Minutes NE-183 2000 Annual Meeting
November 3-4, 2000
ATI/OSU, Wooster, Ohio
Presiding: Teryl Roper
Meeting convened: 8:15
T. Roper convened the meeting and introduced our hosts, D. Ferree and D. Miller. Both of our hosts welcomed us to Ohio and explained that the OARDC campus was under much construction thus, the reason for holding the meeting at ATI campus rather than OARDC campus.
Introductions: We went around the room and we each introduced ourselves and the state or province we represent.
States and provinces attending:
Maine: R. Moran
Wisconsin: T. Roper, Y. Alahinai
Ohio: D. Miller, D. Ferree
Michigan: G. Lang, T. Bremer, P. Schweller, R. Beaudry
Arkansas: C. Rom, R. McNew
USDA-ARS, AFRS: S. Miller
New Jersey: W. Cowgill, B. Belding, G. Lokaj
Massachusetts: J. Clements
Washington: B. Barritt
New York: I. Merwin, S. Brown, J. Shupp
Utah: L. Anderson
Virginia: K. Yoder
Oregon: A. Azarenko
Pennsylvania: D. Smith, R. Crasweller, G. Greene
USDA, ARS, Cornell: P. Forsline
Indiana: P. Hirst
Vermont: E. Garcia
Dr. Seem, Administrator Advisor
Nova Scotia: C. Embree
B. C. C. Hampson
Simico: J. Cline
T. Roper introduced the motion to accept the 2000 meeting agenda; addition was made by W. Cowgill to add a section on web pages and publications. The motion was second by G. Greene.
The motion was passed
Comments by Dr. Seem, Administrator Advisor:
The process of reporting and revising project would be operating under the new guidelines, which were revised in September 2000. It is an attempt to simplify the reporting procedure. The minutes and the report will be replaced by a form. This will have no effect on us. These changes are for the administrators. For us, the investigators, a summary and a brief report are required.
Detailed information on the project is to be maintained by the investigator.
The process for revising the project was also simplified. Projects no longer need to follow a 5-year format. More time, if necessary, might be requested for projects.
The goals for projects are more outcome oriented. In our situation, NE-183 is already outcome oriented.
In March, the Association of Experiment Station Director gave an award to the NE183 project. W. Cowgill accepted the award for the project on behalf of the cooperators and issued a press release.
A certificate was awarded to each individual investigator participating in the project.
Dr. Seem suggested that this would be a good opportunity to get information out to promote the project in the form of press release. A generic press release, to be tailored by each state or province, has been written and 30 copies were available. W. Cowgill will put this press release on the web for cooperators to use. Cornell had a press release on Oct. 30
There is a second stage that this award will follow:
Dr. Seem will nominate the project for the Secretarys award (the nomination will be made in December). The reviewers are looking for important impact that the project has. This may lead to possible funding for collaborative work.
A discussion of possible involvement with collaborators outside the US followed.
Dr. Seems comment: There is no money to support collaborators outside of the US. The Experiment Station will not support private individuals. However, doors are open for to participate with no restrictions involving international participation.
Ray Miller Associate Chair of OARDC welcomed the group. He gave a brief description of the campus layout and facilities. Brought pamphlets for those interested persons to take with them.
Discussion of 95 planting:
Any changes were delegated as local options
Not many changes
Data major change: Write up an evaluation this year
95- planting needs tree spread and height data for 2000
It was discussed that very few collaborators had submitted their weather data.
Reason for using weather data:
Need to look at specific date
Modeling for specific soil type
Differences in tree size
For comparing site
It was decided that I. Merwin, R. Crasweller, R. Beaudry, and R. NcNew would form a sub-committee work on the weather data.
K. Yoder: Stated that in his planting, control of early season diseases to have been successful but not so for summer diseases
S. Miller stated that pest data does not seem to show much difference at end of the season in fruit in size or quality other than fruit finish
G. Greene said is has always been assumed that pest management would be a separate report
It was agreed that writing for publication would be a challenge and that the more the data could be broken down the better it would be for the write-up.
