midwest vegetable trial report for 2007 trial reports/11 2_full... · sources of vegetable seeds*...

Purdue Extension Bulletin Number 2007-B18246

In cooperation withCornell UniversityUniversity of IllinoisIowa State UniversityUniversity of KentuckyMichigan State UniversityNorth Dakota State UniversityThe Ohio State UniversityThe Pennsylvania State UniversitySouthern Illinois University

Purdue UniversityDepartment of Horticulture and

Landscape ArchitectureOffice of Agricultural Research ProgramsWest Lafayette, Indiana

Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2007

Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2007

Compiled by Elizabeth T. Maynard

Table of Contents Sources of Vegetable Seeds ........................................................................................................7

Muskmelon and Specialty Melon Eastern Muskmelon Trials for Southwestern Indiana, 2007 (Indiana)

Christopher C. Gunter, Melborn K. Lang, Dennis Nowaskie, and Angie Thompson .............13

Specialty Melon Variety Evaluations (Kentucky) John Strang, Katie Bale, John Snyder, Daniel Carpenter, and Chris Smigell .........................16

Powdery Mildew Resistant Muskmelon and Specialty Melon Cultivar Evaluation, New York 2007 (New York)

Margaret T. McGrath, George M. Fox, and Sandra Menasha ................................................23

Evaluation of Specialty Melon Cultivars for Southern Ohio, 2007 (Ohio) Brad R. Bergefurd and Shawn Wright ..................................................................................26

Onion Adaptability of Eight Onion Cultivars for Production in Southwest Michigan (Michigan)

Ron Goldy............................................................................................................................27

NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE Influence of Tillage and Herbicides in Onion Field Data (Year 1) (North Dakota) Sarah Gegner, Harlene Hatterman-Valenti, Walt Albus, and Collin Auwarter.......................31

NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE Weed Control Using Herbicides Applied as Micro-Rates in Onion (North Dakota) James R. Loken, Harlene Hatterman-Valenti, and Collin Auwarter.......................................33

2007 Sweet Spanish Onion Variety Trial (Pennsylvania) M.D. Orzolek .......................................................................................................................42

Pepper 2007 DSAC Pepper Variety Trial (Illinois)

Bronwyn Aly and J.D. Kindhart ...........................................................................................47

Bell Pepper Cultivar Evaluation Under High Phytophthora capsici Incidence (Illinois) S. Alan Walters, Jamie R. Stieg, Jason P. Bond, and M. Babadoost ......................................48

Evaluation of Twelve Pepper Cultivars in Southwest Michigan (Michigan) Ron Goldy............................................................................................................................52

Evaluation of Bell Pepper Cultivars for Southern Ohio, 2007 (Ohio) Brad R. Bergefurd and Shawn Wright ..................................................................................55

Continued on next page

3

Table of Contents (continued) Pumpkin Small Pumpkin Cultivar Trial Using No-Till Culture in Southern Illinois (Illinois)

S. Alan Walters ....................................................................................................................57

Pumpkin Cultivar Observation Trial, Indiana 2007 (Indiana) Elizabeth T. Maynard ...........................................................................................................61

Weed Control in No-Till Pumpkins (Indiana) Elizabeth T. Maynard ...........................................................................................................66

Hard-Rinded Pumpkin Cultivar Evaluation for Phytophthora Fruit Rot, New York 2007 (New York)

Margaret T. McGrath and George M. Fox ............................................................................72

Powdery Mildew Resistant Pumpkin Cultivar Evaluation, New York 2007 (New York) Margaret T. McGrath, George M. Fox, and Sandra Menasha ................................................75

Pumpkin Cultivar Evaluation in Ohio, 2007 (Ohio) Bob Precheur, Jim Jasinski, Mac Riedel, Landon Rhodes, Mike Kelly, and Alvaro Trierweiler............................................................78

Squash Evaluation of Summer Squash Cultivars for Southern Ohio, 2007 (Ohio)

Brad R. Bergefurd and Shawn Wright ..................................................................................81

Powdery Mildew Resistant Winter Squash Cultivar Evaluation, New York 2007 (New York) Margaret T. McGrath, George M. Fox, and Sandra Menasha ................................................82

Powdery Mildew Resistant Zucchini Squash Cultivar Evaluation, New York 2007 (New York) Margaret T. McGrath, George M. Fox, and Sandra Menasha ................................................85

Sweet Corn Sweet Corn Hybrid Disease Nursery — 2007 (Illinois)

Jerald Pataky, Marty Williams, Bryan Warsaw, Mike Meyer, and Jim Moody......................91

Public Evaluation of Sweet Corn Eating Quality, Northern Indiana, 2007 (Indiana) Elizabeth T. Maynard ......................................................................................................... 105

Sugar-Enhanced Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Northern Indiana, 2007 (Indiana) Elizabeth T. Maynard ......................................................................................................... 108

Supersweet Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Northern Indiana, 2007 (Indiana) Elizabeth T. Maynard ......................................................................................................... 112


4

Table of Contents (continued) Sweet Corn (continued) Sweet Corn Population Effects on Yield and Ear Quality, 2007 (Indiana)

Elizabeth T. Maynard ......................................................................................................... 116

Sweet Corn Cultivar Trial — 2007 (Iowa) Vince Lawson .................................................................................................................... 120

Super Sweet Corn Evaluations in Central Kentucky (Kentucky) John Strang, Katie Bale, Chris Smigell, Darrell Slone, and John Snyder............................. 123

Super Sweet Corn Evaluations in Eastern Kentucky, 2007 (Kentucky) Terry Jones and Stephanie Dunn ........................................................................................ 126

2007 Sugary-Enhanced and Shrunken 2 Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Southeast Michigan (Michigan)

Hannah Stevens.................................................................................................................. 129

Tomato On-Farm Evaluation of Tomato Cultivars for Disease Resistance, 2007 (Indiana)

Dan Egel, Butch Zandstra, and Elizabeth Maynard............................................................. 135

2007 Tomato Cultivar Trial for Southern Illinois (Illinois) J.D. Kindhart and Bronwyn Aly ......................................................................................... 137

Season Extension of Tomatoes Using High Tunnel Technology in Eastern Kentucky (Kentucky) Terry Jones, Stephanie Dunn, and John Snyder .................................................................. 138

Yield and Income of Fall Staked Tomato Cultivars in Eastern Kentucky (Kentucky) R. Terry Jones, Crystal Sparks, and John C. Snyder............................................................ 142

High-Tunnel Yields Differ Among 20 Tomato Cultivars (Michigan) Ron Goldy.......................................................................................................................... 148

Nutrient Alternatives for Fresh Market Tomato and Cucumber Production (Michigan) Ron Goldy.......................................................................................................................... 151

Evaluation of Fresh Market Tomato Cultivars for Southern Ohio, 2007 (Ohio) Brad R. Bergefurd and Shawn Wright ................................................................................ 154

Watermelon Seedless Watermelon Cultivar Trials for Southwestern Indiana, 2007 (Indiana)

Christopher C. Gunter, Melborn K. Lang, Dennis Nowaskie, and Angie Thompson ........... 157


5

Table of Contents (continued) Watermelon (continued) Watermelon Cultivar Trial — 2007 (Iowa)

Vince Lawson and Henry Taber ......................................................................................... 165

Seedless and Seeded Watermelon Variety Evaluations (Kentucky) John Strang, Katie Bale, John Snyder, Daniel Carpenter, and Chris Smigell ....................... 169

Mixed Crops Organic/Transitional Edamame (Vegetable Soybean) and Sweet Corn Seedling Establishment — 2007 (Ohio)

Mark Bennett, Elaine Grassbaugh, Jordan Miller, and Brian McSpadden Gardener ............ 175

Use of ABA (Abscisic Acid) and PEG 8000 (Polyethylene Glycol) to Control Vegetable Transplant Height — 2007 (Ohio)

Mark Bennett, Elaine Grassbaugh, and Matt Hofelich ........................................................ 178

Authors’ Addresses................................................................................................................. 183

6

Sources of Vegetable Seeds* Seed Code Seed Company Name and Address

AC Abbott and Cobb, Inc., PO Box 307, Trevose, PA 19053-0307; (800) 345-SEED; www.abbottcobb.com

ACR Alf Christianson Seed Co., PO Box 98, Mount Vernon, WA 98273; (360) 336-9727; www.chriseed.com

AT American Takii, Inc., 301 Natividad Road, Salinas, CA 93906; (831) 443-4901; www.takii.com

BC Baker Creek Heirloom Seeds, 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-seed.com

BE Bejo Seeds, Inc., 1972 Silver Spur Place, Oceano, CA 93445; (805) 473-2199; www.bejoseeds.com

BHN BHN Seed, PO Box 3267 Immokalee, FL 34142; (239) 352-1100; Fax: (239) 352-1981; www.bhnseed.com

BS Bodger Seed Ltd., 1800 North Tyler Ave., South El Monte, CA 91733; www.bodger.com

BU Burpee, 300 Park Ave., Warminster, PA 18991; www.burpee.com

CS Chesmore Seed Co., PO Box 8363, St. Joseph, MO 64508

CE Centest Seeds, 23017 Rte. 173, Harvard, IL 60033

CF Cliftons Seed Co., 2586 NC 43 West, Faison, NC 28341; www.cliftonseed.com

CO Cook’s Garden Seed, PO Box 5010, Hodges, SC 29653; 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., PO Box 520, Caldwell, ID 83606; www.crookham.com

DP D. Palmer Seed Co., 8269 South Highway 95 (at Mile Post 35), Yuma, AZ 85365; Fax: (928) 341-8496; www.dpalmerseed.com

DR DeRuiter Seeds, Inc., 13949 W. Colfax Ave, Building #1, Suite 220, Lakewood, CO 80401; (303)-274-5511; Fax: (303)-274-5514; www.deruiterusa.com

*We would like to express our appreciation to the seed companies that provided seeds and support for these Midwest vegetable trials.


