California Fruit and Vegetable

Tag: California Avocado Commission

  • CALIFORNIA GEM® Added To CALIFORNIAAVOCADO.COM

    With the GEM® avocado variety acreage increasing in California groves and gaining increased popularity as a point of discussion with retailers, the California Avocado Commission has added the GEM® variety to the CaliforniaAvocado.com website. In tandem with this initiative, the Commission also has made concerted efforts to better position California avocados on search engines by updating the avocado variety browser on the consumer website.

    The Commission has positioned itself as the go-to resource for media, its assorted partners and consumers by providing relevant and engaging content for consumers as well as quality, Commission-owned and branded assets for members of the media, retailers and influencers. To that end, the Commission produced high-quality GEM® photos and assets and made them available to site visitors in the Commission’s online press room where they can simply download the high-quality images for use on websites, social media and in press materials. These assets, when used by industry partners, help ensure ‘California’ is communicated in articles, social media posts, ads and POS.

    The Commission also uses high quality and high equity search terms to “California’ize” conversations around avocados. The Commission has optimized its online avocado variety browser — and added GEM® to the browser — to strengthen its position when people look for avocado varieties using online search engines. As a result, the Commission’s avocado variety browser has achieved the number one position on Google with more than 40 million results. In short, when people look for ‘avocado varieties’ online the search engine results lead them to the Commission’s variety browser — thus increasing California Avocados brand awareness and securing the Commission’s credibility as the source for all things avocado. CAC’s avocado variety browser currently garners about 69,000 visits each year — approximately 2.5% of all traffic to the site.

  • Early Season Retail Promotions Build Demand For California Avocados

    California Avocado Commission — Early demand for California avocados is high this year among targeted retailers, with both national chains and regional retailers indicating they are anxious for the start of the California avocado season. In past years, the season kicked off with “first of the season” Big Game or Valentine’s Day promotions at local specialty retailers. This year, due to market and harvest conditions, the early-season promotions at loyal retailer partners’ locations are instead focusing attention on spring and Easter.

    Both Gelson’s and Mollie Stone’s responded positively to the California Avocado Commission’s spring and Easter promotional plans, which include a combination of in-store display and sales contests partnered with robust online, social media and digital advertising campaigns. The Commission’s integrated promotional plans recognize that due to COVID-19 safety protocols retailers remain cautious about in-store promotions, such as demos, and that online marketing continues to play a primary role in marketing California avocados this season. Display and sales contests, which elevate in-store merchandising to draw attention to the fruit, also are important tactics in CAC customized retail programs.

    Gelson’s “Spring Into California Avocados” promotion ran from February 15 – 25. The upscale retailer hosted display and sales contests at its 27 Southern California locations, ensuring early season California avocados were front-and-center to announce the start of the long-anticipated season. Mollie Stone’s Easter promotion runs from March 22 – April 4, and includes sales and display contests at the retailer’s nine locations throughout the San Francisco Bay area. Both retail chains feature Commission display bins and signage.

    For both retailers, the in-store contests are complemented by value-added social media promotions created by the Commission. Posts on the retailers’ social media platforms showcase California avocado centric recipes, photos and messaging that celebrates the availability of fresh California avocados as we swing into spring. The social posts play a critical role in expanding the reach of the Commission’s messaging, promoting the fruit’s versatility in meals and snacks, touting California avocados’ nutritional qualities and showcasing the premium character of this locally grown fruit.

  • Guacamole from Mexico Fuels Surge of Avocado Imports

    Hoy F. Carman, UC Davis, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics – Strong increases in U.S. consumption of processed avocado products have been largely overlooked, while popular attention has focused on the demand for fresh avocados. The major reason for this gap in knowledge is a lack of reliable statistics on avocado processing and U.S. sales of processed avocado products. Despite the significant data issues associated with measurement of processed avocado sales and consumption, there is an important story to be told. Avocados are a healthy, nutrient-loaded food product and U.S. consumption has grown rapidly. Processed avocado imports from Mexico have recently accelerated and their continued growth has important implications for U.S. producers, consumers, and the Mexican avocado industry. Sound economic reasons support Mexico’s dominance in supplying processed avocado products to the U.S. market, and the underlying factors fueling recent growth of processed avocado imports are expected to continue.

