We’re not quite sure what to call the job: science manager, extensionist, project manager, consultant? We know it offers diverse activities and needs excellent communication skills and practical knowledge of horticulture and technology.
We are looking for someone to help identify and lead research projects and extension activities across a variety of issues and regions. For the right person, this is a role with considerable potential to grow.
This will be a Page Bloomer Associates appointment. They provide our science, management and support services while having addditional private consultancy activities. Working closely together, we know they share our passion for sustainable land and water management.
Since the dawn of the new millennium we’ve been providing progressive, pragmatic and independent services through projects and consultancy. A key feature of our work is close collaboration with end users, researchers and developers. We talk about “linking thinking from the farm out”.
The role includes engaging with growers, industry and researchers to identify opportunities to review practices and integrate new technologies to create sustainable cropping systems. The appointee will develop and manage projects and support services that support economically and environmentally sustainable primary production.
If you know someone with passion for smarter farming who wants a key role in a small dedicated organisation, Page Bloomer Associates would like to chat with them!
Figure 1. Gene Williams’ levelling blade fitted with Trimble RTK-GPS and FMX with WM-Drain drainage software
Drainage treatments in trial blocks at T&G Global’s Evenden orchard and Bostock’s Red Barn orchard. The narrow window between finishing harvest and the soil becoming too wet to work was longer than anticipated this autumn making the task easier. All earthworks were completed and pasture re-sown. Vehicle access was restricted to allow the pasture to establish and soil to settle.
A range of treatments was included and implemented to compare to the new land shaping approach including Crasborn’s harrow and planter (Figure 2) and Aqualine V-blade, slotting and ripping and rut filling (Figure 3).
Figure 2. Crasborn Orchard Inter-row RutFiller and RegrasserFigure 3. Aqualine fill trailer with splitter to direct brought in fill to rutted wheel tracks
GPS Levelling
Land levelling is a proven technique more commonly used in cropping, where soil is moved around to create fall across a field and allow surface water to drain off. Growers use this approach to reduce water lying on the surface and saturating areas of crop which results in reduce yield. Software is used that is specifically designed to minimise and optimise movement of soil. The height of the blade or scoop used to cut and fill soil is controlled by software through the tractor hydraulics. The same principles are being applied to existing orchard rows to create fall along the inter-rows and drain surface water off the block.
The inter-rows were rotary hoed to create a suitable tilth, to allow small volumes of soil to be moved along the inter-row (Figure 4). The elevation profiles indicated that only light shaping would be required to create fall along the inter-rows, where 100mm would be the maximum change in height (cut/fill) necessary.
Figure 4. Orchard Inter-rows pre and post hoeing, prior to land shaping
Hugh Ritchie’s Trimble RTK-GPS base station was set up in the orchard. Patrick Nicolle’s Trimble FMX unit with WM-Drain software was mounted on the T&G and Bostock tractors. A GPS Control Systems Trimble GPS antenna was mounted above Gene Williams’ 2.5m wide levelling blade, see Figure 1. The tractor hydraulics were used to control the blade height.
WM-Drain was used to record the elevation of each section in the orchard. An accurate RTK-GPS elevation profile was recorded by driving along the inter-row and the WM-Drain software used to generate the optimal profile (Figure 5), within specified parameters, such as minimum slope.
Figure 5. Screenshot of WM-Drain software, the grey area the current ground surface and the green line generated as the optimal profile
Soil was shifted using the blade to cut and fill areas to achieve the optimal profile designed in WM-Drain. Because the tractor hydraulics were not suited to automation without major changes, the blade height was manually controlled using the tractor hydraulics and lowered or raised. Multiple passes (up to six) were required along each row to move soil to create the desired profile. The results of the land levelling are shown in Figures 6 and 7.
Figure 6. Examples of inter-rows after land levelling has been completed
Figure 7. Inter-row profiles after cultivation and before land levelling (grey dotted line) and after land levelling (green line).
After earthworks the alleyways were re-sown in pasture. Vehicle access has been restricted to allow the pasture to establish and soil to settle. Timing is important to ensure orchardists can access blocks to continue their yearly programme in a timely manner, without damaging the newly formed alleyways.
The Crasborn machine cultivates and pulls soil from outside the wheel tracks using a set of angled discs. Harrows are used to break up and smooth the soil. A levelling bar with raised sections above the wheel tracks is used to further even out the soil. A compressed air seeder is used to sow pasture along the inter-row. Finally, a cambered roller creates a crowned inter-row and compacts the soil surface. The all in one implement (Figure 2) completes the final product (Figure 8) in one pass.
