Overview of Presentation
Changes in the
California Citrus Industry
• CA Citrus Overview;
where we have been and
where are we going?
• Dealing with change and
addressing the
challenges
• Role of Citrus Research
– the long view; planning
for the future
Mary Lu Arpaia
Dept. of Botany and Plant Sciences
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521
Where we fit into the big picture of citrus production
% of Total Production
60
Oranges
Tangerines
Grapefruit
Lemons
Other
40
California Citrus Industry; where we
have been and where are we going?
Has it always been blue skies?
20
0
World
United States
California
Source: USDA-NASS; FAO
Crop Season for CA Citrus
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
Grapefruit
Lemons
CA Ranking
(350 Crops)
CA Share of
US Production
Navel
Oranges
Grapefruit
50
11%
Valencia
Oranges
Lemons
22
86%
Oranges, All
13
21%
Tangerines, All
57
25%
Tangerines
Source: CDFA, CA Agricultural Statistics Service
1
Where do we grow Citrus?
California Citrus Exports - 2001
Oranges
(6)
Lemons
(19)
Grapefruit
(29)
0%
20%
40%
Canada
South Korea
60%
80%
Hong Kong/China
Taiwan
100%
Japan
Other
Source: CA Agricultural Statistics Service, CDFA
• Grown commercially
throughout state
• Historical Base is
southern CA
• Industry has moved
north (~70%) to SJV
• Wide range of soils,
climate and other
environmental
constraints
CA Citrus Acreage 2002
Regional Citrus Distribution - 2002
Navel Oranges
Navel Oranges
Valencia Oranges
Valencia Oranges
Lemons
Lemons
Grapefruit
Grapefruit
Pummelos
and Hybrids
Pummelos
and Hybrids
Tangerines, All
Tangerines, All
Limes
Lime
Bearing
0
20
40
60
80
Non-Bearing
100
120
0%
140
20%
Desert
Coastal
Acres (Thousands)
40%
60%
So. CA Inland
San Joaquin Valley
80%
100%
Sacramento Valley
Other
Source: 2002 California Citrus Acreage Report, CA Agricultural Statistics Service
Source: 2002 California Citrus Acreage Report, CA Agricultural Statistics Service (12/02)
Distribution of California Citrus 1930 - 2002
Navel Orange Distribution 1930 - 2002
350
Cartons (1,000)
300
250
Valencia Orange Distribution 1930 - 2002
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
20%
200
0%
0%
1930
150
1950
Sacramento Valley
1960
1970
1980
San Joaquin Valley
1988
1998
2002
50
1950
Sacramento Valley
1960
1970
1980
San Joaquin Valley
1988
1998
2002
Southern California
Source: CA Agricultural Statistics Service, CDFA
Total peak acreage in 1940’s
Shift to San Joaquin Valley starting in 1950’s due to increased water
availability and urban pressure in southern CA
1940
1950
Sacramento Valley
1960
1970
1980
San Joaquin Valley
1988
1998
2002
Southern California
Source: CA Agricultural Statistics Service, CDFA
Grapefruit, Pummelos and Hybrids Distribution 1930 - 2002
Lemon Distribution 1930 - 2002
1940
1930
Southern California
Source: CA Agricultural Statistics Service, CDFA
100
0
1930
1940
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
20%
0%
0%
1930
1940
1950
Sacramento Valley
1960
1970
1980
San Joaquin Valley
Source: CA Agricultural Statistics Service, CDFA
1988
1998
2002
Southern California
1930
1940
1950
Sacramento Valley
1960
1970
1980
San Joaquin Valley
1988
1998
2002
Southern California
Source: CA Agricultural Statistics Service, CDFA
2
Navel Orange
Navel Orange Production, 1988-2001
30
25
20
15
40
20
10
Primarily San Joaquin Valley
Increasing urban pressure;
environmental constraints; air
pollution
5
0
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Production Year
Navel Orange Utilization, 1988- 2001
100
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Production Year
4
40
0
Fresh Market Processing
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Production Year
Production Year
Source: CDFA, CA Agricultural Statistics Service; 37.5 lb carton
Lemon Utilization, 1988- 2001
Fresh Market
14
Processing
10
8 87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Production Year
Grapefruit Utilization, 1988- 2001
2
0 Value ($/carton)
Processing
4
10
Fresh Market Processing
2
5
6
4
10
Grapefruit Returns, 1988- 2001
Cartons (thousands) (Thousands)
20
Fresh Market Processing
20
Mainly Southern CA deserts and
warm Inland valleys
High urban pressure
0
15
6
Production +/- stable
Mostly fresh market
Returns poor
Fresh Market
Grapefruit
10
25
Lbs (Thousands) per acre
12
30
Production Year
20
Value ($/carton)
40
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Lemon Returns, 1988- 2001
Cartons (thousands) (Thousands)
Production Year
30
Primarily coastal CA, north of
Los Angeles, Southern CA
deserts
High urban pressure
Production Year
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
40
20
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
0
Grapefruit Production, 1988-2001
0
Source: CDFA, CA Agricultural Statistics Service; 37.5 lb carton
Production +/- stable
~45% processed
Intl. Competition??????