    Processed Avocado Imports

    Avocados have evolved from a seasonal specialty to a year-round staple in both the supermarket produce aisle and consumer diets. U.S. fresh avocado consumption increased from 1.47 pounds per capita in 1989 to 8.07 pounds in 2019, with Mexico accounting for most of the increased supplies. At the same time, U.S.-processed avocado imports increased from a minuscule 0.01 pounds per capita in 1989 to almost 0.75 pounds in 2019, with Mexican product dominating imports. The processed import share of total U.S. avocado consumption increased from less than 0.5% (product weight) in 1989 to 8.5% in 2019.

    Figure 1 shows the growth in processed avocado imports from 1989 through 2019. Growth was slow and steady through 2016, and then accelerated from 2017 through 2019. Processed avocado imports first exceeded 50 million pounds in 2000. It took another 11 years of growth to exceed 100 million pounds in 2011. With explosive growth beginning in 2017, it took only three years to add almost 100 million more pounds of processed imports.

    The stair step pattern of growth in processed imports appears to be partially due to the addition of new processing capacity and establishment of new plants in Mexico over time, as well as increased market penetration for processed products. New avocado processing capacity is lumpy, even though the product mix can be flexible. The description of an avocado processing plant recently brought online in Mexico is illustrative. The plant has 190 employees operating two product lines with two high-pressure processing (HPP) machines, four packaging machines, and a capacity of 55,000 pounds of processed product per day. This plant, operating five days per week for 50 weeks can add 13.75 million pounds annually to processed avocado supply and exports.
    U.S.-processed avocado imports are comparatively large when measured against total California avocado production. California produced an annual average crop of about 290 million     pounds of fresh avocados for the five years from 2015 through 2019. Processed avocado imports totaled 246.6 million pounds (product weight) in 2019, but were certainly much higher in terms of the fresh-product equivalent. Research sponsored by the California Avocado Commission (CAC) indicates that the average yield of edible product for Hass avocado sizes 36 through 84 is 70%. One pound of processed avocado is thus equivalent to about 1.43 pounds of fresh avocados. A further complication is that some processed products such as guacamole contain other ingredients. Overall, it is likely that 2019 processed avocado imports required some 350 million pounds of fresh avocados. This amount exceeds the recent 5-year average California production by almost 20% and not all of the imported product was included in the processed import data. Some of the shortcomings in processed avocado data are discussed below.

    Processed Avocado Data Issues

    There are two reasons for shortcomings in U.S-processed avocado consumption data. First, the USDA and California did not report processed utilization of the California avocado crop because of confidentiality requirements. Thus, even though Calavo processed as much as 20 million pounds of guacamole and other avocado-based items annually in its Santa Paula, California plant from 1974 until it was closed in 2003, all of California’s production was reported as fresh sales and consumption. Second, after the California plant closure in 2003, the U.S. became dependent on imports for almost all of its processed avocado needs. While the U.S. reports quantity and value of processed avocado imports, the data are incomplete because several processed avocado products are not reported separately. For example, frozen avocados (without additives) are reported in a category that includes all frozen fruits.

    Mexican Avocado Processing

    It is no accident that Mexico accounts for nearly all of the supply of processed avocado products in the U.S. market. It is the world’s largest avocado producer, with year-round production and with labor readily available at lower wage rates than in the United States. In addition, U.S. markets are readily accessible to Mexican producing areas, major U.S. avocado marketing firms have significant investments in the Mexican avocado sector, its planted acreage continues to expand significantly, and it is the world’s low-cost producer. Mexico has all of the necessary inputs for continued expansion. California’s largest avocado processor’s move to Mexico in 2003 was dictated by Mexico’s clear advantage in comparative costs of production for avocados.

    The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported that 14 firms processed Mexican avocados in 2013. Included were a combination of Mexican, U.S.-based, and international firms. Mexico’s dominance in supplying processed avocados to the U.S market has increased steadily over time. During the four years from 2011 through 2014, Mexico accounted for 93.4%, with Peru a distant second at 4.9%. During 2019, the Mexican-sourced share of U.S.-processed avocado products increased to 97.9%, while Peru’s share declined to 1.1%.

