The Georgia Agricultural Experiment Stations College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences The University of Georgia Research Report Number 693 May, 2004

PDF version

Commercial Blueberry Inventory and Prospectus

Georgia, 2002

W. J. Florkowski
Agricultural and Applied Economics
Griffin Campus

Contents

Introduction
Objectives
Procedure
Number of Growers, Plants, and Acreage
Plant Variety and Age
Plant Spacing
Irrigation
Cultural Practices
Production Problems Encountered by Georgia Growers
Marketing Alternatives
Summary
References

List of Tables

Table 1. Blueberry Growers, Plants, and Acreage in Georgia, by Area, 2002 Survey Results

Table 2. Blueberry Growers, Plants, and Acreage in Counties with Four or More Growers, Georgia, 2002 Survey Results

Table 3. Number of Blueberry Plants in Commercial Orchards in Georgia, by Area, Variety, and Age, 2002 Survey Results

Table 4. Number and Proportion of Blueberry Growers, Plants, and Acreage in Large and Small Size Classifications, by Area, Georgia, 2002 Survey Results

Table 5. Spacings of Blueberry Plants in Georgia, by Area and Size of Operation, 2002 Survey Results

Table 6. Production Problems Encountered by Georgia Blueberry Growers, by Area, 2002 Survey Results

Table 7. Proportion of Georgia Blueberry Plants Irrigated, by Area and Size of Operation, 2002 Survey Results

Table 8. Percentage of Irrigated Blueberry Plants in Georgia, by Type of Equipment, Area, and Size of Operation, 2002 Survey Results

Table 9. Proportion of Georgia Blueberry Growers Using Various Cultural Practices, by Area and Size of Operation, 2002 Survey Results

Table 10. Marketing Alternatives by which Georgia Blueberries were Sold in 2002, by Area and Size of Operation, 2002 Survey Results

Appendix Table 1. Number of Blueberry Plants in Commercial Orchards in Counties with
Four or More Producers, by Variety and Age, Georgia, 2002 Survey Results

Appendix Table 2. Blueberry Growers with Membership in a Blueberry Marketing Organization in Counties with Four or More Growers, Georgia, 2002 Survey Results

List of Figures

Figure 1. Blueberry Growers, Plants, and Acreage in Georgia, by Area, 2002 Survey Results
Figure 2. Blueberry Plants and Acreage in Counties with Four or More Growers, Georgia, 2002 Survey Results
Figure 3. Selected Blueberry Varieties by First Growing Season and Area, Georgia, 2002 Survey Results
Figure 4. Plants and Acreage on Large and Small Blueberry Farms in Georgia, by Area, 1991 and 2002 Survey Results
Figure 5. Spacings of Blueberry Plants in Georgia, by Area and Size of Operation, 1991 and 2002 Survey Results
Figure 6. Production Problems Encountered by Georgia Blueberry Growers, by Area, 2002 Survey Results
Figure 7. Proportion of Georgia Blueberry Plants Irrigated, by Area and Size of Operation, 1991 and 2002 Survey Results
Figure 8. Percentage of Irrigated Blueberry Plants in Georgia, by Type of Equipment and Area, 2000 Survey Results
Figure 9. Percentage of Georgia Blueberry Growers Using Various Cultural Practices, by Area, 2002 Survey Results
Figure 10. Alternative Marketing Channels Used by Georgia Growers in 2002, by Area, 2002 Survey Results
Figure 11. Alternative Marketing Channels Used by Small Growers in Georgia in 2002, by Area, 2002 Survey Results
Figure 12. Alternative Marketing Channels Used by Large Growers in Georgia in 2002, by Area, 2002 Survey Results

Map

Distribution of Blueberry Plants by County, Georgia, 2002, Survey Results

Acknowledgment

The author thanks blueberry growers in Georgia and County Extension Agents for their cooperation and assistance in collecting information for this report. Deep appreciation is also extended to Dr. G. Krewer and Dr. D.S. NeSmith for their assistance in the preparation and implementation of the survey. The author also thanks Mr. Donnie H. Morris and Mr. R. Danny Stanaland for their assistance in implementing the survey.