10
0
Lemons
30
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Lbs (Thousands) per acre
20
0
Lemon Production, 1988-2001
40
5
2
20
Fresh Market Processing
10
6
60
15
Processing
60
8
Value ($/carton)
Fresh Market
Processing
80
Valencia Orange Returns, 1988- 2001
Valencia Orange Utilization, 1988- 2001
Cartons (thousands) (Thousands)
Value ($/carton)
10
Rapid loss of southern CA
acreage due to increasing urban
pressure and alternative
cropping
0
Navel Orange Returns, 1988- 2001
Cartons (thousands) (Thousands)
Fresh Market
50
Older trees in southern CA;
small fruit size; crease/puff
problems
Competition from navels and
other fruit during summer mo.
Lbs (Thousands) per acre
30
10
40
Valencia Orange
Valencia Orange Production, 1988-2001
Expanded rapidly including
pigmented navels; market
stretched to nearly 10 months
Mainly fresh
Lbs (Thousands) per acre
35
0
0
0
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Production Year
Production Year
Production Year
Production Year
Source: CDFA, CA Agricultural Statistics Service; 38 lb carton
Source: CDFA, CA Agricultural Statistics Service; 33.5 lb carton
What a difference 4 years makes
CA Citrus Acreage 2002
Pummelos and Hybrids - 1998
Navel Oranges
Bearing
Non-Bearing
Chandler
Valencia Oranges
Melogold
Lemons
Oro Blanco
Grapefruit
Shaddock
Pummelos
and Hybrids
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Pummelos and Hybrids - 2002
Acres
Source: 1998 California Citrus Acreage Report, CA Agricultural Statistics Service (5/12/99)
Tangerines, All
Chandler
Melogold
Lime
Bearing
Non-Bearing
Oro Blanco
0
20
40
60
80
100
Acres (Thousands)
Source: 2002 California Citrus Acreage Report, CA Agricultural Statistics Service
120
140
Other
Bearing
0
500
1000
1500
Non-Bearing
2000
2500
3000
Acres
Source: 2002 California Citrus Acreage Report, CA Agricultural Statistics Service
3
Tangerines
Tangerine Production, 1988-2001
25
Many new plantings – knowledge
base lacking
Playing catch-up
Lbs (Thousands) per acre
20
15
10
5
0
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Production Year
New UC releases – unknown
potential
Plantings statewide – will know
more in a few years
Cartons (thousands) (Thousands)
14
10 4
Pummelos
and Hybrids
3
6
2
4
0
Lime
Bearing
Non-Bearing
Fresh Market Processing
0
2
Processing
Some estimate this number could be as
high as 20,000 acres or double CDFA
figures!