Figure 8. Inter-rows after Ricks Crasborn’s implement has been used to cultivate and fill wheel ruts
The Smart Tools for Orchard Drainage project has completed key steps to prepare and implement inter-row land levelling. Terrain analysis has provided a clear indication that a gentle gradient could be developed along the inter-row with minimal soil movement. However, the effects of reducing ponding through slight land shaping would be substantial for management and health and safety in the orchard.
Orchard Contour Mapping
LiDAR data from Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Gisborne District Council were used to assess the feasibility of inter-row land levelling in the orchard blocks of interest. LiDAR (light detection and ranging) is a type of airborne optical sensing that is used to generate a model of the earth’s surface. It let us create contour maps and look at ground profiles (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Steps for creating interrow profiles: a – LiDAR raw data showing bare earth points (brown) and above ground points (green) from rows of trees (note the difference in the frequency of green points indicating greater tree canopy in the bottom rows in the image); b – contour map created from digital elevation model; c – interrow profiles lines over aerial image; and d – example of an interrow profile
The inter-row profiles were used as a ‘first look’ to estimate the fall across the orchard and provide an indication of the approximate amount of soil to be shifted to remove and prevent areas of ponding.
We also surveyed using ground-based vehicles (quad bike or tractor) with RTK GPS (Figure 2). This system has a vertical accuracy of approximately 20 mm. Corrected elevation data were recorded along the inter-rows using WM-Drain. These data were also used to create accurate interrow profiles.
Figure 2. RTK GPS set up on ground-based vehicles at orchards near Gisborne and NapierFigure 3: Comparison of profiles generated from LiDAR data (grey line) and ground based RKT survey (red line)
The comparison of the different methods of generating profiles has given confidence that LiDAR is useful for an initial block analysis.
Ponding maps
Two of the orchards were visited after a significant rain event (30+ mm over a weekend). Locations of ponding were collected using the ESRI Collector smartphone app and an EOS Arrow SBAS GPS with a horizontal accuracy of 30-40cm. The interrows at one orchard were covered by Extenday, which meant the areas of shallow ponding were difficult to identify (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Recording ponding areas in the orchards’ interrows after a significant rain event
A drainage analysis created in Optisurface was used as a base map to display ponding locations (Figure 7). After this rain event, the majority of areas of ponding appeared to be located within areas identified by the drainage analysis as areas where ponding would occur.
Figure 7: Map of OptiSurface drainage analysis and measured ponding spots – brown represents drier areas and blue/purple areas of ponding. Points locate areas of ponding after a significant rain eventFigure 8: Example of ruts highlighting the issues of ponding and mud splash on the fruit.
The ponding locations were also compared to the interrow profiles. Although no formal analysis was completed, many of the ponding spots appear to match dips in the profiles (Figure 9).
Figure 9: Profiles generated from LiDAR data (grey line) and ground based RKT survey (red line) with ponding areas after a significant rain event identified (blue dots)
Rut depth measurements
The key measurement for monitoring the effectiveness of the different drainage treatments will be the formation of ruts. A sled has been specifically designed to measure and record the depth of ruts and the location within the orchard blocks, see Figure 10.
The sled uses a linear transducer to measure the difference in height between the bottom of the wheel ruts and the ground surface between the wheel tracks. The location is recorded using the SBAS positioning system with an EOS Arrow 100 GPS with a horizontal accuracy of approximately 0.3-0.4m. The data was recorded on a smartphone using an app, Rut-O-Meter. Points are recorded approximately every 0.2m depending on travel speed as the sled was towed by a quadbike along orchard rows.
Figure 10: Sled design to measure rut depth, measuring the difference in height between the bottom of the wheel tracks and the centre of the inter-row.
The average rut depth (of the left and right wheel tracks) throughout the trial block was measured prior to the soil being cultivated. An example of the rut depth along an orchard row and the corresponding elevation profile are presented in Figure 11.
Figure 11: Example of matching rut depth measurements (a) and elevation profile (b).om the rut measuring sled is presented in Figure 18. The measured rut depths appear to correspond to the drainage analysis (Figure 19) completed in OptiSurface.
A map from the rut measurements is shown in Figure 12. Deeper ruts are darker blue. Pale yellow is no rutting or the inter-row is lower than the wheel tracks. This compares well with the OptiSurface generated ponding map of the block (Figure 13).