    U.S.-Processed Avocado Demand

    The channels of distribution differ for fresh and processed avocados. The California Avocado Commission (CAC) estimates that for fresh avocados, 70% of annual sales are directly to consumers and 30% are through food service channels. The ratios are reversed for processed avocados. Convenience, together with dependability of supply, uniform quality, and consistent taste are important product attributes for food service firms.

    Examination and comparison of real price and consumption data for processed avocado imports provide some clues to the nature of demand for processed avocado products. While imports of processed avocados increased from less than 0.1 pounds per capita in 1994 to 0.75 pounds per capita in 2019, processed consumption remains far below U.S. fresh avocado consumption of 8.07 pounds per capita in 2019. Annual U.S. per capita processed avocado imports are shown in Figure 2, together with port of entry processed prices and weighted annual fresh avocado prices. Average annual fresh avocado prices consist of a quantity weighted average of California and Florida f.o.b. prices and all fresh avocado imports at port of entry. As noted earlier, the incomplete per capita processed import data are product weight rather than fresh equivalent. Despite these shortcomings in measurement, the increasing pattern of processed imports is similar to per capita fresh avocado consumption.

    While the overall pattern of fresh and processed avocado prices are similar over the period from 1994 through 2019, with real prices reaching lows in 2006 and 2007, the relationship between the two series does not meet expectations for close substitutes until after 2008. That is, if fresh and processed avocados are close substitutes, we would expect fresh and processed prices to show similar adjustments over time—but with processed prices above fresh prices to reflect processing costs and equivalence.

    The pattern of comparative prices prior to 2008 could be due to a combination of factors including, (1) fresh and processed avocados were not regarded as close substitutes in many applications due to processing methods used, (2) demand factors differ in at-home and institutional outlets, (3) annual averages may not capture differing seasonal patterns of supply and demand, and (4) avocados utilized for processing may not be suitable for fresh market sales.

    Factors Associated with Increased Demand

    Existing data, while incomplete, show a significant increase in processed avocado imports and consumption over time. Several factors contributed to increased U.S. imports of fresh and processed avocados. These included:

    -Nutrition and health research funded by the CAC;

    -The phased opening of the U.S. market to fresh Mexican avocados;

    -Approval of the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and Information Order that supports research and promotion programs for all fresh Hass avocados marketed in the U.S.;

    -Growth of Mexican and Hispanic restaurants and menu items;

    -Increasing availability of avocado imports from Mexico, Chile, and Peru;

    -Active involvement of U.S.-based firms with extensive experience in avocado packing and processing.

    Economic analysis of the growth of consumer demand attributes an important role to Hass Avocado Board research and promotion programs. A crucial factor for increasing processed avocado demand was the development and adoption of HPP for avocado products beginning in 1996.

    High-Pressure Processing of Avocados Fueled Growth

    Avocado processing has traditionally posed a number of food safety issues since unprocessed or minimally processed ready-to-eat (RTE) avocados have a relatively high risk of microbial contamination from pathogens such as Salmonella, E. Coli, and Listeria. Traditional approaches for assuring safe-to-eat avocado products used through the 1990s were accompanied by food quality and taste issues. Heat pasteurization tended to reduce avocado quality, while additives and preservatives produced flavor issues in the final product. Due to these limitations, processed avocados were regarded as clearly inferior to the fresh product in most menu applications.

    The development and application of HPP for avocado products beginning in 1996 provided a solution for serious quality and taste problems. HPP is a cold pasteurization technique in which a product, already sealed in its final package, is introduced into a vessel and subjected to a high level of isostatic pressure transmitted by water to inactivate the bacteria, virus, yeasts, molds, and parasites that might be present, extending the product’s shelf life and enhancing food safety. HPP also maintains the sensorial and nutritional properties of fresh avocados throughout their shelf life. Frozen HPP products can have a shelf life of up to two years.

    The availability and growth of HPP processing capacity has been an important factor in the expansion of processed avocado sales, as is the convenience of having a dependable supply of high-quality inputs for food service menu items. Texas-based Fresherized Foods, which pioneered the use of HPP of avocados for production of guacamole to supply its restaurants, began commercialization of HPP slowly in 1996 and then ramped up as HPP technology and equipment improved. By 2008 Fresherized Foods was operating two processing facilities in Mexico, one in Peru, and one in Chile. The largest Fresherized Foods plant, located in Mexico, had a capacity of nearly 1 million pounds of guacamole and fresh avocado pulp per week, using seven HPP machines and 1,400 employees.

