Granada Reporte Ensayo Netafim 2011 Ziv Charit 2012-06-13 Pomegranate Experimental Plot 2011

Pomegranate trial demonstration and farming plot
‫מחלקה חקלאית‬
‫מרכז הדרכה‬
610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

e-mail: ziv.charitt@netafim.com
‫נטפים (אגש"ח) בע"מ‬
54836 ‫קיבוץ יפתח‬
Pomegranate Trial, Demonstration and Farming plot

2011 Report
Introduction
Pomegranate has been recognized as an emerging crop worldwide in general and in Israel in
particular.
Only a few years ago pomegranate was still grown in small scale by very few expert orchard
growers. As of the late 90's, demand for the fruit has significantly grown due to several reasons,
the most important being exposure to the healing power/ properties of the pomegranate crop and
products.
A significant breakthrough was made in the early 2000s for the following reasons:
1. Production line for separating pomegranate seeds was developed for marketing separated
seeds.
2. Complementary products were developed as fresh juice, pomegranate wine, and peel
used for cosmetic purposes.
3. New varieties, Acco and Shani, were developed colorful with soft seeds,
4. A cooling protocol was developed enabling to store pomegranate fruit for over 4 months.
All these led to a massive pomegranate planting worldwide. Global growers enjoyed the fact that
pomegranate can be grown in most soil types and climates and irrigated with water of poor quality
– recycled and saline – as well.
Unlike other crops undergoing in-depth research through years of farming, thus enabling the
development of accurate farming protocols, pomegranate was until recently a niche crop grown
by conventional methods. This led to the current situation where extensive areas are planted with
the crop with little farming knowledge available.
The pomegranate plot planted as part of the Orchard and Vineyard Research and Training Center
on Kibbutz Yiftah will enable Netafim to continue leading its customers by studying key issues to
which clear answers on pomegranate farming have not yet been provided: crop irrigation strategy,
most efficient drip equipment selection, PE mulch efficiency, evaluation of various trellising
methods.
The plot is professionally guided by international pomegranate expert, Fathi Abd el Hadi.
610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

Objectives
Evaluation of different farming issues in pomegranate crop: irrigation equipment, PE mulch, and
trellising methods.
Research details
The trial is conducted on variety 116/17 planted in 2007 (from cuttings) in the Netafim trial and
demonstration plot, Kadesh Valley. Apart from the main variety, additional varieties are also
planted: Acco, Wondeful and Black.
Basic planting spacing in most of the plot: 2x5 (1000 trees/ha)
Direction: North-South. Row length: 70m
Irrigation: Freshwater.
Trial included many treatments
T. no Treatment Dripper Flow/ Row Trellising Planting

Spacing number System spacing
1 Varieties Uniram 1.6 x 0.5 1-5 None 2X5
610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

T. Treatment Dripper Flow/ Row Trellising Planting

no. name Spacing number system spacing
2 Densely planted Uniram 1.6X5.5 6 "V" – Tatura 5X1
- Tatura Uniram 1.6X5.5 7 "Y" 5X1

name Spacing number system spacing
3 Control Uniram 1.6 X0.5 8 Closed vase 5X2
Uniram 9 Open vase 5X2
610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬


4 2 Mulched Uniram 1.6 X0.5 10>11 Central axis 5X2
dripperlines Uniram

5 2 Control Uniram 1.6 X0.5 10>11 Central axis 5X2
dripperlines Uniram
610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬


6 1 Mulched Uniram 1.6 X0.5 12>13 'T' 5X2
dripperline

7 1 Control Uniram 1.6 X0.5 12>13 'T' 5X2
dripperline
610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

It is the second year that the fruit is being marketed. Irrigation throughout this year was managed
by tensiometers in attempt to maintain their readings on ~15centibar at 30cm-depth.
Correspondingly, pressure chamber readings were also taken to check the possibility of using it in
pomegranate as well.
Measurements
This year fruit measurements concentrated on 5 treatments:
- T trellising, mulched vs. non-mulched, a single dripperlines (Trt.6 vs. Trt. 7)
- Central axis trellising, mulched vs. non-mulched, 2 dripperlines (Trt. 4 vs. Trt. 5)
- Open Vase trellising, mulched (Trt.3)
In each of these treatments, 10 healthy and similarly looking trees were marked for
measurements. Midday stem water potential was measured on 6 leaves per treatment, using
pressure chamber. Sampled leaves, still connected to the tree, were put into a plastic bag
covered with aluminum foil for 90 minutes prior to measuring.
In the Central axis and Open cup treatments 50 fruit were marked (5 per each measured) on
12/7/11. Fruit diameter was measured weekly until harvest.
Each variety was picked according to its ripening parameters and market requirements:
- Shani and Acco varieties were picked in a single harvest on 19/9/11.
- 17/116 was picked in a single harvest on 6/10/11.
- Wonderful was picked in a single harvest on 30/10/11.
In each of the treatments all fruit were picked and measured for weight, appearance, sunburns,
bruises and burst fruit parameters. The fruit was harvested for export and picking instructions
were given accordingly.
This year the fruit was marketed by the SHOVAL NAFTALI CITRUS FRUITS LTD. Sorting was done
according to the commercial parameters used at the Ramot Naftali packing house.
Metorological data were taken in the Northern R&D station, Kadesh Valley (0.8km away from the
trial plot).
610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