Figure 11: Map created from the rut depth measurements from the trial block
Figure 13: OptiSurface drainage and ponding analysis from RTK survey of the trial block
Conclusions
Analysis of LiDAR data and ground based RTK elevation data has shown that land levelling should be possible with minimal soil movement.
The ground based RTK survey, with the GPS antenna on a 2m pole has proven that the connection is not interrupted through dense tree canopies.
The use of the SBAS system, a cell phone and EOS Arrow GPS receiver allows information to be recorded against individual trees, with an accuracy of 30-40cm, even in dense tree canopy.
The ponding areas identified in the orchard after a significant rain event appear to show a relationship to the OptiSurface drainage analysis.
The Rut-O-Meter mapping shows good agreement with the other surveys
Project work by Page Bloomer Associates for NZ Apples and Pears Inc and MPI Sustainable Farming Fund
Do we really know why we farm as we do? Or are we constrained in ways we just don’t see?
Often our current practices have evolved over a very long time – thousands of years of human history, decades of technology developments. Remember the space shuttle and the horse’s rear? We’ve long forgotten some of the reasons behind what we do, so maybe it is time for a reset!
As the LandWISE Conference fast approaches, we take a closer look at some of the presenters, and speaking topics in the area of Nitrate Management – how, when and what to apply, and how to deal with losses.
Session 2 will kick off with a Year 1 progress update from Future Proofing Vegetable Production, a Sustainable Farming Fund project testing the impact of new on-farm nitrogen mitigation and production practices in Levin and Gisborne.
We will report on our surveys of current practice, fertiliser applicator testing and of nitrate movement from field to stream. The farmers are making significant changes.
Testing a Broadcast Fertiliser Spreader
Our international guest speaker, Brad Bernhard, will present “Comparing Products, Timing and Placement – N in Corn”. Having just completed his PhD at the University of Illinois, Brad has extensive knowledge and experience of intensive corn and soybean production systems in the U.S. Brad’s PhD focus was optimising in-season fertility using alternative N fertilisation products and application methods.
Y-Drop applying Liquid Urea-N
While this will be of interest to our arable and maize growers, we are also excited to learn about the potential, and challenges this new approach holds for intensive vegetable cropping systems in New Zealand.
Jeff Reid from Plant and Food will outline the key points from the newly revised Nutrient Management in Vegetable Crops in NZ book. This presentation will cover the updated fertiliser recommendations for vegetable crops in New Zealand, and the concepts behind them.
Session 5 covers “Dealing with Losses”. We can do our best to keep nutrients in the rootzone, but sometimes some will escape. Can we stop nitrates getting into sensitive waterbodies?
Our new Research Manager, Pip McVeagh joined a group of Queenslanders at a workshop on nitrate recapture. One of the key concepts she will present is “The Treatment Train”.
We are also looking forward to a presentation from Alastair Taylor from Overseer Ltd. on using Overseer in vegetable systems. We have completed a number of representative examples and finding quite a range in results!
With such a variety and high calibre of speakers it should be a very engaging two days. More info here, and the draft programme here.
Orchard drainage isn’t just about shedding excess surface water quickly – although that is the main aim. Effective orchard drainage mitigates wheel rutting in the interrow which contribute to slips, trips and falls of orchard staff, and restrict orchard access by machinery at critical times of the year (such as harvest).
At LandWISE 2019 we will be taking a closer look at orchard drainage – and the tools and technology that are making it possible in existing orchards.
First up on the programme for Session 3 will be a progress update from Year 1 of Smart Tools for Orchard Drainage. From surveying growers, to analysing LiDAR data, and mapping puddles, there has been considerable progress made preparing for the land levelling work. We look forward to sharing this with conference delegates at LandWISE 19.
Contour Map Example
Mapping ponding using a handheld GPS unit
Ponding and Puddling: Comparing survey and computer generated ponding maps and the locations of puddles (white dots) after a rain event.
Following on from the project update, will be an in-depth presentation about the technical side of mapping land contours.
Technologies that have made the orchard drainage project possible include:
LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) a remote sensing method using a pulsed laser light to determine the distance to the earth from an aircraft that enabled us to create contour maps of existing orchards
ESRI ARC GIS, OptiSurface and other software packages for analysis and planning
RTK-GPS and drainage surveying and implementation software
SBAS (Satellite Based Augementation System) which allows us to get very accurate location on our smartphones when scouting
These technologies have a range of applications for horticulture, and have huge potential to improve the precision of our operations – whether in crops, orchards, or vineyards.
