<%BANNER%>
HIDE
 Main
 Historic note


UF FLAG



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/UF00074334/00002
 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: 1963
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: UF00074334:00002

Table of Contents
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Historic note
        Historic note
Full Text




5FL


AGRICULTURAL RESEARCII CiJTE
IFAS, University of Florida
Immokalee, Florida


STAKED TOMATO VARIETY TRIAL RESULTS SPRING 1933

Paul H. Everett and Karen A. Aribresterl


Itimokalee ARC Research Peport E:IlM 3-3


August, 1933


A replicated trial was conducted at the Agricultural Research Center,
Immokalee, Florida, during the spring season (Jan. Iay) of 1933 to evaluate
the performance of twenty 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
breeding line Seed Source


7045.-J3K
*L/uke TV
*FTE 12 -
*Sunny .
*Hayslip
E423
AV: 3334
*FTi 20 ,"
7025-ISBK \.-
*Count II
10%16
D76127
*Flora-Dade
*Walter PF
7057-TSBK
E2 39
7061-ESBK
7060-ESBK
7065-ESBK
UF-A2 360
*Cultivars con-mercially available


IFAS Breeders Seed
Petoseed Company
Petoseed Company
Asgrow Seed Company
IFAS Foundation Seed
Sluis & Groot
Agrigenetics
Petoseed Company
IFAS Breeders Seed
Petoseed Company
A. L. Castle
IFAS Breeders Seed
IFAS Foundation Seed
IFAS Foundation Seed
IFAS Breeders Seed
Sluis & Groot
IFAS Breeders Seed
IFAS Breeders Seed
IFAS Breeders Seed
IFAS Breeders Seed


2EEPRIMIITAL PROCEDURE

All entries were seeded into styrofoam trays (1 inch square cells) on
December 20, 1982, and were transplanted to field plots on January 24, 1983.
Field plots were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four rep-
lications. Eacn plot consisted of 10 plants spaced 15 inches apart on raised


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


----








plant beds spaced 6 feet on centers. Plant beds were irrigated with an open ditch
seep system with lateral ditches spaced 41.5 feet apart. Reported yields are
based on 7260 linear bed feet per acre. All plots were fertilized with 5-3-3-1.2
+ 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
5-3-3-1.2 fertilizer, all plots were fertilized with 19-0-30 at 14 lb/100 linear
bed feet applied on the surface of the finished bed in a narrow band 10 inches
to each side of the plant row. 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 and diseases were not a
serious problem in this test. Fruit were harvested on lay 9 and on Hay 19, 1933.
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
Month Avg. max. Avg. min. (inches)

Jan. (24-31) 74 49 0.04
Feb. 73 54 11.37
larch 76 56 5.20
April 81 59 1.57
May (1-19) 3G 62 0.10

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

There were statistically significant differences among the entries in
marketable yield and average fruit weight (Table 3). marketable yields (total
of the two harvests) ranged from a high of 3515 25 Ib boxes/A for 7045-EBK to
a low of 2035 25 lb boxes/A for UF-A2868. 7045-EBK produced significantly
higher yields than 9 entries and 'Duke', closely followed by 'FTE 12', 'Sunny',
and 'ilayslip' had yields that were significantly better than 3 entries.

Average weight of fruit for the first harvest (Table 3) ranged from 9.2 oz/
fruit for 7060-ESBK to 4.5 oz/fruit for UF-A2863. 7060-ES3K ranged significantly
larger in size than all other entries. 7061-ESBKI and 7065-ESBK ranked second
and third, respectively, in size and were significantly larger than all of the
remaining entries.

For the second harvest fruit weights ranged from 6.4 oz/fruit for 7060-ESDK
to 4.0 oz/fruit for UF-A2363. As in the first harvest, 7060-ESBK was significantly
larger in size than all other entries. 7061-ESDK retained its rank as second
largest and was significantly larger than the remaining 10 entries. 7065-ESBK
ranked third and was significantly larger than the remaining 17 entries.

UF-A2363 had the lowest (4.1%) percentage of cull fruit and 7065-ESBK had
the highest (27.0%) (Table 3). Two of the 20 entries had cull percentages in the
0-5% range, 9 entries were in the 5-10% range, 5 entries were in the 10-15% range,
3 entries were 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 (BES) were responsible for most of the cull fruit in both
the first and second harvest. 7065-ESBK had the highest percentage of BES in both










harvests. Zipper scars were responsible for some cull fruit in the first harvest,
but was of minor importance in the second harvest. Cracking, odd shape, and cat
facing were not a serious problem. Other categories such as decay, fleck, puff,
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. 7050-ESLK (93.0%) had the highest percentage large
plus extra large fruit followed by 70G1-ESMK (83.6%), 70G5-ESBK (83.2%), 'Duke'
(70.6%) and 7025-ISBK (63.3%).




Table 3. Marketable yields, average fruit weight, percent cull fruit, and
relative maturity for 20 tomato cultivars or breeding lines.

