Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Compiled by Elizabeth T. Maynard Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table of Contents
Sources of Vegetable Seeds ...... 5 Beans Use of Biological Treatments for Improved Crop Establishment in Snap Beans — 2011 (Ohio) Mark A. Bennett, Elaine Grassbaugh, and Matt Hofelich ...... 11 Cucumber Evaluation of Seven Slicing Cucumbers in Southwest Michigan (Michigan) Ron Goldy ...... 15 Parthenocarpic Cucumbers Are a Successful Double Crop for High Tunnels (West Virgina) Lewis W. Jett ...... 17 Edamame Edamame Cultivar Report — 2011 (Illinois) Marty Williams, Theresa Herman, and Randy Nelson ...... 23 Muskmelon and Specialty Melon Midwest Muskmelon Variety Trial in Southwest Indiana — 2011 (Indiana) Shubin K. Saha and Sara Hoke ...... 45 Evaluation of OMRI-approved Products for Disease Management of Muskmelon — 2011 (Indiana) Daniel S. Egel, Shubin K. Saha, Stacye Johnson, Scott Monroe, Dennis Nowaskie, and Maria Restrepo ...... 49 Powdery Mildew Resistant Cantaloupe Variety Evaluation — New York 2011 (New York) Margaret T. McGrath, Laura K. Hunsberger, and Sandra Menasha ...... 51 Pepper Preliminary Evaluation of 48 Chili Pepper Cultivars in Central Missouri (Missouri) Steven Kirk and Sanjun Gu ...... 55 Bell Pepper Cultivar Performance Trial Grown in Southern Ohio — 2011 (Ohio) Brad Bergefurd, Wayne Lewis, Thom Harker, Lynn Miller, Al Welch, and Emily Weaks ...... 63 New Crop Pepper Germplasm Evaluation for Northwest Ohio — 2011 (Ohio) Elaine Grassbaugh, Matt Hofelich, and Mark Koenig ...... 65 Use of Plant Growth Regulators to Control Pepper Transplant Height and Enhance Crop Production — 2011 (Ohio) Mark A. Bennett ...... 69 Pumpkin Pumpkin Cultivar Performance Trial Grown in Southern, Ohio — 2011 (Ohio) Brad Bergefurd, Wayne Lewis, Thom Harker, Lynn Miller, Al Welch, and Emily Weaks ...... 73 Continued on next page
2 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Squash Evaluation of OMRI-approved Fungicides for the Control of Powdery Mildew of Zucchini — 2011 (Indiana) Daniel S. Egel, Shubin K. Saha, Stacye Johnson, Scott Monroe, Dennis Nowaskie, and Maria Restrepo ...... 75 Powdery Mildew Resistant Acorn-type Winter Squash Variety Evaluation — New York 2011 (New York) Margaret T. McGrath, Laura K. Hunsberger, and Sandra Menasha ...... 77 Powdery Mildew Resistant Butternut Squash Variety Evaluation — New York 2011 (New York) Margaret T. McGrath, Laura K. Hunsberger, and Sandra Menasha ...... 81 Powdery Mildew Resistant Yellow Summer Squash Variety Evaluation — New York 2011 (New York) Margaret T. McGrath, Laura K. Hunsberger, and Sandra Menasha ...... 85 Powdery Mildew Resistant Zucchini Squash Variety Evaluation — New York 2011 (New York) Margaret T. McGrath, Laura K. Hunsberger, and Sandra Menasha ...... 89 Summer Squash Variety Trial — 2011(Indiana) J. Scott Monroe, Maria H. Restrepo, and Kendra B. Norris ...... 93 Sweet Corn Sugar-enhanced and Synergistic Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Northern Indiana — 2011 (Indiana) Elizabeth T. Maynard ...... 97 Supersweet Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Northern Indiana — 2011 (Indiana) Elizabeth T. Maynard ...... 103 Northern Ohio Sweet Corn Evaluation — 2011 (Ohio) Mark Koenig and Matt Hofelich ...... 107 Tomato Performance of 11 Fresh Market and Five Saladette Tomato Cultivars in Southwest Michigan in 2011 (Michigan) Ron Goldy ...... 127 Late Blight Resistant Tomato Variety Evaluation Using Organic Production Practices — New York 2011 (New York) Margaret T. McGrath, Laura K. Hunsberger, and Sandra Menasha ...... 131 Fresh Market Tomato Cultivar Performance Trial Grown in Southern Ohio — 2011 (Ohio) Brad Bergefurd, Wayne Lewis, Thom Harker, Lynn Miller, Al Welch, and Emily Weaks ...... 137 Tomato Variety Trial — 2011 (Indiana) J. Scott Monroe*, Maria H. Restrepo, Kendra B. Norris, and Nicholas P. Okeli ...... 139
Continued on next page
3 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Watermelon Midwest Personal-size Triploid Watermelon Variety Trial in Southwest Indiana —2011 (Indiana) Shubin K. Saha and Sara Hoke ...... 143 Midwest Triploid Watermelon Variety Trial in Southwest Indiana — 2011 (Indiana) Shubin K. Saha and Sara Hoke ...... 147 2010 Seedless Watermelon Variety Trials in Central Missouri (Missouri) Sanjun Gu and Terry Blank ...... 151 Authors’ Addresses ...... 155
4 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Sources of Vegetable Seeds
AC *Abbott and Cobb, Inc., P.O. Box 307, Feasterville, PA 19053-0307; (800) 345- SEED; www.abbottcobb.com ADV Advanta/Pacific Seeds, P.O. Box 337, 268 Anzac Ave., Toowooma, Queensland 4350, Australia; www.pacificseeds.com ACR Alf Christianson Seed Co., 11857 Bay Ridge Dr., Burlington, WA 98233; (360) 336-9727; alfseed.com AGH *Agrohaitai, P. O. Box 45, Lynden, 2764 Hwy 99 (Governor's Road) Ontario L0R 1T0, Canada; (519) 647-2280; www.agrohaitai.com AT *American Takii, Inc., 301 Natividad Rd., Salinas, CA 93906; (831) 443-4901; www.takii.com BC *Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Co., 2278 Baker Creek Road, Mansfield, MO 65704; (417) 924-8917; rareseeds.com Bas Basso Seeds, Monteverde 3390, 1852 Burzaco,- Buenos Aires, Argentina; (54) 11 4299 0880; Fax: (54) 11 4238 3527; www.basso-ar.com BE *Bejo Seeds, Inc., 1972 Silver Spur Place, Oceano, CA 93445; (805) 473-2199; www.bejoseeds.com BHN BHN Seed, P.O. Box 3267 Immokalee, FL 34142; (239) 352-1100; Fax: (239) 352-1565; www.bhnseed.com BU *Burpee, 300 Park Ave., Warminster, PA 18991; (800) 333-5808; www.burpee.com CE/CEN Centest Seeds, 23017 Rte. 173, Harvard, IL 60033; (815) 943-6752; www.miraicorn.com CF Cliftons Seed Co., 2586 NC 403 West, P.O. Box 206, Faison, NC 28341; (800) 231-9359; www.cliftonseed.com CO The Cook’s Garden, P.O. Box C5030, Warminster, PA 18974-0574; 800-457- 9703; www.cooksgarden.com CN Corona Seeds, Inc., 590-F Constitution Ave., Camarillo, CA 93012; (805) 388- 2555; Fax: (805) 445-8344; www.coronaseeds.com CR *Crookham Co., P.O. Box 520, Caldwell, ID 83606-0520; (208) 459-7451; Fax: (208) 454-2108; www.crookham.com CP CropTech Seeds, 1220 Willow Street, Vincennes, IN 47591; (812) 882-0210 DM Del Monte USA, Agric. Research, P.O. Box 89, Rochelle, IL 61068 DP DP Seeds, LLC., 8269 South Highway 95, Yuma, AZ 85365; (928) 341-8494; Fax: (928) 341-8496; dpseeds.com DVG Dutch Valley Growers, Inc., 4067 E. 4000 N. Road, Bourbonnais, IL 60914; Fax: (708) 333-1029; www.dutchvalleygrowers.com EV *Evergreen Seeds, Evergreen YH Enterprises, P.O. Box 17538, Anaheim, CA 92817; (714) 637-5769; www.evergreenseeds.com
Continued on next page
5 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Sources of Vegetable Seeds (continued) EW East/West Seed International Ltd., No. 50/1 Moo 2, Sainoi-Bang Bua Thong Rd., Amphur Sainoi, Nonthaburi 11150, Thailand; www.eastwestseed.com EX Express Seed, 51051 US Highway 20, Oberlin, OH 44074; (800) 221-3838; Fax: (440) 774-2728; www.expressseed.com EZ Enza Zaden, P.O. Box 7, 1600 AA, Enkhuisen, Netherlands 02280-15844; www.enzazaden.com GG General Mills/Green Giant, Agric. Res., 1201 N. 4th St., LeSueur, MN 56058 GU Gurney’s Seed and Nursery Co., P.O. Box 4178, Greendale, IN 47025-4178; (513) 354-1491; www.Gurneys.com HARC Hawaiian Agriculture Research, P.O. Box 100, Kunia, HI 96759; (808) 621- 1350; harc-hspa.com HM *Harris Moran Seed Company, P.O. Box 4938, Modesto, CA 95352; (209) 579- 7333; Fax: (209) 527-5312; www.harrismoran.com HR/H Harris Seeds, 335 Paul Rd. P. O. Box 24966, Rochester, NY 14692-0966; (800) 544-7938; Fax: (877) 892-9197; www.harrisseeds.com HL *Hollar & Co., Inc., P.O. Box 106, Rocky Ford, CO 81067; (719) 254-7411; www.hollarseeds.com HO Holmes Seed Co., 2125-46th St. N.W., Canton, OH 44709; (330) 492-0123; www.holmesseed.com HZ Hazera Seed, Ltd., P.O. Box 1565, Haifa, Israel; www.hazerainc.com IFSI *Illinois Foundation Seeds, Inc., 1083 County Road 900 N., Tolono, IL 61880; (217) 485-6260; www.seedgenetics.com J Jordan Seeds, Inc., 6400 Upper Afton Rd., Woodbury, MN 55125-1446; (651) 738-3422; www.jordanseeds.com JS *Johnny’s Selected Seeds, 13 Main St., Fairfield, ME 04937-1119; (877) 564- 6697; www.johnnyseeds.com JO Jones Farms, 7094 Honeysuckle Lane, Bailey, NC 27807; (919) 230-2084; www.jonesfarmsnc.com JU Jung Seed and Nursery, 335 S. High St., Randolph, WI 53956; (800) 297-3123; www.jungseed.com KTS *Kitazawa Seed, P.O. Box 13220, Oakland, CA 94661-3220; (510) 595-1188; www.kitazawaseed.com KU Known-You Seed Co., LTD., No.114-6, Zhuliao Rd., Dashu District, Kaohsiung 84043, Taiwan; www.knownyou.com LK Lark Seeds, 375 Linda Vista Ave., Pasadena, CA 91105; (626) 396 9018; www.larkseeds.com LS Long & Sweet LLC, P.O. Box 502, 516 N. 5th Street, Lafayette, IN 47902; (765) 420-9606
Continued on next page
6 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Sources of Vegetable Seeds (continued) MKS Mikado Kyowa Seed Co., Ltd., 15-13 Naneidai-cho, Shibuya-ku, Toyko, Japan; www.mikadokyowa.com MCS *Morgan County Seeds, 18761 Kelsay Rd., Barnett, MO 65011; (573) 378- 2655; www.morgancountyseeds.com NDS *New Dimension Seed, PO Box 1294, Scappoose, OR 97056; www.newdimensionseed.com NH/NU Nunhems Seed, 1200 Anderson Corner Road, Parma, ID 83660; (800) 733-9505; www.nunhemsusa.com NC North Carolina State University, 2016 Fanning Bridge Rd., Fletcher, NC 28732 NMSU New Mexico State University Seed Certification, P.O. Box 30003, MSC 3LEY, Las Cruces, NM 88003-8003; (575) 646- 4139; seedcertification.nmsu.edu NS New England Seed Co., 3580 Main St., Hartford, CT 06120; (800) 825-5477; www.neseed.com NZ Hybrid Seed Company New Zealand Ltd., P.O. Box 8068, The Terrace, Wellington, New Zealand; www.hybridseed.co.nz OR Orsetti Seed Co. Inc., 2300 Technology Parkway, Ste 1, P.O. Box 2350, Hollister, CA 95024-2350; (831) 636-4822; orsettiseeds.com OS L.L. Olds Seed Co., P.O. Box 7790, Madison, WI 53707-7790 OUT *Outstanding Seeds, 354 Center Grange Road, Monaca, PA 15061; (800) 385-9254; www.pumpkinvegetableorganicseeds.com P Pacific Seed Production Co., 94904 Highway 99 E., P.O. Box 85, Junction City, OR 97448; (800) 547-8004; www.forbesseed.com/PacificSeedProduction.htm PA/PK Park Seed Co., One Parkton Ave., Greenwood, SC 29647; (800) 845-3369; www.parkseed.com PG The Pepper Gal, P.O. Box 23006, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33307; (954) 537-5540; www.peppergal.com PT Pinetree Garden Seeds, P.O. Box 300, New Gloucester, ME 04260; (207) 926- 3400; www.superseeds.com PL Pure Line Seeds, Inc., P.O. Box 106, Lodi, WI 53555; (608) 592-7510; www.purelineseed.com PV Pop Vriend Seeds BV, PO Box 5, 1619 ZG Andijk, The Netherlands; 3122 859- 1462; www.popvriendseeds.com R Reed’s Seeds, 3334 N.Y.S. Rt. 215, Cortland, NY 13045-9440 RM Reimer Seeds, P.O. Box 236, Mount Holly, NC 28120-0236; www.reimerseeds.com RI/RSP *Rispens Seeds, Inc., 1357 Dutch American Way, P.O. Box 310, Beecher, IL 60401; (888) 874-0241; www.rispensseeds.com RU *Rupp Seeds, Inc., 17919 Co. Rd. B., Wauseon, OH 43567-9458; (800) 700- 1199; www.ruppseeds.com
Continued on next page
7 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Sources of Vegetable Seeds (continued) SK/SAK Sakata Seeds America, Inc., P.O. Box 880, Morgan Hill, CA 95038-0880; (408) 778-7758; www.sakata.com SC Scott Seeds, 4876 N. Road H., Vale, OR 97918; (800) 818-9852; scottseed.com S Seeds Trust, 5870 S. Long Lane, Littleton, CO 80121; (720) 335-3436; www.seedstrust.com SW/SDW *Seedway, Inc., 99 Industrial Road, Elizabethtown, PA 17022; (800) 952-7333; Fax: (800) 645-2574; www.seedway.com SM, Sem *Seminis Inc., 800 North Lindbergh Blvd., Saint Louis, MO 63167; (314) 694- 1000; us.seminis.com SnRv/SNR Snowy River Seed Coop, Ltd. Princes Hwy., Orbost, VIC, Australia 3888; (03) 5154 1878 SO Solar Seed Inc., 302 South C Street, Eustis, FL; (352) 357-5065 SVR/SE Seneca Vegetable Research, 5267 Flat St., Hall, NY 14463; (585) 526-7044; Fax: (585) 526-7045 SR Shamrock Seed Co., 3 Harris Place, Salinas, CA 93901; (831) 771-1500; Fax: (831) 771-1517; www.shamrockseed.com SI/SG *Siegers Seed Co., 13031 Reflections Drive, Holland, MI 49424; (800) 962- 4999; www.siegers.com SWS *Southwestern Seeds, P.O. Box 11449, Casa Grande, AZ 85230; (520) 836- 7595; Fax: (520) 836-0117; www.southwesternseed.com ST *Stokes Seeds, Inc., P.O. Box 548, 737 Main St., Buffalo, NY 14240-0548; (800) 396-9238; www.stokeseeds.com STE Steele Plant Company, LLC, 202 Collins Street, Gleason, TN 38229; 731-648- 5476; www.sweetpotatoplant.com SY/RG/ROG *Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Rogers Brands, 600 North Armstrong Place (83704), P.O. Box 4188, Boise, ID 83711-4188; (208) 322-7272; Fax: (208) 378-6625; www.rogersadvantage.com TN *Tainong Seeds, Inc., 1341 Distribution Way #23, Vista, CA 92081; (760) 598- 2348; Fax: (760) 598-1378; www.tainongseeds.com TR *Territorial Seed Company, P.O. Box 158, Cottage Grove, OR 97424; (800) 626-0866; www.territorialseed.com TGS Tomato Growers Supply Co., P.O. Box 60015, Fort Myers, FL 33906; (888) 478-7333; www.tomatogrowers.com TT *Totally Tomatoes, 334 W. Stroud St., Randolph, WI 53956; (800) 345-5977; www.totallytomato.com TW Twilley Seeds Co., Inc., 121 Gary Rd., Hodges, SC 29653; (800) 622-7333; www.twilleyseed.com UG United Genetics, 8000 Fairview Rd., Hollister, CA 95023; (831) 636-4882; Fax: (831) 636-4883; www.unitedgenetics.com
Continued on next page
8 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Sources of Vegetable Seeds (continued) UA US Agriseeds, 3424 Roberto Ct., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401; (800) 675-1034; Fax: (805) 547-9395; www.usagriseeds.com US US Seedless, LLC, 325 E. Walnut St., Perkasie, PA 18944; (877) 332-7733; www.usseedless.com VL *Vilmorin Inc., 2551 N. Dragoon, 131 Tucson, AZ 85745; (520) 884-0011; Fax: (520) 884-5102; www.vilmorin.com WMK *Wannamaker Seeds, P.O. Box 484 St. Matthews, South Carolina 29135; (803) 874-1381; www.wannamakerseeds.com WI Willhite Seed Co., P.O. Box 23, Poolville, TX 76076-0023; (800) 828-1840; Fax: (817) 599-5843; www.willhiteseed.com WN Western Seed Americas Inc., 303 South Collins St., Plant City, FL 33563; (813) 759-6404 WP Wood Prairie Farm, 49 Kinney Rd., Bridgewater, ME 04735; (800) 829-9765; www.woodprairie.com ZG *Zeraim Gedera, P.O. Box 103, Gedera, 70750; 972-8-9446220; Fax: 972-8- 94462623101; www.zeraim.com *We would like to express our appreciation to the seed companies that provided seeds and support for these vegetable trials.
9 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
10 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Use of Biological Treatments for Improved Crop Establishment in Snap Beans — 2011
Mark A. Bennett1, Elaine Grassbaugh1, and Matt Hofelich2 1OSU Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Columbus, OH 2OSU/OARDC North Central Ag Research Station, Fremont, OH Objective The objective of this trial was to test biological seed treatments of commercially available bacterial/fungal strains compared to a standard fungicide and copper application for establishment of snap beans in sustainable production systems. Materials and Methods Untreated bean seed ‘Lewis’ was treated with one of the following: Green GuardTM (a.i., harpin protein), Actinovate® STP (Streptomyces lydicus strain WYEC 108), thiram, or copper. An untreated check was also tested. Each treatment was planted in four replications of 100 seeds each. Plots were established at the OSU/OARDC North Central Agricultural Research Station (NCARS) in Fremont, OH, on June 13, 2011. Soil temperatures at seeding were 69.9ºF at a 2- foot depth. Plots (12.5 feet long) were seeded at a depth of approximately 1-1.25 inches using an Almaco four-row cone seeder with eight seeds/foot and between row spacing of 30 inches. Emergence counts were taken on July 13, 2011. Treatments were also tested in the OSU Seed Biology Lab in Columbus, OH, and evaluated using a standard germination test and a cold test. Both tests were run in four replications. Results Field emergence for all treatments ranged from 64 to 73 percent with no significant differences among treatments (Table 1). Laboratory standard germination tests ranged from 41 to 65 percent, with Green Guard, Actinovate, and thiram providing significantly higher germination rates than the untreated control and copper treatments. While conducting standard germination tests, numerous seedlings showed signs of seedling breakage due to mechanical damage to the seed (Figure 1). In laboratory cold tests, emergence ranged from 37 to 52 percent with the untreated control and Green Guard treatments significantly lower than the other treatments (Table 1). The cold test exposes seeds to 10ºC for seven days in non-sterile field soil at approximately 60-70% of water holding capacity prior to a four-day grow out period in ideal conditions (25ºC). The moisture and temperature conditions provided in the cold test simulate the adverse conditions that seeds might encounter in an early spring planting. Further field and lab studies are warranted, with additional cultivars and vegetable crop species as new biological seed treatments are introduced in the market. Field and weather conditions may also play a part in their effectiveness especially during cool, wet growing seasons.
11 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 1. Use of biological seed treatments for improved crop establishment in beans (cv. ‘Lewis’); Fremont, OH – 2011. Percent Emergence Percent Field Percent Emergence Treatment (lab standard Emergence (lab cold test) germination)
Untreated 64 41 37 Green Guard 67 65 45 Actinovate 73 61 67 Thiram 71 55 51 Copper 73 45 42 LSD (0.05) NS 11.0 5.9 p value 0.001 0.003 CV 16.2 21.4 13.4
Figure 1. Mechanical damage to seed causes abnormal-looking seedlings with significant seedling stem damage.
12 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Acknowledgements Special thanks and appreciation to the Ohio Vegetable and Small Fruit Research and Development Program for their financial support of this project. Thank you to Sean Mueller, Frank Thayer, and the summer crew at NCARS for their assistance with field maintenance and planting. Special thanks and appreciation to Harris Moran for their seed donation for this project.
13 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
14 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Evaluation of Seven Slicing Cucumbers in Southwest Michigan
Ron Goldy, Michigan State University, Benton Harbor, MI 49022
This trial evaluated the yield and quality performance of seven slicing cucumbers grown in southwest Michigan. No significant differences were noted between the seven entries for total yield and yield of number 1 or number 2 fruit. Materials and Methods Seven slicing cucumber entries were direct seeded on June 2, 2011, into a plasticulture system. Beds were 6 inches high with a spacing of 5.5 feet between beds and an 18-inch in row spacing between the two-plant hills. Prior to bed shaping, 0-0-64, Cal-Fortified, 0-0-33, and Granubor were broadcast and incorporated at a rate of 150, 100, 100, and 13 pounds per acre, respectively. After planting, 4-0-8-2 (Ca) was applied through the drip system once a week at a rate of 1 pound of nitrogen and 2 pounds of potassium (K2O) per acre per day. Drip fertilization began the week of June 13, 2011, and continued through the harvest period for a post-plant total of 70 and 140 pounds per acre nitrogen and potassium (K2O), respectively. Weeds were controlled with cultivation and hand hoeing. Diseases and insects were controlled using commercially recommended practices and the trials were irrigated as needed. The trial was planted and analyzed as a completely randomized design with four replications and 16 plants/plot. Plots were harvested eight times between July 22 and August 19, 2011, and graded into number 1, number 2, and cull fruit. Results and Discussion Even though total yield of the seven entries ranged from 829 to 1,182, 1-1/9 bushels/acre (bpa), no significant differences were found between the entries in total yield (Table 1). Yield of number 1 fruit ranged from 341 to 477 bpa, but again, no statistical differences were found. Statistical differences were found in percentages of total yield in number 1, number 2, and cull fruit and in yield of cull fruit. Table 1. Yield of seven slicing cucumbers in 1-1/9 bushel boxes per acre grown at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center, Benton Harbor, MI. Plant population was 10,560 plants per acre. Seed Total Yield % Yield % Yield % Cultivar Source Yield No.1 Total No. 2 Total Cull Total
SVR14763462 SM 1,182 477 40.3 371 31.4 334 28.4 SVR14743324 SM 1,181 341 28.9 276 24.6 565 46.5 Bejo 2856 F1 BE 1,165 374 32.5 239 20.6 553 46.9 Diomede ROG 1,118 456 40.0 285 25.5 377 34.5 Rockingham SM 993 364 36.8 253 25.4 376 37.8 Darlington SM 989 419 43.1 243 24.2 327 32.7 SVR14784719 SM 829 352 43.6 237 28.2 240 28.2 lsd 0.05 ns ns 8.9 134 10.1 236 11.8
15 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
16 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Parthenocarpic Cucumbers Are a Successful Double Crop for High Tunnels
Lewis W. Jett Commercial Vegetable Crops Specialist, West Virginia University, 2102 Agriculture Building, Morgantown, WV 26506 Introduction Cucumbers (Cucumis sativus) are a popular warm-season vegetable grown throughout West Virginia. Cucumbers are very sensitive to frost, so early- and late-season production can be a challenge. In previous studies, cucumbers have been shown to be a high-yielding, early-season cash crop for high tunnels. Another cropping system scenario is for an early warm-season crop such as tomatoes to be grown in the high tunnel followed by a late-season crop of cucumbers. High tunnels facilitate trellising of cucumbers, which maximizes yield and quality (Figure 1). Parthenocarpic varieties, in particular, may be well-suited for high tunnel production. This evaluation examined 10 predominantly parthenocarpic cultivars of cucumbers for late-season high tunnel production in West Virginia (Table 1). Materials and Methods Seeds from 10 cucumber cultivars were seeded in mid-August 2011 in 50-cell pro trays. Two- week-old transplants were transplanted within a high tunnel in central West Virginia on September 3, 2011. Each cultivar was spaced 12 inches between plants and 42 inches between rows for a total of three replications containing five plants per replication. The plants were established on black plastic mulch with drip irrigation. Fertilizer was applied at planting and thoroughly incorporated into the soil. Approximately 25 lbs. of 10-10-10/1000 ft2 was applied prior to laying plastic and transplanting the cucumbers. Each plant was pruned to one stem and trellised on a string trellis (Figure 1). Irrigation was applied to deliver a minimum of 1.5 inches of water per acre equivalent per week. On October 10, 2011, harvest began with approximately 1-2 harvests per week until the harvest season ended on November 10 due to a freeze event. Each cucumber was weighed and graded for marketability. Length and width of random samples were also measured.
17 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Figure 1. Cucurbits can be trellised on a mesh trellis or a string trellis for maximum production within a high tunnel. Table 1. Cucumber cultivars evaluated within a high tunnel — 2011. Seed Days to Cultivar Comments2 Source1 Harvest
EXP 2856 SW; BE 56 Dark green. Excellent size and shape. Parthenocarpic. Dasher II JS 58 Standard hybrid slicing variety. Gynoecious. Diva JS 58 AAS winner. PM and DM tolerance. Parthenocarpic. P08040 SY 56 Dark green. Excellent size and shape. Parthenocarpic. P08051 SY 56 Dark green. Excellent size and shape. Parthenocarpic. Good for baby cucumbers. PM tolerance. Rocky JS 46 Parthenocarpic. Socrates JS 52 Parthenocarpic beit alpha type. PM tolerance. Sultan JS 56 Beit alpha type. PM tolerance. Tasty Green SW 62 European/Dutch type. Monoecious. Seed coats in fruit. Tyria SW 58 European/Dutch type. Parthenocarpic. No seeds. 1JS=Johnny’s Seed; SW=Seedway; BE=Bejo Seed; SY=Syngenta Seeds. 2PM=powdery mildew; DM=downy mildew. Results and Discussion Cucumbers were harvested over a limited, four-week period. An infection of downy mildew moved into the high tunnel later in the season. Had the crop been established in late July, marketable yields would undoubtedly have been much greater. Nevertheless, there were significant differences between cultivars. The cultivars ‘P08040,’ ‘EXP 2856,’ and ‘Socrates’ produced the largest number of marketable cucumbers per plant or per linear foot of row (Table 2). The cultivars ‘P08040,’ ‘P08051,’ and ‘EXP 2856’ all had excellent quality including dark green color and a low percentage of culls per plant (Table 1 and Figure 3). Although parthenocarpic varieties do not require bees for fruit set, bees were present in the high tunnel. When parthencarpic cucumbers are pollinated, seeds can form and the cucumbers become
18 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
misshapen. Both ‘Tasty Green’ and ‘Tyria’ had more misshapen fruit as a percentage of total marketable yield. ‘Socrates’ was the highest yielding beit alpha cucumber evaluated. ‘Rocky’ is a high-yielding, small cucumber with market potential as a baby cucumber (Figure 2 and Figure 3). ‘Tyria’ was seedless with excellent quality, but yield was not significantly high. Table 2. Yield of high tunnel cucumber — October-November 2011. Marketable Unmarketable Avg. Weight Cultivar Cukes/Plant Cukes/Plant (lbs.) (no.) (no.)
EXP 2856 5.9 0.5 0.7 Dasher II 2.5 0.4 0.7 Diva 2.0 0.4 0.4 P08040 6.3 0.7 0.7 P08051 4.9 0.6 0.7 Rocky 6.9 0.2 1.5 Socrates 5.2 0.5 1.3 Sultan 2.0 0.5 0 Tasty Green 2.8 0.8 0.8 Tyria 1.6 0.6 0.7 SE 0.4 0.2 0.7 ‘P08040’ and ‘P08051’ had uniform length greater than 8 inches (Figure 2). Although total yields are a fraction of the potential marketable yield if the cucumbers are allowed to have a longer growing season, cucumbers are a profitable double crop for high tunnels. Occupying 65 days within a high tunnel and yielding 0.75-2.5 lbs/ft2 is a realistic yield level for high tunnel cucumbers.
19 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Figure 2. Length and diameter (in inches) of select high tunnel cucumber cultivars.
20 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Diva EXP 2856 Tyria
P08051 Dasher II Tasty Green
P08040 Socrates Rocky Figure 3. Appearance of select high tunnel cucumber cultivars. Acknowledgments Thanks to Seedway Vegetable Seed and Syngenta Seeds for providing seed for this trial.
21 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
22 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Edamame Cultivar Report — 2011
Marty Williams, Theresa Herman*, and Randy Nelson USDA-ARS and Department of Crop Sciences*, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Despite the fact that the United States is a global leader in grain soybean production, most of the vegetable soybean (edamame) consumed in the country is imported, particularly from Asia. Several attempts have been made to promote domestic edamame production in the 20th century. In the 1930s, edamame cultivars were collected by USDA from Japan, Korea, and China and tested by several state agricultural experiment stations. During World War II, several canned edamame products were marketed and some 44 cultivars were released in the United States. In the early 1980s, the “sushi boom” introduced more American consumers to edamame. Larger- scale domestic edamame production was attempted in the 1990s in the Midwest and Pacific Northwest, but never reached a level to satisfy domestic demand. A few federal and state researchers have released adapted edamame cultivars in the last two decades; however, several of these programs have suffered from attrition of personnel and resources. Interest in domestic edamame production has been on the rise in recent years. This time, the vegetable processing industry is supportive of the effort. Fueled in part by increasing consumer interest in the product itself and in domestically grown products in particular, some vegetable processors are initiating, or in some cases expanding, domestic production. However, several hurdles exist, including lack of effective pest management tools for commercial-scale production. For instance, currently only three herbicides have a federal label for use in edamame: S-metolachlor, trifluralin, and clethodim. To enable the development of a commercial industry for this crop, more herbicides are needed, especially postemergence products effective on a number of broadleaf weed species. Edamame represents a small amount of acreage, so herbicide manufacturers are poorly motivated to add the minor crop to their product labels, due largely to concern over crop injury and liability. In order to quantify the risk of crop injury, edamame cultivars need to be evaluated for their response to certain herbicides. In addition, several important agronomic traits of commercial and public edamame cultivars have not been quantified in standardized trials, including susceptibility to diseases and insect pests. Therefore, the objective of this report is to summarize cultivar emergence, growth, development, responses to two postemergence herbicides, and incidence of naturally occurring diseases and insects. Materials and Methods Entries In 2011, 155 entries were included: 122 edamame entries and 33 grain entries. These were: (1) all commercially and publicly available edamame cultivars; and (2) entries from the USDA Soybean Germplasm Collection that were (a) early introductions of edamame, (b) parental lines of edamame, (c) large-seeded soybean entries (>25 g per 100-seed) with names associated with edamame, (d) grain types with known sensitive or tolerant responses to select herbicides, and (e) maturity group checks. Commercial seed was acquired from seed companies up to one month before planting and stored at room temperature.
23 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Experimental Design and Procedure Each herbicide trial was a separate experiment with three replications of entries arranged in a randomized complete block. An experimental unit was a single, 8-foot row planted with 50 seed. Trials were planted June 3 on the University of Illinois Vegetable Crop Farm near Urbana, IL. Immediately after planting, Dual Magnum (S-metolachlor) was applied throughout the trials at a rate of 1.67 pts/A to control most grasses and small-seeded broadleaf weeds. Trials were cultivated once and hand weeded as needed. Herbicide Application Postemergence herbicides were applied when a majority of plants had two fully-emerged trifoliate leaves, which was June 29. Applications were made perpendicular to rows, such that 4 feet were treated and 4 feet were left as an untreated check. Herbicides were applied at twice the registered use rates: Basagran 4E (bentazon) at 4 pts/A and Raptor 1E (imazamox) at 8 fl oz/A. Adjuvants included 1% crop oil concentrate in the bentazon trial, and 0.25% nonionic surfactant in the imazamox trial. Treatments were applied in 20 gallons of spray volume per acre. Data Collection Plant stand counts were made one and two weeks after planting (WAP). Emergence was calculated as the percentage of plants emerged two WAP. Emergence rate was calculated as the percentage of plants emerged one WAP, relative to two WAP stand counts. Untreated plant heights were measured two and six WAP, hereafter called “early height” and “mid-season height,” respectively. Herbicide response was assessed visually one week after treatment (WAT). Relative to the untreated check, injury was scored on the following scale: 0=no visible symptoms, 1=slight chlorosis or necrosis, 2=chlorosis/necrosis with possible stunting, 3=chlorosis/necrosis with stunting, 4=chlorosis/necrosis with significant stunting, 5=plants stunted 50%, 6=plants stunted 60%, 7=plants stunted 70%, 8=plants stunted 80%, 9=plants stunted 90%, and 10=all plants dead. The date of beginning bloom (R1) was recorded in the untreated control. Incidence of three bacterial diseases (brown spot, bacterial blight, and bacterial pustule), one fungal disease (Cercospora leaf spot), and feeding from three insects (leaf hopper, Japanese beetle, and bean leaf beetle) were quantified eight WAP on untreated plants. Disease and insect incidence was scored on the following scale: 0=no visible symptoms, 1=symptoms visible on at least one leaf, 2=mild occurrence, 3=moderate occurrence, 4=moderately severe occurrence, and 5=very severe occurrence. For all response variables, entry means are reported and Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to compare some variables. Results and Discussion Emergence Characteristics The seed of entries in the USDA Soybean Germplasm Collection range from 1 to 10 years old; therefore, emergence characteristics will be summarized for commercial and other public cultivars only. Emergence of edamame varied widely. Percent emergence of edamame cultivars two WAP averaged 65.4%, ranging from 10.0 to 88.0% (Table 1). Commercial edamame cultivars with the highest germination (>80%) included: RFG 282, Mojo Green, Butterbean, Sayamusume, and Korean Black. Commercial edamame cultivars with poor emergence (<50%),
24 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
included: Green Legend, Lanco, Sweet Sansei, BeSweet 2001, Soya Pearl, Lucky Lion, Bellesoy, and Green Pearls. Emergence rate characterized how quickly plants became established. For instance, an emergence rate of 50% indicates that one-half of plants had emerged by one WAP. Emergence rate also varied widely. Among edamame cultivars, emergence rate averaged 69.5%, ranging from 24.2 to 96.1% (Table 1). Commercial edamame cultivars with the highest emergence rate (>80%) included: Butterbean, Mojo Green, Misono Green, Tokio Verte, Sunrise, RFG 282, and Tankuro. In contrast, commercial edamame cultivars with the lowest emergence rate (<50%) included: White Lion, Soya Pearl, Green Legend, Taiwame, Tamba Kuro Otsubu, and Late Giant Black Seeded. A positive correlation coefficient (0.735) was observed between emergence traits, indicating cultivars with higher stand establishment generally emerged quickly. Height Growth Distributions of height growth appeared similar among edamame and grain entries. Early plant height averaged 3.7 inches among edamame entries, ranging from 1.7 to 4.8 inches (Table 1). Midseason plant height among edamame entries averaged 15.0 inches, ranging from 8.6 to 21.7 inches. Early height was a good predictor of midseason plant height (correlation coefficient=0.717); however, midseason height was not associated with length of vegetative period (correlation coefficient=-0.264). Development Maturity group classification was previously determined for entries from the USDA Soybean Germplasm Collection, ranging from maturity group 000 to maturity group VII. For all entries, date of R1 is summarized in Table 1. Edamame entries spanned a range of R1 dates, from <32 to 88 DAP. Among the earliest flowering (≤32 DAP) commercial edamame cultivars were Black Jet and Tohya, comparable to maturity group 00 checks. Commercial edamame cultivars with the longest vegetative stage included: Late Giant Black Seeded, Tamba Kuro Otsubu, and Korean Black. The time to first flower of these cultivars exceeded the maturity group VI checks. Responses to Bentazon Previous research showed that bentazon sensitivity in soybean is conditioned by a single recessive gene. Five grain-type germplasm entries previously identified as bentazon-sensitive were included in these trials, including: PI086098, PI086504, PI243525, PI360839, and PI548346. In addition, two back-crossed derived near-isogenic lines carrying the bentazon- sensitive allele hb (L78-3263 and L75-6631) and one cultivar known to carry the bentazon- tolerant allele Hb (Clark 63) were included. Bentazon killed or severely injured the entries used as bentazon-sensitive controls. Injury scores for bentazon-sensitive controls ranged from 6.3 to 10.0 (Table 1). The bentazon-tolerant cultivar, Clark 63, had minimal injury symptoms (score of 2.7). None of the edamame entries were injured by bentazon to the same extent as the bentazon- sensitive controls. Edamame entries with the greatest injury (scores of 5.0 to 5.5) one WAT were PI507281, PI507336, and PI549057B (Table 1). Commercial edamame cultivars with significant stunting (score of 4.0 or higher) one WAT included: White Lion, Green Legend, Misono Green, Black Pearl, Triple Play, Sweet Sansei, Late Giant Black Seeded, Green Pearls, Bellesoy, Sunrise, Fledderjohn, and Lucky Lion. However, plant stunting was temporary and these cultivars appeared to resume normal plant growth within a few weeks after bentazon application.