7

Sources of Vegetable Seeds* (continued) Seed Code Seed Company Name and Address

DVG Dutch Valley Growers, Inc., PO Box 304, South Holland, IL 60473; Fax: (708) 333-1029; www.dutchvalleygrowers.com

EV Evergreen Seeds, Evergreen YH Enterprises, PO Box 17538, Anaheim, CA 92817; (714) 637-5769; www.evergreenseeds.com

EW East/West Seed International Ltd., No. 50/1 Moo 2, Sainoi-Bang Bua Thong Road, Amphur Sainoi, Nonthaburi 11150, Thailand; www.eastwestseed.com

EX Express Seed, 51051 US Highway 20, Oberlin, OH 44074; (800) 774-2259; Fax: (440) 774-2728; www.expressseed.com

EZ Enza Zaden, PO Box 7, 1600 AA, Enkhuisen, Netherlands 02280-15844; www.enzazaden.com

GU Gurney’s Seed and Nursery Co., PO Box 4178, Greendale, IN 47025-4178; (513) 354-1491; www.Gurneys.com

HM Harris Moran Seed Company, PO Box 4938, Modesto, CA 95352; (209) 579-7333; Fax: (209) 527-5312; www.harrismoran.com

HR Harris Seeds, 60 Saginaw Drive, Box 22960, Rochester, NY 14692; (800) 514-4441; Fax: (716) 442-9386; www.harrisseeds.com

HL Hollar & Co., Inc., PO Box 106, Rocky Ford, CO 81067; 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., PO Box 1565, Haifa, Israel; www.hazerainc.com

IFS Illinois Foundation Seeds, PO Box 722, Champaign, IL 61824-0722; (217) 485-6260; Fax: (217) 485-3687; www.seedgenetics.com

J Jordan Seeds, Inc., 6400 Upper Afton Road, Woodbury, MN 55125; (651) 738-3422; www.jordanseeds.com

JS Johnny’s Selected Seeds, Foss Hill Road, Albion, ME 04910-9731; (877) 564-6697; www.johnnyseeds.com

JU Jung Seed and Nursery, Randolph, WI 53957; (800) 297-3123; www.jungseed.com

KU Known-You Seed Co., LTD., 26 Chung Cheng 2nd Road, Kauhsiung, Taiwan 80271; www.knownyou.com



8


MM Mesa Maize, Inc., PO Box 250, 202 Industrial Ave., Olathe, CO 81425; www.mesamaize.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 Road, Fletcher, NC 28732

NS New England Seed Co., 3580 Main St., Hartford, CT 06120; (800) 825-5477; www.neseed.com

OS L.L. Olds Seed Co., PO Box 7790, Madison, WI 53707-7790

P Pacific Seed Production Co., 94904 Highway 99 E, PO Box 85, Junction City, OR 97448; (800) 547-8004; www.forbesseed.com/PacificSeedProduction.htm

PA/PK Park Seed Co., 1 Parkton Ave., Greenwood, SC 29647-0002; www.parkseed.com

PG The Pepper Gal, PO Box 23006, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33307-3006; www.peppergal.com

PT Pinetree Garden Seeds, PO Box 300, New Gloucester, ME 04260; www.superseeds.com

PL Pure Line Seeds, Inc., Box 8866, Moscow, ID; www.purelineseed.com

R Reed’s Seeds, 3334 N.Y.S. Rt. 215, Cortland, NY 13045-9440

RI Rispens Seeds, Inc., 1357 Dutch American Way, Beecher, IL 60401; (888) 874-0241; www.rispensseeds.com

RU Rupp Seeds, Inc., 17919-Co. Road B, Wauseon, OH 43567; (800) 700-1199; www.ruppseeds.com

SK Sakata Seeds America, Inc., PO Box 880, Morgan Hill, CA 95038-0880; (408) 778-7758; www.sakata.com

SC Scott Seeds, 4876 N. Road H., Vale, OR 97918; (541) 473-3246

S Seeds Trust, PO Box 596, Cornville, AZ 86325; (928) 649-3315; www.seedstrust.com

SW Seedway, Inc., 99 Industrial Road, Elizabethtown, PA 17022; (800) 952-7333; Fax: (800) 645-2574; www.seedway.com

SM, Sem Seminis Inc., 2700 Camino del Sol, Oxnard, CA 93030; us.seminis.com



9


SnRv 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; (408) 771-1500; Fax: (408) 771-1517

SI/SG Siegers Seed Co., 13031 Reflections Drive, Holland, MI 49424; (800) 962-4999; www.siegers.com

SWS Southwestern Seeds, PO Box 11449, Casa Grande, AZ 85230; (520) 836-7595; Fax: (520) 836-0117; www.southwesternseed.com

ST Stokes Seeds, Inc., PO Box 548, 737 Main St., Buffalo, NY 14240; www.stokeseeds.com

SY/RG Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Rogers Brands, 600 North Armstrong Place (83704), PO Box 4188, Boise, ID 83711-4188; (208) 322-7272; Fax: (208) 378-6625; www.rogersadvantage.com

TR Territorial Seed Company, PO Box 157, Cottage Grove, OR 97424; www.territorialseed.com

TGS Tomato Growers Supply, PO Box 2237, Fort Myers, FL 33902; www.tomatogrowers.com

TW Twilley Seeds Co., Inc., PO Box 65, Trevose, PA 19047; www.twilleyseed.com

UG United Genetics, 8000 Fairview Road, Hollister, CA 95023; (831) 636-4882; Fax: (831) 636-4883 www.unitedgenetics.com

UA US Agriseeds, 3424 Roberto Court, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401; (805) 547-9391; Fax: (805) 547-9395; www.usagriseeds.com

US US Seedless, 325 E. Walnut Street, Perkasie, PA 18944, (877) 332-7733; www.usseedless.com

VL Vilmorin Inc., 2551 North Dragoon, 131 Tucson, AZ 85745; (520) 884 0011; Fax: (520) 884 5102; www.vilmorin.com



10


WI Willhite Seed Co., PO Box 23, Poolville, TX 76076; (800) 828-1840; Fax: (817) 599-5843; www.willhiteseed.com

WP Wood Prairie Farm, 49 Kinney Road, Bridgewater, ME 04735; (800) 829-9765; www.woodprairie.com

ZG Zeraim NAFTA Inc., 3101 SW 34th Ave., #905, PMB 195, Ocala FL 34474, (979) 200-1876, Fax: (979) 272-9504; www.zeraimgedera.com


11

Eastern Muskmelon Trials for Southwestern Indiana, 2007

Christopher C. Gunter1*, Melborn K. Lang2, Dennis Nowaskie2, Angie Thompson2 1 Currently, Department of Horticulture Science, 230 Kilgore Hall, Box 7609, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609; Formerly, Southwest Purdue

Agricultural Program, Vincennes, IN 47591 2Southwest Purdue Agricultural Center, Vincennes, IN 47591

*Vegetable Production Specialist and the author to whom correspondence should be addressed Indiana is a leader in the nation for the production of eastern muskmelon, with Knox, Sullivan, and Gibson counties ranking in the nation’s top 100 melon producing counties. The evaluation of newly released varieties and advanced experimental breeding lines in an independent assessment is extremely valuable for growers and seed producers in the commercial melon industry. The objective of this study was to comparatively evaluate and identify potential new cultivars and advanced experimental breeding lines that may be adaptable to the growing conditions in southwestern Indiana. Growers are seeking high yielding, high quality, early maturing types with excellent disease resistance and acceptable keeping quality during shipping and storage. Fruit need to be medium to large and have high uniformity in both size and shape. Traditionally, markets have demanded fruit with heavy netting and distinct ridges. Melons that can be stored and held easily for longer periods, and those that can be harvested at a slightly earlier slip-stage and still retain acceptable quality, would also be desirable.

Experiment Setup Sixteen eastern muskmelon cultivars and advanced experimental lines were evaluated in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Each entry was first direct seeded in the greenhouse on April 17, 2007, and transplanted into the field on May 14. Plots consisted of single, 55-foot long rows, covered with 4-foot wide black plastic mulch. Rows were centered 6 feet apart, and between-plant spacing (within a row) was 2.5 feet, allowing 22 plants per row. Each variety and experimental line was grown in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the 2007 Midwest Vegetable Production Guide for Commercial Growers (Purdue Extension publication ID-56). Trickle irrigation lines placed beneath the plastic mulch provided water as needed. Fruits were harvested three times per week by hand from July 9 through August 3, 2007. Data were analyzed with the SAS Software package (SAS Corp., Cary, NC).

Results High Yield, Earliness, and Internal Quality Rating The average yield was 23.0 tons per acre, with a range of 20.9 tons to 26.5 tons per acre (Table 1). The mean fruit weight was 6.6 pounds per fruit, with a range of 5.2 to 7.7 pounds per fruit. This translated to 4,884 to 9,504 fruit per acre, with a mean fruit number of 7,180 fruit per acre. ‘Minerva’ had the highest yield in this year’s trial, followed by ‘Crescent Moon,’ ‘RML 0410,’ and ‘SSX 1029.’ The earliest fruit in this trial were harvested at 83 days. Quality ratings of each tested variety or advanced experimental line showed variability in soluble solids, shape, size, uniformity, flavor, netting, and degree of ridges on the fruit surface (Table 2). Selected comments noted during quality evaluation are mentioned here: ‘Aphrodite,’ ‘ES594,’ and ‘05H15’ all had soluble solids at or above 11% (brix). The highest flavor ratings in this trial were

13

‘SSX 1099’ and ‘RML 0408.’ Most fruit were medium to large, with average uniformity. Heavy netting, a thick rind, and a small seed cavity are also desirable characteristics, and ‘ES 293’ and ‘05H015’ had all of these characteristics. Table 1. Yield comparison of Eastern muskmelon cultivars in Southwestern Indiana, 2007.

% of Fruit Harvested Between: Cultivar Seed Source

Days to Harvest

Yield Cwt./A

Yield Tons/A

Fruit No./A

Average Fruit

Weight (lbs.)