RTK-GPS mounted on qud bike and quad tractor (the funnest survey tool ever).
We’ll have our newly developed RutMeasurer available for viewing at the Field Session. We are using it toaccurately measure ruts in orchard inter-rows, and will be able to repeat measurements over time to assess the effectiveness of the different rut fixing approaches taken.
RutMeter – designed for the project to measure the depth and length or inter-row ruts
On the 24th May, a small group of leading researchers, farmers, and tech developers will come together at the LandWISE MicroFarm to discuss New Strategies to Manage Weeds. The discussion will centre around the challenges with existing weed management. These challenges include herbicide resistance becoming increasingly more common, international markets demand increasingly lower chemical residues, and consumer and community expectations of low environmental impact.
In a new MBIE and FAR funded AgResearch project “Managing Herbicide Resistance” alternative weed control technologies will be trialled and monitored – with the aim of managing ryegrass in arable crops. Some of these technologies being researched and demonstrated in the Technical Session are:
Hot Foam Weeding
Weedingtech’s FoamStream Machine – Using Hot Foam to Kill Weeds
Abrasion Weeding
Frank Forcella’s Abrasion Weeder – Using Walnut Shells to Blast Weeds
Electric Weeding
The Weed Workshop will be a collaborative session where farmers can express the operational challenges they face day-to-day, and scientists can understand the areas of research needed to tackle them. Technology developers in the weed management sector will provide valuable knowledge and insight in bridging the gaps.
If you’re interested in applying to attend the Weed Workshop on Friday the 24th May please contact us here – there are limited spaces available.
One of the four key areas within the Future Proofing Vegetable Production project aims to improve the accuracy of fertiliser applied. This work is part of the MPI Sustainable Farming Fund “Future Proofing Vegetable Production” project, co-funded by Horizons Regional Council, Potatoes NZ, Gisborne District Council, Ballance AgriNutrients and LandWISE.
Growers were invited to participate in having their equipment assessed. Equipment was tested with growers in both Horowhenua and Gisborne. Ten fertiliser applicators have been assessed through working with eight growers. Multiple settings or products were tested for some equipment.
In-Field Fertiliser Applicator Calibration Test
Performance
assessment of fertiliser application equipment provides information on actual
rates applied and the evenness of application. Ensuring that fertiliser is
applied evenly minimises the risk of leaching if over application occurs, or
the risk of yield penalties if under application occurs where nutrient
availability is limiting plant growth. Growers were confident their equipment
was spreading evenly, however the assessment results show there is room for
improvement.
Fertiliser
application equipment measured can be split into two main categories:
Direct placement machines (banders, side dressers and planters)
Figure 1: Examples of fertiliser application methods commonly used in vegetable growing systems: broadcast (left), potato planter (centre), and modified into 2 row bander (right)
Different methodologies are appropriate for broadcast versus direct placement equipment.
Broadcast fertiliser spreaders
were tested according to the FertSpread Protocol: see www.fertspread.nz
Power take off driven placement
equipment (banders or adapted oscillating spouts) were assessed by placing
buckets under the outlets and collecting fertiliser for a measured time (~30 –
60 Seconds). By determining travel speed the application rate can be
calculated.
Ground driven equipment (most
side dressers and planters) were assessed by collecting fertiliser from outlets
over a set distance in-field or from 20-wheel rotations in static testing.
Tests were repeated twice, however where results between tests appeared quite different, the test was repeated up to six times. For some machines multiple settings or fertiliser products were tested.
Direct placement machines were assessed using a calibration calculator that has been developed over the period of testing this equipment as there is currently no industry accepted assessment calculator available.
The draft fertiliser calibration calculator for the assessment of direct
application machines is included in the supporting documentation. This
spreadsheet calculates and reports a wide range of statistics to assess
performance.
The application variability of the direct placement equipment tested varied quite markedly; from 0.4% CV to 26.4% CV. A summary of the test results for direct application equipment is provided in Table 1.
Table 1
All but one of the machines tested are within the SpreadMark accepted performance for broadcast spreaders applying nitrogen-based fertilisers.
The actual rates of fertiliser applied varied from the target rates. In one case the actual average rate applied was 48% of the target rate, the greatest over application was 152% of the target rate.
Fewer broadcast spreaders were assessed as direct placement machines are more commonly used in intensive vegetable production systems. Table 2 provides a summary of the two broadcast spreaders assessed.
