"Small" Orchard

[from Heather]

I think you guys will be amused by this:
http://www.midfex.org/yale/intro.html


Heather

---

Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.

[from Heather]

Actually, this kind of fits along a question I have been mulling over. A standard tree produces more fruit, but takes up more room, and a dwarf processes less fruit but you can cram more of them in the space that a standard would have used (and take less work). The farm kid in me wants to know if there is a size point where you can get the maximum amount of apples from a piece of land?

Maybe I should be asking a less technical question and instead ask what size, be it general type or ft height, people prefer for farming?

Heather

---

From: for_h...@hotmail.com
To: cider-w...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Cider Workshop] "Small" Orchard
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:04:54 +0000

---

Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

[Stephen Hayes]

Lovely guy, lovely backyard orchard! I feel sure I remember seeing this a few years back.

 

Answering Heather's point, there is no doubt whatever than maximum cropping is achieved by cramming larger number of smaller trees into an orchard. Certainly this is true if you are counting high quality fruit, because larger trees are much more difficult to manage whether its pruning, thinning, spraying or picking. The industry, which is driven by the need to squeeze every last percentage point of efficiency out of an acre, is increasingly moving towards fully supported post and wire systems with irrigation and something like 1,000 trees to an acre. To put that in context, planting big standards on M2 or M25 stocks 40 feet apart will give you about 50 trees to an acre, a plant like mine with MM106 trees about 10 feet apart in rows 12-15 feet apart is around 200-250 per acre. The latter plant, using open centre bushes, was fairly typical for the industry through most of the last century, maybe a bit closer together using M9 stocks and 300-350 an acre.

 

Of course, if you want to go organic and/or run chickens under the trees, the calculation changes again. Having grown apples semi-commercially for 17 years now, I prefer something like 200 trees to an acre, but I donlt kid myself this is maximising the crop, we don't live on the farm and are 'hobby' farmers who don't need to maximise income, we are thinking more about the aches and pains we are both starting to get and wanting to make life easier for ourselves.

 

There are good and bad points whichever way you go. I have been increasingly coming down on the side of trees placed further apart to allow air, light and access and minimise need for spraying (better air circulation=less fungal disease). very close planting can maximise crops, but requires summer pruning perhaps twice a year (May and July) and increases the risk of fungal disease, BUT if you are willing to make the effort, can give greater rewards. Its all about what you want and what resources you have.

 

We used to have a row of a dozen cordons when we had a long, thin garden and before we bought our land. Its a very sensible way to get to taste a range of apples in a little space, but expensive both of time and money. With fruit trees now costing about £15 or more each, it is more sense to have 2 dwarf bushes 10 feet apart for £30 rather than 10 ultra dwarf pyramids 4 feet apart for £150 occupying the same space-you will get about the same weight of fruit from either system, although more variety from the latter-so if you only have a little space and want a range of varieties, it makes sense. After all, its only money-and how much does, for example, a night out at the curry house or a trip to the football cost?

 

and finally a really big old standard tree has its own beauty, and I am developing my cider orchard to be about 100 trees to an acre (60 to just over half an acre in fact) abotu 20 feet apart on MM111. This seems to be working OK, its a very low effort system, like Andrew I am going to accept biennial cropping. BUT, if I was trying to make money, I would probably be going for centre leader dwarf pyramids much closer together.

 

Stephen

[Melanie Wilson]

I'm planting a dwarf orchard in my back garden of Leicestershire cultivars, because I am more able to keep an eye on them there, and I don't want huge amounts of apples 9although I'm sure the geese would be happy !). Bigger trees will go in at my field once the genes are safely backed up in 2 or more locations.

 

I think dwarf & family trees are a great way to go for people wanting fruit for their family use only , to eat rather than to make vast quantities of juice or cider ! That way you can get fresh fruit over several mponths rather than a gult at one or two times.

