UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An assessment of land for commercial apple orchard potential on CLI class 4 and 5 soils in the Nanaimo… Williams, Heather Lorraine 1985

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1985_A6_7 W54.pdf [ 35.02MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096360.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096360-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096360-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096360-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096360-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096360-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096360-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096360-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096360.ris

Full Text

AN ASSESSMENT OF LAND FOR COMMERCIAL APPLE ORCHARD POTENTIAL ON CLI CLASS 4 AND 5 SOILS IN THE NANAIMO B.C. AREA - A CASE STUDY By HEATHER LORRAINE WILLIAMS B . S c , The University of Br i t ish Columbia, 1981 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF StIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Resource Management Science We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1985 (c) Heather Lorraine Williams In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Department Date O c / o b o i u ^ | DE-6(3/81) i i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT 1v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi LIST OF TABLES v i i LIST OF FIGURES vi 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.0 The Study Area 5 1.1 Location 5 1.2 Climate 5 1.3 Geology 7 1.4 Landscape and Soils 10 1.5 Socioeconomic Prof i le 16 2 METHODOLOGY 25 2.0 Literature Review 25 2.1 Study Methodology 28 i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued PAGE 3 BIOPHYSICAL VARIABLES 32 3.0 Literature Review 32 3.1 Climate Parameters 32 3.2 Soil Parameters 41 3.3 Soil Parameters - Pears 49 3.4 Soil Parameters - Apples 55 3.5 Results 62 3.6 Groundwater Avai labi l i ty 66 4 SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES 74 4.0 Land Tenure 74 4.1 Current Land Use 79 5 FEASIBILITY OF APPLE ORCHARD DEVELOPMENT 89 6 CONCLUSIONS 128 6.0 Biophysical 128 6.1 Socioeconomic 131 APPENDICES 14? BIBLIOGRAPHIES ^ i v ABSTRACT It is generally accepted in Br i t ish Columbia that Canada Land Inventory Class 1 to 4 lands are arable, yet in many instances commercial farms exist on lands of lower capabi l i ty . A case study was done for an area (1.6 km * 2.9 km) southeast of Nanaimo, B.C. to determine i f Canada Land Inventory Class 4 and 5 soi ls are biophysically suitable for Pyrus (pear) and Mai us (apple) orchards, and i f such a development would be socioeconomically feasible. The c r i t i ca l bio-physical conditions governing orchard development identi f ied were climate (freeze free period, effective growing degree days, dormancy period and mini-mum winter temperature); soi ls (depth, drainage, texture/% coarse fragment content and topography); and groundwater avai labi l i ty for i r r igat ion . The c r i t i c a l economic conditions were land tenure (Tree Farms and parcel s ize) ; current land use; and f ru i t yields and prices. While al l biophysical condi-tions were favourable to apple orchards, the soi ls were found to be too coarse textured for pear orchards. Maps outlining the c r i t i ca l biophysical and socioeconomic conditions were prepared and overlayed. The composite map identi f ied one area with rea l is t ic development potential for apple orchards. Although s o i l s , land tenure, parcel size and current land use decreased the area available for orchards, the lack of groundwater for i rr igat ion was found to be the most l imiting factor to orchard development. V Estimates of costs and returns for a 3.3 ha apple orchard over a 25 year period were done. Using these estimates, the net present value of the orchard was determined for three discount rates: 5%, 8% and 10%; and for f ive prices per kilogram: $0.15, $0.22, $0.33, $0.44 and $0.66. At prices of $0.15, $0.22, $0.33 and $0.44 (at discount rates of 10% and 8%), orchard establishment was not feasible . However, at prices of $0.44 (and discount rate of 5%) and $0.66, orchard establishment was feasible. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following individuals gave freely of their time and knowledge during the process of compiling and writing this thesis. I wish to acknowledge their contribution: Mr. Brent Warner, Mr. Herman Garrick, Mr. Robert Maxwell, Mr. Marc Zubel, Mr. Peter Gubbels, Mr. John Schildroth, Ms. Elaine Dawson; and my Committee, Dr. L. Lavkulich, Dr. H. Schreier, Dr. M. Sondheim, Dr. C. Shortt and Dr. J . Graham. vi i LIST OF TABLES PAGE I Summary of Literature Review and Interviews for Soil and Climate Parameters Important in the Culture of Pears and Apples 33 II Summary of Literature Review for Climate Parameters for Pears . . . 44 III Summary of Literature Review for Climate Parameters for Apples . . 46 IV Summary of Literature Review for Soil Parameters for Pears 50 V Summary of Literature Review for Soil Parameters for Apples 56 VI Spray Schedule for Years 4 Through 25 92 VII Equipment and Building Costs 96 VIII Estimates of Costs and Returns Years 1 Through 25 98 IX Summary of Estimates of Costs Years 1 Through 25 for a 3.3 ha Orchard 123 X Expected Yields and Returns at Various Prices Per Kilogram 125 XI Net Present Value of 25 Year Orchard Investment 126 v i i i LIST OF FIGURES PAGE 1 Location of Study Area 6 2 Mineral Soils of Agricultural Capability Class 4 and 5 Located in Study Area 17 3 Flow Chart of Land Assessment Methodology 30 4 Map of Soil Sui tabi l i ty for Apple Orchard Development 64 5 Map of Groundwater Potential 69 6 Map of Areas With Biophysical Capability for Apple Orchards 72 7 Map of the Legal Status of the Land 77 8 Map of Areas With Apple Orchard Development Potential 80 9 Map of Current Land Use 84 10 Map of Areas With Real ist ic Development Potential 87 1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION This thesis will outline an approach to the recognition of potential Pyrus (pear) and Mai us (apple) orchard land on the east coast of Vancouver Island through the use of maps delineating biophysical characteristics and economic data; and a feas ib i l i ty study. The Bri t ish Columbia Ministries of Environment and Agriculture and Food have been fine tuning the Agricultural Land Reserve boundaries on the east coast of Vancouver Island. This area includes the coastal lowland from Bamberton north to, and including Qualicum Beach. The east coast of Vancouver Island is underutilized agr icul tural ly . Many hort icultur ists feel that the soi ls and climate are conducive to the production of apples and pears, among other crops (Ministry of Environment, 1981a). There are large areas of Canada Land Inventory class 4 and 5 (improved rating) soi ls on the east coast, c lass i f ied as such due to their topography and stoniness l imitat ions. In the Okanagan Valley, many soi ls similar to those of the east coast in topography and stoniness are capable of producing apples and pears on a commercial scale. These limitations do decrease the range of crops, but do not l imit the productivity of crops that can be grown on these soi ls (Kenk and Cotic, 1983). 2 While the CLI class 1 to 3 soi ls of Vancouver Island's east coast are known to support a variety of agricultural ac t i v i t i es , the CLI class 4 and 5 so i ls are d i f f i c u l t to assess as they are underutil ized. Where stoniness and topography are their main l imitat ions, i t is possible that these soi ls could support pear and apple orchards. Although pear and apple orchards can tolerate soi ls that are topo-graphically and texturally restr ic t ive to other crops, their culture is most often governed by climatic requirements which include a freeze free period of 90 to 119 days in the interior of the province and greater than 150 days in coastal areas; and growing degree days above 5°C of 1310 to 1504 for inter ior areas and 825 for coastal areas (Brit ish Columbia Ministry of Environment, 1981). In Br i t ish Columbia, land having these climatic charac-te r is t ics occurs in the Okanagan and Similkameen Valleys, Kamloops, Ashcroft and Li l looet areas, and on the east coast of Vancouver Island (Kenk and Cotic, 1983). The precipitation pattern on the east coast of Vancouver Island is constraining to the culture of pear and apple orchards. While the yearly precipitation of approximately 1100 mm is adequate for the culture of pear and apple orchards, the majority of this precipitation occurs during the winter months (Lands Directorate, 1981). Although 180 mm of precipitation occurs during the May through September growing season, there is a climatic moisture def ic i t of 191 to 265 mm during this season, necessitating the use of i r r igat ion . 3 However, water for i rr igat ion is not readily available on the east coast of Vancouver Island. Small streams dry up when the water table f a l l s during the relat ively dry spring and summer precluding reliance on them as a source of water. Al l other surface waters are committed to other uses (T. Chamberlin, pers. com. 1983). While groundwater aquifers could supply suff ic ient i r r igat ion water in some areas, in other areas their productive capacity appears very limited (Ronneseth, 1982). Therefore, the culture of pear and apple orchards would be impossible in some areas 1 due to lack of water, while in others adequate supplies could be pumped from groundwater aquifers. Socioeconomic constraints cannot be ignored when identifying potential apple and orchard land. Tree farms and Tree Farm Licences occupy s i g n i f i -cantly large blocks of land on the east coast (F. Williams, pers. com., 1983 and A. Sayles, pers. com. 1983). The other extreme in parcel size is the numerous lot size parcels in fee simple tenure that fragment the land base, and could, in some areas, make i t impossible to achieve the economics of size necessary for e f f ic ient farming. Although there may be areas with the biophysical requirements and of geographic extent to support pear and apple orchards, current land use could be in conf l ic t with potential orchard development. Yet another constraint 1 However, i t would be possible to have suff icient water i f catchment basins were constructed on a local or regional basis. 4 to development could be the economic feas ib i l i t y . The costs of developing a f ru i t farm are high, and i f prices received for produce are not reasonable, the possibi l i ty of a fa i r return on investment may be not be feasible (P. Gubbels, pers. com., 1983). The aims of this thesis are to: 1. determine what c r i t i c a l biophysical and socioeconomic parameters would impose constraints on orchard development on an area; 2. determine i f the methodology used to collate these parameters is an effective means of assessing an area for i ts agricultural potential; and 3. determine i f i t is economically feasible to develop pear and apple orchards on CLI class 4 and 5 soi ls on the east coast of Vancouver Island. A few assumptions must be made; markets exist for fresh pears and apples at the farm gate, inputs for orchard development are readily ava i l -able and people would want to develop orchards on CLI class 4 and 5 s o i l s . 5 1.0 THE STUDY AREA 1.1 LOCATION The study area is situated southwest of Nanaimo City , and includes the north portion of the Cedar Dist r ic t and the southeast portion of the Nanaimo D is t r i c t . The area is bounded by the Nanaimo Harbour and Northumberland Channel on the north, and Stuart Channel on the east. The total area is approximately 4.6 square kilometers (1.6 km long and 2.9 km wide). The latitude of the study area is from 49°6' to 4 9 ° 8 . 5 ' , the longitude is from 123°48' to 123°55' . At present, editing of one map area is completed; this is the map area on which the methodology will be tested. Refer to Figure 1 f o r location of study area. 1.2 CLIMATE The Vancouver Island mountains west of the study area effectively diminish the maritime influence on the Island's east coast. The mountains l i e in a north-south orientation on the centre and west coast of the Island, r is ing to elevations of approximately 1350 m. The elevation of the study area varies between sea level and 250 m. Winters tend to be mild with temperatures averaging a minimum of 1.7°C to a maximum of 9.0°C. The dormancy period (number of hours with tempera-tures <7°C) is approximately 1480 hours. fcwjncon is Departure ^—^Z" * Buy V ^~^*V, ISLAJND ^ FIGURE 1 LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ^ i 1 o" Gallows Pi 5/c "? / P r o t e c t i o n ) * l i t - \ Hit s 4 " ^ k v r»-..A •  x  4 ..... / >-.- ;V.:y / ' ' S H A R E W Q Q P NstodHfc Reynolds PI _ l ;-r - i n n i III M M . . . . • 7 Study area La* 7 Summers are cool with temperatures averaging a minimum of 7.7 C to a maximum of 24.3 C. The frost free period is greater than 150 days; while the number of effective growing degree days above 5°C (°C-days) is greater than 825. , Despite the considerable amount of precipitation that f a l l s during the fa l l and winter months (925 mm), droughty conditions do tend to occur during the May to September growing season (precipitation average 179 mm) (Atmos-pheric Environment Serv ice) 1 , resulting in moisture def ic i ts l imit ing to plant growth. The moisture def ic i ts are in the range of 191 to 265 mm, a def ic i t suf f ic ient ly large to categorize this area's climatic capabil i ty for agriculture as 4A(1). 1.3 GEOLOGY The study area is a part of the east coast lowland of Vancouver Island. The Nanaimo ser ies, sedimentary rocks of Upper Cretaceous Age, underlay the sur f ic ia l materials of the lowland. The Nanaimo series rests unconformably upon the resistant metamorphic and granitic rocks composing the Vancouver Range of Jurassic and Triassic age. The metamorphic rocks consist of metamorphosed andesites and basalts and metamorphosed fine grained sediments 1 Al l climatic data in this section is based on 25 to 30 year averages, and is compiled by the Atmospheric Environment Service, Environment Canada. 8 of carbonaceous shale and argillaceous sandstone or ig in , but now cherty and slaty rocks. The principal granitic rock, granodiorite has an older and marginal facies of gabbro-diorite, into which i t is intrusive. The Nanaimo series consists of conglomerates, sandstones, shales and some coal . The conglomerates are composed chiefly of detritus of quartz veins and quartzose rocks, the sandstones chiefly of granitic detritus, quartz and feldspar and the shales chief ly of detritus from altered volcanic rocks. The series is partly of marine or ig in , probably estuarine, as evidenced by the rapid vertical and lateral gradation of the sediments; and partly of terrestr ia l o r ig in , as i t contains land plants and coals, probably of fresh water accumulation. The upper formation of the series contains few or no marine organisms, which would be indicative of terrestr ia l conditions during the latter stages of formation. It is characterized by sediments succeeding each other at short intervals, beds of small lateral extent; and signs of deformation including abrupt r o l l s , joints and folding in the beds. The average thickness of the Nanaimo series was at least 2000 m toward the close of i ts deposition (Clapp, 1914). Glaciation occurring between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago altered the geology of the lowland to conditions similar to i ts present state. Succes-sive glaciers rounded and polished the bedrock, deepened the longitudinal valleys and le f t most sur f ic ia l deposits below 150 m elevation (Halstead, 1965, 1963). During the retreat of the last major ice sheet, rapid aggrada-tion occurred on the isostat ica l ly depressed river valleys and lowlands 9 (Clague, 1981; and Halstead, 1963, 1965). GIaciofluvial and lacustrine sediments were carried by the rivers to be deposited in their valleys and deltas (Halstead, 1968). The weaker bedrock formations were eroded through glaciation to form longitudinal valleys including the low f la t trench extending from and including the Nanaimo Harbour and River delta, south to Ladysmith Harbour. The Nanaimo River flows through the northern section of this trench (Halstead, 1963; and Odynsky). Holden Lake occupies another glacia l ly eroded val ley. The more resistant bedrock formations tend to form the ridges found at higher elevations. , The sur f ic ia l deposits of the Nanaimo River trench and delta are com-posed of f l u v i a l , shore, deltaic and upland swamp deposits (gravel, sand, s i l t , c lay, peat). These deposits extend along the creek east of the Nanaimo River delta for approximately 0.3 km. To the north of this creek, and extending over a large area including Harmac, bedrock is found at the land surface or thinly covered with stony, loamy and clayey marine veneer. The surf ic ia l deposits of the area between the east side of the Nanaimo River trench and the east arm of Holden Lake are similar to the Harmac area although the deposits tend to be deeper (up to 16 m) and in places of s i l t , clay or stoney clay textures. The remainder of this area has a thin veneer of marine gravel and sand overlying ground moraine deposits of t i l l , lenses of gravel, sand and s i l t . 10 West of the Nanaimo River trench, there are numerous bedrock outcrops and outcrops with thin patches of overburden. The thin surf ic ia l deposits are of marine origin and consist of thin gravel and sand veneer overlying ground moraine deposits of t i l l , lenses of gravel, sand and s i l t (Halstead, 1963). 1.4 LANDSCAPE AND SOILS The topography of the Nanaimo River delta is level to nearly • l eve l . The elevation ranges from sea level to less than 30 m a . s . l . predisposing the area to frequent f looding. Vegetation is varied. On those areas experiencing tidal water seepage, the native vegetation consists of water and salt tolerant species. In the remainder of the area, the native vegeta-tion consists of western red cedar, maple, red alder, Douglas f i r and black cottonwood with a wide variety of shrubs in the understory. The dominant l a n d use of this latter area is pasture and hay production. The delta soi ls are derived from sandy s i l ty f luvial parent material and have textures ranging from fine sandy loam to s i l t loam. These soi ls have a moderately high to high water and nutrient retention capacity. Solum depth is variable, ranging from less than 50 cm to more than 175 cm, while rooting depth is at least 100 cm. The depth to the apparent water table ranges from the soil surface to 200 cm, at lower elevations, the water table is near the surface year round. These soi ls are moderately pervious, but vary from being moderately well to poorly drained. Those soi ls close to t idal waters are moderately to strongly saline due to the tidal waters entering the root zone through the subsurface sand and gravel layers. 11 The Nanaimo River trench is narrow (approximately 50 m to 400 m) in the study area, widening to approximately 200 m south of Wellington. A few areas of bedrock outcrop occur in the trench. The topography of the trench is level to gently sloping. The elevation ranges from sea level to approximately 30 m a . s . l . predisposing the trench to flooding. The native vegetation consists of Douglas f i r , grand f i r , western hemlock, red alder, black cottonwood and maple with a wide variety of shrubs in the understory. The dominant land uses include woodlots, hay production and pasture. The soi ls of the trench are derived from sandy s i l ty to sandy gravelly f luvia l materials, and have textures ranging from s i l ty loam to gravelly loamy sand. The coarser soi ls (gravelly sand to loamy sands) tend to be nearer to active stream channels prone to stream overflow and erosion. These soi ls have a low water and nutrient retention capacity. Solum depth is greater than 100 cm, rooting depth varies from 60 to 80 cm. The depth to the apparent water table ranges from 100 to 500 cm. These soi ls are rapidly pervious and drained. The finer soi ls (fine sandy loam to s i l t loam) of the trench occur on the level to depressional f loodplains. These soi ls have a moderately high to high water and nutrient retention capacity. Solum depth varies from less than 50 cm to 175 cm, rooting depth is at least 100 cm. The watertable fluctuates between the soil surface and a depth of 200 cm, at lower eleva-tions the water table is apparent year round. These soi ls are moderately 12 pervious, but vary in drainage capabil i ty. Those fine textured soi ls occurring in depressions are poorly drained, while those on level to sloping floodplains are moderately well drained. There is an extensive area around Harmac and extending up to Duke Point where the landscape and soi ls have been signif icant ly altered by man's ac t iv i t i es . Material has been brought in from other sites or redistributed to create a suitable landscape for a designated use. This area was not included in the soil survey. The landscape of the area east of the Nanaimo River trench is dominated by gentle to strongly sloping topography with a few steeply sloping areas. There are small areas with level to very gentle sloping topography occurring in depressions such as those adjacent to Holden Lake. The elevation varies from sea level to 250 m a . s . l . Native vegetation includes second growth Douglas f i r , western red cedar, grand-f ir , western hemlock and arbutus, with an understory dominated by sa la l . In the poorly drained depressional areas, the native vegetation includes a variety of water tolerant plants such as Labrador tea, hardhack, willow, skunk cabbage, sedges and reeds. The majority of the former area remains under forest cover, other land uses include pasture, hay production, dairying, and gravel extraction; the latter area remains in i ts native state. Mineral s o i l s , derived from sandy gravelly moraine, marine or col luvial materials, dominate the landscape east of the Nanaimo River trench. These soi ls are often associated with sandstone rock outcrops, tend to shallowness 13 and have high coarse fragment content. Soil texture ranges from gravelly loam to very gravelly sandy loam with coarse fragment content ranging from 11 to 60%. These soi ls have low water and nutrient capacity. Depth to bedrock varies from less than 50 cm to 400 cm, the majority of these soi ls have from 50 to 100 cm of mineral material over bedrock. Solum depth varies from less than 50 cm to 100 cm; rooting depth ranges from less than 50 cm to 100 cm. A water table is not apparent with these s o i l s . Soil perviousness is moderate to rapid; soil drainage is moderate to rapid. There is no flooding hazard associated with these s o i l s . Some of the finer textured mineral so i ls occur in association with the coarser soi ls in this area, but the majority of the finer textured soi ls are in discrete areas. These finer textured soi ls are derived from sandy s i l t y f luvia l or marine materials; and have textures ranging from s i l ty clay loams to loamy sand with low coarse fragment content. Water and nutrient reten-tion capacity varies from low for the sandier s o i l s , moderate to high for the loamy s o i l s . Solum depth varies from less than 50 cm to greater than 150 cm; rooting depth is greater than 100 cm for the majority of these s o i l s , although a few have compact or cemented horizons between 40 and 70 cm. The water table is either apparent year round or seasonally perched between the soil surface and 200 cm. Soil perviousness ranges from slow to rapid, soi l drainage from poor to rapid. Flooding is rare, except in depressions where i t may be expected. 14 The organic so i ls occurring east of the Nanaimo River trench are s i tu -ated in poorly drained depressional areas. These soi ls are moderately to rapidly pervious and have a very high water and nutrient retention capacity. Rooting depth is 20 to 50 cm. Depth to bedrock can be greater than 160 cm. The water table is at or near the soil surface for the majority of the year, but can drop considerably in the late summer and f a l l . These soi ls are naturally in fe r t i l e and ac id ic , and have low bulk densit ies. The topography west of the Nanaimo River trench is the most variable of the whole study area. Adjacent to the trench, the topography varies from level to moderate slopes. However, to the west of this area, the topography is characterized mainly by very gentle to extreme slopes with a few areas of very steep slopes. In depressions, the topography is level to nearly leve l . The elevation of this area varies from sea level to 200 m. The native vege-tation of the mineral soi ls includes second growth Douglas f i r , grand f i r , western hemlock, western red cedar and red alder with some lodgepole pine and arbutus. The understory is dominated by s a l a l . In the poorly drained areas, the native vegetation includes a variety of water tolerant plants such as Labrador tea, hardhack, willow, skunk cabbage, sedges and reeds. The majority of the area remains under forest cover due to the rest r ic t ive-ness of the variable topography and soil stoniness. Other land uses include pasture and hay production, waste rock dumps, garbage waste dumps and trans-portation (a irport ) . Coarse textured soi ls with high coarse fragment content dominate the landscape; f iner textured and organic soi ls tend to occur in small isolated 15 areas. Sandstone outcrops occur frequently in conjunction with the coarse textured s o i l s . These outcrops and coarse textured soi ls are situated adja-cent to the Nanaimo River and i ts delta, and west of the f iner textured soi ls that occur in the level to gently sloping area. The coarse textured soi ls are derived from sandy gravelly moraine, marine or f luvia l materials. So i ls ' textures range from very gravelly loamy sand to gravelly sandy loam. Coarse fragment content of these soi ls varies from 11% to greater than 60%. These soi ls are shallow, the depth to bedrock ranging from less than 50 cm to 500 cm, solum depth varying from less than 50 cm to 150 cm, and rooting depth ranging from 50 cm to greater than 100 cm. The depth to water table is greater than 100 cm. These soi ls are slow to rapidly pervious, a l l are moderately well to rapidly drained. The water and nutrient retention capacities are low. There are no flooding hazards associated with these s o i l s . The finer textured soi ls are derived from fine marine material and have s i l t loam to s i l t y clay textures. Solum depth ranges from 100 to 150 cm with compact horizons occurring between 40 and 100 cm. Rooting depth is from 40 to 60 cm. The water table occurs year round between the soil sur-face and 150 cm in some areas, in others i t is seasonally perched at 70 cm. These soi ls are slowly pervious and imperfectly drained. Flooding may be expected in those soi ls occupying depressions. 