Cultivar or ift iMt Av. fr. wt. % Relative
breeding line yield1 yield2 1st Har. 2nd Har. culls maturity3
7- 25 lb boxes--- -.---- oz/fruit----- %

7035-E3K 3515a4 404 5.7c 4.2d-f 7.8 equal
LIAe 3457a-b 476 5.8c 4.5d 13.3 equal
FTE 12 3403a-b 469 5.7c 4.5d 11.1 equal
Sunny 3399a-b 468 5.4c-d 4.5d 10.3 --
iayslip 3394a--b 463 5.5c 4.3d-f 8.2 later
E423 3347a-c 461 5.5c 4.2d-f 5.5 equal
AVN 3384 3324a-c 453 5.3c-d 4.4d 5.2 later
i.-' 20 3317a-c 457 5.7c 4.4d-e 10.2 later
72;. ISBK 3206a-c 442 5.0c 4.3d-f 9.5 later
Count II 3110a-d 428 5.4c 4.2d-f 6.9 later
1060 3020a-d 416 4.9c-d 4.0e-f 4.9 later
D75127 2936b-d 404 5.5c 4.2d-f 9.5 later
Flora-Dade 2313c-e 388 5.3c-d 4.2e-f 8.0 later
Walter PF 2641d-e 364 5.4c-d 4.3d-f 7.5 later
7057-TSBK 2606d-e 359 5.4c-d 4.4d 13.1 later
E239 2597d-e 353 5.2c-d 4.3d-f 15.9 earlier**
7061-ESBK 2533d-e 355 7.4b 5.8b 15.2 later*
7060-ESBK 2369e-f 326 9.2a 6.4a 13.0 later
7065-ESBK 2061f 234 7.3b 4.3c 27.0 later
UF-A2868 2035f 280 4.5f 4.Of 4.1 equal

LSD 5% 462 64 0.3 0.3
1Yield per acre based on 7260 linear bed feet/acre
2Yield per 1000 linear bed feet
3hased on % fruit showing color at first harvest as compared to 'Sunny'
4iean 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 CRI BESz OS3 ZS4 CF Ob6 CIR BES OS ZS CF O
--------------% of total number of fruit/harvest--------------


7045-uKI 0.4 4.4 0.7
Duke 0.3 10.3 1.3
FTE 12 0.0 9.1 0.9
Sunny 0.1 6.8 1.3
Hayslip 0.0 3.5 0.3
E423 1.1 1.6 0.5
AVA 3334 0.0 3.4 0.5
FT2 20 0.0 3.1 0.1
7025-IS3K 0.1 7.7 0.5
Count II 0.0 3.7 0.3
1050 0.0 3.2 0.2
D76127 0.4 6.0 0.G
Flora.-Dade 0.0 4.5 0.0
Walter PF 0.0 4.1 0.2
7057-.TSBK 0.0 10.6 0.3
E239 2.5 6.6 4.6
7031-ESBK 0.2 9.9 0.4
70600-ESDK 0.0 7.3 1.2
70J.5-IESLI 0.2 22.3 0.2
UF- A268 3 0.3 1.2 0.6
ICracks (radial and concentric
2lossom-end-scar
3Odd Shape
4Zipper Scars
5Cat Face
6Other (decay, scars, etc.)


0.4 0.0 1.1 3.2
0.6 0.8 0.4 0.2
1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0
3.0 0.0 0.5 0.2
3.1 1.1 0.5 0.0
2.9 0.3 0.5 0.3
0.9 0.0 0.4 0.5
2.0 0.0 0.3 0.0
1.2 0.2 0.7 1.3
0.9 0.0 9.1 0.0
1.2 0.5 0.2 0.1
2.2 0.0 0.6 0.0
3.2 0.2 0.6 0.1
2.7 0.7 0.9 0.0
0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0
1.7 0.4 2.4 0.2
1.3 0.7 1.3 0,0
4.5 0.5 4.3 0.0
3.5 0.0 1.3 0.0
2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0


2.3
4.2
4.3
2.2
2.3
0.8
2.0
3.9
0.9
2.0
1.2
5.4
2.9
2.3
6.5
5.2
0.2
7.3
13.5
1.7


0.0
0.2
0.6
2.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.1

0.4
0.4
1.0
3.4
G.7
2.3
0.1


0.0
0.0
0.1
1.1
0.4
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.8
0.1
1.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
1.3
2.0
1.7
0.0


0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0


0.2
0.0
0.3
1.2
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.6
1.0
3.0
4.6












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

Cultivar or
breeding line Small rlediu Large X-Large (Large + X-Large)
-------------- --- -u- ------ ------ ------------ -------

7045-EBKo 7.2 25.4 37.5 29.9 67.4
Duke 4.7 24.7 44.1 26.5 70.6
FTE 12 6.1 25.3 41.4 27.2 68.6
Sunny 6.G 23.1 42.3 23.0 65.3
Hayslip G.1 31.7 43.1 19.1 62.2
E423 7.0 33.6 43.1 16.2 59.3
AVs 8334 6.3 29.8 44.0 19.3 63.9
FTE 20 7.1 24.6 41.9 26.4 63.3
7025-ISBK 5.9 25.3 44.0 24.8 6G.3
Count II 3.0 32.7 43.3 16.0 59.3
1060 10.2 34.0 40.4 15.3 55.7
D76127 8.4 33.0 40.7 17.9 53.6
Flora-Dade 8.6 33.2 33.6 14.6 53.2
Talter PF 8.1 33.2 33.4 20.4 53.3
7057-TSBX 5.6 31.4 41.9 21.1 63.0
Z289 3.6 32.6 35.2 23.6 53.3
7061-. S3. 0.6 10.3 30.3 53.3 83.6
7060-ESBK 0.5 6.5 13.5 74.5 93.0
7065--ESBiK 1.5 15.3 31.7 51.5 83.2
UF-A2863 17.1 48.0 29.8 5.1 34.9


LSD 5%









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