmarketable fruits branch breakage strong competition with flower bud formation for the following year exhaustion of tree reserves

• Fruit that does not meet market size specifications (40-55 mm) is of no value • Fruit size depends on the number of fruits/tree • Must avoid over and erratic cropping resulting in bienniality - consistent yields

of correctly sized fruit paramount • Must reduce numbers of fruits where excessive

CHALLENGE: To thin in a reliable and measured way economically

WP3: Thinning Strategy options

JVC

• Flower bud thinning (winter bud extinction) Hand

• Flower thinning

Mechanically, Chemically, Hand (branch pruning) • Fruitlet thinning

Hand, Mechanically

Flower bud/flower thinning is done before the degree of fruit set is known: Frost or poor weather conditions after flower could render it to be of no benefit, or worst still, highly detrimental!

Thinning by winter bud extinction experiments

1st experiment (mature Opal trees).

• Treated vs untreated

• Two out of three fruit buds were rubbed off by hand

2nd Experiment (young fan trained Victoria)

• 1/3 vs 2/3 vs zero flower buds removed

Control – No treatment Bud extinction

Hand-held string style mechanical blossom thinner

JVC

Flower thinning with handheld mechanical thinner

Block 1 Block 2 Block 3

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

CHERRIES

Before thinning After thinning

Grower standard practice

Untreated

80% blossom open

40-50% petal fall

80-90% petal fall

1 week after 80-90% petal fall

Pea-sized fruitlets

JVC

Mechanising fruit thinning, the Eclairvale

JVC

WP3: Thinning Conclusions

JVC

Flower bud thinning (bud extinction) trials • Effective, precise intensity and distribution • High labour cost; Young trees with few buds only Flower thinning with handheld mechanical thinner trials • Can apply treatment throughout the tree, but need simple branch structure • Similar effectiveness at different times during flowering, but causes fruit

scarring when done later than a week after blossom • Rapid, 10-100s /tree, depending on intensity, tree size and architecture • Difficult to gauge the intensity of application • Difficult to predict the effects of treatment • Hand branch pruning by experienced grower gave better results Fruitlet thinning • Safer, more reliable, but high labour cost • Can adjust fruit numbers to those required to achieve orchard yield potential • Need 16 45 mm fruits per kg of yield potential • New Eclairvale mechanical fruitlet thinner, though costly, is an important new

development

Growth Regulation

• Adapt pruning and tree training – Few large cuts

– Delayed pruning

– Train branches and leader

• Selection of rootstock – Use dwarf or semi-dwarf

• Use growth regulator – RegalisPlus, up to 20% reduction in shoot growth

• Root pruning – up to 20% reduction in shoot growth

TB

Root Pruning

TB

Li, B., Cobo-Medina, M., Lecourt, J., Harrison, N. B., Harrison, R. J., & Cross, J. V. (2018). Application of hyperspectral imaging for nondestructive

measurement of plum quality attributes. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 141, 8-15.

Application of hyperspectral imaging for non-destructive measurement of quality parameters for plum

JL

Application of hyperspectral imaging for non-destructive measurement of quality parameters for plum:

Conclusions

• Hyperspectral imaging between 900 and 1700nm can accurately predict the soluble solid content of plum fruits

• Hyperspectral imaging between 400 and 1000nm can accurately estimate the colour components (L*a*b) and showed reasonably good correlation with firmness

• The combination of two hyperspectral cameras can rapidly measure some quality attributes of plum and further study should investigate the measurement of more quality parameters such as acidity

• Potential to develop hand held multispectral camera for non-destructive fruit quality prediction

JL

• Spectral Range: 400 – 1000 nm • Spectral Bands: 224 • Spatial Resolution: 1024 px

650 nm

850 nm

1000 nm

Application of hyperspectral imaging for non-destructive measurement of quality parameters for plum

JL

Application of hyperspectral imaging for non-destructive measurement of quality parameters for plum:

Future research plans

• In field fruit quality measurement and ripeness estimation

• Tree growth monitoring such as the measurement of tree architecture and nutrition status

JL

WP3: Bacterial Canker Background

Bacterial canker (Pseudomonas syringae) • A problem to nurseries globally, causing annual losses up to

£200,000. • Yield reductions up to 20% have been observed in young

sweet cherry orchards.

• Cut shoot assays in the lab are a common test for tree susceptibility, but often fail to concur with field inoculation experiments.

• There are around 50 pathovars of P. syringae, but two main ones in the UK: • P. syringae pv. syringae (Pss) • P.syringae pv. morsprunorum (Psm) – race 1 & 2 (R1 & R2)

FO

WP3: Bacterial Canker Objectives

1. To determine the susceptibility/tolerance of different commercial plum varieties to 3 different strains of bacterial canker.

2. To test the effect of soil drying prior to inoculation on the severity of disease development in scions grafted on different rootstock

varieties.