16 There are a few small isolated areas of organic soi ls occurring west of the Nanaimo River trench. These soi ls are located in poorly drained depres-sions. They are characterized by slow perviousness, poor drainage, rooting depths of 20 to 50 cm, bedrock at 160 cm, and a year round apparent water table between 25 and 100 cm. These soi ls have high water and nutrient retention capacit ies, low bulk densit ies, and natural i n f e r t i l i t y . They are also prone to frequent flooding (Brit ish Columbia Ministry of Environment, 1983). The mineral soi ls of agricultural capabil i ty 4 and 5 are extensive in the study area and situated east and west of the Nanaimo River trench. Refer to Figure 2 for Mineral Soils of Agricultural Capability Class 4 and 5 whose main limitations are topography and stoniness, and where >50X of the polygon is class 4 and/or class 5. 1.5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE The moderate climate, relat ively inexpensive land, rural l i f es ty le and employment opportunities in the study area and in Nanaimo have encouraged people to settle in this area. Nanaimo, the closest population centre, is only 0.5 to 2 km away. The city has a d iversi f ied economic base with fores-t ry , f ish ing , farming, railway t r a f f i c , tourism and port ac t iv i t i es . It is easily accessible via the Island Highway, as are other population centres on the Island. The Island's forests' high productivity and their proximity to processing plants and tidewater have encouraged forest product processing 17 FIGURE 2 MINERAL SOILS OF AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY CLASS 4 AND 5 LOCATED IN STUDY AREA 1:20,000 scale Explanation of map symbols percentage of map.. j>6:5T^_^capability subclass unit (x 10) ^ 4 : 3 W ^ ^capabi l i ty class CAPABILITY CLASSES The capabil i ty c lass , the broadest category in the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , is a grouping of lands that have the same relative degree of l imitation or hazard for agricultural use. The intensity of the l imitation or hazard becomes progressively greater from Class 1 to Class 7. The class indicates the general su i tab i l i ty of the land for agricultural use. LAND CAPABILITY CLASSES FOR MINERAL SOILS The seven land capability classes for mineral soi ls are defined and described as follows: CLASS 1 LAND IN THIS CLASS EITHER HAS NO OR ONLY VERY SLIGHT LIMITATIONS THAT RESTRICT ITS USE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF COMMON AGRICULTURAL CROPS. Land in Class 1 is level or nearly leve l . The soi ls are deep, well to imperfectly drained under natural conditions, or have good a r t i f i c i a l water table control , and hold moisture well . They can be managed and cropped without d i f f i c u l t y . Productivity is easily maintained for a wide range of f i e ld crops. CLASS 2 LAND IN THIS CLASS HAS MINOR LIMITATIONS THAT REQUIRE GOOD ONGOING MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OR SLIGHTLY RESTRICT" THE RANGE OF CROPS, OR BOTH. Land in Class 2 has limitations which constitute a continuous minor management problem or may cause lower crop yields compared to Class 1 land but which do not pose a threat of crop loss under good management. The soi ls in Class 2 are deep, hold moisture well and can be managed and cropped with l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y . CLASS 3 LAND IN THIS CLASS HAS LIMITATIONS THAT REQUIRE MODERATELY INTEN-SIVE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OR MODERATELY RESTRICT THE RANGE OF CROPS OR BOTH. The limitations are more severe than for Class 2 land and management practices are more d i f f i cu l t , to apply and maintain. The limitations may rest r ic t the choice of suitable crops or affect one or more of the following practices: timing and ease of t i l l age ; planting and harvesting; and methods of soil conservation. 18 CLASS 4 LAND IN THIS CLASS HAS LIMITATIONS THAT REQUIRE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OR SEVERELY RESTRICT THE RANGE OF CROPS, OR BOTH. Land in Class 4 has limitations which make i t suitable for only a few crops, or the y ie ld for a wide range of crops is low, or the risk of crop fai lure is high, or soil conditions are such that special development and management practices are required. The limitations may seriously affect one or more of the following practices: timing and ease of t i l l a g e ; planting and harvesting; and methods of soil conservation. CLASS 5 LAND IN THIS CLASS HAS LIMITATIONS THAT RESTRICT ITS CAPABILITY TO PRODUCING PERENNIAL FORAGE CROPS OR OTHER SPECIALLY ADAPTED CROPS. Land in Class 5 is generally limited to the production of perennial forage crops or other special ly adapted crops. Productivity of these suited crops may be high. Class 5 lands can be cultivated and some may be used for cultivated f ie ld crops provided unusually intensive management is employed and/or the crop is part icularly adapted to the conditions peculiar to these lands. Cultivated f i e ld crops may be grown on some Class 5 land where adverse climate is the main l imitat ion, but crop fai lure can be expected under average conditions. Note that in areas which are c l imat ical ly suit -able for growing tree f ru i ts and grapes the l imitations of stoniness and/or  topography on some Class 5 lands are not signif icant l imitations to these  crops. CLASS 6 LAND IN THIS CLASS IS NONARABLE BUT IS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING NATIVE AND/OR UNCULTIVATED PERENNIAL FORAGE CROPS. Land in Class 6 provides sustained natural grazing for domestic l i v e -stock and is not arable in i ts present condition. Land is placed in this class because of severe climate, or the terrain is unsuitable for cul t iva-tion or use of farm machinery, or the soi ls do not respond to intensive improvement practices. Some unimproved Class 6 lands can be improved by draining and/or diking. CLASS 7 LAND IN THIS CLASS HAS NO CAPABILITY FOR ARABLE CULTURE OR SUSTAINED NATURAL GRAZING. All c lass i f ied areas not included in Classes 1 to 6 inclusive are placed in this c lass . Class 7 land may have limitations equivalent to Class 6 land but they do not provide natural sustained grazing by domestick l i ve -stock due to climate and resulting unsuited natural vegetation. Also included are rockland, other nonsoil areas, and small water-bodies not shown on the maps. Some unimproved Class 7 land can be improved by draining or diking. 19 CAPABILITY SUBCLASSES The subclass indicates lands with similar kinds by varying intensit ies of l imitations and hazards. It provides information on the kind of manage-ment problem or use l imitat ion. Except for Class 1 and 01 lands, which have no signi f icant l imitat ions, the capabil i ty classes are divided by subclasses on the basis of type of l imitation to agricultural use. Each class can include many different kinds of s o i l , similar with respect to degree of  l imi tat ion; but soi ls in any class may require unlike management and treat-ment as indicated by the subclasses shown. LAND CAPABILITY SUBCLASSES FOR MINERAL SOILS A SOIL MOISTURE DEFICIENCY: Crops are adversely affected by droughtiness caused by soil and/or climate character ist ics. Improvable by i r r i g a -t i on. C ADVERSE CLIMATE: Thermal l imitations to plant growth. Minimum tempera-tures near freezing and/or insuff ic ient heat units during the growing season and/or extreme minimum temperatures during the winter season. Not improvable. D UNDESIRABLE SOIL STRUCTURE AND/OR LOW PERVIOUSNESS: Soils are d i f f i c u l t to t i l l , require special management for seedbed preparation, pose t r a f f i c a b i l i t y problems, have insuf f ic ient aeration, absorb and d i s t r i -bute water slowly, and/or have the depth of rooting zone restricted by conditions other that high water table, bedrock or permafrost. Improve-ment practices vary; no improvement is assumed in the absence of local experience. E EROSION: Past damage from erosion l imits agricultural use due to loss of productivity and hampering of access by gul l ies . Not improvable. F FERTILITY: Lack of available nutrients, low cation exchange capacity or nutrient holding ab i l i t y , high acidity or a lka l in i ty , high levels of carbonates, present of toxic elements or compounds, or high f ixation of plant nutrients. Usually improvable through fe r t i l i ze rs and amendments. I INUNDATION: Overflow by stream, lakes or marine tides causes crop damage or restr icts agricultural use. Improvable by diking i f a major reclamation project is not required. N SALINITY: Soluble salts in the soi l reduce crop growth or rest r ic t the range of crops. Improvement practices vary; no improvement is assumed in the absence of local experience. P STONINESS: Coarse fragments s igni f icant ly hinder t i l l age , planting and harvesting. Improvable by stone picking, usually only one class because of the continuing nature of the l imi tat ion. Note that in areas which  are c l imat ical ly suitable for growing tree f rui ts and grapes, a C1ass~5  level stoniness l imitation may not be a signif icant l imitation to these  crops. 20 R DEPTH TO SOLID BEDROCK AND/OR ROCKINESS: Bedrock near the surface and/-or rock outcrops rest r ic t rooting depth and cul t ivat ion. Not improvable. T TOPOGRAPHY: Steepness or the pattern of slopes hinders the use of farm machinery, decreases the uniformity of growth and maturity of crops, and/or increases the potential for water erosion. Not improvable. Note  that in areas which are c l imat ical ly suitable for growing tree f ru i ts  and grapes, a Class b level topography limitation may not be considered  a s igni f icant l imitation to these crops. W EXCESS WATER: Excess free water, other than from flooding, l imits agricultural use and may be due to poor drainage, high water tables, seepage, and/or runoff from surrounding areas. Improvable by drainage; feas ib i l i t y and level of improvement is assessed on a site specif ic basis. Z PERMAFROST: Permafrost remains undesirably cold soil temperatures and causes drainage and subsidence problems when i t is near the surface. Not improvable. * Ministry of Environment. 1984. Vancouver Island Land Capability for Agriculture. * * The unshaded areas are predominantly capability classes 1,2,3, 6 and 7. Land Capability for Agriculture - Climate* The agricultural capability of this area as influenced by climate is 4A(1), 4A designates the unimproved rating, (1) the improved rating. Class Growing Degree Frost Free Period Climate Moisture Days Above 5°C (Days) Def ici t (°C-Days) (mm) 1 1310-1504 >150 <40 4 1030-1169 80-99 191 to 265 Limiting subclass: A - Drought or aridity occurring between May 1 and September 30 resulting in moisture def ic i ts which are l imit ing to plant growth. * Ministry of Environment. 1980. Climatic Capability for Agriculture. 22 development in the study area. A 150 mill ion boardfoot sawmill was con-structed at Duke Point in 1980 by Dolman Industries Ltd. The company pro-poses to build a 500 ton per day thermo-mechanical mill and sawmill on adja-cent lands when economic conditions have improved. Harmac has a deepsea port through which forest products are shipped (Dolman Industries, pers. com., 1985). Other economic act iv i t ies in the study area exist on a much smaller scale and include forestry woodlots, sand and gravel extraction and agr icul -ture. The agricultural act iv i t ies are concentrated in the areas of forage and livestock production (Brit ish Columbia Ministry of Environment, 1983). There are no commercial orchards or small vegetables and berry production although these crops are being grown in many home gardens. According to the 1981 Canadian census data, the population of the study area was 3655. 1 The experienced labour force fifteen years of age and older numbered 1800.2 The majority of those people employed were in c ler ica l and All numbers were aggregated from randomly rounded enumeration figures in which al l numbers are rounded up or down to a multiple of 5. As a result , any total or subtotal does not necessarily equal the sum of ind i -vidual f igures. To avoid disclosure through census data, a procedure referred to as 'area suppression' has been applied to some totals . Al l data is dropped from tabulation for self-enumerated areas of less than 50 persons and for canvasser enumeration areas of less than 25 persons. As a resul t , area totals will be understated when enumeration areas have been suppressed. 23 related a c t i v i t i e s ; service; construction trades; sales; and machinery, lubr icat ing, assembling and r e p a i r . 3 Those in horticulture and animal husbandry numbered 45; 20 females and 25 males, or approximately 1.2% of the total employed. The average wage of the total employed was $13,591 ($18,203 for males and $7,454 for females). The unemployment rate in the study area was 10.8% (10.1% for males and 12.0% for females) in 1981. The present actual unemployment rate is 16.2% (March 15, 1985). The actual unemployment rate for the study area is probably greater when adjustments are made for population centres with lower unemployment rates (D. Blower, pers. com., 1985). One family households were the norm according to the census data. An average of 3.1 people made up a household. The majority of these families resided in total ly owned, single detached housing (845)4 or in rented single 3 In order of occupation with approximate numbers employed: c ler ica l and related - 300; service - 205; construction trades - 205; sales - 195; machining, fabricating, assembling and repairs - 170; primary - 110; processing - 100; transport equipment operating - 95; managerial, admini-strative and related - 90; other - 90; technological, soc ia l , rel igious and a r t i s t i c - 85; teaching and related - 75; occupations in medicine and health - 65; farming, horticulture and animal husbandry - 45. *• Totally owned occupied private dwellings: 1115; of these 845 are single detached; 5 are double houses; 5 are duplexes; and 260 are movable dwellings. 24 detached housing (100). 5 The majority of housing is situated on lots bordering the thoroughfares of the area and has created a segmented set t le-ment pattern. It is anticipated that the fine-tuning of the Agricultural Land Reserve boundaries will release more land for residential development and further segmentation wil l ensue (S. Aki t t , pers. com., 1985). Total rented occupied private dwellings: 170; of these, 100 are single detached; 5 are apartment blocks of less than five storeys; 30 are double houses; 10 are duplexes; and 25 are movable dwellings. 25 CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW Identifying land available for a specif ic use requires not only a bio-physical assessment of an area, but also consideration of socioeconomic factors affecting that use. Limitations imposed by land tenure, confl ict ing land uses, and economic considerations often reduce the land base available for a specif ic use, even though the land may be eminently suited to that use. Therefore, any method for identifying land for a specif ic use must also consider socioeconomic constraints along with the land assessment for that use. McHarg (1969) has : developed a method for incorporating socioeconomic and biophysical constraints in identifying land available for specif ic uses. The basic concept underlying this method is that land is a sum of natural processes which constitute social values; inferences can be drawn regarding ut i l i za t ion of this land to ensure optimum use and enhancement of social values. This is the land's intr insic su i tab i l i t y . This method requires the ident i f icat ion of the natural processes occurring on land; processes already described through the existing data bases in the f ie lds of geology, hydrology, ecology, soi ls and the l i ke . From each major process, a number of factors of particular importance to a land use are selected. These factors are graded according to their abun-dance, uniqueness and/or importance into a hierarchy, and are mapped onto 26 transparencies in a manner reflecting this grading. This grading object i -f ies the assessment in which a certain degree of subjective judgment is unavoidable (Vink, 1975). The transparencies are then superimposed and photographed. The resulting photograph shows the maximum concurrance of a l l possible factors and the least rest r ic t ions. The processes reconstituted as values, indicate the areas in t r ins ica l ly suitable for each of the specif ic uses considered (McHarg, 1969). This method is most appropriately used where the land base being assessed is small, as the resolution of the factors photographically is enhanced. It is also most appropriate where the demand geometry and the resource geometry are clearly differentiated and show a quantitative assem-blance, at least in relation to the order of magnitude of the demands and the corresponding resources (Vink, 1975). However, while this method does assess land for specific uses, a productivity assessment must be included in a method for assessing land for agricultural production i f a feas ib i l i t y study is to be done. One method of assessing productivity is through the use of analogy. The analogue method is a static approach to productivity assessment. Input/output data are extrapolated from test plots or farm sites to analo-gous sites as defined by soil or land c lass i f i ca t ion . This method does not require knowledge of functional relationships between site parameters or the productivity of the biological crop, although such information can be incor-porated. Site parameters chosen are those that are readily measurable and 27 observable. If the parameters used are signif icant to the productivity of an area, and all the signif icant parameters are included in the assessment, this method can satisfy the conditions necessary for site productivity predictions (Nix, 1968; and Schreier, 1982). In areas of intensive use, productivity and management data can be obtained from farm records or test plots although the data may be subject to certain constraints including changes in management levels and arbi t rar i ly defined soil and land c lassi f icat ions (Nix, 1968). This data can then be used, with caution, in assessing investments in similar enterprises else-where. Although land may be biophysically suitable for a specif ic use or enterprise, the economics of the enterprise usually dictate i f the land will be developed for that use. The majority of enterprises require returns to exceed costs. Under these conditions, operators will often intensify their land use and also bring new lands into production. When costs exceed returns, the reverse often occurs. When costs increase and there is no change in returns, operators will usually cut back production. A reduction in costs with no price change usually favours more intensive use of the land through the application of additional inputs (Barlowe, 1978; and Mishan, 1982). Estimates of costs and returns prior to investment can aid the operator in determining how ef f ic ient his investment will be. Estimates often y ie ld valuable information that can be easily overlooked and uncover c r i t i ca l 28 areas where data is lacking. The information produced during the estimates, often improves the decision making process (Hardie, 1976). Hardie (1976) suggests that a two-sided check should be done when estimating costs and returns. The inputs should be assessed for the output they might reasonably be expected to produce. Al l the inputs are assembled so they are used in the right quantities in the correct way at the right time. Then the output should be checked to determine what inputs would be required to produce that leve l . When the input/output relationship is established, the investment c r i te r ion , the net present value, can be applied to the stream of net returns. If the net present value is negative, the investment will not improve the eff iciency of resource use. Investments which maximize the net present value should be chosen (Hardie, 1976). 2.1 STUDY METHODOLOGY Although the method used by Ford and Nielson (1982) to determine a land area with specif ic environmental characteristics for a specif ic use does not include socioeconomic parameters, i t would be possible to incorporate these parameters into an extensive method as McHarg does while continuing to use an analogue approach to productivity assessment. I used an analogue approach along with map overlays to determine i f this method is suitable for collat ing socioeconomic parameters with biophysical information to determine i f i t is economically feasible to grow pear and apple orchards in the study area on the east coast of Vancouver Island. 29 Through interviews and a l i terature review, those environmental para-meters important to the culture of pear and apple orchards were ident i f ied . Those climate parameters ident i f ied were: freeze free period, growing degree days, minimum winter temperature and dormancy period. Soil para-meters identi f ied were: texture, drainage, depth, coarse fragment content and topography. The var iab i l i ty of the parameter ranges was also determined through interviews and a l i terature review with emphasis on coarse textured s o i l s . As the majority of the l i terature does not cite specif ic apple and pear productivit ies relative to the so i ls and climate of an area, the values of these parameters obtained for the Okanagan Valley and other f ru i t producing areas on Vancouver Island were emphasized to enable the extrapola-tion of productivity values to the study area. These parameters were mapped according to the shaded window technique (Ford and Nielson, 1982). Map areas with biophysical characterist ics and land tenure areas unsuitable for si te location were graded to ref lect their degree of potential as orchard land, and al l maps were overlaid for composite analysis. In the composite form, those areas with biophysical and land tenure sui tab i l i ty could be ident i f ied as land with potential for orchard development. (Refer to Figure 3 Flow Chart of Land Assessment Methodology.) Surf ic ia l geology maps, well logs and information from interviews and a l i terature review regarding the properties of aquifers relative to geologi-cal materials, were used to map the potential aquifers of the study area. The soi ls/cl imate map and the aquifer map were overlaid for composite analysis. The clear or window areas of this map were the lands with CLI class 4 and 5 soi ls with biophysical su i tab i l i ty for apple orchards. 30 FIGURE 3 FLOW CHART OF LAND ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY CHAPTER Variables biophysical socioeconomic feasibi l i ty Cr i t ica l Conditions climate so i ls CLI class 4 and 5 water J land tenure present land use prices Results biophysical su i tab i l i ty development potential rea l i s t i c development potential 31 Types of land tenure on the east coast of Vancouver Island that could decrease the orchard development potential were identi f ied through inter-views and a l i terature review. These were shaded on the land tenure maps, along with those areas subdivided into parcels too small for orchard deve-lopment. A composite map of the land tenure and biophysical sui tabi l i ty maps revealed land with development potential . Present land use was mapped. Areas conducive to orchard development were identi f ied as the agricultural lands used at present for growing forage crops and/or grazing; idle lands; and land on which there is no perceived ac t iv i t i es . A composite map of the present land use and the land with development potential revealed land with rea l is t ic development potential . A feas ib i l i t y study for growing an apple orchard in the area with rea l i s t i c development potential was done. Estimates of production costs and returns for a 4.1 ha apple orchard were done. Using these estimates, the net present value of the orchard was determined for three discount rates: 5%, 8% and 10%; and for five prices per kilogram: $0.15, $0.22, $0.33, $0.44, $0.66. Conclusions were drawn from these results as to the feas ib i -l i t y of apple orchards on the east coast of Vancouver Island. 