Brooks, William M.

Myers, Gerald G.

Utzinger, James D.

Wertz, Monica K.

Wittmeyer, Eugene C.

KnowledgeBank at OSU

I, 'I I Horticulture Series No. 535 1,9 83 FRESH MARKET STAKED TOMATO TRIAL William M. Brooks, Monica K. Wertz, James D. Utzinger Eugene C. Wittmeyer and Gerald G. Myers THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY .OHIO AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER Wooster January 1984 This page intentionally blank.1983 FRESH MARKET STAKED TO~~TO TRIALWilliam M. Brooks, Monica K. Wertz, James D. UtzingerEugene C. Wittmeyer and Gerald G. Myers lThis is another report of a continuing series designed to evaluatecurrently used and new cultivars of fresh marekt tomatoes.Trial Design. Ten cultivars were grown with 3 replications and 49 othercultivars were grown in non-replicated observation plots. Spacing was 48inches between rows and 18 inches between plants within rows. There were 15plants per single row plot, equivalent to 7,260 plants per acre. Plants werepruned to the first cluster. Stakes were placed at two plant intervals andmetal fence posts were positioned at the ends of each row.Cultural Practices. Seed was sown on March 30, 1983. Seedlings weretransplanted to 48 count cell paks on AprilS and field set on May 27. Onethousand pounds/acre 15-15-15 were broadcast and worked in after plowing.Each plant received ~ pint of 10-52-8 starter solution, mixed 3 pounds per50 gallons of water, at time of field planting. Seventy-five pounds/acreammonium nitrate was sidedressed as needed. Weed control consisted of Treflanat 1 pound ai/acre preplant incorporated and Sencor at 1/4 pound ai/acreafter the plants were well established. Irrigation was applied at a rate of1" per week as needed.Weather Data. University Farm Weather Station - Columbus.Mean Temperature (OF) PrecipitationMonth Max. Min. Avg. Rain (inches) Deviation from NormalMay 69.5 45.8 57.7 6.75 +2.23June 81.3 58.2 69.8 3.03 -0.97July 88.6 65.0 76.8 2.01 -2.10August 89.7 62.5 76.1 2.81 -0.77September 81.3 51.9 66.6 2.95 -0.02October 66.5 43.1 54.8 3.55 +1.401. Mailing address: Department of Horticulture, The Ohio State University,2001 Fyffe Court, Columbus, Ohio 43210.All publications of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Develop-ment Center are available to all on a nondiscriminatory basis withoutregard to race, color, national origin, sex, or religious affiliation.1/84/5-444/Participating Seed Companies.CodeA-I Abbott &Cobb, Inc., P,O. Box 307, Feasterville, PA 19047A-2 Asgrow Seed Co., Kalamazoo, MI 49003B-1 George J. Ball, Inc., West Chicago, IL 60185C-l A. L. Castle, Inc., P.O. Box 877, Morgan Hill, CA 95037F-l Ferry-Morse Seed Co., San Juan Bautista, CA 95045F-2 University of Florida - Agricultural Research and Education Center,Bradenton, 5007 60th Street East, Bradenton, FL 33508 (Dr. Jay Scott)H-l Joseph Harris Co., Rochester, NY 14624L-l Lethermans Seed Co., Canton, OH 44707M-l Moran Seeds, Inc., Davis Research Center, P.O. Box 2508, El Macero,CA 95618P-l Peto Seed Co., Inc., Box 4206, Saticoy, CA 93003S~l Siegers Seed Co., 7245 Imlay City Road, Imlay City, MI 