Introduction

Georgia's blueberry industry has grown rapidly in the past decade. The growth resulted from the strong demand for fresh and frozen blueberries. The consumption of blueberries has been noticeably increasing, while prices increase despite increasing production (USDA, 2004). Georgia natural conditions are conducive to blueberry production. Under proper management, blueberry production offers returns that can compete with returns on other crops.

Both rabbiteye and highbush blueberries are produced in Georgia. The plants can produce a commercially viable crop for years. The long-term nature of the investment in the blueberry orchard calls for periodic updates on the situation of the blueberry industry. Information about the location of plants, varieties, plant age, and the use of cultural practices are important in decisions to allocate resources. This report provides insights otherwise unavailable to the industry yet of important practical consequences. An overview of the Georgia blueberry industry helps to shape the production and marketing strategies that extend beyond the state boundaries. The major portion of the annual crop is shipped to markets outside the region. Furthermore, the increasing value of blueberry plants implies that any damage to the commercial blueberry industry has financial implications for growers and shippers. Summaries included in this report help in accurate assessment of potential economic losses from damages to blueberry plants and the feasibility of programs protecting the value represented by orchards.

Information in this report is presented in a format that compares the most recent figures with those from the previous survey. Therefore, the reader has an instant comparison of changes in the industry over time. The presentation of results from two surveys makes interpretation of the results easier.

Objectives

This study presents a summary of the commercial blueberry grower survey. The survey instrument probed growers for information about the production and marketing issues. The specific objectives are:

• to inventory plants in commercial blueberry fields by age, cultivar and location (county);
• to identify production problems encountered by growers;
• to determine the use of cultural practices by growers;
• to ascertain the primary marketing channels used by blueberry growers.

Procedure

Following the previous survey (Hubbard et al. 1992), the questionnaire was mailed to the Georgia blueberry growers in the first quarter of 2002. Subsequently, a reminder was sent about a week later. Two weeks later another mailing of the questionnaire took place directed at non-respondents. Despite these efforts, a number of growers did not respond and had to be reached by telephone. The telephone survey lasted through the latter part of 2002. Afterward, the number of growers responding to the survey was verified for selected counties to assure that all commercial blueberry growers were reached.

The original mailing list was based on the list used in the previous survey and the information obtained from the Cooperative Extension Service offices in all counties. This list was supplemented by a list of attendees of blueberry extension meetings and field days. Duplicate addresses were eliminated. The initial mailing included 364 growers.

During the survey implementation, a number of addresses were eliminated for several reasons. Addresses deemed insufficient for delivery by the postal service was a cause of not reaching 10 growers; 31 growers were no longer growing blueberries; 82 addresses were of residents misidentified as growers (often these individuals provided services to growers or sold agricultural inputs), 21 were duplicates, 1 grower refused to participate, and 23 did not respond to the survey. This report is based on answers provided by 196 growers or 89.1 percent who responded.

Number of Growers, Plants, and Acreage

Changes in grower number, plant number and the number of acres planted with blueberries are shown in Table 1. Between 1991 and 2002, the number of growers declined in all three areas. The most significant decline took place in southwest Georgia. The percentage share of growers increased in the other two regions, especially in the southeastern part of the state. The changes in the number of plants have been even more dramatic than in numbers of growers (Table 1). Southeast Georgia dominates the blueberry industry and accounts for more than 97 percent of all blueberry plants. Despite a moderate change in the number of growers, north Georgia reported less than 1 percent of blueberry plants in commercial orchards in 2002. Acreage distribution among the three regions follows the distribution of plants. Southwest and north Georgia account for 3.2 percent of total acreage, with the balance located in the southeastern part of the state. Overall, the number of blueberry growers decreased by 32 percent, production acreage increased by 80.8 percent, and the plant number increased by 245.5 percent between 1991 and 2002 (Table 1).