7/9-7/13 7/14-7/29 7/30-8/3

Minerva RG 86 529.8 26.5 6,908 7.7 11 55 34 Crescent Moon SE 83 494.5 24.7 6,556 7.6 23 55 22 RML 0410 RG 85 486.4 24.3 7,480 6.5 20 49 31 SSX 1029 STS 84 484.4 24.2 5,632 8.6 18 59 23 SSX 1099 STS 84 481.9 24.1 9,504 5.1 8 66 26 ES 293 AC 91 478.8 23.9 4,884 9.9 1 55 44 Diva HM 85 466.0 23.3 7,172 6.5 12 73 15 ES 594 AC 87 460.4 23.0 6,776 6.8 3 52 45 Aphrodite RG 84 457.6 22.9 6,864 6.7 26 54 20 Jaipur SM 87 444.0 22.2 7,788 5.7 9 71 20 Rockstar SE 83 443.5 22.2 6,952 6.4 44 47 9 Athena RG 83 437.4 21.9 8,316 5.2 31 43 26 RML 0408 RG 84 431.7 21.6 6,556 6.6 14 69 17 RML 0409 RG 83 425.7 21.3 7,524 5.6 25 55 20 05H015 SE 83 424.1 21.2 7,832 5.4 47 40 13 Strike HL 84 417.5 20.9 8,140 5.2 42 37 21 Grand Mean 84.8 460.2 23.0 7,180 6.6 21.0 55.1 24.0 LSD (5%) 2.8 47.1 2.4 739 0.4 11.9 13.6 8.6 C.V. (%) 2.2 6.2 6.2 16 4.1 34.1 14.8 21.9

14

Tabl

e 2.

Qua

lity

com

paris

on o

f Eas

tern

mus

kmel

on c

ultiv

ars i

n so

uthw

este

rn In

dian

a, 2

007.

Cul

tivar

Se

ed

Sour

ce

%

SSq

Shap

er

Size

s U

nifo

rmity

t Fl

avor

u N

ettin

gv

Rid

gesw

R

indx

Se

ed

Cav

ityy

Pres

sure

z

Min

erva

R

G

10.1

O

v V

L 2

1.9

3 3

2 M

-L

4.0

Cre

scen

t Moo

n SE

7.

2 O

v L

2 1.

7 3

3 2

M

1.5

RM

L 04

10

RG

9.

0 R

M

2

1.3

3 1

1 M

1.

0 SS

X 1

029

STS

6.5

R-O

b L-

VL

1 3.

6 3

1 1

S 2.

0 SS

X 1

099

STS

10.5

R

S

3 4.

6 3

0.5

0.5

S 2.

0 ES

293

A

C

10.4

O

v V

L 2

3.0

3 1

2 S

4.0

Div

a H

M

9.5

Ob

L 3

3.0

3 1

1 M

2.

5 ES

594

A

C

11.0

O

v L

2 3.

3 3

1 2

S 6.

0 A

phro

dite

R

G

11.1

R

M

3

2.9

3 1

1 L

2.0

Jaip

ur

SM

9.0

R

S 2

2.9

3 2

2 L

3.5

Roc

ksta

r SE

9.

5 O

v M

3

3.4

2 2

2 S

3.0

Ath

ena

RG

9.

0 O

b S

2 3.

9 2

1 1

S 2.

5 R

ML

0408

R

G

9.0

R

S 3

4.1

2 1

1 S

2.0

RM

L 04

09

RG

10

.5

R

S 3

2.9

2 1.

5 1

S 3.

0 05

H01

5 SE

11

.0

R

M

3 2.

0 3

2 2

S 2.

0 St

rike

HL

8.0

Ob

S 3

2.1

3 1

1 S

2.5

q %SS

= P

erce

nt S

olub

le S

olid

s: th

e hi

gher

the

valu

e, th

e gr

eate

r the

am

ount

of t

otal

suga

r. r S

hape

: Rd=

roun

d, O

v=ov

al, O

b=ob

long

. s S

ize:

S=s

mal

l, M

=med

ium

, L=l

arge

, VL=

very

larg

e.

t Uni

form

ity (1

to 3

): 1=

lack

all

unifo

rm/v

aria

ble,

2=a

vera

ge, 3

=ver

y un

iform

. u F

lavo

r (1

to 5

): 1=

very

poo

r, 3=

acce

ptab

le, 5

=gre

at.

v Net

ting

(1 to

3):

1=w

eak,

2=m

oder

ate,

3=h

eavy

. wR

idge

s (0

to 3

): 0=

abse

nt, 1

=lig

ht, 2

=mod

erat

e, 3

=hea

vy/la

rge.

x R

ind

(1 to

3):

1=th

in, 2

=mod

erat

e, 3

=thi

ck.

y See

d ca

vity

: S=s

mal

l, M

=med

ium

, L=l

arge

, VL=

very

larg

e.

Z Pre

ssur

e =

Pres

sure

test

read

ing

(in p

ound

s per

squa

re in

ch).

15

Specialty Melon Variety Evaluations John Strang, Katie Bale, John Snyder, Daniel Carpenter and Chris Smigell Department of Horticulture, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546

Thirty-one specialty melon varieties were evaluated in a replicated trial for their performance under Kentucky conditions. These included ananas, Asian, canary, gourmet, hami, honeydew, hybrid, Eastern muskmelon, muskmelon galia crosses, and specialty-type melons.

Materials and Methods Varieties were seeded on April 26 into Styrofoam plug trays (72 cells per tray) at the Horticulture Research Farm in Lexington. Plug trays were set on a greenhouse bench to germinate seeds and seedlings were subsequently thinned to one per cell. Plants were set into black plastic-mulched, raised beds using a waterwheel setter on May 24. Each plot was 21 feet long, with seven plants set 3 feet apart within the row. Rows were spaced 6 feet apart. Each treatment was replicated four times in a randomized complete block design.

Fifty lbs./A N as ammonium nitrate and 100 lbs./A K as 0-0-60 were applied to the soil and incorporated into the field prior to bed shaping and planting. Drip irrigation was used to provide water and fertilizer as needed. The plot was fertigated with a total of 27 lbs./A N as ammonium nitrate divided into four applications over the season. Twelve and a half pounds of Epsom salts were applied through the irrigation lines. The systemic insecticide Admire 2F was applied with a hand sprayer as a drench to the base of each plant after transplanting; using the maximum rate of 24 fl. oz./A. Foliar insecticide applications included Pounce and Capture. Weekly foliar fungicide applications included fixed copper, Quadris, Bravo, Cabrio, Abound, and Nova. Curbit and Sandea pre-emergent herbicides were applied and incorporated between the rows, just as the vines began to grow off the plastic mulch. One fruit from each replication was measured and evaluated for flavor, soluble solids, interior color, rind color, and net type.

Results A hailstorm on June 5 killed some plants and damaged many others. Dead and severely damaged plants were replaced. The growing season was hot and very dry, making it an excellent one for melon quality. During most of the season vine cover was thick with no plant death. No virus was observed. By the end of the season powdery mildew became established on some of the more susceptible varieties. Fruit were generally harvested twice a week. Harvest and evaluation data are in Tables 1 and 2. Most melon varieties evaluated previously performed well again. Varieties are grouped by melon type and listed in order of declining yield within the grouping.

Honeydew NUN 7225, Honey Brew, Nun 7227, and Temptation #1 were all excellent honeydews. Unfortunately, the NUN varieties are not on the market. Surface checking and cracking, which are problems in wet seasons, were minimal this year. Honey Brew, which has done well in previous trials, and NUN 7227 were rated as having the best flavor. Temptation #1 also had a nice flavor and had orange flesh. Bartlett is a very attractive, bright yellow honeydew. The flesh is slightly crisp and very good. Honey Yellow, a smaller melon, had the highest sugar content of the honeydew melons and excellent flavor. Its dark yellow rind was very attractive. It had some

16

cracking problems following a rain and will need to be tested further. Several varieties developed small rusty spots on the surface, which we have not encountered before.

Canary Sugar Nut is a small melon and Golden Beauty is a large one. Both again performed exceptionally well, producing high yields of high-quality, attractive melons with few or no culls.

Muskmelon Galia Crosses The three melons of this type had very attractive, excellent tasting, very firm, orange flesh. Sweetie and Pixie had the best flavor and sugar contents. Sweetie was the larger of the melons and Pixie the smallest. Harvest maturity in this melon type is assessed by looking for yellow highlights on the rind.

Asian Sprite is an outstanding Asian melon and has been consistent in our trials over the years. It is a small, cream-colored melon with crisp flesh that has a strong consumer following. Jade Delight yielded well, but was somewhat difficult to determine harvest maturity on.

Specialty Melon These melons do not seem to fit into any of the melon classes. Sunrise and Napoli resemble small, tightly netted cantaloupes on the exterior, but they do not have the musky flavor of cantaloupes, and Napoli has creamy green flesh. Melon flavor and flesh texture are excellent. The fruit of both varieties are very uniform in size and have a relatively long harvest period. These varieties have the potential to be developed into a specialty niche market.

Eastern Muskmelon Wrangler and Athena were the top Eastern muskmelons in this trial. Athena is the industry standard. Wrangler is a small Tuscan muskmelon and very distinctive in that it has very attractive green sutures that make it stand out. Wrangler was superior to Athena in flavor and sugar content.

Ananas Abu was the only ananas melon in the trial and a good one. Unlike other melons of this type, Abu has orange, instead of cream colored, flesh. Ananas melons should be harvested daily, because of their rapid ripening, short harvest window, and short storage life. A number of these melons were not harvested due to over maturity because our twice-weekly harvest was not frequent enough for these varieties.

Hami These melons are very popular in China and have a crisp flesh similar to watermelons. New Century is a very high quality hami melon. The window was narrow for determining the optimum maturity to obtain the highest sugar content. Consequently, a number of melons split and decayed with our twice a week harvest and yield was reduced.

Gourmet Sensation is an outstanding melon in its appearance, flavor, and sugar content. It has performed exceptionally well in previous years. The high temperatures of this season accelerated ripening

17

and our twice weekly harvest left many over mature melons in the field, substantially reducing yield.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the following persons for their hard work and assistance in the successful completion of this trial: Matthew Anderson, Katie Arambasick, Jessica Ballard, Charles Bobrowski, Ekkapot Boonnu, Ryan Capito, Jessica Cole, Carolyce Dungan, Christopher Fuehr, Lucas Hanks, Dave Lowry, Jackie Neal, Amy Poston, Kirk Ranta, Kiefer Shuler, Matthew Simpson, Matthew Stewart, Danurit Supamoon, Joseph Tucker, Bonka Vaneva, David Wayne, and Terry Williams.

18

Tabl

e 1.

Spe

cial

ty m

elon

var

iety

tria

l yie

lds a

nd fr

uit c

hara

cter

istic

s, Le

xing

ton,

Ky.

, 200

7.

Out

side

Mea

sure

men

ts

Seed

Cav

ity

Var

iety

M

elon

Ty

pe1

Seed

So

urce

D

ays t

o H

arve

st

Yie

ld

(cw

t/A)2

A

vg. N

o.