32 CHAPTER 3. BIOPHYSICAL VARIABLES 3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 3.1 CLIMATE PARAMETERS As early as 1910, Shaw reported that the climate of an area was the l imiting factor in determining the adaptability of an apple variety to an area (Fisher, 1962). The l i terature describing both soil and climate para-meters important in the culture of f ru i t trees, continues to ref lect this view. Many of the authorities also stress the importance of management practices and orchard site characterist ics in modifying the climate. Olson (1974) observes that in climates favouring high farm incomes, greater expen-ditures can be made in correcting soil and land deficiencies than in climates yielding low incomes. Climate and soil parameters mentioned in interviews and in the l i terature are summarized in Table I. Temperatures were the most frequently mentioned climatic parameter. Dennis (1979) reports that warm temperatures during the period of bloom are important to bee ac t iv i ty , pollen germination and tube growth. He also notes that temperature and solar radiation during the period of bloom and prior to the June f ru i t drop may influence f rui t set in the 'Del icious' apple. Similar results are reported by Jackson and Hamer (1980), who observed that high temperatures after fu l l bloom were associated with high yields of 'Cox's Orange Pippin' apple over a twenty-six year period. While TABLE I SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW AND INTERVIEWS OF SOIL AND CLIMATE PARAMETERS PARAMETERS soil texture, drainage depth minimum temperature; soil texture, drainage, depth, permeability, salinity, stoniness soil texture, drainage, depth freeze free period; growing degree days, climatic moisture deficit/surplus freeze free period; growing degree days, dormancy period growing degree days; frost, precipitation, wind, light frost free days; soil texture, drainage, depth, subsoil texture, alkalinity, salinity light, dormancy period, minimum winter temperature, mean summer temperature, critical temperatures during growth stages; soil texture, drainage, depth, pH, fert i l i ty, subsoil texture (apples) frost; soil texture, drainage, depth heat units; soil texture, depth, drainage, fert i l i ty topography, stoniness soil texture, depth, drainage, organic matter content, subsoil porosity soil texture, depth, drainage, organic matter content, moisture holding capacity, subsoil porosity frost, winter temperatures; soil texture, depth, drainage frost free days, winter dormancy, growing days frost free period, precipitation, heat units, diurnal temperature changes, soil texture, depth, drainage, permeability, alkalinity, salts frost, soil texture, drainage soil texture, drainage, depth, organic matter content IMPORTANT IN THE CULTURE OF PEARS AND APPLES CROP pears fruit trees fruit trees all crops fruit trees apples fruit trees pears/apples fruit trees pears tree fruits apples pears apples, pears pears apples, pears apples, pears fruit crops REFERENCE Anon., 1961 Anstey et a l . , 1959 R. Bertrand, pers. com., 1983 Climatology Unit, 1978 R. Davis, pers. com., 1983 Dennis, 1979 Dow, 1964 Dube, 1981 Harris, 1959 Hedrick, 1921 Kenk and Cotic, 1983 Liberty Hyde Bailey Hortorium Staff, 1976 Leslie, 1954 Lombard et a l . , 1980 MacPhee, 1958 Mellethin et a l . , 1980 W. Peters, pers. com. 1983 TABLE I - Continued PARAMETERS fall and winter temperatures, humidity, soil type soil texture, depth, subsoil permeability heat units, winter temperatures, frost, soil texture, drainage, depth, alkalinity, salinity, pH frost, soil texture, depth, moisture soil texture, drainage, depth, salts, pH, cation exchange capacity soil texture, drainage, depth heat units; soil texture, drainage, depth, alkalinity, slope winter temperatures, frost, dormancy, heat units CROP apples apples apples apples fruit crops apples, pears pears fruit trees REFERENCE Strang et a l , 1975 Storie, 1938 Swales, 1979 Tukey, 1983 J . Vielvoye, pers. com., 1983 B. Warner, pers. com., 1983 Watt, 1982 Yadava and Doud, 1980 35 Hedrick (1921) states that pears thrive in cool , moist, cloudy weather; Lombard et al (1980) assert that the best climate for pears is a warm to hot summer with enough frost-free days to mature the f ru i t . Dube (1981) notes that both pear and apple trees are suited to mild but cool , temperate climates. In the" interior of Br i t ish Columbia, warm, dry summers with cooler September nights favour development of good quality apples (Swales, 1979) and pears (Watt, 1982). In a l i terature review, Dennis (1979) observed that there were no s ig -nif icant differences to be found between sunshine, maximum, minimum and mean temperatures, ra infal l and y ie lds , but there was a signif icant relationship found between growing degree days, base 5°C temperature, and yields of 'Del icious' apples. However, warm temperature considerations appear to be less important than cold when evaluating i f certain cultivars are suited to culture in a specif ic area. Simons and Doll (1976) report that crop yields can be changed faster by weather fluctuations than any other factor. Cold injury due to winter freeze or frost injury can be the most consistently and effectively hosti le element in the tree f ru i t environment. Yadava and Doud (1980) state there is only a small temperature interval between that causing sl ight injury and that which vir tual ly eliminates a crop. Dube (1981) outlines minimum temperatures at which injury occurs during periods of dormancy and develop-ment. However, Grierson et al (1982) note that temperature fluctuations during and following dormancy determine the likelihood of damage from late winter or early spring f rosts . Proebstring and Mil ls (1978) also report 36 that there do not appear to be single c r i t i ca l temperature values for c r i t i c a l stages of development. They note that developing buds are more inclined to be damaged by a given temperature following a period of warm weather than following cool weather. Watt (1982) and Brierley (1947) observe that while f ru i t trees can withstand cold winter temperatures, they are occasionally injured by milder temperatures i f the temperature change is sudden or i f the trees are not fu l ly dormant at the time of freeze. Although the xylem of the pear and apple trees is their most sensitive t issue, therefore is indicative of the minimum temperatures the trees can withstand without injury, Quamme (1976) notes that leaf bud and bark tissues can withstand much lower temperatures. However, when dormancy is broken, these t issues, along with others, become very sensitive to temperature (Dube, 1981). There also appears to be a time element in the amount of injury sus-tained through exposure to freezing temperatures. Strang et al (1980) report that injury to buds, flowers and small f ru i ts of pear usually increased for up to either thirty or sixty minutes of exposure near the c r i t i ca l freezing temperature with l i t t l e subsequent increase in injury for longer durations. Cultural and management factors can beneficial ly modify the temperature at modest cost. Gerber et al (1974) notes that through clean cultivation and compaction of the orchard floor and maintenance of adequate soil mois-ture during cool weather, the storage of solar heat in the soil will be increased, modifying the night temperature by as much as 2°C. Brierley 37 (1947) reports that trees which are adequately supplied with stored foods, in good health and not weakened by insects or by production of heavy crops, wil l best be able to survive winter conditions. Both the time and intensity of f loral in i t ia t ion of f ru i t trees can be altered in order to avoid frost damage, note Grierson et al (1982), through f e r t i l i z e r s , choice of rootstocks, pruning, and other cultural practices. However, temperatures can be modified even more so by the si t ing of the orchard, as can winds (Strang et a l , 1975; Lesl ie , 1954; and Tukey, 1983). Among other factors, Tukey (1983) attributed loss of blossoms and young frui ts during spring frosts to poor site selection. Gerber et al (1974) note that the best frost protection is in site selection. A good site requires no management, s k i l l , capital investment or operating expenses. Orchards sited in somewhat elevated positions relative to their surroundings (Dow, 1964; and Hedrick, 1921) or on sloping land above a valley (Tukey, 1983) with a northeast or eastern exposure and a fa i r ly level surface (Lesl ie, 1954) tend to have better air drainage, hence fewer prob-lems with frost than valley bottoms. Swales (1979) recommends a gentle slope or a nearly f la t site providing the area is frost free, whereas Tukey (1983) states that cultural techniques and management can be adapted to slopes that are sl ight ly steep to those that have a slope of greater than sixteen percent. Windy locations (Lesl ie , 1954; and Swales, 1979) and exposure to prevailing winter winds (Hedrick, 1921) should be avoided in the selection 38 of an orchard s i te . Protected areas allow poll ination during breezy weather and decrease the danger of f ru i t blown from spurs (Lesl ie, 1954), while a l leviat ing pressure on shallow rooted trees (Swales, 1979). However, wind-breaks can be planted to decrease wind pressure on the outside rows of the orchard (Tukey, 1983), and give protection from drying winds, thus pre-venting undue drying of blossoms, while attracting insect eating birds (Lesl ie , 1954). Lesl ie (1954) also notes that windbreaks can cause air stagnation in an area, resulting in local f rosts . Proximity to a large body of water (Dube, 1981; and Les l ie , 1954), preferably on land sloping toward the water (Hedrick, 1921), will provide site protection against extremes in temperature during the vulnerable periods of development (Dube, 1981). Areas where cold inversions occur are to be avoided (Dube, 1981). The Climatic Capability Maps ut i l i zed in this thesis consist of clima-tological data which are interpreted as influenced by physiographic and topographic characteristics (elevation, slope, aspect, landform, etc.) Thus si t ing considerations on a macro scale are included in this study, albeit inadvertently. As i t is d i f f i c u l t to define c r i t i ca l temperatures which are important during the growth and development of trees and their f rui ts when factors such as length of exposure, management and cultural techniques, and orchard si t ing can modify these temperatures; the temperature regime will be expressed as growing degree days and frost free period, parameters which are 39 representative of the growing season. As the minimum winter temperature was mentioned as important to tree survival , i t will also be used as a climatic parameter. Overcash and Loomis (1959) observe that in temperate climates, deci-duous trees enter a rest period in the fa l l and their buds remain dormant until the rest period is broken, either by a suff ic ient amount of c h i l l i n g , a lapse of time, or both. Should deciduous trees not have suff ic ient hours of c h i l l i n g , delayed and irregular opening of the blossoms and leaf buds along with irregular opening of the individual blossoms with a cluster and flow abscission occurs. Dube (1981) and Grigg and Iwakuri (1969) also note that a dormancy period is important in f ru i t trees to produce normal growth. The dormancy period does vary with the plant species, cult ivar and plant physiological condition (Yadava and Doud, 1980). Grigg and Iwakuri (1969) report that the continuity of ch i l l ing tempe-ratures, their total accumulation and the periods during which they occur are important in satisfying the dormancy period. Sunlight intensity, fog or cloud, wind and tree condition can modify the ch i l l ing temperatures and their ab i l i ty to end the dormancy period (Grigg and Iwakuri, 1969; and Brier ley, 1974). For maximum cropping, the change from cold temperatures to warm in spring must be pronounced and irreversible (Dennis, 1979). Mild weather early in the year causes a series of ' false starts ' destabil izing the normal hormonal balance of the tree and so directly decreasing f ru i t set. Jackson and Hamer (1980) noted that high pre-blossom temperatures adversely affected the flower quality and f ru i t setting potential of apple 40 trees. Davis (pers. com., 1984) attributes poor f ru i t sets on the south end of Vancouver Island to an insuff ic ient dormant period. As an adequate dormancy period could be questionable on the east coast of Vancouver Island, this factor, along with frost free period, growing degree days, and minimum winter temperature, wil l be the parameters ut i l ized in this thesis to describe the climatic regime. Light intensity during the growth and development stages of tree f ru i ts was another climatic factor mentioned in the l i terature. Dube (1981) notes that while there is no photoperiod limitations for growing either pears or apples in Canada, the y ie ld and quality of pears and the production of apples is better under high l ight intensity. Dennis (1979) observes that bee act ivi ty paral lels l ight intensity, with greater act iv i ty during periods of high l ight intensity. Gerber et al (1974) outline a number of cultural practices to enhance and maximize l ight interception in an orchard, also noting that fog can strongly influence l ight quality. Other climatic factors mentioned are rainfal l (MacPhee, 1958), which Dennis (1979) notes restr icts the f l ights of bees during the bloom period; dew (Gerber et a l , 1974), which encourages the growth of fungi and other diseases; and hail (Swales, 1979). Light intensity, ra infal l and dew are expressed in part by growing degree days, hence will not be addressed separately. As hail is a vagary of nature, i t will not be addressed. 41 3.2 SOIL PARAMETERS Soil texture, drainage and depth are mentioned by many authorities as soil parameters that should be considered in site selection for tree f ru i t orchards. Bertrand (1983) states that many soil parameters such as pH and cation exchange capacity can be manipulated through soil management tech-niques whereas soil texture, depth and drainage are relat ively permanent characteristics which are expensive to change, therefore emphasis should be on the latter when selecting an orchard s o i l . Soil f e r t i l i t y levels can be maintained or increased by the orchardist (Dow, 1964; and Peters, 1983). McRae and Burnham (1981) note that soil f e r t i l i t y is d i f f i c u l t to catego-r i ze , changeable and dependent on management practices. Anstey et al (1959) suggests that the occurrence of deficiencies or excesses of nutrient should be discounted i f easily corrected through soil management. Where an orchard soil is undesirable, better soil can be imported and ut i l ized in planting seedlings (Mellethin et a l , 1980). Soil management is extremely important (Dow, 1964; and Mellethin et a l , 1980); many orchards that are situated on soi ls that are far from ideal are extremely productive (Dow, 1964). Anstey et al (1959) found that soi l c lass , except in extreme cases where land was non-arable, bore no relation ship to the kind of f ru i t being grown successfully in commercial orchards in the Okanagan Valley. Kenk and Cotic (1983) note that under extreme topo-graphical and/or stoniness conditions, orchard management is much more d i f f i c u l t . Mellethin et al (1980) allege that elevation, slope and frost can be more l imit ing to the culture of orchard f ru i t than soil characteris-t i c s . Knox (1981) notes that while some soil constraints are permanent, 42 others such as shallow duripan could be eliminated permanently. He also notes that some constraints such as i n f e r t i l i t y can be overcome with cont i -nuing management, while others such as restr icted drainage may require periodic attention. Resler (1981) states that most land factors are change-able at a cost. Typical changeable factors include sa l in i ty , sodici ty, t i t rable ac id i ty , exchangeable aluminum, depth to water table, r e l i e f , rock cover, drainage and flood hazard. Sa l in i ty , a lkal in i ty and salts were also mentioned as soil parameters to be considered in orchard soil selection. Swales (1979) noted that alka-l in i ty and sa l in i ty are soil problems in the semi-arid and interior valleys of Bri t ish Columbia. Subsoil texture is important for root development and soil drainage. Poor drainage and the associated problems of sal in i ty and alkal ini ty are common with dense subsoils (Dow, 1964), while a deep root p ro f i l e , especial-ly in regions subject to dry periods during the growing season, encourages deep root penetration providing insurance against drought (Dube, 1981). A subsoil of sand or coarse gravel was found by Leslie (1954) to allow surplus moisture to sink away deeply, and did not provide adequate anchorage for the trees, predisposing them to winter injury, scanty production and decreased longevity. Storie (1938) also found that dense subsoils produced trees of decreased longevity that were smaller and had shallower roots. Other soi l factors organic matter content, cited were f e r t i l i t y , cation exchange capacity, permeability, subsoil porosity, stoniness and pH. 43 While these factors along with the a lka l in i ty , sal ini ty and salts are impor-tant to the culture of f ru i t trees, they are relatively easier to al leviate or manage than texture, drainage and depth. McRae and Burnham (1981) note that as only a limited number of observations are usually made of such factors as pH, sa l in i ty , organic matter, f e r t i l i t y , tox ic i t ies and soil structure, and as their values vary over an area, they are not commonly used in land evaluation. Thus, those parameters, texture, drainage, depth, topo-graphy and coarse fragment content wil l be considered in orchard soil selec-t ion , as will the climatic parameters, freeze free period growing degree days, minimum winter temperatures, and dormancy period. The l i terature review for the four climate parameters is summarized for pears in Table II and for apples in Table III. These values can vary, depending on a number of factors, as noted in the preceding l i terature review. Climate Parameters Fisher (1962) reports that the requirement in degree days for f ru i ts can be less in northern areas than in southern on account of the longer duration of daylight during the summer months in northern areas. He also notes that the degree days required in warmer climates can be greater than in cool climates due to the higher day and night time temperatures causing correspondingly high carbohydrate losses through accelerated respirat ion. TABLE II SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW FOR CLIMATE PARAMETERS FOR PEARS FREEZE FREE PERIOD GROWING OEGREE DAYS DORMANCY PERIOD MINIMUM WINTER TEMPERATURES > 150 days (Climatology Unit, 1978) 2060 - 2225 (Climatology Unit, 1978) European varieties 1000 to 1500 hr. Kieffer and oriental < 800 hr. (Lombard et al , 1980) cannot be grown profitably when temperature often <-9.6°C (Hedrick, 1921) 100 to 200 days Bartlett 120 days Anjou 140 days (Lombard et a l , 1980) 1800 - 2516 range in Okanagan Valley (Atmospheric Environment Service) European varieties 600 to 900 hr. at < 7°C (Dube, 1981) cannot tolerate -30 to -35°C (Quamme, 1976) 1391 + 56 to 2071 + 61 (Fisher, 1962) P. communis 1200 to 1500 hr. -34°C (Dube, at < 7.2°C (Grigg and 1981) Iwakiri, 1969) 1380 to 1840 (Dube", 1981) chilling requirements, variety dependent, ranging from < 900 hr. to > 1200 hr. at < 7.2°C (Overcash and Loomis, 1959) 137 to 184 days in Okanagan Valley (Atmospheric Environment Service) 2880 hr. at < 7.2°C Summerland Research Station (Chilton, 1981) -30°C Summerland Research Station (Chilton, 1981) TABLE II - Continued SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW FOR CLIMATE PARAMETERS FOR PEARS FREEZE FREE PERIOD GROWING DEGREE DAYS DORMANCY PERIOD MINIMUM WINTER TEMPERATURES 226 days - EGDD1 957 -Saanichton CDA Saanichton CDA (Climatology (Climatology Unit, 1978) Unit, 1978) EGDD - effective growing degree days - an adjustment used in areas where the climate is moderated by surrounding bodies of water to compensate for the larger but misleading thermal capacities of these areas. TABLE III SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW FOR CLIMATE PARAMETERS FOR APPLES FREEZE FREE PERIOD GROWING DEGREE DAYS DORMANCY PERIOD MINIMUM WINTER TEMPERATURES > 150 days 2060 - 2225 1978) 1978) 900 to 1000 hr. at < 7.2°C (Climatology Unit, (Climatology Unit, (Dube, 1981) -37.5°C (Dube, 1981) < -34.4 to -408C (Quamme, 1976) > 180 days (Ballard, 1980) 1800 - 2516 range in Okanagan Valley (Atmospheric Environment Service) 1000 hr. at < 7°C (Kronenberg, 1980) State Fair, Sweet 16 and Keepsake/M.26 can withstand -40 "C (Stushinoff et a l , 1980) 136 to 170 days, depending on variety (Mink, 1973) 1461 + 59 to 2829 + 68 (Fisher, 1962) 1000 to 1200 hr. at <_ 7.2°C (Wyman, 1977) -27.2°C (January temperature) to -23.9°C (March temperature) for 7 cultivars on M.26 (Proctor et a l , 1974) 137 to 184 days in Okanagan Valley (Atmospheric Environment Service) 2880 hr. at < 7.2°C Summerland Research Station (Chilton, 1981) -30"C Summerland Research Station (Chilton, 1981) TABLE III - Continued SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW FOR CLIMATE PARAMETERS FOR APPLES FREEZE FREE PERIOD 226 days -Saanichton CDA (CIimatology Unit, 1978) West Nanaimo area 100 to 119 days - Class 3A > 150 days Class 1 (Coligado, 1980) GROWING DEGREE DAYS DORMANCY PERIOD MINIMUM WINTER TEMPERATURES 957 Saanichton CDA (Climatology Unit, 1978) West Nanaimo area EGDD is 650 to 735 - Class 3A EGDD > 825 - Class 1 (Coligado, 1980) 48 The climatic capabil ity of the study area is Class 4A(1), with a climatic moisture def ic i t (CMD) of 191 to 265 cm. The values of the four parameters, the freeze free period (FFP), the effective growing degree days (EGDD), dormancy period and minimum water temperatures are: FFP EGDD dormancy period minimum winter temperature > 150 days > 825 1480 hr. at <7°C 1.7°C Dormancy and minimum winter temperatures remain unchanged. A comparison of the Okanagan Valley, Saanichton CDA and west Nanaimo area parameter values with those of the study area shows that the areas of capabil ity Class 1 should have an adequate frost free period, number of effective growing degree days for pear and apple orchard culture. According to the l i terature , the dormancy period is long enough for these f rui ts (Dube, 1981; and Wyman, 1977), and they should not be harmed by extreme winter temperatures. As the agricultural climatic capability for the entire study area is 4A(1), no climatic map will be drawn and the assumption will be made that the area is capable cl imat ical ly of pear and apple production i f a water supply is available to overcome the moisture d e f i c i t . 49 3.3 SOIL PARAMETERS - PEARS The l i terature pertaining to the culture of pear tree orchards i n d i -cates that the trees will thrive under a wide range of conditions, however, their success depends in part on their rootstocks. While B. Warner (pers. com., 1983) recommended a standard pear rootstock for this study, informa-tion on other rootstocks is included as there are few statements in the l i terature about the culture of pears on what can be regarded as poorer agricultural s o i l s . Frequently, the type of rootstock is not mentioned when authors are making recommendations for the soil properties important in the culture of pears. The l i terature is summarized in Table IV. As depth to restr ict ing layer was frequently not stated in the l i terature, the depth of vertical root penetration was ut i l i zed as a measure of a c r i t i ca l depth for their successful culture. The range of soil textures that pear trees will tolerate is very wide, from l ight to heavy textures (Anon., 1961; Harris, 1959; and Mellethin et a l , 1980), although performance of rootstocks has been found to vary with the different textures (Lombard and Westwood, 1974; and Hedrick, 1921). Dube (1981) recommends loams and sandy loams for pear tree culture, although he notes they will tolerate well drained clays; while Hedrick (1921) recom-mends heavy loams, clays and s i l t s . Lesl ie (1954) and Liberty Hyde Bailey Hortorium Staff (1976) recommend heavy clay or sandy loams, while Watt (1982) recommends s i l ty loams and notes that gravelly soi ls should be avoided. After years of research at Saanichton, B.C. , Straight reports that most pear varieties thrive in many different s o i l s , but a well drained clay TABLE IV SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW FOR SOIL PARAMETERS FOR PEARS ROOTSTOCK SOIL TEXTURE all scionstock combinations thrive in many soil types standard rootstocks (commercial orchard) standard rootstocks Williams-Keiffer (commercial orchard) standard rootstocks standard rootstocks standard rootstocks Kieffer (standard oriental cross) standard rootstocks standard rootstocks clays fine-textured soils preferable (lacustrine) in Okanagan sandy soil sandy loam loams and sandy loams, but will tolerate well drained clays tolerate a wide variety of soils including heavier clay heavy loam, clay, s i l t sand and gravel moderately heavy clay loam DRAINAGE most tolerate wide variety of soil moisture conditions, but are damaged by an excessive amount of water well drained can tolerate more moisture than other tree fruits well drained well drained with no water on surface during winter will tolerate more water in soil than other species but a waterlogged soil during any part of growing season is detrimental well drained heavy sandy loams or clay loams well drained DEPTH TO RESTRICTIVE LAYER (WHERE STATED) OR DEPTH OF VERTICAL ROOTS P. communis will thrive in shallow soils 1 m 1 m 1.2 m thrive on deep soils where the clay hardpan or water table is not too close to the surface a few varieties may be grown in comparatively shallow soils, but most are deep rooted heavy gumbo or hardpan at >0.9 m at least ideal sub-soil of clay loam at >1.8 m REFERENCE Anon., 1961 Anstey et a l , 1959 H. Arndt, pers. com., 1985 Atkinson, 1980 Dube, 1981 Harris, 1959 Hedrick, 1921 Leslie, 1954 Liberty, Hyde Bailey Hortorium Staff, 1976 TABLE IV - Continued SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW FOR SOIL PARAMETERS FOR PEARS ROOTSTOCK rootstocks: P. communis P. calleryana P. betulaefolia standard rootstocks (commercial orchard) Bartlett/Anjou (commercial orchard) standard rootstocks Bartlett/Anjou Bartlett - standard and Old Home X Farmingdale rootstocks (commercial orchard) Barlett - Bartlett rootstock (commercial orchard) SOIL TEXTURE light light light and heavy volcanic ash, heavy clay, gravelly sands very fine sandy loam and loamy sand heavier soils - can tolerate fine clays (Okanagan Valley) s i l t loam, avoid gravelly soi 1 s s i l t loam sandy loam clay DRAINAGE