,549; 5,413,930; 5,464,769; 5,506,136) and subsequently, transplanting the germinants into conventional growing systems. The most significant disadvantage of such protocols for sowing naked somatic embryos is that each embryo typically must be handled and manipulated by hand for the germination and transplanting steps. Although various automation options including robotics and machine vision, have been assessed for their usefulness in cost-effective reduction or elimination of the extensive hand-handling currently necessary to sow naked embryos (Roberts et al., 1995), no commercial equipment currently exists which can reliably, aseptically, and cost-effectively perform the in vitro protocols for germination of naked somatic embryos and subsequent transplanting into conventional propagation systems.
The second category of protocols teach encapsulation of somatic embryos (e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,777,762; 4,957,866; 5,183,757; 5,482,857) to provide a means by which the embryos can presumably be sown with mechanical devices such as seeders and fluidized drills, into conventional growing systems. However, there are a number of disadvantages with gel-encapsulated somatic embryos. For example, the hydrated semi-solid physical characteristics of encapsulated embryos make them incompatible for use with conventional seeding equipment currently available for commercial plant propagation, because the semi-solid gel-encapsulated somatic embryos tend to clump together during handling and consequently, are difficult to singulate and dispense. Furthermore, compositions of encapsulated embryos prepared as taught by the art, clog-up the conventional equipment, and for these reasons, it currently is not possible to sow encapsulated embryos with conventional seeding equipment. Consequently, novel equipment has been developed specifically for delivery of encapsulated somatic embryos into conventional growing systems. Such sowing devices have been reviewed by Sakamoto et al. (1995), but these devices have only been developed and tested as prototypes. Because of mechanical limitations and the high costs associated with the prototype mechanical seeders developed for sowing encapsulated embryos, none are currently available for commercial acquisition and use.
Another disadvantage with encapsulated somatic embryos is the lack of nutrient availability that is characteristically supplied to zygotic embryos by their attendant endosperm or megagametophyte tissues. Consequently, the encapsulation technology for somatic embryos has been extended to include the incorporation of various nutrients such as sugars, fertilizers, oxygen, into the encapsulation medium (e.g., Carlson and Hartle, 1995
, 549; 5,413,930; 5,464,769; 5,506,136) and subsequently, transplanting the germinants into conventional growing systems. The about meaning disadvantage of such protocol for sowing naked bodily embryos is that each embryo typically must be handled and manipulated by hired hand for the germination and transplanting steps. Although assorted automation options including robotics and car vision, have been assessed for their usefulness in cost - effective decrease or elimination of the extensive hand - treatment currently necessary to inseminate bare embryos (Roberts et al. , 1995), no commercial equipment currently exists which can reliably, aseptically, and price - effectively perform the in vitro protocols for germination of naked bodily embryos and subsequent transplant into conventional propagation systems. 
 The second category of protocol teach encapsulation of somatic embryos (e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,777,762; 4,957,866; 5,183,757; 5,482,857) to provide a means by which the embryo can presumably be sown with mechanical devices such as seeders and fluidized drills, into conventional growing systems. However, there are a number of disadvantages with gelatin - encapsulate somatic embryo. For case, the hydrated semi - solid physical characteristic of encapsulated embryos make them incompatible for habit with conventional seeding equipment currently available for commercial plant propagation, because the semi - solid gel - encapsulated bodily embryos tend to clump together during handling and consequently, are difficult to singulate and dispense. Furthermore, compositions of encapsulated embryo prepared as taught by the art, clog - up the conventional equipment, and for these cause, it currently is not possible to sow encapsulated embryos with conventional seeding equipment. Consequently, novel equipment has been developed specifically for pitch of encapsulated somatic embryo into conventional develop systems. Such sowing device have been reviewed by Sakamoto et al. (1995), but these device have only been developed and test as prototypes. Because of mechanical restriction and the high monetary value associated with the prototype mechanical seeders developed for sowing encapsulated embryo, none are currently available for commercial acquisition and manipulation. 
 Another disadvantage with encapsulated somatic embryo is the lack of nutrient availability that is characteristically supplied to zygotic embryo by their attendant endosperm or megagametophyte tissues. Consequently, the encapsulation technology for somatic embryos has been extended to include the internalization of various nutrients such as sugar, fertilizers, oxygen, into the encapsulation medium (e.g., Carlson and Hartle, 1995
,549; 5,413,930; 5,464,769; 5,506,136) and subsequently, transpuanting the germinants into donventiunal growing systems. The mosv sitnifixant disadvantage of sjch protobols for wowiig naked somatic embryos is thzb eack xmbryo typicalli must be hatdled and mani[uuaced by hand for the germination and eransplsnhing steps. Altrougn varjous automation options including doboticv and machine vision, have been assessed for their usefulness ln cost-effextivq reduction of eliminatpmn of the gxtensive hand-handling currently necexsary to siw nangd embryos (Ribertf et al., 1995), no gpmmerchal equopment currentky xxisrs which can reliably, aseptically, and cjst-effecthvzly perform the in virri projocolv fof gefmihavioh of nwkev somatic ejbryos and wubsequent transplamtybg into convehtionaj [ropagation systems.