Mel

ons/A

Avg

. W

t./Fr

uit

(lbs.)

Cul

ls

(%)

Leng

th

(in.)

Wid

th

(in.)

Fles

h Th

ickn

ess

(in.)

Leng

th

(in.)

Wid

th

(in.)

Des

taca

do

HD

SM

85

-90

1,08

2 a

14

,866

7.

3 1

7.9

7.5

2.3

4.5

3.1

NU

N 7

225

HD

N

U

85

887

ab

14,4

34

6.2

0 7.

9 6.

9 2.

0 4.

8 2.

9 B

artle

tt H

D

BU

88

83

9 b

cd

10,8

04

7.8

1 9.

1 8.

4 2.

0 6.

1 4.

6 H

oney

Bre

w

HD

R

U

90

826

bcd

11

,149

7.

4 1

8.8

7.1

1.8

5.6

3.4

NU

N 7

227

HD

N

U

80

795

bcd

e 13

,396

6.

0 1

7.4

7.1

2.2

4.4

2.8

HM

X45

93

HD

H

M

85-9

0 73

5 b

cdef

11

,841

6.

3 1

7.8

7.0

1.8

4.7

3.2

Tem

ptat

ion

#1

HD

SK

85

-90

733

bcd

ef

11,4

09

6.4

2 8.

5 7.

4 2.

1 5.

4 3.

1 Sa

lmon

Dew

H

D

RU

80

73

2 b

cdef

11

,581

6.

3 4

7.9

7.3

2.1

4.9

3.2

Hon

ey S

tar

HD

N

U

90

725

bcd

efg

11,4

09

6.4

0 9.

1 7.

7 1.

6 6.

3 4.

5 H

oney

Yel

low

H

D

JS

71

551

fghi

j 17

,545

3.

2 11

6.

5 5.

9 1.

6 4.

0 2.

5 H

oney

Ora

nge

HD

JS

85

49

9 h

ij 10

,631

4.

7 3

7.7

6.6

1.6

5.1

3.3

Gol

den

Bea

uty

CA

JS

80

76

4 b

cde

12,1

86

6.3

2 9.

0 6.

6 1.

5 6.

2 3.

3 G

olde

n La

dy

CA

K

U

79

734

bcd

ef

25,4

96

2.9

1 6.

5 5.

2 1.

4 4.

1 2.

6 Su

gar N

ut

CA

JS

77

72

4 b

cdef

g 24

,459

3.

0 1

6.2

5.1

1.6

3.5

1.9

Swee

tie

MG

K

U

85

730

bcd

ef

16,5

94

4.4

2 7.

1 6.

2 1.

8 4.

2 2.

6 H

SR 4

290

MG

H

L 80

-85

655

def

ghi

19,3

60

3.4

0 6.

5 6.

0 1.

7 4.

3 2.

7 Pi

xie

MG

H

L 80

47

9 ij

16

,076

3.

0 3

5.7

5.5

1.6

3.4

2.1

Jade

Del

ight

A

S N

U

80

868

bc

12,7

91

6.8

0 7.

7 6.

9 2.

0 4.

8 2.

9 Sp

rite

AS

CF

90

661

def

ghi

51,5

11

1.3

1 4.

9 4.

0 1.

0 3.

3 2.

2 Su

n A

S K

U

80

553

fghi

j 14

,261

3.

9 15

7.

7 6.

4 1.

7 5.

4 3.

3 Ja

de L

ady

AS

KU

75

55

0 fg

hij

12,7

91

4.4

6 7.

3 6.

6 1.

7 4.

6 3.

1 Ja

de F

low

er

AS

KU

80

54

3 fg

hij

13,1

37

4.2

4 7.

8 6.

4 1.

6 5.

1 3.

2 1 M

elon

type

: AN

= a

nana

s, A

S =

Asi

an m

elon

, CA

= c

anar

y, G

O =

gou

rmet

, HA

= h

ami,

HD

= h

oney

dew

, MG

= m

uskm

elon

gal

ia c

ross

, MM

= e

aste

rn

mus

kmel

on, S

P =

spec

ialty

type

. 2 N

umbe

rs fo

llow

ed b

y th

e sa

me

lette

r are

not

sign

ifica

ntly

diff

eren

t (W

alle

r-D

unca

n LS

D P

= 0

.05)

. Cw

t/A =

hun

dred

wei

ghts

(100

-lb. u

nits

) per

acr

e.

3 Cul

l per

cent

by

wei

ght.

Cont

inue

d on

nex

t pag

e

19

Tabl

e 1

(con

tinue

d)

Out

side

Mea

sure

men

ts

Seed

Cav

ity

Var

iety

M

elon

Ty

pe1

Seed

So

urce

D

ays t

o H

arve

st

Yie

ld

(cw

t/A)2

A

vg. N

o.

Mel

ons/A

Avg

. W

t./Fr

uit

(lbs.)

Cul

ls

(%)

Leng

th

(in.)

Wid

th

(in.)

Fles

h Th

ickn

ess

(in.)

Leng

th

(in.)

Wid

th

(in.)

Gol

den

Priz

e A

S K

U

85

532

ghi

j 11

,409

4.

7 6

8.7

6.3

1.6

7.0

3.2

Sunr

ise

SP

EV

72

681

cde

fgh

20,6

56

3.3

2 5.

4 5.

3 1.

6 3.

3 2.

3 N

apol

i SP

EV

72

62

6 e

fghi

19

,101

3.

3 2

5.6

5.4

1.7

3.4

2.0

Ath

ena

MM

SW

79

62

1 e

fghi

11

,236

5.

5 4

7.5

6.6

1.8

4.8

3.0

Wra

ngle

r M

M

HL

85

609

efg

hi

16,5

94

3.7

6 7.

0 5.

6 1.

7 4.

6 2.

3 St

rike

MM

H

L 80

-85

562

fghi

j 10

,458

5.

4 12

8.

3 6.

6 2.

1 5.

4 2.

5 A

bu

AN

N

S 90

-95

678

cde

fgh

11,5

81

5.8

2 8.

6 6.

6 1.

9 5.

4 2.

9 N

ew C

entu

ry

HA

K

U

85

511

hij

8,29

7 6.

1 5

10.1

6.

8 1.

9 7.

2 3.

0 Se

nsat

ion

GO

H

L/R

U

80

405

j 8,

297

4.9

14

7.0

6.4

1.6

4.1

3.2

1 Mel

on ty

pe: A

N =

ana

nas,

AS

= A

sian

mel

on, C

A =

can

ary,

GO

= g

ourm

et, H

A =

ham

i, H

D =

hon

eyde

w, M

G =

mus

kmel

on g

alia

cro

ss, M

M =

eas

tern

m

uskm

elon

, SP

= sp

ecia

lty ty

pe.

2 Num

bers

follo

wed

by

the

sam

e le

tter a

re n

ot si

gnifi

cant

ly d

iffer

ent (

Wal

ler-

Dun

can

LSD

P =

0.0

5). C

wt/A

= h

undr

edw

eigh

ts (1

00-lb

. uni

ts) p

er a

cre.

3 C

ull p

erce

nt b

y w

eigh

t.

20

Table 2. Specialty melon trial fruit characteristics, Lexington, Ky., 2007.

Variety Flavor (1-5)1 Sugar (%)

Interior Color2

Rind Color3

Fruit Shape

Net Type4 Comments

Destacado 4.4 14.6 lt. gr. lt cr. gr. round na

Soft, slightly grainy flesh; little or no surface checking; develops small rusty spots on rind; harvest when rind turns a cream color

NUN 7225 4.4 15.9 lt. gr. cr. oval na Firm flesh; excellent flavor; very few surface blemishes; doesn’t slip; harvest when rind is cream colored and waxy

Bartlett 4.1 15.2 lt. gr. by. oblong na Slightly crunchy flesh; attractive; doesn’t slip; harvest when dark yellow

Honey Brew 4.6 15.1 cr. gr. cr. gr. oblong na Slightly crisp flesh; excellent flavor; harvest when rind is waxy

NUN 7227 4.6 16.3 lt. gr. cr. round na Crunchy flesh; nice flavor; doesn’t slip; harvest when rind is waxy and a dark cream color

HMX 4593 3.9 14.8 lt. gr. cr. oval na Firm flesh; rind develops small rusty spots; doesn’t slip; harvest when rind is cream colored and waxy

Temptation #1 4.3 15.0 or. cr. almond diffuse

Firm flesh; nice delicate flavor; uniform shape and size; some exterior checking; doesn’t slip; harvest when rind becomes cream colored and waxy

Salmon Dew 3.9 12.9 or. cr. round na Medium firm flesh; rind checking; doesn’t slip; harvest at solid cream color; powdery mildew susceptible

Honey Star 4.1 14.8 lt. gr. beige round md Firm, crisp flesh; surface checking; rind uneven with spots; cracks at maturity; harvest when rind is waxy

Honey Yellow 4.5 16.6 or. dk. yl. round na Firm, fine grained flesh; harvest when dark yellow; some cracked after rain

Honey Orange 4.2 14.6 lt. or. lt. gr. oval na

Very firm, smooth flesh; doesn’t slip; harvest when rind and ground spot turn a cream color; powdery mildew susceptible

Golden Beauty 4.3 14.0 lt. gr. by. almond na Soft, smooth flesh; doesn’t slip; harvest when dark yellow

Golden Lady 3.9 13.8 lt gr. by. almond na Crunchy flesh; severe cracking following rain; harvest when dark yellow

Sugar Nut 4.6 15.2 lt. gr. by. oval na Smooth, crunchy flesh; very sweet; doesn’t slip; harvest when dark yellow

Sweetie 4.8 15.9 or. lt. bl. yl. round to oval

md. co.

Smooth, firm, excellent tasting flesh; doesn’t slip; harvest when rind develops yellow highlights; powdery mildew susceptible

1Flavor: 1 = poor; 5 = excellent, sweet taste, pleasant texture. 2Interior color: o = orange; cr = cream; lg = light green; wh = white; cr = creamy; pk = pink. 3Rind color: lg = light green; gr = green; dg = dark green; yl = yellow; by = bright yellow; wh. = white; str = straw; tn = tan; or = orange; gd = gold; cr = cream. 4Net type: na = none; lt = light netting; md = medium netting; hv = heavy netting; fi = fine; co = coarse.