Key areas to focus and people responsible to coordinate the write-up effort:
Fruit quality (S. Miller)
Growth, yield, biennial bearing, flowering and fruit set (R. Crasweller)
Pest management, early and summer disease (K. Yoder, D. Struab)
Weather summary of growing conditions, Phenology (I. Merwin)
Fruit quality, storage (R. Beaudry)
Nutrition (D. Smith)
Regional project- purpose (D. Greene)
Media, develop materials to be published as popular articles (W. Cowgill and Jim Schupp)
This series of journal articles will be published concurrently in one issue of the appropriate journal, perhaps APS.
Timeline to publish in Journal of APS, April 2002
D. Ferree stated that people have done separate work should include a summary article to be included in the same issue
Evaluation of fruit quality:
It was agreed that those cooperators who wanted to continue collecting fruit quality data from the 95 planting should collect data at harvest then after 30 days + 7 after storage at 0C and also 3 month storage.
S. Miller and R. Beaudry and C. Hampson to get together advise on what fruit quality nd when to test for fruit quality
For any questions on protocol, contact R. Beaudry
S. Miller made a presentation on the USDA NE-183 web page with descriptions and pictures of the cultivars in the 95 planting from Kearneysville, WVA
This site can be linked to http://www.NE183.org
W. Cowgill encouraged the group to establish their own NE183 page for their publications and photos, to be linked to the official NE-183 page.
Report from Ron. NcNew-Group statistician.
Data from 21 planting continues from 96 to 99
For a final report trying to summarize 21 sites, 2 of which are disease management
Approximately 18 sites for 2000 general review
Make sure data from 99 planting is in a separate file from the from 95 planting data
Separate e-mail it is fine
B. Belding will write a template on how the horticulture data should be submitted and he will send it out to cooperators. Protocol will be sent to J. Clements to be placed on the NE183 web site.
Data collection for 95 planting:
Discussion on whether to continue collecting data on the 95 planting, and if so, which cultivars should continue to be evaluated?
It was agreed, as it was last year, that those who want to take the planting out can do so. This would not affect the final data analysis (McNew)
R. Beaudry said that the NE-103 had agreed to look at these trees in 5 stations
If interested, get notes from R. Beaudry on post harvest project.
R. McNew had questions on yield data
We should keep yield (what remains on the tree) separate from drops
Also: Consensus to report fruit number along with fruit weight (20/3)
The template for data collection will have separate columns for harvested yield; drop yields, number of fruit, and then total yield.
Summary of data:
Deadline for 2000 data to be given to Dr. McNew is Feb 1, 2001
Individual authors will contact R. McNew on the analysis of data
By next meeting review of draft
No report given. Need to contact J. Parker or B. Lord
1999 planting discussion:
Question: When only 6/10 fruit are available, is that accurate to collect data?
It was agreed that if incomplete, do not take data
For sensory 5 fruit are needed
For sensory, S. Miller has combined rep
Question: Why not pool the data for fruit quality?
R. McNews answer: Problems with replications due to variations with trees
In OH and some in Ithaca, some trees have been lost due to fire blight
For 2003, a possibility to keep in the same rotation as we have
Trees need to be selected and budded soon
GMO do not appear to be possible for next planting
Need to make sure the plant material is virus free
Many new varieties have propagation restrictions or nondisclosure agreements.
Need to work with nurseries that recognize American partners
New material from outside the US needs to go through Procer facilities before they are propagated.
Most new varieties have a niche or a club i.e. Pacific Rose. Owners are not willing to release these cultivars to others outside the club
Restriction on breeding program
Questions: Who owns the breeding program? Can a state put a border?
Dr. Seem: USDA: patented materials and information are under the discretion of the institution and researcher
If Washington State develops something, can they restrict it?