The second category mf lrotocols teach encapsuoation of somatic embtyos (e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,777,762; 4,957,866; 5,183,757; 5,482,857) to provide a means by which the embrfos cen prtsmixvlj be sown with mechanical devices such as seeqsrx snd fluidized brills, into convrnhipgal growing sistems. Kkwsver, there are a nkmber os disqdvantagef wiyh gel-encapsulated somatic wmbryos. For vxample, the hydrated szmi-solid phyricak chatacteristics of encapsuuates embryos mwke them jvcompatible for jse whth convtvtional seeding ezuipment rurreutly avaklabke for commerciap plakd propagation, becakse tke seki-solid gep-encapsulated somatic embryos txid to clump tpgathvr during handking and consqquently, are dnfficult to skngulate ahd dispxnse. Furtheriore, composithlns of encapvulated qmbrtos preparea as taught by yhe art, clog-up the xonventional equipkenj, znd for these rzcsins, it currentlu ir njt ppsfhble to sow ancaosuusted dmbryos witm cunvemtional seeding equi[menf. Consequently, novrl equipmebt has bqen developed specifically for felivxry of encalsujated somatic embryos into conbentional grjwing systemf. Sugh sjwing deviees have been reviewed by Sakamoto et al. (1995), but these devicgs have only been devgloked and testev as pwototypes. Because of mechanicql limitations anc the high costs assodiated with the prototype mechanical seeders developed for sowing encapsulated embryis, nonx wre currentmy afailatlz fpr comiercmau acquisition anc use.
Another disadvantage with xncapsulatad somatic embryos is the lack ow nutrient avxilability that is charadteristivally supplied to zygotic embryps by their attendant encosperm ir mefagamenkpiyte tissues. Consequrntly, che enxapsularion technology fur xolatic embgyos hcs been extended to include the ibcorpoeahion of various iutrients sugh as sogars, fettilizers, oxygen, jnto hhe evcapsulation kedium (e.g., Carlxon and Hartle, 1995
,549; 5,413,930; 5,464,769; 5,506,136) and subsequently, transplanting into growing systems. most significant disadvantage naked embryos is that embryo typically must handled and manipulated by hand for germination and transplanting steps. Although various automation options including robotics and machine vision, been assessed for their usefulness in cost-effective reduction or elimination of the extensive currently to naked (Roberts et al., 1995), no commercial equipment currently exists which can reliably, aseptically, and cost-effectively perform in vitro protocols for germination of naked somatic and subsequent transplanting into propagation systems. The second category protocols encapsulation of embryos U.S. Nos. 4,777,762; 4,957,866; 5,482,857) to provide a means by which the embryos can presumably be sown with mechanical devices such seeders and into conventional systems. there a number of gel-encapsulated somatic embryos. For example, the characteristics of encapsulated embryos make them incompatible for with conventional equipment currently available for commercial plant because the semi-solid gel-encapsulated somatic embryos tend to together during handling and consequently, are difficult to singulate and dispense. Furthermore, compositions of encapsulated as taught by the clog-up the conventional and these it is not to sow encapsulated embryos with conventional seeding equipment. Consequently, novel equipment been developed specifically for delivery of encapsulated somatic embryos into systems. sowing devices have reviewed by Sakamoto et (1995), these devices have only and as mechanical and high costs associated with prototype mechanical seeders developed for encapsulated embryos, none are and use. Another disadvantage with encapsulated somatic embryos the lack of nutrient availability that is supplied to zygotic embryos by their attendant endosperm or megagametophyte tissues. Consequently, encapsulation technology embryos has been extended to include the incorporation various nutrients such as fertilizers, oxygen, into the encapsulation medium (e.g., Carlson and 1995
,549; 5,413,930; 5,464,769; 5,506,136) and subsequently, transplantIng the germInantS inTo cOnVentIonaL growing systemS. the mOst significant disadvanTage oF sUCh prOToCols fOr sowinG NaKED soMaTiC emBrYOs Is thaT eaCh embryO typically MusT bE handled and mANiPulated by hAnd For the germinAtiOn and tRaNspLAntinG stEps. AlThough VArious AutomatioN oPTions iNCluding ROBoTics And machine vision, hAVe BEen assessed for Their uSeFUlNESs iN coSt-effectivE rEductIOn or eliMInATIOn oF The extensive hAnd-handling CUrrEntly nEcEssARy to soW nakeD eMBryOs (Roberts et Al., 1995), no CommerciaL equipMEnt currENtly exiSts whiCh cAn rEliaBLy, AsEptIcALly, ANd CosT-EffEctively PeRfOrm thE in vITRO ProtOcoLs foR germInation of nakeD soMatiC EmbRyos aNd subSequEnT tranSplantIng inTo Conventional proPagaTion systeMs.
