Aldrich, T. S.

Bennett, M. A.

Berry, S. Z.

Wiese, K.

Willer, C. C.

KnowledgeBank at OSU

0l Horticulture Series No. 627 Evaluation of Processing Tomato Breeding Lines and Cultivars January 1992 for Mechanical Harvesting and Quality in 1991 S.Z. Berry, K. Wiese, M.A. Bennett, T.S. Aldrich & C.C. Willer T 0 H 0 E OHIO srA1E UNIVERSITY Department of Horticulture The Ohio State University _ Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Wooster, Ohio 44691 .1 EVALUATION OF PROCESSING TOMATO BREEDING LINES AND CULTIVARS FOR MECHANICAL HARVESTING AND QUALITY IN 1991 S.Z. Berry, K.L. Wiese, M.A. Bennett, T.S. Aldrich, & C.C. Willer INTRODUCTION The 1991 growing season began with excellent conditions for planting and growth. Soil moisture was good, but already in late May soil moisture was beginning to become deficient and the remainder of the season was characterized by drought along with above average temperatures. Production in the state was about 350,000 tons, a decrease of 17% from a year ago. Acreage for harvest was about 16,200 acres, slightly down from last year and the average yield per acre about 21.5 tons/acre, 15% below last year's average yield. New growing methods machine harvest-bulk handling and new processing technology require a continuous supply of better suited varieties for the industry to remain competitive. Ohio continues to be the second largest processing tomato production state in the United States. This breeding work continues to be directed with emphasis on improvement of the whole-canned tomato (whole-pack) and tomato suitable for diced product. Other needs of the canner are also being given attention in relation to development of improved varieties for the processor of various juice, sauce and paste products. Selection for earliness and improved fruit setting ability, especially dur i ng periods of heat stress, is being carried out to reduce the problem of split fruit set and make possible more uniform tomato harvest schedules. Other important characteristics being selected to make machine harvest and bulk handling more efficient include crack resistance, firmness and ability of ripe fruit to store well on the vine for extended periods to allow maximum productivity in machine harvest. Breeding and selection was continued for resistance to Early blight (Alternaria so7ani), anthracnose (Co77etotricum spp.), and the Fusarium (Fusarium oxysporum (1)), and Verticillium (Vertici77ium dah7iae (Ve)) wilts. Improved quality factors being selected for and intensively evaluated for in cooperation with commercial processors include: acidity, pH, soluble sol ids , viscosity, color (crimson fruit color [oqc], and especially fruit attributes conditioning efficient lye or steam peeling characteristics and carelessness. This includes improvement of raw products suitable for sauce, soup, ketchup, and other tomato products. For whole-canned production, Ohio 7983 and Ohio 8245 continued to constitute a major proportion of 1991 commercial acreage. Ohio 7983 is replacing Ohio 7814 as an early-main season type and is similarly well suited for whole-pack and 1Professor, Assistant Professor, Assistant Professor, Research Assistant , & Branch Manager All publications of the Ohio Agricultural Research & Development Center are available to all on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, national origin, sex or religious affiliation. 