    Concluding Comments

    Hoy Carman

    The increased U.S. demand for processed avocados from 2016 through 2019 is impressive. This recent rate of growth is likely to pause, however, because of processed avocados’ dependence on food service channels and institutional outlets that have been curtailed due to the coronavirus. First quarter 2020 processed avocado imports increased 10.6%, from 61.78 million pounds in 2019 to 68.53 million pounds, achieving an all-time high. Then, with coronavirus shutdowns, second quarter volumes decreased 13.9%, from 54.54 million pounds in 2019 to 46.97 million pounds in 2020. Processed avocado imports and consumption are unlikely to fully recover until the epidemic is controlled, when it is reasonable to expect growth to resume. — By Hoy F. Carman, Professor Emeritus, UC Davis, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California

  • Yellow Leaves In Spring Indicative Of Need To Adjust Nutrient Management

    California Avocado Commission — In spring, as California avocado trees begin to bloom, growers often report seeing yellow leaves at the ends of branches of otherwise healthy trees. Dr. Danny Klittich, of Redox, recently posted an online article about the yellowing of leaves in spring, what this indicates, and what growers can do to remedy the situation.

    When avocado trees begin producing flowers, the blooms become major sinks for nutrients — gathering the nutrients they need to set and retain fruit. The timing of fruit development also coincides with the cooler months of the California avocado growing season, when growers tend to fertilize less and the soils, adapting to cooler temperatures, tend to provide less nutrition to the trees. Thus, trees begin to reallocate nutrients from the roots and leaves to the more important task of developing blooms for fruit set. With nutrients reallocated, leaves on the ends of branches may begin to yellow.

    According to research, nitrogen, zinc and iron leaf concentrations were lower in chlorotic (yellow) leaves. This makes sense when you consider the importance of each of these to bloom and fruit development. In general, Dr. Klittich recommends that trees should yield a fall tissue sample of 2.5 – 2.7% nitrogen for higher yields. This level provides the tree with an adequate reservoir for bloom development.

    Dr. Klittich recommends growers complete the following to improve yield potential.

    • Early bud development — During cauliflower bloom and floral elongation, apply nitrogen, zinc, iron, boron and calcium.
    • Bloom spray — Nutrient applications should provide calcium, zinc, iron and amino acids and can be made from cauliflower stage through full bloom
    • Fruit set — Weekly applications should be designed to support fruit set and development

    To view Dr. Klittich’s specific product and dosage recommendations, as well as an informative video concerning avocado bloom strategies, visit his latest online article.

  • Preventing & Managing Wind Damage In CA Avocado Groves

    California Avocado Commission — When it comes to potential wind damage, California avocado growers typically face two different scenarios: chronic wind exposure or severe wind events.

    Avocado trees housed in windy portions of a grove are often stunted and underperform production wise.  They also may be water stressed, which will impact the uptake of minerals, and their roots may be stressed due to consistent rocking caused by the wind. The only remedy, in these cases, is to create a wind shelter that minimizes wind exposure.

    In windy groves, fruit often will exhibit markings that can be mistaken for diseases or pest damage. For example, black marks caused by wind may be mistaken for anthracnose post harvest rot or russet scars may lead growers to suspect their trees have persea thrips damage. While some superficial wind damage may not affect the quality of the fruit – particularly if that damage occurs when the fruit is young – some wind damage can lead to large scars or “alligator skin” that are more impactful to fruit quality.

    Severe wind events often blow avocado trees over. In these instances, unless the tree is very young, consider removing the tree. Attempting to move the tree back into an upright position can further damage the roots. If the fallen trees looks like it will recover, it can remain where it is. New shoots may emerge from the trunk and form the structure for a new tree. If this occurs, large, old branches can be removed later as the new portion of the tree takes shape. If you do remove the tree, avoid planting a new tree close to where the old tree existed unless you remove the stump and sterilize the soil. The roots from the old tree could become infected by Phytophthora root rot and thus infect a new tree.

