<%BANNER%>
Staked tomato variety trial results
ALL VOLUMES CITATION SEARCH THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00074334/00001
 Material Information
Title: Staked tomato variety trial results
Series Title: Immokalee SWFREC Reseach Report
Physical Description: v. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: University of Florida -- Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Agricultural Research Center (Immokalee, Fla.)
Agricultural Research & Education Center (Immokalee, Fla.)
Southwest Florida, Research and Education Center (Immokalee, Fla.)
Publisher: University of Florida, IFAS.
Place of Publication: Immokalee Florida
Creation Date: 1982
Frequency: semiannual
regular
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: Tomatoes -- Varieties -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Tomatoes -- Field experiments -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
periodical   ( marcgt )
serial   ( sobekcm )
 Notes
Issuing Body: Issued by the Agricultural Research Center in Imokalee, Fla., which changed its name to the Agricultural Research & Education Center and later to the Southwest Florida, Research and Education Center.
General Note: Description based on: Fall 1982; title from caption.
General Note: Latest issue consulted: Fall 1988.
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 62677757
lccn - 2005229344
System ID: UF00074334:00001

Full Text
lbt

Flo3&,.,.

SFL
"'Z


AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER
IFAS, University of Florida
Immokalee, Florida


STAKED TOMATO VARIETY TRIAL RESULTS -- FALL 1982

Paul H. Everett and Karen A. Armbresterl


Inrokalee ARC Research Report 1I233-2


August, 1933


A replicated trial was conducted at the Agricultural Research Center,
Irmokalee, Florida, during the fall season (Aug. -- Dec) of 1982 to evaluate
the performance of nineteen tomato cultivars and/or breeding lines. The
following table is a list of entries and seed sources used in this trial.

Table 1. List of entries and seed sources


Cultivar or
bridA4vi 14 -n


Seed Source


*Sunny
327024-I11
*Castlehy 1035
*Hayslip
*FTE 12
*FTE 20
827025-S3K M *
*Burgis U
AVX 3384
D76127
*Duke
*Corda. .
*Count II
1060
'27068
'132
327015-IBKT
UF-A2868
*Flora-Dade
*Cultivars commercially available


Asgrow Seed Company
IFAS Dreeders Seed
A.L. Castle, Inc.
IFAS Foundation Seed
Petoseed Company
\ Petoseed Company
S IFAS "reeders Seed
IFAS Foundation Seed
L U \Agrigenetics
IFAS Breeders Seed
Fo\' Petoseed Company
i..- Sluis & Groot
.--,.- Petoseed Company
A.L. Castle, Inc.
IFAS Breeders Seed
Sluis & Groot
IFAS Breeders Seed
IFAS breeders Seed
IFAS Foundation Seed


EXPERE;NLTAL PROCEDURE

All entries were seeded into styrofoam trays (173 inch square cells) on
August 20, 1932, and were transplanted to field plots on September 9, 1982.
Field plots were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four
replications. Each plot consisted of 10 plants spaced 15 inches apart on
raised plant beds spaced 6 feet on centers. Plant beds were irrigated with


1Professor and Biologist, respectively, IFAS, University of Florida,
Agricultural Research Center, Immokalee, FL 33934.


Seed Sourc









an open ditch seep system with lateral ditches spaced 41.5 feet apart. With
this arrangement there were 5 plant beds between lateral ditches. Reported
yields are based on 7260 linear bed feet per acre. All plots were fertilized
with 5-8-3-1.2 + micronutrients at 7 lb/100 linear bed feet. This was spread
in a 30 inch band on a prebed and then bedded over to a depth of 3-4 inches.
In addition to the 5-8-3-1.2 fertilizer, all plots were fertilized with 19-0-30
at 14 lb/130 linear bed feet applied on the surface of the finished bed in a
narrow band 10 inches to each side of the plant ro-. The finished bed was
then mulched with white plastic film. Plants were staked. Fungicides were
applied on a 5-7 day schedule and insecticides were applied on a need basis.
Insects were not a serious problem in this test, but bacterial leaf spot disease
was moderately severe from mid-season through harvesting. Fruit were harvested
on December 7 and on December 16, 1932. At each harvest, fruit were sized,
counted, weighed and graded into marketable or cull fruit.