48444S-2 Stokes Seeds, Inc., 737 Main St., Box 548, Buffalo, NY 14240Results and DiscussionThe first harvest was made on July 25 and the last on October 19. Theearly part of the growing season was extremely wet this year, followed bythree months of below average rainfall. This is reflected in the overalllow early marketable yields, and in the high percentage of culls early(averaging 25% vs. 5% in previous years), most of which were fruit withblossom-end rot. The crop finished off relatively well, with improvedenvironmental conditions later in the season. Plot location had a negativeeffect also on yield since the soil in this area was very compacted. Thisespecially affected the front section of the field where the 1st two repsof the replicated trail were located. The staking procedure was improved overlast year and worked very well. It is questionable as to what effect, if any,smaller transplant size had on early and total yields. Transplants thisyear were grown in 48 count cell pak trays; 32 count trays were used inprevious trials.Results of the replicated trial are in Table 1. President was the bestyielding cultivar, both early and total marketable, and had an above averagefruit size. Freedom had the second highest marketable yield, early and forthe season, and had the largest fruit size for the season. It must be kept inmind, as mentioned previously, that early marketable yields were lower thisyear, and percentage of culls early was higher. Jet Star and Better Boy hadthe fewest number of blossom-end rot problems early.In the observation trial (Table 2), Vegas (FM-X70) was the best earlymarketable yielding line in addition to possessing good fruit size. It alsodid well for the total season. Burgis had the highest total marketable yieldof any cultivar in both the replicated and observation trials. Independencewas consistently good; Liberty also had good yield, but was smaller-fruited.Other promising cultivars included HXP 2792, Celebrity, and Bingo (FM-X45).-2-Disease Resistance, Fruit Quality, and Plant Habit. Disease resistancesas noted by the seed companies for all cultivars tested are listed in Table 3.Fruit quality ratings taken at harvest time include internal appearance (basedon color and wall thickness), green shoulder, and fruit defects includingradial and concentric cracking, catfacing, zippering, and blotchy ripening.Plant habit classifications, where supplied by seed company, are noted in thefinal column. The cultivars in Table 3 are listed in the same order as theyappear in Tables 1 and 2.Taste Panel. A tomato taste panel was conducted for the first time thisyear on 20 selected cultivars from both the replicated and observations. Theresults of this panel are listed in Table 4. Taste and texture were evaluatedby a 10 person panel at peak harvest time. The rating scale ranged from verygood (5 points) to very poor (1 point). A tally of total points was then taken.Cultivars are ranked in the table according to decreasing number of pointsfor taste: Starpak, Freedom, Early Set, 7065-VSBK, Jackpot, and Presidentall ranked high. This information, along with the information in Table 3, isprovided in order to further assist the grower in evaluating any potentiallygood yielding cultivars.Table 1. Replicated Staked Trial: Yield, Grade, and Fruit Size of Tomato Cultivars, Columbus, Ohio, 1983Early Harvest to August 9 Total Harvest to October 19Seed Marketable Yield Percent Marketable Yield PercentCultivar* Source (Tons/Acre) by Weight Fruit (Tons/Acre) By Weight FruitNo. 