Table 2
Figure 2 gives a snapshot of part of the report produced through the FertSpread website. In this example, if the grower reduced their bout width from 22.5m to 19m, the machine performance would be within the acceptable level for nitrogen and non-nitrogen fertilisers.
Assessments have been
completed on a range of fertiliser application equipment in both Levin and
Gisborne. Most of the equipment tested has been direct application (banders,
planters and side dressers), rather than broadcast spreaders. Fertiliser applications for vegetable production are predominantly
applied as banded strips along the bed or scarified during planting or as a
side dressing. There is currently no accepted protocol for the assessment of
this type of equipment.
To enable the
assessments to be completed within the project, a draft protocol and fertiliser
calibration calculator for direct applicators has been developed and is being
refined. This is currently in an Excel spreadsheet which has been developed as
we have been testing equipment. The number of tests required and the statistical
analysis to report the suggested three key indicators is still to be discussed
and agreed upon. This concept and draft calculator will be taken to the annual
Fertiliser and Lime Research Centre conference in February 2019 for advice from
leading experts. The acceptable level of equipment performance and report
outputs provided to growers will be discussed.
It is currently
accepted for broadcast fertiliser spreaders that the coefficient of variation,
CV, should not exceed 15% for nitrogen fertilisers and 25% for non-nitrogen
fertilisers. The method of calibrating fertiliser rates applied ‘through the
spout’ to achieve target rates are accepted, however a different statistical
analysis is required for an assessment to be completed and best practice or
acceptable levels of variation need to be defined. It is suggested that a CV of
15% for nitrogen or even non-nitrogen fertilisers is well below the capability
of these direct placement applicators. Machinery in good working order should
achieve a CV of much lower than this, but an acceptable CV is not currently
defined.
This has opened discussion around how the acceptable CV is determined and if this is applicable in vegetable production systems. Our understanding is that accepted variance is based largely on pasture value and response curves, we query what values are appropriate for high value vegetable crops. Excess fertiliser increases leaching risk, insufficient fertiliser can make a crop unsaleable through quality loss. This is another area that it is felt important and worth further investigation.
The results of the
tests carried out on direct placement equipment highlighted several key areas
to address:
The target rate is not often achieved, the
results showed machines are both over and underapplying, which have
implications for leaching risk and potential marketable yield penalties or
decrease nutrient use efficiency.
In some cases, the outlets are not applying
fertiliser at equal rates. The cause of this is different for each machine. However,
the growers were keen to investigate why one outlet was applying a lower rate.
In one case the grower was able to fix the equipment and significantly reduce
the variation between outlets.
One machine resulted in different rates being
applied in each test. This is a greater concern for older equipment that is
worn and manually operated hoppers.
The amount of the fertiliser in the hopper appeared
to affect the rate of fertiliser applied. This suggests that as the hopper
empties that rate applied to the beds decreases. This also appeared to change
significantly with the bulk density of the fertiliser product. More testing is required
to investigate this further. There may be a minimum amount of fertiliser
(product/bulk density dependent) required to be in the hopper to achieve an
even application.
The interest and
engagement of growers through testing their equipment has built awareness. Once
a protocol is developed, the spreadsheet will then be developed into a tool for
growers. Prior to next season, workshops demonstrating how to calibrate
equipment, use the tool and interpret the report will be run in Gisborne and
Levin, with the possibility of visiting additional regions. Conversations with
growers during visits have shown there is good support for an event.
Broadcast
spreaders are less commonly used, and only two-disc spreaders were assessed. The
results showed that at the current bout width used neither machine was
achieving an acceptable CV for nitrogen fertilisers. One of the two was on the
limit of acceptable for non-nitrogen fertiliser products. This suggests that
the growers need to change either settings and/or bout width to achieve an
acceptable CV.
Reports are generated for all equipment we tested and distributed to growers. Some growers have requested that we re-test their equipment after they have made adjustments or prior to next season.
Irrigation assessments are important for ensuring the correct amount of water is applied to avoid yield lose due to moisture stress. However, excessive irrigation is a cause of nitrate leaching. A key aspect of our Future Proofing Vegetable Production project addresses keeping nutrient in the root zone. Through assessing irrigation uniformity and depth applied, machine and irrigation management can be improved.
This work is part of the MPI Sustainable Farming Fund “Future Proofing Vegetable Production” project, co-funded by Horizons Regional Council, Potatoes NZ, Gisborne District Council, Ballance AgriNutrients and LandWISE.