1/92-H-484/450 1 diced product. 08245 continued to perform well as a new productive main season variety; its excellent disease resistance and quality attributes of color and solids continue to be noteworthy; it is widely used for whole and diced pack as well as for sauce and other tomato product. The attempt to utilize improved color crimson gene (age) continued with development of Ohio 8556 and pilot commercial acreage of this cultivar did well; it is a jointless Verticillium-Fusarium resistant line with excellent whole pack-diced product quality. Improved color potential continues to be a major objective in the breeding program and several new lines are promising. Ohio 7814 acreage continues to be substantial and is proving to be a valuable asset as an early-main season Fusarium resistant, jointless pedicel, machine harvest type with excellent firmness, holding ability and resistance to fruit rots. It is especially suited for careless wholepack and diced pack, as well as pureed product manufactured. Ohio 8550 was also in advanced trial; its earliness is a major attribute; productivity and quality is good. It has jointless fruit stem and is Verticillium-Fusarium resistant. The early Ohio hybrids OX 1 and OX 4 were tested extensively and showed promise. Also, this year the following new Ohio hybrids were evaluated and performed well: OX 6, OX 9, OX 38 and OX 42. The use of hybrid processing tomato cultivars is increasing and exhibit potential for making possible more rapid improvements in productivity and disease resistance in comparison with inbreds (open pollinated cultivars). Hybrid cultivars exhibit consistent yield advantages over open pollinated varieties. Multiple disease resistance can be incorporated into hybrids more readily and they have potential for improved earliness and more dependable performance under stress conditions. Seed is being produced of the open pollinated cultivars as well as the hybrids. In addition to station trials, pilot commercial trials with grower-canners will be continued in 1992. MATERIALS AND METHODS Location: Vegetable Crops Branch, Fremont, Ohio. Soil: Silty clay loam, fall bedded (November). Fertilizer: 800 lb. per acre of 0-26-26 (October); 220 lb. per acre of 34-0-0 (May). Herbicide: 2 pt/A Devrinol incorporated May 15; Sencor directed spray 0.66 lb./A June 18. Plants: Greenhouse-grown, 108 per standard flat from seed sown April 8. Transplanted to Field: May 20, a two-row transplanter using 21-53-0 starter at 5 lb. per 100 gal. of water; 1/2 pint per plant. 2 Plot Size and Spacing: Single-row plots, 20 plants per row spaced 12 inches, rows 5 feet apart. Insect and Disease Control: Standard recommended program followed for insect and disease control. Weather Data (OARDC, Fremont, Ohio) Temperature Rainfall (inches) 1991 39 Yr. Avg. 1991 39 Yr. Avg. April May June July August 53.0 66.9 71.5 72.8 70.2 48.8 59.6 69.2 73.0 70.9 3.73 2.88 2.63 2.91 1. 