lop
Gi00
2I w. f.
'Fgn
,.
* .4n
OF
Soe4i.DA
'.." ,. .-- 1
S. 1 .
' ,. .. : : : ..,o%-'','* .,.L
'1. -* r .,i..#'-".. 1B
C...
43.'
I -
.1
I
* j/. :r&4!. ''
., 'tA' '4
k131.
.34 a.Wd S'o A.M-.DK, W
IAt
i. *'r ... i
*. ; .
.- --.' :, i As ,s. .
.. .* .- '
-. 1,o. ., ^ ;:
.. .. ,,, .. .
'* -I.?':*
I. 1.
-" .." .
1~
r1
'4:. t
*!.1'
i .h i
A:
*'twit;
Ix '
b?. d"
vL.
.._:
! "
GCREC Research Report BRA 2000-1
TOMATO VARIETY EVALUATION, FALL 1999
D. N. Maynard', J. W. Scott' and A. M. Dunlap2
Gulf Coast Research and Education Center
University of Florida, IFAS
5007 60h Street East
Bradenton, FL 34203
In 1997-98, 40,400 acres of tomatoes were harvested in Florida, yielding 55.2 million 25-pound
cartons worth over $473 million (Witzig and Pugh, 1999). Tomatoes accounted for almost 30% of
the total value for all vegetables grown during 1997-98, making it the most important vegetable
produced in the state. The Palmetto-Ruskin area (west-central Florida) accounted for over 33% of
the state's total fresh market tomato production in 1997-98 (Witzig and Pugh, 1999).
A tomato variety trial was conducted in fall 1999 at the Gulf Coast Research & Education Center-
Bradenton in west-central Florida to evaluate fresh market tomato varieties and breeding lines.
Twenty-eight entries were evaluated in a replicated yield trial and an additional 44 entries including
43 standard fresh market tomato entries and 1 plum tomato entry and were evaluated visually in
unharvested observational plots,
Materials and Methods
Seeds were sown on 12-14 July into planter flats (1.5 x 1.5 x 2.5-inch cells) containing a commercial
mix (Florikan, 1523 Edger Place, Sarasota, FL 34240) of vermiculite, Canadian sphagnum peat and
poly beads and then covered with a layer of coarse vermiculite and germinated in a greenhouse.
Plants were conditioned before transplanting by limiting water and nutrients in the final phase of
production.
Soil samples from the experimental area obtained before fertilization were analyzed by the
University of Florida Extension Soil Testing Laboratory (Hanlon and DeVore, 1989): pH = 7.1 and
Mehlich I extractable P = 51 (high), K = 15 (very low), Mg = 95 (high), Ca = 722 (adequate), Zn =
3.4 (adequate), Cu = 1.7 (adequate), and Mn = 1.7 (response possible) ppm. The EauGallie fine sand
was prepared in early August. Beds were formed and fumigated with methylbromide: chloropicrin,
67:33 at 2.3 lb/100 lbf. Banded fertilizer was applied in shallow grooves on the bed shoulders at
2.34-0-3.25 lb N-P205-K20/100 lbf after the beds were pressed and before the white on black
polyethylene mulch was applied. The total fertilizer applied was equivalent to 203-0-283 lb N-P205-
K20/A. The final beds were 32 in. wide and 8 in. high, and were spaced on 5 ft centers with six beds
between seepage irrigation/drainage ditches which were on 41 ft centers.
'Professor.
2Biological Scientist.
Transplants were set in the field on 23 August and spaced 24 in. apart in single rows down the center
of each bed. Transplants were immediately drenched with water containing the recommended rate
ofimidacloprid for silverleafwhitefly control. Four replications of 10 plants per entry were arranged
in a randomized complete block design in the replicated trial and single 10-plant plots were used in
the observational trial. Plants were lightly pruned, staked and tied.