Results and discussion

Maximum air temperature exceeded 30 degrees C (Figure 1) most of the summer.
Maximum VPD varied between 2.5 – 3.5KPa most of the summer.
EPT (EvapoTranspiration Potential) rose gradually from 5mm/day in May to ~7.5mm/day in early
July, and then dropped gradually to 5.5mm/day in mid-September.
This year was characterized by relatively moderate temperatures with no extreme weather
conditions throughout the irrigation season.
Figure 1: Maximum daily air temperature, maximum VPD and Penman based-mean daily
evaporation measured by the Northern R&D meteorological station in Kadesh Valley.
Figure 2 shows the total water consumption in each of the treatments. This year it was decided to
apply identical water amounts to all the different treatments so by the end of the season they all
consumed a similar amount of 620mm.
Figure 2: Total water amount applied throughout the season in the different treatments.
610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

Figure 3 shows that throughout the season pressure chamber readings in the Central axis
treatment were higher (though not much higher) than those in the 'T' treatments. In each of the
trellised treatments some of the trees were mulched with PE. The readings in the mulched plots
were lower than the exposed ones. The Open vase treatment was characterized by relatively high
readings through most of the season possibly due to the higher fruit load in this treatment
compared to the others.
Figure 3: Pressure chamber midday readings throughout the season in the different treatments ±SE
Tree and fruit development during the season

Tree development during the season was very similar in the different treatments. At the beginning
of the season it seemed as if development (flowering) in the exposed treatments (non-covered)
was slightly delayed, but this difference disappeared as season progressed.
Figure 4 shows fruit yield load in the different treatments as measured and weighed in the orchard
on all fruit. Excluding 2 treatments (specified on the graph), all treatments were conducted on the
116/17 variety. The 2 treatments with the heaviest fruit load were those with 1m planting spacing
between trees. In the rest of the treatments tree planting spacing was 2m.
610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

Figure 4: Total yield measured in the orchard on all fruit in each of the treatments
Both figures (4+5) show that in the single fruit weight parameter and total yield the best results
were obtained in the Wonderful variety. The result can be attributed to the genetics of this variety
and to the fact that it was harvested late and continued developing on the tree.
Generally, figures 4 + 5 indicate that the single fruit mean weight results are in inverse
relationship to the yield load. An exception to the rest is treatment 'V' which produced both high
yield and large fruit.
Figure 5: Fruit mean size measured on all fruit in each of the tre atments in the orchard
610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

Fruit size distribution shown in figure 6 shows similarity between the different treatments.
Standing out among the treatments were the 116/17 without trellis and the Wonderful without
trellis where the low yield load led to the development of larger fruit compared to the other
treatments. Treatments 'Y' and 'V' also stood out in the high percentage of small fruit compared to
the other treatments. This can be attributed to the high yield load in in those treatments.
Figure 6: Fruit size distribution measured in the orchard on all marketed fruit in each of the
treatments with fruit divided into 3 size categories: Small fruit – Below 500grams; Medium fruit –
500-700 grams; big fruit – exceeding 700grams.
610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

Fruit appearance
Special focus was placed on fruit quality and appearance – bruises, hail damage, sunburns and
roughness. This year the burst fruit problem was minor.
Figure 7 shows fruit quality distribution as a percent of the total marketed fruit. Fruit quality was
divided into 3 quality groups: Export – flawless fruit (no bruises/ sunburns), superior quality
marketed for export at the highest price. Local market – Slightly bruised, not suitable for export,
marketed as fresh produce to the local market. Disqualified – Heavily damaged fruit intended for
processing industry or disposal. This category was minor this year and therefore not included in
figure 7.
Figure 7: Fruit quality distribution based on commercial parameters. Superior quality for export (A);
Local market (B) – slightly bruised, marketed as fresh fruit to the local market; Disqualified (C) –
heavily bruised – intended for processing or disposal.
610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