21

Table 2 (continued)

Variety Flavor (1-5)1 Sugar (%)

Interior Color2

Rind Color3

Fruit Shape

Net Type4 Comments

HSR 4290 4.2 15.2 or. lt. gr. cr. round md.

Firm, smooth flesh; doesn’t slip; harvest when rind is light blue, and yellow highlights appear and the ground spot is yellowish

Pixie 4.5 16.1 or. lt. gr. yl round hv. co. Very firm, sweet flesh; doesn’t slip; harvest when yellow highlights appear in rind

Jade Delight 3.7 13.8 cr. cr. wh. oval na Soft, smooth flesh; doesn’t slip; harvest when soft; cream colored and waxy

Sprite 4.4 16.9 cr. cr. oval na

Attractive crisp flesh; harvest when rind becomes slightly waxy, develops a yellowish tinge and minute concentric checks appear around blossom end

Sun 2.8 12.7 cr. gr. lt. yl. almond na Coarse textured flesh; cracks following rain; doesn’t slip; harvest when uniform light yellow

Jade Lady 3.0 11.1 lt. gr. cr. gr. oval na Soft, coarse flesh; difficult to determine when to harvest

Jade Flower 2.5 14.8 cr. cr. oblong na. Soft, coarse textured flesh; rind develops rusty spots; difficult to determine when to harvest; powdery mildew susceptible

Golden Prize 3.3 14.4 cr. by. almond na Crunchy flesh; stem end cracking; doesn’t slip; harvest when bright yellow

Sunrise 4.6 14.6 lt. or. str. round hv. co. Excellent flavor; soft melting flesh; harvest when rind turns yellows before slip

Napoli 4.6 16.0 cr. gr. cr. gr. round hv. fi. Excellent flavor; soft, smooth, melting flesh; harvest at first slip when rind color is creamy green

Athena 3.9 11.4 or. str. oval md. fi. Attractive, firm flesh; harvest at full slip; industry standard

Wrangler 4.4 12.6 or. str. oblong hv. fi. Excellent flavor; attractive dark green sutures; attractive interior; harvest at full slip

Strike 3.8 10.7 or. str. oval co. Medium firm flesh; harvest at full slip; not as attractive this season

Abu 4.1 12.0 lt. or. str. oblong hv. md. Firm flesh; ripens rapidly; harvest frequently; harvest at first slip

New Century 3.9 13.2 lt. or. cr. gr. long oval diffuse

lt.

Very crisp flesh like watermelon; ripens rapidly; harvest frequently when cream rind color develops; difficult to judge ripeness before cracking

Sensation 4.4 13.2 cr. cr. round lt. co. Soft, melting flesh; ripens rapidly; harvest frequently as rind yellows just before slip

1Flavor: 1 = poor; 5 = excellent, sweet taste, pleasant texture. 2Interior color: o = orange; cr = cream; lg = light green; wh = white; cr = creamy; pk = pink. 3Rind color: lg = light green; gr = green; dg = dark green; yl = yellow; by = bright yellow; wh. = white; str = straw; tn = tan; or = orange; gd = gold; cr = cream. 4Net type: na = none; lt = light netting; md = medium netting; hv = heavy netting; fi = fine; co = coarse.

22

Powdery Mildew Resistant Muskmelon and Specialty Melon Cultivar Evaluation,

New York 2007 Margaret T. McGrath, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901

George M. Fox, Cornell University, Riverhead, NY 11901 Sandra Menasha, Cornell Cooperative Extension-Suffolk County, NY

Cultivars 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). Races of the powdery mildew fungus have been differentiated on muskmelon. Several cultivars with resistance to races 1 and 2 have been commercially available for a few years. New resistant cultivars of muskmelon and of specialty melon types were released recently. The goal of this study was to evaluate some of these new cultivars compared to Athena, a resistant cultivar that is grown commonly, and to Superstar, a standard cultivar lacking genetic resistance. Growers need information on performance of resistant cultivars in terms of disease suppression and yield to guide their selection of the most appropriate cultivars for their operations. An additional reason this experiment was conducted is the need to monitor resistant cultivars in order to detect new races when they develop.

Materials and Methods A field experiment was conducted at the Long Island Horticultural Research and Extension Center in Riverhead on Haven loam soil. Seeds were sown on May 31 in the greenhouse. Seedlings were transplanted into black plastic mulch on June 11. Fertilizer (N-P-K 10-10-10) at 1,000 lbs./A was broadcast and incorporated on May 11. Water was provided as needed through drip irrigation lines placed beneath the mulch.

During the season, weeds were controlled with Strategy (2 pt/A) applied on May 21 and Roundup WeatherMax (22 oz./A) applied June 29 with a shielded sprayer to soil between plastic, and by hand weeding. Cucumber beetles were managed with Admire 2F applied after transplanting as a soil drench around transplants (0.02 ml/plant) on June 18 and with Asana XL (9.6 oz./A) applied to foliage on July 16. No fungicides were applied specifically for powdery mildew. The following fungicides were applied preventively for downy mildew (Pseudoperonospora cubensis) and Phytophthora blight (Phytophthora capsici): Forum 4.16SC (6 oz./A) on July 16, Ranman 400 SC (2.75 fl. oz./A) on August 12, Acrobat 50 WP (6.4 oz./A) on August 19, and Previcur Flex 6 F (1.2 pt/A) on August 29. Neither disease developed before the end of this experiment.

Plots were three adjacent rows each with four plants spaced 24 inches apart. Rows were spaced 68 inches apart. A plant of Multipik summer squash, a susceptible 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 surfaces of leaves were assessed for powdery mildew beginning on July 26. Fifty old leaves were selected on July 26 in each plot in one replication based on leaf appearance

23

and position in the canopy. On August 14, eight old and eight mid-aged leaves were assessed. Powdery mildew colonies (spots) were counted; severity was assessed when colonies could not be counted accurately because they had coalesced and/or were too numerous. 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. Powdery mildew control was calculated for upper and lower leaf surfaces using average canopy severity values for August 14 relative to the average value for Superstar.

Melon fruit were harvested, weighed, and measured when they reached maturity. Fruit characteristics were also evaluated and overall appearance was rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1= poor and 5 = best.

Results and Discussion Powdery mildew was first observed on July 26 at a very low level (one spot in two plots). On August 14, powdery mildew severity on the susceptible cultivar Superstar averaged 48% on upper leaf surfaces and 20% on the lower surfaces. All of the cultivars tested with powdery mildew resistance exhibited at least 48% suppression of mildew on upper leaf surfaces. Crème de Menthe was the only cultivar not significantly less severely affected by powdery mildew than Superstar on lower leaf surfaces. The specialty melons, most of which are not advertised as raving resistance to both races 1 and 2, exhibited less suppression of powdery mildew than the muskmelons, which all have resistance to both races. Four of the six muskmelons exhibited a very high level of suppression (at least 99%). Strike and Goddess contain two different sources of resistance in contrast with Athena.

Acknowledgments Donations provided for this experiment included seed from Harris Moran Seed Company, Hollar & Company, and Siegers Seed Company; and donations of pesticides by BASF, Bayer CropScience, Cerexagri, DuPont Crop Protection, ISK Biosciences Corporation, FMC Corporation, and Valent BioSciences Corporation.

24

Tabl

e 1.

Yie

ld a

nd c

ontro

l of p

owde

ry m

ildew

for m

uskm

elon

and

spec

ialty

mel

on c

ultiv

ars c

ompa

red

on L

ong

Isla

nd, N

ew Y

ork,

20

07. T

he la

st en

try is

the

stand

ard,

susc

eptib

le c

ultiv

ar in

clud

ed fo

r com

paris

on.

Pow

dery

Mild

ew

Con

trol

(%)

Mar

keta

ble

Yie

ld

Tota

l Yie

ld

Cul

tivar

(r

esist

ance

)y

Seed

So

urce

M

elon

Ty

pe

Upp

er

Leaf

Su

rfac

e

Low

er

Leaf

Su

rfac

e N

umbe

r/

Plan

t W

eigh

t (lb

s.)/P

lant

N

umbe

r/

Plan

t W

eigh

t (lb

s.)/P

lant

God

dess

(PM

1,2

) H

M

mus

kmel

on

100.

0 dz

10

0.0

d 1.

54

def

9.39

c

1.94

d

10.9

7 bc

Strik

e (P

M 1

,2)

HL

mus

kmel

on

100.

0 d

100.

0 d

2.19

cd

12

.53

ab

2.63

cd

14

.59

a

Mav

eric

k (P

M 1

,2)

HM

m

uskm

elon

99

.0

d 99

.6

d 3.

21

b 10

.63

abc

3.77

b

12.0

1 ab

Lil’

Loup

e (P

M 1

,2)

HM

m

uskm

elon

74

.9

c 93

.6

cd

5.46

a

9.49

c

6.06

a

10.1

9 bc

d

Ath

ena

(PM

1,2

) SI

m

uskm

elon

65

.4

bc

84.6

cd

2.

13

cd

10.5

1 bc

2.

69

c 12

.76

ab

Bol

ero

(PM

) SI

C

rens

haw

m

elon

72

.9

c 79

.3

cd

0.90

fg

6.

29

d 1.

13

e 7.

92

de

Dor

ado

(PM

1,2

) SI

ca

nary

m

elon

57

.0

bc

72.3

cd

1.

10

efg

5.03

d

1.17

e

5.23

ef

Vic

ar (P

M 1

) SI

G

alia

mel

on

58.5

bc

60

.1

bc

1.75

de

5.

19

d 2.

81

c 9.

04

cd

Crè

me

de M

enth

e (P

M)

SI

hone

ydew

m

elon

48

.2

b 31

.8

ab

0.63

g

4.20

d

0.69

e

4.46

f

Supe

rsta

r (St

d)

HM

m

uskm

elon

0

a 0

a 2.

65

bc

13.6

0 a

2.98

c

14.6

1 a

P-va

lue

< .0

001

< .0

001

< .0

001

0.00

01

< .0

001

< .0

001

y Gen

etic

resi

stan

ce a

s spe

cifie

d in

the

cata

logu

e. “

PM 1

, 2”

indi

cate

s res

ista

nce

to ra

ces 1

and

2. “

PM”

used

whe

n in

form

atio

n on

race

no

t spe

cifie

d in

the

cata

logu

e.

z Num

bers

in e

ach

colu

mn

follo

wed

by

the

sam

e le

tter a

re n

ot si

gnifi

cant

ly d

iffer

ent f

rom

eac

h ot

her a

ccor

ding

to F

ishe

r's p

rote

cted

LS

D (P

=0.0

5).