25 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Commercial edamame cultivars least affected (score less than 3.0) by bentazon included: Sayamusume, Lanco, Butterbean, Kou-ri, and RFG 282. Among edamame entries, average plant response to bentazon was a score of 3.4. Responses to Imazamox The highest levels of injury from imazamox (scores of 4.0 to 5.7) were on entries used as bentazon-sensitive controls (Table 1). Among edamame entries, injury was less. Eleven entries were scored for possible stunting (3.0 to 3.9), all of which were from the USDA Soybean Germplasm Collection, with the exception of one public cultivar, WSU910a. All other edamame entries had minimal to no chlorosis or stunting. With the exception of the moderately injured bentazon-sensitive entries, injury symptoms dissipated within a few weeks after imazamox application. Among edamame entries, average plant response to imazamox was a score of 1.9. Disease Incidence Midseason brown spot incidence was low, with an average score of 0.5 across all entries. Incidence of brown spot was observed in 82 of 122 edamame entries at eight WAP (Table 2). All edamame cultivars had a mean score for brown spot incidence that was less than a “mild occurrence.” Midseason bacterial blight incidence had an average score of 1.1 across all entries. Among the 122 edamame entries, incidence of bacterial blight eight WAP was observed in 108 entries (Table 2). A “moderate occurrence” of bacterial blight incidence was observed in four edamame entries, including Ware, PI089162, Gardensoy 31, and Tankuro. Midseason bacterial pustule incidence had an average score of 0.2 across all entries. Incidence of bacterial pustule was observed in 42 of 122 edamame entries at eight WAP, although none of the entries was observed to have pustule incidence that exceeded a “mild occurrence.” Incidence of Cercospora leaf spot was observed in only two edamame entries at eight WAP, and only at the lowest level of occurrence (Table 2). Insect Feeding Midseason leaf hopper feeding was observed in most edamame entries, but varied widely among entries. Commercial edamame cultivars showing severe occurrences of leaf hopper feeding at eight WAP, included: Korean Black, Late Giant Black Seeded, Misono Green, Sweet Sansei, Tamba Kuro Otsubu, and Tasty 90 (Table 2). Low levels of Japanese beetle feeding incidence were observed on most edamame entries at eight WAP, and no cultivar exceeded an incidence score above “mild occurrence” (Table 2). Likewise, bean leaf beetle feeding was observed on most edamame entries at eight WAP, and no commercial cultivars had an average incidence score above “mild occurrence.” Summary A total of 155 entries were characterized for several important agronomic traits, with 122 of these entries representing commercial or public edamame germplasm. Edamame emergence traits varied greatly among cultivars. Differences in early and midseason heights among edamame entries indicated considerable variation in plant morphology; however, differences were not associated with length of vegetative period. Bentazon applied at 4 pts/A of Basagran did not kill any edamame entries, suggesting that none of the entries are homozygous for the hb allele. However, mean response (injury score of 3.4 out of 10.0) reflects the average response
26 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
was chlorosis and/or necrosis with some stunting. Imazamox applied at 8 fl oz/A of Raptor was less injurious than bentazon. Mild stunting was only observed in a handful of edamame entries, with most entries having minimal chlorosis and negligible stunting, if any. For both herbicides, injury symptoms observed in edamame were generally short-lived, and plants appeared to resume normal growth within a few weeks after application. Of the four naturally occurring diseases observed midseason in the field trials, incidence was observed at relatively low levels for all but bacterial blight. Based on midseason observations of insect feeding from naturally occurring populations of leaf hoppers, Japanese beetles, and bean leaf beetles, leaf hopper feeding was the most prevalent, with severe incidence observed in several commercial edamame cultivars. Acknowledgements Jim Moody and Roger Bowen provided excellent technical assistance in planning and conducting the research. University of Illinois students Michelle Collins, Brad Tomasek, and Eric Xia assisted in data collection. The field crew of the USDA Soybean Germplasm Collection was instrumental in planting and seed harvest of the trials. We also thank the following individuals and companies for seed donations: Bob Buker; Tad Masuda; Johnny’s Selected Seeds, Winslow, ME; Rupps Seeds, Inc., Wauseon, OH; Tainong Seeds, Vista, CA; Wannamaker Seeds, Inc., St. Matthews, SC.
27 28 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011 Table 1. Emergence, growth, development, and herbicide responses of edamame and soybean entries in field trials at the University of Illinois Vegetable Crop Farm near Urbana, IL — 2011. Mid- Emergence Early 4 Bentazon Imazamox Seed Emergence season R1 Entry Type2 MG3 Rate Height Injury Injury Source1 Height % inches DAP 0 to 105
AGS292 WSU EDM 52.3 57.1 4.2 15.4 38.3 3.0 1.3 Asmara USDA EDM VI 32.0 20.8 2.7 10.9 82.0 3.3 2.3 Beer Friend ATK EDM 69.0 61.5 3.7 13.3 32.2 3.7 1.3 Bellesoy WMK EDM 19.7 68.0 2.6 10.9 80.0 4.0 2.3 BeSweet 2001 RPS EDM 29.0 53.5 3.5 12.7 43.5 3.7 2.3 BeSweet 2015 RPS EDM 63.3 68.5 4.0 17.8 43.2 3.3 1.7 BeSweet 292 RPS EDM 70.3 58.2 4.3 15.6 40.7 3.3 2.3 Black Jet USDA EDM 00 82.3 49.5 3.1 14.0 ≤32.0 3.7 2.0 Black Jet JSS EDM 76.3 77.2 4.8 15.2 ≤32.0 3.0 1.3 Black Pearl TRL EDM 76.7 68.1 4.5 17.2 38.3 4.3 2.3 Bukers Favorite BBK EDM 57.3 59.4 4.7 16.2 37.2 2.7 1.7 Butterbean JSS EDM 83.7 90.4 4.7 21.7 37.5 2.3 1.3 Disoy USDA EDM I 28.0 29.2 2.6 13.6 39.2 3.0 1.3 Emerald USDA EDM IV 45.7 42.7 3.6 16.2 46.2 2.0 1.3 Envy USDA EDM 0 55.0 44.6 2.6 13.5 38.5 3.7 1.3 Fledderjohn BCH EDM 53.3 65.9 4.0 16.3 37.5 4.0 2.0 Gardensoy 01 UI EDM 76.3 72.6 3.6 15.6 41.3 3.3 2.3 Gardensoy 02 UI EDM 74.3 75.3 3.4 17.1 38.5 4.0 1.0 Gardensoy 11 UI EDM 87.3 84.0 3.9 15.6 33.3 2.7 1.3 Gardensoy 12 UI EDM 85.3 79.3 3.6 15.7 42.3 3.3 1.7
Table 1 (continued) Mid- Emergence Early 4 Bentazon Imazamox Seed Emergence season R1 Entry Type2 MG3 Rate Height Injury Injury Source1 Height % inches DAP 0 to 105
Gardensoy 21 UI EDM 72.3 77.1 4.1 16.4 43.7 3.3 1.3 Gardensoy 22 UI EDM 77.7 64.7 3.6 15.2 37.7 3.0 1.0 Gardensoy 23 UI EDM 84.3 96.1 4.2 16.4 37.0 3.3 2.3 Gardensoy 24 UI EDM 72.7 81.1 4.4 18.1 46.7 3.7 1.7 Gardensoy 31 UI EDM 87.0 82.4 4.1 17.6 50.3 3.3 1.3 Gardensoy 32 UI EDM 83.3 82.4 3.8 15.9 43.7 3.0 1.0 Gardensoy 41 UI EDM 74.0 68.8 4.5 16.4 50.5 3.0 1.7 Gardensoy 42 UI EDM 77.7 81.9 4.3 17.3 57.0 3.3 1.3 Gardensoy 43 UI EDM 85.0 77.5 3.8 16.0 52.0 3.0 1.0 Gardensoy 51 UI EDM 80.3 89.9 3.9 16.3 56.5 4.0 1.7 Grande USDA EDM 0 32.7 34.5 2.8 11.7 32.5 3.3 2.3 Green Legend EVS EDM 46.7 37.6 3.4 14.6 42.0 4.3 2.3 Green Pearls BRP EDM 10.0 55.8 3.3 13.4 38.7 4.0 1.7
IA1010 ISU EDM 63.3 54.9 3.3 14.9 35.8 3.3 1.0 Midwest IA2076 ISU EDM 84.0 87.7 4.7 19.8 ≤32.0 3.0 0.7
Korean Black WMK EDM 81.7 74.9 4.3 13.3 88.0 3.0 2.0 Vegetable Kou-ri KTS EDM 60.0 58.8 4.2 15.8 42.3 2.7 1.7 Lanco WMK EDM 46.3 71.9 4.6 16.4 54.5 2.3 2.0 Late Giant Black Seeded EVS EDM 57.3 24.2 4.3 16.0 88.0 4.0 2.0 Trial Lucky Lion ATK EDM 20.0 51.7 3.0 13.7 38.2 4.0 2.0 Report Merrimax USDA EDM 0 76.0 65.4 3.4 15.2 32.2 3.7 2.0 for
2011
29 Continued on next page 30 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011 Table 1 (continued) Mid- Emergence Early 4 Bentazon Imazamox Seed Emergence season R1 Entry Type2 MG3 Rate Height Injury Injury Source1 Height % inches DAP 0 to 105
Midori Giant WMK EDM 63.0 74.3 4.7 17.0 37.3 3.0 1.3 Misono Green SBS EDM 59.0 86.2 4.0 13.3 34.2 4.3 2.0 Mojo Green WMK EDM 84.3 87.4 3.8 16.5 32.3 3.0 1.0 Moon Cake USDA EDM V 45.7 52.2 3.0 16.1 57.8 3.3 2.7 Owens USDA EDM V 47.0 75.1 3.3 11.5 73.0 3.3 3.0 PI080485 USDA EDM II 21.3 16.6 2.5 12.9 43.7 3.7 3.3 PI080488 USDA EDM IV 50.7 45.6 3.5 14.3 50.3 3.3 3.0 PI080494 USDA EDM II 73.3 63.7 3.8 14.8 41.0 3.7 1.7 PI081780 USDA EDM III 76.7 79.7 4.0 17.2 53.3 2.7 2.0 PI089162 USDA EDM III 75.3 66.7 3.4 16.8 42.1 3.0 1.7 PI187154 USDA EDM VII 27.3 18.5 2.8 11.5 85.0 3.0 2.3 PI196151 USDA EDM II 77.0 78.5 3.9 15.6 40.0 3.3 2.0 PI196159 USDA EDM I 69.7 40.8 3.5 13.9 33.3 3.0 2.0 PI200544 USDA EDM VII 33.3 9.9 3.3 15.6 88.0 3.0 1.7 PI231172 USDA EDM 000 75.3 68.4 3.3 15.6 33.7 3.7 1.7 PI342436 USDA EDM II 5.3 8.3 2.0 8.6 42.0 3.0 1.5 PI342437 USDA EDM I 80.7 78.9 4.4 17.1 37.3 3.7 1.0 PI379559A USDA EDM 0 67.0 81.3 3.7 14.2 38.7 3.3 3.3 PI379559B USDA EDM I 72.0 69.3 3.4 17.7 44.3 3.7 2.0 PI379559C USDA EDM III 61.3 48.7 3.4 14.4 52.0 2.7 2.0 PI379559D USDA EDM III 74.7 60.4 3.9 16.0 52.0 2.0 2.7
Continued on next page Table 1 (continued) Mid- Emergence Early 4 Bentazon Imazamox Seed Emergence season R1 Entry Type2 MG3 Rate Height Injury Injury Source1 Height % inches DAP 0 to 105
PI379561 USDA EDM III 59.7 77.1 3.8 15.9 51.8 2.0 3.3 PI416923 USDA EDM I 54.7 64.8 3.0 14.6 39.7 4.0 2.7 PI416982 USDA EDM V 50.7 27.8 4.0 14.7 67.3 4.7 3.0 PI417159 USDA EDM V 53.7 24.7 2.9 13.3 68.8 4.0 2.3 PI417210 USDA EDM I 76.3 75.1 4.6 21.1 37.7 2.7 1.7 PI417322 USDA EDM V 3.3 0.0 1.7 8.9 64.7 . 3.0 PI417374 USDA EDM VI 67.7 51.2 4.0 15.9 63.3 4.0 2.3 PI417440 USDA EDM V 40.7 28.1 3.3 13.6 65.2 3.7 2.3 PI438471 USDA EDM 00 56.7 36.4 3.6 11.0 ≤32.0 2.7 1.3 PI438472 USDA EDM 00 52.0 39.4 3.5 11.9 ≤32.0 2.7 2.0 PI438481 USDA EDM 000 82.3 75.6 4.4 14.6 32.7 3.3 2.0 PI438482 USDA EDM 0 67.3 62.4 3.5 16.2 32.3 3.7 1.7 PI468383 USDA EDM I 50.0 63.1 3.9 14.1 40.5 4.0 1.7
PI504489 USDA EDM I 80.7 73.3 4.3 15.6 ≤32.0 2.7 1.7 Midwest PI506903 USDA EDM IV 38.0 43.7 4.1 14.1 52.7 4.0 1.7
PI507281 USDA EDM II 31.3 56.5 3.2 13.3 40.2 5.5 2.3 Vegetable PI507336 USDA EDM VII 53.0 48.3 3.3 15.9 88.0 5.3 2.3 PI518758 USDA EDM I 68.7 50.7 4.0 15.4 38.5 3.3 2.3 Trial PI538403 USDA EDM I 50.3 31.3 2.7 12.2 44.8 3.3 2.0 PI538405 USDA EDM I 51.0 56.8 3.5 13.8 40.0 4.0 2.7 Report PI538407 USDA EDM I 64.0 87.1 3.5 15.0 38.8 4.7 1.0 for
2011
31 Continued on next page 32 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011 Table 1 (continued) Mid- Emergence Early 4 Bentazon Imazamox Seed Emergence season R1 Entry Type2 MG3 Rate Height Injury Injury Source1 Height % inches DAP 0 to 105
PI538409 USDA EDM I 63.7 57.5 3.9 16.1 37.8 3.3 1.3 PI548296 USDA EDM 00 59.7 69.6 3.6 13.6 ≤32.0 3.7 1.7 PI548301 USDA EDM IV 54.3 35.4 3.2 13.1 57.0 2.0 2.0 PI548326 USDA EDM III 71.0 77.2 2.7 12.6 53.3 4.3 1.3 PI548334 USDA EDM IV 45.0 64.8 3.3 11.7 66.3 2.7 2.0 PI549057A USDA EDM I 68.0 76.6 3.8 14.7 39.2 3.3 1.3 PI549057B USDA EDM I 44.0 59.0 3.4 14.2 40.7 5.0 1.7 PI549067 USDA EDM I 13.3 10.0 2.4 10.5 38.2 4.0 2.3 PI549072 USDA EDM I 53.3 70.9 3.3 15.7 38.8 4.7 2.3 PI561288 USDA EDM IV 36.3 28.9 3.4 14.2 49.5 3.0 2.0 PI561302A USDA EDM 0 74.0 63.8 3.4 15.2 32.3 3.7 2.3 PI561348 USDA EDM I 71.0 54.8 4.2 16.9 38.7 2.0 1.3 PI567154 USDA EDM II 72.7 69.8 4.1 14.2 43.0 2.7 2.3 PI567155A USDA EDM I 71.3 61.5 3.9 14.8 45.5 3.3 3.3 PI567155B USDA EDM II 72.0 49.0 3.9 17.1 45.7 2.7 2.3 PI567155C USDA EDM II 76.7 72.0 4.4 15.7 47.2 2.3 2.3 PI567193 USDA EDM I 46.7 61.6 3.7 14.3 38.8 4.7 3.0 PI594245B USDA EDM 0 77.7 80.2 4.6 15.9 ≤32.0 2.3 1.7 PI594908 USDA EDM VII 48.0 14.6 3.5 14.1 88.0 4.0 2.0 Prize USDA EDM II 27.0 27.1 2.6 12.3 39.7 4.0 2.0 Randolph USDA EDM VI 29.0 49.3 3.4 13.2 79.2 4.3 3.0
Continued on next page Table 1 (continued) Mid- Emergence Early 4 Bentazon Imazamox Seed Emergence season R1 Entry Type2 MG3 Rate Height Injury Injury Source1 Height % inches DAP 0 to 105
RFG 282 RPS EDM 88.0 81.7 4.6 20.5 39.8 2.7 1.3 Sayakomachi SBS EDM 79.3 78.4 4.7 18.0 34.5 3.3 2.0 Sayamusume TRL EDM 83.3 69.2 3.9 18.3 34.2 1.7 1.7 Soya Pearl AGH EDM 20.7 46.0 3.1 9.3 32.3 3.7 2.0 Sunrise WMK EDM 70.7 84.7 4.2 16.5 34.2 4.0 1.7 Sweet Sansei NDS EDM 32.3 75.8 3.8 15.9 37.7 4.0 1.7 Taiwame EVS EDM 54.0 36.8 3.8 15.9 40.3 3.7 1.7 Tamba Kuro Otsubu KTS EDM 64.3 35.7 4.4 15.4 88.0 3.3 2.7 Tankuro KTS EDM 73.0 81.4 4.8 17.8 37.8 3.3 2.7 Tasty 90 WMK EDM 69.3 65.2 3.8 13.6 32.3 3.3 1.0 Tohya JSS EDM 71.7 78.3 4.1 15.1 ≤32.0 3.3 2.0 Tokio Verte BCH EDM 80.0 85.2 3.4 14.4 32.5 3.0 1.3 Triple Play TNS EDM 59.0 70.1 4.3 16.3 38.3 4.0 2.0
Ware USDA EDM IV 69.7 55.4 3.1 14.2 55.2 4.0 2.0 Midwest White Lion ATK EDM 71.3 46.7 4.1 15.3 32.2 4.3 1.3
WSU729 WSU EDM 86.0 84.2 3.6 14.2 ≤32.0 2.3 1.3 Vegetable WSU910a WSU EDM 63.7 58.8 4.0 14.5 32.8 3.3 3.0 Yuagari Musume TMS EDM 21.7 69.5 3.6 14.0 38.3 3.0 2.0 Trial A4715 USDA GR IV 84.0 77.8 3.0 14.0 52.0 2.7 1.0 Asgrow 3504 ASG GR 82.3 97.4 3.6 14.2 45.3 3.0 1.0 Report Asgrow AG-3402 ASG GR 85.3 89.4 3.5 15.8 42.0 3.0 1.0 for
2011
33 Continued on next page 34 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011 Table 1 (continued) Mid- Emergence Early 4 Bentazon Imazamox Seed Emergence season R1 Entry Type2 MG3 Rate Height Injury Injury Source1 Height % inches DAP 0 to 105
Clark 63 USDA GR IV 90.3 77.5 3.2 15.7 45.0 2.7 2.0 Dillon USDA GR VI 66.7 62.9 3.1 14.7 82.0 4.0 2.0 Ina USDA GR IV 88.0 92.6 3.2 14.5 40.3 2.0 0.7 KS4895 USDA GR IV 91.0 88.4 3.6 15.6 59.5 2.7 1.3 L75-6631 USDA GR III 87.0 83.2 3.6 16.1 40.2 6.3 2.0 L78-3263 USDA GR IV 90.3 86.4 3.2 14.7 49.5 10.0 4.0 Lambert USDA GR 0 63.0 51.2 3.2 14.2 33.0 4.0 2.7 Loda USDA GR II 85.0 84.8 3.1 15.0 37.8 3.0 1.7 Manokin USDA GR IV 87.5 86.5 3.8 17.1 60.5 2.0 1.3 McCall USDA GR 00 85.0 82.1 3.6 17.3 ≤32.0 3.3 1.0 Parker USDA GR I 84.3 74.3 3.6 16.7 33.3 3.0 1.7 PI086098 USDA GR III 69.3 66.3 3.3 13.6 53.3 10.0 5.7 PI086504 USDA GR IV 55.7 43.1 3.2 14.4 56.3 10.0 4.7 PI243525 USDA GR IV 63.3 31.6 2.8 13.9 59.5 10.0 5.7 PI360839 USDA GR VI 17.0 6.7 1.8 9.6 79.2 10.0 5.0 PI416981 USDA GR V 53.8 37.8 3.8 14.4 85.0 5.0 1.3 PI417427 USDA GR VI 36.3 39.4 3.2 12.5 76.0 4.3 2.3 PI445801A USDA GR 00 66.0 77.8 3.1 15.6 ≤32.0 3.7 2.3 PI532446 USDA GR 00 72.0 45.1 4.0 14.0 ≤32.0 3.7 2.7 PI548346 USDA GR IV 57.3 42.9 3.2 13.6 62.8 9.7 5.7 PI561339 USDA GR III 50.0 67.3 2.7 11.9 50.5 2.3 1.0
Continued on next page Table 1 (continued) Mid- Emergence Early 4 Bentazon Imazamox Seed Emergence season R1 Entry Type2 MG3 Rate Height Injury Injury Source1 Height % inches DAP 0 to 105
PI567161 USDA GR II 74.3 55.1 2.7 12.6 45.2 4.3 3.0 PI567486A USDA GR II 76.0 74.7 3.3 14.2 39.2 4.3 3.0 PI567489A USDA GR IV 83.0 90.4 2.7 14.2 59.5 3.7 2.0 PI567510A USDA GR III 88.7 94.8 3.8 15.0 55.3 2.0 1.3 PI567513 USDA GR III 75.3 78.1 3.2 12.3 58.5 3.7 2.3 PI567671A USDA GR III 92.0 92.2 3.7 17.0 56.5 2.0 1.7 PI567706A USDA GR III 67.0 85.9 3.0 14.8 59.0 2.0 2.0 PI567748 USDA GR IV 64.7 73.4 3.6 14.5 70.0 3.3 1.3 PI567753A USDA GR II 85.0 80.7 3.0 15.7 52.0 3.7 2.3 1Seed Source: AGH=Agrohaitai; ATK=American Takii; ASG=Asgrow; BBK=Bob Buker; BCH=Baker Creek Heirloom; BRP=Burpee; EVS=Evergreen Seed; USDA=USDA Soybean Germplasm Collection; ISU=Iowa State University; JSS=Johnny’s Selected Seeds; KTS=Kitazawa Seed; NDS=New Dimension Seed; RPS=Rupp Seeds; SBS=Snow Brand Seeds; TMS=Tad Masuda; TNS=Tainong Seeds; TRL=Territorial; UI=University of Illinois; WMK=Wannamaker Seeds; WSU=Washington State University. 2Type: EDM=edamame; GR=grain. 3MG=Maturity group, if known. 4R1=days after planting (DAP) to beginning bloom, first flower. Midwest 5Injury scale: 0=no symptoms to 10=all plants dead.
Vegetable Trial Report for 2011 35 36 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011 Table 2. Disease and insect feeding incidence in edamame and soybean entries eight weeks after planting in field trials at the University of Illinois Vegetable Crop Farm near Urbana, IL — 2011. Brown Bacterial Bacterial Cercospora LH JB BLB Seed 3 3 3 Entry Type2 Spot Blight Pustule Leaf Spot Feeding Feeding Feeding Source1 0 to 54
AGS292 WSU EDM 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.0 2.3 0.7 2.0 Asmara USDA EDM 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.0 Beer Friend ATK EDM 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.7 0.7 Bellesoy WMK EDM 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.3 2.3 BeSweet 2001 RPS EDM 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.3 1.0 BeSweet 2015 RPS EDM 1.0 2.3 0.3 0.0 3.0 0.7 1.7 BeSweet 292 RPS EDM 0.7 1.3 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.3 2.0 Black Jet USDA EDM 1.0 2.0 0.7 0.0 2.3 0.7 1.3 Black Jet JSS EDM 0.3 1.3 1.3 0.0 2.7 0.3 1.7 Black Pearl TRL EDM 0.3 2.3 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.7 2.0 Bukers Favorite BBK EDM 0.3 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.7 1.3 Butterbean JSS EDM 1.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.0 1.7 Disoy USDA EDM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 Emerald USDA EDM 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.7 Envy USDA EDM 0.0 1.0 1.3 0.0 2.3 1.0 1.3 Fledderjohn BCH EDM 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.0 1.0 Gardensoy 01 UI EDM 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.0 2.3 Gardensoy 02 UI EDM 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.3 1.7 Gardensoy 11 UI EDM 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.0 1.0 0.7 1.7 Gardensoy 12 UI EDM 1.7 1.7 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Gardensoy 21 UI EDM 1.3 0.7 1.0 0.0 1.3 0.3 1.7
Continued on next page Table 2 (continued) Brown Bacterial Bacterial Cercospora LH JB BLB Seed 3 3 3 Entry Type2 Spot Blight Pustule Leaf Spot Feeding Feeding Feeding Source1 0 to 54
Gardensoy 22 UI EDM 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.7 Gardensoy 23 UI EDM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 2.0 Gardensoy 24 UI EDM 0.7 1.3 0.0 0.3 1.7 0.7 1.7 Gardensoy 31 UI EDM 1.0 3.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.0 Gardensoy 32 UI EDM 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Gardensoy 41 UI EDM 1.0 1.7 0.3 0.0 1.7 0.3 2.3 Gardensoy 42 UI EDM 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 1.0 1.7 Gardensoy 43 UI EDM 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.0 Gardensoy 51 UI EDM 0.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 Grande USDA EDM 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.3 2.0 Green Legend EVS EDM 0.7 2.3 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 2.3 Green Pearls BRP EDM 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.7 IA1010 ISU EDM 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.3 IA2076 ISU EDM 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.3 1.3 2.3
Korean Black WMK EDM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 1.7 Midwest Kou-ri KTS EDM 0.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.7 2.0
Lanco WMK EDM 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 2.7 Vegetable Late Giant Black Seeded EVS EDM 0.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 2.7 Lucky Lion ATK EDM 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.3 0.0 Trial Merrimax USDA EDM 0.7 0.0 1.7 0.0 2.3 0.3 1.7 Midori Giant WMK EDM 0.0 2.0 0.7 0.0 1.7 0.7 1.0 Report Misono Green SBS EDM 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.7 0.7 for
2011
37 Continued on next page 38 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011 Table 2 (continued) Brown Bacterial Bacterial Cercospora LH JB BLB Seed 3 3 3 Entry Type2 Spot Blight Pustule Leaf Spot Feeding Feeding Feeding Source1 0 to 54
Mojo Green WMK EDM 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.3 2.0 Moon Cake USDA EDM 0.0 2.0 0.3 0.0 1.7 0.3 2.3 Owens USDA EDM 1.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 3.3 PI080485 USDA EDM 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 2.3 PI080488 USDA EDM 0.3 0.7 1.0 0.0 1.3 0.3 2.3 PI080494 USDA EDM 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 PI081780 USDA EDM 0.7 2.3 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.3 2.3 PI089162 USDA EDM 1.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.0 PI187154 USDA EDM 0.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 2.3 PI196151 USDA EDM 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 1.3 1.7 PI196159 USDA EDM 0.0 2.3 1.7 0.0 1.3 0.3 1.0 PI200544 USDA EDM 1.0 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.3 PI231172 USDA EDM 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.7 1.3 PI342436 USDA EDM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.7 PI342437 USDA EDM 0.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.7 1.7 PI379559A USDA EDM 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.3 1.3 PI379559B USDA EDM 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 PI379559C USDA EDM 0.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.3 1.7 PI379559D USDA EDM 0.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.7 2.0 PI379561 USDA EDM 1.0 1.3 0.7 0.0 3.0 0.7 2.0 PI416923 USDA EDM 0.0 2.7 0.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.7 PI416982 USDA EDM 1.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 2.7
Continued on next page Table 2 (continued) Brown Bacterial Bacterial Cercospora LH JB BLB Seed 3 3 3 Entry Type2 Spot Blight Pustule Leaf Spot Feeding Feeding Feeding Source1 0 to 54
PI417159 USDA EDM 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.3 2.0 PI417210 USDA EDM 0.7 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.0 1.7 PI417322 USDA EDM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PI417374 USDA EDM 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.0 2.3 PI417440 USDA EDM 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.7 2.0 PI438471 USDA EDM 0.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.3 1.0 PI438472 USDA EDM 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.3 0.3 PI438481 USDA EDM 0.7 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 0.3 0.7 PI438482 USDA EDM 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.3 1.0 1.7 PI468383 USDA EDM 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.3 1.3 PI504489 USDA EDM 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.7 1.0 PI506903 USDA EDM 1.3 1.7 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.0 PI507281 USDA EDM 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.3 PI507336 USDA EDM 0.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 2.0
PI518758 USDA EDM 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 1.0 Midwest PI538403 USDA EDM 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.3 1.3
PI538405 USDA EDM 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.0 3.3 0.7 1.7 Vegetable PI538407 USDA EDM 0.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.7 1.3 PI538409 USDA EDM 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.3 1.7 Trial PI548296 USDA EDM 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.3 1.0 PI548301 USDA EDM 0.3 1.3 0.3 0.0 1.7 0.0 2.0 Report PI548326 USDA EDM 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 1.7 for
2011
39 Continued on next page 40 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011 Table 2 (continued) Brown Bacterial Bacterial Cercospora LH JB BLB Seed 3 3 3 Entry Type2 Spot Blight Pustule Leaf Spot Feeding Feeding Feeding Source1 0 to 54
PI548334 USDA EDM 1.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 3.0 PI549057A USDA EDM 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.7 0.7 PI549057B USDA EDM 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.3 2.0 PI549067 USDA EDM 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 1.3 PI549072 USDA EDM 0.3 1.7 0.3 0.0 2.7 0.7 1.0 PI561288 USDA EDM 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.0 PI561302A USDA EDM 1.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 PI561348 USDA EDM 0.7 2.3 0.3 0.0 2.3 1.0 1.3 PI567154 USDA EDM 0.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 1.3 PI567155A USDA EDM 1.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 4.3 1.0 2.0 PI567155B USDA EDM 1.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.7 2.0 PI567155C USDA EDM 0.3 1.3 0.7 0.0 2.3 1.0 2.3 PI567193 USDA EDM 0.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 2.0 PI594245B USDA EDM 0.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.3 1.0 PI594908 USDA EDM 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 2.3 Prize USDA EDM 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.7 0.0 2.3 Randolph USDA EDM 1.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.3 RFG 282 RPS EDM 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 Sayakomachi SBS EDM 0.3 1.7 0.7 0.0 2.3 1.0 1.3 Sayamusume TRL EDM 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 Soya Pearl AGH EDM 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Sunrise WMK EDM 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.3 1.3
Continued on next page Table 2 (continued) Brown Bacterial Bacterial Cercospora LH JB BLB Seed 3 3 3 Entry Type2 Spot Blight Pustule Leaf Spot Feeding Feeding Feeding Source1 0 to 54
Sweet Sansei NDS EDM 0.3 1.0 1.7 0.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 Taiwame EVS EDM 0.7 1.7 0.3 0.0 2.0 0.7 1.3 Tamba Kuro Otsubu KTS EDM 0.0 2.0 0.7 0.0 4.0 0.3 2.3 Tankuro KTS EDM 0.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 1.0 1.0 Tasty 90 WMK EDM 0.0 1.3 1.0 0.7 4.0 0.7 1.0 Tohya JSS EDM 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.7 0.7 Tokio Verte BCH EDM 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.7 2.7 Triple Play TNS EDM 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.3 1.7 Ware USDA EDM 0.7 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 1.7 White Lion ATK EDM 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.3 1.3 1.0 WSU729 WSU EDM 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.3 1.7 WSU910a WSU EDM 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 1.0 0.7 1.0 Yuagari Musume TMS EDM 0.0 1.3 0.7 0.0 2.3 0.7 1.3 A4715 USDA GR 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3
Asgrow 3504 ASG GR 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 1.7 Midwest Asgrow AG-3402 ASG GR 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 2.3
Clark 63 USDA GR 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 Vegetable Dillon USDA GR 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 1.7 Ina USDA GR 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.3 Trial KS4895 USDA GR 0.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.3 2.0 L75-6631 USDA GR 0.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.3 2.3 Report L78-3263 USDA GR 0.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.7 2.7 for
2011
41 Continued on next page 42 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011 Table 2 (continued) Brown Bacterial Bacterial Cercospora LH JB BLB Seed 3 3 3 Entry Type2 Spot Blight Pustule Leaf Spot Feeding Feeding Feeding Source1 0 to 54
Lambert USDA GR 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 Loda USDA GR 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.7 Manokin USDA GR 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 2.0 McCall USDA GR 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 1.7 Parker USDA GR 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 2.0 PI086098 USDA GR 0.7 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.7 PI086504 USDA GR 0.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.0 3.0 PI243525 USDA GR 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.7 2.0 PI360839 USDA GR 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 1.0 PI416981 USDA GR 0.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.3 1.3 PI417427 USDA GR 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.3 2.7 PI445801A USDA GR 0.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.7 1.3 PI532446 USDA GR 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.3 0.7 PI548346 USDA GR 0.3 1.3 1.0 0.0 1.3 0.3 2.3 PI561339 USDA GR 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.0 PI567161 USDA GR 1.3 0.3 0.7 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.7 PI567486A USDA GR 1.0 1.3 0.3 0.0 3.3 0.3 2.3 PI567489A USDA GR 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.7 PI567510A USDA GR 0.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.0 PI567513 USDA GR 0.7 0.3 1.0 0.0 1.7 0.3 2.0 PI567671A USDA GR 1.7 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.0 1.3 PI567706A USDA GR 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 2.0
Continued on next page Table 2 (continued) Brown Bacterial Bacterial Cercospora LH JB BLB Seed 3 3 3 Entry Type2 Spot Blight Pustule Leaf Spot Feeding Feeding Feeding Source1 0 to 54
PI567748 USDA GR 1.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.3 2.7 PI567753A USDA GR 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.0 2.0 0.7 2.7 1Seed Source: AGH=Agrohaitai; ATK=American Takii; ASG=Asgrow; BBK=Bob Buker; BCH=Baker Creek Heirloom; BRP=Burpee; EVS=Evergreen Seed; USDA=USDA Soybean Germplasm Collection; ISU=Iowa State University; JSS=Johnny’s Selected Seeds; KTS=Kitazawa Seed; NDS=New Dimension Seed; RPS=Rupp Seeds; SBS=Snow Brand Seeds; TMS=Tad Masuda; TNS=Tainong Seeds; TRL=Territorial; UI=University of Illinois; WMK=Wannamaker Seeds; WSU=Washington State University. 2Type: EDM=edamame; GR=grain. 3Responses: LH=leaf hopper; JB=Japanese beetle; BLB=bean leaf beetle. 4Incidence scale: 0=no symptoms to 5=very severe occurrence.
Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011 43 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
44 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Midwest Muskmelon Variety Trial in Southwest Indiana — 2011
Shubin K. Saha, Vegetable Extension Specialist, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture Sara Hoke, Agriculture Technician, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology Southwest Purdue Agricultural Center, Vincennes, IN, 47591 Introduction Although muskmelons in Indiana may not be produced on the same scale as some states such as California and Arizona, they still remain important as a contributor to the overall agricultural economy in the state. Indiana is ranked fifth in the nation in terms of acres harvested (2,300) and it is ranked sixth in total value ($6.2 million) (USDA, 2011). Overall, management of muskmelon production entails a number of different practices to optimize yield and fruit quality. One of the primary starting points for a commercial producer is to start with good genetics for both yield and quality. The objective of this project is to evaluate the growth and yield of 25 muskmelon varieties grown under southwestern Indiana conditions. Materials and Methods On April 12, 2011, the experiment was established when seeds of each variety were sown. This season there were 25 varieties submitted from various seed companies. Seeds were started in 50- cell black seedling flats (Crop Tech, Vincennes, IN) using a peat based soilless media, Jiffy-Mix Grower’s Choice Plus (Jiffy Products of America, Lorain, Ohio). The experimental field was prepared by tillage, application of fertilizer material, formation of raised beds, and installation of black plastic mulch and drip tape. Fertilizer was applied at a rate of 350 lbs (46-0-0), 100 lbs (0- 0-60), and 200 lbs of pelletized lime. Planting density was 22 plants per plot, with plot dimensions of 6 feet x 55 feet. In-row plant spacing was 2.5 feet. On May 12, 2011, transplants were planted in the field in the appropriate plots. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with three replicates. Plants were harvested three times per week over four weeks for a total of twelve harvests beginning July 18 and ending on August 12. Fruit number, weight, and average fruit weight were all collected during harvest. Additionally nine fruit from each variety (three fruit per replicate) were evaluated for various quality parameters such as soluble solids, fruit firmness, seed cavity length, seed cavity width, overall fruit length, overall fruit width, and rind thickness. Data were analyzed by Fisher’s least significant difference test using SAS statistical programs (SAS Institute, Cary, NC.) Results In 2011, Wrangler had the greatest total fruit per acre (9,504) as compared to 21 of 25 varieties evaluated this season (Table 1). More importantly, it had a greater yield than Aphrodite which is a standard variety grown throughout southwest Indiana and other muskmelon growing regions. However one must also consider that the average fruit weight for Wrangler was 3.0 lbs less than Aphrodite, hence it produces a smaller fruit (Table 1). The market and brokers determine if the smaller fruit are acceptable to the consumer. Although commercial producers are paid per piece as opposed to weight, they must produce a product that is accepted in the market.
45 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
ACX428ES and Solstice had the greatest numerical average fruit weights (7.8 lbs and 7.7 lbs respectively) and were statistically greater than 22 of the 25 varieties (Table 1). Average fruit weight varied from 2.0 to 7.8 lbs and average fruit weight per acre varied from 4,248 lbs to 49,963 lbs (Table 1). Orange Beauty had the highest numerical soluble solid content (12.3 %), which was significantly greater than 22 of the varieties evaluated this season (Table 2). However, Orange Beauty was one of the lowest yielding varieties (3,080 fruit/acre) due to extreme fruit cracking (Table 1). The other varieties with high soluble solid content relative to the other varieties included ACX3477, Florida, and ACX 779 (Table 2). There was some variation in fruit firmness amongst varieties with E1032 and E1029 being some of the firmest at 10.9 and 10.4 lbs-force, respectively (Table 2). Fruit firmness of muskmelon varieties ranged from 5.4 to 10.9 lbs-force (Table 2). There were no significant differences in rind thickness. Although yield is likely one of the muskmelon traits of great importance, it ultimately takes a combination of traits including those that lead to good internal fruit quality. Based on the results in comparison with some popular local varieties, Yosemite had fruit numbers and soluble solids comparable to Athena and greater fruit number compared to Aphrodite (Tables 1 and 2). E1029 was another variety that performed well overall and was also comparable to Athena and Aphrodite with respect to fruit number per acre and soluble solids content (Tables 1 and 2). Acknowledgements The author would like to extend his appreciation to the following individuals for all their help and assistance with the completion of the variety trials this year: Dennis Nowaskie, Bill Davis, and Angie Thompson. Literature Cited United States Department of Agriculture, 2011. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Vegetables 2010 Summary. http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/VegeSumm/ VegeSumm-01-27-2011.pdf.
46 Table 1. Harvest data of muskmelon varieties, 2011. Ave. Total Fruit Total Fruit Fruit Total Weight Total Weight % early % mid % late Variety Seed Company Number per Number per Weight per Plot (lb) per Acre (lb) season season season Plot1,2 Acre (lb)
Wrangler Hollar 72.0 a 9,504 a 3.9 jk 278.9 e 36,811 e 53.7 29.6 16.7 E1032 American Takii 68.7 ab 9,064 ab 4.9 ghi 338.9 abcde 44,729 abcde 32.5 22.8 44.7 Yosemite Seminis 63.3 abc 8,360 abc 4.4 ij 278.9 e 36,814 e 30.5 41.6 27.9 Atitlan Seminis 61.3 abcd 8,096 abcd 4.7 hi 284.9 de 37,600 de 13.0 48.9 38.0 Bucanero Seminis 60.7 bcde 8,008 bcde 5.4 efg 327.8 abcde 43,275 abcde 30.8 37.9 31.3 Tirreno Rupp 60.0 bcdef 7,920 bcdef 5.0 fgh 304.1 cde 40,142 cde 38.9 36.7 24.4 E1029 American Takii 59.3 bcdefg 7,832 bcdefg 5.2 efgh 308.7 cde 40,752 cde 20.8 27.0 52.2 E1016 American Takii 59.0 bcdefgh 7,788 bcdefgh 5.0 fgh 295.2 de 38,962 de 43.5 23.7 32.8 Athena Syngenta 52.7 cdefghi 6,952 cdefghi 5.5 efg 289.0 de 38,147 de 55.7 25.9 18.4 ACR 4067 ES Abbott & Cobb 51.3 defghi 6,776 defghi 7.4 ab 381.7 a 50,380 a 42.2 40.9 16.9 Atlantis Sakata 50.7 defghi 6,688 defghi 5.7 de 289.5 de 38,215 de 36.8 24.3 38.8 ACX 4276 XWS Abbott & Cobb 50.3 efghi 6,644 efghi 6.2 d 314.2 cde 41,475 cde 7.3 37.7 55.0 E1023 American Takii 50.3 efghi 6,644 efghi 5.6 ef 281.0 e 37,088 e 41.1 21.2 37.7 E1030 American Takii 50.0 efghi 6,600 efghi 5.7 de 279.7 e 36,918 e 20.7 32.7 46.7 Origami Harris Moran 49.7 fghi 6,556 fghi 6.9 b 344.4 abcd 45,458 abcd 63.1 22.1 14.8 ACX 428 ES Abbott & Cobb 48.7 ghi 6,424 ghi 7.8 a 378.51 ab 49,963 ab 24.0 53.4 22.6 Aphrodite Syngenta 48.3 hi 6,380 hi 6.9 bc 336.5 abcde 44,412 abcde 59.3 19.3 21.4 Midwest Samoa Harris Moran 48.0 i 6,336 i 6.2 d 299.4 de 39,520 de 15.3 53.5 31.3 Solstice Rupp 47.3 i 6,248 i 7.7 a 361.9 abc 47,775 abc 76.1 12.7 11.3
Ariel Syngenta 47.0 i 6,204 i 6.2 d 292.2 de 38,574 de 67.4 16.3 16.3 Vegetable ACX 779 Abbott & Cobb 46.7 i 6,160 i 6.8 bc 319.0 bcde 42,107 bcde 7.9 37.1 55.0 ACX 3477 XES Abbott & Cobb 45.7 i 6,028 i 6.3 cd 287.6 de 37,961 de 16.8 38.7 44.5 ACR 4017 ESX Abbott & Cobb 43.3 i 5,720 i 7.1 b 307.8 cde 40,626 cde 41.5 36.9 21.5 Trial
Orange Beauty Seminis 23.3 j 3,080 j 3.5 k 80.6 f 10,632 f 65.7 32.9 1.4 Report Florida Seminis 16.0 j 2,112 j 2.0 l 32.2 f 4,248 f 0.0 100.0 0.0
1Plot size=330ft2. for 2Means in columns separated by Fisher’s least significant difference test (P ≤ 0.05), means with same letter are not significantly different. 2011 47 48 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011 Table 2. Internal fruit quality of muskmelon varieties, 2011. Brix1,2 Firmness Rind Seed Cavity Seed Cavity Fruit Fruit Variety Seed Company (lbs-force)3 Thickness (in) Length (in) Width (in) Length (in) Width (in)
Orange Beauty Seminis 12.3 a 9.8 abc 0.4 3.2 hi 2.3 6.0 kl 5.9 b ACX 3477 XES Abbott & Cobb 11.5 ab 5.6 h 0.3 4.8 cde 3.0 7.4 fghi 6.8 b Florida Seminis 10.9 abc 9.6 abc 0.2 3.1 i 2.2 5.5 l 5.0 b ACX 779 Abbott & Cobb 10.7 bcd 8.8 abcdef 0.4 4.9 bcde 2.4 8.3 abcde 7.1 b ACX 4276 XWS Abbott & Cobb 10.4 bcde 8.4 bcdefg 0.3 4.9 bcde 2.9 7.9 defg 7.1 b E1023 American Takii 10.1 bcdef 9.5 abcd 0.4 5.3 abc 2.5 8.0 cdefg 6.0 b ACR 4017 ESX Abbott & Cobb 9.9 cdefg 6.4 gh 0.4 5.6 ab 3.0 8.7 ab 7.2 b Aphrodite Syngenta 9.7 cdefgh 8.0 cdefg 0.4 5.2 abcd 3.7 8.1 bcdef 7.7 b Atlantis Sakata 9.7 cdefgh 6.9 fgh 0.3 4.9 cde 3.1 7.6 efghi 13.0 a Ariel Syngenta 9.6 cdefghi 7.9 cdefg 0.3 4.7 cde 3.3 7.7 efgh 7.4 b Yosemite Seminis 9.6 cdefghi 6.5 gh 0.3 4.0 fg 2.7 6.6 jk 6.1 b E1030 American Takii 9.4 defghi 8.9 abcdef 0.3 4.5 ef 2.8 7.4 ghi 6.3 b Athena Syngenta 9.2 efghi 7.4 defgh 0.5 4.8 cde 3.1 7.6 efgh 6.8 b E1029 American Takii 9.2 efghi 10.4 ab 0.3 4.4 efg 2.8 7.0 hij 6.0 b Solstice Rupp 9.1 efghij 5.4 h 0.4 5.6 ab 3.3 8.9 a 7.6 b E1016 American Takii 9.0 efghij 8.6 bcdef 0.4 4.6 def 5.2 7.4 fghi 6.1 b E1032 American Takii 8.9 fghij 10.9 a 0.4 3.8 gh 2.6 7.0 hij 6.0 b ACR 4067 ES Abbott & Cobb 8.9 fghij 7.8 cdefg 0.4 5.2 abcd 3.0 8.3 abcde 7.4 b ACX 428 ES Abbott & Cobb 8.8 fghij 8.4 bcdefg 0.4 5.6 a 2.9 8.7 abc 7.1 b Atitlan Seminis 8.7 fghij 9.2 abcde 0.4 4.4 efg 2.6 6.9 ij 6.2 b Wrangler Hollar 8.5 ghij 7.9 cdefg 0.3 4.3 efg 2.4 7.0 hij 5.8 b Bucanero Seminis 8.3 hij 9.9 abc 0.4 4.4 efg 2.5 7.4 ghi 6.5 b Samoa Harris Moran 8.1 ij 8.5 bcdefg 0.4 5.6 a 2.7 8.3 abcde 6.7 b Origami Harris Moran 7.7 j 9.2 abcde 0.4 5.7 a 3.0 8.5 abcd 7.2 b Tirreno Rupp 7.7 j 7.4 efgh 0.4 4.7 cde 2.6 7.2 hij 6.4 b 1Brix: percent soluble solids. Higher values related to higher sugar content in the fruit. 2Means in columns separated by Fisher’s least significant difference test (P ≤ 0.05), means with same letter are not significantly different. 3Firmness of the flesh of the melon. Higher value is associated with higher firmness. Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Evaluation of OMRI-approved Products for Disease Management of Muskmelon — 2011
Daniel S. Egel1, Shubin K. Saha1, Stacye Johnson2, Scott Monroe2, Dennis Nowaskie1, and Maria Restrepo2 1Southwest Purdue Agricultural Center, Vincennes, IN 47591 2Purdue Extension in the counties of Knox, Daviess, and Pike, respectively
On May 19, muskmelon (Cucumis melo) cultivar ‘Sweet Granite’ was direct seeded into a field at the Southwest Purdue Agricultural Center in Vincennes, IN, which was managed organically for the sixth consecutive year. Individual row plots consisted of 30-foot rows on 6-foot centers. Muskmelon seedlings were thinned to 3 feet apart with 10 plants per plot. Each row was mulched with 4-foot-wide x 2-mil black plastic (Visqueen 4020). The experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications. Treatment plots were separated in the row by 10-foot unplanted buffers. Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) listed fungicides were applied weekly from July 12 to August 10 with CO2 backpack sprayer with four flat fan nozzles (Tee-Jet 8002VS) spaced 19 inches apart applying 10 gallons per acre at 30 psi. A Horsfall-Barratt ratings system was used to evaluate the severity of powdery mildew and Alternaria leaf blight on muskmelon leaves on July 29, and on August 4 and 12. Muskmelon fruit were harvested July 22, 25, 27, and 29, and on August 1, 3, 5, 8, and 12. Rainfall totals for May, June, July, and August were 5.70, 9.46, 1.71 and 1.22 inches, respectively. Both powdery mildew and Alternaria leaf blight (causal agents Podosphaera xanthii and Alternaria solani, respectively) spread into the plots naturally and were first observed on July 13. No significant differences in yield were observed in total fruit weight or numbers (data not shown). However, on July 29 the weight of fruit harvested was significantly less from Milstop or Oxidate treatments than from plots treated with Champ DP or the untreated control. Fruit from the untreated control was significantly smaller than fruit from plots treated with either Champ DP or Milstop. No significant differences were observed in disease severity on any date in either powdery mildew or Alternaria leaf blight.
49 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
2 Disease Severity Aug. 12 (%) Mean Fruit Fruit Weight Treatment, rate/A1 Size Powdery Alternaria (lbs/A) July 29 Mildew Leaf Blight (lbs)
Champ DP, 3 lbs 2.3 43 3.8 abc3 9,750 a Milstop + Champ DP 1.7 49 3.9 a 7,146 ab Milstop, 2 lbs 2.9 68 3.6 bc 3,514 b Oxidate, 90 fl oz4 11.3 32 3.9 ab 4,852 b Untreated control 1.7 49 3.5 c 9,314 a P-value 0.2974 0.5882 0.0542 0.0178 1Fungicides were applied approximately weekly from July 12 until August 10. 2Plots were rated for severity of Alternaria leaf blight and powdery mildew using the Horsfall-Barratt scale and converted to percent using the ELANCO tables. 3Means within each column with a letter in common are not significantly different (Fisher’s Protected LSD), P=0.05. 4Oxidate was mixed in a dilution of 1:100 with water, the resulting rate per A appears above.
50 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Powdery Mildew Resistant Cantaloupe Variety Evaluation — New York 2011
Margaret T. McGrath, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901 Laura K. Hunsberger, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901 Sandra Menasha, Cornell Cooperative Extension-Suffolk County, NY
Powdery mildew is a very common disease that can reduce yield (fruit quantity and/or size) and market quality (flavor, color, storability, etc.) in melons. Successful control of powdery mildew in melon is critical to ensure leaves remain healthy until fruit mature and obtain high sugar content, which results in good flavor. The only control measures are fungicides and resistant varieties. The pathogen, Podosphaera xanthii, produces an abundance of easily wind-dispersed spores and infects under a wide range of environmental conditions; therefore, rotation and other practices to avoid the pathogen are not effective options, nor are drip irrigation or other methods to reduce leaf wetness commonly used for other fungal diseases. Many varieties of melon currently marketed have resistance to powdery mildew. Races of the powdery mildew pathogen have been differentiated on cantaloupe. Most varieties have resistance to Races 1 and 2, which have been thought to be the dominant races in the United States. Varieties with this resistance generally have provided a very high degree of suppression against these races in previous variety evaluations conducted on Long Island, NY. However, all varieties with resistance to both races do not perform similarly because the sources of genetic resistance, in particular regarding presence of modifier genes, differ among these resistant varieties. There is concern that the pathogen will again evolve a new race able to overcome the current resistance genes. This happened recently in Georgia. In spring 2007, there were reports from Georgia of poor control of powdery mildew in Athena, a widely grown variety that has resistance to both races 1 and 2 of the pathogen, which suggested a new race was present. In 2008, a new race (designated ‘S’) was confirmed in Georgia. Since the pathogen is thought to move northward during the growing season, there is concern that the new race will be dispersed to New York. Athena, as well as other resistant melon varieties, did not suppress powdery mildew in 2010 as effectively as in previous years in the variety evaluations conducted on Long Island. The goals of this experiment, which is part of a multi-year variety evaluation project, were (1) to continue to monitor adaptation in the pathogen that has been reducing the effectiveness of powdery mildew resistance, and (2) to determine whether varieties with resistance to pathogen races 1 and 2 are better protected against powdery mildew than varieties with resistance to just pathogen race 1. Materials and Methods Research was conducted at the Long Island Horticultural Research and Extension Center in Riverhead on Haven loam soil. Controlled release fertilizer (N-P-K 19-10-9) at 525 lb/A (100 lb/A of nitrogen) was broadcast and incorporated on May 31. Black plastic mulch and drip tape were laid on June 1. Seeds were sown on May 31 in the greenhouse. Seedlings were transplanted by hand into beds covered with black plastic mulch on June 21. A waterwheel transplanter was used to open the holes and apply starter fertilizer plus insecticide on June 16. During the season, water was provided as needed via drip irrigation lines located beneath the mulch. Weeds were
51 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
managed by mowing and hand weeding. Cucumber beetles were managed with AdmirePro applied with the transplanter on June 16. No fungicides were applied to control powdery mildew. The following fungicides were applied preventively for downy mildew (Pseudoperonospora cubensis) and Phytophthora blight (Phytophthora capsici): ProPhyt (4 pt/A) on August 6; Ranman 400 SC (2.75 fl oz/A) on August 18 and September 2; and Curzate (3.2 oz/A) on August 26. Plots were three adjacent rows each with four plants spaced 24 inches apart. Rows were spaced 68 inches apart. Two plants of Multipik, a susceptible summer squash variety, were planted between each plot in each row to separate plots and provide a source of inoculum. A randomized complete block design with four replications was used. Upper and lower leaf surfaces were assessed for powdery mildew on July 21, and on August 3, 10, and 17. Initially, 10 older leaves were examined in each plot. Mid-aged and young leaves were also assessed on August 17 when powdery mildew had progressed to these age groups. Powdery mildew colonies (spots) were counted; severity was estimated when colonies had coalesced or were too numerous to count. Colony counts were converted to severity values using the conversion factor of 30 colonies/leaf=1%. Average severity for the entire canopy was calculated from the individual leaf assessments. These canopy severity values were used to calculate area under disease progress curve (AUDPC) to obtain a measure of severity over the entire assessment period (July 14-August 17). Yield data was not collected. Average monthly high and low temperatures (°F) were 79/61 in June, 87/68 in July, and 82/66 in August. Rainfall (inches) was 6.1, 2.35, and 10.61 for these months, respectively. There was a hurricane and several atypical intensive rain events during the 2011 growing season on Long Island. Results and Discussion Symptoms of powdery mildew were first found on July 14. Only one spot was found on two of the 120 leaves examined. Severity remained low until August 10 in the susceptible variety and through August 17, the last assessment date, for all plots of the resistant varieties except one plot of Eclipse. Fruit ripened and were at full slip stage by August 26. All three resistant varieties provided a very good level of suppression of powdery mildew (Table 1). Thus, there was no evidence from this experiment of a new pathogen race being present. These and other varieties with resistance to races 1 and 2 were similarly effective in previous evaluations at this location in 2008 and 2009. In contrast, powdery mildew was more severe on these varieties in a similar experiment in 2010, suggesting a new race was present. However, symptoms were also more severe that year on Superstar, the susceptible variety included for comparison, indicating highly favorable conditions for powdery mildew. If a new race was present in 2010 on Long Island, there was no evidence from the annual variety evaluation that it had returned in 2011.
52 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 1. Severity of powdery mildew on leaves of cantaloupe varieties compared on Long Island, NY, in 2011. Varieties are listed in order based on AUDPC values for powdery mildew severity on lower leaf surfaces. Powdery Mildew Severity (%)3 Variety Seed Upper Leaf Surface Lower Leaf Surface 1 2 (resistance) Source Aug. Aug. 17 AUDPC Aug. 10 Aug. 17 AUDPC 104
Athena (R1, 2) SI 0.00 b 0.20 b 0.71 b 0.01 b 0.00 b 0.04 b Wrangler (R1, 2) SI 0.00 b 0.00 b 0.67 b 0.00 b 0.00 b 3.13 b Eclipse (R1) SI 0.00 b 3.34 b 11.68 b 0.42 b 5.50 b 22.19 b Superstar (S) SI 5.63 a 37.53 a 171.08 a 7.84 a 35.33 a 185.45 a P-value (treatment) <0.0001 0.0055 0.0007 <0.0001 0.0052 0.0003
1R1=resistance to Race 1; R1,2=resistance to Races 1 and 2; S=susceptible. 2SI=Siegers. 3Exact colony counts were made when possible and severity was estimated using the conversion factor of 30 colonies/leaf =1%. 4Numbers in each column in each section followed by the same letter are not significantly different from each other (Tukey’s HSD, P=0.05).
Acknowledgments This project was funded by the Friends of Long Island Horticulture Grant Program. Seed were donated by the companies listed in Table 1. Pesticides were donated by BASF Corporation, Bayer CropScience, DuPont Crop Protection, FMC Corporation, Gowan Company, Helena Chemical Company, and Valent USA Corporation.
53 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
54 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Preliminary Evaluation of 48 Chili Pepper Cultivars in Central Missouri
Steven Kirk and Sanjun Gu Lincoln University Cooperative Extension, Jefferson City, MO 65101
This paper reports on the evaluation of 48 cultivars of jalapeño, big chili, and poblano peppers. This is an initial nonreplicated trial to be followed next year in a replicated study with the top candidates selected from this 2011 evaluation. Materials and Methods Forty-eight chili pepper cultivars (14 big chili, 26 jalapeño, and eight poblano) were chosen for this trial (see Table 1). Seeds were sown in germination ribbon flats in mid-April at the Dickenson Greenhouse. Resulting seedlings 1-1.5 inches tall were transplanted into 804 insert 4- cell packs. On May 31, 2011, transplants with three to four true leaves were planted into raised black-plastic-covered beds in four-plant blocks at the Lincoln University George Washington Carver Farm in Jefferson City, MO. Plants were spaced 2 feet in a row with 8 feet between rows. Prior to laying the black plastic, fertilizer was applied and cultivated into the soil at a rate of 50 lb. N per acre. Irrigation was provided using 8-mil drip tape with emitters spaced at 12 inches and rated at 100 gallons per minute (GPM) per 100 feet. The plants were irrigated two to three times per week depending on need. Additional water-soluble fertilizer (Peter’s All Purpose 20- 20-20) was applied periodically using a Hozon siphoning system. Pesticide control consisted of two tank-mix applications of Bravo (fungicide) and Dipel (insecticide) during the growing season (July 18 and August 22). Four bulk harvests were conducted on July 27, August 25, September 23, and October 18. Harvesting consisted of picking all mature fruit from the four-plant blocks and weighing them together. The four harvests were combined to reflect the total yield for each cultivar. Not all four plants within each block survived and had all four harvests. Individual fruit measurements were taken twice (July 27 and August 25) during the growing season. Data (fruit weight, length, and width) collection consisted of measuring 10 randomly selected fruits from each cultivar. At the first harvest, some cultivars had not produced 10 mature fruit so some measurements were done with less than 10 fruit. The fruit characteristic was determined by averaging the two sets of measurement for each cultivar. Results and Discussion The yield (Table 2) of jalapeño cultivars ranged from 295.5 grams/plant for ‘Purple Jalapeño’ to 1,608.4 grams/plant for ‘Grande.’ The yield of big chili cultivars ranged from 243.8 grams/plant for ‘Big Jim’ to 1,291.2 grams/plant for ‘Charger.’ The yield of poblano chilies ranged from 126.2 grams/plant for ‘Don Matias’ to 361.6 grams/plant for ‘San Ardo.’ The single fruit weight of jalapeño cultivars (Table 3) averaged from 8.4 grams for ‘Purple Jalapeño’ to 34 grams for ‘Conchos.’ Big chili cultivars weighed from 21.8 grams for ‘NuMex Sunrise’ to 46.5 grams for ‘Charger.’. Poblano chilies had single fruit weight from 19.7 grams for ‘Ancho San Martin’ to 29.9 grams for ‘San Ardo.’ The fruit length of Big Chili cultivars averaged from 4.3 inches for ‘Anaheim’ to 6.6 inches for ‘Iberia.’ Fruit length for jalapeño
55 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
cultivars averaged from 1.8 inches for ‘Purple Jalapeño’ to 3.4 inches for ‘Rayo.’ As for the poblano chilies, this range was from 2.1 inches for ‘Ancho 211’ to 3 inches for ‘Masivo.’ The average width of an individual fruit of jalapeño cultivars was from 0.7 inches for ‘Ciclon’ to 1.5 inches for ‘Conchos.’ For big chili cultivars, this range was 1.1 inches for ‘NuMex Sunrise’ to 1.7 inches for ‘Charger.’ For poblano chilies, the range was 1.3 inches for ‘Ancho San Martin’ to 1.6 inches for ‘Ancho 101.’ Without replications, this trial does not provide a definitive evaluation of these three chili types. However, based on the performance in the 2011 growing season, which was extremely hot in central Missouri, we will consider the following varieties for further testing in 2012. For jalapeño type: Chichimeca, Compadre, Conchos, Grande, Hybrid #7, Ixtapa X3R, Jalastar, Mammoth, Mucho Nacho, and Tajin. For big chili type: Anaheim 118, Charger, Iberia, NM Joe E. Parker, and Sahuaro. For poblano type: Ancho 101, Ancho 211, Masivo, Rebelde, and San Ardo. Acknowledgments This trial was financially supported by the Commercial Vegetable Program of Lincoln University Cooperative Extension. The authors would like to thank the following people for their help: Terry Blank, Fred Schmidt, Thomas Sieg, Nicholas Turner, Jeremy Rackers, and Curtis Markway. Table 1. 2011 Chili cultivar list and seed source. Cultivar Code Type Cultivar Name Seed Source
J-11 Jalapeño Conchos JS J-12 Jalapeño Early Jalapeño JS J-13 Jalapeño El Jefe JS J-14 Jalapeño Jalafuego JS J-15 Jalapeño Grande MCS J-16 Jalapeño Milta MCS J-17 Jalapeño Jalapeño M MCS J-18 Jalapeño Centella RU J-19 Jalapeño Compadre RU J-20 Jalapeño Hybrid #7 RU J-21 Jalapeño Ixtapa X3R RU J-22 Jalapeño Sayvla RU J-23 Jalapeño Miogrando SI J-24 Jalapeño New Park SI J-25 Jalapeño Tajin SI J-26 Jalapeño Chichimeca TT J-27 Jalapeño Jalastar TT J-28 Jalapeño Mucho Nacho TT J-29 Jalapeño Purple Jalapeño TT
Continued on next page
56 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 1 (continued) Cultivar Code Type Cultivar Name Seed Source
J-30 Jalapeño Tam Jalapeño #1 TT J-43 Jalapeño Agriset 4108 SW J-44 Jalapeño Rayo SW J-45 Jalapeño Mammoth SW J-46 Jalapeño Valor SW J-47 Jalapeño Ciclon SW J-48 Jalapeño Tormenta SW B-1 Big Chili NM Joe E. Parker JS B-2 Big Chili Sahuaro JS B-3 Big Chili Anaheim - TMR23 RU B-4 Big Chili Anastar SI B-5 Big Chili Big Jim Pepper TT B-6 Big Chili Biggie Chile Hybrid TT B-7 Big Chili College 64L TT B-8 Big Chili New Mex Improved MCS B-9 Big Chili Anaheim MCS B-10 Big Chili Numex Sunrise TT B-51 Big Chili Anaheim 118 SW B-52 Big Chili Galena SW B-53 Big Chili Charger SW B-54 Big Chili Iberia SW P-31 Poblano Ancho 211 JS P-32 Poblano Tiburon JS P-33 Poblano Ancho 101 MCS P-34 Poblano Rebelde RU P-35 Poblano Don Matias SI P-36 Poblano Ancho San Martin TT P-49 Poblano Masivo SW P-50 Poblano San Ardo SW
57 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 2. Yield of tested jalapeño, big chili and poblano chili cultivars. Yield Cultivar Total # of Harvested Plants g/plant
Jalapeño Grande 12 1,608.4 Mucho Nacho 12 1,439.3 Conchos 12 1,324.9 Milta 12 1,231.4 Tormenta 12 1,182.8 Ixtapa X3R 12 1,133.7 New Park 12 1,125.3 Mammoth 12 1,097.9 Tajin 12 1,056.8 Compadre 12 1,051.7 Chichimeca 12 1,045.9 Jalastar 12 1,028.7 Sayvla 12 1,022.1 Hybrid #7 12 1,009.3 Jalafuego 10 1,164.7 El Jefe 12 955.5 Jalapeño M 12 890.0 Valor 12 846.6 Rayo 12 815.6 Tam Jalapeño #1 10 965.4 Agriset 4108 12 603.9 Early Jalapeño 8 784.3 Centella 12 409.7 Ciclon 11 375.4 Miogrando 12 296.4 Purple Jalapeño 9 295.5
Continued on next page
58 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 2 (continued) Yield Cultivar Total # of Harvested Plants g/plant
Big Chili Charger 12 1,291.2 Iberia 12 987.8 Sahuaro 11 814.1 Anaheim 118 11 810.6 NM Joe E. Parker 10 761.5 Numex Sunrise 12 460.5 Anaheim 10 463.7 New Mex Improved 9 415.4 Galena 10 368.2 Anastar 10 336.9 Anaheim - TMR23 11 296.1 College 64L 11 282.2 Biggie Chile Hybrid 12 249.6 Big Jim Pepper 11 243.8 Poblano San Ardo 12 361.6 Ancho 101 11 386.9 Rebelde 11 258.3 Masivo 8 277.8 Ancho 211 8 270.0 Ancho San Martin 9 217.7 Tiburon 9 193.9 Don Matias 8 126.2
59 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 3. Fruit characteristics of jalapeño, big chili, and poblano chili pepper cultivars. Total of 2 Average of 2 Harvests Cultivar Harvests # of chilies Weight (g) Length (in) Width (in)
Jalapeño Conchos 20 34.0 2.7 1.5 Mammoth 20 32.5 3.4 0.9 Tajin 20 28.9 2.6 1.3 Jalastar 20 26.5 2.6 1.0 Ixtapa X3R 20 26.4 2.7 1.2 Chichimeca 20 26.2 2.6 1.2 Grande 19 25.7 2.9 1.2 Agriset 4108 20 25.7 2.7 1.3 Compadre 20 24.6 3.0 1.1 Hybrid #7 20 24.5 2.8 1.2 Valor 20 24.1 2.8 0.9 Mucho Nacho 19 23.3 2.8 1.2 Centella 20 22.9 2.9 1.1 Jalafuego 20 22.5 3.1 1.1 Tormenta 19 22.5 2.7 0.9 New Park 20 22.3 3.1 1.0 Rayo 20 21.7 3.6 1.0 El Jefe 18 21.0 2.8 1.1 Milta 18 20.8 2.6 1.1 Jalapeño M 20 18.5 2.5 1.1 Miogrando 14 17.5 2.8 1.0 Ciclon 20 16.5 2.6 0.7 Sayvla 20 15.2 2.2 1.0 Early Jalapeño 12 13.4 2.0 1.1 Tam Jalapeño #1 14 11.8 1.9 0.9 Purple Jalapeño 17 8.4 1.8 0.8
Continued on next page
60 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 3 (continued) Total of 2 Average of 2 Harvests Cultivar Harvests # of chilies Weight (g) Length (in) Width (in)
Big Chili Charger 18 46.5 5.4 1.7 Anaheim 118 20 37.3 4.5 1.6 Galena 15 36.7 4.7 1.5 College 64L 17 31.4 4.7 1.4 Anastar 17 31.3 4.8 1.3 Sahuaro 15 31.1 4.4 1.3 Biggie Chile Hybrid 13 29.9 4.4 1.4 Iberia 19 29.5 6.6 1.1 NM Joe E. Parker 20 29.3 4.5 1.3 Anaheim 12 28.8 4.3 1.3 Big Jim Pepper 16 24.7 4.3 1.1 New Mex Improved 10 23.8 4.4 1.2 Anaheim - TMR23 20 22.1 4.4 1.2 Numex Sunrise 17 21.8 4.7 1.1 Poblano San Ardo 17 29.9 2.9 1.6 Masivo 16 28.8 3.0 1.5 Rebelde 20 27.6 2.7 1.5 Ancho 101 16 26.6 2.2 1.6 Don Matias 20 23.5 2.8 1.4 Tiburon 15 22.9 2.4 1.5 Ancho 211 13 20.4 2.1 1.3 Ancho San Martin 17 19.7 2.5 1.3
61 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
62 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Bell Pepper Cultivar Performance Trial Grown in Southern Ohio — 2011
Brad R. Bergefurd, Horticulture Specialist and Extension Educator Wayne Lewis, Thom Harker, Lynn Miller, Al Welch, and Emily Weaks The Ohio State University South Centers 1864 Shyville Road, Piketon, Ohio 45661 Objectives The objectives of this trial were to screen new fresh market bell pepper variety releases (2010- 2011) for their production performance under Southern Ohio growing conditions and to determine the new releases showing yield potential for the southern Ohio area. Materials and Methods This trial evaluated 10 bell pepper cultivars for their production suitability, performance, and quality attributes under southern Ohio growing conditions. Cultivar selections were new releases along with some industry standard varieties. Input was received from seed companies, growers, and industry personnel regarding variety selection and standard comparison. The observation trial was located in southern Ohio, at the Ohio State University South Centers field research trials in Piketon, Ohio. Seeds were hand planted April 11 into 98-cell Pro Trays filled with soilless mix in the greenhouse. Plants were transplanted onto 10-inch-tall raised beds covered with black plastic in twin rows spaced 18 inches apart on June 2 using a waterwheel transplanter. Trickle irrigation was installed under the plastic mulch. Bed spacing was 6 feet apart on center. Before forming beds and laying plastic mulch, 100 pounds of N, P2O5, and K2O per acre were applied. A standard commercial fungicide and insecticide program followed recommendations from the Ohio Vegetable Production Guide, OSU Bulletin #672. Weeds were controlled with cultivation and hand hoeing. Results and Discussion This trial was planted later than usual due to one of the wettest springs on record. Overall plant and fruit quality were good despite the less than optimal growing conditions experienced this season. Fruit were harvested three times: August 18, September 13, and October 10. In this trial total marketable bushels per acre ranged from 1,892 (Islamorada) to 723 (Milena). The cultivar Vanguard had the largest amount of marketable large and medium bushels per acre at 710 large and 769 medium. The cultivar Vanguard had the largest average fruit weight of 0.48 lb. Table 1 shows yield data and varieties are listed in descending order of U.S. No. 1 yield. We wish to thank the seed companies for their in-kind contributions to conduct this field research.
63 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 1. Fruit yields and average fruit size responses for new bell pepper cultivars grown in southern Ohio (Piketon), 2011. Total Small Medium Large Average Seed Cultivar Bushels Bushels Bushels Bushels Fruit Weight Source per Acre per Acre per Acre per Acre (lbs.)