 

Mel

 

 

 

This e-mail, and any attachment, is confidential. If you have received
it in error, please delete it from your system, do not use or disclose
the information in any way, and notify me immediately. The contents of
this message may contain personal views which are not the views of the
Company, unless specifically stated. You should not copy, forward or
otherwise disclose the contents of this e-mail or any of its attachments
without express consent

[michael]

Interestingly,Stephen,my cider/perry orchard has about the same
density as yours with 60 trees on M25 in half an acre.My trees are
about 20 ft apart also,and I thought at first that I had planted them
too close.However it is clear now that with my thin limestone soil,and
on a south facing slope, the tree growth is quite limited.
Michael

On 30 Jan, 10:36, "Stephen Hayes" <hayes...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Lovely guy, lovely backyard orchard! I feel sure I remember seeing this a few years back.
>
> Answering Heather's point, there is no doubt whatever than maximum cropping is achieved by cramming larger number of smaller trees into an orchard. Certainly this is true if you are counting high quality fruit, because larger trees are much more difficult to manage whether its pruning, thinning, spraying or picking. The industry, which is driven by the need to squeeze every last percentage point of efficiency out of an acre, is increasingly moving towards fully supported post and wire systems with irrigation and something like 1,000 trees to an acre. To put that in context, planting big standards on M2 or M25 stocks 40 feet apart will give you about 50 trees to an acre, a plant like mine with MM106 trees about 10 feet apart in rows 12-15 feet apart is around 200-250 per acre. The latter plant, using open centre bushes, was fairly typical for the industry through most of the last century, maybe a bit closer together using M9 stocks and 300-350 an acre.
>
> Of course, if you want to go organic and/or run chickens under the trees, the calculation changes again. Having grown apples semi-commercially for 17 years now, I prefer something like 200 trees to an acre, but I donlt kid myself this is maximising the crop, we don't live on the farm and are 'hobby' farmers who don't need to maximise income, we are thinking more about the aches and pains we are both starting to get and wanting to make life easier for ourselves.
>
> There are good and bad points whichever way you go. I have been increasingly coming down on the side of trees placed further apart to allow air, light and access and minimise need for spraying (better air circulation=less fungal disease). very close planting can maximise crops, but requires summer pruning perhaps twice a year (May and July) and increases the risk of fungal disease, BUT if you are willing to make the effort, can give greater rewards. Its all about what you want and what resources you have.
>
> We used to have a row of a dozen cordons when we had a long, thin garden and before we bought our land. Its a very sensible way to get to taste a range of apples in a little space, but expensive both of time and money. With fruit trees now costing about £15 or more each, it is more sense to have 2 dwarf bushes 10 feet apart for £30 rather than 10 ultra dwarf pyramids 4 feet apart for £150 occupying the same space-you will get about the same weight of fruit from either system, although more variety from the latter-so if you only have a little space and want a range of varieties, it makes sense. After all, its only money-and how much does, for example, a night out at the curry house or a trip to the football cost?
>
> and finally a really big old standard tree has its own beauty, and I am developing my cider orchard to be about 100 trees to an acre (60 to just over half an acre in fact) abotu 20 feet apart on MM111. This seems to be working OK, its a very low effort system, like Andrew I am going to accept biennial cropping. BUT, if I was trying to make money, I would probably be going for centre leader dwarf pyramids much closer together.
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: from Heather
>   To: cider-w...@googlegroups.com
>   Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 11:19 PM
>   Subject: RE: [Cider Workshop] "Small" Orchard
>
>   Actually, this kind of fits along a question I have been mulling over. A standard tree produces more fruit, but takes up more room, and a dwarf processes less fruit but you can cram more of them in the space that a standard would have used (and take less work). The farm kid in me wants to know if there is a size point where you can get the maximum amount of apples from a piece of land?
>
>   Maybe I should be asking a less technical question and instead ask what size, be it general type or ft height, people prefer for farming?
>
>   Heather
>

