diplomsko delo
Eva Metelko (Author), Metka Hudina (Mentor)

Abstract

Brez redčenja breskovih cvetov ali plodov ne moremo doseči želene količine in kakovosti pridelka. Poznani so trije načini redčenja: mehanski, kemični in ročni. Najpogosteje se breskev redči ročno, kemični in mehanski način pa služita kot alternativa predvsem v intenzivnih nasadih. Pri mehanskemu redčenju, kjer gre za fizično odstranitev cvetov, je učinek viden takoj, s pregledom nasada se določi ali je potrebno redčenje zmanjšati ali zvečati. Slabost je neselektivnost in neenakomernost redčenja v krošnji. V Kanadi so testirali metodo, ki odstrani cvetove z vodo pod velikim tlakom, brez kakršnihkoli kemikalij, vendar je še v postopku optimizacije. V preteklih letih je bilo testiranih veliko kemičnih sredstev za redčenje, kot so: abscizinska kislina, tergitol, giberelinska kislina, vodikov cianamid, amonijev tiosulfat, armothin, žvepleno apno, evgenol. Kemično redčenje zmanjša stroške redčenja, omogoča relativno hiter nanos v kratkem časovnem obdobju, lahko se pojavi fitotoksičnost, je neselektivno ter v večini zahteva dodatno korekcijsko ročno redčenje. Za uspešno kemično redčenje je pomembno poznavanje koncentracije sredstva za redčenje, uspeh je odvisen tudi od vremenskih razmer in sorte breskve. Kljub vsem alternativam, s katerimi se sadjarji skušajo prebiti do enakovrednih rezultatov ročnemu redčenju, je le-ta še vedno najboljši način redčenja. Problem ročnega redčenja je potreba po velikem številu usposobljene delovne sile, času in denarju, prednost pa je selektivnost, ki doprinese k večjemu in kakovostnejšemu pridelku.

Keywords

sadjarstvo;breskev;Prunus persica;redčenje;pridelek;kakovost;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Typology: 2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization: UL BF - Biotechnical Faculty
Publisher: [E. Metelko]
UDC: 634.25:631.542.2:631.559(043.2)
COBISS: 9017209 Link will open in a new window
Views: 1063
Downloads: 303
Average score: 0 (0 votes)
Metadata: JSON JSON-RDF JSON-LD TURTLE N-TRIPLES XML RDFA MICRODATA DC-XML DC-RDF RDF

Other data

Secondary language: English
Secondary title: ǂThe ǂinfluence of different thinning methods on the quantity and quality of peach (Prunus persica L.)
Secondary abstract: Without thinning of peach flowers or fruits we cannot achieve the desired quantity and quality of the yield. There are three known methods of thinning: mechanical, chemical and hand thinning. Most often peaches are hand thinned, whereas chemical and mechanical thinning serves as an alternative primarily in intensive orchards. With mechanical thinning, where physical removal of blossoms is concerned, the effect is visible immediately, and with the inspection of the orchard it is determined whether the thinning is to be reduced or increased. A disadvantage is non-selectivity and unevenness of thinning in the crown. In Canada, a method has been tested where blossoms are removed under high pressured water without any chemicals, but it is still in the process of optimization. Over the past years, many chemical thinning agents have been tested, such as: abscisic acid, tergitol, gibberellic acid, hydrogen cyanamide, ammonium thiosulfate, armothin, lime sulfur, eugenol. Chemical thinning reduces the cost of thinning, allows a relatively quick application over a short period of time, phytotoxicity can occur, is non-selective and in most cases requires additional corrective hand thinning. For a successful chemical thinning it is important to know the concentration of the thinner, and the success also depends on weather conditions and peach cultivars. Despite all the alternatives with which fruit growers try to reach the equivalent results to hand thinning, hand thinning is still the best. The problem of hand thinning is the need for a large number of skilled labour, time and money, and the advantage is selectivity, which contributes to a bigger and better quality yield.
Secondary keywords: fruit growing;peach;thinning;yield;quality;
Type (COBISS): Bachelor thesis/paper
Study programme: 0
Embargo end date (OpenAIRE): 1970-01-01
Thesis comment: Univ. v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fak., Oddelek za agronomijo
Pages: VI, 19 str.
ID: 10955056