<%BANNER%>
HIDE
 Historic note
 Main














Tomato variety trial results
ALL VOLUMES CITATION SEARCH THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054241/00007
 Material Information
Title: Tomato variety trial results
Series Title: Bradenton GCREC research report
Physical Description: 4 v. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Gulf Coast Research and Education Center (Bradenton, Fla.)
University of Florida -- Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Publisher: Gulf Coast Research & Education Center, IFAS, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Bradenton Fla
Creation Date: 1986
Publication Date: 1986-
Frequency: semiannual
regular
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: Tomatoes -- Varieties -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Tomatoes -- Field experiments -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
periodical   ( marcgt )
serial   ( sobekcm )
 Notes
Dates or Sequential Designation: Spring 1986-
Dates or Sequential Designation: Ceased in spring or fall of 1989.
General Note: Title from caption.
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 62705168
lccn - 2005229409
System ID: UF00054241:00007
 Related Items

Table of Contents
    Historic note
        Unnumbered ( 1 )
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida









GULF COAST RESEARCH & EDUCATION CENTER
IFAS, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
5007 60th Street East
Bradenton, FL 34203


Bradenton GCREC Research Report BRA1987-10 March 1987


TOMATO VARIETY TRIAL RESULTS FOR FALL 1986

T. K. Howe, J. W. Scott and W. E. Waters1


Several commercial fresh market tomato cultivars and advanced IFAS
breeding lines were evaluated in a replicated trial in the fall of 1986 at
the Gulf Coast Research and Education Center in Bradenton, FL.

In addition, a selection of seventy-nine additional breeding lines and
cultivars were evaluated subjectively (no harvest) in single, unreplicated
plots. These will be referred to as observational entries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fourteen months prior to bed preparation for this trial, the land was
treated with 600 lb/A superphosphate plus minor elements as F503 (0-20-0).
Two months prior to bed preparation 1 ton/A dolomite was applied to the
land. Raised beds of EauGallie fine sand were formed on August 5, 1986.
The 30-inch wide, 9-inch high beds were spaced on 4.5 ft centers with
seepage irrigation ditches spaced every 7 beds. Fertilizer incorporated
3-4 inches into the full width of the bed included 18-0-25-2 (N-P205-K20-
MgO) at 34 lb/1000 linear feet of bed(LFB), superphosphate plus F503 at 26
lb/1000 LFB, and high calcium lime at 81 lb/1000 LFB. Finally,18-0-25-2
at 175 lb/1000 LFB was distributed into 2 narrow bands in shallow
grooves on the bed surface 8 inches to each side of the bed center. The
beds were fumigated with methyl bromide:chloropicrin (67%:33%) at 36
lb/1000 LFB and mulched with white polyethylene.

All replicated entries (Table 1) and observational entries were sown on
July 16, 1986 into wooden flats containing SAF-T-BLAST (Mineral
Aggregates, Inc.) an inert processed product of spent coal, and lightly
covered with coarse vermiculite. Seedlings were transferred 8 days later
into ToddR planter flats (Speedling, Inc., 1.5 x 1.5 x 2.5-inch cells,
model 150) containing vermiculite and Canadian peat (1:1, v:v) amended
with superphosphate, dolomite and micronutrients.

Transplants were set in the field on August 25, 1986, 28.5 inches apart in
single rows in the center of each bed, and watered with 20-20-20 at 5
lb/100 gal water. Four replications of 10 plants per entry were arranged
in a randomized complete block design for the replicated (harvested) trial


IBiological Administrator I, Associate Professor (Vegetable Breeding) and
Center Director, respectively.









whereas single 10-plant plots were used for the observational trial.
Limited resetting was done on August 28, 29 and September 2. The
September 2 resetting was in response to Pythium infection of the young
transplants. Plant loss due to Pythium ended approximately September 5.
Plants were staked and tied. Shielded sprays of paraquat were applied to
the row middles for weed control.

Integrated pest management was used for insect control throughout the
season. Monitor was used once for leafminers, Lannate seven times for
various worms, Dipel once for worms, Pydrin once for armyworms and Ambush
once for pinworms. Lepidopterous larvae were the most severe insect
problem during the fall. All pesticides were applied according to label
directions.