fair tolerance of wet and droughty condition good tolerance of wet and fair tolerance of drought good tolerance of wet and droughty condition well drained fair to good well drained well drained high water table during wet periods - trees weak poorly drained - trees do not do well DEPTH TO RESTRICTIVE LAYER (WHERE STATED) OR DEPTH OF VERTICAL ROOTS depth to restricting layer 1.5 m > 1 m REFERENCE Lombard and Westwood, 1974 Mellethin et a l , 1980 Proebstring and Middleton, 1980 J . Swales, pers. com., 1985 Watt, 1982 Westwood et a l , 1976 52 loam was preferred; while in Hal l 's research, sandy loam to clay textures were preferred. From the l i terature, i t can be concluded that pear trees will thrive on medium to finer texture s o i l s , but can be cultured in coarse textured soi ls (Mellethin et a l , 1980), although i t is not recommended (H. Arndt, pers. com., 1985; J . Swales, pers. com., 1985; and Watt, 1982). Pear trees prefer well drained soi ls but have some tolerance to wet conditions (Anon., 1961; and Lombard and Westwood, 1975). Dube (1981), Leslie (1954) and Liberty Hyde Bailey Hortorium Staff (1976) recommend a well drained soil while Hedrick (1921) notes that the pear tree will to le-rate more moisture in the soil than other species but waterlogging during the growing season is detrimental. Westwood et al (1976) reports that three pear tree cult ivars were weakened or did not thrive when subjected to high water tables or poorly drained s o i l s . One can conclude that pear trees prefer well drained s o i l s , but will tolerate moister, but not waterlogged, conditions. The soil depth necessary to meet the requirements of pear roots varies with the rootstock, but most are deep rooted. Miljkovic (1982) found that 75 percent of the root mass of 15 year old Passe Crassane pears on P.  communis rootstock was in the 0 to 0.68 m soil layer, while maximum root penetration was at approximately 0.9 m. Cockroft and Wall brink (1965) report that the depth of main root zone of the Williams pear on Keiffer rootstock was in the 0 to 0.5 m soil layer in sandy soil and in the 0 to 0.6 m layer in sandy loam, while the vertical spread was 1 m in the sandy soi l and 1.2 m in the sandy loam. In a l i terature review, Atkinson (1980) states 53 that the reported maximum depths of pear root penetration range from 0.6 to 3.5 m with the site of the main root zone being in the 0 to 0.6 m depth; with as much as 52 percent of this root mass between 0 and 0.2 m depth. Proebstring et al (1980) report that Bartlett and Anjou pears are grown in quite high densities on relat ively shallow soi ls underlain at an average of 1.5 m depth by a relat ively uniform basalt rock surface at Yakima in Washington State. Lesl ie (1954) states that the depth to restr ict ing layer or cold heavy gumbo should be at least 0.9 m. but a depth of at least 1.8 m is more favourable to root penetration and good drainage. Veihmeyer and Hendrickson (1950) note that the root distribution of deciduous trees is such that the uniform use of water occurs in the top 1.5 to 1.8 m of s o i l . One can conclude that while the main root mass of pear trees is quite shallow and appears to be somewhat governed by soil texture, vertical root penetration can be shallow but is usually at depths greater than a meter. SUMMARY OF SOIL PARAMETERS FOR PEAR TREES SOIL TEXTURE DRAINAGE DEPTH prefer heavier textures, although will tolerate l ight texture, although l ight texture is not recommended will tolerate most conditions, damaged by excessive water >0.6 m but at least 1 m. preferable 54 While i t is suggested in the l i terature that pear orchards do tolerate l ight textured s o i l s , the majority of the l i terature recommends that pears be grown on heavier s o i l s . This recommendation is confirmed by interviews with Okanagan and Similkameen hort icul tur ists (J. Swales, pers. com., 1985; and H. Arndt, pers. com., 1985) who note that the majority of pear orchards in these areas are situated on the f iner textured s o i l s . J . Swales (pers. com., 1985) stated that pears tend to be more productive and easier to manage when in the heavier s o i l s . It was concluded from the l i terature review and interviews that the coarse textured soi ls of Vancouver Island's east coast are not suitable for pear production. Therefore, the class 4 and 5 soi ls of the study area were n o t evaluated for pear orchard development. J . Swales (pers. com., 1985) also noted that the number of pear orchards in the Okanagan and Similkameen areas was declining as the producers and processors of pears could not compete with the cheap imports of fresh and processed pears. 55 3.4 SOIL PARAMETERS - APPLES The l i terature defining approximate soil requirements for apple tree culture is summarized in Table V. While there are many general statements about soil requirements in the l i terature, there are few regarding the culture of specif ic rootstocks on what are regarded as poorer agricultural soi ls (classes 4 and 5). Therefore information on al l rootstocks is included in Table V. Both soil depth and depth of vertical root penetration are noted as measures of minimum c r i t i c a l soi l depths for apple tree culture. Although there are recommendations for medium textured soi ls for apple tree culture, the l i terature reveals many instances where commercial orchards are thriving in fine and coarse textured s o i l s . Dow (1964) recom-mends a medium textured soil over sand or gravel for a productive orchard s o i l . He cautions that l ight textured soi ls need special management, while extremely sandy so i ls require excessive f e r t i l i z e r and water. Swales (1979) notes that apple trees grow well in a wide range of soil types and on very shallow s o i l s , but recommends a deep, sandy loam to sandy clay loam for ease of maintenance. Patterson (1936) states that although a well drained medium loam is desirable for apple trees, they do adapt to heavier and lighter s o i l s . Storie (1938) recommends soi ls of uniform loamy texture to a consi-derable depth, and states that larger, deeper rooted trees of greater longe-vity y ie ld more on these soi ls than claypan s o i l s . TABLE V SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW FOR SOIL PARAMETERS FOR APPLES1 CULTIVAR/ROOTSTOCK Fortune/M9 Fortune/M9 Golden De1icous/M2 Cox's Orange Pippin/M9 Cox's Orange Pippin/M9 Cox's Orange Pippin, Gala, Mutsu/M9 and M26 orchards Starkerimson Red Delicious/seedling, Summerland Red McIntosh/M2 SOIL TEXTURE sandy loam sandy loam clay loam loam fine sandy loam clay with flints clay fine sand loam DRAINAGE Kalamalka gravelly sandy loam loamy sand - Osoyoos - Oyama good good good poor below 0.7 m. poor below 0.55 lateral seepage at 0.7 m. loam to loamy sand with rapid coarse fragment content of approximately 25$ (Garricks - west Nanaimo) total coarse fragment content < 60S Skaha gravelly sandy loam good with layers of cemented t i l l , i n substratum Rutland gravelly sandy good loam, discontinuous layer of cemented t i l l at > 0.6 m good good good SOIL DEPTH (m) (Where Stated) 1 to 2+ 1 to 2+ 1.2 to 1.8 1.7 to 2.3 1.5 > 1.5 TJ.8 to 0.95 0.95 to 1.1 > 1 topography - complex and simple slopes of < 30J1 > 0.46 > 0.6 > 1.3 > 0.8 > 1.0 VERTICAL ROOT DEPTH AND % OF ROOTS CONTAINED (Where Stated) 1.5 61 > 1 m. 6.9% > 1 m. 0% > 1 m. 1.5% > 1 m. 0% > 1 m. 1% > 1 m. REFERENCE Atkinson, 1973a Atkinson, 1973b Cabibel, 1978 Coker, 1959 Coker, 1958 P. Christie, pers. com., 1985 Kenk and Cotic, 1983 Neil son and Edwards, 19802 cn 1 Few literature sources mentioned topography limitations in quantitative terms. 2 Soil descriptions from: Kelley, C.C. and R.H. Spilsbury. 1949. Soil Survey of the Okanagan and Similkameen Valleys, B.C. Report No. 3 of British Columbia Survey. TABLE V - Continued CULTIVAR/ROOTSTOCK Cox's Orange Harrold, Red Delicious, Golden Delicious, Spartan, Tydeman's Red, Quinte/M9, M26, M7 Close, Melba, Mcintosh, Franklin, Jonathan, Hoiliday, Golden Delicious Melrose, Idared, Gallia Beauty SOIL TEXTURE sandy loam - Nisconlith - Oyama si l t loam - Penticton clay - Spallmucheen clay loam - Glenmore loam sandy to silty loam with gravelly sand subsoil clay loam DRAINAGE Laxton's Superb Bramley's/M9 Grenadier/M26 loamy fine sand sandy loam SOIL DEPTH (m) (Where Stated) good > 0.5 good > 1 > 1.2 good to restricted > 0.9 good 1.2 to 1.8 0.46 to 0.76 less than desirable good good 0.46 to 0.61 0.9 to 1.2 Jonathan, Grand, Golden and Red Delicious/local Primegold, Jonnee, Holiday, Spigon, Starkerimson Delicious Smoothie, Empire, Jonagold, Thewgold, Sungold, Imperial Staymen/M106 Golden Delicious, Red Delicious, McIntosh/M9 silty clay underlined by basaltic and lime gravel stones sandy loam very gravelly loamy sand to gravelly loam, coarse frag-ment contents of 20 to 60% (Okanagan soils) good good well to rapid 0.60 0.8 to 0.9 > 1 VERTICAL ROOT DEPTH AND REFERENCE % OF ROOTS CONTAINED (Where Stated) 6% > 1 m Coker, 1959 Denby, 1982 Ferree, 1978 Goode and Hrrycz, 1964 Jones, Luton, Higgs and Hamer, 1983 Levin, Assaf and Bravdo, 1979 Mull ins and Lockwood, 1980 Wittneben, 1978-81 R. Maxwell, pers. com., 1985 58 Van der Boon (1980) reports that commercial orchards of Cox's Orange Pippin apples are growing in sand, l ight and heavy marine clay and clay river soi ls in the Netherlands. Thompson and Rogers (1981) noted impressive yields of Golden Delicious, Stayman and Cortland apples on M.26 rootstock when grown on a gravelly loam. In the west Nanaimo area, P. Christie (pers. com., 1985) reports that Cox's Orange Pippins, Gala, Mutsu and a number of other varieties on M.9 and M.26 rootstocks are being grown in soi ls of loam to loamy sand texture with coarse fragment content of approximately 25%. In the Okanagan Valley, the coarse textured orchard soi ls are gravelly loamy sands to loams with coarse fragment contents of approximately 20 to 60% (R. Maxwell, pers. com., 1985; and Wittneben, 1978-81). Preston (1977) reports that there were no marked preferences for part i -cular soil characterist ics among apple rootstocks M.9a, M.26, M.7a and M.M.106 in t r i a l s conducted on soi ls ranging from boulder clay to dry gravel terraces. He noted a marked degree of consistency in relative performance among the rootstocks, under a wide range of conditions. Preston (1958) found that the M.9 rootstock, grown in both loamy sand and gravelly sand, produced larger f ru i t on the loamy sand. Preston (1955) reported that the M.9 rootstock grown on a gravelly phase of a sandy soil series to be stunted while M.9 on a sandy loam soil had higher y ie lds and more f ru i t buds. Denby (1982) noted stunted growth of M.9 rootstock on l ight shallow s o i l s . Swales (1979) recommends that both M.9 and M.26 rootstocks should not be grown on l ighter soi ls due to poor anchorage and stunting d i f f i c u l t i e s , or in clay 59 soi ls due to their impervious nature. Sanders (1984) states that the M.26 rootstock is very sensitive to soil conditions, thriving with support in a well drained, deep loam s o i l , while the M.9 rootstock can tolerate a wider range of soil conditions. In summary, one can conclude that apple rootstocks can tolerate a wide range of soil textures, but should be carefully chosen when soil textures are l ight . From the l i terature , i t is apparent that well drained soi ls were the most desirable for apple rootstocks. Ferree (1979) and Cummins and Aldwinkle (1982) noted that the M.26 rootstock is intolerant to wet soil conditions; while Cummins and Aldwinkle (1982) found M.9 to be intermediate in i ts abi l i ty to withstand these conditions. Apple trees on M.26, M.27, M.M.106, M.M.ll l and seedling rootstocks were noted by Rom and Brown (1979) to tolerate flooded conditions for periods of ten to f i fteen days between November and A p r i l , but were not able to tolerate June flooding, while July and August flooding had less severe ef fects. Flooding of M.9 and M.26 root-stocks for up to thirty days by Lee et a l , (1983) showed M.9 to be the least tolerant of wet conditions, showing injury after ten days, and M.26 to display considerable leaf injury. Lee et a l , (1983) report that different rootstocks flooded for twenty-one days showed similar results with M.9 and M.26 showing poor tolerance to these conditions. Boekel and Van der Boon (1979) attribute the death of many roots of the cult ivar Cox's Orange Pippin and the occurrence of Cox disease in commercial orchards in the Netherlands 60 to temporary waterlogging in the winter months. Coker (1958) reports that in a fine sandy soil with poor drainage below 0.55 m, the M.9 rootstock had 74.5% of i ts roots in the 0 to 0.3 m depth, while in a clay s o i l , with drainage poor below 0.7 m, root growth was restricted to the top 0.7 to 0.8 m. The depth of soil is important for tree anchorage and nutr i t ion, and soi l drainage. A number of authorities noted that the majority of the apple tree's root mass occurs in a shallow band in the upper soil p ro f i le . Jones et al (1983) noted that 70% of the root mass occurred in the 0 to 0.4 m. layer; Atanasov (1975) reported the zone of highest density for M.9 root-stock was in the 0 to 0.30 m layer, while Kurennoi (1978) reported 44.1% was in the 0.2 to 0.4 m layer. However, under irr igated conditions, the zone of highest root density has been found to be deeper (0 to 0.6 m) while with no i r r iga t ion , i t is shallow (0 to 0.3 m) (Goode et a l , 1978). The depths of these root masses serves as a very minimum soil depth for apple trees. Maximum root penetration of apple trees can be much greater than these minimum depths and can be affected by soil texture and tree spacing. Atkinson (1973b) notes that soil texture appears to influence root d ist r ibu-tion with the roots exploiting the top soi l and an enriched band of subsoi l ; while Coker (1958) reports that a sandy loam texture favoured denser root branching in the shallow layers than did a clay loam. Atkinson (1980) notes that the depth of rooting increased from sandy to s i l t to clay. He also noted that the depth apple roots penetrate is variable, in that the range of 0.4 to 8.6 m, with 1 to 2 m the commonest range, the absolute l imit set by 61 bedrock, although some roots wil l penetrate f issures. Spacing has been found to affect the depth of root penetration (Atkinson et al (1976)); at wide tree spacings, the root systems tend to be composed of major horizontal roots with few vertical roots, whereas at closer spacings, the root systems tend to be ver t ica l . At a close spacing, 25% of the root mass occurred below 0.5 m, whereas at the widest, 15% of the root mass occurred below this depth. Thus, some attention should be given to the soil texture, tree spacing and possibly i r r igat ion regime and rootstock when determining i f a shallow soil is suitable for apple tree culture. Hansen (1974) recommended a soil depth of 1.2 m for small trees as did Sv/ales (1979) who also noted that there are many successful orchards on very shallow s o i l s , but tree growth and productivity are more easily maintained on deep s o i l s . From the l i terature , a depth of at least 0.5 m appears to be adequate, although most orchards are situated on deeper s o i l s . 62 3.5 RESULTS The ranges of the parameters from the l i terature review and interviews were used to evaluate the soi ls of the study area. As more information concerning soi ls and climate, and productivity relative to soi ls and clima-t ic conditions was available for the Okanagan Valley and an orchard in west Nanaimo, emphasis was placed on this information in the evaluation. (Refer to Appendix 1 for descriptions of these s o i l s . ) The mineral soi ls of land capabil i ty class 4 and 5 (where class 4 and 5 soi ls constituted at least 50% of the soil polygon) in the study area, designated as such due to stoniness and topography l imitat ions, were evalu-ated according to these parameter ranges: texture % coarse fragments depth drainage topography clay loam to £ 60% > 0.5 n good to f la t to complex very gravelly rapid and simple loamy sand slopes < 30% The soi ls were mapped to ref lect their sui tabi l i ty for orchards: (Refer to Figure 3 for soil su i tab i l i ty for orchard development.) Class I Al l class 4 and 5 soil polygons suitable for orchard development; a l l parameters - texture, % coarse fragment content, depth, drain-age and topography are within the ranges as outlined, for 100% of polygon. 63 Class II Al l class 4 and 5 soil polygons where al l parameters are within the ranges as outlined, for greater than 60% of the polygon. Class III All class 4 and 5 soil polygons where one or more of the para-meters are not within the ranges as outlined, for at least 60% of the soil polygon. Class IV Al l polygons of predominantly (> 50%) class 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 s o i l s . (Refer to Appendix II for soil polygon descriptions.) Those polygons designated as Class I should be the most suitable for apple orchard development. However, some areas in Class II and III should also be suitable for development, but the extent of these areas is impos-sible to determine from this type of evaluation. 64 FIGURE 4 MAP OF SOIL SUITABILITY FOR APPLE ORCHARD DEVELOPMENT 1:20,000 scale Class I All class 4 and 5 soil polygons suitable for orchard development; all parameters - texture, % coarse fragment content, depth, drainage and topography are within the ranges as outlined for 100% of polygon. Class II All class 4 and 5 soil polygons where all parameters are within the ranges, as outlined, for greater than 60% of the polygon. Class III All class 4 and 5 soil polygons where one or more of the parameters are not within the ranges, as outlined, for at least 60% of the soil polygon. Class IV All polygons of predominantly (> 50%) class 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 soils, and class 4R and 5R soils. 66 3.6 WATER AVAILABILITY The avai labi l i ty of water on the east coast of Vancouver Island has been suggested as a possible constraint to the development of a tree f ru i t industry (H. Sasaki, pers. com., 1983, and R. Maxwell, pers. com., 1983). T. Chamber!in (pers. com., 1983) states that al l the surface water in this area is committed to other uses, therefore any agricultural development would have to rely on groundwater for water supplies, although there could be water available through municipal sources (see Appendix III). For this thesis, only sources of groundwater will be explored. Maps of the sur f ic ia l geology of the east coast (NTS Nanaimo 92 G/4 and 92 F / l east; and Duncan 92 B/13), Water Well Location Maps and well logs was used to identify aquifers. The information regarding the surf ic ia l geology was superimposed on the Water Well Location Maps. Then the information provided by the well logs, especially the detailed logs which provided descriptions of the unconsolidated materials, their layering and water saturation, was used to determine i f an aquifer might exist and what i ts extent might be. This was done through constructing cross-sections of the unconsolidated materials which furnished a better aspect of the horizontal and vertical dimensions of any potential aquifers. Three potential aquifers were ident i f ied. The two aquifers with high productivities are located adjacent to the Nanaimo River. The approximate area of the aquifer on the Nanaimo River delta is 2 ha; the approximate area of the aquifer at Cedar is 40 ha. The aquifer of lower productivity situated northeast of Hoi den Lake is approximately 4 ha in area. From th is , a map (refer to Figure 5) was drawn dividing the land area into four classes: 67 Class I: High Yield Aquifers Composed of Extensive Unconsolidated Sediments a. areas where existing wells have reported estimated yields of >112.5 L/min; b. areas which have wells completed in aquifers which are predominantly sands and gravels; c . areas where the surf ic ia l geology indicates a potentially good aquifer region, confirmed by one or more of the other parameters (a,b,d); d. areas where the surf ic ia l geology is the indicator of a potentially good aquifer and this is confirmed by one or more of the other parameters (a ,b,c) ; Class II: Moderate Yield Aquifers Composed of Extensive Unconsolidated Sediments a. areas where existing wells have reported estimated yields of 67.5 to 112.5 L/min; b. areas which have wells completed in aquifers which are predominantly sands and gravels; c . areas where wells constructed in areally extensive and thick aquifers (according to well log data) have not reported estimated yields of >112.5L/min; d. areas where the surf ic ia l geology is the indicator of a potentially good aquifer and this is confirmed by one or more of these other parameters (a ,b ,c) ; 68 Class III: Low Yield Aquifers Composed of Consolidated Sediments a. areas where existing wells have estimated yields of <67.5 L/min; b. areas where wells are constructed in a consolidated rock type; c. areas where sur f ic ia l geology is an indicator of a potentially poor aquifer region and this is confirmed by one or more of the other para-meters (a,b,d); d. areas where bedrock was found at the surface; Class IV: Aquifers of Unknown Potential a. areas of unknown potential which may not be assigned to any class because of inadequate or insuff ic ient data. 69 FIGURE 5 MAP OF GROUNDWATER POTENTIAL* 1:20,000 scale • Class I: Areas where the possibility of obtaining 112.5+ L/min well yields are good. Wells are completed in aquifers which are predominantly sands and gravels. n Class II: Areas where the possibility of obtaining between 67.5 and 112.5 L/min well yields are good. Wells are completed in aquifers which are predominantly sands and gravels. Class III: Areas where the possibility of obtaining adequate supplies of groundwater for irrigation purposes are poor. Wells are completed in aquifers which are predominantly bedrock. I Class IV: Areas where the possibility of obtaining adequate supplies of groundwater for irrigation purposes are • unknown and may not be assigned to either Class I, II or III because of inadequate or insufficient data. 1 well (reported estimated yield of greater than 225 L/min). 1 well (reported estimated yield of between 112.5 and 225 L/min). * after Ronneseth, K.D. 1983. 71 Water quality information is not included as a very minimal number of water quality analyses have been included in the well logs. Most wells on the east coast supply water for domestic use and analysis is only done in those few cases where water of a specif ic quality is needed for industrial purposes. Rarely has i t been necessary to analyze water to check for conta-mination as i t is usually blatant (saline or sulphur). The well logs, also lack information essential to the prediction of an aquifer's potential . This includes information on the wel l 's specif ic capacity, available drawdown, the permeability/transmissivity values of the aquifer materials, and storage coeff ic ients. The water level at the comple-tion of the i n i t i a l pumping tests is not recorded; and often the duration of the pumping tests may have been too short to determine i f the estimated production is reasonable. For a quantitative assessment of water avai labi-l i t y , an estimation of groundwater recharge, movement, storage and with-drawal rates would be required. The maps identifying those areas with soi ls capable of supporting apple orchards and potential aquifers were overlaid. The composite map (refer to Figure 6) delineates three areas that could have the biophysical capabil ity for apple orchards. Two areas bordering the Nanaimo River have Class I aquifers, while one area northeast of Holden Lake has a Class II aquifer. 