2018 Summary for Knoxville Location of Tennessee Home Vegetable Trials Natalie R
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
2018 Summary for Knoxville Location of Tennessee Home Vegetable Trials Natalie R. Bumgarner, Plant Sciences Department, University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture (UTIA), Knoxville, Tennessee Introduction There are many factors other than yield that contribute to success in vegetable gardens. Taste, appearance, novelty, and ease of management as well as how the cultivar fits in garden space is important. These various factors mean that trials for gardeners need to address the growing habit of crops, ease of establishment and disease resistance that contributes to ease of management, appearance, and productivity. Currently, there are many novel and/or disease resistant cultivars being introduced, but their quality for the home gardener is not well known. These preliminary single replication trials seek to assess a range of crops and cultivars for suitability and expanded trialing in Tennessee vegetable gardens. Materials and Methods Transplant Production and Crop Establishment Transplanted crops were started in bay 1 (glass greenhouse with automatic shading and mist bench) of the UT Greenhouse in open seedling trays on 10 March, 2018. At the appearance of true leaves, seedlings were transplanted to 36 count, deep cell trays. Transplanting was done on 28 March and 29 March, 2018. Prior to transplanting in the field, plants were grown in a plastic covered heated greenhouse and hardened off in a shaded cold frame or outdoors on the UT campus. Trial plots were located at the East Tennessee Research and Education Center (ETREC), Organic Crops Unit (OCU) in plot L, which is a non-certified plot that allows for the use of conventional management practices. Soil tests were taken ETREC personnel and fertilization was applied according to soil tests results prior to plot establishment. The study area consisted of eight 175 ft long black plastic, drip irrigated rows with spacing indicated below. All cultivars were replicated once. Table 1. Summary of crops and management Crop Date Seed(s)/ Row In-row spacing Plants First Last harvest (# cultivars) Transplant(t) spacing /plot harvest Peppers (16) 5/14 (t) 6 ft. 2 ft. 6 6/30 10/4 Tomato (60) 5/9, 5/15 (t) 6 ft. 3 ft. (Ind.) 6 6/30 8/31 2 ft. (Det.) Cucumbers (8) 5/29 (s) 8 ft. 1 ft. 10 7/2 8/17 Muskmelon (7) 5/29 (s) 8 ft. 2 ft. 6 7/29 8/23 Watermelon (7) 5/30 (s) 8 ft. 3 ft. 5 7/29 8/23 Summer squash (11) 5/30 (s) 8 ft. 2 ft. 6 6/26 8/17 Winter squash (5) 5/30 (s) 8 ft. 2 ft. 6 7/13 8/23 Crop Management No herbicides were used in the plot, but weed pressure was minimized by the use of plastic mulch in the planting rows and wheat straw in the isles. Disease pressure was minimized by applications of labeled 1 fungicides (Daconil) to control Alternaria, Septoria, and powdery mildew. Applications of Spinosad were used to address yellow striped armyworms and tobacco hornworms. Sevin was used to address cucumber beetles on the cucurbits, while neem oil, Azamax, and Malathion (tomatoes only) was used to address spider mites. Fertigation (20-10-20) soluble fertilizer was provided approximately 11 times during the each growing season. Combined estimated irrigation volume and rainfall were 24.6 for 2018, although seed and harvest dates altered the total for crops. Data collection and analysis Yield was collected throughout the season for fruiting crops. All fruit per plot were counted and weighed at each harvest. Useable fruit were counted and weighed, and unusable fruit was counted and discarded. Sorting was done with the home gardener in mind. Data presented below are useable fruit that may have minor surface blemishes or small cracks, but does not have damage or decay that would prevent the use of the whole fruit. There are no standard error or statistical measures due to single plot replication. Results Table 2. Total useable fruit weight and number for tomato, pepper, eggplant (presented by plant). AAS= All American Selection award winners; TTP= Tennessee Home Garden Variety Trial Top Performer Crop Cultivar Disease Wt./plant Fruit/ Fruit wt. Comments (F1s are hybrids) resistances (lb) plant (oz.) Nice smaller bell that Pepper Sweetie Pie F1 (AAS) 4.48 29 2.5 ripened quickly Novel appearance- Pepper Round of Hungary 2.69 16 2.7 heirloom Beautiful, novel fruit and Pepper Candy Cane 3.57 53 1.1 plant Pepper Red Knight F1 BLS, PVY 4.41 19 3.6 No visual different in