    Strong wind events also can break limbs or blow fruit off the trees. After a storm, windfall should be properly disposed of and broken branches removed.  It is important to monitor trees after severe storms, paying close attention to signs of wilting that may indicate stressed roots or a broken branch that was missed during earlier assessments.

    For more information about preventing and managing wind damage, visit the California Avocado Commission’s wind protection online library.

  • 2020 CA Avocado Acreage & Condition Report

    To ensure the California Avocado Commission can make informed marketing and budgeting decisions, it has partnered with LandIQ to conduct statewide spatial land use surveys via digital satellite imagery, aerial photography and analytical tools. This data is compiled in a comprehensive land use database and an annual summary is prepared. The 2020 Statewide Avocado Acreage and Conditional Analysis is now available online.

    Highlights from this year’s survey are as follows:

    • Planted avocado acreage in the state totaled 54,017
    • The planted avocado acreage for avocado growing counties is as follows:
      • Riverside — 5,046
      • Santa Barbara — 6,741
      • San Diego — 16,488
      • San Luis Obispo — 4,043
      • Ventura — 19,754
      • Minor county total (Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Monterey, Orange, San Bernardino, Tulare) — 1,945
    • As concerns the growing regions, their acreage is divided as follows:
    • The report also has tables detailing acreage by zip code, new acres by county and planting year, a breakdown of avocado acreage by planting density (high density versus standard), the net change in producing/young/stumped acreage by county, and various maps noting the acreages of avocados planted.
    • The age of planted acreage breaks down as follows:
      • Planting to 4 years — 4,417 acres (8%)
      • 5 – 8 years — 9,289 acres (17%)
      • 9 – 15 years — 7,717 acres (14%)
      • 16 – 20 years — 8,989 acres (17%)
      • 21 years + — 23,604 acres (44%)

  • CA Avocado Commission Reduces Assessment Rate & Elects New Leaders

    At the October 7, 2020 meeting, the California Avocado Commission Board of Directors took action to approve the assessment rate for the upcoming 2020-21 fiscal year, reducing the assessment rate to 1.75% of the gross dollar value of fruit sold. The new assessment rate is effective from November 1, 2020 through October 31, 2021. The CAC Board and management are committed to prudently managing growers’ assessment dollars, with the current rate reflecting a quarter percent reduction from the 2019-20 assessment rate of 2.00% and more than one-half a percent reduction from the 2018-19 assessment rate of 2.30%. During these past two years, despite the reduction in assessment rate, a larger percentage of the budget has been allocated toward marketing activities, with 2020-21 representing the highest allocation ever at more than 70% of the total budget. We thank the outgoing 2019-20 CAC Board, under the direction of Chairman John Lamb, for their work to build balanced budgets and prioritize spending.

    The California Department of Food and Agriculture seated newly elected California Avocado Commission board members at the Commission’s November 19, 2020 board meeting. The following new members shall serve a two-year term (November 1, 2020 through October 31, 2022).

    District 1 Member: Jessica Hunter (Re-elected; existing District 1 Member)

    District 2 Member: John Cornell (New Member; previously District 2 Alternate)*
    District 3 Member: John Lloyd-Butler (New Member; previously District 3 Alternate)*
    District 4 Member: Rachael Kimball Laenen (New Member)
    District 5 Member: Andrew Prechtl (New Member)
    Handler Member: Gary Caloroso,  Giumarra (Re-elected; existing Handler Member)
    *With previous alternates assuming member seats in District 2 and District 3, there now exist vacancies for alternate seats in these two districts. These vacancies will be filled by a majority vote of the board at an upcoming Commission board meeting.
    The following newly elected Executive Officers shall serve a one-year term (November 1, 2020 through October 31, 2021).
    Chairman – Rob Grether, District 3 Member
    Vice-Chairman – Ryan Rochefort, District 2 Member
    Treasurer – Jason Cole, District 4 Member

    Secretary – Jessica Hunter, District 1 Member

  • Fall Microirrigation System Maintenance

    California Avocado Commission — Microirrigation systems (microsprinklers, drip emitters and drip tape) tend to provide better distribution/emission uniformity than other irrigation methods. However, the miniscule flow passages in these systems can become clogged and thus disrupt the uniformity of water applied to a crop.