1 Total No. 1 Culls Size (oz.) No. 1 Total No. 1 Culls Size (oz.)---President P-1 3.23 3.61 72 20 5.61 27.14 35.38 71 8 5.17Freedom A-I 2.18 2.88 65 14 5.63 23.05 33.25 64 8 6.12Fresh Pak H-1 1.84 2.18 64 23 5.00 15.83 23.40 62 8 5.31Jet Star H-l 1.45 1.62 87 2 4.84 19.46 26.18 68 9 4.03Better Boy B-1 1.42 1.59 83 7 6.05 21.40 32.67 62 5 5.36Star Pak H-1 1.39 2.13 48 27 3.75 17.49 23.47 67 10 4.29Count Fleet (FMX-46) F-l 1.33 1.45 69 24 5.74 20.38 30.81 61 8 5.25Royal Flush F-l 0.72 0.73 46 54 5.24 14.64 19.55 61 18 5.03Castlehy 1041 C-l 0.37 0.58 35 45 5.00 20.37 26.55 70 12 4.84Hayslip F-2 0.33 0.39 53 38 3.26 21.76 34.46 58 8 5.20I~ LSD 5% 1.87 1.98 1.44 NSD NSD 0.72I*Cultivars ranked in decreasing order of early yield of U.S. No.1 grade fruits. Data based on mean of 3 replications.Table 2. Observation Staked Trial: Yield, Grade, and Fruit Size of Tomato Cultivars, Columbus, Ohio, 1983Early Harvest to August 9 Total Harvest to October 19Seed Marketable Yield Percent Marketable Yield PercentCu1tivar* Source (Tons/Acre) by Weight Fruit (Tons/Acre) By Weight FruitNo.1 Total No. 1 Culls Size (oz.) No. 1 Total No. 1 Culls Size (oz.)Vegas (FM-X70) F-l 3.10 3.29 92 2 7.25 33.18 49.20 67 4 5.26Pik Red H-l 3.05 3.85 77 3 6.52 22.99 28.04 76 7 6.02Independence A-I 2.56 3.10 60 28 4.65 40.46 52.18 73 6 5.35HXP 2792 H-1 2.44 3.24 74 2 5.64 35.86 46.00 76 2 5.48Celebrity P-1 2.40 2.63 80 12 6.01 32.04 43.72 69 6 4.71Liberty A-I 2.23 2.30 95 2 4.61 40.61 53.99 71 5 4.24PSX 38179 P-1 2.15 2.71 72 9 5.27 21.39 30.12 52 27 4.99Basket Vee S-2 2.08 2.95 64 9 3.42 27.32 33.78 77 5 4.31Burgis F-2 1.91 2.01 91 5 5.11 44.81 58.41 74 4 5.25PSX 31877 P-1 1.79 2.06 58 29 5.67 14.42 19.02 70 8 5.05Contessa P-1 1.67 1.69 82 17 4.87 27.95 39.13 62 13 3.85I Count II P-1 1.62 2.11 74 4 3.76 35.84 46.46 75 3 4.05V1I Duke P-1 1.60 2.20 69 5 4.85 35.28 42.96 78 6 4.87Winners Circle (FM-X59) F-l 1.55 1.57 84 14 6.50 30.95 40.87 68 11 5.34HXP 2790 H-1 1.47 2.08 66 7 4.68 30.76 40.44 74 3 5.15SSX 86621 S-l 1.45 1.91 75 1 5.27 24.97 35.13 67 6 5.58FM2CR2 H-l 1.30 1.37 81 15 5.36 28.85 40.03 68 5 5.01Pole King A-I 1.28 1.36 85 10 5.27 37.34 47.72 74 6 5.20SSX 86620 S-l 1.21 1.62 70 6 5.36 27.64 39.37 67 4 5.34Bingo (FM-X45) F-1 1.09 1.11 92 6 6.69 41.43 55.80 70 6 5.36Jackpot F-1 0.99 1.57 34 46 4.33 17.40 21.95 69 13 4.95Blazer M-1 0.97 1.55 29 54 5.69 23.72 29.94 67 16 4.61Sunny LCII A-2 0.92 1.16 79 0 4.04 34.73 44.96 75 3 4.69ACX-82415l A-I 0.89 1.72 51 3 4.94 18.39 28.99 57 10 5.22Count II A-I 0.89 0.99 64 29 4.37 32.11 41.67 74 5 4.76Stokes Pak VFN S-2 0.82 1.72 15 69 3.79 14.20 25.87 43 22 3.39PSX 879 P-1 0.82 1.48 34 38 2.87 14.30 23.08 50 20 3.807045-EBK F-2 0.80 0.85 97 3 6.22 24.37 39.30 57 9 4.82Early Set H-1 0.77 