Plants were scouted for pests throughout the season. Lepidopterous larvae, leafminers and silverleaf
whitefly were the primary insects found. Bacillus thuringiensis, methomyl, spinosad, buprofezin,
endosulfan, and pyriproxyfen were used according to label instructions to control insect pest
populations during the season. A preventative spray program using maneb, copper hydroxide, and
chlorothalonil was followed for control of plant pathogens. Tomato yellow leaf curl virus affected
plants were removed and disposed of early in the season, but were allowed to remain after the second
tie.
Fruit from replicated entry plants were harvested at or beyond the mature-green stage on 17 and 30
November and 14 December. Tomatoes were graded as cull or marketable by U.S. standards for
grades (USDA, 1981) and marketable fruit were sized by machine (see footnotes Tables 2,3 for
specifications). Both cull and marketable fruit were counted and weighed. Subjective ratings of
plant and fruit characteristics were made on the observational entries.
Results and Discussion
Temperatures during the experimental period from 23 August to 14 December were near the 45-year
average (Table 1). Rainfall was less than normal throughout the period.
Replicated Trial
The replicated trial included 26 fresh market type entries, one plum entry (Hybrid 882) and one
saladette type (Flavor More 223).
Early Harvest Yields: Early yield ranged from 138 25-lb cartons/acre for HA-3044 to 932
cartons/acre for Fla. 7885 (Table 2). Only one other entry, HA-3017 B, had yield similar to that of
Fla. 7885. Extra large fruit yield of fresh market types varied from 101 cartons/acre for HA-3044
to 731 cartons/acre for Fla. 7885. Four other entries; HA-3017 B, Fla. 7816, 'BHN 190', and 'Solar
Set' had extra large fruit yield similar to that of Fla. 7885. Large fruit yields of fresh market types
ranged from 26 cartons/acre for HA-3044 to 182 cartons/acre for HA-3048. Average fruit weight
for fresh market types varied from 6.5 oz for HA-3017 A and HA-3048 to 8.9 oz for 'Florida 91'.
Cull fruit varied from 8% by weight for Fla. 7816 to 63% for HA-3044. The principal defects were
radial cracking, rough shoulders, large blossom-scars, and undersize fruit. These defects generally
were entry specific. Plant stand did not vary among the entries.
Total Yields: Seasonal yields from three harvests ranged from 1294 cartons/acre for SBT 5011 to
2648 cartons/acre for Fla. 7885 (Table 3). Nine other entries had similar yields to those of Fla. 7885.
All entries produced yields exceeding the 1106 cartons/acre state average yield for fall 1997-98
(Witzig and Pugh, 1999) and those obtained at this location in recent fall seasons.
Yields of extra large fruit varied from 629 cartons/acre for SBT 5011 to 1835 cartons/acre for Fla.
7816. Eight other entries had extra large fruit yields similar to those of Fla. 7816. Large fruit yields
of fresh market types ranged from 405 cartons/acre for 'BHN 190' to 872 cartons/acre for HA-3048.
Average fruit weight for fresh market types varied from 5.4 oz for HA-3017 A to 6.9 oz for Fla.
7816. Cull fruit by weight ranged from a low of 12% for Fla. 7816 to 32% for HA-3044. The
incidence of plants infected with tomato yellow leaf curl virus varied from 0 for HA-3017 B, HA-
3048, 'Sanibel', HA-3017 A, and HA-3044 to 40% for SBT 6682.
Observational Trial: Entries in the observational trial were rated several times during the season
for horticultural characteristics (Table 4). Ratings provide a general indication of crop performance
at a particular time and location.
Summary
Overall, total marketable yields surpassed those obtained at this location in recent fall seasons. In
fall 1999, yields ranged from about 1300 cartons/acre to more than 2600 cartons/acre.