    Late fall and winter are an ideal time to review irrigation systems for needed repairs or malfunctions. A great resource is the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources’ (UCANR) webpage that outlines various causes of microirrigation clogging and means of preventing or mitigating the problems.

    The first step in alleviating clogs is identifying the problem. Clogs can be caused by:

    • Particulates — sand, silt, clay — from surface water sources
    • Biological materials — algae, bacterial slimes — from surface water sources
    • Chemical precipitates — such as iron and calcium carbonate — from groundwater sources or fertigation

    To identify the issues, UC ANR recommends first flushing water from the lateral lines through a nylon stocking or paint straining cloth and examining what material is collected. If you see mineral particles, you have identified your problem. If you notice that clogging tends to occur at the ends of the lines, this also tends to indicate particulate clogging.

    If you identify organic matter when flushing the line, then biological materials are the issue. You also can open the end of a lateral line and feel inside the tube to see if it is slimy. If so, biological materials are the source of your problem.

    If you note white, crusty materials or reddish staining of the soil near the emitters, this is indicative of chemical precipitates.

    Once you have identified the clogging source, you can take steps to address the issue.

    Particulate issues can be prevented by regular line flushing and the use of filters. UCANR provides a list of various filters and a table noting which filter to choose based on water source, particulates and irrigation system. To adequately flush the lines, water must flush at least 1 foot per second at the end of the drip line — 1 gallon/minute for 5/8” diameter and 2 gallons/minutes for 7/8” diameter drip lines.

    If organic matter is the source of the clogging, the best mode of treatment is a good filtration system combined with use of a biocide to remove the biological contaminants. Visit the UCANR site for a list of filters and the aforementioned “how to choose a filter” table.

    If calcium carbonate (lime) or iron is clogging your emitters, strong acid can make either disappear if emitters are left in it overnight. Lowering the pH (6 or below) of the water by injecting common acids — sulfuric acid, muriatic acid or hydrochloric acid — can help prevent clogging due to lime. UCANR provides specific formulas to help growers determine the injection rate needed to alter water pH.

    If high iron levels are the source of the clogging, aerating the water to oxidize the iron and then allowing the precipitates to settle before irrigating (a reservoir or settling basin is necessary) is the most practical option. Common acids also can be injected to decrease the pH of the water (4 or less).

    For more information on routine microirrigation tasks, visit the UCANR website.

  • Heat Damaged Groves MAY BE Eligible for Tree Assistance Program Funding

    California Avocado Commission— In early September much of California experienced excessive heat, including many avocado growing regions. A few growing areas reported sustained temperatures of around 120 degrees. Understandably, due to this extreme heat some trees are experiencing severe damage. The California Avocado Commission immediately contacted the United States Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) to pursue possible funding for growers under the Tree Assistance Program (TAP).

    Under the TAP, “To be considered an eligible loss: Eligible trees, bushes, or vines must have suffered more than a 15 percent mortality loss in a stand (adjusted for normal mortality) due to an eligible natural disaster.” Here is a TAP Fact Sheet.

    However, FSA has ruled “heat” is not an eligible event under the TAP program. In 2016, when a similar heat event occurred resulting in California avocado tree damage, the Commission was successful in getting FSA to include heat-related damage. Considering that FSA currently lists “freeze” (an extreme low temperature event) as a TAP-eligible event, there seems to be no basis to exclude extreme high temperature events.

    The Commission is once again strongly advocating with FSA for the inclusion of “heat” as an eligible natural disaster and therefore inclusion in the TAP. As the Commission continues to pursue eligibility for the recent heat event, FSA is asking growers to submit their TAP application if they believe they have suffered the minimum threshold of damage. At this point, pending the FSA final determination, the applications will be rejected. Growers must then ask for an appeal.

    While submitting a TAP application now —knowing it will initially be rejected — is not ideal, there is a 90-day timeline that must be adhered to for any future ruling on eligibility. According to TAP growers must apply “within 90 calendar days of the disaster event; or the date when the loss is apparent to the producer.” Thus, in order to ensure growers meet the 90-day rule, they should apply for TAP now while the Commission continues to advocate for the inclusion of “heat” as an eligible event. If growers do not apply within the prescribed 90 days of the heat event or appearance of loss, they will not be eligible for TAP in the event FSA rules in our favor.