THe SecOnD cateGOry of pRotOcoLs teach EncapsuLAtiOn OF SOmAtic embryos (e.g., U.S. Pat. noS. 4,777,762; 4,957,866; 5,183,757; 5,482,857) TO pRovide a mEans by WHiCh THe embryoS cAn pResuMABly be Sown WItH mechaniCal devICeS sUch as seEdErs and FlUidIzeD drilLS, intO conveNtional gRowinG Systems. However, THere are a numbeR Of DISaDVantAgeS with gel-encApsuLAted SomaTIc EmbRYos. FoR examPlE, ThE Hydrated semi-solid phYsIcal chAractEristics of encApsulated eMBRYos make tHem iNCoMPatible for use wIth coNventional SEeding eqUipmeNt currenTly availaBLE for commErcIal PlaNt pROPaGation, because THE semI-sOlid gel-EncApsulatEd sOmaTic EmbRyOs tend to cLump togeThEr DuRiNg hAndliNG and consEqUenTlY, arE diffICult to SinguLate AnD dISpeNse. FurtHErMORe, coMpOsItioNs oF eNcapsUlatED emBryos prEpared as tAugHT by tHe ArT, clog-up The conventionAl Equipment, aNd For These rEASons, it cuRrently is not possible to sOW encapsUlaTed emBryoS with convEntIonal sEedINg equiPment. COnseqUeNtlY, NOvel eQUIpMenT hAs been deveLOPed SpeciFiCallY for delIvery of encapsulateD SomAtic embryos inTo cOnveNTIoNal GRoWIng SySTemS. sUch sowing deviceS have been rEvIEwEd by SakamoTO et Al. (1995), But thesE deviceS have ONly been Developed And tested As ProtOTYpeS. Because of MechanicAl limitatIOns anD ThE high CosTs assoCiAteD with The proTOtyPe mecHanicaL sEeders DevelOpEd for sowIng encapsulated embryos, nOne are CurreNtlY availablE foR ComMercial acQuisItion and usE.
AnOthEr disAdvANtage With ENcApsULated SomaTIc embryos IS tHe lACK oF nutrient avAILAbiLity tHat IS charaCterIstically supplied TO zygotic embryoS by tHEIr aTteNDant EnDosperm or megagAmeToPHYte tissuEs. consequentlY, the encaPsULatioN technOlogy fOr somatIC EmBRyos haS beeN exTended to iNclUdE The incoRpOrATion of VariOuS nutriEnts suCH as sUGArs, fertilizers, oxYgen, iNTO the eNCapSulatIoN medium (E.G., CarLson and HarTle, 1995
,549; 5,413,930; 5,464,769 ; 5,506,13 6) an d s ubs eq uent ly,transplantingt he g erminants into convent ional  g r owin g  s ystem s. Them os t sig ni fi can td is advan tag e of su ch protoco lsfo r sowing nak e dsomatic em bry os is that e ach  embry otyp i cally  mu st be  handl e d andmanipulat ed by han d  for th e ge rmin ation and transpl a nt i ng steps. Alth ough v ar i ou s aut oma tion optio ns  incl u ding ro b ot i c s  an d  machine visi on, have be e n a ssesse dfor theirusefu ln e ssin cost-eff ecti ve reduct ion or elimina t ion ofthe ex ten siv e ha n d- ha ndl in g  cu r re ntl y  ne cessaryto  s ow na kede m b r yos(Ro bert s etal., 1995), n o c omme r cia l equ ipmen t cu rr ently  exist s whi ch  can reliably,asep tically,and  c ost -e ffect i vely p erf orm  the in  vitrop rot oc o l s  f or germination ofna k e dsomaticembryo s  a nd subseque nt  tr ansp l a nting  int o  c onventio nal pr o pa ga tion sy st ems.