The general weather conditions during this trial are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Weather conditions for the season

TemperatureF? Rainfall
Ionth Avg. max Avg. min. (inches)

Sept. 89 72 6.14
Oct. 84 67 4.86
Jov. 82 62 0.58
Dec. (1-16) 31 62 3.12

RESULTS AlO DISCUSSION

There were statistically significant difference among the entries in
marketable yield and average fruit weight (Table 3). Ularketable yields (total
for the two harvests) ranged from a high of 3587 25 lb boxes/A for 'Sunny' to
a low of 2096 25 lb boxes/A for 'Flora-Dade'. Statistically, there were no
significant differences in yield among the first 13 entries. 'Sunny' produced
significantly higher yields than 6 entries and the breeding line 327024-I11 had
yields that were significantly better than 5 entries. Yields from 'Castlehy 1035'
and 'Hayslip' were significantly better than the 3 lowest yielding entries.

Average weight of fruit for the first harvest (Table 3) ranged from 7.2 oz/
fruit for 'iayslip' to 4.9 oz/fruit for UF-A2368. 'Hayslip' ranked significantly
larger in size than five entries. 'Duke' and 'Castlehy 1035' ranged second in
size and were significantly larger than four of the remaining entries.

For the second harvest, fruit weights ranged from 4.9 oz/fruit for 827063 to
3.0 oz/fruit for UF-A2368. 327063 was significantly larger than fifteen entries,
and 'Duke' retaining its rank as second largest in size, was significantly larger
than three of the entries.

LU-A2863 had the lowest (3.6%) percentage of cull fruit and E132 had the
highest (29.3%) (Table 3). Three of the 19 entries had cull percentages in the
0-5% range, 11 entries were in the 5-10% range, 3 entries were in the 10-15%
range, 1 entry was in the 15-20% range and 1 entry had more than 20% culls.

Categories of cull fruit, by harvest, are shown in Table 4. Large and/or
leaky blossom-end scars were responsible for most of the cull fruit in both
the first and second harvests. Graywall was most severe on 'Corda' and
E132 and puff was most severe on B132. Cracking, odd shape and zipper scars








-3-


were not a serious problem. Other categories such as decay, fleck, etc. accounted
for some culls, but these were minor.

Table 5 shows the percent (by weight) of the total marketable fruit in each
of four size categories. 'Hayslip' (79.3%) had the highest percentage large plus
extra large fruit followed closely by 'Duke' (79.0%), 327068 (78.5%), 'Sunny'
(77.3%), and 'FTE 12' (76.6%).



Table 3. marketable yields, average fruit weight, percent cull fruit, and
relative maturity for 19 tomato cultivars or breeding lines.


Cultivar or Hkt. lIkt. Av. fr. wt. Relative
breeding line yield1 yield2 1st Har. 2nd IEar. culls maturity3
--25 lb boxes--- -----oz/fruit---- %

Sunny 3537a4 494 6.9a-c 4.2b-e 4.9 ---
827024-11 3269a-b 450 G.7a-c 4.3b-e 11.3 equal
Castlehy 1035 3180a-c 433 7.1a-b 4.3b-e 4.9 equal
Hayslip 3176a-c 437 7.2a 4.4b-d 6.5 later
FTE 12 3067a-d 422 6.7a--c 4.5a-c 9.4 equal
F E 23 2051a--d 393 6.4a-d 4.5a-c 7.2 equal
327025-SBK 2783a-d 333 6.3a-c 4.4b-d 8.0 later
Burgis 2733a-d 333 6.6a-d 4.4b~d 6.1 later
AV[ 3334 2781a-cd 383 6.2c-d 4.2b-e 6.4 earlier
D76127 2697a-d 372 6.6a-d 4.3b-e 10.3 later
Duke 2523a-d 362 7.1a-b 4.6a-b 9.5 later
Corda 2609a-d 359 5.Sd-e 3.9d-e 19.9 earlier**
Count II 2590a-d 357 G.5a-d 4.4b-d 5.2 equal
1300 2483b-d 343 6.5a-d 4.2b-e 5.9 equal
327033 2235c-d 308 7.0a-c 4.9a 8.3 later*
E132 2158c-d 297 5.4e-f 4.1c-e 29.3 earlier
327015-IBK 2123d 292 6.6a-d 4.3b--d 12.9 later
UF-A2868 2112d 291 4.9f 3.8e 3.6 later
Flora-Dade 2096d 289 6.4b-d 4.3b-e 6.1 later