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---
>   From: for_heat...@hotmail.com

>   To: cider-w...@googlegroups.com
>   Subject: [Cider Workshop] "Small" Orchard
>   Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:04:54 +0000
>
>   I think you guys will be amused by this:
>  http://www.midfex.org/yale/intro.html
>
>   Heather
>

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---

>   Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.
>

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---
>   Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Cornelius Traas]

Hello Heather,

To boil a hundred years of research and hundreds or thousands of trials down into a single answer, without putting in a lot of detail is difficult. However, in general, in the range of tree sizes studied, (in practice down to about 6 feet or 2 m tall trees, on M27 rootstock), the smallest trees are the most productive. The general explanation is that wood and fruit growth are directly competing, and larger trees spend more effort producing timber, and thus have less energy for fruit production.

In practice, at some point the cost of planting a larger number of smaller trees becomes prohibitive, so the economic advantage does not necessarily lie with the smallest trees.

Con Traas

 

The Apple Farm,
Moorstown, Cahir, Co. Tipperary.
Tel: 052 744 1459
Email: c...@theapplefarm.com
Web: www.theapplefarm.com

----- Original Message -----

From: from Heather

To: cider-w...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 11:19 PM

Subject: RE: [Cider Workshop] "Small" Orchard

[from Heather]

On the dwarf orchard of 93 trees that he said produced about .25-.75 bushels a tree, lets count that as .5 and assuming no biannal cropping, that is 46.5 bushels x 3 gallons/bushel = 139.5 gallons in 2500 sq ft

Too me, it seems logical that a smaller semi-dwarf would be optimal. Yes, you have to spread it a little further out, but you are rewarded with more fruit. Or versus a standard, more of them in a space that can yeild more than a dwarf, but maybe that thinking is flawed. And maybe they are optimal due to cost of getting them and then labor? I'm out of my element here, so I don't know.

What I do know is that I ordered two semi-dwarf for the back yard because we want shade and apples, but see that guy's yard makes me think of planting little dwarfs instead of a rose garden.

---

From: c...@theapplefarm.com
To: cider-w...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Cider Workshop] "Small" Orchard
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 10:48:24 +0000

---

Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.

[Stephen Hayes]

----- Original Message -----
From: "michael" <michael....@yahoo.co.uk>
To: "Cider Workshop" <cider-w...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 11:38 AM
Subject: [Cider Workshop] Re: "Small" Orchard

Interestingly,Stephen,my cider/perry orchard has about the same
density as yours with 60 trees on M25 in half an acre.My trees are
about 20 ft apart also,and I thought at first that I had planted them
too close.However it is clear now that with my thin limestone soil,and
on a south facing slope, the tree growth is quite limited.
Michael
<<<<<<<<

VERY good point Michael. The relevant parameters, all of which must be
considered, are rootstock, scion, shape (e.g. pyramid, standaard, open
centre bush etc), SOIL, microclimate (including prevailing wind, rainfall,
frost etc) and of course the care the trees get. And, again, growing for
cider or juice makes different demands to growing for your own and frinds
and family, which is different again from growing for market.

Someone cleverer than me, or perhaps a group (hey-we're a group!) could
maybe write an algorithm about planting distances to aid newcomers.

Stephen

[Andrew Lea]

Stephen Hayes wrote:

>
> Someone cleverer than me, or perhaps a group (hey-we're a group!) could
> maybe write an algorithm about planting distances to aid newcomers.

No I can't write an algorithm, and I hate to disagree with Stephen and
Con, but for cider fruit at least the issue surely is simply the amount
of exposed leaf and flower bearing surface? Aside from confounding
issues such as speed of coming into bearing, application of fertilisers
and overall ease of management, I doubt it makes much practical
difference whether that is furnished by a large number of small trees or
a small number of large ones.

