The Complexity of Fruit Canopies

Last week I was present as an exhibitor at Fruitlogistica. Time and time again, I am deeply impressed by all the stands! What energy! But one of the things that also caught my attention were the many different systems for harvest protection. That is, of course, my area of expertise, so I pay extra attention to it. That's why I wrote this article.

Growers are becoming increasingly international. The world is getting smaller. That's why we closely monitor the international market. Where can we improve the systems to better protect crops? As experts in the field, we at FruitSecurity Holland understand that the nuances of fruit protection systems are often overlooked by outsiders.

Hail net systems and rain canopies are not just systems that protect fruit. Behind these systems lies science, experience, and a healthy dose of creativity. They are shaped by the complex interplay of location, geography, and climate. Economy and technology are also important ingredients in the design and construction of protection systems.

Nowhere is this clearer than when we compare the fruit protection systems of Chile and Europe, especially considering the striking price difference between these two regions.

Fruit Protection Systems: More than Just Protection

Fruit protection systems, whether they are nets, foil canopies, or advanced glass greenhouses, serve multiple crucial functions. They protect fruit from unpredictable weather conditions, prevent damage from birds and insects, and can even help manage the climate. But not all systems are created equal. In Chile and Europe, we see enormous differences, not only in the construction and materials of the systems but also in the costs associated with them.

Why Costs Differ: Chile versus Europe

Climate and Geography: Chile's unique geography, stretching from the dry Atacama Desert in the north to the cold, mountainous south, requires systems that can handle a diversity of climatic conditions. Europe, with its own climate diversity, also imposes different requirements on its systems, although the climate zones are more moderate and predictable than those in Chile.

Technology and Innovation: At FruitSecurity Holland, we have observed that European systems tend towards technological refinement. They can incorporate automated systems, climate controls, and high-quality materials, resulting in higher costs. Chilean systems, while effective, rely more on functionality than technological flair, which helps to keep costs down.

Economic Factors: We cannot ignore that the costs of labor, materials, and even the business climate play a role. Europe generally has higher labor costs and stronger regulations, which contribute to the costs of the systems. Chile, with its favorable climate for agriculture, has access to cheaper local materials and labor, reducing costs.

Regulation and Policy: European farmers often have to comply with strict EU standards for environmental protection and food safety, which can increase the initial investment in systems. In Chile, although sustainability and safety are also important, regulatory pressure may be less intense, leading to lower compliance costs.

Conclusion:

The world of fruit protection systems is broad and diverse, as is evident when comparing the systems in Chile and Europe. At FruitSecurity Holland, we believe that understanding these differences is crucial, not only for companies in our sector but also for consumers and policymakers. As we strive for innovation and protection of our crops, we must also keep economic and ecological sustainability in mind. By learning from the unique practices and challenges of different regions, we can collaborate to create more robust, cost-effective, and sustainable solutions for fruit protection systems worldwide.