Islamorada SW 1,892 733 754 404 0.44 Vanguard HM 1,829 349 769 710 0.48 Mecate HM 1,604 510 650 444 0.41 Delirio RU 1,266 389 588 288 0.40 PS 2994 819 SW 1,179 352 461 365 0.41 Sandpiper HM 1,175 899 275 0 0.28 Archimedes RU 1,161 338 442 380 0.41 Karisma HM 1,093 501 502 89 0.34 Catriona SW 928 498 344 85 0.32 Milena SW 723 554 169 0 0.27
64 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
New Crop Pepper Germplasm Evaluation for Northwest Ohio — 2011
Elaine Grassbaugh, Ohio State University, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Columbus, OH Matt Hofelich, OSU/OARDC North Central Ag Research Station, Fremont, OH Mark Koenig, OSU Extension, Sandusky County, Fremont, OH Objective The objective of this trial was to test new variety releases of peppers (bell and jalapeno) for their performance under northwest Ohio growing conditions and to determine new releases showing pest resistance. Methods and Materials Eleven varieties of bell peppers and six jalapeno varieties were seeded into 200-cell plug trays at the OARDC North Central Ag Research Station (NCARS) in Fremont, OH, on April 11, 2011. Plants were transplanted to the field at NCARS on June 2, 2011, into Rimer loamy fine sand. Plots were 25 feet long on raised beds spaced 5 feet apart. In-row plant spacing was 12 inches apart. Each cultivar was replicated four times. All varieties were harvested twice: on August 18 and September 16. Marketable and culled fruit T/A and average fruit size were collected at harvest. Statistical analysis was done using Systat®. Results Season totals for marketable yields on bell varieties ranged from 13.6 to 27.3 T/A with no significant differences, although the p value (0.056) was just above statistical significance. Average fruit size ranged from 0.47 to 0.59 lbs with culled fruit ranges of 1.8 to 4.8 T/A. There were no differences in culled fruit weights or average fruit size (Table 1). All bell cultivars were green maturing to red except for ‘Mecate,’ which was green maturing to yellow. ‘Aristotle’ was included as the industry standard. Data for individual harvests shows no significant differences for harvest 1 (August 18) for marketable or culled fruit (Table 2), although the p value for culled fruit (0.06) was again just beyond significance. Harvest 2 data (Sept. 16) shows a significant difference for marketable fruit, with ‘8302’ yields lower than the other bell cultivars (Table 2). Season total for marketable yields for jalapeno cultivars ranged from 13.9 to 16.9 T/A. Culled fruit ranged from 0.5 to 1.7 T/A with no significant differences (p=0.09). Average fruit size ranged from 0.05 to 0.08, with significant differences (Table 3). Data for individual harvest dates for jalapenos show a difference in yield for marketable and culled fruit for harvest 1 (Aug. 18), but no differences for harvest 2 (Sept. 16) (Table 4). The majority of culled fruit for both pepper types (bell, jalapeno) were nonmarketable due to sunscald and blossom end rot. Some symptoms of phytophthora were also seen through the plots. Fremont, OH, received excessive rainfall throughout the growing season (Table 5). This research study was featured at the NCARS field day (Fremont, OH) on August 3, 2011.
65 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 1. Evaluation of new pepper cultivars (bells) for Northwest Ohio; Fremont, OH, 2011. Average Fruit Cultivar Source Marketable T/A Cull T/A Size lbs.
Karisma HM 27.3 3.6 0.59 Vanguard HM 24.4 4.3 0.54 Mecate HM 21.1 2.4 0.48 Aristotle* SM 19.6 4.8 0.55 PS1819 SM 26.0 3.4 0.57 8302 SM 13.6 3.1 0.56 9325 SM 22.4 2.9 0.47 Archimedes SM 25.7 2.3 0.58 Tomcat SY 23.2 3.1 0.53 Hunter SY 19.3 3.2 0.51 Intruder SY 21.3 1.8 0.56 LSD (0.05) NS NS NS p value 0.056 0.195 0.116 CV 25.7 47.5 12.0 Table 2. Individual harvest data for bell cultivars for Northwest Ohio; Fremont, OH, 2011. Harvest 1 — Aug. 18 Harvest 2 — Sept. 16 Cultivar Marketable T/A Cull T/A Marketable T/A Cull T/A
Karisma 12.6 2.0 14.7 1.5 Vanguard 11.3 1.5 13.1 2.8 Mecate 10.0 1.4 11.0 1.0 Aristotle* 7.5 2.5 12.0 2.3 PS1819 10.1 0.7 15.9 2.7 8302 9.1 2.4 4.5 0.7 9325 8.3 2.1 14.1 0.8 Archimedes 13.1 1.0 12.5 1.3 Tomcat 9.8 1.5 13.4 1.6 Hunter 8.0 1.6 11.3 1.6 Intruder 10.5 0.4 10.8 1.4 LSD (0.05) NS NS 5.60 NS p value 0.233 0.061 0.032 0.104 CV 34.5 65.4 36.5 73.3 * = industry standard
66 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 3. Evaluation of new pepper cultivars (jalapeno) for Northwest Ohio; Fremont, OH, 2011. Average Fruit Cultivar Source Marketable T/A Cull T/A Size lbs.
Jalafuego SK 16.0 1.1 0.07 XXP 6615 SK 14.0 1.7 0.07 Invicto HM 15.8 0.8 0.08 Euforia HM 15.3 0.8 0.08 Hechicero HM 16.9 0.8 0.06 Ixtalpa* SM 13.9 0.5 0.05 LSD (0.05) NS NS 0.020 p value 0.491 0.088 0.001 CV 24.4 62.9 15.1 Table 4. Individual harvest data for jalapeno cultivars for Northwest Ohio; Fremont, OH, 2011. Harvest 1 — Aug. 18 Harvest 2 — Sept. 16 Cultivar Marketable T/A Cull T/A Marketable T/A Cull T/A
Jalafuego 5.8 0.2 10.2 0.9 XXP 6615 5.1 0.7 8.9 1.0 Invicto 6.8 0.2 9.0 0.6 Euforia 5.7 0.1 9.6 0.7 Hechicero 5.9 0.2 11.0 0.6 Ixtalpa* 5.1 0.1 8.9 0.4 LSD (0.05) 1.11 0.22 NS NS p value 0.049 0.002 0.494 0.750 CV 22.9 2.3 27.6 76.4 * = industry standard Table 5. 2011 Weather data for the North Central Ag Research Station, Fremont, OH. Month Average Temp (ºF) Total Precipitation (in) Normal Precipitation (in)
June 71.0 3.90 4.2 July 78.0 5.65 3.9 August 71.1 4.45 3.4 September 63.3 9.05 3.1 Season Total 23.05 14.6
67 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Acknowledgements Sincere thanks and appreciate to the Ohio Vegetable and Small Fruit Research and Development Program for partial funding of this project. Thanks to the following companies for their seed donations used in this study: o Harris Moran o Seminis o Syngenta o Sakata Thanks and appreciation to Frank Thayer, Sean Mueller, and the summer crew at NCARS for their work with seeding, field preparation, and maintenance and assistance with fruit harvesting and grading.
68 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Use of Plant Growth Regulators to Control Pepper Transplant Height and Enhance Crop Production — 2011
Mark Bennett Ohio State University Department of Horticulture and Crop Science 2021 Coffey Road Columbus, OH 43210 [email protected] Introduction In April 2009, Sumagic® was registered as the first plant growth regulator labeled for use on some solanaceous transplants including peppers, tomatoes, and tomatillos. Sumagic® applied at the rate of 10 ppm at a volume of 2 quarts per 100 square feet may significantly reduce transplant height. Sumagic®, which contains the active ingredient uniconazole, is a gibberellic acid inhibitor and helps control plant height and stem elongation. PEG 8000 (polyethylene glycol) mixed with soilless media for transplant production showed a significant reduction in transplant height in studies in tomatoes at Ohio State University in 2006. Investigation of Sumagic® and PEG (separately and combined) as well as a neem-based product from Gantec, Inc. (GLI-7048), used in pepper transplant production may provide adequate height control, producing shorter plants and stockier stems with no adverse effect to final yield. Methods and Materials Peppers (cv. ‘Aristotle’) were seeded into 200-cell plug trays on March 31, 2011, and grown in the OSU Howlett Hall greenhouse. Prior to seeding, PEG 8000 was incorporated into a soilless medium (Fafard 3B) at a rate of 20g per liter of mix. Sumagic® was applied to plants on May 12 (six weeks after seeding) at the rate of 10 ppm at a volume of 2 quarts per 100 square feet. GLI- 7048 was also applied on May 12 at a rate of 3/8 oz per 1,000 sq ft. Plant height and stem diameter measurements were taken prior to the Sumagic® and GLI-7048 applications. Plant heights and stem diameters were measured again on June 1, prior to field establishment that day. Plants were hand planted into raised beds with black plastic mulch at the OSU Waterman Ag and Natural Resources Laboratory, Columbus, OH. In-row plant spacing was 12 inches apart with raised beds spaced 5 feet apart. Fruit was harvested three times (August 8 and 31, and October 4). Marketable and cull fruit T/A, and average fruit size were recorded. Results The percent increase in plant height from the time of application (May 12) of Sumagic® and GLI-7048 treatments, to transplant establishment in the field shows a 27% increase in the untreated controls compared to only a 4% and 5% increase in the GLI-7048 and Sumagic® alone treatments, respectively (Table 1). PEG (alone) and the Gantec treatment also had positive impacts on stem diameter assessments, with 37% and 26% gains in the three-week greenhouse period prior to field setting (Table 1). Other treatments and the control only gave 0-13% gains.
69 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Final marketable yield ranged from 13.8 to 17.3 T/A of green and red fruit but no significant differences were found among treatments (Table 1). Culled fruit was due primarily to sunscald and blossom end rot. Future studies are warranted to more fully assess the use of Sumagic® and the neem-based GLI-7048 product on other pepper cultivars and additional solanaceous crops to control transplant height and avoid undesired plant stretching. Acknowledgements Thanks and appreciation to the Ohio Vegetable and Small Fruit Research and Development Program for partial financial support of this project. Thanks and appreciation to Gantec, Inc., for partial financial support of this project. Thanks to Glenn Mills, Mark Schmittgen, and the summer crew at the Waterman Ag and Natural Resources Laboratory for their assistance with field establishment and maintenance.
70 Table 1. Plant growth regulators for height control in peppers — 2011 Waterman Ag and Natural Resources Laboratory, Columbus, OH. Cultivar: ‘Aristotle’ (May 12, 2011) (June 1, 2011) Prior to Prior to 4 WAT* Harvest Data Sumagic and Transplanting Gantec Treatment Plant Stem Plant Stem Plant Percent Green Average Green Red Marketable Culls Ht. Diam. Ht. Diam. Ht. Plant & Red Fruit T/A T/A Fruit #/A T/A (cm) (mm) (cm) (mm) (cm) Survival T/A Size (lb)
Untreated 15.8 2.07 20.0 2.33 33.6 100 14.4 1.0 15.4 77,392 0.40 4.0 Sumagic 11.9 2.03 12.5 1.99 24.9 98 12.8 0.8 13.8 65,340 0.42 3.4 PEG 8000 13.6 1.65 16.2 2.26 32.4 100 13.8 0.7 14.5 71,729 0.40 3.0 PEG 8000 + Sumagic 13.2 1.90 14.2 2.07 27.2 95 15.8 0.5 16.3 76,666 0.43 3.1 GLI-7048 12.0 1.65 12.5 2.09 32.4 100 16.0 1.3 17.3 79,570 0.43 3.1 LSD (0.05) 1.04 0.288 1.74 NS 2.66 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS p value 0.001 0.017 0.001 0.118 0.002 0.547 0.386 0.299 0.317 0.353 0.368 0.195 CV 11.6 13.0 20.1 9.6 13.0 4.7 16.7 68.4 16.5 13.4 7.3 20.5 * WAT = weeks after transplanting Harvest Date August 8 August 31 October 4 Treatment
Green Cull Green Cull Green Red Green & Red Cull Midwest T/A T/A T/A T/A T/A T/A T/A T/A
Untreated 4.9 1.6 4.5 1.6 5.0 1.1 6.0 0.8 Sumagic 4.5 1.9 3.3 0.8 5.1 0.8 5.9 0.7 Vegetable PEG 8000 4.2 3.5 4.3 0.8 5.2 0.7 5.9 0.8 PEG 8000 + Sumagic 5.8 1.5 3.8 0.8 6.1 0.6 6.7 0.8 Trial GLI-7048 4.4 1.2 5.4 0.8 6.1 1.3 7.4 1.1 LSD (0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Report p value 0.552 0.591 0.536 0.287 0.585 0.299 0.402 0.711 CV 27.6 99.4 37.8 63.8 22.9 68.4 21.6 46.0 for 2011 71
Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
72 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Pumpkin Cultivar Performance Trial Grown in Southern Ohio — 2011
Brad R. Bergefurd, Horticulture Specialist and Extension Educator Wayne Lewis, Thom Harker, Lynn Miller, Al Welch and Emily Weaks The Ohio State University South Centers 1864 Shyville Road, Piketon, Ohio 45661 Objectives The objectives of this trial were to screen new pumpkin variety releases (2010-2011) for their production performance under Southern Ohio growing conditions and to determine the new releases showing yield potential for the southern Ohio area. Materials and Methods This trial evaluated 26 pumpkin cultivars for their production suitability, performance, and quality attributes under southern Ohio growing conditions. Cultivar selections were new releases along with industry standard varieties. Input was received from seed companies, growers, and industry personnel regarding variety selection and standard comparison. Seeds were direct seeded to the field on June 6. Rows were spaced 10 feet apart with seeds planted 3 feet apart in the row. The observation trial was located in southern Ohio, at the Ohio State University South Centers field research trials in Piketon, Ohio. Prior to planting, 100 pounds of N, P2O5, and K2O per acre were applied. A standard commercial fungicide and insecticide program followed recommendations from the Ohio Vegetable Production Guide, OSU Bulletin #672. Weeds were controlled with cultivation and hand hoeing. Results and Discusion Overall plant and fruit quality were good despite 2011 being a record-setting wettest growing season on record. The season was wetter than usual early. These conditions resulted in a later than normal planting date. Drip irrigation was applied as needed throughout the growing season. Overall heat units were accelerated midseason with higher than normal temperatures resulting in blossom drop and inadequate pollination, which resulted in a reduction in fruit numbers. Overall fruit yield and quality were good for this trial. Fruit were harvested on September 13. This year’s pumpkin screening contained several types of pumpkins, including five specialty types: Black Knight, Peanut Pumpkin, Red Warty Thing, One Too Many, and Galaxy of Stars (a decorative gourd type). Several types of jack-o-lantern and pie type pumpkins were evaluated. Pumpkin cultivars in table 1 are ranked in descending order by marketable orange tons per acre. Marketable ton per acre ranged from a high of 32 to a low of 5 tons per acre. The top five jack-o- lantern types included Mustang, Gold Medal, Aladdin, Challenger, and Cougar. Average fruit weight ranged from a high of 20.84 pounds (Gold Medal) to a low of 0.31 pound (Galaxy of Stars). We wish to thank the seed companies for their in-kind contributions to conduct this field research.
73 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 1. Fruit yields and average fruit weight responses for pumpkin cultivars grown in southern Ohio (Piketon), 2011. Cultivar Marketable Marketable Marketable Average Fruit Seed Fruit per Acre lbs. per Acre Tons per Acre Weight Source
Mustang 3,428 64,691 32 18.86 HL Gold Medal 2,857 59,548 29 20.84 RU Aladdin 3,428 54,300 27 15.83 HM Challenger 2,571 53,240 26 20.70 SW Cougar 3,142 49,448 24 15.73 HL Magic Lantern 4,857 49,734 24 13.44 HM Apollo 3,714 46,522 23 12.52 HM Solid Gold 2,857 46,320 23 16.21 RU Camaro 2,285 41,511 20 18.16 HL Magic Wand 2,857 38,417 19 13.44 HM Corvette 2,285 36,460 18 15.95 HL Hijinks 6,571 35,608 17 5.41 SW Gladiator 2,571 34,531 17 13.42 HM Warlock 3,142 33,911 16 10.79 HM Diablo 2,285 30,754 15 13.45 SW Black Knight 4,285 29,368 14 6.85 SW Cannon Ball 8,285 27,791 13 3.35 HM Magician 3,428 23,657 11 6.90 HM Super Hero 1,428 23,702 11 16.59 HM Peanut Pumpkin 1,714 22,722 11 13.25 SW Red Warty Thing 2,285 22,400 11 9.80 RU Half Pint 17,142 20,948 10 1.22 SI Field Trip 5,428 19,680 9 3.62 HM Kandy Korn Plus 21,142 18,991 9 0.89 SW Galaxy of Stars 37,142 11,671 5 0.31 RU One Too Many 1,428 10,000 5 7.00 RU
74 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Evaluation of OMRI-approved Fungicides for the Control of Powdery Mildew of Zucchini — 2011
Daniel S. Egel1, Shubin K. Saha1, Stacye Johnson2, Scott Monroe2, Dennis Nowaskie1, and Maria Restrepo2 1Southwest Purdue Agricultural Center, Vincennes, IN 47591 2Purdue Extension in the counties of Knox, Daviess, and Pike, respectively
On May 19, zucchini (Cucurbita pepo) cultivar ‘Raven F1’ was direct seeded into a field at the Southwest Purdue Agricultural Center in Vincennes, IN, which was managed organically for the sixth consecutive year. Individual row plots consisted of 30-foot rows on 6-foot centers. Zucchinis were thinned to 3.0 feet apart with 10 plants per plot. Each row was mulched with 4- foot-wide x 2-mil black plastic (Visqueen 4020). The experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications. Treatment plots were separated in the row by 10-foot unplanted buffers. Organic Materials Research Institute (OMRI) listed fungicides were applied weekly from July 12 to August 10 with a CO2 backpack sprayer with four flat fan nozzles (Tee-Jet 8002VS) spaced 19 inches apart applying 10 gallons per acre at 30 psi. The plots were examined for symptoms of disease on July 29, and on August 4 and 12 using the Horsfall-Barratt ratings system. Zucchini were harvested approximately three times per week between July 15 and August 19. Rainfall totals for May, June, July, and August were 5.70, 9.46, 1.71, and 1.22 inches, respectively. Symptoms of powdery mildew (causal fungus Podosphaera xanthii) were first observed on August 4. There were no significant differences in the disease severity of powdery mildew or the weight or number (data not shown) of fruit harvested. Powdery Mildew Disease Total Fruit Weight Treatment, rate/A1 Severity (lbs/A) Aug. 12 (%)2
Champ DP, 3 lbs 11.3 54,397 Milstop + Champ DP 22.5 64,251 Milstop, 2 lbs 18.8 59,145 Oxidate, 90 fl oz3 22.5 62,780 Untreated control 13.4 54,639 P-value 0.6650 0.7704 1Fungicides were applied approximately weekly from July 12 until August 10. 2Plots were rated for severity of powdery mildew using the Horsfall-Barratt scale and converted to percent using the ELANCO tables. 3Oxidate was mixed in a dilution of 1:100 with water, the resulting rate per A appears above.
75 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
76 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Powdery Mildew Resistant Acorn-type Winter Squash Variety Evaluation — New York 2011
Margaret T. McGrath, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901 Laura K. Hunsberger, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901 Sandra Menasha, Cornell Cooperative Extension-Suffolk County, NY
Varieties with resistance are a valuable tool for managing powdery mildew, a very common disease that can reduce yield (fruit quantity and/or size) and market quality (flavor, color, storability, etc). Several winter squash varieties are now available on the commercial market advertised as having resistance to powdery mildew. The goals of this experiment, which is part of a multi-year variety evaluation project, were (1) to continue to monitor adaptation in the pathogen that has been reducing the effectiveness of powdery mildew resistance, (2) to determine whether varieties with homozygous resistance (e.g., two copies of the major powdery mildew resistance gene, PMRR) are better protected against powdery mildew than varieties with heterozygous resistance (PMR), (3) to investigate the contribution of resistance to an integrated management program, and (4) to evaluate yield and fruit quality. Materials and Methods Research was conducted at the Long Island Horticultural Research and Extension Center in Riverhead on Haven loam soil. Controlled release fertilizer (N-P-K 19-10-9) at 525 lb/A (100 lb/A of nitrogen) was broadcast and incorporated on May 31. Black plastic mulch and drip tape were laid on June 1. Seeds were sown on May 31 in the greenhouse. Seedlings were transplanted by hand into beds covered with black plastic mulch on June 21. A waterwheel transplanter was used to open the holes and apply starter fertilizer plus insecticide on June 16. During the season, water was provided as needed via drip irrigation lines located beneath the mulch. Weeds were managed by mowing and hand weeding. Cucumber beetles were managed with AdmirePro applied with the transplanter on June 16. Two experiments were conducted in separate treatment areas, one receiving a standard commercial powdery mildew fungicide program, and one that did not. The following products were applied to control the cucurbit powdery mildew fungus (Podosphaera xanthii): Quintec (6 fl oz/A) on July 28, August 18, and September 3; Procure 50WS (8 oz/A) on July 20 and August 26; Pristine (18.5 oz/A) on August 4; and Actinovate (8 oz/A) on August 4. The following fungicides were applied preventively for downy mildew (Pseudoperonospora cubensis) and Phytophthora blight (Phytophthora capsici): ProPhyt (4 pt/A) on August 6; Ranman 400 SC (2.75 fl oz/A) on August 18 and September 2; and Curzate (3.2 oz/A) on August 26. Plots were four adjacent rows each with three plants spaced 24 inches apart. Rows were spaced 68 inches apart. A single plant of Spineless Beauty, a susceptible zucchini variety, was planted between each plot in each row to separate plots and provide a source of inoculum. A randomized complete block design with four replications was used.
77 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Upper and lower leaf surfaces were assessed for powdery mildew on July 21 and 26, and on August 3, 10, and 17. Fungicide-treated plots were assessed again on August 24. Initially, 10 older leaves were examined in each plot. Mid-aged and young leaves were also assessed on August 17 when powdery mildew had progressed to these age groups. Powdery mildew colonies (spots) were counted; severity was estimated when colonies had coalesced or were too numerous to count. Colony counts were converted to severity values using the conversion factor of 30 colonies/leaf = 1%. Average severity for the entire canopy was calculated from the individual leaf assessments. These canopy severity values were used to calculate area under disease progress curve (AUDPC) to obtain a measure of severity over the entire assessment period (July 21-August 24). Squash fruit were harvested, weighed, and measured on September 12. Average monthly high and low temperatures (°F) were 79/61 in June, 87/68 in July, 82/66 in August, and 76/63 in September. Rainfall (inches) was 6.1, 2.35, 10.61, and 6.88 for these months, respectively. There was a hurricane and several atypical intensive rain events during the 2011 growing season on Long Island. Results and Discussion Symptoms of powdery mildew were observed on July 21 in all except one treated plot of a resistant variety. The proportion of older leaves examined with symptoms was 46% in both experiments then. Incidence at that time was unusually high for the region. It was only 3% on July 20, 2010, in a similar experiment with these same varieties. Powdery mildew incidence therefore was substantially above the action threshold of 2% on July 20 when the powdery mildew fungicide program was started for assessing integrated management. Sweet REBA, the variety evaluated with homozygous resistance (i.e., two copies of the major powdery mildew resistance gene, PMRR), was less severely affected by powdery mildew than Tay Belle PM, which has heterozygous resistance (PMR). Severity was significantly different based on AUDPC values and also many severity assessments (Table 1). Powdery mildew severity on Sweet REBA and the susceptible variety Table Ace differed significantly for almost all assessments. Thus, homozygous resistance was effective when powdery mildew resistance was tested as a sole management program (Table 1a) and as a component of an integrated management program that included weekly applications of a targeted fungicide for powdery mildew (Quintec, Pristine, and Procure) (Table 1b). Powdery mildew severity on Tay Belle PM and Table Ace never differed significantly. Thus, heterozygous resistance was ineffective as a sole management practice as well as when fungicides were also applied. However, effectiveness of the fungicide program may have been compromised by its initiation after recommended using the established action threshold. Based on AUDPC values, Sweet REBA provided 74% and 91% control on upper and lower leaf surfaces, respectively, as the sole management practice and 85% and 53% increased control when treated with targeted fungicides compared to the similarly treated Table Ace. Yield of Sweet REBA did not differ significantly from Table Ace (Table 2). In conclusion, varieties with homozygous resistance are needed to effectively control powdery mildew in acorn squash. Control can be improved by using an integrated program. Applying fungicides to a resistant variety will also minimize selection pressure for pathogen strains adapted to either resistance genes or targeted fungicides.
78 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 1 a-b. Severity of powdery mildew on leaves of acorn squash varieties compared on Long Island, NY, in 2011. All are green acorn-type varieties. Powdery Mildew Severity (%)1 Nonfungicide Treated Upper Leaf Surface Lower Leaf Surface Variety2 Aug. 103 Aug. 17 AUDPC Aug. 10 Aug. 17 AUDPC
Sweet REBA (PMRR) 0.00 b 12.62 56.75 b 0.00 b 9.67 b 46.69 b Tay Belle PM (PMR) 3.47 ab 34.35 213.91 a 18.61 a 48.35 a 422.60 a Table Ace (S) 5.42 a 24.25 217.23 a 30.63 a 49.50 a 521.96 a P-value (treatment) 0.0089 0.1189 0.0020 0.0025 0.0168 0.0006
Powdery Mildew Severity (%)1 Fungicide Treated Upper Leaf Surface Lower Leaf Surface Variety2 Aug. 10 Aug. 173 AUDPC Aug. 10 Aug. 17 AUDPC
Sweet REBA (PMRR) 0.04 1.52 b 20.66 b 0.79 b 7.51 b 20.658 b Tay Belle PM (PMR) 0.21 7.42 ab 134.89 a 6.21 ab 35.01 a 134.89 a Table Ace (S) 0.00 13.24 a 171.91 a 10.58 a 40.08 a 171.91 a P-value (treatment) 0.2441 0.0135 0.0002 0.0299 0.0008 0.0002 1Exact colony counts were made when possible and severity was estimated using the conversion factor of 30 colonies/leaf=1%. 2PMRR=homozygous resistance; PMR=heterozygous resistance. Varieties are listed in order of resistance. 3Numbers in each column with a letter in common are not significantly different from each other (Tukey’s HSD, P=0.05). Table 2 a-b. Yield of acorn squash varieties compared on Long Island, NY, in 2011. Total Fruit Marketable Fruit Nonfungicide Treated Seed 1 2 avg fruit wt Variety Source no/plant no/plant wt/plant (lb) (lb)
Sweet REBA (PMRR) OUT 1.38 0.44 0.29 0.63 Tay Belle PM (PMR) SW 2.48 1.17 0.84 0.71 Table Ace (Susceptible) SW 2.65 0.69 0.48 0.77 P-value (treatment) 0.1512 0.1262 0.1289 0.4414
Fungicide Treated Seed Total Fruit Marketable Fruit 1 2 Variety Source no/plant no/plant wt/plant3 avg fruit wt
Sweet REBA (PMRR) OUT 3.33 2.21 1.27 b 0.58 b Tay Belle PM (PMR) SW 3.48 2.67 2.05 a 0.78 a Table Ace (Susceptible) SW 3.77 2.50 1.77 ab 0.71 ab P-value (treatment) 0.4467 0.4642 0.0104 0.0102 1PMRR= homozygous resistance; PMR=heterozygous resistance; S=susceptible. 2OUT=Outstanding Seeds; SW=Seedway. 3Numbers in each column with a letter in common are not significantly different from each other (Tukey’s HSD, P=0.05).
79 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Acknowledgments This project was funded by the Friends of Long Island Horticulture Grant Program. Seed were donated by companies listed in Table 2. Pesticides were donated by BASF Corporation, Bayer CropScience, DuPont Crop Protection, FMC Corporation, Gowan Company, Helena Chemical Company, and Valent USA Corporation.
80 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Powdery Mildew Resistant Butternut Squash Variety Evaluation — New York 2011
Margaret T. McGrath, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901 Laura K. Hunsberger, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901 Sandra Menasha, Cornell Cooperative Extension-Suffolk County, NY
Powdery mildew is an annual production problem for all cucurbit crops throughout the United States, reducing yield potential and fruit quality when not controlled. Effective control with fungicides alone has been challenged by the development of fungicide resistance to key chemistries. The goals of this experiment, which is part of a multi-year variety evaluation project, were (1) to continue to monitor adaptation in the pathogen that has been reducing the effectiveness of powdery mildew resistance, (2) to determine whether varieties with homozygous resistance (i.e., two copies of the major powdery mildew resistance gene, PMRR) are better protected against powdery mildew than varieties with heterozygous resistance (PMR), (3) to investigate the contribution of resistance to an integrated management program, and (4) to evaluate yield and fruit quality. Materials and Methods Research was conducted at the Long Island Horticultural Research and Extension Center in Riverhead on Haven loam soil. Controlled release fertilizer (N-P-K 19-10-9) at 525 lb/A (100 lb/A of nitrogen) was broadcast and incorporated on May 31. Black plastic mulch and drip tape were laid on June 1. Seeds were sown on May 31 in the greenhouse. Seedlings were transplanted by hand into beds covered with black plastic mulch on June 21. A waterwheel transplanter was used to open the holes and apply starter fertilizer plus insecticide on June 16. During the season, water was provided as needed via drip irrigation lines located beneath the mulch. Weeds were managed by mowing and hand weeding. Cucumber beetles were managed with AdmirePro applied with the transplanter on June 16. Two experiments were conducted in separate treatment areas, one receiving a standard commercial powdery mildew fungicide program, and one that did not. The following products were applied to control the cucurbit powdery mildew fungus (Podosphaera xanthii): Quintec (6 fl oz/A) on July 28, August 18, and September 3; Procure 50WS (8 oz/A) on July 20 and August 26; Pristine (18.5 oz/A) on August 4; and Actinovate (8 oz/A) on August 4. The following fungicides were applied preventively for downy mildew (Pseudoperonospora cubensis) and Phytophthora blight (Phytophthora capsici): ProPhyt (4 pt/A) on August 6; Ranman 400 SC (2.75 fl oz/A) on August 18 and September 2; and Curzate (3.2 oz/A) on August 26. Plots were four adjacent rows each with three plants spaced 24 inches apart. Rows were spaced 68 inches apart. A single plant of Spineless Beauty, a susceptible zucchini variety, was planted between each plot in each row to separate plots and provide a source of inoculum. A randomized complete block design with four replications was used. Upper and lower leaf surfaces were assessed for powdery mildew on July 21, and on August 3, 10, 17, and 24. Initially, 10 older leaves were examined in each plot, with the quantity adjusted based on the incidence of symptomatic leaves. Powdery mildew colonies (spots) were counted;
81 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
severity was estimated when colonies had coalesced or were too numerous to count. Colony counts were converted to severity values using the conversion factor of 30 colonies/leaf = 1%. Average severity for the entire canopy was calculated from the individual leaf assessments. These canopy severity values were used to calculate area under disease progress curve (AUDPC) to obtain a measure of severity over the entire assessment period (July 21-August 17). Marketable squash fruit were harvested, weighed, and measured on September 16. Damaged, immature, and rotten fruit were counted. Total potential yield was estimated for all fruit produced (data not shown). Average monthly high and low temperatures (°F) were 79/61 in June, 87/68 in July, 82/66 in August, and 76/63 in September. Rainfall (inches) was 6.1, 2.35, 10.61, and 6.88 for these months, respectively. There was a hurricane and several atypical intensive rain events during the 2011 growing season on Long Island. Results and Discussion Symptoms of powdery mildew were observed at a low level on July 14: 3% of older leaves examined had symptoms with most of these in a plot of the susceptible variety. Symptoms were found on July 21 in most plots. The proportion of older leaves examined that day and found to have symptoms was 22% and 11% in the nontreated and fungicide-treated experiments, respectively. Powdery mildew incidence therefore was above the action threshold of 2% on July 20 when the powdery mildew fungicide program was started for assessing integrated management. Incidence at that time was unusually high for the region. Symptoms were first observed on August 4 in a similar experiment conducted in 2010. Powdery mildew was as effectively suppressed with Metro, which has heterozygous resistance (PMR), as with Geneva, the variety evaluated with homozygous resistance (i.e., two copies of the major powdery mildew resistance gene, PMRR) (Table 1). These varieties did not differ significantly when evaluated as the sole management practice or as a component of an integrated management program. Resistant varieties as the sole management practice provided 71-78% and 76-77% control on upper and lower leaf surfaces, respectively, based on AUDPC values. When treated with targeted fungicides for powdery mildew they increased control by 60-78% based on severity on August 18 compared to the similarly treated susceptible variety Waltham. By contrast, in a similar experiment conducted in 2010 evaluating nonfungicide resistant varieties, Geneva and four other PMRR and three PMR varieties exhibited no suppression of powdery mildew. Bugle (PMRR) was the only variety in the 2010 experiment that was significantly less severely affected by powdery mildew than the susceptible variety Waltham. The resistant varieties tested in 2009 also did not successfully suppress powdery mildew, whereas effective control was achieved in the 2008 experiment conducted at LIHREC.
82 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 1 a-b. Severity of powdery mildew on leaves of butternut squash hybrids compared on Long Island, NY, in 2011.
1 Nonfungicide Powdery Mildew Severity (%) Treated Upper Leaf Surface Lower Leaf Surface Variety2 Aug. 10 Aug. 17 AUDPC3 Aug. 10 Aug. 17 AUDPC4
Geneva (PMRR) 0.94 9.89 43.21 b 5.13 b 12.84 b 82.58 b Metro (PMR) 0.10 6.75 32.18 b 6.98 ab 7.42 b 76.24 b Waltham (S) 2.66 24.79 147.58 a 14.54 a 32.98 a 338.31 a P-value (treatment) 0.2239 0.1956 0.0021 0.0446 0.0127 0.0006
Powdery Mildew Severity (%)1 Fungicide Treated Upper Leaf Surface Lower Leaf Surface
Variety2 Aug. 10 Aug. 173 AUDPC Aug. 10 Aug. 17 AUDPC4
Geneva (PMRR) 0.00 0.33 b 1.34 b 6.10 13.25 b 94.42 ab Metro (PMR) 0.00 1.63 b 8.56 ab 3.66 12.93 b 80.78 b Waltham (S) 0.00 16.92 a 67.45 a 14.64 46.60 a 288.98 a P-value (treatment) 0.4219 0.0209 0.0271 0.1289 0.0089 0.0360 1Exact colony counts were made when possible and severity was estimated using the conversion factor of 30 colonies/leaf=1%. AUDPC values were calculated for canopy severity from July 14-August 18. 2PMRR=homozygous resistance; PMR=heterozygous resistance; S=susceptible. Varieties are listed in order of resistance. Source of seed for all varieties was Johnny’s Selected Seeds. 3Numbers in each column with a letter in common are not significantly different from each other (Tukey’s HSD, P=0.05). 4Data for the nonfungicide treated, lower leaf surface AUDPC were transformed from percentages by a square root transformation to obtain normality of variance before analysis of variance was performed. The table has de- transformed means. Acknowledgments This project was funded by the Friends of Long Island Horticulture Grant Program. Seed were donated by Johnny’s Selected Seeds. Pesticides were donated by BASF Corporation, Bayer CropScience, DuPont Crop Protection, FMC Corporation, Gowan Company, Helena Chemical Company, and Valent USA Corporation.