The concentration of blueberry production is further illustrated with the county-level data (Table 2). Several counties, which reported from 4 to 14 growers in 1991, did not have any commercial growers in 2002. Three counties reported an increase in the number of commercial blueberry growers: Cherokee in North Georgia, and Bacon and Brantley in southeast Georgia. An examination of the number of plants by county shows a rapid growth of the blueberry industry in Appling, Bacon, Brantley, Clinch and Ware counties. Particularly high was the nearly tenfold increase in Appling county, which surpassed the fast growing number of blueberry plants in Clinch county. Bacon County continues to dominate the blueberry industry in Georgia, producing 36.4 percent of 2002 total production (Georgia Farm Gate Value Paper, 2002).

Plant Variety and Age

Tifblue and Climax were reported most often (Table 3) among the oldest plants. The total number of plants with the first growing season represents about 22 percent of all blueberry plants in Georgia. A similar per-centage is represented by plants with the first growing season in 2001 or 2002. The first half of the 1980s saw the largest expansion of blueberry orchards in North Georgia (10,670). Plantings since 1996 have been negligible in that part of the state. In southeast Georgia, the expansion of plantings was relatively slow between 1997 and 2000. More than 700,000 plants were introduced in commercial blueberry operations during the 1980s. Tifblue, Climax and Brightwell were planted most often. However, the popularity of Tifblue waned while Climax and Brightwell plantings became more frequent. This trend was particularly visible during the first half of the 1990s when the number of Brightwell and Climax plants was about three times higher than the number of newly planted Tifblue plants. Among new varieties that were more often planted between 1991 and 1995 than during the 1980s was Powderblue (Table 3). Since the mid-1990s varieties most often selected by commercial growers in southeast Georgia were Brightwell, Reveille, Premier, O'Neal, and Powderblue. During the same period, only 4,910 plants of Tifblue variety were planted in commercial orchards. Austin was a new variety planted in years 2001, 2002 and 2003. Overall, in terms of age, southeast Georgia gained about one million blueberry plants since 1996 (Table 3). Southwest Georgia saw an expansion of commercial blueberry plantings in the second half of the 1980s (Table 3). Two varieties, Climax and Tifblue, accounted for the majority of plants. In recent years, commercial plantings in southwest Georgia were sporadic.

Georgia experienced a rapid growth of commercial blueberry production at the beginning of the 21^st century. According to the information provided by growers, 681,871 plants were planted in 1995 or preceding years. Between 1996 and 2000, a total of 366,081 blueberry plants were added to commercial orchards. In 2001 and 2002 alone, a total of 701,626 plants were added to the existing stock, primarily in the southeastern part of the state.

The concentration of blueberry production in Georgia is evident when growers are grouped according to the numbers of operated plants (Table 4). In north Georgia, individual growers owned no more than 5,500 plants in 2002. In the southwestern region, the number of growers declined so precipitously that the distinction is of little informative value. However, in the southeast the numbers of large and small growers changed between 1991 and 2002. The number of large growers increased by 79 to 106, while the number of small growers decreased from 95 to 30, respectively.

The growing importance of large growers is further supported by the number of plants and acres in their orchards (Table 4). The number of plants operated by large growers increased 3.2 times, while acreage increased by 2.4 times. This trend toward greater concentration suggests that the commercial blueberry sector is now dominated by a group of growers who specialize, often exclusively, in the production of this crop.

Plant Spacing

Blueberry plant spacing is important because it directly affects the way in which cultural practices are performed. Furthermore, spacing determines harvesting. In north Georgia, where orchards are small, the most frequent spacings, 6x12 and "other," has not changed between 1991 and 2002. In southwest Georgia, small growers reported spacing their plants in the category 5x12 or 726 plants to an acre (59%) or "other" (33%). In 1991, the most often applied spacing was 6x12 feet or 605 plants to an acre (Table 5).

Among small growers in southeast Georgia, the most often used spacing in 1991, 6x12 feet, continues to enjoy its popularity. However, large growers showed a tendency to diversify spacings, which increased in all categories between 1991 and 2002 with the exception of the category 6x12 feet (Table 5).