3. To test the response of the rootstock varieties to 3 additional strains of bacterial canker.

FO

WP3: Bacterial Canker Methods

FO

Maiden 1 year-old plum trees planted into 10 L pots in May 2018 and arranged in the polytunnel:

• SCIONS: Juna, Katinka, Opal,Top Taste, Victoria

• ROOTSTOCKS: St Julien, VVA, Wavit

Inoculated all trees with 3 bacterial canker strains (November):

• R2 Leaf

• Pss 9654

• R1 5300

• (Sterile MgCl+ control)

Additional treatments (rootstocks only):

• Drought treatment (September)

• 3 extra strains: R1 5244, Pss 9644, Pss 9293

WP3: Bacterial Canker Methods

Pss

Psm R1

Psm R2

Ps. Avii (wild cherry isolate) Hulin et al. 2018, New Phytologist

Pss 9654

Pss 9644

Pss 9293

R2 leaf

R1 5244

R1 5300

FO

Rootstocks only

WP3: Bacterial Canker Disease Assessments

FO

Lesion length (mm)

Score

WP3: Bacterial Canker Results

TopTaste Victoria

Juna Katinka Opal

Control Pss_9654 R1_5300 R2_Leaf Control Pss_9654 R1_5300 R2_Leaf

Control Pss_9654 R1_5300 R2_Leaf

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Strain

% tre

es in

each d

isease s

core

cate

gory

Score

1)No_symptoms

2)Limited_browning

3)Brown

4)Brown/Black

5)Gumming

6)Spreading

7)Gumming_&_spreading

Scions

FO

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Strain

% tre

es in

each d

isease s

core

cate

gory

Score

1)No_symptoms

2)Limited_browning

3)Brown

4)Brown/Black

5)Gumming

6)Spreading

7)Gumming_&_spreading

Scions


Strain Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) Pss_9654 3.01072 0.27739 10.854 < 2e-16 *** R1_5300 1.49709 0.24728 6.054 1.41E-09 ***

R2_Leaf 1.40019 0.25273 5.54 3.02E-08 ***

FO


FO

St_Julien VVA Wavit

Dro

ug

hte

dW

ell-w

ate

red

Con

trol

Pss

_965

4

R1_

5300

R2_

Leaf

Con

trol

Pss

_965

4

R1_

5300

R2_

Leaf

Con

trol

Pss

_965

4

R1_

5300

R2_

Leaf

0%

25%

50%

75%

0%

25%

50%

75%

Strain

% tre

es in

each d

isease s

core

cate

gory

Score_.1.5.

1)_No_symptoms

2)Limited_browning

3)Brown

4)Brown-black

5)Gumming

6)Spreading

7)Spreading_&_gumming

Rootstocks - well-watered and droughted

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Strain

% tre

es in

each d

isease s

core

cate

gory

Score

1)No_symptoms

2)Limited_browning

3)Brown

4)Brown-black

5)Gumming

6)Spreading

7)Spread&Gum

Rootstocks (well-watered and droughted)


Strain Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) Pss_9654 2.453 0.242 10.139 < 2e-16 ***

R1_5300 1.418 0.231 6.142 8.16E-10 ***

R2_Leaf 1.088 0.227 4.79 1.66E-06 ***

FO


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Control Pss_9293 Pss_9644 Pss_9654 R1_5244 R1_5300 R2_Leaf

Strain

% tre

es in

each d

isease s

core

cate

gory

1)No_symptoms

2)Limited_browing

3)Brown

4)Brown/black

5)Gumming

6)Spreading

7)Spread&Gum

Rootstock + 3 extra strains

Strain Estimate Std. Error z value Pr (>|z|)

Pss_9293 1.242 0.290 4.277 1.90E-05 *** Pss_9644 2.818 0.305 9.241 < 2e-16 ***

Pss_9654 2.536 0.293 8.644 < 2e-16 *** R1_5244 0.710 0.285 2.491 0.0127 * R1_5300 1.249 0.295 4.228 2.35E-05 ***

R2_Leaf 0.761 0.293 2.592 0.0095 **

FO

TopTaste Victoria

Juna Katinka Opal

Con

trol

Pss

_965

4

R1_

5300

R2_

Leaf

Con

trol

Pss

_965

4

R1_

5300

R2_

Leaf

Con

trol

Pss

_965

4

R1_

5300

R2_

Leaf

0

30

60

90

0

30

60

90

Strain

Le

ng

th o

f le

sio

n (

mm

)

Strain

Control

Pss_9654

R1_5300

R2_Leaf

Lesion Spread for each strain of bacterial canker (SCIONS)