The proportion of extra-large fruit varied from less than 50% to over 75% for the entire season. The
University of Florida experimental hybrids Fla. 7885, Fla. 7921, Fla. 7816; and 'BHN 273', and HA
3017 B were outstanding performers in the fall 1999 replicated trial.
Note
The information contained in this report is a summary of experimental results and should not be used
as recommendations for crop production. No discrimination is intended nor endorsement implied
where trade names are used.
Acknowledgment
We are grateful to the following firms for their financial support of vegetable variety evaluation
during 1998 and 1999. Abbott & Cobb; Agrisales, Inc.; Asgrow Vegetable Seeds; BHN Research;
Florida Food Products, Inc., Florida Seed Co.; Harris Moran Seed Co.; Hollar Seed Co.; Hazera
Quality Seeds; Novartis Seeds, Inc. Vegetables,NAFTA; Paramount Seeds, Inc.; d. palmer seed
company, inc.; Sakata Seed America; Shamrock Seed Co., Inc.; Southwestern Seed Co., Sugar Creek
Seeds, Inc.; Sunseeds; and Willhite Seed, Inc.
Literature Cited
Hanlon, E. A. and J. M. DeVore. 1989. IFAS extension soil testing laboratory chemical procedures
and training manual. Fla. Coop. Ext. Circ. 812.
United States Department of Agriculture. 1981. U.S. standards for grades of tomato. USDA Agr.
Marketing Serv., USDA, Washington, D.C.
Witzig, J. D. and N. L. Pugh. 1999. Florida agricultural statistics. Vegetable summary 1997-1998.
Fla. Agr. Stat. Serv., Orlando, FL.
Table 1. Temperature and rainfall at the Gulf Coast Research and Education Center during the
fall Of 1999 and the 45-year average (www.fawn.ifas.ufl.edu).
Maximum
19991 45-yr avg
91 91
87 90
83 85
78 79
76 74
Minimum
19991 45-yr avg
74 72
72 71
67 64
57 58
54' 52
Rainfall (in.)
19991 45-yr avg
2.16 9.77
4.23 8.15
2.95 2.98
0.69 2.02
0.44 2.18
1 Transplanted 23 August 1999. Last harvest 14 December 1999.
Month
August
September
October
November
December
Table 2. Seed source, marketable yields, average marketable fruit weight, cull percentages, and
plant stands for fresh market tomato entries in the first harvest, 17 November 1999. Fall
1999.
Entry
Fla 7885
HA-3017B
Fla 7816
BHN 190
Solar Set
Florida 91
Fla 7921
HA-3048
BHN 273
Equinox
BHN 329
Florida 47
BHN 153
Sanibel
Agiset 76_1
Sunbeam
Sunchaser
RFT 6153
Solimar
SBT 5659
Hybrid 882
RFT 8332
ASX 9100
HA-3017A
SBT 6682
Flavor More 223
SBT 5011
HA-3044
Source
GCREC
Hazera
GCREC
BHN Res.
Asgrow_
Asgrow
GCREC
Hazera
BHN Res.
Agrisales_
BHN Res.
Asgrow
BHN Res.