25

Evaluation of Specialty Melon Cultivars for Southern Ohio, 2007

Brad R. Bergefurd and Dr. Shawn Wright The Ohio State University South Centers

1864 Shyville Road, Piketon, Ohio 45661-9749 Phone: (740) 289-2071

This cultivar trial evaluated five specialty melon cultivars for their suitability in southern Ohio.

Methods Seeds were planted April 23 in the greenhouse. Seedlings were transplanted to the field on June 7 using a waterwheel transplanter onto raised beds covered with black plastic mulch with trickle irrigation. Plot rows were 6 feet apart. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with three replications. One hundred units of N, P, and K were applied before forming beds and laying plastic mulch. A standard commercial fungicide and insecticide program was followed, following OSU Bulletin #672.

Results There was a slight difference in the number of fruit per acre between ‘Wrangler’ and ‘Diva’ and ‘Goddess.’ ‘Wrangler’ produced an average of 16,825 fruit per acre, ‘Diva’ produced an average of 8,333 fruit per acre, and ‘Goddess’ produced the fewest fruit per acre, 1,522.

There was no effect of variety on pounds per acre of melon production.

Variety Mean Weight (lbs.) s.e.m. Diva 9.0 0.0 Strike 5.9 0.6 Goddess 5.7 0.3 Sensation 5.0 0.3 Wrangler 4.0 0.2

26

Adaptability of Eight Onion Cultivars for Production in Southwest Michigan

Dr. Ron Goldy, Michigan State University, Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center, Benton Harbor, Michigan 49022

Objective The objective of this trial was to determine the potential of eight large-bulb onions for production in Michigan and to identify if any of the sweet onions had commercial potential for production in Michigan.

Summary Three cultivars, ‘Sweet Spanish,’ ‘Super Star,’ and ‘Mars,’ were found suitable for commercial consideration for Michigan onion producers. The bulb color of ‘Sweet Spanish’ is yellow, ‘Super Star’ is white, and ‘Mars’ is red. These three were determined suitable based on high total yield (400, 379, and 369 hundred weight per acre, respectively), the number of colossal and jumbo bulbs, and the low number of culled bulbs. The low number of culls is impressive given the difficult weather conditions experienced during harvest in 2007 (high temperatures, relative humidity, and rainfall). ‘Ailsa Craig’ and ‘Walla Walla’ had a significant amount of culled bulbs due to neck rot. ‘Texas 1015Y’ was not adapted to Michigan conditions and should not be planted.

Methods Fertilizer Prior to planting, 0-0-60, 33-0-0 and Cal-Fortified were broadcast and incorporated at 350, 150, and 100 lbs./A, respectively. After planting, fertilizer was applied through the drip system as 10 gal./A of Nitro Formula (17-0-0-5-1.5Mg-Zn-B) on June 11, 2007; and 20 lbs./A of Urea Mate (5-10-27+micronutrients) on July 9, 16, and 23, 2007. Three lbs./A actual nitrogen was also applied on May 14, 2007 in combination with Lorsban. A seasonal total of 76 lbs./A of nitrogen was applied.

Weed Control Prowl was applied May 10, 2007 at 1.5 pts./A. Later season weed control was obtained through hand hoeing.

Planting Cultivars were chosen due to ready commercial availability and obtained as transplants from Jung Seed Co., Randolph, Wisconsin. They were set in the field on May 2, 2007 into double rows, 12 inches between rows and 4 inches in the row. Double rows were on 5.5-foot centers. Each plot consisted of a 10-foot long double row of 60 plants (47,520 plants per acre). The trial was planted and analyzed as a completely randomized design with four replications.

Plant Care Plants were drip irrigated with a single drip line placed between the double rows on the soil

27

surface. The drip tape had 4-inch emitter spacing and a 0.25 gpm flow rate. Lorsban was applied on May 14, 2007 for onion maggot control.

Harvest and Data Collection The trial was harvested on August 3, 2007 (93 days from transplanting to harvest) by pulling bulbs and lining them out on the ground for further drying. Bulbs were topped and brought inside for curing on August 7. Bulbs were graded on August 22 into super colossal (≥4.5 inches), colossal (4-4.5 inches), jumbo (3-4 inches), medium (2-3 inches), small (1-2 inches), and cull bulbs. Each category was then weighed.

Results Michigan’s onion industry primarily produces a pungent cooking onion capable of long-term storage. Sweet onions have a shorter storage life and must therefore be sourced from locations across the United States as the production season changes. Michigan onion growers could help meet the increasing demand for sweet onions since they would be available August through October, or longer under proper storage conditions. This harvest season comes at a time when sweet onion production is down, or from areas requiring significant transportation distances (Washington, California, Georgia, and others). This trial was performed to determine if readily available sweet onion cultivars could be produced under Michigan growing conditions.

Significant differences were found in total yield, size, and number of cull bulbs (Table 1). ‘Ailsa Craig’ had the highest total yield at 443 hundred weight per acre (hwpa). ‘Sweet Spanish.’ ‘Super Star.’ ‘Walla Walla.’ and ‘Mars’ all had statistically similar total yield to “Ailsa Craig’ (400, 379, 375, and 369 hwpa, respectively). ‘Ailsa Craig’ and ‘Walla Walla’ were the only entries to have super colossal bulbs (≥4.5 inches). All but ‘Copra’ and ‘Texas 1015’ had bulbs in the colossal category (4-4.5 inches). Colossal bulb yield was statistically similar for the six other entries with yields ranging from 11 to 36 hwpa.

Jumbo bulbs had the largest yields for most entries and the greatest statistical differences. Yields ranged from 7 hwpa for ‘Texas 1015’ to 323 hwpa for ‘Mars.’ ‘Super Star,’ at 271 hwpa, had a similar jumbo bulb yield as ‘Mars.’

Medium and small bulbs also had large differences between entries. ‘Copra,’ a pungent onion, had the highest yields at 102 hwpa for medium sized bulbs. ‘Sweet Spanish,’ ‘Copra,’ and ‘Candy’ had the highest amount of small bulbs (27.5, 20.4, and 19.7, respectively).

‘Walla Walla’ and ‘Ailsa Craig’ had the highest amount of cull bulbs at 292 and 251 hwpa, respectively. This represents 78% of ‘Walla Walla’ and 57% of ‘Ailsa Craig’ production. ‘Candy,’ at 132 hwpa (40% of total), also had a high number of cull bulbs. Most bulbs were culled due to neck rot symptoms. These levels would be commercially unacceptable. The lowest percentages of culls were found in ‘Copra’ (5%), ‘Mars’ (7%), and ‘Sweet Spanish’ (11%).

Weather near and after harvest probably contributed to the high level of culled bulbs. Bulbs were harvested on August 3 and removed from the field on August 7. During that time, they experienced 5.44 inches of rain, daytime temperatures between 83oF and 90oF, and 93% to 96% nighttime relative humidity. What is more surprising is the low level of culls in ‘Copra,’ ‘Mars,’ and ‘Sweet Spanish.’ Cultivars having lower culls were noted to have a round shape or a flat top

28

with a small neck. Entries with greater amounts of neck rot were more teardrop-shaped, or had thicker necks (Figure 1). Levels of cull bulbs would probably be lower for all entries under more normal conditions. However, if these three perform well under adverse conditions they can be expected to do even better when weather is more normal.

Commercial yields could be increased by adapting different planting strategies than what were used in this trial. Spacing in this trial only gave plant populations of 47,520 plants per acre when populations could potentially be three times greater by closer between-row spacing. This is not to say, however, that yields would be three times greater. Yields could also be increased if transplants were set earlier. Longer growing periods prior to bulb formation could potentially shift more bulbs into larger categories. Planting date for this trial was determined by the availability of planting stock but could have been two to three weeks earlier.

Harvest was 93 days from transplanting to harvest. Cultivar maturity is listed as 85 (‘Candy’) to 125 days (‘Walla Walla’). Harvest date was chosen when top growth had reached a senescence level indicating they should be harvested. Based on bulb size, some entries could have been harvested two weeks earlier. Early bulb size may have been due to the drip irrigation system delivering more timely irrigation than in an overhead irrigation situation.

‘Candy’ produced a fair number of “seeders.” Whenever seeders were observed in a plot, it was more than likely ‘Candy.’ Even though ‘Texas 1015’ is listed as being adapted to northern production, it was obvious in this trial that it was not and will not be considered for future trials.

From this trial, three cultivars can be recommended for commercial planting in Michigan: ‘Sweet Spanish,’ ‘Super Star,’ and ‘Mars.’ All three had high total yields, high yields of colossal and jumbo bulbs (63%, 77%, and 91%, respectively), and low levels of cull bulbs. These three also give Michigan producers a yellow, white, and red onion suitable for Michigan growing conditions.

Figure 1. Bulb shape and color of seven large bulbed onions planted at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center in 2007.

29

Tabl

e 1.

Yie

ld in

hun

dred

weig

ht p

er a

cre

of e

ight

oni

on c

ultiv

ars a

t the

Sou

thwe

st M

ichi

gan

Rese

arch

and

Ext

ensio

n Ce

nter

, Ben

ton

Har

bor,

Mic

higa

n in

200

7.

Var

iety

C

olor

To

tal

Yie

ld

Supe

r C

olos

sal

Col

ossa

l Ju

mbo

M

ediu

m

Smal

l C

ull

Ails

a C

raig

Y

44

3 13

30

14

0 8

.4

251

Swee

t Spa

nish

Y

40

0 0

32

218

76

27.5

45

Su

per S

tar

W

379

0 22

27

1 9

.6

75

Wal

la W

alla

Y

37

5 3

36

38

5 .5

29

2 M

ars

R

369

0 12

32

3 9

.2

25

Can

dy

Y

329

0 11

11

9 47

19

.7

132

Cop

ra

Y

327

0 0

189

102

20.4

15

Te

xas 1

015Y

Y

52

0

0 7

26

13.5

6

Ls

d=.0

5 11

0 10

31

55

19

10

.5

98

Colo

r Y =

yel

low

W =

whi

te

R =

red.