Generally speaking, the higher quality fruit were obtained in the different trellised treatments. The
outstanding treatment in this respect is the axis treatment in which fruit exposure has apparently
affected (worsened) fruit quality compared to the non-trellised treatment.
The best quality fruit obtained in the 'T' treatments was in the 116/17 variety. In the Wonderful
variety, no significant difference in fruit quality was apparently shown between the trellis and non-
trellis treatments. It should be noted however that the trellis treatment produced yield twice as
heavy as the non-trellis one. Fruit size in the trellis treatment was by 10% bigger than the mean
fruit size in the non-trellis treatment. The bottom line is: the trellised Wonderful is far more
profitable than the non-trellised.
Fertigation
Pre-harvest, leaves from each individual treatment were sent for evaluation of nutrient
concentration levels. Comparison between the different trellis treatments showed that trellised
treatment 'T' had some influence on nutrient concentrations. In this treatment Phosphorus
concentration was significantly higher. Nitrogen, Potassium, Calcium and Zinc levels were also
high compared to the other treatments but less significantly. Manganese and Magnesium were
present in relatively low levels compared to the trellis treatments. In the covered treatments
nitrogen concentration was higher than that in the uncovered treatments. Comparison between
the white cover and silver cover treatments showed high concentrations of Nitrogen, Phosphorus,
Magnesium, Calcium and Zinc in the silver cover. No significant relation was found between the
contents of these minerals and yield load. Apparently, the low yields obtained this year did not
indicate a distinct relation between yield load and nutrient content in the leaves. The differences
do not justify separate fertigation for the treatments, and next year all treatments will be fertigated
uniformly with 12 N units, 2 P units and 20 K units.
Discussion
This year is the second year in which the fruit is marketed. Assuming it was intended for export,
fruit was treated following the most stringent export standards to meet the highest quality
parameters. A potential comparison between shaped- trellised treatments and non-trellised ones,
the highest quality fruit appears to be in the trellised ones. This result is repeated in the two
varieties (Wonderful and 116/17). In the trellised treatments, the exceptionally poor results were
obtained in the axis treatment where fruit layout and exposure resulted in poor quality yield. This
610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

treatment requires the use of paper bags or screen cover. Leaf test results suggest that in the 'T'
treatment better conditions were created enabling better nutrient uptake compared to the other
trellised treatments. A similar influence was shown in the PE covered treatments compared to the
uncovered ones. At this stage the differences are small and insignificant but evidently repeated.
In the coming years we will put focus on these findings in order to understand whether it is
possible to save fertilizers or achieve higher yield of better quality.
Interim conclusions
Apparently the use of trellis systems contributed to higher yield quality. The higher quality was
expressed mainly in reduced bruises.
The Open Vase trellis (wide and narrow) treatments produced outstandingly high fruit quality
compared to the other treatments. The 'V' trellised Wonderful variety achieved the best results in
all parameters: yield rate, fruit size and quality.
This treatment requires:
1. Continued research using the currently used method to confirm the results over 4-5
consecutive seasons as required in orchards.
2. Evaluation of potential effects on the fruit and nature of fruit bearing and production.
3. Quantification of the improvement made on fruit quality – size + flawless appearance
610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

The influence of PE row mulch on Pomegranate orchards

The influence of PE row mulch on pomegranate shrub fruit development is also being evaluated
in this orchard.
Introduction
The water shortage growers have been suffering over the past several years makes them seek
ways to save precious freshwater. One way is using diverse techniques of soil cover. These
techniques showed that the use mulch can be an efficient way to improve soil's mechanical
structure and soil water balance. Other advantages of mulch include: preserving soil moisture,
preventing loss of water by evaporation, preventing weed growth, enhanced root development
due to improved soil moisture balance and reduced application of herbicides. These advantages
should be reflected more significantly in young orchards where a greater part of the soil is
uncovered. All these advantages apply to any crop. Reports on pomegranate showed that PE
mulch can reduce the level of burst fruit.
Objectives
1. Exploring the potential influence of PE mulch technology on pomegranate shrub
physiology.
2. Exploring the influence of PE mulch on tree water status aimed at saving irrigation water
while improving yield rate and quality.
3. Preparing an economic calculation
The trial is run as an observation for feasibility study since 2007.
Research details
The trial has been conducted on 116/17 variety planted in 2007 (from cuttings) in the
Pomegranate trial and demonstration plot, Yiftah orchards.
Planting spacing: 5x2 (1000 trees/ha)
Direction: North-south
Row length: 70m
Plot irrigated with: freshwater.
610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