Irrigation

Blueberry plants seem well adapted to periods of less than optimal water supply (Améglio et al. 1999) although supplemental irrigation is widely recognized as necessary to assure high yields of marketable quality fruit. Young southern highbush blueberries were found to be equally productive despite varying levels of irrigation, all of which were below the recommended irrigation rates (Byers and Moore 1987). However, some experts strongly recommend irrigation of young plants.

Supplemental irrigation of all crops proved to be invaluable in recent years in Georgia. The prolonged drought from 1989 until the fall of 2002 severely impacted the volume and quality of agricultural production. Inadequate soil moisture lowers yields and quality of blueberries, directly affecting the bottom line. Table 7 shows that growers, in general, recognize the importance of irrigation. The total share of growers reporting irrigation systems in their orchards increased from 71 percent in 1991 to 81 percent in 2002. The increase took place in all three regions. In north Georgia the increase was 10 percent, in southeast Georgia 9 percent, and in southwest Georgia 31 percent. The only group of growers reporting irrigating less were small growers in southeast Georgia. Because the number of small growers there also declined, it is likely that non-irrigated orchards will eventually withdraw from commercial production or will be harvested only if the weather and market conditions are favorable. Scherm et al. (2001) reported irrigation on 62.1 percent of total planted area and attributed this relatively low figure to the tendency of abandoning irrigation of old plants.

When asked about the type of irrigation (Table 8), growers indicated a major change. Drip irrigation, which was the most popular irrigation type in 1991, was replaced to a large degree by overhead irrigation. In southeast Georgia, 25 percent of large growers resigned from drip irrigation, and 48 percent reported using an overhead irrigation system. The decline of drip irrigation systems in southwest Georgia was even more pronounced and amounted to 33 percent among large growers and 34 percent among small growers, respectively. In contrast to 1991, in the 2002 survey, growers did not use gun or sprinkler irrigation systems.

Cultural Practices

Table 9 shows various cultural practices performed by Georgia commercial blueberry growers. In the northern part of the state, the use of pesticides declined with the exception of fungicides. A lower percentage of growers applied fertilizers, but a larger share of growers pruned their bushes. Theses changes in cultural practices reflect the general lower economic importance of blueberry production in north Georgia, marketing orientation, and the aging plants requiring selective cane removal. In southeast Georgia, growers used cultural practices with greater intensity in 2002 than in 1991 with the exception of two most often applied, i.e., mowing and fertilizing, and cultivation under the plants.

Diseases are a potential problem for blueberry growers in the southeastern United States. Mummy berry and fruit rot were found to inflict an economically significant loss on highbush blueberry yields in North Carolina (Cline and Milholland 1995). The susceptibility of various cultivars differed, however. O'Neal and Reveille, two cultivars planted in larger numbers in recent years in Georgia, were mostly free of mummy berry disease but showed about average frequency of fruit rot. The importance of breeding cultivars resistant to mummy berry and other diseases is recognized and reflected in experiments testing the resistance of existing cultivars in search for suitable parental material (Stretch and Ehlenfeldt 2000; Stretch et al. 2001). In Georgia, some experts recommend controlling mummy berry with timely sprays.

According to the survey summary, the use of insecticides and fungicides increased substantially. It is likely that the application of both these chemicals is primarily to address local insect infestations or disease incidence. Neither insecticides nor fungicides are used on a prescribed schedule but on "as needed" basis. Both insects and diseases were listed by growers, with any meaningful frequency, as a tertiary problem (Table 6).

It has been observed that the productivity of blueberry plants declines as canes age. Old canes produce fewer shoots and the berry size is reduced (Siefker and Hancock 1987) leading to lower production and earnings. Moderate pruning is viewed as helpful in maintaining fruit size without the yield reduction. Pruning of old plants may be cumbersome and labor-intensive. Experiments to hedge blueberry plants showed that the way in which plants are hedged and the timing of hedging influenced the yield but led to an increased berry size (Austin 1997). Overgrown plants prevent handpicking of berries, especially at the pick-your-own operations, but too tall plants also prevent mechanical harvesting. Pruning was reported by nearly three-quarters of growers, and the share of growers indicating this practice was 9 percent higher than in 1991. The relative changes in the application of cultural practices in southwest Georgia were very similar to the described changes in the southeastern part of the state (Table 9).