1.62 39 19 2.82 23.16 38.50 53 12 3.00PSR 38679 P-1 0.63 0.85 47 36 5.60 28.24 35.26 74 8 5.08Liberator F-1 0.63 0.73 87 0 4.80 33.61 47.52 64 9 4.99Sunray H-1 0.61 0.63 83 13 5.94 22.48 30.37 71 4 4.57Duchess P-1 0.61 0.63 27 72 5.20 31.27 37.92 68 17 5.04Table 2. Observation Staked Trial: Yield, Grade, and Fruit Size of Tomato Cultivars, Columbus, Ohio, 1983 (Continued)Early Harvest to August 9 Total Harvest to October 19Seed Marketable Yield Percent Marketable Yield PercentCu1tivar* Source (Tons/Acre) by Weight Fruit (Tons/Acre) By Weight FruitNo.1 Total No. 1 Culls Size (oz.) No.1 Total No.1 Culls Size (oz.)Lucky Draw (FM-X55A) F-1 0.46 0.51 36 60 4.20 28.87 40.56 54 24 4.62HXP 2791 H-l 0.44 0.48 86 5 3.56 30.35 39.37 71 8 4.76PSR 879 P-l 0.39 0.58 43 35 3.49 27.01 38.45 66 6 3.58Cast1ehy 105 C-l 0.39 0.39 100 0 5.12 26.31 40.37 63 4 4.58Castle 7C773 C-1 0.34 0.39 64 27 5.12 36.28 48.18 72 5 5.09Hybrid #980 L-1 0.32 0.87 33 8 7.20 33.90 44.67 73 4 4.41Beefsteak Plus VF L-1 0.29 0.29 71 29 6.40 20.86 28.24 70 5 5.16Florida 1B F-2 0.19 0.27 73 0 3.52 18.71 26.49 68 3 5.34I 7065-VSBK F-2 0.15 0.29 9 82 2.74 19.12 25.87 66 10 5.140\I Castle 7C774 C-1 0.07 0.07 43 57 4.80 32.48 40.68 78 2 4.81MOX 3081 M-1 0.05 0.19 9 65 3.20 26.98 36.25 68 9 3.87Mountain Pride P-1 0.04 0.10 50 0 2.13 35.19 47.45 73 2 4.32Cast1ehy 1075 C-1 0.0 0.02 0 80 1.60 36.13 45.39 75 6 4.36Castle 7C775 C-l 0.0 0.02 0 50 1.60 24.68 35.77 66 5 4.34Atlantic City (FM-X58) F-1 0.0 0.02 0 99 1,60 21.92 28.53 58 25 4.15*Cultivars ranked in decreasing order of early yield of u.S. No.1 grade fruits.Table 3. Fruit Disease Resistance l , Fruit Quality Ratings 2, and Plant Habit3 For Staked Trial Cultivars.Persistent CatfaceDisease Green Concentric Radial or Blotchy or Core Internal PlantCultivar4 Resistance Shoulder 5 Cracking Cracking Stylar Scar Zippering Uneven Ripening Size Appearance 6 Habi tReplicated Staked:President AFl&2NSTV 4 4 4 5 5 3.5 4 4.5 Det.Freedom Fl&2V 4 4 4 4.5 5 4.5 3.5 4 Det.Fresh Pak FlNV 4 4 4 5 5 4.5 4.5 5 Det.Jet Star FlV 4 4 4.5 5 5 4.5 3.5 4 lnde.Better Boy FlNV 4 3.5 4.5 5 5 4.5 3.5 4 Inde.Star Pak Fl&2V - 5 4.5 5 5 5 3.5 4 lnde.Count Fleet (FM-X46) AFl&2NTV 3 3 3.5 5 5 2.5 3.5 3.5 Semi-Det.Royal Flush FINV 4 3.5 4 5 5 5 5 4 Det.Castlehy 1041 Fl&2 5 5 4.5 5 5 4.5 5 5 Det.Hayslip Fl&2SV 4 4 4 5 4 4.5 5 4.5 Semi-Det.I Observation Staked:"-J Vegas (FM-X70) AF 1&2V 3 3.5 4 5 5 3.5 3 3IPik Red Fl&2V 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 Det.Independence Fl&2V 4 4 4.5 5 5 5 4 4 Det.HXP 2792 Fl&2V 4 3.5 4 5 4 5 4 3,5Celebrity Fl&2NTV 5 4.5 4.5 5 5 5 4.5 4 Oet.Liberty Fl &2V 5 4.5 4.5 5 5 5 3.5 4 Det.PSX 38179 AFl&2NSTV 5 4.5 3.5 5 5 5 3 4Basket Vee FlV - 4.5 4.5 5 5 2 2.5 2 Det.Burgis Fl &2SV - 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 Semi-Det.PSX 31877 3 4 3.5 5 5 3,5 3.5 3.5Contessa AF1&2NS 5 5 4.5 5 5 4.5 3 3.5 Det.Count I I CPeto) AFl&2V 4.5 4.5 4.5 5 5 5 4 3.5 Det.Duke AFl&2SV 4 4.5 3.5 5 5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Semi-Det.Winners Circle (FM-X59) AFl&2V - 3.5 4 5 5 3.5 4 4 Semi-Det.HXP 2790 Fl&2V 3 4 3 5 5 4.5 4.5 4SSX 86621 Fl&2V 4 4 3.5 