72 FIGURE 6 MAP OF AREAS WITH BIOPHYSICAL CAPABILITY FOR APPLE ORCHARDS 1:20,000 scale •Areas identified as having biophysical capability for supporting apple orchards with Class I aquifer. H Areas identif ied has having biophysical capability for supporting apple orchards with Class II aquifer. Areas identified in this study as not capability for supporting apple orchards. having biophysical 74 CHAPTER 4. SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES 4.0 LAND TENURE Although there are large tracts of land which would be suitable for the culture of tree f ru i ts and other agricultural ac t iv i t ies on the east coast of Vancouver Island, the ava i lab i l i ty of land for these act iv i t ies is cur-tai led somewhat by the presence of Tree Farms and Tree Farm Licences (H. Sasaki, pers. com., 1983; A. Sayles, pers. com., 1983). A brief history of the east coast of the Island provides some explanation as to why these areas are in this form of tenure and some clue to their future use. In 1884, a consortium which included Robert Dunsmuir and his son James, obtained a charter from the Dominion and provincial governments for the Esquimalt and Nanaimo (E&N) Railway along with a cash grant and 760,000 hectares of land (Robin, 1972). This land grant was only s l ight ly less than one-quarter of the whole area of Vancouver Island (Chodos, 1973) and included al l of the east coast from Campbell River south to the Metchosin area west of V ic tor ia , but for land already alienated to individuals (A. Sayles, pers. com., 1983). In 1905, Canadian Pacif ic Railway (CPR) bought the E&N Railway and, in doing so gained ownership of the land grant. In the 1940's, CPR began sel l ing off large tracts to forest companies (Chodos, 1973) and a few rela-t ively small tracts to individuals (A. Sayles, pers. com., 1983). By 1964, 75 120,000 hectares was al l that remained of the original 760,000 hectare land grant (Chodos, 1973), and the CPR continues to retain this area for i ts logging company, CIP Forest Products Incorporated (CP Enterprises Ltd. Annual Report 1984). The only land remaining within the direct control of CPR is the railway right-of-way and the land on which the railway stations are situated (M. Nivens, pers. com., 1983). The large tracts of land sold to forestry companies have become Tree Farms and Tree Farm Licences, the largest area being held as Tree Farms. The lands in Tree Farms are held in fee simple tenure by forest companies, and are designated as such through agreements with the provincial govern-ment. Under the terms of these agreements, the forest company must submit detailed and long term forest management plans for their Tree Farm(s) every f ive years. Included in these plans is the expected revenue from timber harvest (based on the minimum l i f e of a tree - 80 years) from which the level of taxation is determined. The taxes paid under these plans are almost always less than taxation under any other form of tenure. Therefore, once a tract of land has been designated as a Tree Farm, the forest company controll ing i t wil l follow the plan as approved by the government, or lose this tax c lass i f ica t ion (A. Sayles, pers. com., 1983). Although this form of tax c lass i f icat ion encourages the forest compa-nies to maintain their Tree Farms as outlined in the management plans, there has been a number of small tracts of land that were portions of tree farms sold to individuals. However, when considering the total area of these 76 tracts relative to the area of the Tree Farms, only a very small quantity has changed tenure. Instead, the forest companies prefer to swap land that presents access or other problems rather than sel l ing i t . Should land be needed for transportation systems or other purposes, the government can expropriate the necessary area in a Tree Farm and compensate the forest company (A. Sayles, pers. com., 1983). Tree Farm Licences are area based tenures which grant the right to manage the timber and forest growth according to management plans and obtain cutting permits for an area. The Licences are long term leases issued by the Ministry of Forests under the provision of the Forest Act of 1978 (Part 3, Division 5) (F. Williams, pers. com.;, 1983). Each Licence has a term of twenty-five years, and is reviewed every ten years, at which time replace-ment licences are offered. The replacement licence can be terminated by the government by including a termination clause in the replacement licence which gives the licencee a twenty-five year notice of termination (Anon., 1984). This pol icy, along with current government policy of not alienating any large tracts of Crown Land (F. Williams, pers. com., 1983), precludes the removal of these tracts of land from forestry use, although land may be deleted from these areas at any time by the Minister of Forests for r ights-of-way and other uses (Brit ish Columbia Ministry of Forests, 1984). The land base potentially available for orchards is further decreased and fragmented by the small parcel size of the land held in fee simple tenure. (A parcel size of at least 4 ha is necessary for a viable economic unit (B. Warner, pers. com., 1983)). (Refer to Figure 7 for map of the legal status of the land.) 77 FIGURE 7 MAP OF THE LEGAL STATUS OF LAND* Tree Farms Small holdings < 3 ha, not suitable for commercial orchards • Holdings < 4 ha * Tree Farm Licences do not occur in this area. 1:20,000 scale 79 A composite map of the biophysical sui tabi l i ty and land tenure deline-ates two areas that have orchard development potential . One area with a Class I aquifer is situated on the east side of the Nanaimo River. The second area is northeast of Holden Lake, and has a Class II aquifer. (Refer to Figure 8 for map of areas identif ied as having orchard development potential.) 4.1 CURRENT LAND USE The current land uses of the study area are concentrated in forestry and agricultural ac t iv i t ies according to 1980 and 1982 air photos as inter-preted by Lands Directorate (1983). Housekeeping, ins t i tu t iona l , commer-c i a l , industrial and storage, and recreational act iv i t ies are frequently practiced in conjunction with forestry and agriculture. Land in the Nanaimo River delta does not appear to have been used in the past, nor is i t being used in the present for any perceived act iv i ty . It is supporting vegetation of grasses, reeds, sedges and forbs. The peninsula west of Duke Point is being part ia l ly used for land dependant recreational ac t iv i t ies and has a cover of irregularly spaced mature trees. A small area is being used for storage a c t i v i t i e s , while the remainder along with the peninsula on which Duke Point is situated is land in transit ion; the land cover or surface has been disturbed by human ac t i -vity in preparation for a future act iv i ty . 80 FIGURE 8 MAP OF AREAS WITH APPLE ORCHARD DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 1:20,000 scale Areas with Class I aquifers identif ied as having apple orchard development potential . Areas with Class II aquifers identi f ied as having apple orchard development potential . Areas identif ied in this study as not having apple orchard development potential . 82 The Harmac area is being used for manufacturing and storage ac t iv i t i es . South of Harmac is an area designated as productive forest land. This area is producing new trees for transplant and being restocked for forestry uses. The cover is woody vegetation and regularly spaced (planted) small or imma-ture trees, shrubs or bushes less than 5.0 m in height. The remainder of the area east of the Nanaimo River is supporting mainly forestry and agri-cultural a c t i v i t i e s . Many large forestry areas have no perceived act iv i t ies at present, nor is there evidence of any act iv i ty in the past. The cover is irregularly spaced mature trees. Interspersed with these large undisturbed areas are agricultural ac t i v i t i es . These include growing forage crops such as grasses and legumes for mechanical harvesting or grazing and permanent pasture. There are a few small agricultural areas which have irregularly spaced mature trees as their dominant cover. The area on the west side of Holden Lake supports these agricultural act iv i t ies and land dependent recreational ac t i v i t i es . A third act iv i ty using signif icant land area is housekeeping, either on a permanent or seasonal basis that occurs in conjunction with improved and unimproved grasslands. The housekeeping act iv i t ies are concentrated on the east coast, in the Cedar area and along the main thoroughfares of the study area. There are a number of unrelated act iv i t ies occurring in discrete areas interspersed among the three already mentioned. There is surface extraction of sand, gravel and clay; a transmitting and receiving f a c i l i t y ; an inst i tu -tional f a c i l i t y providing services by government agencies, private 83 institutions or private enterprises; a storage f a c i l i t y not connected with agr icul tural , forestry or extraction ac t iv i t i es ; commercial a c t i v i t i e s ; land in transit ion, being prepared for some future ac t iv i ty ; another ins t i tu -tional f ac i l i t y in conjunction with land dependent recreational ac t iv i t i es ; and at least four schools. The area west of the Nanaimo River supports mainly forestry, with some agriculture, housekeeping and other unrelated ac t i v i t i es . The forestry land is undisturbed and no previous act iv i t ies can be perceived. The vegetation is irregularly spaced mature trees. Agricultural ac t iv i t ies include the production of forage crops and grazing. The vegetation is seeded grasses and/or legume cover. The housekeeping act iv i t ies are mainly concentrated in the northwest portion of this area, along with undifferentiated manufac-turing and storage a c t i v i t i e s ; institutional act iv i t ies providing services by government agencies, private institutions or private enterprises; and land related recreational ac t i v i t i es . There is also a waste treatment and disposal f a c i l i t y in this area. Other act iv i t ies west of the Nanaimo River are storage; and commercial enterprises. These occur in small discrete areas adjacent to housekeeping ac t i v i t i es . Refer to Figure 9 for the map of the current land uses in the study area. A composite map of the present land uses and areas with development potential delineates one area with rea l is t ic development potential , the area northeast of Hoi den Lake. Refer to Figure 10 for areas ident i f ied as having rea l is t ic development potent ial . 84 FIGURE 9 MAP OF CURRENT LAND USE 1:20,000 scale • • agriculture - growing forage crops and grazing; improved grass and/or legume cover agriculture - grazing; unimproved grassland or woody vegetation fcV^J forestry - act iv i t ies using land as a producing medium; land cover is manmade forestry - act iv i t ies using land as a producing medium; land cover is predominantly (>75%) regularly spaced small (<5m) trees, shrubs or bushes extraction of sand, gravel and/or clay; cover is unconsolidated material I recreational - land dependant recreational ac t iv i t i es , cover is regularly 1 spaced ta l l (>5m) mature trees HI recreational - outdoor recreational and cultural site ac t iv i t i es , cover is improved grass and/or legume cover housing (housekeeping activi ty) - cover is constructed buildings and mature, irregularly spaced trees hobby farms (housekeeping activity) - homes are most important ac t iv i ty , f ie lds supporting forage crops and grazing; areas too small to support viable farms transmission and receiving fac i l i t y H H manufacturing and storage f a c i l i t i e s ; cover is buildings and constructed l i surfaces 35 inst i tut ional services; cover is grasses and/or legumes and constructed buildings idle land - cover is irregularly spaced small trees, shrubs and bushes no perceived activi ty and no evidence of former ac t iv i t i es ; cover is irregularly spaced mature trees ' v v v -» v y V V 1 V V V \ V V v v \ »\\v» no perceived activi ty and no evidence of former ac t iv i t i es ; cover is unimproved grassland commercial act iv i t ies pHK=f land in transition - land is prepared for future ac t iv i t i es , cover is ;=HHH2 constructed surfaces *Lands Directorate. Nanaimo V.C.R. Notes on 1981 Cycle Land Activity/Land Cover 87 FIGURE 10 MAP OF AREAS WITH REALISTIC DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL* 1:20,000 scale Areas with Class II aquifers identif ied as having rea l is t ic development potential for apple orchards. Areas identif ied in this study as not having rea l is t ic develop-ment potential for apple orchards. There was no area with Class I aquifer identif ied as having rea l is t ic development potential . 89 CHAPTER 5. FEASIBILITY OF APPLE ORCHARD DEVELOPMENT These are the estimated costs and returns of establishment and mainte-nance of an apple orchard for one orchard l i f e of 25 years for the area northeast of Hoi den Lake ident i f ied as having rea l is t ic development potential . Background Information and Assumptions: 1. These estimates are based on an orchard of 4.1 hectares, of which 3.3 hectares is the orchard block, 0.2 hectares is for a residence, and 0.6 hectares is for buildings, roadways and headlands. No consideration is given to housing in these calculat ions. Orchards of this size with more trees per hectare than traditional plantings can be managed by an individual with hired labour necessary only during establishment and harvesting (H. Garrick, pers. com., 1983; and B. Warner, pers. com., 1983). 2. Soil management practices for the Mexicana soil management groups recommended in the Soil Management Handbook for Vancouver Island (1984) are included in the estimates of costs. 90 Land rental is based on rental agreements typical for bare land in the area. Although an orchardist normally does not pay a land rental cost, this cost is included under the assumption that i t represents the returns the orchardist must have to just i fy keeping capital invested in an orchard. Al l estimates of costs are amounts an orchardist would have to pay based on 1984 estimates. Returns are estimated for this time period. (Refer to Appendix VI for Information Sources for Estimates of Costs and Returns.) It is assumed that the orchardist is paying cash for a l l his costs. The trees are planted in a 1.85 m by 4 m spacing which allows for 1244 trees/ha. The rootstock used is M.9 and/or M.26. The i r r igat ion system is a buried PVC sol id set system and is contractor ins ta l led . As the area ident i f ied has a class II aquifer rat ing, calcu-lations were done to ensure that enough water was available. A well with a pumping capacity of 112.5 L/pm was not adequate. However, i f two wells were dr i l led and the capacity was 135 L/pm or greater, there would be enough water available. Two wells would almost double the cost of the well instal lat ion (smaller and therefore less expensive pumps would be necessary). (Refer to Appendix IV.) The pickup truck is driven 4700 kilometers per year and is used solely for farm purposes. Average speed is 56 km/hr and fuel consumption is 18.8 km per gallon. 91 4707 km at 56 km/hr = 84.05 hours of use hours of use/ha = 84.05 hours/3.9 ha = 21.55 hours 7. New purchase costs (1984) are used on al l machinery, equipment and buildings. When equipment is to be replaced, the salvage value of the old equipment is subtracted from the cost of the new equipment. Al l equipment is bought from Vancouver Island suppliers i f i t is available on the Island. Costs may be sl ight ly more from these sources. 8. Spray schedules: The f e r t i l i z e r , pesticide and thinning agents in this estimate of costs are those recommended by the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Food in their 'Tree Fruit Production Guide for Interior Distr icts 1983' and are adapted to the conditions on the east coast of Vancouver Island (B. Warner, pers. com., 1984; and G. Eaton, pers. com., 1985). While i t is assumed that the orchardist would carry out yearly leaf tissue analysis and adjust the nutrient schedule accordingly, the nutrient schedule presented here represents a good level of nutritional management. The pesticide schedule will control those diseases and insects normally encountered, although specif ic pest control requirements will vary with the seasons and locat ion. Although thinning agents are not as effective in the moister climatic conditions that usually occur during their seasonal use on the Island, the majority of orchardists on the Island do use these agents (Warner, pers. com., 1984), thus they are included in the calculations, along with time spent hand thinning. The spray s c h e d u l e o u t l i n e d in T a b l e VI commences i n y e a r 4; 92 TABLE VI SPRAY SCHEDULES FOR YEARS 4 THROUGH 25 Fer t i l i zers Cost/Unit Recommended Times Cost/ha/yr ($) Rate (kg/ha) ($) Solubor Magnesium sulphate Zinc chelate urea $ 1.45/kg 0.70/kg 11.01/kg 0.58/kg 10 45 2.25 134 14.50 31.50 24.77 77.72 Total = $148.49 Pesticides Cost/Unit Recommended Times Cost/ha/yr ($) Rate (kg/ha) ($) Azinphosmethyl Thiophanate methyl Propargite Fixed copper Difolatan 17.75/kg 42.96/kg 13.83/kg 5.33/kg 10.00/L 1.4 2.25 5.5 9 2L 3 4 1 1 1 74.55 386.64 76.07 47.97 20.00 Total = $605.23 Glyphosate 25.00/L 4.5L 112.50 Thinning Agents Cost/Unit Recommended Times Cost/ha/yr ($) Rate (kg/ha) ($) Dinitro-o-cresol Carbaryl Napthalene acetic acid 8.25/L 13.32/kg 24.90/kg 21L 2.1 2.63 1 173.25 1 27.97 1 65.49 Total = $266.71 93 years 1 to 3 spray schedules are outlined in their respective 'Estimates of Costs ' . 9. Harvesting costs are calculated at $11.00/bin for each production year. Of this $11.00, $10.00 is paid to pickers and $1.00 covers other employ-ment costs. During the early years of production (years 2 to 5), i t is assumed that the orchardist can harvest the apples without assistance. 10. The apples are sold at the farm gate, necessitating the purchase of bins. As the local market, which is relat ively small, absorbs al l of the apple production, a number of varieties (up to 8) are produced. These varieties are not normally grown in Bri t ish Columbia or Washington State, thus there is no regional competition for the local market from these sources, although there may be competition from New Zealand var iet ies. (See Appendix VI for discussion of market ava i lab i l i ty . ) The estimates of costs (Table VIII) follow for years 1 to 25, and are calculated as dollars per hectare. The equipment used in each operation (column 1) can be determined by the number of equipment used (Table VIII, column 2) and i ts designated number (from Table VII). The number of times an operation occurs is in column 3 (Table VIII). The combining of f e r t i -l i zers and/or pesticides for application decreases the number of times an operation is carried out. The estimated hours of labour are in column 4. The wages for hired labour are $5.00 per hour. 94 The Fuel and Oil and Repair and Maintenance (R&M) are in columns 5 and 6, respectively. These costs are calculated using the American Society of Agricultural Engineers' data. The cost of fuel used in this study i s : diesel $0.4282/* gas $0.4392/* These prices include the Federal tax rebate to the bona fide farmer. The price of materials u t i l i zed in each operation is given in column 7, while the total cost per hectare is calculated in column 8, and is carried through to become Cultural Costs for the calculation of Variable Cultural Costs. In the calculation of Non-Variable Cash Costs, the land tax is repre-sentative of the land taxes of developed orchards on the east coast of the Island. Insurance costs under the same heading include equipment and building payments, while Legal and Accounting costs are calculated as 2% of the gross receipts. Overhead is calculated as being 5% of the subtotal cash costs and includes, along with hydro and telephone, the repair and maintenance of buildings and non-moving equipment. (The cost of operating the irr igat ion system and refrigeration for cold storage is included in the hydro costs.) Insurance is calculated as 4% of the average value of the machinery and buildings. 95 The cost of distributing and col lect ing the bins is included in the hours of tractor operation as well as in operator labour. Although year two is early for apple production, there can be produc-tion on the dwarfing rootstocks (B. Warner, pers. com., 1984; and H. Garrick, pers. com., 1984). Orchard production peaks around year seven (J. Swales, pers. comm., 1985; and H. Arndt, pers. com., 1985) and some decline in production can be expected through f rosts , poor pol l inat ion, windfal l , etc. An incremental loss of 3/4% per year will be calculated into the estimates of returns from year eleven to allow for declining production. Production figures are those from orchards situated on similar soi ls in the Okanagan Valley and orchards in the Saanich peninsula and west of Nanaimo City. Those figures from the Okanagan are not for the same varieties as this orchard would have, but those from the Saanich peninsula and west Nanaimo are, so they are emphasized. 96 TABLE VII EQUIPMENT AND BUILDING COSTS Cost of Moving Equipment: Item Tractor (40 hp) F la i l mower Fer t i l i ze r spreader Hand gun sprayer Air blast sprayer Rear forks, front end loader and forks Pickup truck (1/2 ton) Replacement Life Salvage Cost ($) (Years) Value ($) 21,000.00 20 2,694.54 3,000.00 15 584.05 700.00 10 206.77 1,252.00 10 369.82 14,000.00 25 1,183.95 4,000.00 20 513.25 10,000.00 20 1,283.11 Cost of Non-Moving Equipment: Item Replacement Life Salvage Cost ($) (Years) Value ($) Small tools and orchard equipment 700.00 10 Picking bags (4) 60.00 10 Fuel tanks 718.00 25 Deer fencing 3,091.00 25 Bins (300) 22,500.00 20 Irrigation and well 17,130.00 25 Buildings: Item Replacement Life Salvage Cost ($) (Years) Value ($) Implement shed and shop 7,500.00 25 450.00 Cold storage f a c i l i t y 12,800.00 25 768.00 (240 bin capacity) Small tools include small hand tools for orchard use and shop tools All items are purchased the year they are f i r s t used. 97 The estimates of costs of establishing and maintaining one ha of an apple orchard over a twenty-five year period are outlined in Table VIII. During the f i r s t year, the period of greatest capital investment, costs are higher than in later years. Once the orchard is established, the yearly costs stablize except for those years when equipment is being replaced. A summary of the estimated costs for a 3.3 ha orchard is outlined in Table IX. The operator's salary is included in this table and is $20,000 per year. The expected orchard yields and their returns over the twenty-five year period are outlined in Table X. The yields increase each year up to year seven, remain the same for six years and slowly decrease thereafter. The returns to the orchard operator ref lect this trend. The net present value of the orchard for five prices per kilogram: $0.15, $0.22, $0.33, $0.44 and $0.66, and at three discount rates: 5%, 8% and 10%, is outlined in Table XI. The estimated prices per kilogram were chosen to ref lect rates received for apples in the Okanagan Valley and on the Saanich peninsula and east coast of Vancouver Island. However, returns received by the orchardists on Vancouver Island do tend to be higher than those received by orchardists elsewhere in the province. 1 1 Prices at the farm gate on Vancouver Island have been quite stable and are predicted to remain so in the near future. Estimated prices/kg have been: 1980 - $0.57; 1981 - $0.88; 1982 - $0.61; 1983 - $0.66; and 1984 - $0.66. (Production of Tree Fruit Crops Together With An Estimate of Farm Value 1980-1984; and G. Thompson, pers. com. 4 September, 1985). TABLE V I I I ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 1 OPERATION NUMBER OF EQUIPMENT TIMES LABOUR (hr.) FUEL * OIL Operator Hired ($) R+M ($) Land Preparation Lime Application Augering Planting Pruning Fertil izing Pesticides Staking Grass Seeding Use of Truck CULTURE MATERIALS Fertilizer Solubor Magnesium sulphate Zinc chelate Urea 11-55-0 Pesticides Azlnphosmethyl Thiophanate-methyl Proparglte Fixed copper Oifolatan 1,3 1 1.2 1,4 1,4 Cost/Unit ($) 1.45/kg 0.70/kg 11.01/kg- • 0.58/kg 0.44/kg 17.75/kg 42.96/kg 13.83/kg 5.33/kg 10.00/L 2.0 31.1 104.0 104 52.0 1.25 3.75 21.5 21.5 2.0 21.55 Recommended Rate (kg/ha) 2.5 kg 11.25 0.56 26.8 220 gm/tree 0.35 0.56 1.38 2.25 0.5L 6.70 90.71 87.01 3.36 4.19 12.58 6.70 118.62 18 68 Variable Cash Costs: ($/ha) Cultural Costs: 8674.67 Hired Labour: 125.5 hr at $5.00/hr 627.50 R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: 435.40 Total Variable Cash Costs: 9737.57 1.40 0.24 0.12 0.35 0.17 3.88 Times 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 Taxes: Overhead: Total Cash Costs: Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost - capital: Insurance: Total: 164.88 480.41 10382.86 3827.34 128.80 14339.00 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha 500.00 TOTAL COSTS: $14839.00 7 8 MATERIALS TOTAL ($/ha) Custom 375.00 Cost = $201.60 208.48 Auger rental at $40/day for 230.39 3.45 days = $138.00 1244 trees at $5.50 each 6930.41 - 3.60 Cost = $130.02 130.02 Cost = $150.95 163.88 1244 stakes at $0.15 each 186.60 $2.97/kg seed at 62.5 kg/ha 205.00 + $12.50 rental seeder 122.50 $ 8674.67 ($/ha) 3.63 7.88 6.17 15.54 96.80 18.64 96.23 19.09 11.99 5.00 1 2 OPERATION Pruning Replanting - 2% Fertilizers Pesticides Pesticides Pollination Thinning Mowi ng Harvest Use of Truck CULTURE MATERIALS Fertilizer Solubor a Magnesium sulphate Zinc chelate Urea Pesticides Azinphosmethyl Thi ophanate-methyl Propargite Fixed copper Difolatan Glyphosate Variable Cash Costs: Cultural Costs: R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each Legal 8 accounting: Total Variable Cash Costs: Taxes: Overhead: Total Cash Costs: Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost - capital: Insurance: Total: Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha TOTAL COSTS: NUMBER OF EQUIPMENT 1,2 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,2 1 Cost/Unit ($) 1.45/kg 0.70/kg 11.01/kg 0.58/kg 17.75/kg 42.96/kg 13.83/kg 5.33/kg 10.00/L 25.00/L TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 2 3 4 5 6 TIMES LABOUR (hr.) FUEL & OIL R+M Operator Hired ($) ($) 2 207.0 - 6.70 0.36 1 7.0 1 2.5 - 8.39 0.40 4 6.0 - 20.12 0.94 1 1.25 - 4.19 0.21 1 41.0 1 1.25 4.19 0.25 1 6.0 3.36 0.15 21.55 118.62 6.43 Recommended Rate (kg/ha) Times 5.0 kg 1 22.5 1 1.13 1 26.8 1 0.7 3 1.13 4 2.75 1 4.5 1 1L 1 2.25L 1 ($/ha) 875.97 435.40 14.34 1325.71 164.88 63.87 1554.46 7 8 MATERIALS TOTAL ($/ha) 7.06 25 trees at $5.50 each 137.50 Cost = $50.98 51.38 Cost = $303.48 324.54 Cost = $56.25 60.65 $36.00/hive at 3/ha 108.00 4.44 3.51 125.05 $875.97 ($/ha) 7.25 15.75 12.44 15.54 ^ 37.28 194.18 38.03 23.99 10.00 56.25 1691.49 64.40 3310.35 500.00 $ 3810.35 1 2 OPERATION Lime Application Pruning Replanting IS Fertilizing Pesticides Pesticides Pollination Thinning (hand) Mowing Harvest Use of Truck CULTURE MATERIALS Ferti1i zer Solubor Magnesium sulphate Zinc chelate Urea Pesticides Azinphosmethyl Thiophanate-methyl Propargite Fixed copper Difolatan Glyphosate Variable Cash Costs: Cultural Costs: R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each Legal & accounting Total Variable Cash Costs: Taxes: Overhead: Total Cash Costs: Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost - capital: Insurance: Total: Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha TOTAL COSTS: NUMBER OF EQUIPMENT 1,3 1,2 1,5 1,5 1,4 1,2 1 Cost/Unit ($) 1.45/kg 0.70/kg 11.01/kg 0.58/kg 17.75/kg 42.96/kg 13.83/kg 5.33/kg 10.00/L 25.00/L TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 3 3 4 5 6 TIMES LABOUR (hr.) FUEL & OIL R+M Operator Hired ($) ($) 1 2.0 - 6.70 0.38 2 207.0 - 6.70 0.45 1 7.0 1 2.5 - 8.39 1.83 4 6.0 - 20.12 4.41 1 1.25 - 4.19 0.38 1 41.0 1 1.25 - 4.19 0.19 1 24.0 - 13.52 0.59 21.55 - 118.62 7.92 Recommended Rate (kg/ha) Times 7.5 kg 1 33.75 1 1.69 1 67.0 1 1.05 3 1.69 4 4.13 1 • 6.75 1 1.5L 1 3.38L 1 ($/ha) 1270.81 435.40 118.65 1824.86 164.88 89.83 2079.57 7 8 MATERIALS TOTAL ($/ha) Cost = $201.60 208.68 7.15 12.44 trees at $5.50 each 68.42 Cost = $91.98 93.81 Cost = $454.12 478.65 Cost = $84.50 89.07 $36.00/hive at 5/ha 180.00 4.38 14.11 - 126.54 $1270.81 Cost/ha ($) 10.88 23.63 18.61 38.86 55.91 290.41 57.12 35.98 15.00 