Tangerines, All
8
Fresh Market
Lemons
Grapefruit
Value ($/carton)
12
5
1
Navel Oranges
Valencia Oranges
Tangerine Returns, 1988- 2001
Tangerine Utilization, 1988- 2001
6
CA Citrus Acreage 2002
0
20
40
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
Production Year
Production Year
80
100
120
140
Acres (Thousands)
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
60
Source: 2002 California Citrus Acreage Report, CA Agricultural Statistics Service
Source: CDFA, CA Agricultural Statistics Service; 37.5 lb carton
Tangerines, All - 1998
Tangerines, All - 1998 vs 2002
1998 vs 2002
Minneola Tangelo
Other Tangelo
Bearing
Non-Bearing
1998
Fairchild
Satsuma
Other Tangerines
Bearing
0
1
2
3
Non-Bearing
4
5
Acres (Thousands)
Tangerines, All - 2002
Increased planting
More diversified
2002
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Acres (Thousands)
Source: 1998, 2002 California Citrus Acreage Report, CA Agricultural Statistics Service
No varieties for future – unknown
potential
Tangerines/Mandarins
Clementines
Dancy
Fairchild
Gold Nugget
Satsumas
Others
Tangelos
Minneola
Orlando
Others
Tangors/Temples
Royal Mandarins
Others
Bearing
0
1
2
3
Non-Bearing
4
5
Acres (Thousands)
Shasta Gold (TDE 2)
Tahoe Gold (TDE 3)
Dealing with change
Postharvest
and
addressing Physiology
the challenges
Yosemite Gold (TDE 4)
Delite (W. Murcott)
4
Regional considerations
Considerations:
9 Crop Issues
Varietal/Rootstock selection
Fruit quality
Environmental adaptation
9 Environmental
Water - availability/quality
Ground water - pollution
Pesticide regulations
Air pollution (San Joaquin Valley)
9 Urban Encroachment/Attitude
Increased regulations
Competition for resources
9Regional Concerns
9Statewide Concerns
9National Concerns
9Global Concerns
2.8
4
2.4
1
C
1
2
2
1
4
2
C
1
2
4
1
2
C
1
2
C
1
2
1
2
Method of Application
Foliar only
Soil only
Foliar and soil
Control
2.0
1.6
0.0
1
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
TOTAL N APPLIED ANNUALLY (LBS/TREE)
LEAF ANALYSIS
80
Method of Application
Foliar only
Soil only
Foliar and soil
Control
60
1
40
1
C
1
C
2
20
4
2
1
0
0.0
2
1
4
2
1
C
0.5
2
C
1
2
1
1
4
2
Mean for 2000, 2001, 2002
1
1
2
C
1
1
2
C
1
2
2
C
1
4
2
1
C
4
2
2
1
1
Peel Thickness (mm)
LEAF NITROGEN (%)
2000
Nitrate Groundwater Pollution and
management of yield and quality
YIELD - % OF MAX FOR YEAR
3.2
NITRATE (SS) BY SOIL EXTRACT (MG/L)
Nitrate Groundwater Pollution and
management of yield and quality
4
2
Method of Application
Foliar only
Soil only
Foliar and soil
Control
0
6.8
6.6
6.4
6.2
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.4
Foliar only
Soil only
Foliar and soil
Control
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
NITROGEN APPLIED - LBS/TREE
NITROGEN APPLIED - LBS/TREE
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
N SOIL APPLIED ANNUALLY (LBS/TREE)
Impact on Yield
Peel Thickness
NITRATE N IN SOIL EXTRACT
Project funded by CRB; 1997 - 2002
Project funded by CRB; 1997 - 2002
Summary
• Increasing N results in increasing NO3-N below
root zone
• Method of application can influence this
• Maximum yield, less NO3-N below root zone
with combination of foliar and soil applied
• Peel thickness increases, peel firmness
decreases with increasing N
• No other consistent differences in fruit quality
were detected following storage.
Statewide considerations
9Pesticide Registration
Maintaining current materials
Registration of new materials
9Exotic Pests
Exclusion/Public Education
9Disease Containment
9Research Funding
Citrus Research Board
5
Citrus Peelminer, Marmara gulosa prefers to infest fruit
but will also attack leaves and twigs
BEAN THRIPS – quarantined pest in Australia
Fruit
Bean thrips inside navel orange revealed after thin
slices are cut through the fruit. They may appear
black with few distinguishing characteristics
(banding is not visible).
Adult bean thrips bodies are uniformly dark
grayish-black. The front wings have
transverse white bands with brown tips. Newly
emerged adults are a dirty yellowish-brown
with a darker head and retain the crimson
blotches from the pupal stage for a short
period of time.
Leaf
Twig
Glassy-winged Sharpshooter
Citrus Thrips
Can be found in bins of harvested fruit
When feeding, the glassywinged sharpshooter
excretes copious amounts
of watery excrement,
which dries to give plants a
whitewashed appearance.