Petoseed
_grisales
Asgrow
Petoseed
Novartis
Asgrow
Sunseeds
Petoseed
Novartis
Agrisales
Hazera
Sunseeds
Harris Moran
Sunseeds
Hazera
Early Harvest
Total X-Large Large Medium
------------------(cartons/A)1-----------
932 a3
800 ab
762 bc
748 b-d
718 b-d
603 c-f
598 c-f
581 c-f
572 d-f
552 e-Ag
531 fg
490 f-h
445 f-i
435 f-i
432 f-i
419 f-i
374 g-j
341 h-j
328 h-j
290 i-k
275 i-k
263 i-k
262 i-k
219jk
204 jk_
196jk
194jk
138 k
731 a
643 a-c
698 ab
642 a-c
623 a-d
549 b-e
534 fe
354 f-j
506 f
459 d-h
482 c-g
434 e-h
384 e-i
392 e-i
400 e-h
340 f-j
311 g-k
295 h-1
281 h-1
201 j-m
219 i-m
206 j-m
149 k-m
156 k-m
126 1m
101 m
176 a
129 ab
56 bc
103 bc
89 bc
54 bc
59 bc
182 a
62 bc
91 bc
49 c
54 be
59 be
42 c
31 c
79 bc
61 be
45 c
45 c
75 be
-
41 c
55 be
51 c
44 c
-
50 c
26 c
26 bc
27 b
8 c-e
3 de
6 de
Oe
5 de
46 a
3 de
2 de
Oe
2 de
2 de
Oe
1 de
0e
2 de
1 de
2 de
14 b-c
2 de
Oe
20 b-d
4 de
-
18 b-e
10 b-e
Avg
Fruit
Culls
(%)2
20 e-i
23 d-i
8i
21 e-i
14 hi
18 f-i
19 e-i
32 d-f
16 g-i
19 e-i
18 f-i
16 g-i
26 d-h
18 f-i
23 d-i
22 d-i
23 d-i
27 d-h
25 d-h
36 cd
31 d-f
30 d-g
33 de
50 b
22 d-i
24 d-h
47 be
63 a
Plant
Wt Stand
(oz)
7.8 a-g
7.9 a-f
8.6 a-c
8.3 a-e
7.9 a-f
8.9 a
8.1 a-f
6.5 h
8.4 a-d
7.9 a-f
7.5 c-h
8.5 a-c
7.5 b-h
8.1 a-f
8.7 ab
7.8 a-g
6.9 f-h
8.4 a-d
7.8 a-g
7.1 e-h
3.0 i
7.8 a-g
7.2 d-h
6.5 h
7.2 d-h
3.4 i
6.6 hg
6.6 ha
(%)
100 a
100 a
100 a
100 a
100 a
98 a
98 a
100 a
100 a
98 a
95 a
100 a
100 a
100 a
100 a
100 a
93 a
93 a
100 a
93 a
95 a
95 a
95 a
100 a
95 a
93 a
100 a
98 a
SCarton = 25 lbs. Acre = 8712 Ibf. Grading belt hole sizes: X-Large = no
Large = 2.75"; Medium = 2.5"; and Cull = 2.25".
2By weight.
3 Mean separation in columns by Duncan's multiple range test, 5% level.
belt, greater than 2.75";
__
__I
____
__
__
__
__
__
__
____
__
I
_
__
__
__
__
___
_
__
_
_
.
__
10 b-e
--
--
~---
--
--
__
__
__
__
____
__
__
__
DD--
Table 3. Total marketable yields, average marketable fruit weight, and cull percentages for fresh
market tomato entries in spring 1999. (Harvest Dates: 17 and 30 November, 14
December, 1999).