Si

zes Su

per c

olos

sal =

≥4.

5 in

ches

Co

loss

al =

4-4

.5 in

ches

Ju

mbo

= 3

-4 in

ches

M

ediu

m =

2-3

inch

es

Smal

l = 1

-2 in

ches

Cu

ll bu

lbs

30

Influence of Tillage and Herbicides in Onion Field Data (Year 1)

Sarah Gegner, Harlene Hatterman-Valenti, Walt Albus, and Collin Auwarter North Dakota State University and Oakes Research Extension Center

THIS REPORT IS NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE

31

Weed Control Using Herbicides Applied as Micro-Rates in Onion

James R. Loken, Harlene Hatterman-Valenti, and Collin Auwarter, North Dakota State University

THIS REPORT NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE

33

2007 Sweet Spanish Onion Variety Trial M. D. Orzolek

Dept. of Horticulture The Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA 16802 Plot Size: Four row/bed, 6.0 feet long with 6-inch x 6-inch spacing, 48 plants per replication.

Transplanting Date: April 24, 2007

Production System: Raised bed with black plastic mulch and two rows of drip tape, high flow 0.45 gal./min./100 ft. at 12-inch orifice spacing.

Herbicide Application: One post-emergence application of Chateau at 1.0 oz./A.

Fungicide: None.

Insecticide: One application of Spintor at 5.0 oz./A for onion thrip control on July 6, 2007. Also, injected Root Power at 2.0 pts./A plus Molybdenum at 0.5 pts./A on July 6, 2007

Fertility: Broadcast and incorporated 80 lbs./A N, 60 lbs./A P, and 120 lbs./A K and one application of calcium nitrate injected in the drip system for a total of 25 lbs./A N.

Harvest Date: August 9, 2007.

Drying: Bulbs from individual plots were placed in 100-pound potato burlap bags and placed on benches in a 30-foot x 96-foot high tunnel covered with two layers of row over for 7 days.

Dates Graded: August 20-27, 2007.

Design: Randomized complete block with three replications.

Varieties Seed Source Bulb Color 1. Candy* SW yellow 2. Condor* AT yellow 3. NuMex Arthur New Mexico State U. yellow 4. NuMex Freedom New Mexico State U yellow 5. NMSU 05-52-2 New Mexico State U yellow 6. NMSU 05-52-4 New Mexico State U yellow 7. NMSU 05-53-4 New Mexico State U yellow 8. NMSU 06-80-3 New Mexico State U yellow 9. NMSU 06-80-4 New Mexico State U yellow

*Eagle from American Takii has been discontinued. Continued on next page

42

Varieties Seed Source Bulb Color 10. NMSU 06-83-2 New Mexico State U yellow 11. Expression* SW yellow 12. Exacta* SM yellow 13. 9003G* AT yellow 14. Milestone AT yellow 15. Medallion* SK yellow 16. Ovation* SK yellow 17. Mt. Whitney* SK white 18. Vaquero NU/NH yellow

*Eagle from American Takii has been discontinued. Results Growing conditions in 2007 were more ideal for sweet Spanish onions grown on raised beds with plastic mulch and two rows of drip tape than the last four growing seasons — warm and dry. Varieties were transplanted in mid-April, about 4 weeks earlier than normal. In 2007, onion transplant tops were cut and maintained at a 4-inch height in the greenhouse prior to transplanting in the field. Twenty-five pounds of N were injected into the drip irrigation tape over a 7-8 week period after transplanting. Onions were irrigated at least twice a week for 3 to 4 hours per application. While weed control was good to excellent the first 10 weeks after transplanting, rain in late June resulted in significant weed populations (especially grasses) between the onion rows. The single application of Chateau significantly reduced weeds and increased harvesting efficiency. There was a significant onion thrip population that developed in early July; however, the foliar application of Spintor and the injection of Root Power at 2.0 pts./A plus Molybdenum at 0.5 pts./A (Stoller Chemical) into the drip tape on July 6, cleaned up the thrip problem within 2 days and kept the onions thrip free.

The highest marketable onion bulb yield was obtained from the following varieties: Exacta, Medallion, Ovation, and Expression compared to Candy or Condor (current sweet Spanish onion standards in Pennsylvania Table 1). The pungency ratings for the onion varieties in 2007 were remarkably low, all below 5.0 mM of pyruvic acid, which describes a mild sweet onion flavor (Table 2). Exacta, NMSU 05-52-2, NMSU 05-52-4, Medallion, Ovation, and Expression produced the highest percentage of large/jumbo onion bulbs that were 3.0 inches in diameter or larger. Mt. Whitney was the only white onion variety evaluated in the 2007 trial. Mt. Whitney has beautifully white skins and a round to oblong shape. Yield of this variety was similar to Candy, with an acceptable soluble solids level and low pungency.

43

Table 1. The marketable yield of eighteen Spanish onion varieties evaluated at the Horticulture Research Farm, Rock Springs, PA – 2007.

Variety Total MKT

Yield T/Ax Avg. Bulb. Wt.

lbs.y % Large z % Non-MKT

Candy 22.4 0.80 73.9 0.0 Condor 23.6 0.90 72.8 0.1 NM Arthur 19.7 0.70 62.1 5.9 NM Freedom 19.8 0.70 55.6 8.5 NMSU 05-52-2 25.8 0.90 90.0 1.5 NMSU 05-52-4 28.5 1.10 91.1 1.0 NMSU 05-53-4 22.6 0.80 69.3 2.9 NMSU 06-80-3 21.1 0.80 74.1 1.0 NMSU 06-80-4 26.3 1.00 84.7 2.2 NMSU 06-82-3 23.5 0.90 80.3 1.0 Expression 32.8 1.20 91.4 2.8 Exacta 37.7 1.40 89.9 2.9 9003G 23.8 0.90 76.3 3.9 Milestone 22.1 0.80 81.8 0.0 Medallion 31.9 1.20 95.5 0.0 Ovation 35.1 1.30 95.0 1.0 Mt. Whitney 22.7 0.90 76.3 4.7 Vaquero 23.3 1.00 75.3 4.3 xThe total marketable yield is based on an onion population of 50,000 plants/A including jumbo and colossal bulb sizes. yThe average bulb weight in pounds included all bulbs greater than 2.5 inches in diameter. zThe percentage of large bulbs included all onion bulbs greater than 3.0 inches in diameter.

44

Table 2. The percent harvest, soluble solids and pungency rating of 18 Spanish onion varieties evaluated at the Horticulture Research Farm, Rock Springs, PA – 2007.

Variety % Harvestedx % Soluble Solidsy Pungencyz

Candy 96.7 6.4 2.9 Condor 86.7 8.2 4.1 NM Arthur 93.9 5.1 1.9 NM Freedom 98.5 5.6 3.1 NMSU 05-52-2 98.1 6.2 3.6 NMSU 05-52-4 93.8 5.9 3.8 NMSU 05-53-4 92.3 6.0 2.5 NMSU 06-80-3 85.2 6.5 3.5 NMSU 06-80-4 95.2 5.1 3.4 NMSU 06-82-3 90.8 6.2 4.0 Expression 95.0 7.0 3.5 Exacta 95.0 6.5 3.0 9003G 91.2 8.1 4.3 Milestone 95.0 7.8 3.5 Medallion 91.2 6.6 3.6 Ovation 96.5 6.6 4.0 Mt. Whitney 88.1 6.0 3.2 Vaquero 81.9 6.5 3.9

xPercent of onion bulbs that were harvested from the 48 onion plants in each plot. yThe percent of soluble solids as measured by Waters Agricultural Laboratories, Camilla, GA. zPungency was measured by determining the pyruvic acid content of the bulb by Waters Agricultural Laboratories, Camilla, GA. Onions may be classified as to pungency according to the following scheme: Very mild sweet onion:1-4 mmoles pyruvic acid/kg weight of bulbs

• Mild sweet onion: 5-7 mmoles • Intermediate pungency: 8-10 mmoles • Pungent: 11-15 mmoles • Very pungent >15 mmoles

45

2007 DSAC Pepper Variety Trial Bronwyn Aly and J.D. Kindhart, Senior Research Specialists

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences Dixon Springs Agricultural Center University of Illinois, Simpson, IL

A pepper cultivar trial was established and evaluated at the Dixon Springs Ag Center (DSAC) in Pope County, Illinois. The plots were established from transplants set on May 8. The plots were grown in twin rows at 12-inch spacing on raised beds at 5.5-foot spacing with black plastic mulch and trickle irrigation. They were harvested on July 9, 24, and August 7. Each variety was replicated three times.

Table 1 shows yield data. The varieties are listed in descending order of U.S. No. 1 yield.

Table 1. Yield data for pepper varieties at DSAC.

Variety Source Color

Average Fruit Size U.S. No.1

(oz)

Yield U.S. No. 1 (bu/A)

Yield U.S. No. 2 (bu/A)

Culls (no./plant)

Revolution SW Red 10.1 1,684 449 0.9 HMX 7649 SW Red 10.1 1,642 428 0.6 HMX 7648 SW Red 9.6 1,637 554 0.8 Polaris SW Red 8.4 1,558 449 0.8 Heritage SW Red 8.9 1,447 454 1.1 Socrates X3R SW Red 9.4 1,404 628 1.0 Paladin SW Red 9.1 1,404 517 1.4 Aristotle SW Red 9.3 1,404 422 0.8 HMX 6644 SW Red 9.3 1,346 655 1.1 Granny Gold SW Yellow 7.0 1,093 306 0.5 Tabby SW Yellow 6.8 523 502 0.5

47

Bell Pepper Cultivar Evaluation Under High Phytophthora capsici Incidence

S. Alan Walters, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL Jamie R. Stieg, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL Jason P. Bond, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL

M. Babadoost, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL Introduction Phytophthora capsici causes Phytophthora blight, which is a devastating disease of bell peppers and many other vegetables grown in the Midwest. Recently, the incidence of this rapidly spreading disease has dramatically increased in Illinois and has caused yield losses of up to 100% in bell pepper fields. This trial was established to determine the impact of P. capsici on yield and farm-gate revenues of susceptible, tolerant, and resistant bell pepper cultivars.

