Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Apple farm management practices in the Northeastern US and Northern China

Apple farm management practices in the Northeastern US and Northern China Purpose – The purpose of this study is to compare the different pesticides management practices and productions in three apple farms in the Northeastern US and Northern China. Design/methodology/approach – Interviews and surveys were conducted in the three farms between the summer of 2010 and spring of 2011. Production, pesticide and fertilizer usage, and labor costs were calculated for comparison. Findings – The conventional US apple grower manages his farm for maximum production and minimum labor costs. As a result, the farm achieved a high yield of 24.68 kg/dollar, but low health value for the highest amount of pesticide expenditure ($2.43 per 100 kg of apples). The organic apple farm aims at minimizing environmental impact and protecting consumers. Its yield was 14.22 kg/dollar with 15-30 percent greater labor costs. The health value of the apples improved with pesticide expenditure of $1.66 per 100 kg of apples. This farm uses only the least toxic pesticide certified by OMRI. The traditional apple farm in Northern China spent 1,365 hours/ha on bagging to protect consumers, comparing to only 252 hours/ha of total labor spent in the conventional apple farm. Annual production of the Chinese farm was 22,727 kg/ha, which was only 50 percent of the conventional apple production and 71 percent of the organic apple production. Originality/value – The results reveal great potential for a much better economic and environmental effectiveness in the Chinese apple farm if they redirect labor from bagging to an effort for production and efficient management while still providing consumer protection. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development Emerald Publishing

Apple farm management practices in the Northeastern US and Northern China

Download PDF
11 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/apple-farm-management-practices-in-the-northeastern-us-and-northern-ydKy0q58bA
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
2042-5945
DOI
10.1108/20425941211250525
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to compare the different pesticides management practices and productions in three apple farms in the Northeastern US and Northern China. Design/methodology/approach – Interviews and surveys were conducted in the three farms between the summer of 2010 and spring of 2011. Production, pesticide and fertilizer usage, and labor costs were calculated for comparison. Findings – The conventional US apple grower manages his farm for maximum production and minimum labor costs. As a result, the farm achieved a high yield of 24.68 kg/dollar, but low health value for the highest amount of pesticide expenditure ($2.43 per 100 kg of apples). The organic apple farm aims at minimizing environmental impact and protecting consumers. Its yield was 14.22 kg/dollar with 15-30 percent greater labor costs. The health value of the apples improved with pesticide expenditure of $1.66 per 100 kg of apples. This farm uses only the least toxic pesticide certified by OMRI. The traditional apple farm in Northern China spent 1,365 hours/ha on bagging to protect consumers, comparing to only 252 hours/ha of total labor spent in the conventional apple farm. Annual production of the Chinese farm was 22,727 kg/ha, which was only 50 percent of the conventional apple production and 71 percent of the organic apple production. Originality/value – The results reveal great potential for a much better economic and environmental effectiveness in the Chinese apple farm if they redirect labor from bagging to an effort for production and efficient management while still providing consumer protection.

Journal

World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development – Emerald Publishing

Published: Jul 26, 2012

There are no references for this article.