Total Harvest
Avg Fruit
X-Large Large Medium Culls
Wt TYLCV4
Entry
Fla 7885
Fla 7921
BHN 273
Fla 7816
HA-3017B
Equinox
Solar Set
HA-3048
Sanibel
Florida 47
Sun Chaser
BHN 190
Agriset 761
Florida 91
RFT 6153
Sunbeam
BHN 329
BHN 153
HA-3017A
RFT 8332
Hybrid 882
ASX 9100
Solimar
SBT 6682
HA-3044
SBT 5659
Flavor More 223
SBT 501
1 Carton = 25 lbs.
-----------------------(ctns/A) ----------------------
2648 a3
2445 ab
2422 a-c
2419 a-c
2390 a-d
2338 a-c
2308 a-d
2190 a-e
2164 a-f
2161 a-g
2072 b-h
2052 b-h
1992 b-i
1977 b-i
1936 b-i
1934 b-i
1906 c-i
1883 d-j
1763 e-k
1744 e-k
1654 f-k
1644 g-k
1634 h-k
1505 i-k
1492 i-k
1383jk
1368 k
1294 k
1661 a-c
1704 ab
1567 a-e
1835 a
1498 a-e
1617 a-d
1708 ab
1029 f-j
1479 a-e
1537 a-e
1228 d-h
1541 a-e
1292 c-g
1349 b-f
1211 e-i
1393 b-f
1289 c-g
1255 d-h
887 h-k
1070 f-j_
978 g-k
968 g-k
847 i-k
835 i-k
729jk
629 k
789 ab
596 b-f
631 b-e
481 c-f
698 a-c
593 b-f
480 c-f
872 a
577 c-f
526 c-f
640 b-e
405 f
567 c-f
451 d-f
598 b-f
429 ef
494 c-f
521 c-f
666 b-d
541 c-f
514 c-f
503 c-f
511 c-f
474 d-f
445 d-f
473 d-f
198 b-e
144 b-g
224 ab
103 fg
195 b-f
128 c-g
119 c-g
289 a
108 e-g
.98 g__
203 b-d
105 fg
133 c-g
132 c-g
128 c-g
112 d-g
123 c-g
107 e-g
210 a-c
132_c-g_
153 b-g
163 b-g
146 b-g
184_b-g_
209 a-c
193 b-f
193 b-f
(%)2
17 e-i
17 e-i
17 e-i
12i
18 d-i
14 g-i
14 hi
22 b-h
16 f-i
14.l-i
18 d-i
20 c-i
19 d-i
19 d-i
17 e-i
20 c-i
19 c-i
23 b-g
26 a-d
23 b-g.
29 ab
24 a-f
20 c-i
16 f-i
32 a
28 a-c
31 ab
26 a-e
Acre = 8712 lbf. Grading belt hole sizes: X-Large = no belt, greater than 2.75":
Large = 2.75"; Medium= 2.5"; and Cull = 2.25".
2 By weight.
3 Mean separation in columns by Duncan's multiple range test, 5% level.
4 Tomato yellow leaf curl virus.
Total
(oz)
6.2 d-f
6.3 de
6.3 c-e
6.9 a
6.3 c-e
6.4 c-e
6.6 a-c
5.4j
6.4 d-e
6.5 c-d
5.8 g-j
6.8 ab
6.1 d-g
6.5 b-d
6.1 d-g
6.5 b-d
6.3 c-e
6.1 d-g
5.4j
6.0_e-g
2.81
5.8 f-j
6.0 e-h
5.8 f-i
5.6.i1_
5.6 h-j
3.2 k
5.5 ii
5 ab
3b
15 ab
5 ab
0b
15 ab
3b
Ob
Ob
13 ab
25 ab
5 ab
3b
13 ab
3b
23 ab
23 ab
10b
15 ab
Ob
23 ab
30 ab
15 ab
40 ab
0b
23 ab
28 ab
30b
...
____
____.
__
_
_
I
_____
__
____
__
____
___
_
_
I
_____
__
___
I_ _
____
___
__
_
(ctns/A)
_____
__
____
____
_____
__
_
_
-----
__
____
____
...._
__
-_
_
I
.....
..
Table 4. Plant and fruit characters of tomato entries in the observational trial. Fall 1999.