Currently, NJ peach propagation rights given to nurseries.
Peaches are controlled by growers. This is due to funding programs. They get royalties
There are some advanced selections from Purdue in the process of evaluation
Question: Has the project identified specific criteria to be tested?
Take a more proactive, important to test cultivars that are of commercial importance
S. Brown, B. Barritt and C. Hampson will form a committee and contact other plant breeders to make a list of possible cultivars to be included in the 2003 planting. They will circulate a list of these cultivars to the NE-183 members this summer.
Web discussion: W. Cowgill and J. Clements
Registration of the domain for our project is complete. http://www.NE183.org
Much discussion evolved on the type of content to be posted on the web site.
Adding more material will depend on budget availability and content development and cooperators. Win and Jon cannot provide all the content.
Items to be posted on the website: minutes, protocol, links to pages containing information on the project.
Also the statement that NE183 is a multistate project receiving funding through the Hatch act in cooperation with individual state Agricultural Experiment Stations
A discussion of copyright issues regarding the website and prior publication concerns evolved.
W. Cowgill indicated the home page of the website is copyrighted by NE-183 to protect the material and to make people think twice about improper use of printed and graphic posts on the website. The perennial question of what data is posted in the public domain on the web site ensued. It was decided that state reports will be considered preliminary data and will be password protected for cooperators. Individual state cooperators can make state reports available at their discretion.
The minutes will be posted in the public domain, as will other publications and abstracts as they become available.
Most refereed journals retain copyrights for their publications. They can be reprinted and posted with permission.
Dr. Seems opinion on public domain issues:
It is acceptable to keep the state reports from free access to the public as long as there is something available on the website where it shows how contact the individual researcher to ask for the information.
Dr. Seem indicated that we need to have the project leaders with state and institutions with links posted on the web site.
Our project annual report needs to have a list of cooperators and publications.
Another annual discussion on how to provide ongoing support the NE-183 web site took place.
Project Webmasters Jon Clements and Win Cowgill need to have ongoing financial support to host and maintain the site. There was much discussion on the level of funding necessary to maintain the web site.
Motion by G. Greene to send any residual fees from this years
technical meeting to
Win and Jon to help cover the costs.
Second by T. Roper
Motion passed unanimously.
More discussion and suggestions on how to establish a permanent funding source for the web site took place
I. Merwin moved that Win and Jon as webmasters for the NE-183 website invoice each voting member of the project $100/ to cover the cost for web services and data processing
B. Barritt second the motion
Motion passed unanimously
Three years left for Sept. 2004 rewrite
Future meetings and hosts:
2001 California S. Johnson
2002 Wisconsin T. Roper
2003 Nova Scotia C. Emeree ??
2004 N and S. Carolina ??
Much discussion followed and it was decided to wait to discuss the issue with the NC-140 group.
Discussion on meeting time:
There was a long discussion on meeting locations and the best time to hold the technical meeting.
No changes were made
R. Moran was nominated to be 2001 secretary
Annual reports are on the web
B. Barritt: Announced IDFTA winter meeting in Grand Rapids, Feb 19-21
IDFTA summer fruit study tour in Europe. Information in the Compact Fruit Tree
Each voting member of the cooperating states and provinces presented State Reports.
The Annual State Reports were uploaded to the NE-183 website at:
Discussion on scion burr knot:
It was suggested to add to the protocol a burr knot evaluation and to make an evaluation at the end of the of the study
Guidelines to manage fire blight in the plantings:
Use of streptomycin if warm moist days during bloom or try to control before green tip with copper
Discussion on reports:
Reports need to be clearer, need to bullet important information
Some cooperators want written reports, but regardless the reports need to go on the web
Azarenko asked whether it would be possible to do cluster analysis by genotype using growing degree.
Dr. R. McNew stated that a summary report of means of state after the data is sent to him was possible
Motion to adjourn: Passed