83 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
84 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Powdery Mildew Resistant Yellow Summer Squash Variety Evaluation — New York 2011
Margaret T. McGrath, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901 Laura K. Hunsberger, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901 Sandra Menasha, Cornell Cooperative Extension-Suffolk County, NY
Powdery mildew is an annual production problem for growers of cucurbit crops throughout the United States, reducing yield potential and fruit quality when not controlled. Effective control with fungicides alone has been challenged by the development of fungicide resistance to key chemistries. Several squash varieties are now available on the commercial market advertised as having resistance to powdery mildew. Materials and Methods Research was conducted at the Long Island Horticultural Research and Extension Center in Riverhead on Haven loam soil. Controlled release fertilizer (N-P-K 19-10-9) at 525 lb/A (100 lb/A of nitrogen) was broadcast and incorporated on May 31. Black plastic mulch and drip tape were laid on June 1. Seeds were sown on May 31 in the greenhouse. Seedlings were transplanted by hand into beds covered with black plastic mulch on June 21. A waterwheel transplanter was used to open the holes and apply starter fertilizer plus insecticide on June 16. During the season, water was provided as needed via drip irrigation lines located beneath the mulch. Weeds were managed by mowing and hand weeding. Cucumber beetles were managed with AdmirePro applied with the transplanter on June 16. Two experiments were conducted in separate treatment areas: one received a standard commercial powdery mildew fungicide program, and one did not. The following products were applied to control the cucurbit powdery mildew fungus (Podosphaera xanthii): Quintec (6 fl oz/A) on July 28, August 18, and September 3; Procure 50WS (8 oz/A) on July 20 and August 26; Pristine (18.5 oz/A) on August 4; and Actinovate (8 oz/A) on August 4. The following fungicides were applied preventively for downy mildew (Pseudoperonospora cubensis) and Phytophthora blight (Phytophthora capsici): ProPhyt (4 pt/A) on August 6; Ranman 400 SC (2.75 fl oz/A) on August 18 and September 2; and Curzate (3.2 oz/A) on August 26. Plots were four adjacent rows each with three plants spaced 24 inches apart. Rows were spaced 68 inches apart. A single plant of Spineless Beauty, a susceptible zucchini variety, was planted between each plot in each row to separate plots and provide a source of inoculum. A randomized complete block design with four replications was used. Upper and lower leaf surfaces were assessed for powdery mildew on July 21, and on August 3, 10, 17, and 24. Initially, 10 older leaves were examined in each plot. Mid-aged and young leaves were also assessed on August 17 when powdery mildew had progressed to these age groups. Powdery mildew colonies (spots) were counted; severity was estimated when colonies had coalesced or were too numerous to count. Colony counts were converted to severity values using the conversion factor of 30 colonies/leaf=1%. Average severity for the entire canopy was calculated from the individual leaf assessments. These canopy severity values were used to calculate area under disease progress curve (AUDPC) to obtain a measure of severity over the
85 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
entire assessment period (July 21-August 17). Squash fruit were harvested and counted on July 26, and on August 2 and 9. Average monthly high and low temperatures (°F) were 79/61 in June, 87/68 in July, and 82/66 in August. Rainfall (inches) was 6.1, 2.35, and 10.61 for these months, respectively. There was a hurricane and several atypical intensive rain events during the 2011 growing season on Long Island. Table 1 a-b. Severity of powdery mildew on leaves of summer squash varieties compared on Long Island, NY, in 2011. Resistant varieties are listed in order of disease control on lower leaf surfaces. Powdery Mildew Severity (%)2 Nonfungicide Treated Upper Leaf Surface Lower Leaf Surface Variety1 Aug. 103 Aug. 17 AUDPC Aug. 10 Aug. 17 AUDPC
Sunray (PMRR) 2.14 b 25.58 200.89 b 3.65 b 23.42 ab 109.68 b Cheetah (PMR) 4.32 ab 17.75 169.69 b 7.14 b 13.33 b 120.14 b Gentry (S) 11.15 a 32.92 406.25 a 29.27 a 40.33 a 568.61 a P-value (treatment) 0.0377 0.1436 0.0199 0.0001 0.1010 <0.0001
Powdery Mildew Severity (%)2 Fungicide Treated Upper Leaf Surface Lower Leaf Surface Variety1 Aug. 10 Aug. 17 AUDPC Aug. 103 Aug. 17 AUDPC
Sunray (PMRR) 0.00 2.08 70.55 2.24 b 3.97 b 107.21 b Cheetah (PMR) 0.00 3.18 88.30 0.52 b 15.47 b 161.11 b Gentry (S) 0.06 4.70 113.07 18.96 a 37.82 a 654.77 a P-value (treatment) 0.4219 0.4973 0.1227 0.0016 0.0020 < 0.0001 1PMRR=homozygous resistance; PMR=heterozygous resistance. Varieties are listed according to level of resistance. 2Exact colony counts were made when possible and severity was estimated using the conversion factor of 30 colonies/leaf=1%. Data were transformed from percentages by a square root transformation when needed to obtain normality of variance before analysis of variance was performed. The table has de-transformed means. 3Numbers in each column with a letter in common are not significantly different from each other (Tukey’s HSD, P=0.05). Results and Discussion Symptoms of powdery mildew were observed at a low level on July 14: only 1 of the 120 (0.8%) of older leaves examined had symptoms. Disease developed quickly. Symptoms were found on July 21 in all except two treated plots of the resistant variety Sunray. The proportion of older leaves examined that day and found to have symptoms was 42% and 52% in the non-treated and fungicide-treated experiments, respectively. Incidence at that time was unusually high for the region. It was 19% on July 27, 2010, in a similar experiment with these same varieties. Powdery mildew incidence therefore was substantially above the action threshold of 2% on July 20 when the powdery mildew fungicide program was started for assessing integrated management. Both resistant varieties were equally effective for suppressing powdery mildew (Table 1). There were no significant differences in powdery mildew severity between Cheetah and Sunray when evaluated as sole management practices or as a component of an integrated management
86 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
program. Therefore these experiments did not demonstrate a benefit of homozygous resistance over heterozygous resistance. Suppression of powdery mildew with genetic resistance was most evident on the lower leaf surface. This is valuable considering the pathogen develops best on this part of the leaf and controlling it here with fungicides necessitates using targeted fungicides prone to resistance development in the pathogen because targeted fungicides are able to move to the lower surface after being deposited on the upper surface. Based on AUDPC values, resistant varieties provided 51-58% and 79-81% control on upper and lower leaf surfaces, respectively, as the sole management practice and increased control on lower leaf surfaces by 75-84% when treated with targeted fungicides compared to the similarly treated Gentry; however, fungicides provided limited control of powdery mildew on lower leaf surfaces. No significant differences in yield were detected amongst the varieties (Table 2). All varieties had marketable fruit on the first harvest date. Table 2 a-b. Yield of summer squash varieties compared on Long Island, NY, in 2011. Fruit/Plant (no.) 1 Seed Nonfungicide Treated Variety 2 Source July 26 Aug. 2 Aug. 9 Total
Sunray (PMRR) SI 3.40 1.81 1.17 8.02 Cheetah (HMX 5712) (PMR) HM 2.65 1.92 1.69 6.25 Gentry (S) SY 3.23 2.63 2.17 6.38 P-value (treatment) 0.1776 0.1330 0.2518 0.1276
1 Seed Fruit/Plant (no.) Fungicide Treated Variety 2 Source July 26 Aug. 2 Aug. 9 Total
Sunray (PMRR) SI 2.77 2.88 1.44 7.52 Cheetah (HMX 5712) (PMR) HM 1.54 3.56 2.08 7.19 Gentry (S) SY 2.17 4.15 1.21 7.08 P-value (treatment) 0.1827 0.0910 0.2368 0.8020 1PMRR=homozygous resistance; PMR=heterozygous resistance. 2HM=Harris Moran Seed Company; SI=Siegers; SY=Syngenta Seeds Inc.
Acknowledgments This project was funded by the Friends of Long Island Horticulture Grant Program. Seed were donated by the companies listed in Table 2. Pesticides were donated by BASF Corporation, Bayer CropScience, DuPont Crop Protection, FMC Corporation, Gowan Company, Helena Chemical Company, and Valent USA Corporation.
87 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
88 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Powdery Mildew Resistant Zucchini Squash Variety Evaluation — New York 2011
Margaret T. McGrath, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901 Laura K. Hunsberger, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901 Sandra Menasha, Cornell Cooperative Extension-Suffolk County, NY
Powdery mildew is an annual production problem for growers of cucurbit crops throughout the United States, reducing yield potential and fruit quality when not controlled. Effective control with fungicides alone has been challenged by development of fungicide resistance to key chemistries. Several squash varieties are now available on the commercial market advertised as having resistance to powdery mildew. The goals of this experiment, which is part of a multi-year variety evaluation project, were (1) to continue to monitor adaptation in the pathogen that has been reducing the effectiveness of powdery mildew resistance, (2) to investigate the contribution of resistance to an integrated management program, and (3) to evaluate yield. Materials and Methods Research was conducted at the Long Island Horticultural Research and Extension Center in Riverhead on Haven loam soil. Controlled release fertilizer (N-P-K 19-10-9) at 525 lb/A (100 lb/A of nitrogen) was broadcast and incorporated on May 31. Black plastic mulch and drip tape were laid on June 1. Seeds were sown on May 31 in the greenhouse. Seedlings were transplanted by hand into beds covered with black plastic mulch on June 21. A waterwheel transplanter was used to open the holes and apply starter fertilizer plus insecticide on June 16. During the season, water was provided as needed via drip irrigation lines located beneath the mulch. Weeds were managed by mowing and hand weeding. Cucumber beetles were managed with AdmirePro applied with the transplanter on June 16. Two experiments were conducted in separate treatment areas; one received a standard commercial powdery mildew fungicide program, and one did not. The following products were applied to control the cucurbit powdery mildew fungus (Podosphaera xanthii): Quintec (6 fl oz/A) on July 28, August 18, and September 3; Procure 50WS (8 oz/A) on July 20 and August 26; Pristine (18.5 oz/A) on August 4; and Actinovate (8 oz/A) on August 4. The following fungicides were applied preventively for downy mildew (Pseudoperonospora cubensis) and Phytophthora blight (Phytophthora capsici): ProPhyt (4 pt/A) on August 6; Ranman 400 SC (2.75 fl oz/A) on August 18 and September 2; and Curzate (3.2 oz/A) on August 26. Plots were four adjacent rows each with three plants spaced 24 inches apart. Rows were spaced 68 inches apart. A single plant of Multipik, a susceptible summer squash variety, was planted between each plot in each row to separate plots and provide a source of inoculum. A randomized complete block design with four replications was used. Upper and lower leaf surfaces were assessed for powdery mildew on July 21, and on August 3, 10, 17, and 24. Initially, 10 older leaves were examined in each plot. Mid-aged and young leaves were also assessed on August 17 when powdery mildew had progressed to these age groups. Powdery mildew colonies (spots) were counted; severity was estimated when colonies had coalesced or were too numerous to count. Colony counts were converted to severity values using the conversion factor of 30 colonies/leaf=1%. Average severity for the entire canopy was
89 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
calculated from the individual leaf assessments. These canopy severity values were used to calculate area under disease progress curve (AUDPC) to obtain a measure of severity over the entire assessment period (July 21-August 17). Squash fruit were harvested and counted on July 26, and on August 2 and 9. Average monthly high and low temperatures (°F) were 79/61 in June, 87/68 in July, and 82/66 in August. Rainfall (inches) was 6.1, 2.35, and 10.61 for these months, respectively. There was a hurricane and several atypical intensive rain events during the 2011 growing season on Long Island. Table 1 a-b. Severity of powdery mildew on leaves of zucchini varieties compared on Long Island, NY, in 2011. Amatista is a grey zucchini, the rest are conventional green types. Powdery Mildew Severity (%)2 Nonfungicide Treated Upper Leaf Surface Lower Leaf Surface Variety1 Aug. 10 Aug. 173 AUDPC Aug. 10 Aug. 17 AUDPC
Amatista (PMR) 0.10 6.52 b 23.92 b 4.22 10.50 b 67.74 b Envy (PMR) 1.44 26.77 ab 103.85 ab 5.74 44.58 a 196.37 a Spineless Beauty (S) 1.96 46.17 a 175.31 a 9.58 59.67 a 282.20 a P-value (treatment) 0.0764 0.0089 0.0045 0.1692 0.0008 0.0032
Powdery Mildew Severity (%)2 Fungicide Treated Upper Leaf Surface Lower Leaf Surface Variety1 Aug. 10 Aug. 17 AUDPC Aug. 103 Aug. 17 AUDPC
Amatista (PMR) 0 3.51 12.30 1.81 b 22.92 b 93.77 b Envy (PMR) 0 8.33 29.22 4.69 b 43.50 ab 186.35 b Spineless Beauty (S) 0 9.79 34.70 10.55 a 64.25 a 342.18 a P-value (treatment) 0.0000 0.2837 0.2737 0.0034 0.0105 0.0066 1PMR=heterozygous resistance; S=susceptible. 2Exact colony counts were made when possible and severity was estimated using the conversion factor of 30 colonies/leaf=1%. Data were transformed from percentages by a square root transformation when needed to obtain normality of variance before analysis of variance was performed. The table has de-transformed means. 3Numbers in each column with a letter in common are not significantly different from each other (Tukey’s HSD, P=0.05). Results and Discussion Symptoms of powdery mildew were observed at a low level on July 14: 2.5% of older leaves examined had symptoms. Disease developed quickly. Symptoms were found on July 21 in all except one treated plot of a resistant variety. The proportion of older leaves examined with symptoms was 46% in both experiments then. Incidence at that time was unusually high for the region. It was only 3% on July 20, 2010, in a similar experiment with these same varieties. Powdery mildew incidence therefore was substantially above the action threshold of 2% on July 20 when the powdery mildew fungicide program was started for assessing integrated management. When genetic resistance was evaluated as a sole management practice for powdery mildew, only Amatista effectively suppressed powdery mildew and only on lower leaf surfaces based on the AUDPC value (Table 1a). Amatista is considered to have stronger resistance than Envy. Based
90 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
on AUDPC values, Amatista provided 76% control on lower leaf surfaces. Both Amatista and Envy provided control in a similar experiment conducted in 2010. Amatista was also more effective in 2010. Envy contributed to control of powdery mildew in 2011 only when it was used as a component of an integrated management program that included weekly applications of a targeted fungicide for powdery mildew (Quintec, Pristine, and Procure) (Table 1b). Based on AUDPC values, fungicide-treated Envy provided 46% control on lower leaf surfaces while fungicide-treated Amatista provided 73% control compared to the similarly treated susceptible variety Spineless Beauty. The fungicide program provided limited suppression of powdery mildew in this experiment. The only significant differences in yield detected amongst the varieties were for the fungicide treated plots (Table 2). All varieties had marketable fruit on the first harvest date. Table 2 a-b. Yield of zucchini varieties compared on Long Island, NY, in 2011.
Nonfungicide Treated 2 Fruit/plant (no.) 1 Seed Source Variety July 26 Aug. 2 Aug. 9 Total
Amatista (PMR) SY 2.65 1.46 1.31 5.42 Envy (PMR) SI 2.71 1.15 1.13 4.98 Spineless Beauty (S) SI 2.44 1.83 1.13 5.40 P-value (treatment) 0.5861 0.2093 0.7377 0.7973
Fungicide Treated 2 Fruit/plant (no.) 1 Seed Source Variety July 263 Aug. 2 Aug. 9 Total
Amatista (PMR) SY 1.13 b 2.19 0.44 3.75 b Envy (PMR) SI 1.69 a 2.90 1.13 5.71 Spineless Beauty (S) SI 1.92 a 1.81 1.31 5.04 ab P-value (treatment) 0.0059 0.2072 0.0653 0.0506 1PMR=heterozygous resistance; S=susceptible. 2SI=Siegers; SY=Syngenta Seeds, Inc. 3Numbers in each column with a letter in common are not significantly different from each other (Tukey’s HSD, P=0.05).
Acknowledgments This project was funded by the Friends of Long Island Horticulture Grant Program. Seed were donated by the companies listed in Table 2. Pesticides were donated by BASF Corporation, Bayer CropScience, DuPont Crop Protection, FMC Corporation, Gowan Company, Helena Chemical Company, Monsanto Company, and Valent USA Corporation.
91 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
92 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Summer Squash Variety Trial — 2011
J. Scott Monroe*, Purdue Cooperative Extension-Daviess County, IN Maria H. Restrepo, Purdue Cooperative Extension-Pike County, IN Kendra B. Norris, Program Assistant, Purdue Cooperative Extension-Daviess County, IN * author to whom all correspondence should be addressed Introduction In recent years, Indiana and the surrounding region have seen an increase in small and medium- scale vegetable production. Growers are producing vegetables for sale and distribution through local farmers’ markets, produce auctions, and various Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) venues. Summer squash is a crop frequently produced by growers in the region. Squash growers are offered numerous variety options. Our goal during the 2011 season was to continue the evaluation of summer squash varieties available to local growers and to identify those that are best suited to production in our region. Materials and Methods Seeds of 14 summer squash varieties were sown into 50-cell flats on May 31. Seeds were germinated and the resulting transplants were grown in a local greenhouse. Summer squash varieties consisted of zucchini (green and yellow) and yellow squash varieties. Transplants were planted into a field on a local farm. Prior to transplanting, a blended commercial fertilizer (26.6N-0P-20.1K-2.7S-.08B) was applied at the rate of 625 lbs. per acre. On June 13-14, transplants were planted into rows arranged on 6.5-foot centers. Each row was covered by a 3 ft. strip of clear plastic mulch. Individual varieties were transplanted into plots of 12 plants. In-row spacing for the plants in each individual plot was 24 inches. The trial simulated production at 3,350 plants per acre. Plots were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications of each variety. Individual plots were harvested a total of 13 times between July 6 and August 3. Following harvest, fruit from each plot were graded as number one, number two, or oversized and were counted and weighed. Data were then compiled and subjected to appropriate statistical analysis. Results and Discussion Following compilation, data were separated by plant type and separate statistical analyses were performed for zucchini and yellow squash. Although both weight and quantity of fruit were measured in the study, only quantity data are presented. Due to the rapid growth and expansion of fruit, it was felt that quantity data were a more accurate indicator of potential varietal performance. An analysis of variance of zucchini data failed to detect any significant differences (α=.05) among varieties. Total yield (mean of three replications) of zucchini ranged from 16,754-25,503 fruit/acre, with ‘Golden Glory’ yielding the most fruit and ‘Emerald Desire’ yielding the least. ‘Golden Glory’ also produced the most number one fruits, followed by ‘Spineless Perfection’ and ‘Payroll,’ respectively. Zucchini data are summarized in Table 1. It should be noted that while ‘Golden Glory’ yielded the largest number of total fruit, the variety also yielded the largest number of number two fruit.
93 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Fruit of this variety were classed as number two primarily due to excessive curvature or scarring. Because of its prolific nature, ‘Golden Glory’ may require additional pollinators in order to reduce curvature due to poor pollination. The quantity of oversized fruit varied with variety. ‘Spineless King’ had the greatest quantity of oversized fruit. During the 2011 season, fruit were harvested, on average, every 2.2 days. The data indicate that several varieties may require more frequent harvesting in order to reduce the number of oversized fruit. Due to the relatively large number of oversized fruit in some varieties, the combined quantity of number one and oversized zucchini are presented in Table 1 as an estimate of potential yield when a more aggressive harvesting schedule is utilized. When oversized fruit were accounted for, fruit quantities ranged from 14,054-22,060 fruit/acre, with ‘Spineless King’ having the highest quantity of fruit and ‘Emerald Desire’ having the lowest. Table 1. Yields of three replications of eight zucchini varieties evaluated in 2011. Oversized Seed Oversized Total Variety #1 Fruit2 #2 Fruit2 and #1 Source1 Fruit2 Yield2 Fruit2,3
Golden Glory SW/SY 14,986 5,026 5,491 25,503 20,477 Spineless Perfection SW/RU/SY 14,706 2,792 7,167 24,665 21,873 Payroll RU/SY 14,055 2,792 6,515 23,362 20,570 Reward HM 14,055 3,164 5,678 22,897 19,733 Paycheck SY 12,379 2,979 4,747 20,105 17,126 Spineless King SW 11,635 2,886 10,425 24,945 22,060 Cash Flow RU/SY 11,542 2,327 6,050 19,919 17,592 Emerald Desire SY 9,959 2,699 4,095 16,754 14,054 lsd (α=.05) 4,998 2,153 4,939 9,034 7,917 1SY=Syngenta; SW=Seedway; RU=Rupp; HM=Harris Moran. 2Mean yield (fruit/acre) of three replications. 3Sum of all harvested oversized and number one fruit. Six varieties of yellow squash were evaluated in the trial. The ANOVA of compiled yield data detected significant differences (α=.05) among quantities of number one fruit produced. Total yield ranged from 15,823-33,135 fruit/acre. ‘Enterprise’ produced the highest total yield. This variety also produced the greatest quantity of number 1 fruit. Quantities of number 1 fruit ranged from 9,773-22,804 fruit/acre. Quantities of number 2 fruit ranged from 2,048-6,143 fruit/acre. ‘Cougar’ produced the lowest quantity of both number 1 and number 2 fruit. ‘Cheetah’ produced the highest number of oversized fruit, suggesting that a more aggressive harvesting schedule may be needed to maximize number 1 production from this variety. Data from all yellow squash varieties are summarized in Table 2.
94 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 2. Yields of three replications of six yellow squash varieties evaluated in 2011. Oversized Seed Oversized Total Variety #1 Fruit2 #2 Fruit2 and #1 Source1 Fruit2 Yield2 Fruit2,3
Enterprise RU 22,804 4,282 6,050 33,135 28,853 Lazor SW 20,756 6,143 4,188 31,088 24,945 Goldprize RU/SY 19,453 6,143 6,143 31,739 25,596 Fortune RU 11,635 3,630 2,793 18,057 14,427 Cheetah HM 11,262 4,654 10,890 26,806 22,152 Cougar HM 9,773 2,048 4,002 15,823 13,775 lsd (α=.05) 7,603 3,700 5,834 14,477 11,784 1 SY=Syngenta; SW=Seedway; RU=Rupp; HM=Harris Moran. 2 Mean yield (fruit/acre) of three replications. 3 Sum of all harvested oversized and number one fruit.
95 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
96 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Sugar-enhanced and Synergistic Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Northern Indiana — 2011
Elizabeth T. Maynard, Purdue University, Valparaiso, IN 46383
Indiana growers harvested sweet corn for fresh market sales from 6,500 acres in 2010, with an average yield of 92 cwt/acre (219 crates or 4.6 tons per acre) and total value of $14.4 million (USDA NASS, 2011). Indiana ranks 13th among states for production of fresh market sweet corn. The 2007 USDA Ag Census reported 603 Indiana farms producing sweet corn for fresh markets and 51 farms selling to processors. Sweet corn fields for fresh market sales are located throughout the state. In northern Indiana, bicolor corn is most commonly grown. Varieties with improved eating quality are of interest to both producers and consumers. Producers are also interested in yield, ear size, appearance, and agronomic characteristics. This paper reports on 23 bicolor and one yellow sugar-enhanced and synergistic sweet corn entries that were evaluated at the Pinney-Purdue Agricultural Center in Wanatah, Indiana. Materials and Methods The trial was conducted on a Tracy sandy loam. The fall 2010 soil test showed 1.5% organic matter, pH 6.2, 27 ppm phosphorus (P), 86 ppm potassium (K), 180 ppm magnesium (Mg), and 650 ppm calcium (Ca). Potassium (150 lb. K2O/A from 0-0-60) and lime (1 ton/A) were broadcast in fall 2010 and spring 2011, respectively. The trial was set up as a randomized complete block design with three replications. Sweet corn entries, 22 bicolor and one yellow (08TG110), were assigned to individual plots one row (30 inches) wide by 30 feet long. Corn was seeded May 9, 2011, with a finger pick-up planter and later thinned to 35 plants per 30-foot row (20,328 plants per acre). Nitrogen (N) (at 20.3 lb./acre) and P (at 18.2 lb./acre P2O5) were applied at planting from 19-17-0 (10 gal. /acre), and an additional 70 lb./acre N from urea ammonium nitrate solution was injected at the whorl stage. Tefluthrin (Force 3G®) was applied at planting to control corn rootworms. Weeds were controlled with atrazine (Atrazine 4L®) and s-metolachlor (Dual II Magnum®) applied after seeding, one cultivation, and hand weeding. Irrigation was applied during the growing season as needed. Permethrin (Arctic 3.2EC®, 4 fl. oz./acre) was applied four times from July 5 to July 26 to control caterpillars. Emergence and early plant vigor were evaluated 22 days after planting (DAP), before thinning. Seventy-four DAP, just before harvest, plant vigor, height, and degree of tiller formation were rated and the height from the soil to the middle of the ear was measured for three ears per plot. Each plot was harvested when corn reached marketable stage, approximately 19 to 22 days after 50% silking. The weights and numbers of marketable ears were recorded. Three ears from each plot were selected to evaluate degree of husk cover, husk tightness, degree of tip fill, overall attractiveness, average ear diameter and length after husking, and shank length. Four people rated the flavor of most entries based on one uncooked ear apiece from each plot. Rating scales are described in table footnotes. Letter ratings for flavor were converted to numerical ratings for statistical analysis, and plots observed to be obviously overmature were excluded from statistical analysis of flavor (one rep each of CSYBF7-263, Profit, and Espresso). Quantitative data with equal variance across treatments were analyzed using ANOVA followed by mean separation using Fisher’s protected least significant difference at P≤ 0.05. When variance was 0 for one or two entries, analysis was performed without those entries to achieve equality of variance.
97 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Relationships between yield components, ear and plant characteristics, and average days to harvest were analyzed using linear regression. Results and Discussion The growing season was wet with an exceptionally warm period in mid-July. The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Indiana Crop & Weather Reports documented that from May 9 to July 31, rainfall totaled 15.68 inches, 4.85 inches more than normal. The period from May 9 to May 29 received 3.21 inches more rain than normal. Rainfall recorded at the Ag Center was 4.97, 3.54, 7.28, and 3.17 inches for May, June, July, and August, respectively. The growing degree days (GDD) accumulation from May 9 to July 31 was 1,600, 96 more than normal. From July 18 to the end of the month there were six days with a maximum temperature above 90°F and six nights with a minimum temperature above 70°F. By 22 DAP, emergence averaged 108% of the intended seeding rate (data not shown). After thinning, all plots were within 98% of the desired stand of 20,328 plants per acre. Differences in early plant vigor were observed (data not shown). Temptation and Espresso were more vigorous than 18 other varieties. Synergy and Vitality had slightly lower early vigor, but were not significantly different from Temptation and Espresso. Pay Dirt (from both seed sources) was the least vigorous early in the season. Plant vigor ratings near harvest were strongly correlated with days from planting to harvest: later- maturing varieties tended to be more vigorous. Pay Dirt was rated as the least vigorous at harvest. Most varieties produced tillers with some large enough to interfere with harvest (data not shown). Results for yield and ear quality are presented in Table 1. Per acre yields have been calculated by multiplying plot yields by the number of plots per acre and likely overestimate expected yield from field scale production. Marketable yield averaged 7.4 tons per acre, and ranged from 4.9 to 9.2 tons per acre. Cameo produced the greatest yield, followed by 1102 and Powwow. These varieties produced significantly greater yield than 17 other entries in the trial. Vitality produced the lowest yield of 4.9 tons per acre. Pay Dirt and Fastlane also produced low yield, from 5.5 to 5.8 tons per acre. Tons per acre was strongly correlated with harvest date; later-maturing varieties produced greater yield. Tons per acre were also correlated with shank length: varieties with longer shanks produced greater tonnage; shanks were not broken off before weighing ears. The number of marketable ears ranged from 1,533 to 1,742 dozen per acre, and averaged 1,631. Thirteen varieties did not differ from the most productive variety 1080; and eight did not differ from the least productive variety Rendezvous. Average weight per ear ranged from 0.50 lb. (Vitality) to 0.94 lb. (1102). Three entries had an average ear weight greater than 0.90 lb. and did not differ significantly from 1102: Cameo, SEB6SH1102, and Powwow. Fastlane and Pay Dirt produced heavier ears than Vitality, but lighter than other varieties. Ear length ranged from 6.0 to 8.2 inches, and diameter ranged from 1.65 to 2.07 inches. The longest ears were produced by Ka-Ching, Cameo, and Espresso (8.1 to 8.2 inches). The shortest ears ranged from 6.0 to 6.3 inches and included Fastlane and Vitality. Powwow and Cameo produced the widest ears, followed by Allure, Ambrosia, SEB6SH1102, 1102, Synergy, and BC 0822. Vitality and Pay Dirt produced the narrowest ears, less than 1.7 inches in diameter. Ear size was correlated with days to harvest: later maturing varieties tended to have heavier, longer, and wider ears. Espresso was notably longer than expected based on its harvest date. Cameo was both longer and wider than expected. Pay Dirt and Primus were lighter and narrower than expected based on their harvest dates. Shank length ranged from 2.2 inches to 7.2 inches and averaged 4.5 inches. Varieties with the longest shanks were 1102 and SEB6SH1102, both greater than 6.7 inches, followed by Cameo at 5.9 inches. Varieties with shanks between 3.25 and 4.25 inches included 08TG110, SEB6RH1080, Allure, Temptation, Espresso, 1080, and Ambrosia; these did not differ significantly. Vitality had the shortest shanks at 2.2 inches. Ear height, measured from the ground to mid-ear was greater than 24 inches for
98 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Cameo, BC 0822, Powwow, SEB6SH1102, 1102, Primus, Rendezvous, Jackie, and Temptation. Fastlane and Pay Dirt produced ears less than 20 inches from the ground. Husk cover ratings averaged 3.9. BC 0822, Profit, and CSYBF7-263 consistently had more than 2 inches of husk past the tip of the cob. Primus, Ka-Ching, Fastlane, Vitality, 1102, Temptation, Espresso, SEB6SH1102, and 08TG110 consistently had at least 1.25 inches of husk cover. Husk cover ratings for Allure, Ambrosia, Jackie, SEB6RH1080, Pay Dirt, Rendezvous, and 1080 averaged between 2.7 and 3.8, indicating 0.75 to 1.25 inches of cover on most ears. Synergy, Powwow, and Cameo had less than 0.75 inches of cover on most ears. The husks of BC 0822, Allure, Synergy, 1080, and Powwow were loose around the ear tip. Tip fill ratings averaged 4.1 out 5. Varieties with a rating greater than 4.5 for tip fill, indicating most ears were filled nearly to the tip, included Fastlane, Synergy, Profit, and Temptation. Varieties with a rating between 3 and 4 for tip fill included CSYBF7-263, Pay Dirt, 08TG110, Espresso, Cameo, BC 0822. Ambrosia had the poorest tip fill rating at 2.4, indicating more than 1 inch unfilled on most ears. For overall ear quality in terms of appearance, Profit, Fastlane, Ka-Ching, and Allure received the highest ratings, between 7.0 and 7.3 out of 9. Other varieties greater than the 5.7 average included Primus, SEB6SH1102, Jackie, 1102, Espresso, Temptation, CSYBF7-263, and the yellow entry 08TG110. 08TG110 and Primus received the best flavor ratings, followed by 1102, Synergy, and Allure. Careful evaluation of results presented in Table 1 combined with results from other locations and years should aid producers in selecting varieties best suited to their operations. Acknowledgments J. Leuck and Pinney-Purdue Agricultural Center staff managed field operations. A. Dishman, K. Freeman, B. Rhoda, R. Shay, J. Sheets, and J. Smiddy assisted with fieldwork and data entry. The seed companies listed in Table 1 provided financial support and/or seed. Literature Cited USDA NASS. 2011. Vegetables 2010 Summary. http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/VegeSumm/VegeSumm-01-27-2011.pdf USDA NASS. 2011. Indiana Crop Weather 2011. www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Indiana/Publications/Crop_Progress_&_Condition/2011/ index11.asp USDA NASS. 2009. 2007 Ag Census, Indiana State and County Data. www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_State_Level/Indiana/ index.asp
99 100 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011 Table 1. Yield, ear size, and quality of bicolor sugar-enhanced and synergistic sweet corn varieties in northern Indiana, 2011. Varieties listed in order of harvest.
Yield of Avg. Days to Harvest2 Ear Shank Husk Seed Marketable Ears Ear Ear Ear Husk Cultivar Length Length Tight- Tip Fill3 Overall3 Flavor4 Source1 Weight Dia. in Ht. in Cover3 in in ness3 Pred. Actual doz/A ton/A lb
Fastlane HM 67 74 1,581 5.6 0.59 6.0 1.76 4.3 19.9 4.7±0.2 1.6±0.1 4.8±0.2 7.0±0.0 2.9 DEFG Vitality SE 67 74 1,646 4.9 0.50 6.3 1.69 2.2 21.6 4.7±0.2 1.8±0.1 4.0±0.0 4.0±0.0 3.3 CDE CSYBF7-263 CR 73-78 77* 1,694 7.3 0.72 6.8 1.82 4.3 23.9 5.0±0.0 2.2±0.2 3.9±0.1 6.3±0.3 2.7 EFG Espresso RU 72 77* 1,646 7.1 0.72 8.1 1.82 3.6 22.4 4.3±0.2 2.2±0.4 3.7±0.3 6.7±0.3 1.4 H Profit RU - 77* 1,646 7.1 0.72 6.9 1.83 5.0 22.1 5.0±0.0 2.2±0.2 4.6±0.1 7.3±0.3 2.8 DEFG Pay Dirt RU 70 77 1,662 5.8 0.58 6.9 1.68 4.3 18.4 3.2±0.7 1.9±0.1 4.1±0.2 5.0±0.6 3.2 CDE Temptation SE 72 77 1,662 7.2 0.72 6.9 1.85 3.6 24.2 4.3±0.3 1.4±0.2 4.6±0.4 6.3±0.7 2.7 EFG Rendezvous HM 70 77-79 1,533 6.4 0.70 6.5 1.78 4.9 26.7 3.1±1.1 1.6±0.3 4.3±0.0 4.7±0.9 2.4 FG 08TG110 RU 75 77-79 1,613 7.2 0.74 7.1 1.82 4.1 23.6 4.0±0.3 1.4±0.1 3.8±0.1 6.3±0.3 4.7 A Jackie HM - 77-79 1,549 6.4 0.68 6.5 1.79 4.5 24.6 3.7±0.3 2.1±0.1 4.2±0.4 6.7±0.3 3.2 CDE Pay Dirt CR 70 77-79 1,597 5.6 0.58 7.0 1.65 4.4 17.3 3.1±0.3 1.4±0.1 3.9±0.2 4.3±0.9 2.8 DEFG Synergy SE 77 79-84 1,662 8.1 0.81 7.5 1.93 4.4 20.3 2.6±0.6 1.1±0.1 4.7±0.2 4.3±0.9 3.7 BC 1080 RU 76 82 1,742 7.6 0.72 7.4 1.86 3.4 21.2 2.9±0.1 1.0±0.0 4.4±0.2 3.7±0.3 3.0 DEF Ambrosia RI 75 82 1,646 7.5 0.76 7.8 1.97 3.3 24.0 3.7±0.2 1.8±0.3 2.4±0.3 4.0±0.0 2.7 EFG SEB6RH1080 SE 71 82 1,629 7.4 0.76 7.6 1.86 4.0 20.8 3.3±0.2 1.3±0.0 4.4±0.1 5.3±0.9 2.2 G 1102 RU 72 82-84 1,565 8.9 0.94 7.1 1.94 7.2 28.0 4.6±0.3 2.3±0.3 4.2±0.1 6.7±0.3 3.9 BC SEB6SH1102 SE 72 82-84 1,549 8.6 0.92 7.3 1.97 6.7 28.3 4.2±0.5 1.9±0.1 4.3±0.3 6.7±0.3 2.7 EFG Allure RU 75 84 1,662 8.6 0.86 7.6 1.97 3.6 23.3 3.8±0.4 1.1±0.1 4.0±0.0 7.0±0.0 3.5 BCD BC 0822 SY 77 84 1,662 8.0 0.80 7.2 1.89 4.7 29.0 5.0±0.0 1.1±0.1 3.3±0.0 5.7±0.7 2.9 DEFG Ka-Ching CR 77 84 1,662 8.5 0.86 8.2 1.88 5.3 24.0 4.7±0.3 1.6±0.3 4.0±0.0 7.0±0.0 2.7 EFG Powwow HM 75 84 1,581 8.7 0.91 7.3 2.07 5.2 28.8 2.4±0.1 1.0±0.0 4.3±0.2 4.0±0.0 2.8 DEFG Cameo CR 84 84-86 1,646 9.2 0.93 8.2 2.07 5.9 31.0 2.4±0.6 1.3±0.2 3.6±0.2 4.3±0.3 3.1 CDEFG Primus SY 81 84-86 1,678 8.1 0.81 7.8 1.79 4.7 27.8 4.8±0.1 1.9±0.1 4.3±0.2 6.7±0.3 4.1 AB Grand Mean 1,631 7.4 0.75 7.2 1.86 4.5 24.0 3.9 1.6 4.1 5.7 3.0 LSD .055 104 0.6 0.04 0.3 0.09 0.9 2.3 – – – – (variable) r2 6 ns 0.80 0.75 0.55 0.55 0.23 0.36 – – – – –
Notes on next page Table 1 (continued) 1Seed Source: CR=Crookham; HM=Harris; RI=Rispens; RU=Rupp; SE=Seminis; SY=Syngenta. 2Days from planting to harvest. Predicted number is from seed supplier. Actual values are range for 3 replications. Asterisk indicates corn was noted to be overmature for one rep of that variety and so the harvest date for that rep was not included in DAP. 3Husk cover: 5=more than 2 inches cover; 4=1.25-2 inches; 3=0.75-1.25 inches; 2=less than 0.75 inch; 1=ear exposed. Husk tightness: 1=loose; 3=very tight; Tip fill: 5=kernels filled to tip of cob; 4=less than 0.5 inch unfilled; 3=0.5-1 inch unfilled; 2=more than 1 inch unfilled; 1=more than 2 inches unfilled; Overall: 1=worst. 9 =best. Mean ± s.e.m. 4Flavor: Raw ears evaluated by four people in most cases. 1=poor; 2=medium; 3=good; 4=very good; 5=excellent. Least square means that do not share a letter are significantly different at P≤.05 based on Fisher’s Protected LSD. 5Means differing by more than this amount are significantly different at P≤.05 based on Fisher’s Protected LSD. For diameter, LSD does not apply to Ka-Ching or Profit. – AOV not performed. 6r2 for regression vs. actual days to harvest is the proportion of variability explained by days to harvest. ns=regression not significant at P≤.05.
Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011 101 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
102 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Supersweet Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Northern Indiana — 2011
Elizabeth T. Maynard, Purdue University, Valparaiso, IN 46383
Indiana growers harvested sweet corn for fresh market sales from 6,500 acres in 2010, with an average yield of 92 cwt/acre (219 crates or 4.6 tons per acre) and total value of $14.4 million (USDA NASS, 2011). Indiana ranks 13th among states for production of fresh market sweet corn. The 2007 USDA Ag Census reported 603 Indiana farms producing sweet corn for fresh markets and 51 farms selling to processors. Sweet corn fields for fresh market sales are located throughout the state. In northern Indiana, bicolor corn is most commonly grown. Varieties with improved eating quality are of interest to both producers and consumers. Producers are also interested in yield, ear size, appearance, and agronomic characteristics. This paper reports on 18 bicolor, one yellow, and one white shrunken-2 (supersweet) sweet corn entries that were evaluated at the Pinney-Purdue Agricultural Center in Wanatah, Indiana. Materials and Methods The trial was conducted on a Tracy sandy loam. The fall 2010 soil test showed 1.5% organic matter, pH 6.2, 27 ppm phosphorus (P), 86 ppm potassium (K), 180 ppm magnesium (Mg), and 650 ppm calcium (Ca). Potassium (150 lb. K2O/A from 0-0-60) and lime (1 ton/A) were broadcast in fall 2010 and spring 2011, respectively. The trial was set up as a randomized complete block design with three replications. Twenty sweet corn entries were assigned to individual plots one row (30 inches) wide by 30 feet long. Corn was seeded May 19, 2011, with a finger pick-up planter and later thinned to 35 plants per 30-foot row (20,328 plants per acre). Nitrogen (N) (at 20.3 lb./acre) and P (at 18.2 lb./acre P2O5) were applied at planting from 19-17-0 (10 gal. /acre), and an additional 70 lb./acre N from urea ammonium nitrate solution was injected at the whorl stage. Tefluthrin (Force 3G®) was applied at planting to control corn rootworms. Weeds were controlled with atrazine (Atrazine 4L®) and s-metolachlor (Dual II Magnum®), one cultivation, and hand weeding. Irrigation was applied during the growing season as needed. Permethrin (Arctic 3.2EC®, 4 fl. oz./acre) was applied four times from July 5 to July 26 to control caterpillars. Emergence was evaluated 12 days after planting (DAP) before thinning, and early plant vigor was rated 26 DAP. Plant vigor, height, and degree of tiller formation were rated and the height from the soil to the middle of the ear was measured for three ears per plot 74 to 78 DAP. Each plot was harvested when corn reached marketable stage, 19 to 22 days after 50% silking. The weights and numbers of marketable ears were recorded. Three ears from each plot were selected to evaluate degree of husk cover, husk tightness, degree of tip fill, overall attractiveness, average ear diameter and length after husking, and shank length. Three people rated the flavor and pericarp toughness of each cultivar based on one uncooked ear apiece from each plot. Rating scales are described in table footnotes. Numerical data with equal variance across treatments were analyzed using ANOVA followed by mean separation using Fisher’s protected least significant difference at P≤ 0.05. When variance
103 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
was 0 for one or two entries, analysis was performed without those entries to achieve equality of variance. Relationships between means of yield components, ear and plant characteristics, and average days to harvest were analyzed using linear regression. Results and Discussion The growing season was wet with an exceptionally warm period in mid-July. The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Indiana Crop & Weather Reports documented that from May 16 to August 7, rainfall totaled 15.03 inches, 4.18 inches more than normal. More than 3 inches of rain fell within 10 days after planting. Rainfall recorded at the Ag Center was 4.97, 3.54, 7.28, and 3.17 inches for May, June, July, and August, respectively. The growing degree days (GDD) accumulation from May 16 to Aug. 7 was 1,674, 78 more than normal. From July 18 to the end of the month there were six days with a maximum temperature above 90°F and six nights with a minimum temperature above 70°F. By 12 DAP, emergence averaged 118% of the intended seeding rate (data not shown). After thinning, all plots were within 98% of the desired stand of 20,328 plants per acre. Differences in early plant vigor were observed (data not shown): Sweet Surprise was the most vigorous, significantly more so than 10 other varieties. Stellar, EX08745857-R, HMX 0361WS (white kernels), Obsession, Summer Sweet 7112 R, HMX 9352BS, and ACX SSW 7403 RY (yellow kernels) did not differ significantly in from Sweet Surprise for the early vigor rating. ACX 7902 was significantly less vigorous than 11 other varieties. Plant vigor at harvest was significantly better for BSS 8040 and Obsession than for nine other varieties (data not shown). Plant vigor at harvest for EX08767143, EX08745857-R, Summer Sweet 7932 MR, 09B2840, HMX 9352BS, HMX 8343BS, and Sweet Surprise did not differ significantly fro BSS 8040. Summer Sweet 2012 MR was significantly less vigorous than 12 other varieties. Early vigor was correlated with days from planting to harvest (data not shown): early-maturing varieties tended to receive better ratings for early plant vigor. Most varieties produced tillers with some large enough to interfere with harvest (data not shown). Results for yield and ear quality are presented in Table 1. Per acre yields have been calculated by multiplying plot yields by the number of plots per acre and likely overestimate expected yield from field scale production. Marketable yield averaged 8.1 tons per acre. EX08767143 produced the highest yield, 9.6 tons per acre, but was not significantly higher than Stellar, Sweet Surprise, 09B2840, or Obsession. Summer Sweet 2012 MR produced the lowest yield of 6.8 tons per acre, but was not significantly lower than Summer Sweet 7002 R, Summer Sweet 7112 R, Summer Sweet 7602 MR, Gourmet Sweet Brand (GSB) 2873, or EX08745857-R. The number of marketable ears averaged 1,617 dozen per acre, but did not differ significantly among varieties. Varieties in the 75th percentile, producing more than 1,646 ears per acre, included EX08767143, 09B2840, Stellar, and Sweet Surprise. Average weight per ear ranged from 0.70 lb. (Summer Sweet 2012 MR) to 0.93 lb. (Stellar). Six entries did not differ significantly from Stellar (Obsession, Sweet Surprise, EX08767143, BSS 8040, 09B2840, and ACX SSW 7403 RY) and two did not differ significantly from Summer Sweet 2012 MR (EX08745857-R and GSB 2873). Ear length ranged from 7.3 to 8.9 inches, and diameter ranged from 1.78 to 2.10 inches. The longest ears were produced by 09B2840, followed by Summer Sweet 7932 MR, EX08767143, Obsession, HMX 9352BS, BSS 8040, and ACX SSW 4002 MR. The shortest ears ranged from 7.3 to 7.5 inches and included EX08745857-R, HMX 0361WS, Summer Sweet 7112 R, Summer Sweet 7002 R, and Sweet Surprise. Stellar,
104 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Sweet Surprise, and ACX 7902 produced the widest ears. HMX 0361WS, Summer Sweet 7112 R, and Summer Sweet 2012 MR produced the narrowest ears, less than 1.85 inches in diameter. Ear length was correlated with days to harvest: later maturing varieties tended to have longer ears. Shank length ranged from 3.4 inches to 6.1 inches and averaged 4.6 inches. Varieties with the longest shanks were Stellar, HMX 8343BS, Summer Sweet 7932 MR, Summer Sweet 7112 R, and Sweet Surprise, all greater than 5.0 inches. Ear height, measured from the ground to mid-ear was greater than 29 inches for Summer Sweet 7602 MR, Summer Sweet 2012 MR, BSS 8040, ACX 7902, Summer Sweet 7002 R, 09B2840, ACX SSW 4002 MR, EX08767143, Obsession, and HMX 0361WS. Only GSB 2873, HMX 9352BS, and EX08745857-R produced ears less than 25 inches from the ground. Husk cover ratings averaged 2.9. Summer Sweet 7112 R and ACX 7902, with ratings greater than 4, consistently had more than 1.25 inches of husk past the tip of the cob. HMX 8343BS, Stellar, Obsession, ACX SSW 4002 MR, EX08745857-R, and EX08767143, with ratings less than 2.5, had less than 0.75 inches of cover on most ears. The husks of EX08745857-R, Stellar, Summer Sweet 7712 MR, and 09B2840 were consistently loose around the ear tip. Tip fill ratings averaged 4.1 out 5. Varieties with a rating greater than 4.5 for tip fill, indicating most ears were filled nearly to the tip, included ACX 7902, HMX 8343BS, Sweet Surprise, Obsession, ACX SSW 4002 MR, Summer Sweet 7932 MR, Summer Sweet 7112 R, and Summer Sweet 2012 MR. For overall ear quality in terms of appearance, Sweet Surprise and Summer Sweet 7112 R received the highest ratings at 6.7. Other varieties greater than the 5.0 average included ACX 7902, ACX SSW 7403 RY, GSB 2873, Summer Sweet 7932 MR, Summer Sweet 7002 R, 09B2840, and HMX 9352BS. ACX 7902 received the best flavor rating (4.7 out of 5), followed by Summer Sweet 2012 MR, Summer Sweet 7712 MR, and Summer Sweet 7602 MR. These four varieties received similar ratings for pericarp toughness (1.8 to 2.2), with most ears rated as ‘somewhat tough.’ Careful evaluation of results presented in Table 1 combined with results from other locations and years should aid producers in selecting varieties best suited to their operations. Acknowledgments J. Leuck and Pinney-Purdue Agricultural Center staff managed field operations. A. Dishman, K. Freeman, B. Rhoda, R. Shay, J. Sheets, and J. Smiddy assisted with fieldwork and data entry. The seed companies listed in Table 1 provided financial support and/or seed. Literature Cited USDA NASS. 2011. Vegetables 2010 Summary. http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/ VegeSumm/VegeSumm-01-27-2011.pdf USDA NASS. 2011. Indiana Crop Weather 2011. www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Indiana/Publications/Crop_Progress_&_Condition/2011/ index11.asp USDA NASS. 2009. 2007 Ag Census, Indiana State and County Data. www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_State_Level/ Indiana/index.asp
105 Table 1. Yield, ear size, and quality of 18 bi-color, one yellow, and one white supersweet sweet corn varieties in northern Indiana, 2011. Varieties listed in order of harvest. 106 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011 Yield of Avg. Peri- 2 Ear Ear Shank Ear Husk Seed Days to Harvest Marketable Ear Husk carp Cultivar Length Dia. Length Ht. Tight- Tip Fill3 Overall3 Flavor4 Source1 Ears Weight Cover3 Tough- in in in in ness3 Pred. Actual doz/A ton/A lb ness4
Sweet Surprise RI 75 76 1,678 9.3 0.92 7.3 2.04 5.3 26.4 3.2±0.3 1.4±0.3 4.9±0.1 6.7±0.3 3.6 2.0 Stellar ST 77 76 1,678 9.4 0.93 7.7 2.10 6.1 26.0 2.3±0.2 1.0±0.0 4.0±0.3 4.7±0.7 3.7 1.8 Summer Sweet 7112 R AC 74 76-78 1,597 7.3 0.76 7.5 1.81 5.4 28.4 4.8±0.1 2.2±0.1 4.7±0.0 6.7±0.3 3.6 2.2 HMX 0361WS (white) HM 70 76-78 1,646 8.0 0.81 7.5 1.85 4.5 29.1 3.1±0.1 1.4±0.2 3.1±0.4 4.7±0.3 3.2 3.0 EX08745857-R SE 86 76-78 1,549 6.8 0.73 7.5 1.96 4.3 20.6 1.7±0.4 1.0±0.0 4.1±0.2 2.3±0.3 2.7 2.7 GSB 2873 ST 75 76-78 1,597 7.0 0.73 7.8 1.94 3.4 24.7 3.2±0.2 1.6±0.3 3.2±0.3 6.0±1.0 3.3 2.8 Summer Sweet 7002 R AC 72 76-78 1,613 7.4 0.76 7.4 1.97 4.5 30.8 2.8±0.3 1.3±0.2 4.4±0.6 5.3±0.7 2.7 2.3 Summer Sweet 7712 MR AC 78 76-78 1,613 8.4 0.87 7.9 2.00 4.1 26.2 2.7±0.4 1.1±0.1 3.4±0.7 4.7±0.7 4.0 2.2 Summer Sweet 2012 MR AC 74 78 1,613 6.8 0.70 7.8 1.78 4.6 32.3 3.2±0.2 2.0±0.6 4.6±0.3 4.7±0.7 4.1 1.7 ACX SSW 4002 MR AC 77 78 1,613 7.8 0.81 8.1 1.90 4.4 30.4 1.8±0.5 1.2±0.2 4.7±0.3 3.0±0.6 2.7 1.4 ACX SSW 7403 RY (yel.) AC 74 78 1,549 8.2 0.89 7.9 1.88 4.1 28.0 3.2±0.4 2.0±0.2 4.2±0.4 6.0±0.6 3.7 2.1 HMX 8343BS HM 75 78 1,517 7.5 0.82 7.9 1.88 5.6 27.9 2.3±0.3 1.2±0.2 4.9±0.1 4.7±0.3 3.1 2.3 09B2840 RU 76 76-81 1,726 9.2 0.89 8.9 1.92 4.4 30.7 3.3±0.2 1.1±0.1 3.9±0.1 5.3±0.3 2.8 2.2 HMX 9352BS HM 75 76-81 1,597 7.9 0.82 8.3 1.97 3.8 22.9 2.6±0.1 1.3±0.0 3.4±0.6 5.3±0.9 2.9 1.0 Summer Sweet 7932 MR AC 80 78-81 1,549 7.9 0.85 8.4 1.87 5.5 27.9 3.4±0.1 2.0±0.3 4.7±0.2 5.3±0.9 2.1 2.6 BSS 8040 SY 79 78-81 1,629 8.7 0.90 8.2 1.96 4.8 31.3 2.9±0.3 1.4±0.4 3.0±0.0 4.7±0.7 3.3 2.9 Summer Sweet 7602 MR AC 76 78-81 1,533 7.2 0.79 8.0 1.89 4.4 32.9 3.9±0.1 1.3±0.2 3.7±0.6 4.7±0.3 3.8 1.9 Obsession SE 79 78-81 1,629 9.0 0.92 8.3 1.93 4.6 30.1 1.9±0.2 1.7±0.0 4.8±0.1 5.0±1.0 3.6 2.2 ACX 7902 AC 77 81 1,646 8.2 0.83 7.9 2.01 4.4 31.0 4.2±0.1 2.1±0.1 5.0±0.0 6.0±0.6 4.7 1.8 EX08767143 SE 80 81 1,775 9.6 0.90 8.4 1.94 4.1 30.1 1.7±0.2 1.4±0.3 4.1±0.1 4.0±0.6 3.2 2.3 Grand Mean 1,617 8.1 0.83 7.9 1.93 4.6 28.4 3.0 1.5 4.1 5.0 3.3 2.2 LSD .055 ns 0.68 0.06 0.35 0.09 1.2 4.2 0.7 – – – 0.9 0.9 r2 6 ns ns ns 0.42 ns ns 0.24 – – – – – – 1Seed Source: AC=Abbott & Cobb; HM=Harris; RI=Rispens; RU=Rupp; SE=Seminis; SY=Syngenta; ST=Stokes. 2Days from planting to harvest. Predicted number is from seed supplier. Actual values are range for 3 replications. 3Husk cover: 5=more than 2 inches cover; 4=1.25-2 inches; 3=0.75-1.25 inches; 2=less than 0.75 inch; 1=ear exposed. Husk tightness: 1=loose; 3=very tight; Tip fill: 5=kernels filled to tip of cob; 4=less than 0.5 inch unfilled; 3=0.5-1 inch unfilled; 2=more than 1 inch unfilled; 1=more than 2 inches unfilled. Overall: 1=worst; 9=best. Mean ± standard error. 4Flavor and Pericarp Toughness: Raw ears evaluated by three people. 1=poor; 2=medium; 3=good; 4=very good; 5=excellent flavor. 1=not tough; 2=somewhat tough; 3=tough; 4=very tough pericarp. 5Means differing by more than this amount are significantly different at P≤.05 based on Fisher’s Protected LSD. For diameter, LSD does not apply to Summer Sweet 7712 MR; for pericarp toughness, LSD does not apply to HMX 9352BS. ns=variety effect not significant. – AOV not performed. 6r2 for regression vs. actual days to harvest is the proportion of variability explained by days to harvest. ns=regression not significant at P≤.05. Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Northern Ohio Sweet Corn Evaluation — 2011
Mark Koenig, Extension Educator, Ohio State University Extension, Sandusky County Matt Hofelich, Station Manager, OARDC/OSU North Central Agricultural Research Station Acknowledgements Special thanks and appreciation to the following for their support and assistance with this project: Ohio Vegetable and Small Fruit Research and Development Program for their financial support Frank Thayer, Kristen Hetrick, and the summer crew at the OARDC North Central Agricultural Research Station for their assistance with this project. To the following seed companies for their gracious donations of seed and support: Seminis Syngenta Rogers / Syngenta Harris Moran Crookham IFSI To the many volunteer taste testers and their families for sampling the varieties and rating their observations. Sweet corn is one of the most commonly grown fresh market crops in Northwest Ohio. Having two general genotypes and a wide array of different varieties within each genotype, it becomes difficult to choose what varieties to plant. To add to this confusion there is also the combination of the two genotypes referred to as “triple sweets” or syn. The objectives of the Northern Ohio Sweet Corn Evaluation were:(1) to test and evaluate sh2, se, and syn sweet corn varieties under northern Ohio growing conditions for plant, ear characteristics, and yield; and (2) to provide taste test results from the general public for several varieties. Each variety was judged using plot numbers and only at the end of the evaluation were variety names substituted for plot numbers. Plant evaluations were performed at regular intervals during the growing season and at harvest. An extremely wet and windy season did affect several varieties and forced us to abandon one full rep in the se trial due to water damage. Weather also limited our spray program, and insects and worms were present in most varieties.
Twenty se and or syn varieties and 27 sh2 varieties were evaluated (Table 1). Plots were established in a randomized complete block design with four replications per entry. Each rep was planted in four rows, with only the middle two rows harvested. Data collected on each entry included the following: Seedling vigor early and standability. Suckering.
107 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Tassel, silk, and harvest dates. Snap rating (ease of ear removal from stalk). Ear height. Final stand per 20 ft/row (two 10 ft/row harvest data rows). Marketable dozen per acre. Flag appearance. Husk cover. Tip fill. Rows of kernels/ear. Ear color, length, and diameter. Brix value at harvest, 5 days storage, 10 days storage. All values reported are based on the average of all useable replications. Plots were established on June 3 for sh2 varieties and on June 8 for the se varieties. Rows were spaced 30 inches apart and a seeding rate of three seeds per foot of row was used. All cultural practices and field operations are listed in Tables 2a and 2b. Seedling vigor (emergence), standability, and tassel, silk, and harvest dates are presented in Tables 3 and 8. At harvest, ease of harvesting ear (snap rating), ear height, stand per 10 ft/row for two row, marketable dozens per acre (Tables 4, 9) were evaluated. At harvest, five ears per rep were evaluated for flags, husk cover, tip fill, number of kernel rows/ear, ear color, length, and diameter (Tables 5, 10). As part of this continuing project, several different varieties were distributed to a group of volunteer individuals for the purpose of rating varieties on appearance and taste. Individuals were given two different varieties and asked to judge each variety in two general areas. The first area was appearance, defined as: (1) husk color, (2) size of ear, and (3) kernel color. The second area was taste, which included: (1) tenderness, (2) sweetness, and (3) flavor. The evaluation form also asked for overall comments about each variety. Participants were encouraged to let each family member judge the corn individually. Varieties were only identified to participants as numbers. This year we also added a traceability code to each variety. The goal of the consumer taste results was to get the public’s opinion on some of the sweet corn varieties tested in our trial this year. Sweet corn varieties chosen for public opinion were selected by harvest ratings done at the OARDC North Central Agricultural Research Station. These ratings included appearance of rowing, how straight the rows of kernels were on the ears, tenderness, and sweetness (raw taste test) (Tables 6, 11). Volunteer participants were asked to taste cooked sweet corn for evaluation. Some general observations of the taste test panel were that everyone has a different idea of how sweet corn should taste and people prefer longer ears. All participants volunteered for future taste test panels.
108 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
This year we also incorporated an additional observation to look at different postemergence herbicides on sweet corn. This part of the evaluation was purely an observation to see if any damage or difference in harvest could be observed. The herbicides that were applied were Callisto, Laudis, Impact, and Option. The protocol we used in this observation was to spray one of the four reps used in the trial. The sprayer was set up to spray a 5-foot section and all four herbicides were sprayed on the first rep. Application was done to both genotypes on the same day and all were within the label directions as far as size and rate applied. Application rates per acre were: Callisto, 3 oz; Laudis, 3 oz; Impact 0.75 oz; and Option 1.5 oz. General Observations 1. There was no long-term tissue damage with any of the herbicide applications. 2. There was some leaning with Callisto and Laudis for a short period of time. 3. Impact appeared to be harder on the corn than other herbicides, but no long-term affect was observed. 4. Callisto and Impact caused some short-term striping of some varieties. 5. All herbicides improved the weed control. We also planted radishes and winter peas after harvesting the sweet corn. Radishes were planted September 1 with a hand seeder and peas were mixed with radishes. As of November, the radishes were still growing; however, they may be a little short of nitrogen as they were starting to yellow. The peas were doing fine. A side note: radishes were seeded way too heavily, because of either a poor setting on seeder or I was not walking fast enough.
Table 1. Varieties and seed suppliers for se, su, and sh2 entries, 2011 north Ohio sweet corn evaluation, OARDC North Central Agricultural Research Station. Supplier
Bi-color se Varieties Fastlane (67 day) Harris Moran Bon Jour (70 day) Harris Moran Rendevous (72 day) Harris Moran Jackie (74 day) Harris Moran Powwow (75 day) Harris Moran Synergy (75 day) Seminis SEB6RH1080 (74 day) Seminis SEB6RH1102 (72 day) Seminis QEB6RH1276 (79day) Seminis Profit (74 day) Crookham Ka-ching (78 day) Crookham CSYBF7 – 263 (74 day) Crookham
Continued on next page
109 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 1 (continued) Supplier
Bi-color se Varieties (continued) Paydirt (70 day) Crookham BC 0822 (77 day) Syngenta Primus (81 day) Syngenta White Varieties Edelweiss TSW (76 day) Harris Moran Kokopelli (74 day) Harris Moran Misquamicut (78 day) Harris Moran Silver Duchess (83day) Crookham SEW6RH1230 (74 day) Seminis
Bi-color SH2 Varieties EX087455857 R (76 day) Seminis EX08767143 (81 day) Seminis QHW6RH1229 (82 day) Seminis 2170 (70 day) IFSI XTH 2674 (74 day) IFSI XTH 2773 (73 day) IFSI XTH 2576 (76 day) IFSI XTH 2171 (71 day) IFSI XTH 2379 (79 day) IFSI 4002 BC (76 day) Abbott & Cobb 7002 R (72 day) Abbott & Cobb 7112 R (74 day) Abbott & Cobb 7602 MR (76 day) Abbott & Cobb HMX 8343 (75 day) Harris Moran HMX 9352 (75 day) Harris Moran BSS 8040 (81 day) Syngenta Bueno (76 day) Crookham CSABF8-323 (84 day) Crookham CSABF9-357 (85 day) Crookham Pick me (79 day) Crookham
Continued on next page
110 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 1 (continued) Supplier
White SH2 Varieties Munition (79 day) Syngenta HMX 0361 (70 day) Harris Moran XTH 3773 (day) IFSI XTH 3174 (74 day) IFSI XTH 3876 (76 day) IFSI 3379 (79 day) IFSI 7401 (75 day) Abbott & Cobb Table 2a. Log of operations for Koenig se and su sweet corn trials. Date Description of Operation
5/31/2011 Flagged and staked alleys 6/8/2011 Worked plot area to with danishtine and packer 6/8/2011 Planted trial with JD 7000 4 row with Almaco Cone seeding units 6/8/2011 Applied Dual @ 1.25pt/A, Gramoxone Inteon @ 1qt/A, 28% UAN @28gal/A 6/10-22 Trial received 3.85 inches of rain 7/5/2011 Applied herbicide treatments in order from south to north: Callisto, Laudis, Impact, and Option 7/8/2011 Trial received 0.4 inch of rain 7/11/2011 Trial received 0.8 inch of rain 7/13/2011 Cultivated with 2 row 7/15/2011 Set out plot stakes 7/18-8/9 Trial received 6.65 inches of rain 8/11/2011 Harvested varieties 40, 41, 56 8/11/2011 Evaluated varieties 40, 41, 56 8/14/2011 Trial received 0.4 inch of rain 8/16/2011 Harvested 42, 46, 50, 53 8/16/2011 Evaluated varieties 42, 46, 50, 53 8/16/2011 5-day brix test on varieties 40, 41, 56 8/17/2011 Harvested 43, 55 8/17/2011 Evaluated 43, 55 8/19/2011 Harvested 45, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54 8/19/2011 Evaluated 45, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54 8/21/2011 5-day brix test on varieties 42, 46, 50, 53 8/21/2011 10-day brix test on varieties 40, 41, 56 8/22/2011 Harvested 57 8/22/2011 Evaluated 57 8/22/2011 5-day brix test on varieties 43 & 55 8/24/2011 5-day brix test on varieties 45, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54
Continued on next page
111 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 2a (continued) Date Description of Operation
8/26/2011 10-day brix test on varieties 42, 46, 50, 53 8/27/2011 10-day brix test on varieties 43 & 55 8/27/2011 5-day brix test on varieties 57 8/29/2011 10-day brix test on varieties 45, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54 9/1/2011 10-day brix test on varieties 57 9/1/2011 Mowed off trial 9/1/2011 Disked under trial 8/27/2011 5-day brix test on varieties 57 8/29/2011 10-day brix test on varieties 45, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54 9/1/2011 10-day brix test on varieties 57 9/1/2011 Mowed off trial 9/1/2011 Disked under trial
Table 2b. Log of operations for Koenig sh2 sweet corn trials. Date Description of Operation
5/31/2011 Flagged and staked alleys 6/2/2011 Worked plot area with Finish-all 6/2/2011 Staked and drove plot area 6/3/2011 Planted trial with JD cone seeder 6/3/2011 Flagged and staked plots 6/4/2011 Applied Dual @ 1.25 pt/A 6/10, 6/22 Trial received 3.85 inches of rain 6/27/2011 Cultivated trial 7/5/2011 Applied herbicide treatments in order from south to north: Callisto, Laudis, Impact, and Option 7/8/2011 Trial received 0.4 inch of rain 7/11/2011 Trial received 0.8 inch of rain 7/18/2011 Applied Mustang Max @ 4 oz/A 7/18/2011 Trial received 0.6 inch of rain 7/22/2011 Trial received 2.75 inches of rain 7/23/2011 Trial received 0.25 inch of rain 7/28/2011 Trial received 0.6 inch of rain 7/29/2011 Trial received 0.2 inch rain 8/1/2011 Trial received 0.5 inch of rain 8/3/2011 Trial received 0.3 inch of rain 8/5/2011 Applied Sevin @ 32oz/A 8/5/2011 Harvested & evaluated varieties 9, 25
Continued on next page
112 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 2b (continued) Date Description of Operation
8/6/2011 Trial received 1 inch of rain 8/9/2011 Harvested & evaluated varieties 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 24, 15 8/9/2011 Trial received 0.45 inch of rain 8/10/2011 5-day brix test on varieties 9, 25 8/10/2011 Harvested & evaluated 29, 4, 28, 16, 1 8/11/2011 Harvested & evaluated 14, 18 8/12/2011 Harvested & evaluated 2, 3, 12, 17, 23, 27 8/14/2011 5-day brix test on varieties 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 24, 15 8/14/2011 Trial received 0.4 inch of rain 8/15/2011 5-day brix test on varieties 1, 4, 16, 28, 29 8/15/2011 10-day brix test on varieties 9, 25 8/15/2011 Harvested & evaluated varieties 8, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26 8/16/2011 5-day brix test on varieties 14, 18 8/17/2011 5-day brix test on varieties 2, 3, 12, 17, 23, 27 8/19/2011 10-day brix test on varieties 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 24, 15 8/19/2011 Mowed off trial, completed 8/19/2011 Disked trial under as completed 8/20/2011 10-day brix test on varieties 1, 4, 16, 28, 29 8/20/2011 5-day brix test on varieties 8, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26 8/21/2011 10-day brix test on varieties 14, 18 8/22/2011 10, day brix test on varieties 2, 3, 12, 17, 23, 27 8/25/2011 10-day brix test on varieties 8, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26
113 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 3. Plant evaluation of se and syn sweet corn. Seeding Standability Tassel Suckers Silk Harvest Varieties Emergence & Date (1-3) Date Date 6/14 Comments
Bi-color Varieties Fastlane 1 Very short 7/22 1 7/26 8/11 Bon Jour 2 Very short 7/22 1 7/26 8/11 Rendevous 3 2 7/26 1.5 7/29 8/16 Jackie 2 2 7/26 2 7/29 8/17 Powwow 3 DOWN BEFORE CORN WAS MATURE Synergy 1 2 7/26 2 8/1 8/19 SEB6RH1080 1 1 7/26 2 8/1 8/19 SEB6RH1102 2 1 7/29 1 7/29 8/16 QEB6RH1276 2 2 7/29 2 8/1 8/19 Profit 1 Very short 7/22 1.5 7/26 8/16 Ka-ching 2 1 7/29 1 8/1 8/19 CSYBF7-263 1 3 7/26 1 7/29 8/17 Paydirt 1 2 7/26 1 7/29 8/11 BC 0822 2 3 7/22 2 7/26 8/15 Primus 3 1 7/22 1 7/26 8/15 White Varieties Edelweiss 2 2 7/26 2 8/1 8/16 TSW Kokopelli 3 4 2 7/29 8/19 Misquamicut 2 DOWN BEFORE CORN WAS MATURE Silver 3 2 7/26 2 8/1 8/24 Duchess SEW6RH1230 2 1 2 8/1 8/19 AVERAGE 1.95 1.5 Rating Scale: Seeding Emergence: 1=poor (weak); 3=average; 5=outstanding. Experienced extremely tough planting conditions, heavy rain two days later. Standability: 1=upright; 3 = some leaning; 5=heavy leaning. Sucker: 0=no suckers; 1=few; 2=moderate; 3=severe. Silking Date=50% or more of plants silking in all 4 reps. Tasseling Date=50% or more of the plants tasseling in all 4 reps.
114 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 4. Harvest data for se and syn sweet corn. Ear Snap Ear Stand/ Harvested Marketable Varieties Height (1-5) Shank Acre Dozen/Acre Dozen/Acre (inches)
Bi-color Varieties Fastlane 3.25 9 3 15,943 1,350 842* Bon Jour 3.5 13 3 19,428 1,568 1,133* Rendevous 3.5 16 4 17,686 1,546 1,277 Jackie 3.5 18.5 5 17,947 1,452 1,277 Powwow NOT HARVESTED Synergy 3.25 13 3 20,909 1,786 1,713 SEB6RH1080 3 14.5 4 20,299 1,742 1,524 SEB6RH1102 3 18 4 20,299 1,546 1,205 QEB6RH1276 3.25 14.5 3 20,030 2,003 1,815 Profit 3.25 14 5 20,909 1,764 1,495 Ka-ching 3.5 14 5 21,432 1,786 1,669 CSYBF7-263 3 15.5 4 21,780 1,815 1,713 Paydirt 3.25 5 3 15,943 1,350 893* BC 0822 3 21 4 21,780 1,815 1,560 Primus 3.5 20 3 20,473 1,760 1,706 White Varieties Edelweiss TSW 3.25 16 5 22,303 1,909 1,764 Kokopelli 3 15 4 17,424 1,452 1,277 Misquamicut NOT HARVESTED Silver Duchess 2.5 15.5 4 21,780 1,815 1,764 SEW6RH1230 3 16 3 17,424 1,669 1,379 AVERAGES 3 14.9 3.8 19,654 1,674 1,445 Rating Scale: Snap: 1=difficult to pull; 3=average; 5=very easy to pull. Ear Shank: 1=short; 3=average; 5=long. *These early sweet corn varieties were extremely stressed all season long.
115 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 5. Ear evaluation of se and syn sweet corn. Varieties Husk Cover Flags Overall Tip Rows Length Diameter Husk Fill (AVG) (inches) (inches)
Bi-Color Varieties Fastlane 3 4 4 5 14 7.3 1.7 Bon Jour 2 4 5 5 12 7.9 1.55 Rendevous 3 4 4 5 14 7.5 1.7 Jackie 2 5 5 5 14 7.5 1.8 Powwow VARETY DOWN, NOT HARVESTABLE Synergy 3 4 4 5 16 7.6 1.7 SEB6RH1080 3 4 4 5 14 7.4 1.7 SEB6RH1102 2 5 5 3 14 7.8 1.65 QEB6RH1276 3 2 3 5 16 7.67 1.75 Profit 3 4 4 5 14 8.1 1.8 Ka-ching 3 4 4 5 16 9.1 1.7 CSYBF7-263 3 3 3 3 14 7.4 1.7 Paydirt 2 2 4 5 12 7.3 1.5 BC 0822 3 3 4 4 14 8.5 1.8 Primus 2 2 4 5 14 8.65 1.75 White Varieties Edelweiss TSW 3 5 4 4 16 7.8 1.8 Kokopelli 3 5 3 5 16 7.3 1.7 Misquamicut VARETY DOWN, NOT HARVESTABLE Silver Duchess 4 4 4 5 14 8.55 1.8 SEW6RH1230 4 2 3 5 16 7.8 1.6 AVERAGE 2.8 3.6 3.9 4.7 14.4 7.8 1.7 Rating Scale: Flags: 1=no flags; 3=somewhat attractive; 5=long & attractive. Husk Cover: 1=no cover; 3=adequate tip cover; 5=abundant tip cover. Tip Fill: 1=more than 2-inch gap; 3=1-inch gap; 5=complete to the end. Overall Husk: 1=dull unattractive; 3=average appearance; 5=very attractive.
116 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 6. Taste and appeal of se and syn sweet corn varieties. Varieties Rowing Color Tenderness Sweetness Taste Test (Public)
Bi-Color Varieties Fastlane 3 4 4 4 Bon Jour 3 3 4 4 Rendevous 3 4 3 4 Jackie 3 4 4 5 Powwow VARIETY DOWN EARLY, NO HARVEST Synergy 4 3 4 5 X SEB6RH1080 4 4 4 3 X SEB6RH1102 4 2 4 4 X QEB6RH1276 4 4 5 4 X Profit 4 4 4 5 X Ka-ching 4 4 4 5 X CSYBF7-263 4 4 4 4 X Paydirt 3 3 3 3 BC 0822 4 4 5 5 Primus 4 4 5 5 X White Varieties Edelweiss TSW 5 4 4 4 Kokopelli 4 4 4 4 Misquamicut VARIETY DOWN EARLY, NO HARVEST Silver Duchess 5 4 4 5 X SEW6RH1230 4 4 4 3 AVERAGE 3.8 3.7 4.1 4.2 Rating Scale: Rowing (straightness): 1=no uniformity; 3=mostly straight; 5=straight & uniform. Color: 1=dull; 3=good contrast; 5=Bright, very good contrast. Tenderness and sweetness were evaluated with raw sweet corn. Tenderness: 1=tough; 3=somewhat tender; 5=very tender. Sweetness: 1=bland; 3=somewhat sweet; 5=very sweet.