The observation included 3 treatments:
1. Irrigation under black/ silver (black below/ silver above) PE mulch. Mulch is spread along
tree row on both sides of the trunk, 1 meter per each side.
2. Irrigation under black/white (black below/ white above) PE mulch. The mulch is spread
along tree row on both sides of the trunk, 1 meter per each side.
Considerations regarding the selection of mulch type were based on previous experience
with other crops and of the Agriculture department agronomists.
3. Control – Irrigation without mulch.
The three treatments employ two different design methods: 'T' and Axis (see pages 5 and 6).
The 'T' plot is irrigated with a single Uniram dripperline 17x 0.5x 1.6.
The Axis plot is irrigated with 2 Uniram dripperlines 17x 0.5x 1.6 on both sides of the tree.
* In the present season no separation was made in the irrigation of the different treatments.
Tensiometer monitoring and readings throughout the season indicated a slight advantage to the
mulched treatments, yet insufficiently significant so as to change the irrigation regime. Since the
water amount applied was low anyway, it was decided to not further reduce daily amount in the
mulched treatments. At peak season daily water consumption reached 5.5mm, and total
consumption throughout the season was 630mm (Figure 2). The mulch was spread in May
2007.
Figure 8:
Total yield measured in the orchard on all fruit in each of the treatments.
610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

Figure 9: Fruit mean weight as measured in the orchard on all fruit in all treatments.
Figure 10: Fruit size distribution measure in the orchard on all fruit for marketing in each of the
treatments. Fruit was divided to 3 size categories: Small – less than 350gr, medium – 350-500gr, big
– exceeding 500.
610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

Figure 11: Fruit quality distribution based on commercial indices: (A) Export - flawless appearance;
(B) Local market – fruit with minor bruises to be marketed as fresh produce to the local market
(C) Disposal – Severely damaged fruit intended for processing or disposal.
Discussion
This year is the first year in which the fruit is marketed under the assumption that it is intended for
export and should be of superior quality meeting the highest quality standards. As predicted, this
year too, the influence of yield load on fruit size and size distribution is clearly evident. In the
lower yield-treatments fruit was bigger with better size distribution. However, in the treatments
applied identical water amounts the mulched treatments obtained better fruit size yield, though of
small differences which repeatedly in both design methods over a second consecutive year.
These results strengthen the assumption that the mulch contributes to fruit yield and size. In the
attempt to evaluate the influence of mulch on fruit quality, figure 7 shows different behavior in the
2 trellis treatments: In the Axis-design fruit quality was poor in both the mulched and non-mulched
treatments. This can be attributed to the fact that this trellis treatment extremely exposes the fruit
to weather damages. However, the 'T' method with silver mulch obtained the best quality fruit.
610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

Though there is no clear explanation to this result, the fact that it is repeated already a second
consecutive year requires serious attention.
Leaf tests conducted to evaluate nutrient contents showed that in the mulched treatments N and
Manganese contents were higher than in the non-mulched treatments. A comparison between
the silver and white mulches revealed higher contents of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Magnesium,
Calcium and Zinc in the silver mulch than in the white mulch.
Interim conclusions
The PE mulch apparently contributed to the rise in yield and fruit quality. Though none of the
silver and white mulches significantly outweighed the other, overall parameters indicate that the
silver mulch is preferable. This finding is strengthened in the silver mulched 'T' trellis treatment
which outweighed all others for the second year in a row.
Leaf tests indicate that in the mulched treatments provided better conditions that enabled
improved nutrient uptake compared to the non-mulched ones. The differences shown, though
insignificant, are evidently repeated.
In the forthcoming years we will concentrate on the nutrient uptake issue to see whether fertilizer
saving is possible and higher fruit yield and quality can be achieved.
Further trial requires:
1. Continued research using the currently used method to confirm the results over 4-5
consecutive seasons as required in orchards.
2. Evaluation of potential effects on the fruit and nature of fruit bearing and production.
3. Quantification of the improvement made on fruit quality – size + flawless appearance
610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬


Granada Reporte Ensayo Netafim 2011 Ziv Charit 2012-06-13 Pomegranate Experimental Plot 2011

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Granada Reporte Ensayo Netafim 2011 Ziv Charit 2012-06-13 Pomegranate Experimental Plot 2011

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Pomegranate trial demonstration and farming plot

610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

Pomegranate Trial, Demonstration and Farming plot

610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

T. no Treatment Dripper Flow/ Row Trellising Planting

610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

T. Treatment Dripper Flow/ Row Trellising Planting

T. no Treatment Dripper Flow/ Row Trellising Planting

610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

T. no Treatment Dripper Flow/ Row Trellising Planting

T. no Treatment Dripper Flow/ Row Trellising Planting

610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

T. no Treatment Dripper Flow/ Row Trellising Planting

T. no Treatment Dripper Flow/ Row Trellising Planting

610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

Results and discussion

610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

Tree and fruit development during the season

610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

The influence of PE row mulch on Pomegranate orchards

The trial is run as an observation for feasibility study since 2007.

610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

610 - 165 1065 ‫זיו חריט‬

Anda mungkin juga menyukai