Plant Fruit Characteristics Fruit Defects"
Stand TYLCV2 Plant Color' Blossom Cracks Rain
Source/Entry (%)' (%) Height' Stem4 Shoulder"5 Set6 Size' Maturity* Shape' Internal External Firmness"' Scar' Zipper Radial Concentric Check
BHN Research
BHN 120A 100 0 S jo gb3 3 3 4 G 2 3 4 4 5 3 5 3
BHN 216 100 0 S jo gb2 3 3 3 DO 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 5
BHN 316 100 0 M j2 gb3 2 2 2 O 3 4 4 4 5 2 5 5
BHN 336 100 0 M j2 ug3 2 2 4 O 2 3 4 4 5 3 5 5
BHN 348 90 0 S jo ug4 3 2 2 O 2 4 4 4 5 5 5 5
BHN481 100 0 S jo ug4 3 2 3 O 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 5
Univ. of Florida
Fla. 7786 100 0 S-M jo ug2 4 2 1 G-DO 4 4 5 3 5 3 5 5
Fla. 7791 100 0 M jo ug3 4 2 5 DO 3 3 2 2 5 5 5 5
Fla. 7810 100 0 S jo ug4 5 4 4 O-DO 3 4 3 2 5 3 5 5
Fla. 7820 100 0 S jo ug3 2 2 3 DO 3 4 4 4 5 3 5 5
Fla. 7852 100 0 M jo ug2 4 2 4 DO 2 3 3 4 5 5 5 5
Fla. 7859 100 10 T jo ug5 2 2 2 DO 4 4 3 5 5 5 5 5
Fla. 7860 100 30 S-M jo ug4 5 2 2 O-DO 4 3 3 2 3 5 5 3
Fla. 7861 100 0 T jo ug4 3 4 3 O 5 3 3 2 5 5 5 5
Fla. 7862 100 30 M jo ug4 3 3 2 DO 5 3 5 2 5 5 5 5
Fla. 7883 100 40 S jo ug2 3 3 3 DO 3 3 1 2 5 3 5 5
Fla. 7884 100 10 T jo ug4 3 4 2 DO 3 4 4 2 5 2 5 5
Fla. 7887 100 0 M jo ug2 3 2 3 DO 3 5 4 4 4 5 5 5
Fla. 7888 100 0 M jo ug3 2 3 3 DO 4 3 3 3 4 5 5 5
Fla. 7890 100 10 S jo ug4 4 4 3 DO 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 5
Fla. 7891 100 0 M jo ug4 3 4 3 DO 3 4 4 1 5 5 5 5
Fla. 7892 100 0 S jo ug4 3 2 5 G-DO 4 3 4 4 3 5 5 5
Fla. 7893 80 30 S j2 ug5 4 4 3 DO 3 5 4 4 5 3 5 3
Fla. 7895 100 0 M jo ug4 3 3 2 G-DO 5 4 2 4 3 4 5 5
Fla.7918 100 0 T jo ug5 4 3 4 O 5 4 4 4 5 3 5 5
Fla. 7922 100 10 M-T jo ug3 4 4 4 DO 2 4 4 3 5 3 5 5
Fla. 7923 100 0 S jo ug3 3 3 4 G-DO 2 3 2 3 5 3 5 4
Fla. 7924 100 0 M jo ug3 4 4 4 G-DO 2 3 1 3 5 5 4 5
Fla. 7925 90 50 S jo ug3 3 3 5 G-DO 3 3 3 4 5 3 5 5
Fla. 7926 100 20 M jo ug3 3 3 3 G-DO 3 3 3 4 5 3 5 5
Fla.7927 100 40 S jo ugl 2 2 2 DO 2 4 3 3 5 4 5 5
Fla. 7928 100 10 M jo ug2 2 2 4 DO 2 4 4 4 5 5 5 5
Fla. 7929 100 10 M jo ug3 3 3 4 DO 2 3 4 5 5 4 5 5
Fla. 7930 100 0 M-T jo ug3 3 3 4 G-DO 2 4 5 4 5 5 5 2
Fla.7931 100 10 M jo ug4 3 3 4 G-DO 2 4 5 4 2 5 5 4
Fla. 7932 100 0 M jo ug4 4 4 5 G-DO 2 4 4 4 5 5 5 5
Fla. 7933 90 40 S jo ug2 4 4 3 0 2 4 4 4 3 3 5 5
Fla.7934 90 10 S jo ug2 3 3 5 O 3 4 3 3 5 4 5 5
North Carolina State Univ.