117 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 7. Table brix values for se and syn sweet corn varieties. Varieties Harvest Brix 5-day Brix 10-day Brix
Bi-Color Varieties Fastlane 18 11 12 Bon Jour 18.5 11 15 Rendevous 13 16.5 13 Jackie 16 11.5 12.5 Powwow VARIETY DOWN EARLY, NO HARVEST Synergy 18.5 20 11.5 SEB6RH1080 18 20 12.5 SEB6RH1102 10 15 7.5 QEB6RH1276 13 19 11 Profit 14 14.5 13.5 Ka-ching 14 20 10.5 CSYBF7-263 9 10.5 12.5 Paydirt 19.5 14 14 BC 0822 21 13.5 16 Primus 19 15 17.5 White Varieties Edelweiss TSW 14 11.5 9.5 Kokopelli 11.5 21.5 10.5 Misquamicut VARIETY DOWN EARLY, NO HARVEST Silver Duchess 21.5 10.5 10 SEW6RH1230 12 14 10 AVERAGE 15.6 14.9 12.2
118 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 8. Plant evaluation of sh2 sweet corn varieties. Varieties Seeding Stand- Tassel Suckers Silk Harvest Emergence ability 7/26 Date (1-3) Date Date 6/8
Bi-color Varieties EX087455857R 1 2 7/19 2 7/26 8/10 EX 08767143 4 3 7/22 2 7/29 8/12 QHW6RH1229 4 3 7/22 2.5 7/29 8/12 4002 BC 3 3 7/22 2.5 7/26 8/10 7002 R 4 3 7/22 2 7/26 8/9 7112 R 2 1 7/19 2 7/22 8/9 7602 MR 1 2 7/22 2 7/29 8/15 2170 5 1 7/19 1.5 7/22 8/5 XTH 2674 3 2 7/19 1 7/26 8/9 XTH 2773 2 4 7/19 2 7/22 8/9 XTH 2576 5 4 7/19 1.5 7/26 8/12 XTH 2171 4 1 7/19 2 7/26 8/9 XTH 2379 4 3 7/22 7/26 8/11 BSS 8040 4 2 7/26 2 7/29 8/15 HMX 8343 2 4 7/22 1.5 7/26 8/12 HMX 9352 2 2 7/22 2 7/26 8/9 Bueno 2 3 7/22 2 7/26 8/15 CSABF8-323 2 4 7/22 2 7/26 8/12 CSABF9-357 2 2 7/19 1.5 7/26 8/10 Pick-me 3 2 7/19 2 7/22 8/10 White Varieties 7401 2 3 7/22 1 7/26 8/9 HMX 0361 4 2 7/19 1.5 7/22 8/5 Munition 5 2 7/26 2 7/29 8/15 XTH 3773 1 1 7/19 2 7/26 8/9 XTH 3174 3 1 7/22 2 7/26 8/10 XTH 3876 4 3 7/22 2 7/26 8/12 3379 3 3 7/22 1 7/26 8/11 AVERAGE 3.04 1.7 Rating Scale: Seeding Emergence: 1=poor (weak); 3=average; 5=outstanding. Standability: 1=some leaning; 3=considerable leaning & some snap; 5=heavy leaning or down. Suckers: 0=no suckers; 1=few; 2=moderate; 3=severe. Silking Date=50% or more of plants silking in all 4 reps. Tasseling Date=50% or more of the plants tasseling in all 4 reps.
119 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 9. Harvest data for sh2 sweet corn varieties. Varieties Snap Ear Ear Stand Harvested Marketable (1-5) Height Shank /Acre Dozen/ Dozen/Acre Acre
Bi-Color Varieties EX087455857R 3.5 15 5 18,078 1,524 1,306 EX 08767143 4 21 3 18,513 1,815 1,669 QHW6RH1229 3.25 24 3 22,216 2,032 2,014 4002 BC 3.5 15.5 3 18,078 1,579 1,125 7002 R 3.25 17.5 3 20,909 2,032 1,579 7112 R 3.25 17 5 19,820 1,833 1,742 7602 MR 3.5 18 5 15,682 1,361 1,125 2170 3.5 17 4 19,602 1,706 1,524 XTH 2674 3.5 20 5 17,424 1,433 925 XTH 2773 3.5 15 3 20,256 1,869 1,560 XTH 2576 3.5 21 5 20,030 1,887 1,651 XTH 2171 3.5 17.5 4 20,691 1,887 1,524 XTH 2379 4 18 4 21,345 1,833 1,579 BSS 8040 3.5 22 5 19,602 1,651 1,560 HMX 8343 3.5 18 5 16,989 1,524 1,343 HMX 9352 3.5 16.5 3 18,078 1,706 1,524 Bueno 3.5 18.5 4 20,030 1,887 1,597 CSABF8-323 3.5 19.75 4 18,513 1,669 1,306 CSABF9-357 3.5 14 4 20,909 2,051 1,960 Pick-me 3.5 15 3 18,295 1,524 1,234 White Varieties 7401 4 15.5 3 20,909 1,778 1,597 HMX 0361 4 17 3 18,078 1,633 1,343 Munition 3 21 5 20,691 1,796 1,452 XTH 3773 3.5 17.5 5 20,030 1,778 1,688 XTH 3174 3.75 18 4 22,216 1,869 1,343 XTH 3876 3.5 21.75 5 19,167 1,724 1,597 3379 4 18 5 18,731 1,669 1,470 AVERAGE 3.5 16.8 4.1 19,440 1,742 1,494 Rating Scale: Snap: 1=difficult to pull; 3=average; 5=very easy to pull. Ear Shank: 1=short; 3=average; 5=long.
120 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 10. Ear evaluation data for sh2 sweet corn varieites. Varieties Husk Flags Overall Tip Fill Rows Length Diameter Cover Husk (AVG) (inches) (inches)
Bi-color Varieties EX087455857R 5 5 5 5 18 8.2 1.95 EX 08767143 2 3 4 5 18 8.6 1.8 QHW6RH1229 2 2 3 4 16 7.8 1.7 4002 BC 2 4 5 5 18 7.5 1.75 7002 R 1 5 4 5 18 7.8 1.8 7112 R 3 5 4 5 18 8.3 1.7 7602 MR 3 5 5 5 16 8 1.8 2170 3 5 4 5 16 8.65 1.75 XTH 2674 2 5 4 4 18 7.8 1.85 XTH 2773 2 4 4 5 18 8 1.85 XTH 2576 2 5 4 5 16 8.6 2 XTH 2171 2 4 4 5 16 7.8 1.9 XTH 2379 3 4 5 5 16 8.4 1.75 BSS 8040 2 5 4 5 18 8.6 1.8 HMX 8343 1 4 4 5 16 8.1 1.85 HMX 9352 2 4 4 4 16 8.2 1.7 Bueno 3 5 4 5 16 7.9 1.9 CSABF8-323 2 4 4 5 16 8.5 1.7 CSABF9-357 2 5 5 4 18 8 1.8 Pick-me 2 5 4 5 14 7.9 1.7 White Varieties 7401 2 5 4 4 18 8.9 1.75 HMX 0361 2 3 3 4 16 8.3 1.6 Munition 1 4 4 5 16 7.8 1.75 XTH 3773 2 5 5 4 16 7.8 1.8 XTH 3174 3 4 4 5 18 8.25 1.8 XTH 3876 3 5 4 5 18 8.6 1.9 3379 3 5 4 4 18 8.05 1.85 AVERAGE 2.3 4.4 4.1 4.5 16.8 8.2 1.8 Rating Scale: Flags: 1=no flags; 3=somewhat attractive; 5=long & attractive. Husk Cover: 1=no cover; 3=adequate tip cover; 5=abundant tip cover. Tip Fill: 1=more than 2-inch gap; 3=1-inch gap; 5=complete to the end. Overall Husk: 1=dull unattractive; 3=average appearance; 5=very attractive.
121 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 11. Taste and appeal of sh2 sweet corn varieties. Varieties Rowing Color Tenderness Sweetness Taste Test (Public)
Bi-color Varieties EX087455857R 3 5 3 3 EX 08767143 5 4 3 5 X QHW6RH1229 5 4 4 5 X 4002 BC 4 4 4 5 X 7002 R 3 5 4 5 X 7112 R 4 5 5 5 X 7602 MR 5 4 4 5 X 2170 4 3 4 4 X XTH 2674 4 4 4 5 XTH 2773 4 5 5 5 X XTH 2576 4 4 5 5 X XTH 2171 4 4 3 3 XTH 2379 4 5 3 5 X BSS 8040 4 4 4 5 X HMX 8343 5 4 4 5 HMX 9352 4 4 5 5 X Bueno 4 4 3 4 X CSABF8-323 3 4 4 4 X CSABF9-357 4 3 4 4 X Pick-me 4 4 3 4 X White Varieties 7401 4 4 4 3 HMX 0361 3 4 3 3 X Munition 3 4 2 4 XTH 3773 3 4 5 4 XTH 3174 4 4 4 5 X XTH 3876 4 3 5 5 X 3379 4 4 3 5 X AVERAGE 3.9 4.1 3.9 4.4 Rating Scale: Rowing (straightness): 1=no uniformity; 3=mostly straight; 5=straight & uniform. Color: 1=dull; 3=good contrast; 5=Bright, very good contrast. Tenderness and sweetness were evaluated with raw sweet corn. Tenderness: 1=tough; 3=somewhat tender; 5=very tender. Sweetness: 1=bland; 3=somewhat sweet; 5=very sweet.
122 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 12. Brix values of sh2 sweet corn varieties. Varieties Harvest Brix 5-day Brix 10-day Brix
Bi-color Varieties EX087455857R 15.5 13.5 14.5 EX 08767143 12.5 7.5 7 QHW6RH1229 11 8.5 6.5 4002 BC 12.5 14.5 12 7002 R 10 11 13.5 7112 R 13.5 10 11.5 7602 MR 14.5 12.5 10 2170 12 13.5 12 XTH 2674 9 15 12.5 XTH 2773 14.5 13 12.5 XTH 2576 12.5 9 7.5 XTH 2171 11 10 12.5 XTH 2379 10 8.5 15 BSS 8040 12 13 12.5 HMX 8343 11.5 9 9 HMX 9352 11 10 11.5 Bueno 13.5 13 12.5 CSABF8-323 8 9.5 8.5 CSABF9-357 15 15.5 9 Pick-me 15.5 17.5 13 White Varieties 7401 11 10 9.5 HMX 0361 12 12 12 Munition 12 8.5 8.5 XTH 3773 12 9 10.5 XTH 3174 14 13.5 11 XTH 3876 11.5 12.5 10.5 3379 5 12 13 AVERAGE 11.7 11.5 11.0
123 124 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011 Table 13. Public evaluation of sweet corn varieties in the 2011 North Ohio Sweet Corn Evaluation, OARDC North Central Agricultural Research Station. Kernel Husk Color Size of Ear Tenderness Sweetness Flavor Color Variety P A V E P A V E P A V E P A V E P A V E P A V E Number of ratings in each category
Bi-color se/syn Synergy 1 1 4 0 1 3 0 2 1 1 2 2 1 0 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 SEB 6RH 1080 0 1 4 1 0 1 4 1 0 1 3 2 0 0 2 4 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 SEB 6RH 1102 1 1 4 1 0 2 3 2 0 2 2 3 0 1 2 4 0 3 1 3 0 2 2 3 QEB 6RH 1276 0 1 4 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 3 1 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 Profit 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Ka-ching 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 1 1 CSYBF 7-263 0 1 2 2 0 4 1 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 3 1 0 3 1 1 0 2 2 1 Jackie 0 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 0 3 3 0 1 3 2 0 1 3 2 Primus 0 1 5 1 0 0 6 1 0 0 6 1 2 3 1 1 0 4 1 2 0 4 2 1 White se/syn Silver Duchess 0 3 3 1 0 0 5 2 1 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
Bi-color sh2 EX 08767143 0 0 9 0 1 3 5 0 0 2 5 2 0 2 7 1 1 2 5 1 1 3 3 2 4002 BC 0 2 2 1 0 3 1 1 0 1 3 1 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 1 0 1 3 1 7002 R 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 7112 R 0 3 7 3 0 4 5 4 0 3 5 5 0 2 7 4 1 5 3 4 1 5 3 4 7602 MR 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 2 2170 0 3 5 2 0 1 6 3 0 0 6 4 0 1 6 3 0 2 5 3 0 2 6 2 XTH 2773 0 2 8 3 0 4 6 3 0 1 9 3 1 4 5 3 2 3 5 3 2 3 3 5
Continued on next page Table 13 (continued) Kernel Husk Color Size of Ear Tenderness Sweetness Flavor Color Variety P A V E P A V E P A V E P A V E P A V E P A V E Number of ratings in each category
Bi-color sh2 (continued)
XTH 2576 0 1 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 5 XTH 2379 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 1 2 1 BSS 8040 0 1 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 HMX 9352 0 2 3 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 5 0 0 1 4 0 Bueno 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 CSABF8-323 0 0 4 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 0 1 2 2 CSABF9-357 0 4 3 1 0 4 3 1 1 3 3 1 0 3 5 0 1 3 4 0 1 4 2 0 Pick-me 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 0
White sh2 HMX 0361 0 4 5 0 0 6 2 1 0 6 2 1 0 4 4 1 0 7 2 0 0 6 3 0 QHW6RH 1229 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 3 4 0 2 2 4 0 2 3 3 0 3379 0 0 3 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 3 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 0
XTH 3876 0 2 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 Midwest XTH 3174 0 2 4 1 0 3 4 0 0 1 5 1 0 1 4 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 2
XTH 3773 0 1 6 0 0 5 3 0 0 3 4 1 0 3 0 5 0 3 5 0 0 2 4 2 Vegetable P=poor; A=acceptable; V=very good; E=excellent. Trial Report for 2011 125 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
126 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Performance of 11 Fresh Market and Five Saladette Tomato Cultivars in Southwest Michigan in 2011
Ron Goldy, Michigan State University, Benton Harbor, MI 49022
This trial evaluated the yield and quality performance of 11 fresh market and five saladette tomato varieties grown in a plasticulture system in southwest Michigan. Charger, Red Deuce, and Tribute were the better performing fresh market types, while Capataz, Tachi, Monticello, and Tormenta were the leaders in the saladette trial. Materials and Methods On April 18, 2011, seed of the 16 cultivars were planted into 72-cell transplant trays and placed into a commercial greenhouse. Transplants were set to the field into a plasticulture system June 2, 2011, as a saladette or fresh market trial. Beds were 6 inches high with a spacing of 5.5 feet between beds and 18 inches between plants in the row. Plants were pruned and trained to a stake and weave system. Soil was fumigated at bed shaping using 300 pounds/acre of 50/50 Methyl Bromide/Chloropicrin. Prior to bed shaping, 0-0-64, Cal-Fortified, 0-0-33, and Granubor were broadcast and incorporated at a rate of 150, 100, 100, and 13 pounds per acre, respectively. After planting, 4-0-8-2 (Ca) was applied through the drip system once a week at a rate of 1 pound of nitrogen and 2 pounds of potassium (K2O) per acre per day. Drip fertilization began the week of June 13 and ended the week of August 22, 2011, for a post-plant total of 77 and 154 pounds per acre of nitrogen and potassium (K2O), respectively. Weeds were controlled with cultivation and hand hoeing. Diseases and insects were controlled using commercially recommended practices and trials were irrigated as needed. The trials were planted and analyzed as a completely randomized design with four replications and eight plants per plot. Plots were harvested three times: August 16 and 25, and September 1, 2011. Fresh market tomato fruit was graded into number 1 large, number 1 small, number 2, and culls. Saladette tomatoes were graded into number 1, number 2, and culls. Average number 1 fruit weight was calculated for both fruit types and data from the two trials were analyzed separately. Results and Discussion The 2011 growing season was difficult for tomatoes. Cool, wet weather in late May delayed planting by two weeks. After planting in June, the weather continued cool and wet with more than 2 inches of moisture over 13 rainy days. Then in July, the weather turned hot and wet with six inches of rain over 10 days and eight days with daytime temperatures over 90°F. Some rain events were also accompanied by strong, driving winds. Despite continued protective bactericide applications, these conditions contributed to severe problems with bacterial spot (Xanthomonas campestris pv, vesicatoria), bacterial speck (Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato), and bacterial canker (Corynebacterium michiganense pv. michiganense). This explains why there were only three harvests and the large number of cull fruit for all selections. Performance of all varieties would have improved if bacterial infections had not been so severe.
127 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Total yield for the fresh market cultivars ranged from 1,809 to 2,622 25-pound boxes/acre with Charger, Red Deuce, and Tribute having the highest total yields (Table 1). Tribute and Charger had the highest yield of number 1 fruit with 848 and 841 boxes/acre, respectively. BSS 832, Red Deuce, Charger, and Red Bounty had similarly high average number 1 fruit weights (Table 1). Tribute, Rocky Top, Mountain Glory, and Red Bounty had the lowest yields of cull fruit. Table 1. Yield in 25-pound cartons per acre of 11 fresh market tomatoes grown at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center, Benton Harbor, MI in 2011. Plant population was 5,280 plants per acre. Avg. No. 1 Yield Seed Total Yield No. Yield Yield Cultivar Fruit Wt. No. 1 Source Yield 1 Large1 No. 2 Cull (grams) Small2
Charger SAK 2,622 841 271.6 529 287 966 Red Deuce HM 2,497 541 276.1 551 161 1244 Tribute SAK 2,347 848 255.5 507 304 688 VS.8366 B VL 2,199 456 254.1 470 308 965 Red Bounty HM 2,127 572 264.4 477 251 828 Rocky Top ROG 2,041 586 259.3 474 285 696 Polbig BE 1,991 515 221.1 290 300 886 Fletcher BE 1,988 333 259.6 356 294 1,006 Mountain Glory ROG 1,932 592 249.4 346 270 724 BSS 832 BE 1,917 361 285.4 469 149 937 Defiant JS 1,809 138 194.3 99 630 942 lsd 0.05 336 232 24.3 139 136 410 1Fruit >2.5 inches in diameter. 2Fruit 1.5-2.5 inches in diameter. Total yield for the saladette tomatoes ranged from 898 to 1,827 25-pound boxes/acre (Table 2). Capataz, Tachi, Monticello, and Tormenta had similarly high total yields. Tachi, Capataz, and Monticello had similar yield of number 1 fruit, while Plum Regal and Capataz had the highest average number 1 fruit weight. Plum Regal is reported to have some tolerance to bacterial spot and this did show up in this trial. The four plots of Plum Regal could easily be identified due to their greater amount of leaves. However, Plum Regal had the lowest yield of the five cultivars evaluated despite having bacterial spot tolerance.
128 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 2. Yield in 25-pound cartons per acre of five saladette tomatoes grown at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center, Benton Harbor, MI in 2011. Plant population was 5,280 plants per acre. Avg. No. 1 Seed Cultivar Total Yield Yield No. 1 Fruit Wt. Yield No. 2 Yield Cull Source (grams)
Capataz VL 1,827 995 123.7 389 443 Tachi SAK 1,682 1,012 110.6 357 313 Monticello ROG 1,571 865 108.7 347 359 Tormenta BE 1,509 597 92.2 381 532 Plum Regal BE 898 401 130.4 229 268 lsd 0.05 382 257 6.7 115 147
129 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
130 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Late Blight Resistant Tomato Variety Evaluation Using Organic Production Practices — New York 2011
Margaret T. McGrath, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901 Laura K. Hunsberger, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901 Sandra Menasha, Cornell Cooperative Extension-Suffolk County, NY
Tomato is an important crop that is routinely affected by diseases. It is important for both organic and conventional diversified vegetable growers, which are common in the northeastern United States. Fresh local tomatoes are one of the most popular items during summer, therefore they are grown by many organic and conventional growers. There are several foliar disease affecting tomatoes, including Septoria leaf spot, early blight, bacterial speck and spot, late blight, powdery mildew, and leaf mold. Foliar diseases are a common occurrence wherever tomatoes are grown. All plantings are affected, even those grown under protection (greenhouses and high tunnels) and in small home gardens. Resistant varieties would be a valuable tool for managing these diseases, particularly late blight because it occurs sporadically and can be difficult to control with fungicide applications started after onset. Organic growers on Long Island have identified tomato as a high priority for research. The goals of this experiment, which is part of a multi-year project, were to evaluate new tomato varieties and experimental hybrids with resistance to late blight in terms of (1) susceptibility to naturally-occurring foliar diseases and (2) yield and fruit quality. Materials and Methods The experiment was conducted at the Long Island Horticultural Research and Extension Center in Riverhead, NY, in a field dedicated to research with organically produced vegetable crops. The soil type is Haven loam. Tomato seed were sown in an organic seeding mix on May 6. A rye cover crop was flail chopped and baled on May 24. Pro-Grow 5-3-4 and 4-3-7 organic fertilizer at 1,100 lb/A were spread and then incorporated by disking on May 10. Two layers of black plastic mulch were laid for managing yellow nutsedge as well as other weeds. Additionally, on May 16 white clover was spread at 35 lb/A between the rows of plastic by hand and incorporated with a rake to serve as a living mulch for weed management and to improve soil health. Seedlings were transplanted on June 8. Fish emulsion (Neptune’s Harvest) was poured into the transplant hole before setting the seedlings. All plots had between five and ten plants at 2-foot spacing with a yellow cherry type tomato plant separating plots within rows. Rows were spaced 68 inches apart. A completely randomized block design with four replications was used. There were four additional entries included for observation and thus not planted in the replicated experiment. Plants were staked and trellised as they grew using the Florida weave trellising system with 4-foot stakes placed between plants. Water was provided as needed through drip tape laid beneath the plastic mulch. A very early outbreak of late blight in the region, which included this experiment, started in early July and necessitated applying fungicides to minimize impact of unmanaged late blight on other experiments and commercial crops nearby. Fungicides were selected with targeted activity for
131 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
the late blight fungus (Phytophthora infestans) to avoid impacting other foliar diseases. A mefenoxam-sensitive strain (US-23) was present. Fungicides applied were Ridomil Gold (0.25 pt/A) on July 6; Previcur Flex (1.5 pt/A) on July 6 and 27, and August 4; Revus (8 fl oz./A) on July 6 and July 15, and August 20; Presidio (4 fl oz./A) on August 25; Ranman (2.75 fl oz/A) on August 20; and Curzate (5 oz/A) on September 2. Insect pests were controlled with Entrust (2 oz/A) applied on August 4, 20, and 25 for lepidopterous larvae; and ABBA (16 fl oz/A) plus the adjuvant LI-700 (1 pt/100 gal) applied on August 4 for russet mite. Leaves were examined for disease symptoms three times from August 10 to September 27. Incidence of plants with symptoms of late blight was recorded on July 14 and 21. Powdery mildew was assessed by estimating the percentage of leaves in each plot with symptoms (incidence) and the severity of symptoms on these affected leaves. Canopy severity was calculated with these values. Fruit were harvested on August 12, 18, 23, and 31. Fruit quality attributes assessed included Brix (% soluble sugar) measured with a refractometer and taste was rated on a 1-9 scale with 9 being excellent. Average monthly high and low temperatures (°F) were 79/61 in June, 87/68 in July, 82/66 in August, and 76/63 in September. Rainfall (inches) was 6.1, 2.35, 10.61, and 6.88 for these months, respectively. There was a hurricane (August 28) and several atypical intensive rain events during the 2011 growing season on Long Island. Results and Discussion There were few symptoms of late blight in July therefore it was assessed as incidence of plants with symptoms. Late blight lesions on varieties were observed on 40% of Mountain Fresh plants on July 14 versus on 3-32% of plants of resistant varieties and on 80% versus 8-46% of these plants, respectively, on July 21. Mountain Magic had the fewest affected plants on both dates. All resistant hybrids evaluated have both the Ph2 and Ph3 genes for resistance to late blight. The fungicide program used to suppress late blight during the main part of the growing season combined with hot, dry weather during July stopped late blight development even in the susceptible variety. Symptoms of Septoria leaf spot were not observed. Powdery mildew developed to a limited degree late in the growing season. There were no significant differences among varieties (Table 1). The campari-type varieties (Mountain Magic and Cornell M) produced the greatest number and weight of fruit (Table 1), and these fruit had the highest taste ratings (Table 2).
132 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 1. Yield and disease incidence of late blight-resistant tomato varieties grown at LIHREC, 2011. Powdery mildew severity Yield/plant (%)1 2 Seed Variety 3 Market- Market- Source 26 Total Wt/Fruit 2 Sept. AUDPC able able Fruit Aug. Fruit # (oz) Fruit # Wt. (lb)
Mountain Fresh (S) CU 1.14 5.0 3.4 4.9 b 1.4 cd 7.4 b 6.9 abc Defiant PhR JS 0.3 2.5 1.1 11.2 b 3.1 abc 14.4 b 4.8 abc Mountain Merit BS 2.3 4.3 7.0 6.1 b 1.0 d 8.7 b 7.1 ab 853 x 426 JS 0.6 4.9 1.7 6.2 b 1.2 cd 9.6 b 7.9 a Cornell B CU 1.7 2.9 5.0 7.9 b 1.8 bcd 11.4 b 5.1 abc Cornell C CU 1.7 3.8 5.2 1.7 b 0.9 d 3.9 b 8.5 a Cornell E CU 0.2 1.5 0.5 2.6 b 0.6 d 6.6 b 6.3 abc Mountain Magic (BS) BS 0.6 2.9 1.8 52.7 a 4.1 a 62.4 a 1.3 bc Mountain Magic (CU) CU 0.4 2.1 1.4 48.7 a 4.4 a 57.1 a 1.3 bc Cornell M CU 0.1 0.8 0.3 62.2 a 3.8 ab 74.6 a 1.0 c P-value (treatment) 0.3240 0.1293 0.3198 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0004 1Canopy severity was calculated from assessments of the percentage of leaves in each plot with symptoms (incidence) and the severity of symptoms on these affected leaves. 2S=Susceptible; BS=Variety obtained from Bejo Seeds; CU=Variety obtained from Cornell. Due to a seed mix up there was a duplicate entry of Mountain Magic. Mountain Magic and Cornell M produce campari-type fruit; other entries produce round red slicer type fruit. The 'female pedigree' X 'male pedigree' for the Cornell entries was CU101253 x NC33EB1 for B, CU101254 x NC33EB1 for C, CU101256 x NC33EB1 for E, and CU101265 x NC2Grape for M. 3JS=Johnny’s Seed; CU=Cornell; BS=Bejo Seeds 4Numbers in each column followed by the same letter or no letter are not significantly different from each other according to Tukey’s HSD (P=0.05).
133 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 2. Descriptive characteristics of late-blight resistant tomatoes grown at LIHREC, 2011. Variety1 Appearance Brix2 Taste Comments
Mountain Fresh 6.5 5.4 4 Mealy, dry, bland Tasti Lee 8 5.2 4 Bland, very chewy skin, mealy, off flavor Mountain Merit 7 4.8 7 Juicy, mild flavor, chewy skin, slightly mealy Defiant PhR 8.5 5.5 6 Good flavor, acidic, mealy, very tough skin Cornell A 6.5 5.0 4.5 Mealy, chewy skin, meaty flesh Cornell B 7.5 5.0 6.5 Juicy, slightly mealy, strong tomato flavor Cornell C 7 4.2 6.5 Slightly bland and mealy, firm flesh Cornell E 6.5 4.4 6 Chewy skin, slightly juicy, meaty flesh, acidic 853 x 426 (JS) 8 5.1 6 Juicy, acidic, strong tomato flavor, mealy Mountain Magic (BS) 8 7.0 8.5 Sweet, juicy, slightly chewy skin Mountain Magic (CU) 8.5 6.1 8 Strong flavor but sweet and acid balanced Cornell M 8 6.4 8 Meaty flesh, sweet, slightly chewy skin Cornell K 7.5 5.9 8 Sweet, juicy, slightly chewy skin Cornell J 8 6.4 7.5 Sweet, juicy, bland, slightly chewy skin 1Mountain Magic and the three Cornell experimental varieties listed below it produce campari-type fruit; other entries produce round red slicer type fruit. Mountain Fresh and Tasti-Lee do not have resistance to late blight. 2Brix was measured with a refractometer. Appearance and taste rated on a 1-9 scale with 9 being excellent. Tomato Variety Fruit Descriptions Mountain Fresh Medium to medium-large, round, red tomato. Some variability in size. Flat blossom end. Some radial cracking and zippering. Tasti-Lee Medium-size fruit were round and red in color. Slightly flat blossom end. Uniform. Mountain Merit Medium to medium-large, round fruit were red to orange in color. Rounded blossom end and deep scarring at stem end. Defiant PhR Uniform, round fruit were small to medium in size and had a pink to dark red coloring. Flat blossom end. Yellow shoulder and slight zippering. 853 x 426 (JS) Large to medium, round fruit were orange to red in color. Fruit were a good size and shape with a rounded blossom end. Slight cracking. Cornell A Orange to red fruit was medium to large in size and round to oval in shape. Blossom end was round to slightly pointed.
134 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Cornell B Fruit of this variety were round, small to medium-large in size, and red to orange in color. Good yields. Round blossom end. Slight zippering and cracking. Cornell C Round to oval, medium-size fruit. Light orange to red in color. Slightly flat blossom end. Variable in size and shape. Slight zippering and cracking. Cornell E Medium-size, round to oval fruit, medium red to orange in color. Slightly pointed blossom end. Radial cracking. Mountain Magic (BS) Orange to red, small to medium, round fruit. Yellow shoulder and cracking. Mountain Magic (CU) Fruit of this variety were round, small to medium in size with orange to red coloring. Slight cracking. Cornell M Slightly oval to round fruit were small to medium in size and orange to red in color. Good yields. Cornell K Small, oval fruit were red in color with a rounded blossom end. Fruit were variable in size. Cornell J Fruit of this variety were small, round, and red. Very uniform. Rounded blossom end.
Acknowledgments This project was funded by the Friends of Long Island Horticulture Grant Program. Seed were donated by companies listed in Table 1. Pesticides were donated by BASF Corporation, Bayer CropScience, DuPont Crop Protection, FMC Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, and Valent USA Corporation.
135 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
136 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Fresh Market Tomato Cultivar Performance Trial Grown in Southern Ohio — 2011
Brad R. Bergefurd, Horticulture Specialist and Extension Educator Wayne Lewis, Thom Harker, Lynn Miller, Al Welch and Emily Weaks The Ohio State University South Centers 1864 Shyville Road, Piketon, Ohio 45661 Objectives The objectives of this trial were to screen new fresh market tomato variety releases (2010-2011) for their production performance under Southern Ohio growing conditions and to determine the new releases showing yield and marketing potential for the southern Ohio area. Materials and Methods This trial evaluated 12 fresh market tomato cultivars for their production suitability, performance, and quality attributes under southern Ohio growing conditions. Cultivar selections were new releases along with industry standard varieties. Input was received from seed companies, growers, and industry personnel regarding variety selection and standard comparisons. The observation trial was located in southern Ohio, at the Ohio State University South Centers field research trials in Piketon, Ohio. Seeds were hand planted April 11 into 98-cell Pro Trays filled with soilless mix in the greenhouse. Plants were transplanted onto 10-inch-tall raised beds covered with black plastic spaced 18 inches apart in row on June 2 using a waterwheel transplanter. Trickle irrigation was installed under the plastic mulch. Bed spacing was 6 feet apart on center. Before forming beds and laying plastic mulch, 100 pounds of N, P2O5, and K2O per acre were applied. A standard commercial fungicide and insecticide program was implemented, following recommendations from the Ohio Vegetable Production Guide, OSU Bulletin #672. Weeds were controlled with cultivation and hand hoeing. Results and Discussion This trial was planted later than usual due to one of the wettest springs on record. Overall plant and fruit quality were good despite the less than optimal growing conditions experienced this season. Fruit were harvested five times: August 23, September 2, September 13, September 29, and October 12. Table 1 lists yield data and varieties in descending order of marketable yield. In this observation trial total marketable pounds per plant ranged from 15.73 (HM 8849CR) to 5.65 lbs. (BHN 871). The cultivar Tribeca had the most fruit per plant and the second highest pounds per plant. The cultivar Charger had the most large fruit per plant. Charger also had the most pounds of large fruit per plant. The average fruit size ranged from a low of 0.49 lb. to a high of 0.61 lb. We wish to thank the seed companies for their in-kind contributions to conduct this field research.