A regular spray program utilizing maneb or mancozeb and copper was
followed to prevent or control fungal and bacterial diseases. Bacterial
leaf spot was present in the field and was treated with the above
combination from the time of setting the plants. Many areas of Manatee
County experienced heavy bacterial leaf spot infestations in the fall (1).
Target spot became a severe problem late in the season and so
chlorothalonil was added to the spray program in November. Target spot
was also a problem to commercial production in the surrounding area (1).
Alternaria also infested the plots, but was secondary to the bacterial
leaf spot and target spot infestations. The disease situation was the
most prominent feature of the fall 1986 production season. Heavy fruit
losses resulted in the trial at GCREC and in the commercial fields of the
Manatee-Ruskin area.

The weather during the fall season was fairly typical with respect to
rainfall and temperatures (Table 2). Rainfall was heavy through the month
of September which enhanced the spread of bacterial leaf spot. During the
end of October and the beginning of November there were 6 straight days of
rain and overcast skies. This contributed to both radial cracking and an
increased incidence of target spot lesions on the fruit.

Fruit of the replicated trial entries were harvested by hand at the mature
green stage (or beyond) on November 6 and 13, 1986. Tomatoes were graded
as cull or marketable in quality, and marketable fruit were sized by
machine as: 7x7 (small), 6x7 (medium), 6x6 (large) and 5x6 (extra large)
according to commercial standards (see Table 3, 4, or 6 for
specifications). Both culls and marketable fruit were counted and
weighed.

Subjective ratings were given to all tomato entries in the replicated and
observational trials at the end of the season when red ripe fruit were on
the vine. Since replicated entries were harvested, additional unharvested
plots of replicated entries were planted specifically for late season
appraisal. Ratings ranged from 1 to 5 in various categories defining
plant features, fruit quality and horticultural characteristics.

Results and Discussion

Seasonal. Total yields for the season (Table 3) were greatly reduced
compared to previous fall trials at GCREC (3-7). The reduction in yield









was due to three factors: the continuous pressure throughout the season
from bacterial leaf spot which caused rather severe defoliation; the
occurrence of target spot which caused lesions on the fruit; and severe
radial cracking of the fruit caused by rains just previous to the first
harvest. Total marketable yield ranged from 26.2 cartons/1000 LFB for
IFAS 7183 to 100.0 cartons/1000 LFB for 'All Star'. 'Sunny' (86.2
cartons/1000 LFB) and IFAS 7182 (83.1 cartons/1000 LFB) were the only 2
entries similar in yield to 'All Star' (Table 3). The greatest extra
large fruit yield was produced by IFAS 7182 at 36.6 cartons/1000 LFB.
Greatest large and medium fruit yields were produced by 'All Star' and
'Sunny'. Greatest small fruit yield came from 'All Star'. High yields
for 'All Star' and 'Sunny' were influenced by the high numbers of fruit
produced whereas yields for IFAS 7182 was affected by large average fruit
size (5.2 oz). Cull production ranged from 41.2% ('Piedmont') to 68.9%
(IFAS 7131). Plant stands were generally good. Only IFAS 7168 had an
average plant stand below 90.0%.

First Harvest (Nov. 6, 1986): Earliness as judged by total marketable
yields obtained at first harvest (Table 4) did not differ among 13
entries. Total yields ranged from 11.0 cartons/1000 LFB to 39.9
cartons/LFB. When earliness is considered as a percentage of fruit
harvested at each harvest date (Table 5), 'Pacific' was the earliest entry
and had 60.4% of its total seasonal yield picked on November 6. There
were 7 which had good early yields (greater than 50% on November 6),
'Pacific', 'Freedom', 'Horizon', 'Hybrid 26', IFAS 7131, 'Duke' and
'Piedmont'. Greatest extra large fruit yields were produced by IFAS 7182
(24.8 cartons/1000 LFB), 'Piedmont' (19.1), 'Sunny' (18.7), 'Freedom'
(17.9) and 'All Star' (15.6), which were not significantly different from
each other (Table 4). There were not great differences among the entries
for yield in other fruit sizes. Greatest fruit production fell into the
extra large and large sizes. Cull production was very great and ranged
from 36.4% to 72.1%. Average fruit weight ranged from 5.1 oz for 'Hybrid
26' to 6.0 oz for IFAS 7182, IFAS 7192 and 'Piedmont'. Average fruit
weights of 5.4 oz or higher were not significantly different than
'Piedmont', IFAS 7192 or IFAS 7182.