FO


a b ab a

a b ab

ab a a a a

a

c

b

ab a a ab a

FO


St_Julien VVA Wavit

Con

trol

Pss

_929

3

Pss

_964

4

Pss

_965

4

R1_

5244

R1_

5300

R2_

Leaf

Con

trol

Pss

_929

3

Pss

_964

4

Pss

_965

4

R1_

5244

R1_

5300

R2_

Leaf

Con

trol

Pss

_929

3

Pss

_964

4

Pss

_965

4

R1_

5244

R1_

5300

R2_

Leaf

0

20

40

Strain

Le

ng

th o

f le

sio

n (

mm

)

Strain

Control

Pss_9293

Pss_9644

Pss_9654

R1_5244

R1_5300

R2_Leaf

Lesion Spread for each strain of bacterial canker (ROOTSTOCKS - 3 EXTRA)

a a

bc

c

abc ab

abc a ab b

b

b ab ab a ab ab ab ab

b b

FO


St_Julien VVA Wavit

Dro

ug

hte

dW

ell-w

ate

red

Con

trol

Pss

_965

4

R1_

5300

R2_

Leaf

Con

trol

Pss

_965

4

R1_

5300

R2_

Leaf

Con

trol

Pss

_965

4

R1_

5300

R2_

Leaf

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

50

100

150

200

250

Strain

Le

ng

th o

f le

sio

n (

mm

)

Strain

Control

Pss_9654

R1_5300

R2_Leaf

Lesion Spread for each strain of bacterial canker (ROOTSTOCKS - Droughted vs Well-watered)

No significant differences according to the different water treatments.

FO

WP3: Bacterial Canker Conclusions

DISEASE SCORES There was no apparent effect of scion or rootstock cultivar on the disease score, however all 6 strains produced significantly stronger disease symptoms that the controls.

LESION LENGTHS (Spread) • Scions:

• Juna, Katinka and TopTaste all exhibited significantly longer lesions for Pss 9654 than the controls.

• R2 Leaf also had spread significantly more than the control on TopTaste only.

• Strains inoculated on Victoria and Opal did not differ from

controls – possibly indicating some resistance.

FO

WP3: Bacterial Canker Conclusions

LESION LENGTHS (Spread) • Rootstocks

• All 3 rootstock cultivars had significantly longer lesions for Pss 9644 and Pss 9654 relative to Controls.

• VVA also had longer lesions for R1 5244 than Controls.

• Drought (water restriction) had no significant effect on lesion length.

NB: Field trial results are highly variable, and therefore require further repeats.

WP4: Integrated Extended-Season, Sustainable Production: Objectives

By the end of the project to establish: • three research orchards on commercial farms • a research and demonstration orchard at NIAB EMR • to integrate the findings of the project into a sustainable,

profitable Integrated Production system • including continuous extended season cropping from early

July to mid-October of high quality, high value fruit, • the use of high density intensive planting and tree

management systems • including protected cropping.

JVC

WP4: New research orchard at G H Dean & Co.

Research challenge: Use modern horticultural techniques to achieve reliable productive cropping in very high quality varieties which have hitherto been unreliable JVC

Variety Number of trees

Top Taste 500

Coe’s Golden Drop 250

Avalon 195

Victoria 500

Malling P6-19 250

Harmona 500

Reeves 315

Juna 150

Hanka 90

Total 2750

WP4: New research orchard at A C Hulme & Sons

Research challenge: Very early cropping of very early and early varieties with an intensive system under protection JVC

Variety Target number of

trees

Victoria (maiden Wavit 4+) 96

Juna (maiden Wavit 4+) 170

Juna (maiden Wavit 1 yr RP) 406

Herman (maiden Wavit 4+) 750

Top Five (maiden Wavit 4+) 576

Hanka (maiden Wavit 4+) 100

Malling P7-38 192

Malling P6-19 96

Total 2386

WP4: New research orchard at S W Highwood

Research challenge: Late cropping of late varieties with an intensive system under protection versus outdoors

JVC

Systems 3.00 m x 1.75 m Spindle 1633 trees / ha block 1) 0.16 ha block 6) 0.15 ha 3.50m x 1.20m Spindle 2381 trees / ha block 2) 0.18 ha block 5) 0.20 ha 3.00m x 2.00m Drapeau 1667 trees / ha block 3) 0.15 ha block 4) 0.16 ha

Variety Target number of

trees

Victoria 286

Top Taste 500

Haroma 500

Harganta 500

Top End 500

Total 2286

WP4: New research and demonstration orchard at NIAB EMR

Research challenges: Planting /management systems Performance of 23 preferred varieties Two new Malling varieties Protected cropping

JVC

JVC

WP5: Exploitation plans for improved plum production

• Conduct a final economic assessment • Present guidance for the development of a high-density

plum production system and to promote uptake by grower members of the businesses of the consortium

• To communicate the results from the three new commercial research orchards and research demonstration orchard at NIAB EMR for at least 5 years beyond the end of the project with their performance (including economic) monitored and with regular opportunities for the orchards to be visited by UK fruit growers