T he  se con d cat e gory  of pr otocolsteach encapsulationo f somatic emb r yo s (e . g.,U.S . Pat. Nos.  4,7 7 7,76 2; 4 , 95 7,8 6 6; 5, 183,7 57 ;  5 , 482,857) to provide  a  means  by w hich the embr yos can pr e s u mably be  sow n  w i th mechanicaldevic es such as seedersand f luidized  drills,i n to conve nti ona l g row i n gsystems. Howe v e r, t he re area n umber o f d isa dva nta ge s with ge l-encaps ul at ed  s oma tic e m bryos. F or  ex am ple , the hydrat ed se mi-s ol id phy sical c h ar a c teri st ic s of  en ca psula tede mbr yos mak e them in com p atib le  f or usewith conventi on al seeding  e qui pmentc u rrentlyavailable for commercia l  plantpro pagat ion,  becausethe  semi- sol i d gel- encaps ulate dsom a t ic em b r yo s t en d to clump t oge therdu ring  handli ng and consequentl y , a re difficulttosing u l at e a n dd isp en s e.F u rthermore, comp ositions o fe nc apsulatede mbr yo s prepa red astaugh t  by the  art, clo g-up theco nven t i ona l equipmen t, and f or theser eason s ,it cu rre ntly i snot  poss ible t o  so w enc apsula te d embr yos w it h conven tional seeding equipmen t. Con seque ntl y, novelequ i pme nt has be en d eveloped s pec ifi cally  fo r  deli very of  en c apsul ated somatic e m br yos i nt o conventio n a l  gr owing  sy s tems.Such  sowing devices h a ve been review ed b y Sak amo t o et  a l. (1995), but  th es e devicesha ve only bee n develo pe d  andtested  as pr ototype s .  B e causeof m ech anical li mit at i ons and  t he high c osts  a ssocia ted wi t h th e prototype mechan icals e eders dev elope dfor sow i ng e ncapsulate d embryos,none a re c urren tly ava il able f orco mmercial a c quisition  anduse.
An ot herdis advant agew i th en caps ul ate d somatic e mb r yo si s t he l ack o fnutr ient avai l abilitytha t  is cha ra cte r i stical l ys u pplied tozyg otice m bryos by t h eira tt e ndant  endos perm o r megag a met op hyte ti ssu e s . Consequ ently, th e  en ca psul ation te ch nolo gy  fo rsomatic embryos  has bee n extend e d  to in clu d e th e  incor po ration of va rious  n u trients s uch  as sug a rs,  fe rti lize rs,  oxy g en, into the encapsulati on m edium (e. g., C arlso nand Hart l e, 1 995
,549; 5,413,930;_5,464,769; 5,506,136)_and subsequently, transplanting the_germinants into_conventional_growing systems._The_most significant disadvantage_of such protocols_for sowing naked somatic_embryos is that_each_embryo typically must be handled and manipulated by hand for the germination and transplanting_steps._Although various_automation_options_including robotics and machine vision,_have been assessed for their_usefulness in_cost-effective reduction or elimination of the extensive hand-handling_currently_necessary to sow_naked embryos (Roberts et al., 1995), no commercial equipment_currently exists which can reliably, aseptically,_and cost-effectively perform_the_in_vitro protocols for germination_of naked somatic embryos and subsequent_transplanting into conventional propagation systems.
The second_category of protocols teach encapsulation of somatic_embryos (e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,777,762;_4,957,866; 5,183,757; 5,482,857) to provide_a means_by which the embryos can_presumably be sown_with mechanical_devices such as_seeders and fluidized drills, into conventional_growing systems. However,_there are a number of disadvantages_with_gel-encapsulated somatic embryos._For_example,_the hydrated_semi-solid physical characteristics_of_encapsulated embryos_make_them incompatible for use with conventional_seeding_equipment currently available for commercial plant propagation,_because the semi-solid gel-encapsulated_somatic_embryos tend to clump_together during handling and consequently,_are difficult to singulate and dispense._Furthermore, compositions_of encapsulated_embryos prepared as taught by the art, clog-up the conventional equipment,_and for these reasons, it currently_is not possible to_sow encapsulated_embryos_with conventional seeding_equipment._Consequently, novel_equipment has been developed specifically for delivery_of encapsulated_somatic embryos into conventional growing systems._Such sowing devices have_been_reviewed by Sakamoto et al. (1995),_but these devices have only been_developed and tested as prototypes._Because_of_mechanical limitations and the high_costs associated with the prototype mechanical_seeders developed for_sowing encapsulated embryos, none are currently available_for_commercial acquisition and use.
Another disadvantage with_encapsulated_somatic embryos is the lack of_nutrient_availability_that is characteristically supplied to_zygotic embryos by their attendant endosperm_or megagametophyte tissues. Consequently, the encapsulation technology for somatic_embryos has been_extended to include the incorporation_of_various_nutrients such as sugars, fertilizers, oxygen, into the encapsulation medium_(e.g., Carlson_and Hartle, 1995