Second Harvest (Nov. 13, 1986): Greatest marketable yield at the second
harvest was produced by 'All Star' and 'Sunny' with IFAS 7182 not
significantly different than 'Sunny' (Table 6). Yields ranged from 15.2
to 64.3 cartons/1000 LFB. There was no significant difference in high
extra large fruit yield produced by IFAS 7182 and IFAS 7192, however, IFAS
7192 was equivalent to all other entries. Best large fruit yield was
produced by 'All Star' and 'Sunny'. Overall the fruit production was
mainly in the medium sized fruit category at this harvest. Best medium-
sized fruit yield was produced by 'All Star' and 'Sunny'. Cull production
was high again, but causes were different than for the first harvest.
Target spot lesions were no longer a prominent feature. Small fruit size
accounted for some of the culls produced, along with cracking and poor
blossom ends. Average fruit weight ranged from 3.7 oz to 4.6 oz.

Subjective Evaluations: All of the replicated entries and observational
entries were given ratings for horticultural characteristics at the end of
the season. The ratings and the explanation of the rating scales are
presented in Tables 7 and 8. These ratings are from plots of 10 plants









each. They are intended only to provide general indications of the crop
at a given location and time. Be advised to compare these comments with
results from other areas.

Acknowledgements: We wish to thank Elsberry Greenhouses, Inc. of Ruskin,
FL for supplying transplant media and soil mixing equipment.

Literature Cited

1. Gilreath, P. 1987. Manatee Vegetable Newsletter. Manatee Cty. Ext.
Serv., Palmetto, FL.

2. Stanley, C. D. 1986. Temperature and rainfall for 1985. Bradenton
GCREC Res. Rept. BRA 1986-10.

3. Howe, T. K., J. W. Scott and W. E. Waters. 1986. Fresh market
tomato variety trial results for fall 1985 at Bradenton, Florida.
Bradenton GCREC Res. Rept. BRA 1986-11.

4. Ibid. 1985. Fresh market tomato variety trial results for fall
1984. GCREC Bradenton Res. Rept. BRA 1985-15.

5. Ibid. 1984. Fresh market tomato variety trial results for fall
1983. Bradenton GCREC Res. Rept. BRA 1984-3.

6. Ibid. 1983. Fresh market tomato variety trial results for fall
1982. Bradenton AREC Res. Rept. BRA 1983-13.

7. Ibid. 1982. Hand harvest tomato variety trial results for fall
1981. Bradenton AREC Res. Rept. BRA 1982-8.









Table 1. Sources and types of
variety trial.


tomato entries included in the fall 1986


Cultivar/Breeding Linez TypeY Source


All Star F1 Petoseed
Duke F1 Petoseed
Freedom Fl Abbott & Cobb
FTE 12 F1 Petoseed
Horizon P.V.P. o.p. Gulf Coast REC
Hybrid 26 F1 Harris Moran
IFAS 7131 o.p. Gulf Coast REC
IFAS 7168 o.p. Gulf Coast REC
IFAS 7178 o.p. Gulf Coast REC
IFAS 7181 o.p. Gulf Coast REC
IFAS 7182 o.p. Gulf Coast REC
IFAS 7183 o.p. Gulf Coast REC
IFAS 7192 o.p. Gulf Coast REC
Pacific F1 Asgrow
Piedmont o.p. North Carolina S.U.
Summit o.p. North Carolina S.U.
Sunny Fl Asgrow


ZThe IFAS numbers designate breeding lines developed at the Gulf Coast
Research and Education Center, Bradenton, FL.

YF1 = hybrid, o.p. = open pollinated.







Table 2. Temperature and rainfall at the Gulf Coast Research and
Education Center during the fall of 1986 and the 31-year average (2).


Average Daily Temperature (oF) Rainfall
Month (1986 dates) 1986 31-yr. Avg. (inches)

Max. Min. Max. Min. 1986 31-yr. Avg.

August (25-30) 92.3 73.0 91 72 2.63 10.07
September 90.1 72.1 89 71 6.07 8.34
October 86.4 66.8 85 64 3.36 2.81
November (1-13) 86.5 68.1 78 57 1.89 1.92













Table 3. Yields, fruit size and plant stand of tomato entries in bhe fall 1986 trial for the entire season (Two harvests Nov. 6
and 13, 1986).