I suspect the apparent greater yield of commercial bush trees over
standards for cider, insofar as it is even true, is more to do with
intensive management than it is to do with any fundamental differences.
So to compare a decrepit standard orchard with a well managed bush one
is unfair. I would be interested to know how the new standard cider
orchards on M25 being planted nowadays will stack up at maturity with
what are now the conventional bush orchards on MM106. I suspect there
won't be much in it.

At the other extreme, crowding does yield no favours. In my own tiny 20
year old orchard on MM106, I removed nearly half the trees after harvest
in 2007. 2008 was an 'off' year so I had no fruit anyway. At harvest
2009 I actually collected about 20% more fruit from half the trees than
I had done in 2007. And the orchard was a hugely more pleasant place to
be and work in too.

So.. plant small and dense if you wish, but you won't increase the
yields if the trees are crowded and don't have space to develop without
competition. One thing I know that Stephen and I agree on is the
enormous benefit of tree thinning. I would say anyone planting a bush
cider orchard should plant dense and plan to thin out by 50% within 10
years. People planting standard orchards should probably plant at final
spacing, but interplant alternately with trees on smaller rootstocks
with the intention of removing them completely within a decade.

These remarks are intended for cider fruit, not dessert, where other
considerations apply.

Andrew

[Stephen Hayes]

Andrew Lea wrote

>>>>So.. plant small and dense if you wish, but you won't increase the
yields if the trees are crowded and don't have space to develop without
competition. One thing I know that Stephen and I agree on is the
enormous benefit of tree thinning. I would say anyone planting a bush
cider orchard should plant dense and plan to thin out by 50% within 10
years. People planting standard orchards should probably plant at final
spacing, but interplant alternately with trees on smaller rootstocks
with the intention of removing them completely within a decade.<<<

very well put Andrew. It makes me a bit sad to be hacking out mature,
bearing trees, but they have more than paid their way over the last 10
years, and if I had planted at ideal final distances, there would have been
huge non-fruit bearing gaps those last 10 years.

My oldest original book on fruit growing is 'Fruit Farming for Profit' by
George Bunyard, first published 1881 (my edition 1907.). In this book Mr
Bunyard shows several planting plans with large trees at final positions and
dwarf interplants, to be removed in due course. Raymond Bush, writing in the
1950s, was more committed to dwarf bushes at 300 or so to the acre, but
often advised (in his capacity as an orchard consultant) growers to remove
every other tree once they were growing into each other. He said they
usually gasped, but if they followed his advice, after perhaps a small drop
in production for a year, were back up to the same ind of weight per acre
and beter quailty (and a you say, easier management) within 2 years.

Although I read the industry magazine, I am not fully up with the science of
modern super high intensity apple plantations (I doubt if they can be
dignified with that lovely word 'orchard' ). The main benefit of planting
1,000 minature trees to the acre is achieving maximum cropping (of Braeburn,
Gala, or whatever Tesco demands next) sooner. Andrew is right to say that a
lot of the maximised prodcution from these units is from the irrigation,
heavy spraying, etc, but I think there is something to be said for the idea
that this style of growing does maximise the number of appropriately spaced
fruit bud and leaf systems in full sunlight. There is probably a computer
model as well as trials. In any event, this sort of factory farming of fruit
does not really concern people like us.

I must stress for any newcomers, Andrew writes primarily about cider and I
mainly grow dessert apples, there are some differences in approach although
much more in common. NOBODY though is growing dessert apples on big standard
trees any more, as quite apart from waiting 8 years for a crop, Health and
Safety doesn't allow people up ladders to pick and prune them any more! Its
OK with cider as they can be picked up when they fall!

Stephen

[Dries Muylaert]

On 1/31/10, Stephen Hayes <haye...@btinternet.com> wrote:

NOBODY though is growing dessert apples on big standard trees any more, as quite apart from waiting 8 years for a crop, Health and Safety doesn't allow people up ladders to pick and prune them any more! Its OK with cider as they can be picked up when they fall!

 

 

I do.