![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
UFDC Home |
myUFDC Home | Help | ![]() |
Main | |
Historic note |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Full Citation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 |