LSO 5% 364 119 0.7 0.4
1Yield per acre based on 7260 linear bed feet/acre
2Yield per 1000 linear bed feet
3Based on % fruit showing color at first harvest as compared to 'Sunny'
4lean separation by Duncan's multiple range test, 5% level.
*Latest in trial
**Earliest in trial

















Table 4. Percent cull fruit in six categories at each harvest


Cultivar or 1st harvest 2nd harvest
breeding line CR1 BES4 GW3 OS ZS" PUFF6 CR BES GW OS ZS PUFF
----.--------% of total number of fruit/harvest------------

Sunny 0.0 2.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.4 1.3 0.3 0.0
327024-I1 0.9 9.9 0.0 0.7 1.0 0.2 0.2 2.7 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0
Castlehy 1035 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.5
Hayslip 0.2 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.5 1.9 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.0
FTE 12 0.0 3.5 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.2 0.4 0.0 :0.2
FTE 20 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0
827025-SBK 0.3 5.9 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.7 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.9
Burgis 0.2 2.5 0.0 1.7 0.4 0.6 0.0 1.6 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.3
AVX 3334 0.2 1.1 3.5 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.9 0.8 0.0 0.0
076127 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.7 1.4 0.6 0.2 0.0
Duke 0.5 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.8 3.0 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.4
Corda 0.1 2.9 14.3 0.6 0.6 1.3 0.0 3.1 6.1 0.7 0.0 0.0
Count II 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.9 0.3 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1050 0.5 5.0 0.0 0.3 9.0 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0
327063 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.6 1.6 0.3 0.5 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0
E132 0.1 1.3 16.1 1.1 0.1 12.5 0.0 2.1 3.5 0.2 0.0 0.3
327015-IUK 0.2 11.1 2.9 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 1.3 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.0
UF-A236C 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.8 1.9 0.0 3.4 1.1 0.7 0.9 0.2 0.0
Flora-Dade 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.6 1.5 0.3 0.2 2.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0


1Cracks (radial
2blossom-end-scw
3Gray wall
4Odd shape
5Zipper scars
60pen locules


and concentric)









-5-


Table 5. Percent marketable fruit in each of four size categories.

Cultivar or Size category'
breeding line Small Uedium Large X-Large (Large + X-Large)
----- ---------------------% -- ------------------ --- -- -----

Sunny 2.8 20.0 35.1 42.2 77.3
327024--11 3.7 22.6 36.6 37.2 73.3
Castlehy 1035 3.6 23.5 31.8 41.1 72.9
Iiayslip 1.3 18.9 33.9 45.4 79.3
FiE 12 2.2 21.2 37.9 38.7 76.6
FTE 20 3.0 25.1 40.6 31.3 71.9
327025-SBK 4.5 21.4 37.7 36.4 74.1
Burgis 3.9 26.6 33.4 31.1 69.5
AVX 3334 4.1 28.9 40.1 27.0 67.1
D76127 5.1 24.7 40.8 29.5 70.3
Duke 2.1 18.9 33.7 45.3 79.0
Corda 9.0 30.3 34.4 26.4 60.3
Count II 4.3 25.8 39.3 30.6 69.9
1360 5.0 31.9 35.9 27.3 63.2
C273J3 1.0 20.4 39.9 33.6 73.5
E132 11.5 33.9 31.0 23.6 54.6
327315-IBK 3.6 26.7 39.0 30.3 69.3
UF-A2868 17.2 40.1 35.9 6.3 42.7
Flora-Dade 4.5 34.9 34.4 26.1 60.5

LSD 5% 9.6
1Small 7 x 7
1iedium 6 x 7
Large 6 x 6
X-Large 5 x 6 and larger









HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida