Bonjour Vincent! Désolé, mais peut-être que vous devriez vous en tenir à l'entomologie et de la pathologie et de laisser la recherche horticole très dur très important pour les vrais experts! :-)
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Vincent Philion <vincent.phil...@irda.qc.ca > wrote: > Hello, sorry for the delay. > > Yes, correct. Crop load influenced fruit weight notwithstanding ReTain. > Fruits left on tree at harvest were more numerous and larger when treated > with Retain. Fruits were up to 56g larger (148g vs 92g) depending on the > specifics of the ReTain application. > > What I also found interesting was that the average fruit pressure of > retain treated fruit significantly dropped for fruit left on the trees. As > if the fruit stuck to the tree with Retain, and continued to grow but got > softer. > > The Brix index was also influenced by the number of fruits on the tree: > lower Brix on trees with more fruit. Retain also increased sugar content. > > Not much else to report. > > I’m not usually into physiology. This was a “accidental” project for us! > > Vincent > > On 14janv., 2014, at 16:41, David Kollas <kol...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > Vincent: > > As I understand your most recent explanation, both the untreated and the > ReTain-treated trees > produced greater fruit size at harvest if they were borne on trees most > heavily-set at start of > experiment. And that the ReTain treated trees showed a greater > size/initial number of fruit than did the > untreated. If the difference in fruit size for treated versus untreated > is small, I would not be much > bothered by it. Can you tell us how much different they were? > > David Kollas > > On Jan 14, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Vincent Philion <vincent.phil...@irda.qc.ca> > wrote: > > Hello! > > Thank you all for your input! > > I did not explain why I was looking at drop and fruit size: it was an > experiment on the use of ReTain. > > In the end I’m not sure I can pinpoint the reason this increased fruit > size on trees with more apples (notwithstanding ReTain), but your input > underlined that a number of variables can be involved! I liked Duane’s idea. > > If you’re curious, the report will read: ReTain Treatments significantly > increased harvested McIntosh yield as compared to the control (p<0.0001). > Average fruit size at harvest was proportional to the total number > of fruits on the trees present at the start of the experiment (p=0.01) and > fruits treated with ReTain were larger than in the control (p=0.02). > > The effect of ReTain on harvest was expected (drop prevention) but the > effect on fruit size was undetectable if the model was not adjusted to the > initial crop load (thus my question) > > So the next question is now: why are ReTain treated fruits bigger than > untreated fruit at harvest? > > bye for now, > > Vincent > > > On 14janv., 2014, at 10:06, Duane Greene <dgre...@pssci.umass.edu> wrote: > > > _______________________________________________ > apple-crop mailing list > apple-crop@virtualorchard.net > http://virtualorchard.net/mailman/listinfo/apple-crop > > > > _______________________________________________ > apple-crop mailing list > apple-crop@virtualorchard.net > http://virtualorchard.net/mailman/listinfo/apple-crop > > -- Jon Clements aka 'Mr Honeycrisp' UMass Cold Spring Orchard 393 Sabin St. Belchertown, MA 01007 413-478-7219 umassfruit.com
_______________________________________________ apple-crop mailing list apple-crop@virtualorchard.net http://virtualorchard.net/mailman/listinfo/apple-crop