The irrigator assessments followed the ‘bucket test’ protocols as described in the Traveling Irrigator Performance Quick Test. In brief, buckets were place at 1m intervals across the path of the irrigator (see Figure 3). The speed of the irrigator was measured as it travelled over the buckets. Once the irrigator had passed over the buckets, the volume of water collected in each bucket was then measured. The data was entered into IRRIG8Lite software and reports generated.
Bucket test layout under a traveling boom irrigator assessed as prt of Future Proofing Vegetable Production project.
All three irrigators tested were traveling booms. The performance assessment was carried out twice on one of the traveling booms. An example of the distribution graph is provided in Figure 4. Of the four tests completed, the distribution uniformity assessment for two were ‘adequate’ and two were ‘poor’. The distribution uniformity for the four tests were 0.72 and 0.75 for the ‘adequate’ performing machines and 0.6 and 0.45 for the ‘poor’ performing machines.
Example distribution graph from a traveling boom irrigator assessed as part of the project
The results so far show that there is room for improvement in the performance of the irrigators tested so far. Higher than average rainfall has meant irrigation events have not been required as often so far this season. However, some growers briefly ran their irrigators to allow tests to be completed. We will continue to assess irrigators as we are able to access them over the coming months.
The MPI Sustainable Farming Fund “Smart Tools to Improve Orchard Drainage” project was initiated in response to extreme weather conditions experienced by pipfruit growers in the late season (March – June) harvest of 2017. It is co-funded by New Zealand Apples and Pears Inc.
A survey conducted over 3 weeks in November and December of 2018 covered 2,238 hectares of pipfruit growing orchards. Conducting the survey with growers via face-to-face interviews produced a greater number and depth of answers, however certain details were still difficult to obtain. Many growers were hesitant to provide or lacked confidence in estimations of the extent and area of wheel rut damage as a result of poor drainage.
To help with consistent assessments, we created a four panel photo scale of drainage issues found in orchards (see below). Growers interviewed considered the scale realistic and relevant. They felt able to correctly match problems areas in their blocks to the photos, but differed in their assessments of how much of a problem it might be.
The key impacts on operations identified by
the survey were predominantly categorised into three areas; tree health,
access, and labour. Almost all orchardists surveyed believed that poor drainage
was contributing to poor tree health (either visibly or evident through low
yield) or causing tree deaths (up to 10% in one extreme example). Many
orchardists remarked on wheel ruts resulting in staff injuries (due to ladder slips
in mud, tripping, or the impact of driving over uneven surfaces). Labour
availability was also affected in severe cases where orchard ponding and ruts
were the reason some contracting groups did not want to work at those sites. In
all cases where extreme damage was present, access for sprayers, and tractors
hauling harvest bins was impeded, and occasionally impossible. This meant that
costs were incurred as a result of delaying harvest windows, slowing the pace
of operations, and risking greater levels of disease at an already busy time of
year.
Situational factors common among the
orchards studied included:
Frequent passes by heavy orchard
machinery for many months of the year (7 – 11)
Low spots in the in the
inter-row were the worst affected
Shaded canopies associated with
3D training and mature plantings
The area affected was 44% of the area surveyed (1,479 ha).
Tree Health
Tree trunk width comparison on a poorly drained block left: high elevation spot, right: low elevation spot
Tree health suffers as a result of poor drainage and water-logging of the soil. This was evident in the Motueka and Richmond site visits, where trunk diameter was clearly smaller to the untrained eye in low spots where ponding and wheel ruts were severe. The same observations were made during site visits in Nelson and Hawke’s Bay.
Other important comments included a
noticeably lower yield from trees where drainage problems were evident, and some
bins where mud had covered fruit during harvest resulted in a greater number of
fruit rots in post-harvest storage. One grower also mentioned that the fruit on
Fuji varieties developed russet in the worst affected areas.
Access to the orchard is critical at certain times to complete operational tasks. Where an orchard has particularly severe drainage problems the wheel ruts may be so extreme that tractor or sprayer axles drag through the mud, meaning that they are stuck or unable to enter the block. This has led to some orchardists hiring helicopters to apply fungicides when application during a specific time window is crucial. This is an expensive exercise, and is unable to be utilised for insecticide sprays, as the application method is not effective at reaching the internal area of the canopy. The mud and ruts from poor drainage make harvesting difficult and time consuming as tractors require towing (by another or multiple tractors) out of the mud when they become stuck.
This presentation will cover the updated fertiliser recommendations for vegetable crops in New Zealand, and the concepts behind them.
With such a variety and high calibre of speakers it should be a very engaging two days. More 