Production Problems Encountered by Georgia Growers

Overall, production problems reported by growers are related to pest presence and damage, weather conditions, or plant growth (size). In recent years, the drought has been the primary problem for many agricultural producers as well as for the majority of Georgia residents and businesses. Until the fall of 2002, drought conditions played havoc with almost all agricultural or horticultural enterprises in the southeast, leading to substantial losses. Even the indigenous crop such as blueberries experienced stress related to inadequate moisture. However, among the primary problems named by growers, freeze damage was ranked highest by growers from northern and southeastern regions. Freeze damage was ranked as the second most important problem by the southwestern growers, edged only by weed control (Table 6). Weed control was also often listed among the top three production problems by northern and southwestern growers. Vegetation control was found important, especially for the growth and establishment of young rabbiteye blueberry plants (NeSmith and Krewer, 1995). The latter group also listed problems with pollination, which has seldom been perceived as a problem by growers from other regions. In contrast, northern and southeastern, but not southwestern, growers reported the size of plants as a problem. Some of the planted bushes have been producing for three or more decades. If pruning was not regularly performed, plants may have grown to the size that prevents harvesting by either hand or combine.

Diseases were sporadically mentioned as a problem, although 21.1 percent and 9.4 percent of all cultivars in Georgia, respectively, are represented by Tifblue and Premier, which are susceptible to ripe rot (Smith, Magee and Gupton, 1996). It is possible that the dry weather in years preceding the survey contributed to low incidence of diseases. The incidence of mummy berry on Tifblue, for example, has been increasing when cool, rainy weather occurred during bloom (Krewer et al., 1986). Insects were mentioned more frequently than diseases, especially by southwestern growers. It is interesting, however, to see a greater use of fungicides and insecticides by growers. Although growers in north Georgia infrequently reported fungicide and insecticide use, growers in the two other regions increased their use as compared to the percent of growers applying them in 1991. Fungicide applications are recommended if cool and wet conditions persist in the field for several days (Smith, 1998).

Marketing Alternatives

Growers show an increasing concentration of sales for processing (freezing). Reports of blueberry sales for processing were reported by 62 percent of growers for southeast Georgia and 36 percent of growers from southwest Georgia, respectively (Table 10). Sales of blueberries for the fresh market decreased from 40 percent in 1991 to 37 percent in 2002. However, given the overall large increase in blueberry plants in Georgia, the absolute volume of blueberries sold for fresh market and processing dramatically increased.

Blueberry sales for juice and at roadside markets almost ceased by 2002. Pick-your-own sales remained the domain of the north Georgia growers (Table 10). Large growers did not report any sales as pick-our-own in 2002. It is possible that some pick-your-own blueberry orchards have been established in recent years in response to the strong demand by urban and suburban residents of the Atlanta metropolitan area. Among the top 10 counties in terms of the number of blueberry plants was Cherokee county in 2002. Although the plant number is very small, the opportunities for pick-your-own sales exist.

Summary

This report is based on the survey of commercial blueberry growers of Georgia conducted in 2002. The plant numbers include plantings for the season 2002/2003 if growers supplied such information outside the original request. The state was divided into three areas (north, southeast, and southwest). Growers were classified into two groups with large growers defined as operating more than 5,500 plants and small growers operating 5,500 or fewer blueberry plants.

Since the last inventory, which provided plant numbers for 1991 (Hubbard et al. 1992), the number of blueberry plants in commercial operations increased by more than 200 percent. Expanding blueberry fields were consistent with the expectations of new plantings expressed by growers in the previous survey.

The industry has become more concentrated geographically and in terms of the size of an operation. Southeastern Georgia dominates the production of blueberries. Concentration of commercial operations stretches from Clinch through Ware to Bacon, Appling and Pierce counties. Southeastern Georgia accounts for 97 percent of all plants in the state. The number of commercial growers in the state has decreased since 1991. Only small growers can be found in north Georgia, while their number has decreased substantially in the other two regions.