84.50 1187.19 43.00 3309.76 500.00 $ 3809.76 TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 4 1 2 3 4 OPERATION NUMBER OF TIMES LABOUR (hr.) EQUIPMENT Operator Hired Pruning 1,2 2 207.0 Fertilizing 1,5 1 2.5 Pesticides 1,5 4 6.0 Pesticides 1,4 1 1.25 Thinning Agents 1,5 2 3.5 Pollination - 1 -Thinning (hand) - 2 41.0 Mowing 1,2 1 1.25 Harvest 1 1 87.5 Use of Truck - 21.55 -Variable Cash Costs: ($/ha) Cultural Costs: 1567.10 R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: 435.40 Legal & accounting: 356.40 Total Variable Cash Costs: 2358.43 Taxes: 164.88 Overhead: 114.65 Total Cash Costs: 2638.43 Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost - capital: 949.96 Insurance: 32.20 Total: 3620.59 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha 500.00 TOTAL COSTS: $ 4120.59 5 6 7 8 FUEL & OIL R+M MATERIALS TOTAL ($) ($) ($/ha) 6.70 0.65 7.35 8.39 2.12 Cost = $148.49 150.61 20.12 5.08 Cost = $605.23 630.43 4.19 0.30 Cost = $112.50 116.69 11.71 2.94 Cost = $266.71 281.36 $36.00/hive at 5/ha 180.00 3.36 0.47 - 3.83 62.91 6.05 - 68.96 118.62 8.95 - 127.57 $1567.10 TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 5 OPERATION NUMBER OF TIMES LABOUR (hr.) FUEL & OIL EQUIPMENT OPERATOR ($) Lime Application 1,6 Pruning 1,2 Spraying: fertil izers 1,5 pesticides 1,5 1,4 thinners 1,5 Pollination Thinning (hand) Harvest 1 Mowing 1,2 Use of Truck 1 2 6.70 2 207 6.70 1 2.5 8.39 4 6.0 20.12 1 1.25 4.19 2 3.5 2.50 1 76.25 84.63 1 1.25 3.36 21.55 118.62 Variable Cash Costs: ($/ha) Cultural Costs: 1790.45 R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: 435.40 Legal & accounting: 480.31 Total Variable Cash Costs: 2706.16 Harvest Costs: Picking - piece work: 50 bins at $11.00/bin 550.00 Total Harvest Costs: , 550.00 Taxes: 164.88 Overhead: 159.51 Total Cash Costs: 3580.55 Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost - capital: 845.38 Insurance: 25.80 Total: 4451.73 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha 500.00 TOTAL COSTS: $ 4951.73 6 7 8 R+M MATERIALS TOTAL ($) ($/ha) 0.81 Cost = $201.60 209.11 0.70 7.40 2.15 Cost = $148.49 150.64 5.15 Cost = $605.23 630.50 0.41 Cost = $112.50 117.10 3.00 Cost = $266.71 272.21 $36.00/hive * 5 hives 180.00 6.34 90.97 0.51 3.87 10.03 128.65 1790.45 TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 6 OPERATION NUMBER OF TIMES LABOUR (hr.) FUEL & OIL EQUIPMENT OPERATOR ($) Pruning Spraying: fertilizers pesticides thinners Pollination Thinning (hand) Harvest Mowi ng Use of Truck 1,2 1,5 1,5 1,4 1,5 1 1,2 207 2.5 6.0 1.25 3.5 105.00 1.25 21.55 6.70 8.39 20.12 4.19 11.71 117.13 3.36 118.62 Variable Cash Costs: ($/ha) Cultural Costs: 1632.16 R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: 435.40 Legal 4 accounting: 665.04 Total Variable Cash Costs: 2732.60 Harvest Costs: Picking - piece work: 70 bins at $11.00/bin 770.00 Total Harvest Costs: 770.00 Taxes: 164.88 Overhead: 173.83 Total Cash Costs: 3841.31 Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost - capital: 537.00 Insurance: 21.50 Total: 4399.81 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha 500.00 TOTAL COSTS: $ 4899.81 6 7 8 R+M MATERIALS TOTAL ($) ($/ha) 0.87 7.57 2.60 Cost = $148.49 151.09 6.26 Cost = $605.23 631.61 0.85 Cost = $112.50 117.54 3.64 Cost = $266.71 282.06 $36.00/hive * 5 hives 180.00 11.64 128.77 0.67 4.03 10.87 129.49 1632.16 TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 7 OPERATION NUMBER OF TIMES LABOUR (hr.) FUEL 4 OIL EQUIPMENT OPERATOR ($) Lime Application 1,6 Pruning 1,2 Spraying: fertilizers 1,5 pesticides 1,5 1,4 thinners 1,5 Pollination Thinning (hand) Harvest 1 Mowing 1,2 Use of Truck 1 2 6.70 2 207 6.70 1 2.5 8.39 4 6.0 20.12 1 1.25 4.19 2 3.5 11.71 1 1 1 117.0 130.51 1 1.25 3.36 21.55 118.62 Variable Cash Costs: ($/ha) Cultural Costs: 1858.99 R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: 435.40 Legal S accounting: 738.94 Total Variable Cash Costs: 3033.33 Harvest Costs: Picking - piece work: 78 bins at $11.00/bin 858.00 Total Harvest Costs: 858.00 Taxes: 164.88 Overhead: 191.27 Total Cash Costs: 4247.48 Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost - capital: 701.29 Insurance: 18.41 Total: 4967.18 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha 500.00 TOTAL COSTS: $ 5467.18 6 7 8 R+M MATERIALS TOTAL (S) ($/ha) 1.18 Cost = $201.60 209.48 0.93 7.63 2.83 Cost = $148.49 151.32 6.81 Cost = $605.23 632.16 0.91 Cost = $112.50 117.60 3.96 Cost = $266.71 282.38 $36.00/hive * 5 hives 180.00 13.65 144.16 0.66 4.02 11.62 130.24 1858.99 TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 8 OPERATION NUMBER OF TIMES LABOUR (hr.) FUEL & OIL EQUIPMENT OPERATOR ($) Pruning 1,2 2 207 6.70 Spraying: fertilizers 1,5 1 2.5 8.39 pesticides 1,5 4 6.0 20.12 1,4 1 1.25 4.19 n . . . thinners 1,5 2 3.5 11.71 Pollination i Thinning (hand) 1 Harvest 1 1 117.0 130.51 Mowing 1,2 1 1.25 3.36 Use of Truck 21.55 118.62 Variable Cash Costs: ($/ha) Cultural Costs: 1664.03 R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: 435.40 Legal 4 accounting: 738.94 Total Variable Cash Costs: -2838.37 Harvest Costs: Picking - piece work: 78 bins at $11.00/bin 858.00 Total Harvest Costs: 858.00 Taxes: 164.88 Overhead: 191.27 Total Cash Costs: 4052.52 Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost - capital: 631.47 Insurance: 16.11 Total: 4700.10 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha 500.00 TOTAL COSTS: $ 5200.10 6 7 8 R+M MATERIALS TOTAL ($) ($/ha) 1.30 8.00 3.44 Cost = $148.49 151.93 8.27 Cost = $605.23 633.62 4.01 Cost = $112.50 120.70 4.82 Cost = $266.71 283.24 $36.00/hive * 5 hives 180.00 20.74 151.25 1.00 4.36 12.31 130.93 1644.03 TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 9 OPERATION NUMBER OF TIMES LABOUR (hr.) FUEL 8 OIL EQUIPMENT OPERATOR ($) Lime Application 1,6 Pruning 1,2 Spraying: fertil izers 1,5 pesticides 1,5 1,4 thinners 1,5 Pollinati on Thinning (hand) Harvest 1 Mowing 1,2 Use of Truck 1 2 6.70 2 207 6.70 1 2.5 8.39 4 6.0 20.12 1 1.25 4.19 2 3.5 11.71 1 1 1 130.51 1 1.25 3.36 21.55 118.62 Variable Cash Costs: ($/ha) Cultural Costs: 1886.76 R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: 435.40 Legal 4 accounting: 738.94 Total Variable Cash Costs: 3061.10 Harvest Costs: Picking - piece work: 78 bins at $11.00/bin 858.00 Total Harvest Costs: 858.00 Taxes: 164.88 Overhead: 792.66 Total Cash Costs: 4876.64 Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost - capital: 600.75 Insurance: 14.32 Total: 5491.71 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha 500.00 TOTAL COSTS: $ 5991.71 6 7 8 R+M MATERIALS TOTAL <S) ($/ha) 1.55 Cost = $201.60 209.85 1.50 8.20 3.84 Cost = $148.49 152.33 9.22 Cost = $605.23 634.57 11.57 Cost = $112.50 128.26 4.40 Cost = $266.71 282.82 $36.00/hive * 5 hives 180.00 24.27 154.78 1.03 4.39 12.94 131.56 1886.76 TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 10 OPERATION NUMBER OF TIMES LABOUR (hr.) FUEL & OIL R+M EQUIPMENT OPERATOR ($) ($) Pruning 1,2 Spraying: fertilizers 1,5 pesticides 1,5 1,4 thinners 1,5 Pollination Thinning (hand) Harvest 1 Mowi ng 1,2 Use of Truck 2 207 6.70 1.71 1 2.5 8.39 4.17 4 6.0 20.12 10.02 1 1.25 4.19 5.16 2 3.5 11.71 5.85 1 117.0 130.51 28.28 1 1.25 3.36 1.17 21.55 118.62 13.53 Variable Cash Costs: ($/ha) Cultural Costs: 1678.03 R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: 435.40 Legal & accounting: 738.94 Total Variable Cash Costs: 2852.37 Harvest Costs: Picking - piece work: 78 bins at $11.00/bin 858.00 Total Harvest Costs: 858.00 Ta«s: 164.88 Overhead: 182.22 Total Cash Costs: 4057.47 Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost - capital: 551.80 Insurance: 12.89 Total: 4622.16 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha 500.00 TOTAL COSTS: $ 5122.16 7 8 MATERIALS TOTAL ($/ha) 8.41 Cost = $148.49 152.66 Cost = $605.23 635.37 Cost = $112.50 121.85 Cost = $266.71 284.27 $36.00/hive * 5 hives 180.00 158.79 4.53 132.15 1678.03 TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 11 1 2 OPERATION NUMBER OF EQUIPMENT Lime Application 1,6 Pruning 1,2 Spraying: fertilizers 1,5 pesticides 1,5 1,4 thinners 1,5 Pollination Thinning (hand) Harvest 1 Mowi ng 1,2 Use of Truck 3 4 5 TIMES LABOUR (hr.) FUEL & OIL OPERATOR ($) 1 2 6.70 2 207 6.70 1 2.5 8.39 4 6.0 20.12 1 1.25 4.19 2 3.5 11.71 1 1 1 117.0 130.51 1 1.25 3.36 21.55 118.62 6 7 8 R+M MATERIALS TOTAL ($) ($/ha) 1.69 Cost = $201.60 209.99 1.92 8.62 4.53 Cost = $148.49 153.02 10.87 Cost = $605.23 636.22 1.18 Cost = $112.50 117.87 6.34 Cost = $266.71 284.76 $36.00/hive * 5 hives 180.00 32.20 162.71 1.28 4.64 14.08 137.70 1895.53 Variable Cash Costs: Cultural Costs: R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: Legal & accounting: Total Variable Cash Costs: ($/ha) 1895.53 435.40 673.39 3004.32 o CO Harvest Costs: Picking - piece work: Taxes: Overhead: Total Cash Costs: 78 bins at $11.00/bin Total Harvest Costs: 858.00 858.00 164.88 189.82 4217.02 Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost Insurance: Total: capi tal: 823.93 23.39 5064.34 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha 500.00 TOTAL COSTS: $ 5564.34 TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 12 OPERATION NUMBER OF EQUIPMENT TIMES LABOUR (hr.) OPERATOR FUEL & OIL ($) R+M ($) MATERIALS TOTAL ($/ha) Pruning Spraying: fertilizers pesticides thinners Pollination Thinning (hand) Harvest Mowi ng Use of Truck 1,2 1,5 1,5 1,4 1,5 1 1,2 207.0 2.5 6.0 1.25 3.5 117.0 1.25 21.55 6.70 8.39 20.12 4.19 11.71 130.51 3.36 118.62 2.14 4.87 11.70 2.03 6.83 36.10 1.45 14.60 Cost = $148.49 Cost = $605.23 Cost = $112.50 Cost = $266.71 $36.00/hive * 5 hives 8.84 153.36 637.05 118.72 285.25 180.00 166.61 4.81 133.22 1687.86 Variable Cash Costs: Cultural Costs: R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: Legal & accounting: Total Variable Cash Costs: Harvest Costs: Picking - piece work: Taxes: Overhead: Total Cash Costs: 78 bins at $11.00/bin Total Harvest Costs: ($/ha) 1687.86 435.40 727.84 2851.10 858.00 858.00 164.88 182.16 4056.14 o in Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost - capital: Insurance: Total: 631.79 16.09 4704.02 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha TOTAL COSTS: 500.00 $ 5204.02 TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 13 OPERATION NUMBER OF TIMES LABOUR (hr.) FUEL & OIL R+M MATERIALS TOTAL EQUIPMENT OPERATOR ($) ($) ($/ha) Lime Application Pruning Spraying: fertilizers pesticides thinners Pollination Thinning (hand) Harvest Mowi ng Use of Truck 1,6 1.2 1,5 1,5 1.4 1,5 1 1.2 2 207 2.5 6.0 1.25 3.5 117.0 1.25 21.55 6.70 6.70 8.39 20.12 4.19 11.71 130.51 3.36 118.62 2.53 2.34 5.22 12.52 3.00 7.30 40.02 1.57 15.10 Cost = $201.60 Cost Cost Cost Cost $148.49" $605.23 $112.50 $266.71 $36.00/hive * 5 hives 210.83 9.04 153.71 637.87 119.69 285.72 180.00 170.53 4.93 133.72 1906.04 Variable Cash Costs: ($/ha) Cultural Costs: 1906.04 R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: 435.40 Legal S accounting: 722.30 Total Variable Cash Costs: 3063.74 Harvest Costs: Picking - piece work: 77 bins at $11.00/bin 847.00 Total Harvest Costs: 847.00 Taxes: 164.88 Overhead: 192.24 Total Cash Costs: 4267.86 Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost - capital: 572.39 Insurance: 13.21 Total: 4853.46 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha 500.00 TOTAL COSTS: $ 5353.46 TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 14 OPERATION NUMBER OF TIMES LABOUR (hr.) FUEL & OIL R+M MATERIALS TOTAL EQUIPMENT OPERATOR ($) ($) ($/ha) Pruning Spraying: fertilizers pesticides thinners Pollination Thinning (hand) Harvest Mowi ng Use of Truck 1,2 1,5 1,5 1,4 1,5 1 1,2 207 2.5 6.0 1.25 3.5 117.0 1.25 21.55 6.70 8.39 20.12 4.19 11.71 130.51 3.36 118.62 2.55 5.51 13.22 3.13 7.71 43.92 0.71 15.57 Cost = $148.49 Cost = $605.23 Cost = $112.50 Cost = $266.71 $36.00/hive * 5 hives 9.25 154.00 638.57 119.82 286.13 180.00 174.43 4.07 134.19 1700.46 Variable Cash Costs: ($/ha) Cultural Costs: 1700.46 R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: 435.40 Legal & accounting: 716.76 Total Variable Cash Costs: 2852.62 Harvest Costs: Picking - piece work: 76 bins at $11.00/bin 836.00 Total Harvest Costs: 836.00 Taxes: 164.88 Overhead: 181.13 Total Cash Costs: 4036.63 Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost - capital: 515.70 Insurance: *?•;!? Total: 4564.83 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha 500.00 TOTAL COSTS: $ 5064.83 TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 15 OPERATION NUMBER OF TIMES LABOUR (hr.) FUEL « OIL R+M MATERIALS TOTAL EQUIPMENT OPERATOR ($) ($) ($/ha) Lime Application Pruning Spraying: fertilizers pesticides thinners Pollination Thinning (hand) Harvest Mowi ng Use of Truck 1,6 1,2 1,5 1,5 1,4 1,5 1 1,2 2 207 2.5 6.0 1.25 3.5 117.0 1.25 21.55 6.70 6.70 8.39 20.12 4.19 11.71 130.51 3.36 118.62 2.77 2.64 5.90 14.17 3.66 8.27 47.92 1.85 16.03 Cost = $201.60 Cost = $148.49 Cost = $605.23 Cost = $112.50 Cost = $266.71 $36.00/hive * 5 hives 211.07 9.34 154.39 639.52 120.35 286.69 180.00 178.43 5.21 134.65 1919.65 Variable Cash Costs: ($/ha) Cultural Costs: 1919.65 R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: 435.40 Legal & accounting: 711.23 Total Variable Cash Costs: $3066.28 Harvest Costs: Picking - piece work: 76 bins at $11.00/bin 836.00 Total Harvest Costs: 836.00 Taxes: 164.88 Overhead: 191.82 Total Cash Costs: 4258.98 Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost - capital: 525.36 Insurance: 11.35 Total: 4795.69 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha 500.00 TOTAL COSTS: $ 5295.69 TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 16 OPERATION NUMBER OF EQUIPMENT TIMES LABOUR (hr.) OPERATOR FUEL & OIL ($) R+M ($) MATERIALS TOTAL ($/ha) Pruning Spraying: fertilizers pesticides thinners Pollination Thinning (hand) Harvest Mowi nq Use of Truck 1,2 1,5 1,5 1,4 1,5 1 1,2 207 2.5 6.0 1.25 3.5 117.0 1.25 21.55 6.70 8.39 20.12 4.19 11.71 130.51 3.36 118.62 2.74 6.17 14.81 4.18 8.64 51.88 1.74 3.93 Cost = $148.49 Cost = $605.23 Cost = $112.50 Cost = $266.71 $36.00/hive * 5 hives 9.44 154.66 640.16 120.87 287.06 180.00 182.59 5.10 122.55 1702.43 Variable Cash Costs: Cultural Costs: R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: Legal & accounting: Total Variable Cash Costs: ($/ha) 1702.43 435.40 705.69 2843.52 Harvest Costs: Picking - piece work: Taxes: Overhead: Total Cash Costs: 75 bins at $11.00/bin Total Harvest Costs: 825.00 825.00 164.88 180.13 4013.53 Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost Insurance: Total: capital: 583.96 14.28 4611.77 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha TOTAL COSTS: 500.00 $ 5111.77 TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 17 1 2 OPERATION NUMBER OF EQUIPMENT Lime Application 1,6 Pruning 1,2 Spraying: fertilizers 1,5 pesticides 1,5 1,4 thinners 1,5 Pollination Thinning (hand) Harvest 1 Mowi ng 1,2 Use of Truck 3 4 «5 TIMES LABOUR (hr.) FUEL & OIL OPERATOR ($) 1 2 6.70 2 207 6.70 1 2.5 8.39 4 6.0 20.12 1 1.25 4.19 2 3.5 11.71 1 1 1 117.0 130.51 1 1.25 3.36 21.55 118.62 6 7 8 R+M MATERIALS TOTAL ($) ($/ha) 3.52 Cost = $201.60 211.82 2.98 9.68 6.52 Cost = $148.49 155.01 15.65 Cost = $605.23 641.00 6.38 Cost = $112.50 123.07 9.13 Cost = $266.71 287.55 $36.00/hive * 5 hives 180.00 55.84 186.35 1.91 5.27 6.43 125.05 1924.80 Variable Cash Costs: Cultural Costs: R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: Legal & accounting: Total Variable Cash Costs: ($/ha) 1924.80 435.40 700.14 3060.34 Harvest Costs: Picking - piece work: Taxes: Overhead: Total Cash Costs: 75 bins at $11.00/bin Total Harvest Costs: 825.00 825.00 164.88 190.97 4241.19 Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost Insurance: Total: capital: 514.63 10.96 4766.78 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha 500.00 TOTAL COSTS: $ 5266.78 TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 18 OPERATION NUMBER OF TIMES LABOUR (hr.) FUEL £ OIL R+M EQUIPMENT OPERATOR ($) ($) Pruning 1,2 2 207 6.70 3.23 Spraying: fertilizers 1,5 1 2.5 8.39 6.85 pesticides 1,5 4 6.0 20.12 16.43 1,4 1 1.25 4.19 5.27 thinners 1,5 2 3.5 11.71 9.58 Pollination 1 - -Thinning (hand) 1 - -Harvest 1 1 117.0 130.51 59.84 Mowing 1,2 1 1.25 3.36 2.08 Use of Truck 21.55 118.62 7.92 Variable Cash Costs: ($/ha) Cultural Costs: 1719.34 R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: 435.40 Legal & accounting: 694.60 Total Variable Cash Costs: 2849.34 Harvest Costs: Picking - piece work: 74 bins at $11.00/bin 814.00 Total Harvest Costs: 814.00 Taxes: 164.88 Overhead: 179.87 Total Cash Costs: 4008.09 Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost - capital: 464.14 Insurance: Total: 4481.73 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha 500.00 TOTAL COSTS: $ 4981.73 7 MATERIALS Cost = $148.49 Cost = $605.23 Cost = $112.50 Cost = $266.71 $36.00/hive * 5 hives 8 TOTAL ($/ha) 9.93 155.34 • 641.78 121.96 288.00 180.00 190.35 5.44 126.54 1719.34 TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 OPERATION NUMBER OF TIMES LABOUR (hr.) FUEL 8 OIL R+M EQUIPMENT OPERATOR ($) ($) Lime Application Pruning Spraying: fertilizers pesticides thinners Pollination Thinning (hand) Harvest Mowi ng Use of Truck 1,6 1,2 1,5 1,5 1,4 1,5 1 1,2 2 207 2.5 6.0 1.25 3.5 117.0 1.25 21.55 6.70 6.70 8.39 20.12 4.19 11.71 130.51 3.36 118.62 4.03 44 16 17.18 5.84 10.02 63.82 2.22 9.07 Variable Cash Costs: Cultural Costs: R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: Legal & accounting: Total Variable Cash Costs: ($/ha) 1939.22 435.40 689.05 3063.67 Harvest Costs: Picking - piece work: Taxes: Overhead: Total Cash Costs: Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost - capital: Insurance: Total: 73 bins at $U.00/bin Total Harvest Costs: 803.00 803.00 164.88 190.04 4211.59 464.39 9.00 4694.98 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha 500.00 TOTAL COSTS: $ 5194.98 7 8 MATERIALS TOTAL ($/ha) Cost = $201.60 212.33 10.14 Cost = $148.49 155.65 Cost = $605.23 642.53 Cost = $112.50 122.53 Cost = $266.71 288.44 $36.00/hive * 5 hives 180.00 194.33 5.58 127.69 1939.22 TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 20 OPERATION NUMBER OF EQUIPMENT TIMES LABOUR (hr. OPERATOR FUEL & OIL ($) R+M ($) MATERIALS TOTAL <$/ha) Pruning Spraying: fertilizers pesticides thinners Pollination Thinning (hand) Harvest Mowi ng Use of Truck 1,2 1,5 1,5 1,4 1,5 1 1,2 207 2.5 6.0 1.25 3.5 117.0 1.25 21.55 6.70 8.39 20.12 4.19 11.71 130.51 3.36 118.62 3.68 7.48 17.93 6.42 10.47 67.82 2.37 10.03 Cost = $148.49 Cost = $605.23 Cost = $112.50 Cost = $266.71 $36.00/hive * 5 hives 10.38 155.97 643.28 123.11 288.89 180.00 198.33 5.73 128.65 1734.34 Variable Cash Costs: ($/ha) Cultural Costs: 1734.34 R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: 435.40 Legal X accounting: 683.52 Total Variable Cash Costs: 2853.26 Harvest Costs: Picking - piece work: 72 bins at $11.00/bin 792.00 Total Harvest Costs: 792.00 Taxes: 164.88 Overhead: 178.97 Total Cash Costs: 3989.11 Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost - capital: 422.20 Insurance: 7.87 Total: 4119.18 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha 500.00 TOTAL COSTS: $ 4619.18 TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR OPERATION NUMBER OF TIMES LABOUR (hr.) FUEL & OIL EQUIPMENT OPERATOR ($) Lime Application 1,6 Pruning 1,2 Spraying: fertilizers 1,5 pesticides 1,5 1.4 thinners 1,5 Pollination Thinning (hand) Harvest 1 Mowing 1,2 Use of Truck 1 2 6.70 2 207 6.70 1 2.5 8.39 4 6.0 20.12 1 1.25 4.19 2 3.5 11.71 1 117.0 130.51 1 1.25 3.36 21.55 118.62 Variable Cash Costs: ($/ha) Cultural Costs: 1666.30 R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: 435.40 Legal & accounting: 677.98 Total Variable Cash Costs: 2779.68 Harvest Costs: Picking - piece work: 72 bins at $11.00/bin 792.00 Total Harvest Costs: 792.00 Taxes: 164.88 Overhead: 175.29 Total Cash Costs: 3911.85 Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost - capital: 2063.21 Insurance: 73.69 Total: 6048.75 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha 500.00 TOTAL COSTS: $ 6548.75 7 MATERIALS 8 TOTAL ($/ha) Cost = Cost = Cost = Cost = Cost = $36.00/hi' $201.60 $148.49 $605.23 $112.50 $266.71 e * 5 hives 208.45 7.02 151.80 633.31 116.92 283.06 180.00 132.61 3.64 129.49 1666.30 TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 22 OPERATION NUMBER OF TIMES LABOUR (hr.) FUEL 8 OIL R+M MATERIALS TOTAL EQUIPMENT OPERATOR ($) ($) ($/ha) Pruning Spraying: fertilizers pesticides thinners Pollination Thinning (hand) Harvest Mowi ng Use of Truck 1,2 1,5 1,5 1,4 1,5 1,2 207 2.5 6.0 1.25 3.5 117.0 1.25 21.55 6.70 8.39 20.12 4.19 11.71 130.51 3.36 118.62 0.51 3.51 8.41 1.04 4.90 5.40 0.40 11.62 Cost Cost Cost Cost $148.49 $605.23 $112.50 $266.71 $36.00/hive * 5 hives 7.21 152.00 633.76 117.73 283.32 180.00 135.91 3.76 130.24 1643.93 Variable Cash Costs: Cultural Costs: R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: Legal 8 accounting: Total Variable Cash Costs: Harvest Costs: Picking - piece work: 71 bins at $11.00/bin 781.00 Total Harvest Costs: 781.00 Taxes: 164.88 Overhead: 173.34 Total Cash Costs: 3870.98 Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost - capital: 1176.23 Insurance: 38.31 Total: 5085.07 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha 500.00 ($/ha) 1643.93 435.40 672.43 2751.76 TOTAL COSTS: $ 5585.07 TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 23 OPERATION NUMBER OF TIMES LABOUR (hr.) FUEL & OIL R+M MATERIALS TOTAL EQUIPMENT OPERATOR ($) .($) ($/ha) Lime Application Pruni ng Spraying: fertilizers pesticides thinners Pol 1ination Thinning (hand) Harvest Mowing Use of Truck 1,6 1.2 1,5 1,5 1,4 1,5 1 1,2 2 207 2.5 6.0 1.25 3.5 117.0 1.25 21.55 6.70 6.70 8.39 20.12 4.19 11.71 130.51 3.36 118.62 0.56 0.71 3.87 9.29 1.62 5.41 9.11 0.53 12.31 Cost = $201.60 Cost = $148.49 Cost = $605.23 Cost = $112.50 Cost = $266.71 $36.00/hive * 5 hives 208.86 7.41 152.36 634.64 118.31 283.83 180.00 139.62 3.89 130.93 1859.85 Variable Cash Costs: Cultural Costs: R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: Legal & accounting: Total Variable Cash Costs: Harvest Costs: Picking - piece work: 71 bins at $11.00/bin 781.00 Total Harvest Costs: 781.00 Taxes: 164.88 Overhead: 183.86 Total Cash Costs: 4091.88 Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost - capital: 891.67 Insurance: 26.40 Total: 5009.95 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha 500.00 TOTAL COSTS: $ 5509.95 ($/ha) 1859.85 435.40 666.89 2962.14 TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 24 OPERATION NUMBER OF EQUIPMENT TIMES LABOUR (hr.) OPERATOR FUEL & OIL ($) R+M ($) MATERIALS TOTAL ($/ha) Pruning Spraying: fertil izers pesticides thinners Pollination Thinning (hand) Harvest Mowi nq Use of Truck 1,2 1,5 1,5 1,4 1,5 1 1.2 207 2.5 6.0 1.25 3.5 117.0 1.25 21.55 6.70 8.39 20.12 4.19 11.71 130.51 3.36 118.62 0.92 4.16 9.99 2.13 5.83 12.89 0.67 12.94 Cost = $148.49 Cost = $605.23 Cost = $112.50 Cost = $266.71 $36.00/hive * 5 hives 7.62 152.65 635.34 118.82 284.25 180.00 143.40 4.03 131.56 1657.67 Variable Cash Costs: Cultural Costs: R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: Legal & accounting: Total Variable Cash Costs: Harvest Costs: Picking - piece work: Taxes: Overhead: Total Cash Costs: 71 bins at $11.00/bin Total Harvest Costs: ($/ha) 1657.67 435.40 663.19 2756.26 781.00 781.00 164.88 173.57 3875.71 Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost Insurance: Total: capital: 728.05 20.37 4624.13 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha TOTAL COSTS: 500.00 $ 5124.13 TABLE VIII - Continued ESTIMATES OF COSTS PER HECTARE - YEAR 25 OPERATION NUMBER OF TIMES LABOUR (hr.) FUEL & OIL R+M MATERIALS TOTAL EQUIPMENT OPERATOR ($) ($) ($/ha) Lime Application Pruning Spraying: fertilizers pesticides thinners Pollination Thinning (hand) Harvest Mowi ng Use of Truck 1,6 1,2 1,5 1,5 1,4 1,5 1 1,2 2 207 2.5 6.0 1.25 3.5 117.0 1.25 21.55 6.70 6.70 8.39 20.12 4.19 11.71 130.51 3.36 118.62 1.01 1.11 4.45 10.68 2.65 6.23 16.64 0.79 13.53 Cost = $201.60 Cost = $148.49 Cost = $605.23 Cost = $112.50 Cost = $266.71 $36.00/hive * 5 hives 209.31 7.81 152.94 636.03 119.34 284.65 180.00 147.15 4.15 132.15 1873.53 Variable Cash Costs: ($/ha) Cultural Costs: 1873.53 R+M of Trees: 1244 trees at $0.35 each: 435.40 Legal & accounting: 657.65 Total Variable Cash Costs: 2966.58 Harvest Costs: Picking - piece work: 70 bins at $11.00/bin 770.00 Total Harvest Costs: 770.00 Taxes: 164.88 Overhead: 183.53 Total Cash Costs: 4084.99 Operating Costs: Opportunity Cost - capital: 649.08 Insurance: 16.71 Total: 4750.78 Non-Cash Costs: Land Rental: $500.00/ha 500.00 TOTAL COSTS: $ 5250.78 TABLE IX SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES OF COSTS YEARS 1 THROUGH 25 FOR 3.3 ha ORCHARD YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 Operator Salary $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Requirements: Moving equipment d.2,3,4,6,7) 1 42,386.00 (5)$14,000.00 Non-moving equipment (1,3,4,6) 19,139.00 (2,5) 876.00 (5) 4,125.00 (5) 9,300.00 (5) 4,800.00 (5) 7,200.00 Buildings (1) 7,500.00 (2) 12,800.00 Operating Expenses2 48,968.70 12,574.16 12,572.21 13,597.95 16,340.71 16,169.37 Total Costs $137,993.70 $35,450.16 $63,497.21 $42,897.95 $41,140.71 $43,369.37 1 designated numbers of equipment from Table VII 2 from Estimates of Costs (*3.3 ha for total operating expenses) Table VIII YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 YEAR 11 YEAR 12 Operator Salary $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Requirements: Moving equipment (3,4)$1,309.41 Non-moving equipment (5) 3,000.00 (1,2) 826.00 Operating Expenses 18,041.69 17,160.33 19,772.64 16,903.13 18,362.32 17,173.27 Total Costs $41,041.69 $37,160.33 $39,772.64 $39,308.54 $38,362.32 $37,173.27 TABLE IX - Continued YEAR 13 YEAR 14 YEAR 15 YEAR 16 YEAR 17 YEAR 18 Operator Salary $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Requirements: Moving equipment (2) $2,415.95 Non-moving equipment Operating Expenses 17,666.42 16,713.94 17,475.78 16,868.84 17,380.37 16,439.71 Total Costs $37,666.42 $36,713.94 $37,475.78 $36,868.84 $37,380.37 $36,439.71 YEAR 19 YEAR 20 YEAR 21 YEAR 22 YEAR 23 