137 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Table 1. Fruit size number and yield responses for fresh market tomato cultivars grown in southern Ohio (Piketon), 2011. Medium Medium Large Large Small Fruit Small lbs. Cultivar Fruit # lbs. per Fruit # lbs. per # per Plant per Plant per Plant Plant per Plant Plant
Tribeca 18 6.88 8 4.91 3 2.77 HM 8849CR 14 5.83 9 5.66 4 4.24 Rocky Top 12 4.78 5 4.09 2 2.28 BHN 602 12 4.68 9 5.59 3 3.03 BSS 832 10 4.03 4 3.12 2 2.97 Scarlet Red 9 3.96 7 4.52 3 3.11 Charger 8 3.59 8 5.27 5 4.42 Red Deuce 8 3.58 3 2.57 1 1.63 Red Bounty 8 3.07 9 5.76 3 2.66 BHN 871 6 2.68 3 1.86 1 1.10 BHN 961 5 2.42 4 2.67 1 1.23 Primo Red 5 2.29 5 2.81 1 0.74 Table 2. Total fruit yields and average fruit weight responses for fresh market tomato cultivars grown in southern Ohio (Piketon), 2011. Total Fruit Total lbs. Average Fruit Cultivar Seed Source per Plant per Plant Weight
HM 8849CR 27 15.73 0.56 HM Tribeca 29 14.58 0.49 SW BHN 602 24 13.31 0.53 SW Charger 21 13.3 0.61 SW Scarlet Red 19 11.60 0.59 HM Red Bounty 20 11.50 0.55 HM Rocky Top 20 11.16 0.54 SW BSS 832 17 10.13 0.58 SW Red Deuce 13 7.79 0.56 HM BHN 961 11 6.32 0.55 RU Primo Red 11 5.85 0.49 HM BHN 871 11 5.65 0.49 RU
138 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Tomato Variety Trial — 2011
J. Scott Monroe*, Purdue Cooperative Extension-Daviess County, IN Maria H. Restrepo, Purdue Cooperative Extension-Pike County, IN Kendra B. Norris, Program Assistant, Purdue Cooperative Extension-Daviess County, IN Nicholas P. Okeli, Program Assistant, Purdue Cooperative Extension-Daviess County, IN * author to whom all correspondence should be addressed Introduction Daviess County, as well as the entire state of Indiana, continues to see an increase in the number of small and medium-scale vegetable producers. Growers are producing vegetables for sale and distribution through a variety of marketing venues. Tomato is one of the most frequently grown vegetable crops in the region. Fresh market tomato serves as a leading product for many local roadside stands and produce auctions. It has been observed locally that new commercial vegetable growers tend to use older fresh market varieties. While many newer commercial varieties are available, locally generated performance data that would encourage growers to switch to these varieties is lacking. This report is a continuation of our previous work, where our goal continues to be to evaluate fresh market tomato varieties available to local growers in an effort to identify those that are best suited to production in our region. Materials and Methods Seeds of 24 fresh market tomato varieties were sown into 73-cell flats on April 21. Seeds were germinated and the resulting transplants were grown in a greenhouse at the Southwest Purdue Agriculture Center near Vincennes, IN. Tomato varieties consisted of mostly globe types, with one saladette type and one Campari type. Both determinate and indeterminate varieties were included. Transplants were planted into a field on a local farm. Prior to transplanting, a blended commercial fertilizer (26.6N-0P-20.1K-2.7S-.08B) was applied at the rate of 625 lbs/acre. Transplants were planted into rows arranged on 6.5-foot centers on May 24-25. Each row was covered by a 3-foot strip of clear plastic mulch, with drip irrigation installed. Individual varieties were transplanted into plots of ten plants. Spacing between plants was 24 inches. The trial simulated production at 3,350 plants per acre. Plots were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications of each variety. After transplanting, plants were grown in accordance with accepted commercial practices and were trellised using the Florida Weave System. Individual plots were harvested between July 29 and August 29. Following harvest, fruit from each plot were graded as number one, number two, or culls, in accordance with USDA standards. All number one and number two fruit were counted and weighed, while culls were only counted. Data were then compiled and subjected to appropriate statistical analysis. Results and Discussion Shortly after planting, it was discovered that the trial had been located in a field containing root knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.). The nematode population was scattered across the trial area. Consequently, susceptible plants were damaged or killed outright. Following harvest, data were
139 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
compiled and subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA). Additionally, treatment means were subjected a mean separation procedure (Fischer’s LSD). The trial contained saladette, globe, and Campari-type varieties. Although final plant populations were affected by the presence of root knot nematodes across many sections of the trial, the ANOVA failed to detect significant variation among replications. In general, differences were noted in the data among fruit types. The largest yield was seen in ‘Mt. Magic,’ the lone Campari-type variety, followed by ‘Tormenta,’ the lone saladette variety. Yield data, as the mean of the two replications of each variety that produced the greatest quantity of number one fruit, and the LSD for those means, are summarized in Table 1. The ANOVA indicated highly significant varietal differences in the yield of number one fruit (α = 0.05). Mean yield of number one fruit for the two highest yielding replications of each variety ranged from 17,092-430,478 fruit/acre, with ‘Mt. Magic’ yielding the largest quantity of fruit and ‘BHN 961’ yielding the lowest. Mean yield of number one fruit for ‘Tormenta,’ the lone saladette variety, was 116,961 fruit/acre. Mean number one fruit yield among globe varieties ranged from 17,092-35,189 fruit/acre, with ‘HM 8849CR’ having the largest, and BHN 961 having the smallest mean yield. Overall, the mean weight of number one fruit produced for the two highest yielding replications ranged from 7,017-23,995 lbs/acre, with ‘Mt. Magic’ being the largest yielder. The mean weight of number one fruit for the single saladette variety was 15,667 lbs/acre. The range of mean number one fruit weights for globe varieties was 7,017-13,196 lbs/acre. ‘HM 8849CR’ produced the largest weight of number one globes, while ‘BHN 961’ produced the smallest. When selling into large wholesale marketing channels, growers frequently do not differentiate between number two fruit (or seconds) and culls. However, in local markets and produce auctions, number two tomatoes are routinely identified and sold. While this class of tomato generally commands a lower price in the marketplace, the ability to move tomatoes of this class beyond the farm gate presents growers with an opportunity to not only maximize income, but also to prevent losses associated with unmarketable fruit. Consequently, when evaluating fruit from this trial, yields of number two fruit were taken into consideration. ANOVA results indicated significant differences in the weight of number two fruit produced, as well as highly significant differences (α = 0.05) in the quantity of number two fruit among varieties. ‘Tormenta,’ the single saladette entry in the trial, produced more seconds than the globe varieties. As saladette varieties tended to be the largest yielders, one would expect a corresponding increase in the quantity of number two fruit produced. The mean quantity of number two fruit from the two highest yielding replications of each variety ranged from 25,637- 114,113 fruit/acre, with ‘BHN 602’ producing the lowest quantity and ‘Tormenta’ producing the highest. For these varieties, number two production constituted 48.9 and 45.5 percent of mean total yield respectively. Culls, defined as fruit not classed as number one or number two and being unmarketable, were counted at harvest. Statistical analysis indicated significant differences (α = 0.05) in the mean number of culls/acre, and number of culls as a percent of mean total yield, among varieties. ‘Mt. Magic,’ the single Campari-type entry, produced the lowest percent of culls. Among globe varieties, percent of culls ranged from 8.0-20.1%, with ‘BHN 876’ and ‘Rocky Top’ having the lowest and highest percentages respectively.
140 Table 1. Mean yield data for the two highest yielding replications of 24 commercial tomato varieties evaluated in 2011. Seed #1 Fruit Percent #2 Fruit Percent Total Variety #1 Fruit2 #2 Fruit2 Culls2 Source1 Weight3 #14 Weight3 Culls4 Yield2
Mt. Magic5 BE 430,478 23,995 86.6 53,956 3,560 12,735 2.6 497,169 Tormenta6 BE 116,961 15,667 47.0 114,113 14,327 19,772 7.7 250,846 HM 8849CR HM 35,189 13,196 49.1 28,151 11,457 7,373 11.8 70,713 BHN 876 RU 32,173 11,415 41.5 38,875 15,835 6,032 8.0 77,080 Mt. Glory RU 31,838 10,452 48.4 28,989 11,226 8,378 10.6 69,204 Mt. Crest CT 29,827 9,425 38.6 40,718 12,064 8,378 10.1 78,923 Polbig BE 28,319 9,635 31.9 52,280 17,008 12,065 13.4 92,664 Red Deuce HM 25,805 11,541 40.3 33,681 14,766 5,864 8.6 65,351 Florida 47R RU 25,302 16,610 33.6 41,891 15,053 8,210 10.9 75,405 Red Bounty HM 25,302 12,672 30.3 44,405 23,354 13,740 16.5 83,448 Mt. Fresh Plus CT 23,124 11,562 27.9 47,924 21,972 11,897 14.3 82,945 Carolina Gold RU 22,956 8,902 37.0 33,178 12,735 13,237 18.8 69,372 Florida 91 CT 22,454 10,703 36.5 33,513 16,212 7,708 11.6 63,675 Finish Line SW 22,286 9,300 28.6 47,086 20,527 8,713 11.1 78,086 PrimoRed HM 21,113 9,132 31.9 36,194 16,882 10,389 14.9 67,696
Tribeca SW 20,946 9,341 36.6 30,664 14,069 5,530 9.7 57,140 Midwest BHN 602 SW 19,773 8,336 37.1 25,637 11,143 7,038 13.7 52,448
Mt. Spring CT 19,772 8,902 28.9 40,551 13,489 9,719 14.0 70,042 Vegetable SecuriTy 28 HM 19,102 9,090 28.7 40,048 17,196 7,540 11.3 66,691 Celebrity CT 19,102 9,719 16.9 79,426 34,016 13,740 12.2 112,269 Trial Rocky Top RU 18,767 7,771 28.5 33,848 15,500 13,237 20.1 65,853 BSS 832 BE 17,929 7,435 33.3 28,989 11,855 6,367 12.2 53,286 Report
for 2011 141 142 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011 Table 1 (continued) Seed #1 Fruit Percent #2 Fruit Percent Total Variety #1 Fruit2 #2 Fruit2 Culls2 Source1 Weight3 #14 Weight3 Culls4 Yield2
Fletcher BE 17,427 7,135 23.8 45,913 19,647 10,221 13.9 73,561 BHN 961 RU 17,092 7,017 29.6 29,491 11,394 10,054 17.9 56,637 lsd (α=.05) 25,764 5,827 15.5 23,280 8,803 9,806 8.8 40,856 1SW=Seedway; RU=Rupp; HM=Harris Moran; BE=Bejo Seeds; CT=CropTech Seeds. 2Mean yield (fruit/acre) of two highest yielding (greatest quantity of number one fruit) replications. 3Mean weight (lbs/acre) of two highest yielding (greatest quantity of number one fruit) replications. 4Quantity of indicated grade of fruit as a percentage of total yield (fruit/acre) for two highest yielding replications. 5Campari-type variety. 6Saladette Variety.
Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Midwest Personal-Size Triploid Watermelon Variety Trial in Southwest Indiana — 2011
Shubin K. Saha, Vegetable Extension Specialist, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture Sara Hoke, Agriculture Technician, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology Southwest Purdue Agricultural Center, Vincennes, IN, 47591 Introduction In Indiana, melon production is a significant industry, particularly in the southwestern portion of the state. In total, there are nearly 10,000 acres of melons produced in the state including watermelon and cantaloupe (USDA, 2011). A very small portion of that total acreage is as a result of personal-size watermelon production. When these small melons first became available in the market, they were sold at a premium. However, today there is no longer a premium for producing these types of melons, thus in Indiana, acreage is limited. Personal-size melons are no different than other melons in that variety selection is one important aspect for successful crop production. The objective of this trial was to evaluate personal-size watermelon varieties for growth under southwestern Indiana climatic conditions. Materials and Methods An experiment was established on April 14, 2011, when seeds of four personal-size watermelon varieties were sown in 50-cell black seedling flats (Crop Tech, Vincennes, IN) using a peat- based soilless media, Jiffy-Mix Grower’s Choice Plus (Jiffy Products of America, Lorain, Ohio). The variety utilized as the pollenizer this season was SP-5 and it was also sown in the same manner as the other varieties. The field site was selected and prepared by tillage, bed formation, and installation of plastic mulch and drip irrigation. Application of fertilizer was completed prior to bed formation in the following amounts: 350 lbs (46-0-0), 100 lbs (0-0-60), and 200 lbs of pelletized lime. Transplants were taken to the field on May 16, 2011, and planted in the designated plots as dictated by the randomized complete block design. Plants were irrigated as needed throughout the season and treated with pesticides as dictated by MelCast and presence of any arthropod pests. Plots were arranged in three 16-foot rows spaced 6 feet on center and plants were spaced 2 feet in-row for a total of 24 plants per plot. Pollenizers were planted in rows adjacent to the three-row plots. Fruit were harvested from each variety on a weekly basis a total of five times starting July 28, 2011, and ending August 25, 2011. In addition to the harvest data, nine fruit from each variety were evaluated for internal quality parameters such as soluble solids, fruit firmness, length, width, rind thickness, and degree of seedlessness. Data were analyzed by Fisher’s least significant difference test using SAS statistical programs (SAS Institute, Cary, NC.) Results Yield (fruit weight per acre or per plot) of RWT8225, RWT8212, and Little Deuce Coupe did not differ. RWT8225 had greater average fruit weight (7.1 lbs) as compared to the other three varieties (Table 1). All three varieties from Syngenta had greater yield and average fruit weight
143 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
as compared to the fourth variety, WTT9145 (Table 1). RWT8225, RWT8212, and Little Deuce Coupe had greater soluble solid content as compared to WTT9145 (Table 2). Fruit length also followed this same trend. Fruit width, fruit firmness, and degree of seedlessness did not vary amongst any of the varieties evaluated this season. Based on the harvest and fruit quality results, the Syngenta varieties outperformed the one variety from Zeraim Gedera under southwestern Indiana conditions. Performance amongst the three Syngenta varieties was comparable amongst them with the exception of the RWT8225 having a greater average weight. Acknowledgements The authors would like to extend their appreciation to the following individuals for all their help and assistance with the completion of the variety trials this year: Bill Davis, Dennis Nowaskie, and Angie Thompson. Literature Cited United States Department of Agriculture, 2011. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Vegetables 2010 Summary. http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/VegeSumm/ VegeSumm-01-27-2011.pdf.
144 Table 1. Harvest data of personal-size seedless watermelons. Total Fruit Average Total Fruit Total Fruit Weight per % 1st % 2nd % 3rd % 4th % 5th Variety Seed Company Weight per Weight Number Number per Acre (lb) Harvest Harvest Harvest Harvest Harvest Plot1,2 (lb) (lb) per Plot Acre
RWT 8225 Syngenta 548.5 a 82,955 a 7.1 a 77.0 11,646 9.1 22.5 22.5 23.8 22.1 RWT 8212 Syngenta 543.0 a 82,134 a 6.3 b 86.7 13,108 11.2 25.4 23.8 16.5 23.1 Little Deuce Coupe Syngenta 541.7 a 81,929 a 6.1 b 88.7 13,411 14.3 22.2 23.3 17.3 22.9 WTT-9145 Zeraim Gedera 316.9 b 47,933 b 5.1 c 62.3 9,428 4.3 13.4 25.1 27.3 29.9 1Plot size=288ft2. 2Means in columns separated by Fisher’s least significant difference test (P ≤ 0.05), means with same letter are not significantly different. Table 2. Internal fruit quality of personal-size seedless watermelons. Rind Fruit Length Firmness (lbs- Degree of Variety Seed Company Brix1,2 Fruit Width (in) Thickness (in) (in) force)3 Seedlessness4
RWT 8212 Syngenta 10.7 a 1.3 b 20.5 a 18.5 3.5 0.6 RWT 8225 Syngenta 10.6 a 1.9 a 20.5 a 19.5 3.3 0.2 Little Deuce Coupe Syngenta 10.4 a 1.2 b 20.4 a 18.6 3.1 0.4 WTT-9145 Zeraim Gedera 9.2 b 1.7 a 17.2 b 17.4 4.7 0.1 1Brix: percent soluble solids. Higher values related to higher sugar content in the fruit. 2Means in columns separated by Fisher’s least significant difference test (P ≤ 0.05), means with same letter are not significantly different. 3Firmness-Pressure: firmness of the flesh of the melon. Higher value is associated with higher firmness. 4Degree of Seedlessness: 1=0 seeds; 2=1-5 seeds; 3=>5 seeds. Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011 145 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
146 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Midwest Triploid Watermelon Variety Trial in Southwest Indiana — 2011
Shubin K. Saha, Vegetable Extension Specialist, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture Sara Hoke, Agriculture Technician, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology Southwest Purdue Agricultural Center, Vincennes, IN, 47591 Introduction In Indiana, watermelons (Citrullus lanatus L.) are the largest fresh market vegetable crop with regards to total acres in 2010 relative to all other fresh market vegetables. As an industry it had a value of more than $32 million. In 2010, Indiana ranked sixth in the United States for total area harvested (7,100 acres) of watermelon and third for average yield (40,000 lbs/acre) (USDA, 2011). Watermelons are an important commodity in Indiana, therefore improving production practices for increased sustainability and profitability is of great importance. There are various practices in commercial watermelon that can affect yield and quality. One of the fundamental starting points is the selection of a variety with good yield, desirable fruit quality traits, and one that is suited to growing under local conditions. The objective of this study was to evaluate yield and internal quality of 25 triploid watermelon varieties grown under southwestern Indiana conditions. Materials and Methods On April 14, 2011, the experiment was established when 250 seeds of each of the 25 varieties were sown. Seeds were planted in 50-cell black seedling flats (Crop Tech, Vincennes, IN) using a peat-based soilless media: Jiffy-Mix Grower’s Choice Plus (Jiffy Products of America, Lorain, Ohio). The pollenizer utilized for the trial was SP-5 and transplants of this variety were produced in the same manner. The field location was prepared by cultivating and forming raised beds covered with black plastic mulch with drip tape in the bed. Plants were irrigated as needed when rainfall was insufficient. Prior to bed formation, fertilizer materials were applied preplant, including 350 lbs. (46-0-0), 100 lbs. (0-0-60), and 200 lbs. of pelletized lime. The transplants were taken to the field on May 13, 2011, and planted in the designated locations based on the randomized complete block design with three replications. Row spacing was 8 feet center to center with 4- foot spacing between plants within the row. Experimental plots were 48 feet in length, which led to a planting density of 12 triploid plants and six pollenizers per plot. Pollenizers were interplanted in the same row as the triploid varieties arranged between each pair of triploid plants. Fruit were harvested on a weekly basis for a total of four pickings on July 26, August 2, August 9, and August 16. Aside from harvest data, fruit quality data were also collected for nine fruit from each variety for such parameters such as brix, fruit firmness, and presence of hollow heart. Yield data were analyzed by Fisher’s least significant difference test using SAS statistical programs (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
147 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Results In 2011, there were no statistically significant differences in harvest data among the 25 varieties with the exception of average fruit size. WDL9408 had the highest numerical average weight (18.3 lbs); however, statistically it had greater average fruit weight than nine of the 25 varieties (Table 1). The other 14 varieties did not differ from WDL9408 with respect to average fruit weight. Average fruit size ranged from 12.8-18.3 lbs (Table 1). As previously indicated, yield in pounds per acre did not differ statistically among the varieties in 2011, but overall the yields were slightly greater than in 2010 (Saha and Egel, 2010). In 2011 yields of fruit ranged from 42,000 to 60,000 lbs/acre (Table 1). Numerically the three varieties with the highest yield were AC7187 (59,799 lbs/acre), Troubadour (54,461 lbs/acre), and AC7267 (54,402 lbs/acre) (Table 1). RWT8231 had higher soluble solids content (11.8%) than 21 of the 25 varieties (Table 2). The other varieties that did not differ with regards to soluble solids content included Indiana, Wrigley, and Affirmed. Although RWT8231 had high soluble solids, it was one of the lowest yielding varieties numerically (43,980 lbs/acre) (Table 1). Fruit firmness of the varieties was not statistically significant. Super Seedless 7197 had the highest numerical firmness of flesh (7.7 lbs- force) (Table 2). There was some statistical variation with regards to degree of seedlessness, however they all fell in the range of no seeds with the exception of ACX6177FR (Table 2). Presence of hollow heart this season was also very minimal (Table 2). Of all the varieties, AC7267 had both relatively high sugar content and was one of the highest yielding varieties (Table 1 and 2). Acknowledgements The authors would like to extend their appreciation to the following individuals for all their help and assistance with the completion of the variety trials this year: Bill Davis, Dennis Nowaskie, and Angie Thompson. Literature Cited Saha, S.K. and D. Egel, 2010. Evaluation of seedless watermelon varieties for production in southwest Indiana, 2010. Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2010. United States Department of Agriculture, 2011. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Vegetables 2010 Summary. http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/VegeSumm/ VegeSumm-01-27-2011.pdf.
148 Table 1. Yield of seedless watermelon varieties, 2011. Average Total Fruit Total Fruit Total Fruit Weight per % 1st % 2nd % 3rd % 4th Variety Seed Company Weight Weight per Number Number Acre (lbs) Harvest Harvest Harvest Harvest (lbs)1 Plot2 (lbs) per Plot per Acre
WDL 9408 Syngenta 18.3 a 412.5 46,791 22.3 2,533.4 22.4 22.4 32.8 22.4 Super Seedless 7187 HQ Abbott & Cobb 17.6 a 527.2 59,799 30.7 3,478.8 7.6 15.2 55.4 21.7 ACX 7387 HQ Abbott & Cobb 17.5 a 450.6 51,113 25.7 2,911.6 11.7 23.4 45.5 19.5 Distinction Syngenta 17.5 a 447.7 50,782 25.7 2,911.6 11.7 27.3 41.6 19.5 Liberator (ACX 4106 T) Abbott & Cobb 17.4 ab 452.3 51,312 26.3 2,987.2 11.4 21.5 38.0 29.1 ACX 5727 T FR Abbott & Cobb 17.0 abc 455.6 51,686 27.3 3,100.6 4.9 20.7 51.2 23.2 Troubadour Harris Moran 16.9 abcd 480.1 54,461 27.0 3,062.8 13.6 27.2 48.1 11.1 Tri-X 313 Syngenta 16.9 abcd 451.7 51,241 28.3 3,214.1 7.1 18.8 45.9 28.2 Affirmed Sakata 16.8 abcd 439.6 49,872 27.7 3,138.5 7.2 21.7 41.0 30.1 WDL 9409 Syngenta 16.6 abcd 395.9 44,913 23.7 2,684.7 14.1 33.8 38.0 14.1 Cooperstown Seminis 16.4 abcd 434.9 49,333 27.0 3,062.8 4.9 23.5 46.9 24.7 ACX 6177 FR Abbott & Cobb 16.3 abcd 415.5 47,132 25.3 2,873.7 6.6 31.6 34.2 27.6 Majestic Seminis 16.3 abcd 452.2 51,300 29.3 3,327.5 6.8 18.2 39.8 35.2 Fascination Syngenta 16.1 abcd 437.4 49,621 27.7 3,138.5 13.3 26.5 32.5 27.7 Tri-X Palomar Syngenta 16.1 abcd 419.8 47,624 27.0 3,062.8 16.0 18.5 32.1 33.3 Wrigley Seminis 16.0 abcd 407.5 46,225 26.0 2,949.4 10.3 21.8 38.5 29.5 Summer Sweet 5234 Plus Abbott & Cobb 15.0 bcde 414.0 46,961 26.0 2,949.4 6.4 12.8 41.0 39.7
Crunchy Red Harris Moran 15.0 cde 414.0 46,962 29.3 3,327.5 6.8 11.4 34.1 47.7 Midwest WDL 9405 Syngenta 15.0 cde 369.0 41,864 23.7 2,684.7 7.0 23.9 35.2 33.8 RWT 8231 Syngenta 14.9 cde 387.7 43,980 26.3 2,987.2 13.9 26.6 35.4 24.1 Vegetable HMX 9911 Harris Moran 14.7 cde 463.3 52,552 30.7 3,478.8 4.3 16.3 42.4 37.0 Indiana Seedway 14.6 de 361.0 40,954 25.7 4,008.1 7.8 16.9 45.5 29.9
Super Seedless 7197 Abbott & Cobb 13.5 e 461.0 52,289 27.7 3,138.4 1.2 20.5 54.2 24.1 Trial Super Seedless 7267 HQ Abbott & Cobb 13.4 e 479.6 54,402 28.7 3,251.9 2.3 19.8 62.8 15.1 Report Imagination Syngenta 12.8 e 377.1 42,773 30.0 3,403.1 16.7 23.3 31.1 28.9
1
Means in columns separated by Fisher’s least significant difference test (P ≤ 0.05), means with same letter are not significantly different. for 2 2
Plot size = 384ft . 2011 149 150 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011 Table 2. Internal fruit quality of seedless watermelon varieties, 2011. Degree of Hollow Rind Thickness Firmness Fruit Length Fruit Variety Seed Company Brix1,2 Seedlessness3 Heart4 (in) (lbs-force)5 (in) Width (in)
RWT 8231 Syngenta 11.8 a 0.1 e 0.0 c 0.66 efgh 2.9 9.9 ijk 9.5 bcde Indiana Seedway 11.7 ab 0.0 e 0.1 bc 0.64 efgh 3.2 9.5 k 9.3 cde Wrigley Seminis 11.3 abc 0.2 e 0.4 a 0.66 efgh 2.8 11.1 bcdefgh 9.3 cde Affirmed Sakata 11.1 abcd 0.1 e 0.1 bc 0.84 abc 2.5 11.3 abcd 9.6 bcd Crunchy Red Harris Moran 10.93 bcde 0.3 de 0.0 c 0.55 h 4.0 10.4 ghij 8.9 e Super Seedless 7267 HQ Abbott & Cobb 10.9 cde 0.23 de 0.2 abc 0.75 abcdef 3.1 10.9 bcdefgh 9.7 bcd Majestic Seminis 10.8 cdef 0.1 e 0.3 ab 0.66 efgh 3.2 11.6 abc 9.5 cde WDL 9408 Syngenta 10.73 cdef 0.9 b 0.2 abc 0.74 bcdefg 3.3 11.4 abcd 9.9 bc WDL 9405 Syngenta 10.7 cdefg 0.33 cde 0.0 c 0.59 gh 3.5 11.2 bcdefg 9.6 bcd Tri-X Palomar Syngenta 10.7 cdefg 0.0 e 0.0 c 0.75 abcdef 2.9 9.9 ijk 9.6 bcd Tri-X 313 Syngenta 10.6 cdefgh 0.1 e 0.1 bc 0.79 abcde 2.8 11.3 bcd 9.8 bcd Cooperstown Seminis 10.53 cdefgh 0.0 e 0.2 abc 0.72 bcdefg 3.4 10.8 defgh 9.3 cde Liberator (ACX 4106 T) Abbott & Cobb 10.5 cdefghi 0.2 e 0.0 c 0.75 abcdef 3.8 11.5 abcd 9.5 bcde ACX 7387 HQ Abbott & Cobb 10.3 defghij 0.2 e 0.2 abc 0.66 efgh 3.4 12.1 a 9.4 cde ACX 5727 T FR Abbott & Cobb 10.3 defghij 0.1 e 0.3 ab 0.87 ab 3.4 10.5 efghi 9.9 bc Fascination Syngenta 10.2 efghijk 0.9 b 0.1 bc 0.66 efgh 3.8 10.9 cdefgh 9.4 cde ACX 6177 FR Abbott & Cobb 10.0 fghijkl 1.4 a 0.0 c 0.63 fgh 3.4 10.4 fghi 9.8 bcd Imagination Syngenta 9.9 ghijkl 0.0 e 0.0 c 0.67 defgh 2.5 9.6 jk 9.2 de Super Seedless 7187 HQ Abbott & Cobb 9.8 hijkl 0.4 cde 0.3 ab 0.81 abcd 3.2 11.3 bcd 9.6 bcd Super Seedless 7197 Abbott & Cobb 9.7 ijkl 0.4 cde 0.0 c 0.67 defgh 7.7 11.2 bcdef 9.6 bcd WDL 9409 Syngenta 9.67 jkl 0.77 bc 0.0 c 0.70 cdefgh 3.9 11.3 bcde 9.7 bcd Distinction Syngenta 9.67 jkl 0.0 e 0.0 c 0.75 abcdef 3.5 10.3 hijk 10.2 ab Troubadour Harris Moran 9.63 jkl 0.23 de 0.1 bc 0.91 a 4.7 11.7 ab 9.7 bcd Summer Sweet 5234 Abbott & Cobb 9.4 kl 0.67 bcd 0.1 bc 0.72 bcdefg 3.3 11.2 bcdefg 10.7 a HMX 9911 Harris Moran 9.3 L 0.33 cde 0.1 bc 0.64 4.8 10.4 hij 9.9 bc 1Brix: percent soluble solids. Higher values related to higher sugar content in the fruit. 2Means in columns separated by Fisher’s least significant difference test (P ≤ 0.05), means with same letter are not significantly different 3Degree of Seedlessness: 1=0 seeds; 2=1-5 seeds; 3=> 5 seeds. 4Hollow Heart: 0=no hollow heart; 1=hollow heart present. 5Pressure: firmness of the flesh of the melon. Higher values are associated with higher firmness. Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
2010 Seedless Watermelon Variety Trials in Central Missouri
Sanjun Gu and Terry Blank Lincoln University, 900 Chestnut Jefferson City, MO 65102
This paper reports on the 2010 evaluation of 13 seedless watermelon varieties. The objective of this trial was to study the influence of delayed planting on the yield and quality of seedless watermelons in central Missouri. Materials and Methods Thirteen seedless watermelon varieties were chosen for this trial (Table 1). One seeded variety, Sidekick, was used as pollenizer. The trial was conducted at Lincoln University George Washington Carver Farm (Cole County, central Missouri). Watermelon transplants were started with seeds on June 1. Seeds were wrapped with damp paper towels, enclosed in a plastic container, and placed in an incubator (25-30°C). Germinating seeds were then planted in Jiffy-7s and 804 inserts filled with Pro-Mix on June 3, and placed in a greenhouse where temperatures were kept at 22-28°C. The resulting transplants were planted 4 feet apart in a row and 10 feet apart between rows on July 15. Raised beds covered with black plastic were used in the trial. A drip line was buried under the plastic in each row. One Sidekick vine was planted for every four seedless vines and at both ends of a row to provide pollen. Vines were fertigated on July 15 with approximately 3-4 pounds of water-soluble Peter’s 20-20-20 fertilizer and again on July 30, August 16 and 31, and September 7. The general spectrum fungicide chlorothalonil was applied twice in August. The experiment was conducted as a completely randomized design with four replications. There were four plants in each replication. The one-time harvesting was done September 21-22. Watermelon fruit were harvested, weighed, and measured for sugar content (°Brix) with a hand refractometer. One medium-size fruit from each replication of a variety was chosen to measure fruit characteristics. Data were analyzed with SAS 9.1, using the mixed model for variance analyses and multiple comparisons. Significance was determined at the P≤0.05 level. Results and Discussions All varieties grew vigorously and produced ripe fruit even with the late planting date of July 15. Yield of the tested varieties ranged from 20.3 to 40.3 tons/acre, which was not statistically different. Yield per vine (the average of all fruit of a vine) was highest with Yellow Buttercup. All other varieties had similar yield per plant. Yellow Buttercup produced the highest number of fruit (seven per vine), but with relatively light fruit, an average of 11.6 pounds/fruit. Tri-X313, Tomcat, Intruder, 7167, ACX 7125T, Summer Sweet 5244, and 4674 had similar average fruit weight: about 13.5-15.9 pounds/fruit (table 1). In terms of fruit characteristics (Table 2), single fruit weight did not differ significantly, although the range is as big as 11.0 (Yellow Buttercup) to 20.1 (4674). The sugar contents (°Brix) were not different among varieties either (10.9 to 12.4). Skin color was from light green, to green, to dark green with or without stripes. SSX 7402 and 9601 were the only two varieties to have a solid dark green color. Fruit shape varied from oval to round, most varieties are long oval shaped (4674, Summer Sweet 5244, Crisp Red 5624T, ACX 7125T, 7167, Intruder, SSX 7402, and Tri-
151 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
X313); with the exceptions of Yellow Buttercup (almost a sphere);, and Cooperstown, 9601, Gypsy, and Tomcat (short oval shaped). Yellow Buttercup, Cooperstown, 4674, and Intruder had relatively thicker skin than the rest of varieties. Most varieties had some white seeds, which did not affect fruit quality. Yellow Buttercup had some cavity when over-ripe. Some fruit from Gypsy, Cooperstown, Tri-X313, 9601, and ACX 7125T had a few yellow veins. Flesh color varied from pinkish red to red with an exception of Yellow Buttercup, which had yellow flesh. The yield and fruit quality were based on one-time harvesting. During harvesting, uneven fruit size from each variety was observed. Some fruit seemed to be over-ripe while some were not fully ripe, based on cavity and relatively large variation of sugar content. However, most fruit harvested seemed to have reached their marketable size, according to the variety description. Conclusion In this delayed-planting variety trial, almost all red flesh varieties did well. Tri-X314 seemed to be the overall winner. The two solid color varieties, SSX 7402 and 9601, were excellent. The yellow flesh variety, Yellow Buttercup, seemed to produce too many fruit. The fruit skin was thicker and some fruit was over-ripe, which might be corrected by doing a series of harvests. Table 1. The 2010 evaluation of seedless watermelon varieties in central Missouri: yield.1 Number of Average Fruit Yield/vine Yield/acre Cultivar Source Fruit per Weight (lb) (ton)2 Vine (lb)
4674 AC3 3.5 cd 15.5 ab 53.2 b 26.6 Summer Sweet 5244 AC 3.6 cd 15.1 abc 53.6 b 26.3 Crispy Red 5624T AC 4.2 bcd 13.2 bcde 56.1 b 28.1 ACX 7125T AC 3.4 cd 13.5 abcde 45.6 b 22.6 7167 AC 3.0 d 13.7 abcde 40.7 b 20.3 9601 AC 4.4 bcd 13.3 bcde 56.9 b 28.4 Yellow Buttercup MCS 7.0 a 11.6 de 80.9 a 40.3 Cooperstown MCS 4.9 bc 11.3 e 55.0 b 27.4 Gypsy MCS 3.3 d 12.8 cde 41.5 b 20.3 Intruder SWS 3.9 bcd 13.7 abcde 53.2 b 26.0 SSX 7402 AC 5.2 b 11.3 e 57.7 b 28.7 Tomcat SWS 3.1 d 13.9 abcd 42.5 b 21.4 Tri-X313 AC 3.4 d 15.9 a 53.4 b 26.8 P-value4 0.0004 0.0059 0.0175 1Plants started with seeds on June 1; transplanted to the field on July 15, 2010, and harvested on September 21 and 22. 2Yield was calculated at 1,500 vines/acre, which include 2/3 seedless vines and 1/3 pollenizers. 3AC=Abbott and Cobb, Inc.; MCS=Morgan County Seeds; SWS=Southwestern Seeds. 4Numbers followed by a same letter are not significantly different.
152 Table 2. The 2010 evaluation of seedless watermelon varieties in central Missouri: fruit characteristics. Fruit Skin Length Width Flesh Cultivar Weight °Brix thickness Shape1 Skin Color Note (inch) (inch) Color (lb) (inch)
Wide green Pinkish Cavity, some black 4674 20.1 11.2 12.8 a 8.7 0.60 abc 0.68 stripes red seeds Wide green Summer Sweet 5244 17.7 11.8 11.4 ab 8.9 0.53 bc 0.78 Red Small white seeds stripes Light green Pinkish Hollow crack and a Crispy Red 5624T 14.7 12.1 10.9 bc 8.2 0.50 bc 0.75 stripes red few yellow veins Light green with Pinkish Yellow veins, a ACX 7125T 15.6 10.9 11.4 abc 8.1 0.55 bc 0.72 green stripes red few black seeds Green stripes, 7167 18.2 12.0 12.0 ab 8.8 0.47 c 0.74 Red A few black seeds light green Some yellow veins 9601 12.3 10.9 10.0 c 8.1 0.41 c 0.81 Solid dark green Red and white seeds Green. Thin and Cavity when over- Yellow Buttercup 11.0 11.7 8.3 d 8.4 0.79 a 1.01 Yellow dark green stripes ripe Wide green Yellow veins and a Cooperstown 15.2 11.0 10.6 bc 8.6 0.63 ab 0.82 Red stripes few white seeds Pinkish Yellow veins, Gypsy 16.2 11.8 10.4 bc 8.7 0.42 c 0.79 Green stripes red some white seeds Wide green Pinkish Some with a few Intruder 15.5 12.0 11.5 ab 8.3 0.62 ab 0.73
stripes red white seeds Midwest Pinkish SSX 7402 13.9 11.8 10.8 bc 8.2 0.49 bc 0.76 Solid dark green White seeds red Narrow green Vegetable Tomcat 17.7 11.3 11.4 abc 8.9 0.42 c 0.79 Red White seeds stripes Wide Green Soft, white seeds;
Tri-X313 17.0 12.4 11.8 ab 8.5 0.51 bc 0.73 Red Trial Stripes yellow veins P-value2 0.1317 0.2623 0.0003 0.4547 0.0083 Report 1Fruit shape was decided by the ratio of fruit width/length. The shape will be a sphere when the number value is one. 2 Numbers followed by a same letter are not significantly different. for 2011 153 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
154 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Authors’ Addresses Illinois Missouri Marty Williams Sanjun Gu USDA ARS Lincoln University N-325 Turner Hall 900 Chestnut 1102 S. Goodwin Ave. Jefferson, MO 65102 Urbana, IL 61801-4798 (573) 681-5524 [email protected] [email protected] Indiana New York Dan Egel Margaret T. McGrath Southwest Purdue Agr. Ctr. Cornell University 4369 N. Purdue Road Long Island Hort. Res. & Ext. Ctr. Vincennes, IN 47591 3059 Sound Ave. Tel: (812) 886-0198 Riverhead, NY 11901 [email protected] (631) 727-3595 [email protected] Elizabeth T. Maynard Purdue University Ohio 600 Vale Park Road Mark A. Bennett Valparaiso, IN 46383 The Ohio State University (219) 531-4200 Dept. of Hort. & Crop Science [email protected] 2021 Coffey Road J. Scott Monroe Columbus, OH 43210 Purdue Extension-Daviess County (614) 292-3864 214 N.E. 3rd St. [email protected] Washington, IN 47501 Brad Bergefurd (812) 254-8668 The Ohio State University [email protected] Enterprise Ctr. Econ. Dev. Shubin K. Saha 1864 Shyville Road Purdue University Piketon, OH 45661 Southwest Purdue Ag. Ctr. (740) 289-3727 4369 N. Purdue Road [email protected] Vincennes, IN 47591 Elaine M. Grassbaugh (812) 886-0198 The Ohio State University [email protected] Dept. of Hort. & Crop Science Michigan 2021 Coffey Road Columbus, OH 43210 Ron Goldy (614) 292-3858 Michigan State University [email protected] SW Michigan Res. & Ext. Ctr. 1791 Hillandale Road Benton Harbor, MI 49022 (616) 944-1477 [email protected] Continued on next page
155 Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2011
Authors’ Addresses (continued)
Ohio (continued) Matt Hofelich OARDC North Central Agr. Research Station 1165 C.R. 43 Fremont, OH 43420 (419) 332-5142 [email protected] Mark Koenig The Ohio State University OSU Extension - Sandusky Co. 2000 Countryside Drive Sandusky, OH 45891-2499 (419) 334-6340 [email protected] West Virginia Lewis W. Jett West Virginia University 2102 Agr. Sciences Bldg. Morgantown, WV 26506 (304) 293-6131, ext. 4240 [email protected]
156