The insect is one of the largest
sharpshooters found in
California. At about 12 mm (1/2
inch) in length, it is twice as
large as other common species.
Overall it is brown to blackish in
color. The eyes are yellow with
dark speckles and the abdomen
is yellow and black.
California Red Scale
Controlled in field by
- biological control
- chemical control
High Pressure Washer
augments field control
measures and has allowed
for increasing of field
“economic threshold”
High Pressure Washer
6
High Pressure Washer
Scale Removal
Pre Wash
• HPW technology developed in South
Africa and Israel
• Introduced commercially into CA
approximately 5 years ago
• Most orange houses now have a HPW unit
• Houses w/out HPW may use OPP
(orthophenylphenate) over first few
brushes or detergent with neutral cleaner
Green mold
Penicillium digitatum
Blue mold
P. italicum
Sour rot
Geotrichum candidum
Post Wash
HPW Damage
Green and Blue molds
Before harvest
„ Minimize wounds
„ Reduce grove inoculum
„ Prompt transport to packline
After harvest
Wound pathogens are CA’s biggest concern –
always looking for control alternatives
Sour rot
„ Minimize wounds and fruit drops
„ Reduce packinghouse inoculum
„ Use soak tanks & fungicides
„ Store at 50°F or below as soon as possible
Brown rot Phytopthora spp.
Before harvest
„ Minimize wounds, avoid fruit to soil contact
„ Harvest in afternoon, avoid wet periods
„ Prompt transport to packline
After harvest
„ Minimize wounds and packline inoculum
„ Use carbonate soak tanks, wash with SOPP;
wax with GA and/or 2,4-D
„ Store at 50°F or below as soon as possible,
use boxes that isolate fruit into small
groups
7
Maintaining existing fungicides
and registering new materials
Brown rot
Before harvest
„ Copper or fosetyl-Al fungicides
„ Avoid splashing or standing water, good
drainage under trees, skirt pruned up
„ Prune tree to open canopy
„ Prompt transport to packline
Re-visiting old methodologies, improving
what we have – Dr. J. Smilanick
– Optimizing tank/drench treatments
– Near harvest grove treatments (Topsin)
– Optimizing biocontrol agents in the
postharvest environment
After harvest
New fungicides and resistance management
strategies – Dr. J. Adaskaveg
„ Use heat in soak tanks
Resulting
effectiveness
WARM/HOT WATER
HIGHEST
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE WATER
Brief overhead spray
LOWEST
J. Smilanick – USDA,ARS
15
Grove spray fungicide to protect
fruit during degreening
A thiophanate methyl (Topsin M)
application one week before
harvest effectively protected the
harvested fruit from green mold
infection during degreening or
during storage.
Immersed in or pressure
washed with solution
HIGHEST
Float in or drenched
with solution
LIGHT WAX
HEAVY WAX
Fungicide applied Resulting
effectiveness
to fruit by
LOWEST
J. Smilanick – USDA,ARS
Green mold % after degreening or storage
Fungicide
dissolved in
100
Kern Co. Lindcove1 Lindcove2
90
Control
80
Topsin
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
None
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
Inoculum density
J. Smilanick – USDA,ARS
J. Smilanick – USDA,ARS
8
Grove spray fungicide to protect
fruit during degreening
It would greatly facilitate management
of the development of benzimidazoleresistant molds that occurred
as a result of grove applications
if more postharvest fungicides of
other mode-of-action classes
were available.
New classes of fungicides for postharvest decay
control in the US
Sterol biosynthesis
inhibitors
Elite
(tebuconazole)
sweet cherry
Phenylpyrroles
Hydroxyanilides
Scholar
(fludioxonil)
stone & pome fruit,
kiwi, citrus,
pomegranate
Elevate
(fenhexamid)
stone & pome
fruit, kiwi,
pomegranate
Strobilurins
Pyridines
Anilinopyrimidines
Abound
(azoxystrobin,
pyraclostrobin)
citrus
Endura
(boscalid)
PH-066
(pyrimethanil)
citrus, stone, &
pome fruits
Mixture: Pristine (stone fruit)
J. Smilanick – USDA,ARS
Efficacy of fungicides against postharvest decays
Fungicide class
Penicillium
decay
Sour
rot
Gray
mold
Brown
rot
Rhizopus,
Mucor, etc.