79 HARVEST INFORMATION 3.37 3.69 3.95 3.92 3.57 Drought conditions and above average and record high temperatures characterized the season with resultant stress to the crop. Harvest was earlier than normal and dry conditions at harvest did allow for good recovery rates. Harvesting was with a Johnson tomato harvester and was carried out when the entries were estimated to be at a stage of fruit ripeness in which yields of marketable fruit were approaching optimum recovery with a minimum of green and cull fruit (Tables 1 & 2). Percentages reported of fruit recovery are on a weight basis. The data for the new experimental lines is organized according to maturity groups and within maturity by once-over machine-harvest fruit yield (Tables 1 & 2). Because of the complexity of factors which determine a potentially successful variety, other factors which must be considered and that can be limiting are included; eg., fruit concentration, fruit cull percentage, fruit size, stemming character, and jointlessness. To adequately evaluate promising lines at least one or two more years of testing will be necessary. QUALITY EVALUATION Field-run tomatoes were used for quality evaluation; the sample was cut in half, quartered, extracted in a Food Processing Equipment Co. laboratory pulper, and de-aerated (Table 1a). 1. Hunter Color Difference Meter (COM). 2. Percent Soluble Solids: Abbe Refractometer 3. Percent Total Acid as citric: The raw sample used for pH determination was directly titrated using 0.1 normal sodium hydroxide solution to a pH of 8.1. 4. pH was determined by the glass electrode method. 5. Viscosity potential; hot break-finish-capillary-60 second flow basis. 3 Seed Sources and Cooperators 1. S.Z. Berry, Dept. of Horticulture, OSU-OARDC, Wooster, OH. 2. F. Cortelyou, Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc., Perrysburg, OH. 3. D. Ematty, H.J. Heinz Co., 13737 Middleton Pike, Bowling Green, OH 4. K. Haack, Tiffin, OH. 5. J. Hirzel, Hirzel Canning Co., Toledo, OH. 6. K. Wagner and W. Springer, Terra-Vegetable Div., Carmel, IN. 4 Table 1. Trial I. Mechanical harvest evaluation of processing tomato varieties and test 1 i nes when ripe fruit was approaching optimum recovery. Replicated. Vegetable Crops Branch, OARDC, Fremont, Ohio 1991. Variety Ripe Fruit or Usable % of Potential Wt. Test Line T/A Ripe Green Cull (oz.) Harvest Date 7/15/91 0 X 5 25.3 84 14 3 2.3 0 X 4 22.8 81 16 3 2.4 0 87160 21.9 81 17 2 2.0 0 X 1 21.2 79 18 3 2.4 0 7814 19.1 79 17 4 1.9 0 88119 18.9 75 23 2 2.0 0 90137 18.8 82 15 3 1.9 0 88122 18.5 81 15 4 2.1 Harvest Date 8/21/91 0 8556 24.7 92 3 6 2.4 0 X 7 24.0 91 4 5 2.5 0 X 2 23.7 93 2 5 2.1 0 7983 23.6 92 3 6 2.1 0 90131 23.5 93 3 3 2.1 0 8550 21.7 84 4 12 2.4 0 8991 21.6 92 4 4 1.9 Harvest Date 8/28/91 Peto 696 30.2 92 3 6 2.3 0 X 38 29.7 93 2 6 2.0 0 X 6 28.4 88 4 8 2.5 0 X 42 26.8 92 2 5 2.0 0 8446 26.0 91 3 6 2.4 0 X 9 24.9 89 3 8 2.6 0 8245 24.4 90 4 7 2.2 0 87175 24.2 90 2 8 2.0 0 90139 24.2 87 2 10 2.1 Peto 2196 24.0 89 3 7 2.2 0 86120 23.6 86 2 12 2.4 0 88110 23.4 86 3 11 2.1 0 90128 23.1 86 4 10 2.3 0 8675 22.6 91 1 7 2.1 0 8994 22.5 81 5 14 2.8 0 88144 22.4 85 3 13 2.2 0 8986 22.2 77 6 17 2.2 0 8444 22.1 84 3 14 2.0 0 88164 21.7 87 2 11 2.0 0 8690 21.4 83 4 13 2.4 0 88129 21.2 83 4 13 2.1 0 88154 19.4 86 6 9 2.1 0 90134 19.4 82 6 12 2.3 0 90135 19.1 86 4 10 2.2 0 90116 18.0 81 5 14 2.6 LSD .05 6.4 0.3 5 Table 1a. Trial I. laboratory evaluation of processing tomato varieties and test lines. Vegetable Crops Branch, OARDC, Fremont, OH 1991. Variety or Test line 0 X 5 0 X 4 0 87160 0 X 1 0 7814 0 88119 0 90137 0 88122 0 8556 0 X 7 0 X 2 0 7983 0 90131 0 8550 0 8991 PS 696 0 X 38 0 X 6 0 X 42 0 8446 0 X 9 0 8245 0 87175 0 90139 PS 2196 0 86120 0 88110 0 90128 0 8675 0 8994 0 88144 0 8696 0 8444 0 88164 0 8690 0 88129 0 88154 0 90134 0 90135 0 90116 pH 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.6 % % Total Acid Soluble as Citric Solids 0.31 4.6 0.36 5.2 0.25 4.9 0.38 5.0 0.34 4.7 0.28 4.6 0.27 5.0 0.33 5.6 0.27 4.9 0.32 5.1 0.31 5.1 0.31 5.1 0.32 4.9 0.31 5.0 0.32 5.4 0.35 5.0 0.25 4.7 0.36 5.2 0.36 4.8 0.30 4.7 0.35 4.8 0.36 5.1 0.34 5.6 0.29 5.8 0.40 5.6 0.31 5.1 0.35 5.7 0.36 5.5 0.38 4.8 0.33 4.9 0.33 5.0 0.28 5.3 0.36 5.7 0.35 5.6 0.32 5.4 0.30 5.4 0.26 4.7 0.29 5.3 0.29 5.4 0.36 5.5 6 Hunter COM l a/b 42.7 1.3 45.6 1.4 46.4 1.2 45.3 1.3 44.6 1.3 36.0 1.1 35.8 1.1 50.9 1.2 54.1 1.3 46.6 1.4 44.6 1.2 46.1 1.2 48.2 1.4 44.5 1.4 44.8 1.3 47.1 1.3 50.0 1.3 46.5 1.3 39.4 1.3 57.1 1.3 46.7 1.4 34.5 1.1 45.9 1.4 49.3 1.3 47.6 1.3 54.3 1.4 46.6 1.4 51.5 1.3 26.6 1.1 49.2 1.4 52.3 1.2 40.8 1.3 50.7 1.3 44.6 1.2 45.2 1.4 48.7 1.3 46.6 1.3 42.4 1.4 45.8 1.4 41.4 1.6 Table lb. OSU Machine Harvest Trial I. Quality Evaluation (Hunt-Wesson Lab) Fremont, OH 1991 Viscosity Potential Index cases/ton Cultivar pH Raw Brix (72/8 oz. sauce) 0 7814 4.3 5.1 24.3 0 7983 4.0 5.3 32.1 0 8245 4.2 4.8 33.3 0 8444 4.3 5.4 28.6 0 8446 4.3 5.2 33.8 0 8550 4.3 5.1 30.2 0 8556 4.3 5.4 26.1 0 86120 4.0 5.0 26.7 0 8655 4.4 4.9 29.6 0 8675 4.3 5.2 32.3 0 8687 4.0 5.5 30.4 0 8689 4.0 5.3 27.7 0 8690 4.5 5.2 27.8 0 87160 4.4 4.4 33.5 0 87175 4.4 5.6 26.4 0 88110 4.4 5.2 30.9 0 88119 4.0 4.7 35.6 0 88122 4.4 6.0 34.2 0 88129 4.3 5.7 36.7 0 88144 4.4 5.2 28.6 0 88154 4.4 4.7 35.4 0 88164 4.4 5.4 32.5 0 8986 4.5 4.7 36.9 0 8991 4.2 4.9 35.2 0 8994 4.4 5.2 36.7 0 90116 4.4 5.6 33.1 0 90127 4.3 5.2 29.8 0 90128 4.4 4.9 26.0 0 90131 4.2 5.2 33.3 0 90134 4.4 5.4 32.1 0 90135 4.4 5.4 34.4 0 90137 4.4 4.4 33.1 0 90139 4.4 6.1 38.9 0 90141 4.3 5.3 30.9 0 X 1 4.3 5.1 31.9 0 X 2 3.9 5.1 33.5 0 X 4 3.9 5.3 34.0 0 X 5 4.4 4.9 35.2 0 X 6 4.0 5.0 31.3 0 X 7 4.0 5.4 34.4 0 X 9 3.9 5.1 32.5 0 X 38 4.0 4.7 35.6 0 X 42 4.3 4.3 31.9 PS 2196 3.8 5.4 35.2 PS 696 4.3 4.9 32.7 7 Table 2. Trial II. Mechanical harvest evaluation of processing tomato varieties and test lines when ripe fruit was approaching optimum recovery. Replicated. Vegetable Crops Branch, OARDC, Fremont, Ohio 1991. Variety or Test Line Ripe Usable T/A Harvest Date 9/2/91 0 X 58 34.1 0 X 42 30.6 0 Y3998-1 30.6 0 X 9 30.2 0 X 60 29.9 0 X 88 29.7 0 X 7 29.3 Peto 696 29.2 0 X 32 29.1 0 X 52 28.7 0 8245 28.5 0 X 8 27.6 0 X 6 27.3 0 X 3 26.8 0 X 15 26.6 0 X 38 25.7 0 X 64 24.7 0 8444 24.3 0 90385 23.5 Peto 696 23.0 0 X 2 22.6 0 8556 22.4 0 90392 22.0 H 6285 21.8 0 90393 21.6 0 7983 21.3 0 X 34 20.9 0 8245 20.9 0 7814 20.7 0 90394 20.1 0 X 62 19.8 0 90395 19.5 0 X 95 18.8 0 90388 18.5 0 7814 18.4 0 90383 18.3 0 90381 17.6 0 Y3922-1 17.0 0 Y1290-1 16.6 0 X 24 16.3 0 90387 14.8 LSD .05 9.5 % of Potential Ripe Green Cull 86 90 92 80 85 85 85 87 89 86 91 80 84 89 85 83 80 90 89 91 80 82 84 83 78 87 82 90 83 76 73 80 81 84 88 88 84 87 88 76 72 8 4 2 2 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 6 2 1 4 2 1 1 5 1 3 4 4 2 2 11 4 3 5 4 2 2 1 2 8 13 10 9 6 18 12 11 13 11 7 12 7 19 13 9 13 16 14 8 10 5 18 17 14 11 21 10 14 6 15 22 16 16 16 11 8 11 15 12 10 16 16 Fruit Wt. (oz.) 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.0 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.8 2.3 2.2 2.5 1.9 2.3 1.8 1.9 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.0 2.7 2.1 2.0 2.4 2.2 1.9 2.2 2.3 2. 1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.3 1.9 0.3 Table 2. Trial II. Mechanical harvest evaluation of processing tomato varieties and test lines when ripe fruit was approaching optimum recovery. Replicated. Vegetable Crops Branch, OARDC, Fremont, Ohio. 1991. (cont.) Variety or Test Line Ripe Usable T/A Harvest Date 7/15/91 0 X 46 23.1 0 X 70 19.1 0 X 61 19.0 0 Y3934-1 18.2 0 X 4 17.6 0 X 17 16.1 0 90386 15.4 0 Y3962-1 15.0 0 90382 13.0 0 8442 11.8 Harvest Date 8/21/91 0 X 54 29.7 0 X 53 28.2 0 X 4 28.0 0 X 49 28.0 0 X 5 27.4 0 X 93 25.7 0 Y1290-2 24.0 0 Y3936-1 24.0 0 7983 22.2 0 Y3933-1 21.3 0 X 1 19.6 0 Y1290-3 19.2 0 90389 15.7 0 90390 13.8 LSD .05 9.5 % of Potential Ripe Green Cull 85 77 76 76 73 77 76 78 87 79 91 94 92 85 90 91 92 92 91 89 92 93 81 90 9 13 19 16 21 24 18 19 18 9 8 3 2 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 1 3 8 5 2 4 8 3 3 4 4 5 4 13 5 4 5 11 6 4 4 5 5 6 7 5 12 5 Fruit Wt. (oz.) 2.1 2.1 1.8 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.2 1.7 1.7 1.8 2.5 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.4 1.8 0.3 Table 3. Grower trial (K. Haack): Observation-harvest (harvested plot size sample 1/500 acre). Tiffin, OH. 1991. Cultivar 0 X 38 0 X 42 0 X 34 0 88164 0 X 6 0 X 3 0 X 2 0 7814 0 X 7 0 8994 0 X 15 0 87160 0 8556 p 696 0 X 4 0 8245 0 7983 0 X I 0 8550 0 88119 0 8446 p 696 0 8986 Ripe (tons/A) (9/5/91) 10 59.4 47.6 47.4 47.4 46.4 46.1 45.5 43.6 43.6 43.3 42.9 40.5 40.4 39.1 38.5 38.1 38.0 37.4 35.1 34.4 33.6 33.1 31.5 Maturity Rating (% ripe 8/6/91) 49 27 63 50 63 42 59 40 58 60 69 57 50 40 73 37 57 81 62 63 45 55 56 This page intentionally blank.This page intentionally blank.All publications of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center are available to all potential clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, sex, age, han-dicap, or Vietnam-era veteran status. 

Evaluation of Processing Tomato Breeding Lines and Cultivars for Mechanical Harvesting and Quality in 1991

https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/1811/56237/1/OARDC_HCS_0627.pdf

Evaluation of Processing Tomato Breeding Lines and Cultivars for Mechanical Harvesting and Quality in 1991

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

KnowledgeBank at OSU