YEAR 24 YEAR 25 Operator Salary $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Requirements: Moving equipment (1,3,4,6,7) 31,818.51 Non-moving equipment (1,2) 826.00 (5) 750.00 (5) 4,125.00 (5) 9,300.00 (5) 1,950.00 Operating Expenses 17,143.43 15,243.29 21,610.88 18,430.73 18,182.84 16,909.63 17,327.57 Total Costs $37,143.43 $67,887.80 $41,610.88 $39,180.73 $42,307.84 $46,209.63 $39,277.57 125 TABLE X EXPECTED YIELD AND RETURNS AT VARIOUS PRICES PER KILOGRAM FOR THE ORCHARD Year Expected Price/kg ($) Yield (kg) 0.15 0.22 0.33 0.44 0.66 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3,583.8 537.57 788.44 1,182.65 1,576.87 2,365.31 3 29,663.7 4,449.56 6,526.01 9,789.02 13,052.03 19,578.04 4 89,100.0 13,365.00 19,602.00 29,403.00 39,204.03 58,086.00 5 120,077.0 18,011.55 26,416.94 39,625.41 52,833.88 79,250.87 6 166,260.6 24,939.09 36,577.33 54,865.00 73,154.66 109,731.99 7 184,734.0 27,710.10 40,641.48 60,962.22 81,282.96 120,093.60 8 184,734.0 27,710.10 40,641.48 60,962.22 81,282.96 120,093.60 9 184,734.0 27,710.10 40,641.48 60,962.22 81,282.96 120,093.60 10 184,734.0 27,710.10 40,641.48 60,962.22 81,282.96 120,093.60 11 184,734.0 27,710.10 40,641.48 60,962.22 81,282.96 120,093.60 12 184,734.0 27,710.10 40,641.48 60,962.22 81,282.96 120,093.60 13 180,576.0 27,086.40 39,726.72 59,590.08 79,453.44 119,180.16 14 179,190.0 26,878.50 39,421.80 59,132.70 78,843.60 118,265.40 15 177,807.3 26,671.09 39,117.61 58,676.41 78,235.21 117,352.81 16 176,421.3 26,463.19 38,812.69 58,219.03 77,625.37 116,438.05 17 175,035.3 26,255.30 38,507.77 57,761.65 77,015.33 115,523.29 18 173,649.3 26,047.40 38,202.85 57,304.27 76,405.69 114,608.53 19 172,263.3 25,839.50 37,897.93 56,846.89 75,795.85 113,693.77 20 170,880.6 25,632.09 37,593.73 56,390.60 75,187.46 112,781.19 21 169,494.6 25,424.19 37,288.81 55,933.22 74,577.64 111,866.43 22 168,108.6 25,216.29 36,983.89 55,475.84 73,967.78 110,951,67 23 166,722.6 25,008.39 36,678.97 55,018.46 73,357.94 110,036.91 24 165,798.6 24,869.79 36,475.69 54,713.54 72,951.38 109,427.07 25 164,412.6 24,661.89 36,170.77 54,256.16 72,341.54 108,512.31 126 TABLE XI. NET PRESENT VALUE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEAR ORCHARD INVESTMENT DISCOUNT RATE Price/kg 5% 8% 10% 0.15 -$380,460.21 -$324,746.37 -$299,772.70 0.22 -$292,983.47 -$234,269.07 -$225,205.38 0.33 -$ 53,605.59 -$ S2.884.05 -$111,278.13 0.44 $170,262.95 $ 4,570.40 -$ 42,979.70 0.66 $586,719.79 $359,118.24 $248,800.91 127 The three discount rates used are those used by agricultural economists at the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Food. The 10% rate is used in provincial benefit /cost analyses. The 8% rate is the rate recommended by the provincial economists as they feel i t is closer to the real rate of return; and the 5% rate is suggested by Jenkins (1972). It is based on rates of return to capital and the social time preferences associated with resource developments. The net present values of a twenty-five year orchard investment are negative at a l l discount rates when the prices per kilogram are $0.15, $0.22 and $0.33; and $0.44 at a discount rate of 10%. The net present value is positive when prices per kilogram are $0.44 at discount rates of 5% and 8%, and $0.66. As the net present value is small when the price is $0.44 and the discount rate is 8%, establishment of an orchard at this discount rate and at lower prices per kilogram would be a poor investment. Conversely, at prices of $0.44 (at a discount rate of 5%) and greater, establishment of an orchard would be a good investment. Even at high rates of return, the potential orchardist may have a few problems to contend with: the lack of access to crop insurance that orchar-dists in the Okanagan and Similkameen Valleys have; d i f f i cu l ty in obtaining low interest government loans, which, i f they were available, may make such development more feasible; d i f f icu l ty in obtaining some inputs such as different var iet ies; and d i f f icu l ty in obtaining information about specif ic conditions pertaining to orchard management in an area as the apple orchard industry is a re lat ively new industry on Vancouver Island's east coast. 128 CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS There were three aims of this thesis, to determine what c r i t i ca l bio-physical and socio-economic parameters could impose constraints on orchard development on an area of Vancouver Island's east coast; to determine i f the methodology used to collate these parameters was an effective means of assessing an area for potential orchard development; and to determine i f i t is feasible to develop pear and apple orchards on CLI class 4 and 5 soi ls in this area. 6.0 BIOPHYSICAL Climate: The specif ic climate parameters identi f ied were the freeze free period, the effective growing degree days, dormancy period and minimum winter temperature. The ranges of these parameters were found to be adequate for apple and pear orchards in the study area. Soils The specif ic soil parameters ident i f ied were the texture and coarse fragment content, depth, drainage and topography. 129 From the l i terature and interviews, i t became apparent that pears do not tolerate the coarser textured soi ls as well as apples. While pear trees can be grown on these s o i l s , their productivity tends to decrease and management is more d i f f i c u l t . However, pears would be well suited to the f iner textured moister soi ls of agricultural capabil ity classes 1, 2 and 3, in the study area. The soi ls in the study area of agricultural capabil i ty classes 4 and 5 appear to be quite comparable to those of the Okanagan Valley and the orchard west of Nanaimo. The coarse fragment content and depths of the Okanagan Valley soi ls appear to be greater than that of the study area's soi ls ,but the soi ls tend to be similar in drainage, topography and texture. Other parameters that could have been evaluated included pH, cation exchange capacity, conductivity, nutrient avai labi l i ty and sit ing charac-t e r i s t i c s . Al l the soi ls of the study area but the Cowichan tend to be acidic in their top metre. The Cowichan soil tends to be alkaline (pH 6.6 -8 in 1:1 soil:H20) in the 0.4 to 1.0 m depth and has an agricultural capa-b i l i t y class of 4W or 5W. This soil is not classed as 4 and 5 soil due to topography and stoniness l imitat ions, therefore i t was not evaluated in this thesis. Information on soil conductivity was not available. The pH and cation exchange capacities can be manipulated through management so were not included in the evaluation process. Sit ing characteristics are site speci-f i c , therefore they could not be included in a general evaluation such as th is . 130 Although CLI Class 1, 2 and 3 soi ls were not evaluated, they would be suitable for pear and apple orchards as they do not have the limitations of the Class 4 and 5 s o i l s . Water Avai lab i l i ty : Groundwater as a source of i rr igat ion water was found to be the most l imiting factor to the proposed establishment of apple orchards in the study area. Three potential aquifers were ident i f ied, three aquifers of high productivity, one bordering the Nanaimo River and the other bordering the Nanaimo River delta. A third aquifer of lower productivity was identif ied northeast of Holden Lake. Further study of these aquifers is required to refine their boundaries and determine i f , with more development, they would be better sources of water. Test wells dr i l l ed in areas where the sur f ic ia l geology is indica-tive of potential aquifers may also reveal more aquifers. This would increase the area available for the orchard development i f groundwater was to be used for i r r iga t ion . While the area that had climatic and soil characterist ics suitable for potential orchard development was quite extensive, the potential groundwater resources for such development greatly diminished the area with the bio-physical sui tabi l i ty for orchards. 131 6.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC Land Tenure: Two large portions of the study area were identif ied as Tree Farm Licences, diminishing the potential land base available for orchards. No tree farms are, at present, located in the study area. Lands of less than 4 ha held in fee simple tenure were noted to frag-ment the land base of the study area, and l ike the Tree Farm Licences and tree farms, diminished the potential land base for orchards. Land tenure does decrease the land base in the study area available for potential apple orchard development. Current Land Use: There are many land uses in the study area, however, the majority of the area has no perceived activi ty or is being used for agricultural purposes. Other act iv i t ies included forestry, recreation, manufacturing and storage, ins t i tu t iona l , dwelling/housekeeping, communication, extraction, and commercial a c t i v i t i e s . The various land uses decreased the land base in the study area available for potential orchard development. As the majority of the land in the study area is underutil ized, there is a land base ava i l -able for orchard development. 132 Methodology: The methodology used to collate the biophysical and socio-economic parameters was an effective means of assessing the study area for potential orchard development. Overlaying the soi ls and aquifer maps allowed a number of alternatives to be ident i f ied and an opportunity to choose another alternative (the Class II aquifer) when the better alternative was not available. The methodology also allowed the identi f icat ion of the degree of constraints posed by the various alternatives, and complementary land uses. The use of map overlays is an effective and simple means of col lat ing widely divergent biophysical and socioeconomic parameters. Parameters which defy pricing could be included in the assessment and al l the parameters could be mapped in easily recognizable forms, forms which would be simple to repl icate. The 1:20,000 scale maps ut i l i zed for the col lat ion of the parameter data were easy to use, however, i t is recognized that mapping accuracy at this scale is not as great as i t would be at larger scales. Following identi f icat ion of an area for potential orchard development, an estimate of costs and returns was done. 133 Feasib i l i ty : The development of apple orchards under the assumed conditions does appear to be feasible when prices per kilogram are $0.44 (at a discount rate of 5%) and $0.66. Although apple orchard development does appear feasible under these conditions, one should not conclude that i t would necessarily be profi table. In this study, the returns based on the yields have been stable. In practice, returns vary more as the yearly yields fluctuate according to the effects of weather, pruning, fe r t i l i za t ion and a number of other factors. The demand for apples can change. Imports competitively priced, local orchard developments affecting supply and changes in consumer preferences are some factors that will change the demand. In conclusion, this case study outlines one scenario for apple orchard establishment. Methods used in this study could also be extrapolated to other areas on the east coast of Vancouver Island. Computers could be used to develop various scenarios using different inputs and outputs to generate dynamic scenarios. Other sources of water for i rr igat ion and CLI class 1 to 5 soi ls could be considered in such scenarios adapting them more approp-r iately for the decision making process. 134 MAP BIBLIOGRAPHY MAPS: Climatic Capability for Agriculture scale 1:100,000 Vancouver 92 G/Sw Compiled and produced by Map Production, Surveys and Mapping Branch, Ministry of Environment, Parliament Buildings, V ictor ia , B.C. Groundwater Potential: Cowichan Valley to Mill Bay scale 1:50,000 Groundwater Unit, Ministry of Environment, V ictor ia , B.C. National Topographic Series scale 1:50,000 Nanaimo 92 G/4 and 92F/1 east Duncan 92 B/13 Nanaimo 92 G.011 scale 1:20,000 agricultural capabil ity legal base planimetric soi l management groups soil polygon numbers Compiled by Surveys and Mapping Branch, Ministry of Environment, Parliament Buildings, V ic tor ia , B.C. Nanaimo UCR. Nanaimo Map Sheet 92 G/4 Coverage Code 761 scale 1:50,000 Notes on 1981 Cycle Land Activity/Land Cover; and Land Activity Classi f icat ion System. Lands Directorate. Vancouver, B.C. Tree Farms and Tree Farm Licences scale 1:100,000 Vancouver 92 G/SW Port Alberni 92 F/SE Victoria 92 B/NW Compiled and produced by Map Production, Surveys and Mapping Branch, Ministry of Environment, Parliament Buildings, V ictor ia , B.C. Water Well Location Maps scale 1:1000 Water Investigations Branch, Ministry of Environment, V ic tor ia , B.C. 136 BIBLIOGRAPHY American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 1981. Agricultural Machinery Management. Agricultural Engineers Yearbook, p. 227-238. Anon. 1961. Pear Rootstocks in Cal i fornia . Division of Agricultural Science. University of Ca l i forn ia . Anstey, T .H . ; G.M. Weiss; J . C . Wilcox and P.N. Sprout. 1959. Relation of S o i l , Temperature and Topography to Fruit Growing in Summerland, B.C. Can. J . Plant S c i . (39)3:297-315. Armstrong, J . E . ; Dwight R. Crandel1; Donald J . Easterbrook and J . B . Noble. 1965. Late Pleistocene Stratigraphy and Chronology in Southwestern Bri t ish Columbia and Northwestern Washington. Geological Society of America Bulletin 76:321-330. Ashby, D.L. and J .A . Stewart. 1969. Magnesium Deficiency in Fruit Trees as Related to Leaf Concentration of Magnesium, Potassium and Calcium. J . Amer. Soc. Hort. S c i . 94:310-313. Assaf, R.; I. Levin and B. Bravdo. 1975. Effect of i rr igat ion regimes on trunk and f ru i t growth rates, quality and y ie ld of apple trees. J . Hort. S c i . (50)4:481-493. Atanasov, A.T. 1975. Studies on the root system of apples trees grafted on different rootstocks. Hort. Ab. 45:8071. Atkinson, D. 1980. The Distribution and Effectiveness of the Roots of Tree Crops. In Horticultural Reviews. Volume 2. Jules Janick (editor). AVI Publishing Co. Inc. Westport, Connecticut, p. 425-475. Atkinson, D. 1974. Some observations on the distribution of root act ivi ty in apple trees. PI. and Soil (40)2:333-342. Atkinson, D. 1973a. Field Studies on Root Systems and Root Act iv i ty . Rpt. East Mailing Res. Sta. for 1972. p. 56-58. Atkinson, D. 1973b. The Root System of Fortune on M.9. Rpt. East Mailing Res. Sta. for 1972. p. 72-78. Atkinson, D.; D. Naylor and G.A. Coldrick. 1976. The effect of tree f ru i t spacing on the apple root system. Hort. Res. (16)2:89-105. Bakhtina, I. and E. Smirnova. 1968. Methods for Estimating the Suitabi l i ty of Natural Conditions at Various Stages in the Drawing Up of Archi-tectural Plans. In Land Evaluation. Ed. G.A. Stewart. MacMillan: Melbourne, p. 179-186": 136 Ballard, James; Don Heinicke; Grady Auvil and Alan Scott. 1980. Granny Smith - An Important Apple Variety for the Pacif ic Northwest - A Panel Discussion. Proceedings of the Washington State Horticultural Associ-ation 76th Annual Meeting. Yakima, Washington. Barlowe, Raleigh. 1978. LAND RESOURCE ECONOMICS The Economics of Real Estate. 3rd Edit ion. Prentice-Hal l , Inc. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey. Beek, K.J . 1978. Land Evaluation for Agricultural Development. Inter-national Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement. Wageningen. 333 p. Benn, B.D. and W.E. Grabau. 1968. Terrain Evaluation as a Function of User Requirements. In Land Evaluation. Ed. G.A. Stewart. MacMillan: Melbourne, p. 64-7(T Benson, Nels. 1964. The Question Box. Proceedings of the Washington State Horticultural Association 60th Annual Meeting. Yakima, Washington. Bertrand, R.A.; R. Maxwell and J.R. Jungen. 1984. Soil Management Handbook  for Vancouver Island. Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Ministry of Environment. Provinee of Bri t ish Columbia, draft copy. 42 p. Boon, J . van der. 1980. Prediction and control of bitter pit in apples. I. Prediction based on mineral leaf composition, cropping levels and summer temperatures. J . Hort. Sc i . (55)3:307-312. Brierley, W.G. 1974. The Winter Hardiness Complex in Deciduous Woody Plants. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sc i . 50:10-16. Bri t ish Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 1984. Estimated Costs and Returns of Apple Orchard Establishment and Production, Okanagan Valley. Preliminary report. V ictor ia , B.C. 44 p. Bri t ish Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 1983. 1980 Irrigation  Design Manual for Farm Systems in Br i t ish Columbia. Agricultural Engineering Branch. Br i t ish Columbia Irrigation Committee. V ic tor ia , B . C . 116 p. Br i t ish Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 1984. Production of Tree Fruit Crops Together With an Estimate of Farm Value. Economics Branch. V ic tor ia , B.C. Br i t ish Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 1983. Annual Report. V ic tor ia , B.C. Bri t ish Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 1983. Production of Tree Frui t Crops Together With an Estimate of Farm Value. Economics Branch. V ic tor ia , B.C. 137 Bri t ish Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 1982a. Production of Tree Fruit Crops Together With an Estimate of Farm Value. Economics Branch. Victor ia , B.C* Br i t ish Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 1982b. Apple Orchard Establishment. Economics Branch. V ic tor ia , B.C. mimeo. 13 p. Br i t ish Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 1981. Production of Tree Fruit Crops Together With an Estimate of Farm Value. Economics Branch. V ic tor ia , B.C. Br i t ish Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 1980. Production of Tree Fruit Crops Together With an Estimate of Farm Value. Economics Branch. Victor ia , B.C. Br i t ish Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Establishing Apple Trees in the Home Garden Apple Series No. 2. 2 p. mimeo. Br i t ish Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Alkaline and Saline S o i l s . Field Crops Branch. Soil Series No. 6:75-5. Br i t ish Columbia Ministry of Environment. 1983. Provisional copy of s o i l s ' description - East Coast Vancouver Island. Surveys and Mapping Branch. Br i t ish Columbia Ministry of Environment. 1981a. Agricultural Tour - Mil l Bay to Nanaimo. Unpublished Notes. Br i t ish Columbia Ministry of Environment. 1981b. Climatic Capability for Agriculture in Bri t ish Columbia. Climatology Unit. Air Studies Branch. APD Technical Paper 4. 23 p. Br i t ish Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1984. Tree Farm Licences in Br i t ish Columbia. Information Services Branch. 8 p. Brown, J . C . 1976. Groundwater Geology. In Geology and Economic Minerals  of Canada. Part B. R.J.W. Douglas (Scienti f ic Editor) . Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Geological Survey of Canada, p. 764-791. Burns, J .R. . The Canadian Apple Industry. Canadian Farm Economics (4)5:8-17. Cabibel, B. 1978. The influence of i r r igat ion method on the structure and functioning of the root system of young apple trees. Hort. Ab. 49:4020. Campbell, Elizabeth. 1983. A study of Canada's apple industry. Marketing and Economics Branch. Agriculture Canada. 242 p. 138 Chandler, W.H. 1960. Some Studies of Rest in Apple Trees. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. S c i . 76:1-10. Chi l ton, R.H. 1981. A Summary of Climatic Regimes of Bri t ish Columbia. Ministry of Environment. Province of Bri t ish Columbia. V ic tor ia , B.C. Chodos, Robert. 1973. The CPR: A century of corporate welfare. James Lewis and Samuel, Publishers. loronto. Clague, John J . 1981. Late Quaternary Geology and Geochronology of Br i t ish  Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada. Paper 80-35. 29 p. Clapp, Charles H. 1914. Geology of the Nanaimo Map Area. Geological Survey of Canada. Memoir 51. Coker, E.G. 1959. Root Development of Apple Trees in Grass and Clean Cult ivat ion. J . Hort. S c i . 34:111-121. Coker, E.G. 1958. Root Studies XII. Root Systems of Apple on Mailing Rootstocks on Five Soil Series. J . Hort. S c i . (33)2:71-79. Coligado, Mauro. Southwest coast Bri t ish Columbia CIimatological Network and Mapping Project. (unpublished) Air Studies Branch, Ministry of Environment. V ic tor ia , B.C. Cummins, J .N . and H.S. Aldwinkle. 1982. New and Forthcoming Apple Root-stocks. Fruit Var. J . (36)3:66-73. Cummins, J .N . and H.S. Aldwinkle. 1974. Apple Rootstocks for Cold Climates. Fruit Var. J . (28)1:9-11. Deakins, R.M. and F.A. Roach. 1962. Grassing down orchards in Kent and Sussex. Experimental Horticulture 6:71-83. Denby, L.G. 1982. Performance of six apple cult ivars on M.9, M.26 and M.7 rootstocks. J . Amer. Soc. Hort. S c i . (107)1:14-16. Dennis, F . G . , J r . 1979. Factors Affecting Yield in Apple with Emphasis on 'De l ic ious ' . In Horticultural Reviews. Jules Janick (editor). AVI Publishing Co. Inc. Westport, Connecticut, p: 395-422. Dow, A. I . 1964. What to look for in soi ls for establishing new orchards. Proceedings of the Washington State Horticultural Association 60th Annual Meeting. Dube, P.A. 1981. Climate and soil requirements for economically important crops in Canada. Research Branch. Agriculture Canada. Ottawa. 55 p. Economides, C.V. 1976. Growth and Yield of Lord Lambourne and Red Delicious Trees on Eight Apple Rootstocks in Cyprus. J . Hort. S c i . (51)3:389-391. 131 Elfving, D.C. 1983. M.26 Apple Rootstock: A Good Choice? Fruit Grower (103)4:14. Environment Canada. Canadian Climate Normals 1951-1980. Temperature and Precipitat ion. Atmospheric Environment Service. Downsview, Ontario. Ferree, David C. 1978. Performance of Six Cultivars on M.26. Fruit Var. J . (33)4:110-114. Ferree, David C. 1979. Performance of 15 Apple Cultivars on M.M.106 and M.26. Fruit Var. J . (32)2:40-42. Fisher, D.V. 1962. Heat Units and Number of Days Required to Mature Some Pome and Stone Fruits in Various Areas of North America. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. S c i . 80:114-124. Furneaux, B.S. 1954. The Soils of East Mailing Research Station. Rpt. East Mailing Res. St. for 1953. p. 60-82. Gerber, J . F . ; J .D . Martsolf and J . F . Bartholic. 1974. The Climate of Trees and Vines. Hort. Science (9)6:17-21. Goode, J . E . and K . J . Hrrycz. 1964. The response of Laxton's Superb apple trees to different soil moisture conditions. J . Hort. S c i . 39:254-276. Grierson, William; James Soule and Kazuhide Kawada. 1982. Beneficial Aspects of Physiological Stress. In Horticultural Reviews. Volume 4. Jules Janick (editor) . AVI Publishing Co. Inc. Westport, Connecticut, p. 247-272. Grigg, W.H. and Ben T. Iwakiri. 1969. Effect of Rootstock on Bloom Periods of Pear Trees. J . Amer. Soc. Hort. S c i . 94:109-111. Hal l , E.R. . Experiments with Pear Trees 1914-45. Dominion Experimental Station, Saanichton, B.C. Halstead, E.C. 1968. The Cowichan Ice Tongue, Vancouver Island. Can. J . Earth S c i . 5:1408-1415. Halstead, E.C. 1965. Surf ic ia l Geology of Duncan and Shawnigan Map-Areas, Br i t ish Columbia. Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, . Geological Survey of Canada. Paper 65-24. 3 p. Halstead, E.C. 1961. Descriptive Notes - Surf ic ial Geology Nanaimo, Bri t ish Columbia. Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, Geological Survey of Canada. Map 27-1963. Hansen, A . ; R. Davis; N. Nagpal and H. Wall i s . 1984. Cowichan Weekly and Seasonal Irrigation Requirements for a Given Risk, (unpublished) Air Studies Branch, Ministry of Environment, V ictor ia , B.C. ( ). 140 Hansen, T. 1974. The drainage depth for apple trees. Hort. Ab. 44:8266. Hardie, J.D.M. 1976. Handbook for Agricultural Project Appraisal, mimeo. Harris, J .H . 1959. The Cultivation of Tree Fruits on Vancouver Island. Dominion Experimental Farm. Saanichton, B.C. Pub. No. 171. 10 p. . Haynes, R.J. 1981. Soil pH Decrease in the Herbicide Strip of Grassed-Down Orchards. Soil Sc. (132)4:274-278. Haynes, R.J. and K.M. Goh. 1980. Distribution and Budget of Nutrients in a Commercial Apple Orchard. Plant and Soil (56)3:445-457. Hedrick, V.P. 1921. The Pears of New York. J . B . Lyon Co. , Printers. Albany, N.Y. Holubowicz, T . ; J . N . Cummins and P.L. Forsl ine. 1982. Response of Mai us clones to programmed low temperature stresses in late winter. J . Amer. Soc. Hort. S c i . (107)3:492-496. Jackson, J . E . and P.J .C . Hamer. 1980. The causes of year to year variation in the average y ie ld of Cox's Orange Pippin in England. J . Hort. S c i . (55)2:149-155. Janick, Jules. 1979. Horticultural Science. W.H. Freeman and Co. San Francisco. Jenkins, Len. 1972. Measurement of Rate of Return and Taxation From Private Capital . In Capital in Benefit-Cost and Policy Analysis. Ed. A. C. Harbinger. Aldine. Chicago. Jones, H.G.; M.T. Luton; K.H. Higgs and P.J .C . Hamer. 1983. Experimental control of water status in an apple orchard. J . Hort. S c i . (58)3:301-316. Kelley, C.C. and R.H. Spilsbury. 1949. Soil Survey of the Okanagan and Similkameen Valleys, Br i t ish Columbia. Report No. 3 of Br i t ish Columbia Survey. King's Printer and Controller of Stationery Ottawa. 88 p. Kenk, E. and I. Cotic. 1982. Land Capability Classif icat ion for Agri -culture in Br i t ish Columbia. Ministries of Environment and Agriculture and Food. Province of Br i t ish Columbia. Kolesnikov, V.A. 1978. Studies on the root system of f ru i t crops. Hort. Ab. 49:3140. Kotze, W.A.G. and Marlise Joubert. 1981. Effect of soil reaction and lime on the growth and y ie ld of apple trees. Deciduous Fruit Grower (31)4:140-147. 141 Kronenberg, H.G. 1980. Apple growing potentials in Europe. 1. The ful f i l lment of the cold requirement of the apple tree. Hort. Ab. 50:2376. Kurennoi, N.; M. Asalieva and N. Ya. 1978. Root, distribution in apple trees grafted on M.9 in the central zone of the Stavropol region. Hort. Ab. 49:1653. Lands Directorate. 1981. Coastal Resources Fo l io . East Coast Vancouver Island (Race Point to Hatch Point and adjacent islands) Br i t ish Columbia. Volume II. Environment Canada. Vancouver, B.C. Lee, C .H . ; H. Motosugi; A. Sugiura and T. Tomana. 