JVC

• Demonstrating highest yielding treatment in 2018:

– T3 Wavit Narrow A Frame

• Recommended treatments :

– T7 Wavit Narrow Table Top or T11 Wavit Super Spindle

• Considering husbandry and pruning costs

• Comparison of protected and unprotected systems

TB

Economic assessment of sustainable, intensive plum production

Economic assessment of sustainable, intensive plum production

TB

IUK (FAST 2018 data - unprotected)

ITEM/COST UNIT HIGHEST YIELD

2018 (T3 Wavit A Frame)

RECOMMENDED (T7 or T11 Wavit NTT or Spindle)

Yield T/Ha/year 32 26

Value £/T back to farm 700 700

Harvest £/T 250 275

Gross Output £/Ha/year 14400 11050

Establishment £/Ha 20000 20000

Orchard Life Year 20 20

Annual Establishment

£/Ha/year 1000 1000

Growing £/Ha/year 4000 4000

Fixed £/Ha/year 1000 1000

Gross Margin £/Ha/year 8400 5050

Economic assessment of sustainable, intensive plum production Is protected cropping economically justified?

TB

Unprotected Protected

Good Best good best

Yield (t/ha/year) 26 32 26 32

Value (£/t back to farm) 700 700 1050 1050

Harvest cost (£/t) 275 250 275 250

Gross Output (£/ha/year) 11050 14400 20150 25600

Establishment cost (£/ha) 20000 20000 70000 70000

Orchard Life (years) 20 20 20 20

Annual establishment costs (£/ha/year 1000 1000 3500 3500

Growing costs (£/ha/year) 4000 4000 5000 5000

Fixed costs (£/ha/year) 1000 1000 2000 2000

Gross Margin (£/ha/year) 5050 8400 9650 15100

• Protection does not lead to yield increase, though losses due to disease and splitting reduced

• High cost only justified if protection enables very early or late cropping and access to empty markets where big (~50%) price premium is achieved

Best Practice Guide to UK Plum Production • Introduction

• High fruit quality varieties for extended season cropping • Rootstocks and their effects on tree vigour and fruit size • High intensity planting and tree training systems • Protected cropping • Soil health management • Nutrition and irrigation • Orchard management to reduce frost damage • Ensuring adequate pollination and fruit set • Flower and fruitlet thinning • Growth management • Ripeness, picking, post harvest handling and storage • Diseases (Bacterial canker, Brown rot, Silver leaf, Plum pox, Rust) • Pests (Aphids, Plum fruit moth, Birds) • Economic assessment • Experimental and demonstration orchards

JVC

http://www.emr.ac.uk/projects/best-practice-guide-to-uk-plum-production/ Also to be posted on AHDB website

http://www.emr.ac.uk/projects/best-practice-guide-to-uk-plum-production/














Ongoing R&D and KE beyond the project

• Open invitation for annual growing season visit to 3 new commercial research orchards and research and demonstration orchard at NIAB EMR to be organized by AHDB

• Annual update on results and progress (including performance of new planting) at NIAB EMR/AHDB Tree fruit conference in February each year

• Fruit Focus tours • Ongoing funding to support continued research on NIAB

EMR research and demonstration plot to be provided by AHDB (Tree Fruit panel)

JVC

Successful Project Mission

• Identified high quality productive varieties covering greatly extended season

• Released two new very early high quality Malling varieties • New agronomic practices and intensive plum orchard

systems developed which increase yields from 20 to >30 t/ha restoring profitability to growing the crop

• Best practice guide including several improved methods developed during project

• Legacy of commercial on farm research orchards and demonstration research orchard at NIAB EMR

• Secured role of AHDB in long term KE for project

A successful project! OD

Thanks

Original Marketing Organisation Partners Simon Percival (inspiration for project), Bruce McGlashan (first project leader), Tony Vallance (second project leader)

New Grower Partners Tom Hulme, Charles Highwood, Oliver Doubleday (current project leader)

Retailer partner Theresa Huxley, Sainsbury’s

Funders Innovate UK, AHDB (post project support)

Researchers and support staff Abi Dalton, Tim Biddlecombe (FAST), Nicola Harrison, Julien Lecourt, Jerry Cross, Bo Li, Karen Everitt, Julie Bennett, Adam Peter, Jacob Lowe, Magda Cobo Medina, Flora O’Brien, Michelle Hulin (NIAB EMR)

Nursery Nick Dunn, F P Matthews

Project Administration Angela Chapple

Project Monitoring Officer John Stones

Innovate UK Lead Technologist Tom Jenkins

OD

Documents

UK Plum Production Data - NIAB EMR · 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Imports Home Production Marketed (HPM) UK PLUM SUPPLY Total annual supply (‘000 tonnes) of UK marketed