5 5 3 3 3FM2CRZ FlV - 4.5 4.5 5 5 5 4 4 lnde.Pole King Fl&2V 5 4.5 4.5 4 5 3.5 3 3 lnde.SSX 86620 Fl&2V - 4,5 3.5 5 5 4 3 3.5Bingo (FM-X45) AFl&2TV - 3 4.5 5 5 4,5 4 4.5 Semi-Det.Jackpot AFl&2NSV 3 3.5 4 5 5 4.5 3 3.5 Det.Table 3. Fruit Disease Resistancel , Fruit Quality Ratings 2, and Plant Habit3 For Staked Trial Cultivars (Continued).Cultivar4DiseaseResistancePersistentGreen 5ShoulderConcentricCrackingRadialCrackingCatfaceorStylar Scar ZipperingBlotchy orUneven RipeningCore Internal 6Size AppearancePlantHabitFI&2SVAFI&2NTVAFI&2NSTVFIAF I &2NSVAFI&2VFI&2VAFI&2SVFI&2SVFINTVFIVFIVFI &2SVFI &2SVFINTVObservation Staked: (Continued)Blazer AF I &2VSunny LCII AFI&2SVlACX-824l5lCount II (Abbott & Cob) AF I &2VStokes Pak VFN FI&2NVPSX 8797045-EBKEarly SetPSR 38679LiberatorSunrayDuchess~ Lucky Draw (FM-55A)I HXP 2791PSR 879Castlehy 105Castle 7C773Hybrid #980Beefsteak Plus VFFlorida lB7065-VSBKCastle 7C774MOX 3081Mountain Pride AFI&2SVCastlehy 1075 FINTVCastle 7C775 FIVAtlantic City (FM-X58) AFI&2SV352.542.543.554.5343453.5442.54453.543.54.5343.5444.54.544.5444.54.544.554.54.54.544.554.53.54.53.54.5345444.54.544.53.544.54.544.554.544.544.54.555554.555455555555555555555554555555545553.54.5555554554.555544.535354354.53553544.55553.54.55554.54,53.542.54.5434432444.53.5423.522.53.554.5443.543442.54.53.53443.534.54.54.53.54342.533.54.54.544443.54Det.Det.Inde.Det.Det.Det.-Semi-Det.Inde.Det.Semi-Det.Inde.Semi-Det.Det.Semi-Det.Det.IDisease Resistance Codes: A = Alternaria Stem Canker, C = Cladosporium Leaf Mold, FI = Fusarium Wilt (race 1), F2 = Fusarium Wilt (race 2),N = Root Knot Nematode, S = Stemphyllium (gray leaf spot), T = TMV, V = Verticillium2Quality Ratings for all variables were made on a I to 5 scale where 5 indicates no problem and 1 is a severe problem.3Plant Habit Abbreviations: Inde. = Indeterminate, Det. = Determinate, Semi-Det. = Semi-Determin~te; noted where information was supplied.~Cultivars are in the order they appear in Tables I and 2. 5No rating means the cultivar has the uniform ripening gene (no dark green shoulder).Internal appearance is based on internal color, and wall thickness.Table 4. Tomato Taste Panel ResultsTotal Number of Points 2Cultivar1 Taste TextureStar PakFreedomEarly Set7065-VSBKJackpotPresidentCount Fleet (FM-X46LibertyPik RedBetter BoyCount IIDukeRoyal FlushHayslipCelebrity7045-EBKPole KingFresh PakCastlehy 1041Jet Star42393736353535353230303030293928282825254239374140402525383535302834333532252925lCultivars ranked in decreasing order of total number of pointsfor taste.2Rating Scale: 5 points = very good3 points = acceptable1 point = very poor4 points = good2 points = poorTotal number of points = addition of points collected from a 10person panel where maximum number of points = 50 and minimumnumber of points = 10.-9-This page intentionally blank.This page intentionally blank.This page intentionally blank.,.

1983 Fresh Market Staked Tomato Trial

https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/1811/56558/1/OARDC_HCS_0535.pdf

1983 Fresh Market Staked Tomato Trial

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

KnowledgeBank at OSU