    If you believe your grove may meet the 15% mortality loss, you are encouraged to apply. The Commission will continue to work with FSA and keep you posted as additional information becomes available. 

    Applications can be submitted to your local FSA office as follows:

    Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties:
    Santa Barbara County Farm Service Agency
    Brenda Estrada, County Executive Director
    920 E Stowell Rd., Santa Maria, CA 93454-7008
    (805) 928-9269; (844) 206-7010 Fax
    Brenda.Estrada@ca.usda.gov

    Riverside, San Diego Counties:
    Riverside County Farm Service Agency
    81077 Indio Blvd. Ste. A, Indio, CA 92201
    (760) 347-3675; (844) 206-6978 Fax
    Desiree.Garza@usda.gov

  • Managing Heat In California Avocado Groves

    California Avocado Commission — According to a new report released by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and the Climate Science Alliance, Southern California agricultural regions will face more climate extremes — notably higher daily maximum temperatures and more frequent and intense heat events — in the coming decades. As Dr. Ben Faber notes in a recent blog post, although avocado groves have been successful in California, the trees are “poorly adapted to high temperatures and low humidity.” Therefore, avocado growers throughout the state should be aware of the impacts of heat on their trees.

    Avocado trees cool themselves by moving water through the roots and out their leaves through leaf pores known as stomates. As the water evaporates from the leaves, it helps maintain leaf temperature as well as prevent the trunk and branches from overheating. During a heat wave, an avocado tree tends to close its stomates to prevent excess water loss, which results in the leaf temperature increasing. In extreme circumstances, the leaves and stems can overheat and literally cook.

    California avocado varieties have different sensitivities to heat. While ‘Pinkerton’, ‘Lamb Hass’ and ‘Reed’ varieties are less susceptible to heat, ‘Hass’ and ‘Fuerte’ are most sensitive; and ‘Sir-Prize’ and ‘Sharwil’ tend to be somewhere in the middle.

    Protection Measures

    The timing of heat waves in California tends to coincide with peak season — when trees are producing their summer flush. When the temperatures is 100˚F or above, the trees tend to drop their fruit and flowers, thus excessive heat can impact the following year’s bloom.

    Well-watered trees will better tolerate the stresses imposed by a heat wave. Thus, growers should irrigate their trees in advance of a heat wave to ensure they are fully hydrated. Apply an additional 50% of the budgeted amount of water. If the heat wave lasts for several days, be certain to provide daily pulses of irrigation.

    Because avocado roots grow near the surface of the soil, mulch also helps trees manage heat by keeping the soil (and roots) cool.

    Cover crops also can aid in keeping groves cool. The cover crop can prevent water runoff, improve water retention in the soil, lower the air temperature in the grove and keep the soil cool.  In addition, cover crops will help improve soil structure, suppress weeds, increase soil organic matter and provide a home to beneficial pollinators and insects.

    Harvest During a Heat Wave

    Best practice is to make every attempt to wait and harvest fruit when the temperature is below 90˚F. No fruit should be harvested when the temperature is above 95˚F.

    When fruit is harvested during warmer temperatures, place the field bins in the shade to avoid exposing the harvested fruit to sunburn.  If fruit is left exposed to direct sunlight, the sunburn will only show up after it has been packed. Bins should be covered with bin covers or light-colored tarps. And bins should be sent to the packinghouse promptly to avoid decreased fruit quality caused by water loss.

    Heat Damage

    If you see significant leaf drop in your groves due to excessive heat, the following actions are recommended:

    • As soon as possible, whitewash branches exposed to the sun with special attention paid to branches on the west and south sides of the tree.
    • Trees that lose a significant portion of leaves cannot efficiently move water, therefore restrict irrigation amounts to ensure you avoid creating wet, soggy conditions that can lead to root rot. It’s best to irrigate less frequently and with smaller amounts of water.
    • Do not prune your trees — leave hanging leaves in place to protect the tree from sunburn. Once new tree growth has occurred (in the next 3 – 6 months), pruning can take place on living wood.
    • Adjust fertilization as you would with a frost-damaged tree: reducing the amount of fertilizer until the tree is re-established. If you see signs of a particular nutrient deficiency, adjust fertilization accordingly.

    For more information about managing heat in avocado groves, growers can view the following articles on the California avocado growers’ website: