Brooks, William M.

DiCenzo, Gregory L.

Myers, Gerald G.

Wertz, Monica K.

KnowledgeBank at OSU

This page intentionally blank.1984 FRESH MARKET STAKE TOMATO TRIALMonica K. Wertz, William M. Brooks, Gregory L. DiCenzo,and Gerald G. Myer~This is another report of a continuing series designed to evaluatecurrently used and new cultivars of fresh market tomatoes.Trial Design. Ten cultivars were grown with 3 replications and 50other cultivars were grown in non-replicated plots. Spacing was 48 inchesbetween rows and 18 inches between plants within rows. There were 15 plantsper single row plot, equivalent to 7,260 plants/A. Plants were pruned tothe first cluster. Stakes were placed at two plant intervals and metalfence posts were positioned at the ends of each row.Cultural Practices. Seed was sown on April 2, 1984. Seedlings weretransplanted to 2~1l cell paks on April 10, moved outdoors to harden off onMay 10, and field set on May 18. One thousand pounds/A 15-15-15 were broadcastand worked in after plowing. At field planting, each plant received ~ pintof 10-52-8 starter solution, mixed 3 pounds per 50 gallons of water. Weedcontrol consisted of Treflan at 1 pound ai/A preplant incorporated and Sencorat ~ pound ai/A after the plants were well established. Irrigation wasapplied at a rate of 1" per week as needed.Weather Data. University Farm Weather Station - Columbus.MonthMean Temperature (oF)Max. Min. ~PrecipitationRain(inches) Deviation from NormalMayJuneJulyAugustSeptember68.885.683.185.676.446.360.660.061.051 . 157.673.171.573.363.84.601.271.402.271.78+0.17-2.60-2.57-1.22-1 .13lMailing address: Department of Horticulture, The Ohio State University,2001 Fyffe Court, Columbus, Ohio 43210.All publications of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Centerare available to all on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race,color, national origin, sex, or religious affiliation.1/85/5-444/400Participating Seed CompaniesCodeA-l Abbott &Cobb, Inc., P.O. Box 307, Feasterville, PA 19047.A-2 Agway Inc~, Vegetable Seed Farm, Prospect, PA 16052B-1 W.Atlee Burpee Co., 335 South Briggs Rd., Santa Paula, CA 93060.C-1 A.L. Castle, Inc., P.O. Box 877, Morgan Hill, CA 95037.F-l FerrY-Morse Seed Co., P O. Box 100, Mountain View, CA 94040.F-2 Univ~rsity of Florida, Agricultural Research and Education Center,5007 60th Street East, Bradenton, FL 33508 (Dr. Jay Scott)H-l Joseph Harris Co., t~oreton Farm, 3670 Buffalo Rd., Rochester, NY 14624L-l Liberty Seed Co., P.O. Box 806, New Philadelphia, OH 44663.N-l New England Vegetable Growers Assoc., Inc., P.O. Box 477, Waltham,MA 02254P-l George W. Park Seed Co., Inc., Greenwood, SC 29647P-2 Peto Seed Co., Inco, Box 4206, Saticoy, CA 93004-0206$-1 Seeds of Tomorrow, 10 Creek Edge Rd., Davis, CA 95616Results and DiscussionThe first harvest was made on July 20 and the last on September 18.For the first 2 weeks after field set in May, rainfall was above average andnight temperatures were lower than normal. June followed with above averageday and night temperatures, and little precipitation (2~60 inches below theaverage). The rest of the growing season was also extremely dry with 2.57,1.22, and 1.13 inches below normal precipitation for July, August and Septemberrespectively. Although irrigation was applied, yield was still somewhatreduced. Plot location was excellent this year. The only major source ofvariability existed in the front end of the field where the first rep of thereplicated trial was located. Some of these plants appeared to have sufferedSencol"~ injur'y due to possible misapplication. Plants were visibly affectedand yield in this rep was much lower than in reps 2 and 3. The lack ofsignificant difference for No. 1 and Total Marketable Yields for the seasonreflects this extreme replicate variation.Results of the replicated trial can be found in Table 1. As in 1983,President led this group in Early No.1 and Total Marketable yields, andagain exhibited good fruit size. Bingo had excellent fruit size, but totalyield was a bit low, and percent culls somewhat high. Vegas sized well also.Celebrity was highest in total No. 1 yield~ Liberty yielded highest inmarketable fruit for the season, but percent No.1 fruit was lower and fruitsize smaller. These results are consistent with our 1983 trial findings.In the single plot trial, Cavalier had the best early yield and possessedexcellent fruit size throughout the season. Bux Exp. Hyb. 8T351 also didvery well early. Duke yielded extremely well again this year, appreciablytopping all other cultivars in No.1 and Total Marketable yield values forthe season. Othet~ high yielding cultivars included PSX 76680, Waltham 8117,PSR 72682, and Castlehy 1079. Large fruited lines for the season were RoyalFlush and Duchess. r·1an,Y of the non-\~eplicated cultivars looked promisingthis year.-2-Disease Resistance, Fruit Quality, and Plant Habit. Disease re-sistances as noted by the seed companies for all cultivars tested arelisted in Table 3. Fruit quality ratings taken at harvest time includeinternal appearance (based on color and wall thickness), green shoulder,and fruit defects including radial and concentric cracking, catfacing,zippering, and blotchy ripening. Plant habit classifications, wheresupplied by seed company, are noted in the final column. The cultivarsin Table 3 are listed in the same order as they appear in Tables 1 and 2.All of the replicated lines faired well; Celebrity, Vegas, and Libertyhad excellent external and internal fruit ratings, while Castlehy 1065scored high for internal ch.aracteristics, but exhibited somewhat of aproblem with radial cracking. For all cultivars, the extremely drygrowing season should be taken into account since the stress inducedmore cracking problems than usual, especially radial cracking.Best external and internal fruit ratings in the single plot trialwere for Sta~ Pak, Waltha~ 8257, Mountain Pride, {7065)' Suncoast~Castlehy 1079, Sunray, and Cham~ion. Three of the high yielding cultivars,Duke, PSX 76680, and PSR 72682 exhibited some blotchy or uneven ripeningproblems.-3-Table 1. Replicated Stake TIial: Yield. Grade, and Fruit Size of Tomato Cultivars, t_'o_1_u_mb_u_s~~__O_hl_·O~,__19~8_4 . __. Ear!t Harvest to July 31 Total Harvest to September 18Seed Marketable Yield Percent Marketable Yield PercentCultivar* Source (Tons/Acre) by l~ei ght Fruit (Tons/Acre) By Weight FruitNo. 1 Total No. 1 Culls Si zeJ.Q_~J ~'fu":l---Totar No. 1 Culls Size (oz.)President P-2 4.52 6.27 69 5 5.92 20.86 30.73 65 4 6.16I Bingo F-l 3.58 4.72 64 16 7.69 16.29 25.20 60 8 7.11~ Pik-Red H-l 3.03 4.06 72 4 5.32 20.40 29.86 66 3 7.81I Fresh Pak H-1 2.71 3.70 72 2 5.31 19.98 31.24 61 5 5.99Castlehy 1065 C-1 2.38 3.41 64 9 4.82 20.19 32.33 60 4 5.28Vegas F-l 2.06 3.36 57 8 6.52 14.98 25.56 56 4 ' 6.29Celebrity P-2 1.86 2.81 ~ 63 5 5.33 22.08 30.20 71 3 6.26HXP 2792 H-l 1.85 3.32 56 3 4.44 16.39 27.59 58 3 4.83Count II P-2 1.28 2.32 50 10 3.89 17.78 30.66 55 4 4.67Liberty A-l 0.89 1.77 44 12 3.38 19.10 35.52 52 4 4.41LSD 5~~ 1.70 2.21 1 .07 N.S. N.S. 0.87-*Cultivars ranked in decreasing order of early yield of U.S. No.1 grade fruits. Data based on Mean of 3 replications.Table 2. Single Plot Stake Trial. Yield, Grade, and Fruit Size of Tomato Cu1tivars, Columbus, Ohio, 1984______ Ear1y Harvest to J u1y 31 Total Harvest to September 18Seed Marketable Yield Percent Marketable Yield PercentCultivar* Source (Tons/Acre) by Weight Frui t (Tons/ Ac re) By Weight Frui tNo. 1 Total No. 1 Culls Size (oz.) No. 1 Total No. 1 Culls Size (oz.)Cavalier P-2 6.85 8.30 74 10 6.17 21.03 28.00 70 6 6.96BUX Exp. hybrid 8T351 B-1 5.52 6.12 86 4 4.82 20.35 27.56 72 3 5.54PSX 36579 P-2 4.79 6.15 76 2 6.66 18.95 29.69 62 4 6.54Carmen P-2 4.72 6.05 73 6 6.78 19.33 27.83 65 7 7.02Jackpot F-l 4.65 5.95 76 3 5.79 14.52 22.24 64 2 5.51HXP 2798 H-l 4.50 5.23 84 2 5.40 13.09 25.63 49 3 6.10BUX Exp. hybrid lT923 B-1 4.45 6.03 71 4 4.63 17.45 25.39 66 4 5.13Champion L-l 3.94 5.54 69 3 4.64 22.07 37.82 56 4 6.27Burpee's Early Pik hybrid B-1 3.27 5.35 60 3 4.98 13.41 25.70 50 4 5.09PSX 76680 P-2 3.27 4.79 67 2 5.87 31.44 43.29 71 2 6.10I Park's Whopper P-1 2.86 4.16 67 2 4.37 20.79 32.02 64 2 5.15U1 GS-238 Red Express A-2 2.86 3.19 81 9 5.28 27.85 38.33 73 10 5.64IPark's Extra Early P-l 2.74 3.82 69 3 5.16 17.93 29.36 60 2 6.79Atlantic City F-l 2.69 3.73 59 18 5.87 20.74 29.72 63 10 6.44Flori da MH-l P-2 2.61 3.68 67 6 4.52 14.50 35.16 40 3 4.34Royal Flush L-l 2.52 4.45 t 56 0 7.55 23.69 33.61 69 2 7.29BUX #6-T2 B-1 2.45 3.31 74 0 5.12 9.94 20.09 48 3 5.29Jet Star H-l 2.20 3.00 67 8 5.22 15.00 27.95 52 3 5.12Duchess P-2 2.13 3.90 50 8 6.13 16.34 22.05 69 6 7.32HXP 2793 H-l 2.10 2.64 80 0 4.84 28.97 38.94 72 3 4.91Star Pak H-1 2.06 3.12 65 0 4.52 18.76 30.10 60 3 5.31Duke P-2 2.06 2'.40 86 0 4.80 41.19 59.58 68 2 6.06PSX 74181 P-2 2.01 4.33 44 5 5.21 12.42 20.01 60 3 5.99BUX Exp. hybrid lT457 B-1 2.01 2'.93 65 5 5.69 6.56 14.81 43 3 5.05Lucky Draw F-1 1.98 2.86 57 18 5.90 15.80 25.36 54 14 6.14XP319 A-2 1.82 2.72 64 5 5.72 14.04 24.83 55 3 5.82Bux Exp. hybrid 1T637 B-1 1.79 3.65 44 10 3.61 11 . 71 28.92 38 1 4.27Better Bush P-1 1.79 2.81 57 10 4.76 9.22 21.97 40 4 4.94PSR 25981 P-2 1.69 2.32 66 9 5.12 22.48 34.20 63 4 6.75Contessa P-2 1.69 3.00 50 11 5.36 7.67 15. 15 46 10 5.72HXP 2790 H-l 1.62 2.86 57 0 4.72 22.19 32.89 65 3 5.72HXP 2796 H-l 1.57 2.66 54 8 4.76 18.20 26.02 68 2 5.81Table 2. Single Plot Stake Trial. Yield, Grade, and Fruit Size of Tomato Cultivars, Columbus, Ohio. 1984~~.~_ Early Harvest to July 31 ______.__ .__!_9l~_1~~_~_~5_t_!_Q-.?~~~~~e r 18Seed Marketaole Yield Percent Mdrketat>le Yie1d PercentCultivar* Source (Tons/~ by Weight Fruit (TOf!5/Ac!~l_ _~y Wei9!!!- Frui tNo. 1 Tota No. 1 Culls Size (oz.) No. 1 Tota 1 No. 1 Cu 11 s Size (oz.)Waltham 8257 N-l 1.33 2.28 58 1 5.19 28.17 38,89 71 2 6.27(7067) Horizon F-2 1.31 2.56 48 6 5.30 12,54 21.66 56 4 6.20Libera tor L-l 1.31 1.67 74 6 6.13 17.64 26.06 64 6 6.15Castlehy 1079 C-1 1.21 1.77 60 12 4.17 36.47 51.64 67 5 5.45Bena #52 F-1 1.16 1.77 55 16 5.09 17.35 27.25 60 6 6.00Florida 18 F-2 1.06 1.94 54 2 3.39 23.14 27.37 80 6 5.66IExp. 17 5-1 0.97 4.86 19 2 2.40 3.02 19.02 15 5 2.520" PSR 72682 P-2 0.90 1.38 50 23 4.80 32.69 44.55 69 6 5.89I Flora-Dade P-2 0.85 2.28 35 5 3.76 20.55 41.50 47 4 4.64Carmel ita (Castlehy 1075) C-1 0.82 1.43 58 10 4.29 27 c 93 35.82 74 5 6.00Waltham 8117 N-l 0.80 1.04 72 6 4.30 38.86 51.76 74 2 5.60Mountain Pride P-2 0.75 1.04 , 66 8 4.59 21.25 29.84 69 3 5.96(7065) Suncoast F-2 0~70 0.87 72 10 4.80 15.39 19.94 73 6 7.28Burpee1s Big Girl B-1 0.65 0.80 75 8 5.87 23.93 34.73 65 6 6.69Hayslip F-2 0.53 1.72 28 9 3.79 26.48 39.86 64 4 5.63Sunray H-l 0.51 0.63 78 4 4.62 25.56 33.37 75 2 5.69Royal Ace L-l 0.34 0.48 70 0 5.33 16.77 23.23 70 3 6.86Ca l-Ace P-2 0.14 0.22 54 18 4.80 22.10 30.18 71 3 6.83*Cultivars ranked in decreasing order of early yield of U.S. No. 1 grade fruits.Tabl e 3. Fruit Disease Resistance' ~ Fruit Quality Ratings 2, and Plant Habit3, For Staked Tria' CultivarsCatface BlotchyPersistent or or4 Disease Green 5 Concentric Radial Stylar Uneven Core Internal PlantCultivar Resistance Shoulder Cracking Cracking Scar Zippering __J~j2enjng Size Appearance6 HabitReplicated Stake:President AF1+2NTV 3 4.5 3 4.5 5 4 3.5 3.5 Det.Bingo AF1+2TV - 3.5 3.5 4 4 3.5 3 3 Semi-Det.Pi k- Red Fl+2 V 4 5 3 3.5 4 4.5 4 4 Det.Fresh Pak F1NV 3 3 3 4 5 3.5 3 4 Det.Castlehy 1065 AF1+2NSTV 4 5 3.5 5 5 4 4.5 4.5 Det.Vegas AF1+2V 4 4 4 '5 4 4.5 4 5Celebrity AF1+~NTV 4 4 4 5 5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Det.HXP 2792 FV2 - 4 4 5 5 3 4 4 Det.Count II A l+~SV 4 4.5 3 5 5 4.5 4 5 Det.I Liberty Fl+2 4 5 4 5 4 5 4.5 4.5 Det.'-.lI Single Plot Stake:Caval ;er AF1+2NSTV - 5 3.5 5 4 4.5 2.5 3 Det.BUX Exp. hybrid 8T351 FV 3 4 4 5 4 3.5 2.5 3 Det.PSX 36579 Fl+2 NTV 4 4.5 3.5 5 5 3.5 3 3Carmen AF1+2NSTV 4 3 4 5 5 3 3.5 3.5 Det.Jackpot AF1+2NSV 4 4.5 4.5 5 5 4 3 3 Det.HXP 2798 Fl+2V 3 4 2 5 5 3 4.5 5 Det.BUX Exp. hybrid 1T923 FV 4 4 3.5 5 5 3 2.5 3 Det.Champion F1NTV 4 5 4 5 5 4.5 4.5 4.5 lnde.Burpee's Early Pik hybrid FV 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 lnde.PSX 76680 Fl+2NTV 3.5 5 4 5 5 2 3 4Park's Whopper F1NTV 4.5 4.5 4 5 5 5 3 3.5 lnde.GS-238 Red Express Fl+2NV 4 5 3 5 4 5 3.5 4 Det.Park's Extra Early F1NTV 4 4 3 5 5 4 3.5 4 Semi-Det.Atlantic City AF1+2SV - 2.5 2.5 5 4 4 3 3.5Fl or; da MHl AF1+2S 4 4 4 4 4 3.5 4 4 Det.Roya 1 Fl ush F1NV 4 5 4 5 4 3.5 2.5 3.5 Det.BUX #6-T2 FTV 4 4 3 5 5 5 5 4 lnde.Jet Star F1V - 4.5 4.5 5 5 5 4.5 4 Inde.Duchess Fl+2NSV 3 4.5 4 5 5 3 2.5 3.5 Det.HXP 2793 Fl+2V 4 5 3 4 3 4 2.5 3.5 Det.Star Pak Fl+2V 3.5 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 lnde.Duke AF1+2SV 4 5 4 '5 5 2 3.5 4 Det.Table 3. Fruit Disease Resistance', Fruit Quality ~atings2, and Plant Habit3, For Staked Trial CultivarsCultivar4DiseaseResistancePersistentGreen 5ShoulderConcentricCrackingRadialCrackingCatfaceorStylarScarBlotchyorUneven Core Internal PlantZi pperingmRipen; n9 Si ze Appearance6 Habi tAF,VFl+2SVF1VFl+2VFl+2SVF1;~TVFl+2VFl+2VFl+2SVFVFl+2SVAFlF1TVF1NVFl+2NTV,~F1+2~iSTFl+2VFl+2VF1VFl+2SVbISingle Plot Stake (continued)PSX 74181 Fl+2VBUX Exp. hybrid 1T457 FVLucky Draw AF1+2VXP3l9BUX Exp. hybrid 1T637Better BushPSR 25981ContessaHXP 2790HXP 2796Haltham 8257(7067) HorizonLiberatorCastlehy 1079Beno #52Florida 18EXP. 17PSR 72682Flora DadeCa nne1; ta (Ca st 1ehy 1075 )Waltham 8117~'oun ta in Pri de(706S) SuncoastBurpee's Big GirlHayslipSunrayRoyal AceCal-Ace433.55443435533.55332.55543534.534.54.54544.54.5455452455554.554.54454.54.543.53.52.53.533442.54.54.54423.55444.545444443.55554554 ·555555 ~4.55555555555555555555455544.5:>555555554.555555554:54.5244.5554.524542544.5523.5554.54.54.5452.52.5233.52.53.543.53.53.52.543.52.54.3.54444.533.54433.553333.54343.5443.53.54434.544..444434.554453.52.5Det.Semi-Det.Inde.IndeDet.Det.Det.Inde.Semi -Det.Det.Inde.Semi-Det.Inde.Inde.Det.Semi-Oet.lnde.Semi-Det.Det.Det.lOisease Resistance Codes: A = Alternaria Stem Canker. F1 = Fusarium Wilt (race 1). F2 = Fusarium Wilt (race 2),N = Root Knot Nematode, S = Stemphyl1ium (gray leaf spot), T = TMV, V = Verticillium2Quality Ratings for all variables were Made on a 1 to 5 scale where 5 indicates no problem and 1 is a severe problem.3Plant Habit Abbreviations: Inde. =Indeterminate, Det. = Determinate, Semi-Det. = Semi-Determinate; noted where information was supplied.4Cultivars are in the order they appear in Tables 1 and 2.5No rating means the cultivar has the uniform ripening gene (no dark green Shoulder).6Internal appearance ;s based on internal color, and wall thickness.This page intentionally blank.This page intentionally blank.

1984 Fresh Market Stake Tomato Trials

https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/1811/56575/1/OARDC_HCS_0547.pdf

1984 Fresh Market Stake Tomato Trials

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

KnowledgeBank at OSU