The share of growers irrigating their plants has increased since 1991. The recent drought, which lasted several years, likely contributed to the installation of the irrigation equipment in the fields. Although blueberry plants can produce berries at water supply levels far below the recommended rate, the volume and quality of berries is improved when dry spells are prevented. Growers, who invested in the plants, likely want to minimize any risk of damaging the crop due to insufficient moisture and may treat irrigation as a risk-avoiding measure.

North Georgia blueberry growers sold 95 percent of their crop as fresh. The share of the volume sold as fresh in the other two regions decreased in 2002 as compared to 1991. However, the poundage of blueberries sold either as fresh or frozen likely increased because of the large increase in the total blueberry production in the state.

The growth in the Georgia blueberry industry will continue. The strong demand for blueberries is consistent with consumer preferences emphasizing fresh produce consumption translating into relatively competitive prices for blueberries. Recent developments in Georgia suggest an expansion of the necessary distribution infrastructure which will facilitate fruit shipment reducing a technical barrier to blueberry industry growth.

References

Améglio, T., C. Perrier, X LeRoux, and M. Mingeau. 1999. Drought Effect on Water Relations and Fruit Yield in Highbush Blueberries. Fruits 54(6):423-430.

Austin, M. E. 1997. Winter vs. Summer Half-Hedging of 'Tifblue' Rabbiteye Blueberry Plants. J. Small Fruit & Viticulture 5(2):39-46.

Byers, P. L., and J. N. Moore. 1987. Irrigation Scheduling for Young Highbush Blueberry Plants in Arkansas. HortScience 22(1):52-54.

Cline, W. O., and R. D. Milholland. 1995. Diseases of Blueberry Fruit at Harvest in North Carolina. In: Blueberries: A Century of Research, R. E. Gough and R. F. Korcak, eds., The Haworth Press, Inc., pp 218-225.

Georgia Farm Gate Value Report. 2002. AR-03-01, Dept. of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia.

Hubbard, E. E., W. J. Florkowski, G. W. Krewer, and H. J. Witt. 1992. Commercial Blueberry Inventory and Prospectus, Georgia, 1991. Georgia Agricultural Experiment Stations, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, The University of Georgia, Research Report 608, July.

Krewer, G., S. Meyer, P. Bertrand, D. Horton, T. Murphy, and M. Austin. 1986. Commercial Blueberry Culture. Circ. #713, University of Georgia, Athens.

NeSmith, D.S., and G. Krewer. Vegetation-free Area Influences Growth and Establishment of Rabbiteye Blueberry. HortScience 30(7):1410-1412.

Scherm, H., D.S. NeSmith, D.L. Horton, and G. Krewer. A Survey of Horticultural and Pest Management Practices of the Georgia Blueberry Industry. Small Fruits Review 1(4):17-29.

Siefker, J. A., and J. F. Hancock. 1987. Pruning Effects on Productivity and Vegetable Growth in the High-bush Blueberry. HortScience 22(2):210-211.

Smith, B. J., J. B. Magee, and C. L. Gupton. 1996. Susceptibility of Rabbiteye Blueberry Cultivars to Post-harvest Diseases. Plant Disease 80(2):215-218.

Smith, B. J. 1998. Botrytis Blossom Blight of Southern Blueberries: Cultivar Susceptibility and Effect of Chemical Treatments. Plant Disease 82(8):924-926.

Stretch, A. W., and M. K. Ehlenfeldt. 2000. Resistance to the Fruit Infection Phase of Mummy Berry Disease in Highbush Blueberry Cultivars. HortScience 35(7):1271-1273.

Stretch, A. W., M. K. Ehlenfeldt, and V. Brewster. 2001. Resistance of Diploid Vaccinium spp. to the Fruit Rot Stage of Mummy Berry Disease. Plant Disease 85(1):27-30.

USDA. 2004. 2002-2003. Statistical Highlights of U.S. Agriculture. Available online at http://www.usda.gov/ nass/pubs/stathigh/2003/tables/crop.htm#fruitand nut [Accessed January 14, 2004].