BLS, PYMV, disease pressure were apparent. Red Knight did Pepper Alliance F1 PMV, CMV, TMV 4.86 15 5.3 have noticeably smaller BLS, TMV, PMV Pepper Mecate F1 4.70 17 4.6 fruit. OP Italian red bull horn Pepper Corno di Toro 3.60 29 2.0 thinner walls, larger plant. TMV Large yellow Italian Mama Mia Giallo F1 roasting, late summer Pepper (AAS) 6.14 30 3.3 peak. Heirloom that did well in Pepper Ajvarski 4.59 23 3.2 taste trials, thick walls Small fruit extended Pepper Yellow Sparker F1 3.60 70 0.8 picking time Tm0 Fruit was nice sized, performed well in tasting, Pepper Just Sweet F1 (AAS) 3.73 50 1.2 slightly taller plant Smaller Italian roasting, slighter earlier, performed Pepper Cornito Giallo F1 (AAS) 5.75 46 2.0 well in tastings Small fruit extended Pepper Yummy 2.65 72 0.6 picking time 2 Small cayenne, productive, but time consuming to Pepper Red Ember F1 (AAS) 3.42 96 0.6 pick, compact plant Mild heat, crisp, thin Pepper Aji Rico F1 (AAS) 0.82 23 0.6 walled fruit, larger plant Lower yield, unique fruit, floral, sweet fruit, larger Pepper Mad Hatter F1 (AAS) 0.56 11 0.8 plant Tomato Damsel F1 LB, V,F,N 14.73 28 8.5 Smoother smaller pink fruit Tomato AAS pink trial F1 13.52 18 12.0 Chef’s Choice Pink F1 TMV, F,N,S, Very large fruit, heirloom Tomato (AAS) Cracking, Scab 15.90 16 16.2 look Tomato Black Krim 16.18 27 9.8 Heirloom AAS black tomato trial TMV, Cracking, Trial cultivar actually Chef’s Tomato F1 A, F 19.15 35 8.8 Choice Black TMV, Cracking, Indeterminate, many Early Choice Black F1 F,V medium sized fruit, soft Tomato (AAS) 20.24 53 6.1 texture, some cracking V,F,N, TMV, GLS Indeterminate, large red Tomato Big Beef F1 (AAS) 16.58 35 7.7 fruit Indeterminate, med. Red Tomato Livingston’s Favorite 15.93 64 4.0 fruit, heirloom Indeterminate, small Tomato Arkansas Traveler 18.48 118 2.5 pinkish fruit UF bred for taste, pointed Tomato Garden Treasure F1 15.09 30 8.0 plum fruit, indeterminate Indeterminate, pink Tomato Brandywine 10.28 15 11.0 heirloom Indeterminate, heirloom look and flavor, but Tomato German Johnson 17.64 23 12.5 productive Indeterminate, hybrid with Cher. Purple parent, has done well in taste trials in 2 Tomato Cherokee Carbon F1 21.20 24 14.1 years Tomato Little Bing F1 F,V 2.93 16 2.9 Det. cherry for container Det. small slicer for Tomato Little Sicily F1 4.35 47 1.5 container F,V Det. small plum for Tomato Little Napoli F1 3.01 7 6.9 container TMV, F,V Prolific large yellow cherry Patio Choice Yellow F1 fruit, det. plant for Tomato (AAS) 11.41 32 5.7 container UF bred for taste, pointed Tomato Garden Gem F1 12.04 - - plum fruit, determinate EB Firm, deep red mini plum Tomato Valentine F1 (AAS) 11.09 - - fruit with high lycopene. EB, LB Indeterminate, Large grape, productive, healthy Tomato Juliet F1 (AAS) 22.09 - - plant. Indeterminate, Unique shape, did not perform Tomato Tomatoberry 15.29 - - well in tastings 3 Indeterminate, Unique color, did not perform well Tomato Atomic Grape 16.27 - - in tastings F, TMV Indeterminate, small yellow cherry fruit, performed well in taste Tomato Sun Gold F1 8.40 - - trials Indeterminate, larger cherry fruit, more acidic or Tomato Black Cherry 10.47 - - stronger tomato flavor LB Indeterminate, productive, small red cherry fruit, performed well in tastings Tomato Cherry Bomb F1 14.39 - - in 2 years Tomato Plum Regal F1 V, F, LB, TSWV 7.35 29 4.1 All determinate roma V,F,N, A, GLS, tomatoes were impacted to some degree by early Tomato AAS roma trial F1 LB, BacSP,BacC 10.68 80 2.1 blight and spider mites. V,F,N, Phy, Fruit in most cultivars was Tomato Heinz Super Roma F1 TSWV 7.39 30 4.0 quite firm. Main observed F,V,N, BacSp, differences in cultivars was Tomato Pony Express F1 TMV 9.48 47 3.3 fruit size. Tomato AAS roma trial F1 V,F,N,A,GLS 9.52 90 1.7 Tomato Little Napoli F1 F,V 5.71 49 1.9 Tomato AAS roma trial F1 V,F,N,BacSp 13.09 62 3.4 LB, EB, F,V Determinate, medium sized fruit, did well in Tomato Defiant F1 12.67 59 3.5 tasting EB, LB. V,F,N, Determinate, EB resistance TMV, TSWV, GLS was apparent, fruit was Tomato AAS trial red Det. F1 9.59 26 5.9 firm EB, LB, F, N, Determinate, firm fruit, has Mountain Merit F1 TSWV not performed well in Tomato (AAS) 11.07 24 7.3 tastings LB, V,F,N Determinate, lack of EB Tomato AAS trial red Det. F1 11.20 28 6.4 resistance was apparent V,F, TMV Determinate, yellow fruit, spider mite damage limited Tomato BHN 871 F1 10.50 29 5.8 production V,F,N,A, TMV Determinate, consistent Tomato Celebrity F1 (AAS) 14.37 34 6.8 performer, large red fruit EB, LB, F, V, Sep.