NC 96365 100 30 S jo ug3 2 4 4 O 4 4 3 3 5 3 5 3
NC98274 80 50 S jo ug4 1 5 5 O 3 5 3 3 5 5 3 5
NC 99405 100 0 S jo ug3 2 4 5 DO 2 3 5 3 5 5 5 5
NC 99406 100 0 S jo ugl 2 3 3 G-DO 1 4 3 4 5 5 5 5
NC 99445 90 50 S jo ug3 2 4 3 O 3 3 4 3 5 5 5 5
Petoseed
PX 150046 100 10 S j2 ug5 4 2 2 P 5 5 4 3 4 5 5 3
Table 4 (continued).
'Percent of original plants.
2TYLCV = Tomato yellow leaf curl virus.
3Short, Medium, Tall.
4jo = jointed, j2 = jointless.
5gb = greenback, ug = uniform green.
61 poor 5 excellent.
71 small 5 large.
81 early 5 late.
9G = globe, O = oblate, DO = deep oblate, P = plum.
101 soft 5 firm.
" I severe defect 5 no defect.
The Gulf Coast Research and Education Center
The Gulf Coast Research and Education Center is
a unit of the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sci-
ences, University of Florida. The Research Center
originated in the fall of 1925 as the Tomato
Disease Laboratory with the primary objective of
developing control procedures for an epidemic out-
break of nailhead spot of tomato. Research was ex-
panded in subsequent years to include study of sev-
eral other tomato diseases.
In 1937, new research facilities were established
in the town of Manatee, and the Center scope was
enlarged to include horticultural, entomological, and
soil science studies of several vegetable crops. The
ornamental program was a natural addition to the
Center's responsibilities because of the emerging in-
dustry in the area in the early 1940's.
The Center's current location was established in
1965 where a comprehensive research and extension
program on vegetable crops and ornamental plants is
conducted. Three state extension specialists posi-
tions, 16 state research scientists, and two grant
supported scientists from various disciplines of
training participate in all phases of vegetable and
ornamental horticultural programs. This interdisci-
plinary team approach, combining several research
disciplines and a wide range of industry and faculty
contacts, often is more productive than could be ac-
complished with limited investments in independent
programs.
The Center's primary mission is to develop new
and expand existing knowledge and technology, and
to disseminate new scientific knowledge in Florida, so
that agriculture remains efficient and economically
sound.
The secondary mission of the Center is to assist
the Cooperative Extension Service, IFAS campus
departments, in which Center faculty hold appropri-
ate liaison appointments, and other research centers
in extension, educational training, and cooperative
research programs for the benefit of Florida's pro-
ducers, students, and citizens.
Program areas of emphasis include: (1) genetics,
"breeding, and variety development and evaluation;
(2) biological, chemical, and mechanical pest manage-
ment in entomology, plant pathology, nematology,
bacteriology, virology, and weed science; (3) produc-
tion efficiency, culture, management, and counteract-
ing environmental stress; (4) water management and
natural resource protection; (5) post-harvest physiol-
ogy, harvesting, handling and food quality of horti-
cultural crops; (6) technical support and assistance to
the Florida Cooperative Extension Service; and (7)
advancement offundamental knowledge of disciplines
represented by faculty and (8) directing graduate
student training and teaching special undergraduate
classes.
Location of
GCREC Bradenton
IFAS IS:
" The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
University of Florida.
" A statewide organization dedicated to teaching,
research and extension.
Q Faculty located in Gainesville and at 13 research
and education centers, 67 county extension
offices and four demonstration units throughout
the state.
Q A partnership in food and agriculture, and natural
and renewable resource research and education,
funded by state, federal and local government,
and by gifts and grants from individuals, founda-
tions, government and industry.
Q An organization whose mission is:
Educating students in the food, agricultural,
and related sciences and natural resources.
Strengthening Florida's diverse food and
agricultural industry and its environment
through research.
Enhancing for all Floridians, the application
of research and knowledge to improve the
quality of life statewide through IFAS exten-
sion programs.
|