Materials and Methods Nine bell pepper cultivars (Alliance, Aristotle X3R, Cal. Wonder, Commandment, King Arthur, Legionnaire, Paladin, Red Knight X3R, and Revolution) were evaluated during 2005 and 2006 in a commercial field infested with P. capsici near Shawneetown, Illinois. ‘Paladin’ is resistant to P. capsici, while ‘Alliance,’ ‘Aristotle X3R,’ and ‘Revolution’ are tolerant. All other cultivars evaluated are highly susceptible. The experiment was set up as a randomized complete block design with three replications. Raised beds were formed on 7-foot centers and covered with 1.25-mil black plastic mulch with drip irrigation. Six-week-old bell pepper seedlings were transplanted on double rows spaced 1.5 feet apart. Plots were 7.5 feet long with five plants per row. Each plot had 10 plants. About 120 lbs./A N was applied over the growing season. No insecticides or fungicides were used.

Phytophthora blight disease incidence was rated 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks after transplanting (WAT). Visible symptoms included wilting of plants, crown rot, stem lesions, and fruit rot. Farm-gate revenues were calculated using a $10 per 28-pound box conversion factor, based on average St. Louis, Missouri produce terminal market prices for 2005 and 2006. Harvests began on July 25, 2005 and July 6, 2006, and ended on October 7, 2005 and September 6, 2006, with a total of six harvests. Fruit were weighed and graded into marketable (Fancy, No. 1, and No. 2) and cull (misshapen or decaying fruit) based on USDA standards. Bell pepper plants showing symptoms of Phytophthora blight were collected both years. Phytophthora capsici was isolated and ‘Cal. Wonder’ seedlings were inoculated in a greenhouse with the isolated pathogen. In all cases, Phytophthora blight disease symptoms developed and P. capsici was again re-isolated.

Data were subjected to analysis of variance procedures appropriate for a randomized complete block design using SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.). Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) tests were used to separate differences among bell pepper cultivar means at P ≤ 0.05.

Results Phytophthora blight incidence data were combined over the 2005 and 2006 growing seasons since no year by cultivar interactions (P > 0.05) were observed. However, a year by cultivar

48

interaction (P ≤ 0.05) was observed for bell pepper yields and farm-gate revenues indicating that cultivar performance for these variables depended on year. The two years provided different growing seasons primarily due to more rainfall during July and August of 2005 compared to 2006, resulting in higher soil moisture amounts with water often standing between rows. Therefore, yield and farm-gate revenue results will be presented by year.

Only 7% Phytophthora blight disease incidence was detected on P. capsici-resistant ‘Paladin’ at 16 WAT (Table 1). The tolerant cultivars (Aristotle X3R, Revolution, and Alliance) had lower Phytophthora blight disease incidence at 16 WAT (52%, 53%, and 65% in plots, respectively) compared to most of the susceptible cultivars. At 98%, ‘Cal. Wonder’ had the highest Phytophthora blight disease incidence rating of all bell pepper cultivars evaluated at 16 WAT.

Table 1. Phytophthora capsici incidence on nine bell pepper cultivars combined over the 2005 and 2006 growing seasons in a P. capsici-infested field in Shawneetown, Ill.

% Phytophthora Blight Incidence (Weeks After Transplanting — WAT)

Cultivarz

4 8 12 16

Paladiny 0 a 2 a 3 a 7 a Aristotle X3Rx 7 a 20 ab 33 a-c 52 b Revolutionx 2 a 17 ab 32 ab 53 bc Alliancex 10 a 18 ab 42 b-d 65 b-d Red Knight X3R 8 a 28 b 65 b-d 73 b-e King Arthur 10 a 25 ab 58 b-d 78 b-e Commandment 8 a 18 ab 53 b-d 85 c-e Legionnaire 17 a 35 b 73 d 92 de Cal. Wonder 14 a 30 b 46 b-d 98 e

zCultivars are ranked according to least percentage of Phytophthora blight incidence at 16 WAT. Symptoms included wilting of plants, crown rot and stem lesions, and fruit rot. Means followed by the same letter within each column are not significantly different at P ≤ 0.05. yPhytophthora capsici-resistant. xPhytophthora capsici-tolerant.

2005 Early-season marketable yields and farm-gate revenues were similar among most bell pepper cultivars (Table 2). ‘Paladin’ had greater marketable weights (7,100 pounds per acre) and farm-gate revenues ($5,600 per acre) during the late-season harvests compared to all cultivars except ‘Alliance.’ ‘Paladin,’ ‘Aristotle X3R,’ and ‘Alliance’ had the highest total-season marketable weights (≥ 6,000 pounds per acre) and farm-gate revenues (≥ $4,800 per acre) compared to all other cultivars. In contrast to ‘Paladin,’ ‘Alliance’ and ‘Aristotle X3R’ did not differ from most other lower-yielding cultivars; however, ‘Cal. Wonder’ and ‘Legionnaire’ generated lower total-season yields and farm-gate revenues than ‘Paladin,’ ‘Alliance,’ and ‘Aristotle X3R.’

49

2006 ‘Paladin,’ ‘Revolution,’ ‘Alliance,’ and ‘Aristotle X3R’ produced high early- and late-season marketable yields (≥ 15,000 and 10,900 pounds per acre, respectively) and early- and late-season farm-gate revenues (≥ $11,900 and $8,700 per acre, respectively) compared to the five susceptible cultivars (Table 3). However, ‘Paladin’ generated greater marketable yields and farm-gate revenues compared to all cultivars for both late- and total-season harvests. Yields and farm-gate revenues of P. capsici-tolerant ‘Revolution,’ ‘Alliance,’ and ‘Aristotle X3R’ did not differ for early-, late-, or total-season harvests. Overall, P. capsici-resistant or tolerant ‘Paladin,’ ‘Revolution,’ ‘Alliance,’ and ‘Aristotle X3R’ and susceptible ‘King Arthur’ generally produced the highest total-season yields and farm-gate revenues. In contrast, ‘Cal. Wonder’ and ‘Legionnaire’ produced the lowest total-season yields and farm-gate revenues.

Table 2. Impact of Phytophthora capsici on marketable weights and farm-gate revenues during the 2005 growing season for nine bell pepper cultivars at Shawneetown, Ill.

Early-seasonz (x 1,000)

Late-seasonz (x 1,000)

Total-seasonz (x 1,000)

Cultivary MW

(lbs./acre) FGR

($/acre)

MW

(lbs./acre) FGR

($/acre)

MW

(lbs./acre) FGR

($/acre)

Paladinx 2.5 ab 2.0 ab 7.1 a 5.6 a 9.6 a 7.6 a Aristotle X3Rw 4.2 a 3.3 a 2.5 b 2.0 b 6.6 ab 5.3 ab Alliancew 2.4 ab 1.9 ab 3.6 ab 2.9 ab 6.0 a-c 4.8 a-c Red Knight X3R 2.6 ab 2.1 ab 1.3 b 1.1 b 3.9 b-d 3.1 b-d King Arthur 2.2 ab 1.8 ab 1.3 b 1.0 b 3.5 b-d 2.8 b-d Commandment 2.5 ab 2.0 ab 0.7 b 0.5 b 3.2 b-d 2.5 b-d Revolutionw 1.0 b 0.8 b 2.0 b 1.6 b 3.0 b-d 2.4 b-d Legionnaire 1.5 b 1.2 b 0.2 b 0.1 b 1.7 d 1.3 d Cal. Wonder 0.2 b 0.1 b 0.4 b 0.3 b 0.6 d 0.5 d

zEarly-season = first 3 harvests, late-season = harvests 4 to 6, and total-season = all 6 harvests. MW = marketable weights. FGR = farm-gate revenues based on St. Louis, MO produce terminal market prices during 2005. Means followed by the same letter within each column are not significantly different at P ≤ 0.05. yCultivars are ranked according to total-season marketable yields. xPhytophthora capsici-resistant. wPhytophthora capsici-tolerant.

50

Table 3. Effect of Phytophthora capsici on marketable weights and farm-gate revenues during the 2006 growing season for nine bell pepper cultivars at Shawneetown, Ill.

Early-seasonz (x 1,000)

Late-seasonz (x 1,000)

Total-seasonz (x 1,000)

Cultivary MW

(lbs./acre) FGR

($/acre)

MW

(lbs./acre) FGR

($/acre)

MW

(lbs./acre) FGR

($/acre)

Paladinx 20.8 a 16.6 a 26.8 a 21.3 a 47.6 a 37.9 a Revolutionw 15.7 a-c 12.5 a-c 16.0 b 12.7 b 31.7 b 25.2 b Alliancew 17.6 ab 14.0 ab 13.7 bc 10.9 bc 31.3 bc 25.0 bc Aristotle X3Rw 15.0 a-d 11.9 a-d 10.9 bc 8.7 bc 25.9 b-d 20.6 b-d King Arthur 14.5 b-e 11.5 b-e 9.9 bc 7.9 bc 24.4 b-e 19.4 b-e Red Knight X3R 13.0 b-f 10.4 b-f 8.4 bc 6.7 bc 21.4 d-f 17.1 d-f Commandment 9.2 d-g 7.3 d-g 9.5 bc 7.5 bc 18.7 d-f 15.0 d-f Cal. Wonder 4.6 g 3.6 g 9.2 bc 7.3 bc 13.8 f 11.0 f Legionnaire 8.2 fg 6.6 fg 5.2 c 4.1 c 13.4 f 10.7 f

zEarly-season = first 3 harvests, late-season = harvests 4 to 6, and total-season = all 6 harvests. MW = marketable weights. FGR = farm-gate revenues based on St. Louis, MO produce terminal market prices during 2006. Means followed by the same letter within each column are not significantly different at P ≤ 0.05. yCultivars are ranked according to total-season marketable yields. xPhytophthora capsici-resistant. wPhytophthora capsici-tolerant.

51

Evaluation of Twelve Pepper Cultivars in Southwest Michigan

Dr. Ron Goldy, Michigan State University, Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center, Benton Harbor, Michigan 49022

Objective The objective of this trial was to evaluate performance of 12 pepper cultivars for adaptability to Southwest Michigan growing conditions. Cultivars included seven bells, four jalapenos, and one sweet banana.

Summary Significant differences were noted in most traits evaluated. Bell pepper to

midwest vegetable trial report for 2007 trial reports/11 2_full... · sources of vegetable seeds*...

Documents