1983. Water tolerance of apple trees as affected by different rootstock - scion combinations. Hort. Ab. 53:8334. Lee, C .H . ; A. Sugiura and Tomana. 1983. Effect of flooding on the growth and some physiological changes of young apple rootstocks. Hort. Ab. 53:3889. Les l ie , W.R. 1954. The Prair ie Home Orchard. Canada Department of Agriculture. Dominion Experimental Station, Morden, Manitoba. Pub. 901. Levin, I.; R. Assaf and B. Bravdo. 1979. Soil moisture and root d i s t r i -bution in an apple orchard irr igated by t r i ck le rs . Plant and Soil (52)1:31-40. Levin, I.; R. Assaf and B. Bravdo. 1972. Effect of Irrigation Treatments for Apple Trees on Water Uptake from Different Soil Layers. J . Amer. Soc. Hort. S c i . (97)7:521-526. Lidster , P.D.; S.W. Porr i t t ; G.W. Eaton and J . Mason. 1975. Spartan apple breakdown as affected by orchard factors, nutrient content and f ru i t qual i ty. Can. J . Plant S c i . (55):443-446. Liberty Hyde Bailey Hortorium Staff. 1976. Hortus Third. MacMillan Pub. Co. , Inc., New York. Lombard, P.; J . . Hull J r . and M.N. Westwood. 1980. Pear Varieties of North America. Fruit Var. J . (34)4:74-83. Lombard, Porter B. and Melvin N. Westwood. 1975. Pear Rootstock Research in Oregon. Fruit Var. J . (29)1:17-19. McCutcheon, D. 1983. Annual Report Apiculture Branch. Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Province of Bri t ish Columbia. McHarg, Ian L. 1969. Design With Nature. The Natural History Press. Garden Ci ty , New York" 198 p. 142 MacPhee, E.D. 1958. Report of the Royal Commission on the Tree Fruit Industry of B.C. V ic tor ia , B.C. McRae, S.G. and C P . Burnham. 1981. Land Evaluation. Clarendon Press: Oxford. 239 p. Mellethin, Walter; David Burkhart; George Ing; Todd Cowan and George Sor re l l . 1980. Pears - What to Pull and What to Plant - A Panel Discussion. Proceedings of the Washington State Horticultural Association 76th Annual Meeting. Yakima, Washington. Mil jkovic, I. 1982. The root system of pear trees grafted on seedling rootstocks and Quince. Hort. Ab. 53:3177. Mink, G.I. 1973. The Apple Industry in Japan. Hort. Science (8)2:81-86. Mishan, E . J . 1982. Cost Benefit Analysis. 3rd Edit ion. George Allen and Unwin. London. Muller, J . E . and J . A . Juletzky. 1970. Geology of the Upper Cretaceous Nanaimo Group, Vancouver Island and Gulf Islands, Bri t ish Columbia. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Geological Survey of Canada. Paper 65-25. 75 p. Mull ins , Charles A. and David W. Lockwood. 1980. Performance of New Late Season Apple Cultivars in Tennessee. Fruit Var. J . (34)1:8-10. Mull ins, Charles A. and T.R. Gilmore. 1977. Tree Survival of Three Mailing Rootstocks in Tennessee. Fruit Var. J . (31)2:40-41. Naurot, J . and A. Banin. 1982. Trunk implanted zinc-bentonite as a source of zinc for apple trees. Plant and Soil (69)1:85-95. Neil son, G.H.; P.B. Hoyt and O.L. Lau. 1982. Effects of surface soil pH on soil cation content, leaf nutrient levels and quality of apples in Bri t ish Columbia. Can. J . Plant Sc i . 62:695-702. Neilson, G.H.; E. Hague and B.G. Drought. 1981. The effects of surface applied calcium on soil and mature Spartan apple trees. Can. J . Soil Sc i . 61:295-302. Neilson, G.H. and T. Edwards. 1982. Relationships Between Ca, Mg and K in S o i l , Leaf and Fruits of Okanagan Apple Orchards. Can. J . Soil Sc i . 62:365-374. Nix, H.A. 1968. The Assessment of Biological Productivity. In Land  Evaluation. Ed. G.A. Stewart. MacMillan: Melbourne, p. 77-87. Odynsky, P.G. . Preliminary Report Groundwater Resources of the Cassidy Area Cranberry, Bright, Cedar, Oyster D is t r i c ts , Vancouver Island. Groundwater Section. Ministry of Environment. V ic tor ia , B.C. 21 p. (unpublished). Olsen, Gerald W. 1974. Land Class i f icat ions. Search, Agriculture 4(7). 34 p. Cornell University. Ithaca, N.Y. Overcash, J . P . and N.H. Loomis. 1959. Prolonged Dormancy of Pear Varieties Following Mild Winters in Miss iss ippi . Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. S c i . 73:91-98. Parry, H.S. 1977. F ie ld comparisons of M.26 and other dwarfing apple rootstocks on a diversity of s i t es . J . Hort. Sc i . (52)1:59-73. Parry, H.S. 1974. Depth of planting and anchorage of apple trees. J . Hort. S c i . (49)4:349-354. Patterson, Cecil F. 1963. Hardy f rui ts with special reference to their culture in western Canada. Saskatoon. Peters, W.B. 1981. The Role of Water and Land Resource Information in World Bank Programs for Agricultural Development. In Soil Resource  Inventories and Development Planning. Technical Monograph No. l , 1981. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. pf 115-134. Preston, A.P. 1967. Apple rootstock studies: f ifteen years results with some M.16 crosses. J . Hort. S c i . (42)1:41-50. Preston, A.P. 1958. Apple Rootstock Studies: Growth and Cropping of Cox's Orange Pippin on Some Mailing and Mai 1ing-Merton Rootstocks. Rpt. East Mailing Res. St. for 1958. Preston, A.P. 1955. Apple Rootstock Studies: Mai 1ing-Merton Rootstocks. J . Hort. S c i . (30)1:25-33. Preston, A.P. and D.J. Stanton. 1947. A soil survey of the new Bradbourne experimental orchards. Rpt. East Mailing Res. St. for 1946. p. 55-61. Proctor, John T.A. 1979. Apple Cultivars Grown in Canada. Fruit Var. J . (33)1:12-15. Proctor, J . T . A . 1978. Apple Photosynthesis: Microclimate of the Tree and Orchard. Hort. S c i . (13)6:641-643. Proctor, J . T . A . ; A. Hutchinson and W.F. Pierce. 1974. A ten year t r ia l of seven apple cult ivars on Mailing 26 rootstock. Can. J . Plant S c i . (54)4:661-665. Proebstring, E.L. J r . and J . E . Middleton. 1980. The behaviour of peach and pear trees under extreme drought stress. J . Amer. Soc. Hort. S c i . (105)3:380-385. Proebstring, E.L. J r . and H.H. M i l l s . 1978. Low Temperature Resistance of Developing Fruit Buds of Six Deciduous Fruit Species. J . Amer. Soc. Hort. S c i . (103)2:192-198. 144 Quamme, H.A. 1976. Relationship of the low temperature isotherm to apple and pear production in North America. Can. J . Plant S c i . (56)3:493-500. Rechruhm, I. 1975. Direct root analysis in orchards with different soil management systems. Hort. Ab. 45:3784. Resler, L .L. 1981. Ut i l izat ion and Presentation of Soil Resource Inventory Information. In Soil Resource Inventories and Development Planning. Technical Monograph No. 1, 1981. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. p. 251-262. Robertson, V . C . , T.N. Jewitt, A .P .S . Forbes and R. Law. 1968. The Assessment of Land Quality for Primary Production. In Land Evaluation. Ed. G.A. Stewart. MacMillan: Melbourne, p. 88-103. Robin, Martin. 1972. The Rush for Spoi ls . McClelland and Stewart Ltd. Toronto. Rogers, W.S. and M.S. Parry. 1968. Effects of Deep Planting on Anchorage and Performance of Apple Trees. J . Hort. S c i . (43)1:103-106. Rom, C. and S.A. Brown. 1979. Water tolerance of apples on clonal root-stocks and peaches on seedling rootstocks. Compact Fruit Tree 12:30-33. Ronneseth, K.D. 1983. Agricultural Capability Assessment. A Groundwater Potential Study: Cowichan Valley to Mill Bay. Groundwater Section. Ministry of Environment. V ic tor ia , B.C. Runka, G.G. 1973. Methodology, Land Capability for Agriculture. Br i t ish Columbia Land Inventory (CLI). Soil Survey Division. Bri t ish Columbia Department of Agriculture. Kelowna, B.C. 25 p. Saure, M. 1973. Successful Fruit Growing in Tropical Indonesia. Fruit Var. J . (27)2:44-45. Schneider, G.W.; C.E. Chaplin and D.C. Martin. 1978. Effects of Apple Rootstock, Tree Spacing and Cultivar on Fruit and Tree Size, Yield and Fol iar Mineral Composition. J . Amer. Soc. Hort. S c i . (103)2:230-232. Schreier, H. 1982. Soil Science 517 notes. University of Bri t ish Columbia. Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. 1979. Primary Agriculture in Br i t ish Columbia. Tree Fruit and Berry Production. Phase II Research Report. 198 p. Shim, K.K. and H.J. Shin. 1982. Studies on root distribution and tree growth of apple trees on dwarfing rootstocks. Hort. Ab. 53:1482. 1#.5 Simons, R.K. and C.C. Dol l . 1976. Morphological and anatomical response of apples to a late spring frost in relation to stage of f ru i t develop-ment. J . Amer. Soc. Hort. S c i . (101)3:315-320. Stat ist ics Canada. 1981. Census Data. Straight, E.M. Ten Years With the Pears of Vancouver Island, (unpublished) Agriculture Canada Research Station Library, Sidney, B.C. Strang, John G. ; Porter B. Lombard; M.N. Westwood and C . J . Weiser. 1980. Effect of Duration and Rate of Freezing and Tissue Hydration on 'Bart lett ' Pear Buds, Flower and Small Frui ts . J . Amer. Soc. Hort. S c i . (105)1:102-105. Strang, John G. and C. Stustinoff . 1975. A Classi f icat ion of Hardy North American Apple Cultivars Based on Hardiness Zones. Fruit Var. J . (29)4:78-108. Stor ie , R. Ear l . 1938. Effect of Claypan on the Growth and Production of Apples in Cal i forn ia . Soil Sc. Soc. Amer. Proc. 3:317-322. Stustinoff, C ; Munson, S . ; Hertz, L . B . ; Gray, W. and D.K. Wildung. 1980. 'State F a i r ' , 'Sweet Sixteen' and 'Keepsake' apples. Hort. Science (15)4:542-543. Swales, J . E . 1979. Commercial Apple Growing in Bri t ish Columbia. Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Queen's Printer for Br i t ish Columbia. Victor ia , B.C. 127 p. Swinstead, Bernard H. 1963. Small apple trees give least trouble. The Grower. (60)10:390. Thompson, A.H. and B.L. Rogers. 1981. Performance of Four Apple Cultivars on Mailing 26 Rootstocks Grown in Intensive Culture With Summer Shearing. Fruit Var. J . (35)4:126-130. Todd, David Keith. 1959. Groundwater Hydrology. John Wiley and Sons Inc.: New York. 336 p. Tukey, Loren D. 1983. The Penn State Low Tre l l i s Hedgerow System of Apple Production. Fruit Var. J . (37)3:62-79. Van der Gulik, T. 1983. Trickle Irrigation Design Information. Engineering Notes. Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Province of Bri t ish Columbia. 4 p. Van der Gulik, T. 1981. Sprinkler Irr igation. Approximate Equipment Costs - 1981. Engineering Notes. Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Province of Br i t ish Columbia. 4 p. Veihmeyer, F . J . and A.H. Hendrickson. 1950. Soil moisture in relation to plant growth. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 1:285-304. Vink, A.P.A. 1975. Land Use in Advancing Agriculture. Springer-Verlag. New York. 394 p. Warner, J . 1982. Winter Injury to Apple Trees 1980-81. Fruit Var. J . (36)4:99-103. Watt, A.W. 1982. Commercial pear production in Br i t ish Columbia. Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Queen's Printer for Bri t ish Columbia. V ic tor ia , B.C. 41 p. Westwood, M.N. 1982. Rootstocks for Pear: Pick with Care. Fruit Grower (102)11:26-28. Westwood, M.N.; P.B. Lombard and H.O. Bjorstand. 1976. Performance of 'Bart let t ' Pear on Standard and Old Home X Farmingdale Clonal Root-stocks. J . Amer. Soc. Hort. S c i . (101)2:161-164. Westwood, M.N.; F.C. Reimer and V.L. Quackenbush. 1963. Long term yie ld as related to ultimate tree size of three pear varieties grown on root-stocks of f ive Pyrus Species. J . Amer. Soc. Hort. S c i . 82:103-108. Wildung, D.K.; C . J . Weiser and H.M. Pel le t t . 1973. Cold hardiness of Mailing clonal apple rootstocks under different conditions of winter soil cover. Can. J . Plant S c i . 53:323-329. Wittneben, U. Telephone conversation with author. 18 March, 1985. Wyman, Donald. 1977. Wyman's Gardening Encyclopedia. MacMillan Pub. Co. Inc. New York. Yadava, V.L. and S.L. Doud. 1980. The Short Life and Replant Problems of Deciduous Fruit Trees. In Horticultural Reviews. Volume 2. Jules Janick (editor) . AVI Publishing Co. Inc. Westport, Connecticut, p. 3-85. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Akit t , S. Telephone conversation with author. 5 A p r i l , 1985. Arndt, H. Telephone conversation with author. 18 March, 1985. Bertrand, R. Telephone conversation with author. 15 September 1983. Blower, D. Telephone conversation with author. 15 March, 1985. Chamberlin, T. Telephone conversation with author. 8 September, 1983. Chr ist ie , P. Interview with author. 22 February, 1985. Davis, R. Telephone conversation with author. 8 October, 1983. Dolman Industries. Telephone conversation with author. 21 March, 1985. Eaton, Dr. G. Telephone conversation with author. 20 September, 1985. Garrick, H. Interview with author. 10 May, 1984. Gubbels, P. Interviews with author. September, 1983; A p r i l , May, 1985. Maxwell, R. Interviews with author. 22 September, 1983 and 15 March, 1985. Nivens, M. Telephone conversation with author. 8 January, 1984. Sasaki, H. Interview with author. 8 October, 1983. Sayles, A. Interview with author. 15 October, 1983. Swales, J . E . Telephone conversation with author. 18 March, 1985. Thompson, G. Telephone conversation with author. 4 September, 1985. Warner, B. Interviews with author. 10 September, 1983, and 10 May, 1984. Williams, F .S. Interview with author. 18 October, 1983. APPENDIX I OKANAGAN VALLEY COARSE TEXTURED ORCHARD SOILS MAP AREA 82E-062 (SUMMERLAND) % Coarse Fragment Content Topography Complex Texture (to 1 m depth) Depth Drainage % Slope RN6-TM't RN - 10 to 50 cm of gravelly SL over very 25 to 60 > 1.0 well to 5 - 9 4 S2-3 gravelly LS rapid TM - 20 to 100 cm of gravelly L over very well to gravelly LS rapid RN6-TM^ RN - 10 to 50 cm of gravelly SL over very 25 to 60' > 1.0 well to 9 - 45 5-7:S2-3 gravelly LS rapid TM - 20 to 100 cm of gravelly L over very well to gravelly LS rapid RN 10 to 50 cm of gravelly SL over very 25 to 60 > 1.0 well to 2 - 5 3:S2 gravelly LS rapid RN 10 to 50 cm of gravelly SL over very 25 to 60 > 1.0 well to 10 - 15 5:S2-3 gravelly LS rapid NK6-RN1) NK - 50 to 150 cm of very gravelly LS or 25 to 60 > 1.0 well to 16 - 30 6:S2-a very gravelly SL over bedrock rapid RN - 10 to 50 cm of gravelly SL over very gravelly LS RN 10 to 50 cm of gravelly SL over very 25 to 60 > 1.0 well to 6 - 3 0 4-6:S2 gravelly LS rapid APPENDIX I - Continued OKANAGAN VALLEY COARSE TEXTURED ORCHARD SOILS MAP AREA 82E-083 % Coarse Fragment Content Topography Complex Texture (to 1 m depth) Depth Drainage % Slope PA6-HD't PA >_ 100 cm of gravelly SIL, gravelly SL 35 to 50 >_ 1.0 well 16 - 30 6 : S 3 or gravelly LS PA PA > 100 cm of gravelly SIL, gravelly SL 35 to 50 >_ 1.0 well 16 - 30 •5TS7 or gravelly LS PA PA > 100 cm of gravelly SIL, gravelly SL 35 to 50 _> 1.0 well 2 - 5 3~ or gravelly LS West Nanaimo orchard CAg CAg - very gravelly LS recent fluvial 20 to 50 > 1.0 well 2 deposits Information Sources: texture, depth, drainage and topography - Surveys and Resource Mapping Branch, Ministry of Environment. Soils of the Okanagan and Similkameen Valleys. % coarse fragment content - Resource Analysis Branch, Ministry of Environment. Soil Cartographic Fi le. APPENDIX I - Continued OKANAGAN VALLEY COARSE TEXTURED ORCHARD SOILS MAP AREA 82E-082 % Coarse Fragment Content Topography Complex Texture (to 1 m depth) Depth Drainage % Slope PA PA > 100 cm of gravelly SIL, gravelly SL 35 to 50 > 1.0 well 2 - 30 2^ or TJravelly LS PA8-GT2 PA > 100 cm of gravelly SIL, gravelly SL 25 to 50 > 1.0 well 2 - 3 0 3=5 or gravelly LS GT - 30 to 100 cm of gravelly SL or gravelly L over SIL or SICL PA^T 1 * PA > 100 cm of gravelly SIL, gravelly SL 25 to 50 > 1.0 well 6 - 1 5 4^ 3 or gravelly LS GT - 30 to 100 cm of gravelly SL or gravelly L over SIL or SICL PA PA > 100 cm of gravelly SIL, gravelly SL or 35 to 50 > 1.0 well 6 - 1 5 gravelly LS PA6-GMI* PA > 100 cm of gravelly SIL, gravelly SL or 35 to 60 > 1.0 well to 2 - 1 5 3-5:S2 gravelly LS rapid GM - 10 to 25 cm LS over very gravelly LS or very gravelly S SA . SA - 10 to 100 cm of very gravelly SCL or 35 to 50 > 1.0 well 0.5 - 5 2=3" gravelly L over gravelly SL or very gravelly SL SA SA - 10 to 100 cm very gravelly SCL or very 35 to 50 > 1.0 well 2 - 9 3=T gravelly L over gravelly SL or very gravelly SL SAb-TM2-PL2 SA - 10 to 100 cm very gravelly SCL or very 20 to 50 > 1.0 well to 2 - 9 3^ 3 gravelly L over gravelly SL or very gravelly SL rapid TM - 20 to 100 cm of gravelly L over very gravelly LS PL - 10 to 100 cm of stony, gravelly LS or gravelly SL over bedrock SA7-TM3 SA - 10 to 30 cm very gravelly SCL or very 20 to 50 > 1.0 well 6 - 15 4^ 5 gravelly L over very gravelly SL or very gravelly SL TM - 20 to 100 cm of gravelly L over very gravelly LS APPENDIX II AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY CLASS 4 AND 5 SOILS OF STUDY AREA % Coarse Soil Fragment Content Depth Topography Class for Polygon Texture (to 1 m depth) (m) Drainage % Slope Mapping ST7-NE3 ST - very gravelly LS over 34 to 40 0.5 to 1.5 rapid 10 - 15 I 6:S3 bedrock ME - gravelly SL or gravelly L 0.75 to 1.0 moderately 2 - 5 well drained ST5-STsi2-ME 3 ST - very gravelly LS over 40 0.5 to 1.0 rapid 10 - 30 II 5-6,4:U-2 bedrock STsi - shallow phase of ST 40 < 0.5 ME - gravelly SL or gravelly L 35 0.75 to 1.5 moderately 6 - 9 well to well QU QU - very gravelly SL to very 40 to 50 > 1.0 rapid 6 - 30 I 4-6 :C3--> gravelly S ME ME - gravelly SL or gravelly L 35 0.75 to 1.5 moderately 2 - 9 I 3-4:C 3 - k well to well ST"-ME'•-STsi ,r 2 ST - very gravelly LS over 40 0.5 to 1.0 rapid 10 - 45 III 5-7,4:C3-n bedrock ME - gravelly SL or gravelly L 35 0.75 to 1.5 moderately 6 - 9 STsi.r - shallow phase of 50% well to well rubbly or blocky materials 40 to 50 < 0.5 rapid 10 - 45 GA7-FB3 GA - gravelly L or gravelly SL 20 to 40 0.5 to 1.0 well to 0.5 -• 9 II 2-4:C--o over bedrock moderately well FB - SIL 0 > 1.0 imperfect, intermittant perched water table ME ME - gravelly SL or gravelly L 35 0.75 to 1.5 moderately 2 - 30 I 3-6 :C3 — well to well GA GA - gravelly L or gravelly SL 20 to 40 0.5 to 1.0 wel 1 to 16 - 30 I 6:Ci,-3 over bedrock moderately well GA GA - gravelly L or gravelly SL 20 to 40 0.5 to 1.0 well to 0.5 - 2 I 2:0. over bedrock moderately well ST ST - very gravelly LS over bedrock 50 0.5 to 1.0 rapid 0.5 - 9 I 2-4:C3-<, ST6-ST3si-RO ST - very gravelly LG over bedrock 0.5 to 1.0 rapid 0.5 - 45 III 2 -7 :U- 3 STsi - shallow phase 50 < 0.5 RO - rock outcrop (sandstone) APPENDIX II - Continued AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY CLASS 4 AND 5 SOILS OF STUDY AREA % Coarse Soil Fragment Content Depth Topography Class for Polygon Texture (to 1 m depth) (m) Drainage % Slope Mapping ST 8-STsi 2 ST - very gravelly LS over 40 0.5 to 1.0 rapid 2 - 4 5 III 3-7:C2-3 bedrock STsi - shallow phase < 0.5 SH SH - very gravelly SL to very 35 to 45 0.7 to 1.0 moderately 1 0 - 1 5 I 5:Ct gravelly LS (0.3 to 0.6 well to well duric horizon) DW DW - very gravelly LS 40 > 1.0 well 1 0 - 1 5 I 5:C T^7 STn-R02| ST - very gravelly LS over bedrock 40 0.5 to 1.0 rapid 2 - 9 II 3- 4:Ct> RO - rock outcrop (sandstone) STsi^-RO1 STsi - shallow phase, very gravelly 40 < 0.5 rapid 16 - 30 III 6:0, LS over bedrock RO - rock outcrop , ME ME - gravelly SL or gravelly L 35 0.75 to 1.5 well 1 0 - 1 5 I 5TC7 ST B-STsi 2 ST - very gravelly LS over bedrock 40 0.5 to 1.0 rapid 6 - 3 0 II 4- 6 : C b STsi - shallow phase < 0.5 STb-STsi2-RQ21 ST - very gravelly LS over bedrock 40 0.5 to 1.0 rapid 2 - 5 III S.S-e^-b STsi - shallow phase < 0.5 ROi - rock outcrop (sandstone) 10 - 30 STfe-STsi'3-RQi, ST - very gravelly LS over bedrock 40 0.5 to 1.0 rapid 0.5 - 9 III 2-4,7:0, STsi - shallow phase < 0.5 ROj - rock outcrop (sandstone) 31 - 45 ST 7 -STsiMO 1 ST - very gravelly LS over bedrock 0.5 to 1.0 rapid III 2-7:0, STsi - shallow phase 40 < 0.5 0 . 5 - 4 5 RO - rock outcrop ST'-STsi^-RO1 ST - very gravelly LS over bedrock 40 0.5 to 1.0 rapid 0.5 - 30 II 2-6:Ct STsi - shallow phase < 0.5 Information Sources: texture, depth, drainage, topography. Terrestrial Studies Branch, Ministry of Environment. 1982. * coarse fragment content - Surveys and Resource Mapping Branch. Ministry of Environment. CAPAMP Input - Soil Cartographic File. 15-1 APPENDIX III MUNICIPAL WATER SOURCES FOR STUDY AREA Two Water Distr ic ts supply water to the study area. The North Cedar Waterworks Dis t r ic t supplies water to the area east of the Nanaimo River, but for Harmac which has i ts own supply; and to settlements on the west side of the Nanaimo River, including Indian Reserves 2 and 3, and the area south of Indian Reserve 3. The remainder of the area is supplied water by the Greater Nanaimo Water D is t r ic t . There are water mains adjacent to the majority of the roads in the area. The North Cedar Waterworks Distr ic t is obligated to supply water to any property adjacent to a water main as these properties are assessed a water parcel tax. In situations where a property is not adjacent to a main, the Distr ict is refusing to supply water as i t is withdrawing more water from the Nanaimo River than i ts current licence allows. This situation has forced the Dis t r ic t to curtai l demands to domestic needs and s t r ic t ly enforce sprinkling regulations (April 1 to November 1: twice daily for one hour each time, three times a week). At present, there are no active farms being supplied by the North Cedar Waterworks D is t r i c t , and i t is strongly doubtful that, given the present water shortage, the Distr ic t would allow any water to be used for agricultural purposes (D. Muralt, pers. com., 1985; and S. Aki t t , pers. com., 1985). The Greater Nanaimo Water Distr ict does have suff ic ient water to supply the needs of agriculture. The Distr ict also has regulations allowing 15.4 sprinkling every other day for extended periods, although sprinkling is not allowed between 4:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., the period of maximum drawdown. At present, there are no farms using the D is t r i c t ' s water. Should someone wish to have access to the D i s t r i c t ' s water for i rr igat ing an orchard, the sprinkling regulations may be waived to allow sprinkling on a daily basis. However, i f there was a water shortage, water for agricultural and other non-cri t ical act iv i t ies would be discontinued f i r s t . All connections to the Greater Vancouver Nanaimo Water Works are metered and b i l led every four months for the water used (B. MacDonald, pers. c o m . , 1985). 155 APPENDIX IV IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS1 CROP WATER REQUIREMENT Gallons per tree per day (G/t/D) G/t/D = 0.623 * peak evapotranspiration rate * 0.75 * Area/t * K where: 0.623 is 27,152 gal lons/acre- in . 43,560 f t 2 / a c 0.75 is a correction factor for peak E.T. applied to t r ickle i r r igat ion K is the crop coeff icient factor peak evapotranspiration = 0.20 in./day G/t/D = 0.623 * 0.20 in./day * 0.75 * 84 f t 2 * 0.90 = 7.1 G/t/D + 10% leaching =7.8 G/t/D BASE DATA FOR ORCHARD row length 594 f t tree spacing 6 f t * 14 area/tree 84 f t 2 trees/row 99 total number of rows 42 well capacity (2 wells, each with 15 gpm pumping capacity) 30 gpm Water supplied per row per hour = trees/row * gph/tree = 99 * 4.1 gph/tree = 405.9 gph/row 154 Number of rows per zone = well capacity * 60 nrin/hr = gph/row = 30 gpm * 60 min/hr = 4.4 rows/zone 4Ub.9 gph/row Number of zones = total rows = 42 =9.5 zones rows/ zone "4T4" Gallons required/row/day = G/t/D * trees/row = 7.8 * 99 = 772.2 g/row/day Application time/zone = gal/row/day gph/row = 772.2 = 1.9 hr/zone/day 4Ub.y = 1 hr 54 min/zone/day Total hours of i r r igat ion per day = 9.5 zones * 1 hour 54 min/day = 18 hr 5 min Calculated using 1980 Irrigation Design Manual for Farm Systems in Bri t ish Columbia (1983 Revision). 157 APPENDIX V MARKET AVAILABILITY In B .C . , the total production of apples in 1983 was 128,429,000 kg. Of this to ta l , 65,910 kg (Economics Branch, Bri t ish Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food, 1984) were produced on Vancouver Island, and approxi-mately 95% of these were sold as direct farm sales (B. Warner, pers. com., 1985). The remainder were shipped to local distributors to be sold . The average Canadians' fresh apple consumption is approximately 12.96 kg per year (Stat ist ics Canada, 1981), a consumption level that has been relat ively constant since 1978. Vancouver Island has a population of approximately 361,300 (Stat ist ics Canada, 1981), and theoretically the population should be consuming approximately 4,682,448 kg of apples per year. The Vancouver Island apple producers are growing approximately 1.4% of the apples consumed on the Island. It would appear that the present small apple production could be increased many fold without danger of glutting the market. 158 APPENDIX VI Information Sources for Estimates of Costs and Returns C.P. I . Equipment Ltd. 21869 - 56th Avenue Langley, B.C. V3A 7N6 Ken's Dr i l l ing Box 484 Brentwood Bay, B.C. Buckerfields 2111 Keating Cross Road Saanichton, B.C. McCutcheon, D. 1983. Annual Report - Apiculture Branch. Bri t ish Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Abbotsford, B.C. Mr. Doug Campbell Block Brothers Real Estate 2449 Beacon Avenue Sidney, B.C. National Real Estate Service. 1984. Catalog of Homes - A Complete Guide to Homes, Land & Farms. Volumes 579, 580, 581, 583, 584. Economics Branch. 1982. Average Sell ing Prices of Farm Land in B.C. Br i t ish Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food. V ic tor ia , B.C. Harbour Fuels (Petrocan) 301 John Street V ic tor ia , B.C. Victoria Coal and Heating Ltd. (Chevron) 217 - 645 Fort Street V ictor ia , B.C. Lee's Heating 658 Langford Avenue V ic tor ia , B.C. Canada Employment Centre 810 Fort Street Victor ia , B.C. Mr. Herman Garrick Westwood Lake Road Nanaimo, B.C. Grande Valley Landscaping 5691 Old W. Saanich Road Saanichton, B.C. John Deere Farm Equipment Grieve J . Motors Ltd. 7865 E. Saanich Road Saanichton, B.C. Butler Bros. Supplies Ltd 2070 Keating Cross Road Saanichton, B.C. Growers Supply Kelowna, B.C. Dodge Trucks 1061 Yates Street Victor ia , B.C. Glen Oak Ford Ltd. 1060 Yates Street Victor ia , B.C. GWG Rentals 6778 Kirkpatrick Drive Brentwood Bay, B.C. APPENDIX VI - Continued - Farm Labour Pool Ltd. Ford Tractors and Equipment 610 Alpha Street Victor ia , B.C. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096360/manifest

Comment

Related Items