Imazalil
SI-Triazole
+++
-
+++
+++
---
TBZ
Benzimidazole
+++
-
+++
+++
-
SOPP
Phenolic
++
++
++
-
+
Fungicide
- Reduced risk fungicides
J. Adaskaveg – UC, Riverside
Tebuconazole
SI-Triazole
+++
++
+++
+++
+
Fludioxonil
Phenylpyrrole
+++
-
+++
+++
+++
Fenhexamid
Hydroxyanilid
-
-
+++
++
-
Azoxystrobin
Strobilurin
++
-
+
+
+
BAS516
Strobilurin/Pyridine
+
-
+++
+++
+++
PH-066
Aninilopyrimidine
+++
-
+++
++
-
Overall ratings based on our efficacy evaluations during field and lab studies.
Rating: +++ = excellent; ++ = very good; + = some activity; - not active.
Color code: Pink = reduced risk, gray = not reduced risk.
J. Adaskaveg – UC, Riverside
Anti-Resistance Strategies for Postharvest Fungicides
- Post-Registration Strategies - Follow the RULES of Fungicide StewardshipRotate between different classes of fungicides or use
mixtures prior to the development of resistance.
Use labeled rates and use only when needed.
Limit total number of fungicide applications of any one
class to 1 per fruit lot.
Educate yourself about fungicide activity, mode of
action, and class.
Sanitation with the use of multi-site mode of action
materials (sanitizers and fungicides) is essential in an
integrated management program .
Postharvest guidelines for the three new fungicides and currently registered
fungicides will be in place for the 2003-2004 season.
J. Adaskaveg – UC, Riverside
National Considerations
Global Considerations
9 Competition for market share
With other commodities and Citrus Imports
9 Marketing and Promotion
TX and FL Promotional Campaigns
Imports
9 Trends in Produce Consumption
5 a Day Program; Convenience Foods
Food Safety
9 Pesticide Regulations/EPA
9 Exotic Pests
9 Trends in Citrus Production
Increase plantings of soft citrus
9 Export Markets - How secure is the Pacific
Rim?
The Japanese – Increased competition
Hong Kong/China - What's the future
9 Global Trade Agreements
9 Changes at CODEX
9
Citrus Research Board
The Citrus Research Program (officially, the California
Citrus Improvement Program)
Grower-funded and grower-directed program
established in 1968 under the California Marketing
Act as the mechanism enabling the state’s citrus
producers to sponsor and support needed research.
Administered by the Citrus Research Board
3 components to the program
– General Research
– Quality assurance (CCQC)
– Variety improvement and registration (Citrus
Clonal Protection Program)
Coordinating strategic
Postharvest
Physiology
planning and meeting
the
challenges
CRB funds
ongoing research and activities in
CA Citrus Quality Council (CCQC)
Mission
Act as an advocate for the CA citrus industry in
response to programs or problems which arise in
state, national or international arenas and which
affect the industry generally in areas of quality
control, quarantine matters, technical assistance,
international compliance or other related issues
Plant Management and Physiology
Plant Improvement
Plant Pathology
Entomology
Exotic Pests
Postharvest
Oversight of regulatory and registration
activity that impacts citrus quality
Reregistration of SOPP, 2,4-D and Section 18
activity
Works with NAPPO/CODEX
Deals with quality assurance issues that arise
100%
Percentage of budget
Funding responds
to needs and
strategic
planning
objectives
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1968
1972
1977
1982
1987
1992
1997
2002
Funding Year
CCQC
CCPP
Plant Management
Plant Improvement
Plant Pathology
Entomology
Postharvest
Special Projects
3000
Funding has
increased
~10 fold
since 1968
Citrus Clonal Protection Program (CCPP)
The role of CRB
COORDINATION and VISION
Amount Funded ($) (Thousands)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1968
1972
1977
1982
1987
1992
1997
2002
• With decreasing state and federal funds, the
CRB provides or assists in procuring funding
for critical research efforts
• Funds both short and long-term research
• Funds both research to solve today’s “reallife” problems and also the “look to the
future”
• Increasing coordination and assistance in
outreach programs
– Grower Seminars, “Breakfast With….”
– Postharvest Seminars for packinghouses
– Subtropical Fruit News and other printed
materials
Funding Year
10
Thank you for your attention
Postharvest Physiology
11