Marketable Yieldsz (cartons/1000 LFB) Average Plant
Extra Large Large Medium Small Culls Fruit Wt. Stand
Entry Total (5 x 6) (6 x 6) (6 x 7) (7 x 7) (X) (oz) (%)


All Star 100.0 ay 19.5 b 38.4 a 32.5 a 9.6 a 46.1 d-f 4.4 cd 100.0 a
Sunny 86.2 ab 19.8 b 33.0 ab 27.1 ab 6.2 b-d 55.6 b-d 4.5 ed 95.0 ab
IFAS 7182 83.1 a-c 36.6 a 26.3 b-d 16.5 c-h 3.7 c-f 45.4 d-f 5,2 a 95.0 ab
Duke 69.8 b-d 14.1 b-d 26.4 be 23.2 be 6.1 b-d 59.4 a-c 4.5 ed 97.5 a
Freedom 68.3 b-d 18.3 be 22.6 b-e 21.0 b-d 6.4 be 59.8 a-c 4.5 cd 100.0 a
Piedmont 64.5 b-e 19.7 b 23.9 b-e 17.7 c-h 3.1 d-f 41.2 f 5.1 ab 100.0 a
Hybrid 26 60.3 c-f 10.3 b-d 20.8 c-e 20.5 b-e 8.8 ab 60.0 a-c 4.3 d 92.5 ab
IFAS 7178 57.6 d-g 10.0 b-d 24.0 b-e 18.7 c-g 5.0 c-e 53.7 b-e 4.5 cd 97.5 a
FTE 12 52.6 d-h 8.7 b-d 20.4 e-e 19.0 c-f 4.4 c-f 63.7 ab 4.4 ed 90.0 ab
IFAS 7168 51.7 d-h 12.2 b-d 18.9 c-e 15.5 d-h 5.1 c-e 41.9 ef 4.6 cd 85.0 b
IFAS 7192 49.6 d-i 15.4 b-d 18.8 c-e 13.2 e-i 2.2 ef 42,3 ef 4.8 a-c 92.5 ab
Pacific 47.5 d-i 14.3 b-d 16.8 e-e 12.6 f-i 3.8 c-f 57.1 b-d 4.6 b-d 100.0 a
Summit 40.9 e-i 10.6 b-d 16.2 c-e 11.5 f-i 2.5 ef 50.3 c-f 4.7 a-d 95.0 ab
Horizon 37.6 f-i 8.1 b-d 14.6 de 11.8 f-i 3.0 d-f 64.7 ab 4.6 ed '97.5 a
IFAS 7131 34.2 g-i 6.8 b-d 13.4 e 11.4 g-i 2.6 ef 68.9 a 4.5 ed 97.5 a
IFAS 7181 33.1 hi 5.8 cd 14.0 e 11.1 hi 2.2 ef 50.9 c-f 4.6 ed 95.0 ab
IFAS 7183 26.2 i 3.5 d 14.4 e 7.0 i 1.3 f 57.5 a-d 4.6 ed 95.0 ab

4 Carton = 25 lbs. Acre = 9680 linear ft of bed. All yields adjusted to 100% plant stand, Extra large (5x6) = 2 24/32 inches diameter


and larger;


large (6x6) = 2 16/32 to 2 26/32 inches diameter; medium (6x7) = 2 8/32 to 2


to 2 10/32 inches diameter.

YMean separation within columns by Duncan's Multiple Range Test, 5% level.


18/32 inches diameter; small (7x7) 2 5/32















Table 4. Yields and fruit size of tomato entries for the first harvest on November 6, 1986.


Marketable YieldsZ (cartons/1000 LFB) Average
Extra Large Large Medium Small Culls Fruit Wt.
Entry Total (5 x 6) (6 x 6) (6 x 7) (7 x 7) (%) (oz)


All Star 35.7 a-cY 15.6 a-e 14.7 ab 5.3 a-d 0.1 c 56.2 a-d 5.3 ed
Sunny 33.7 a-d 18.7 a-c 11.6 ab 3.3 a-d 0.1 c 64.4 ab 5.6 a-d
IFAS 7182 37.5 ab 24.8 a 10.3 ab 2.3 cd 0.0 c 49.9 b-e 6.0 ab
Duke 36.0 a-c 13.0 b-g 16.5 a 6.4 ab 0.3 c 60.9 a-c 5.4 b-d
Freedom 39.9 a 17.9 a-d 14.1 ab 7.3 a 0.6 ab 60.6 a-d 5.2 ed
Piedmont 33.0 a-d 19.1 ab 10.2 ab 3.7 a-d 0.0 c 44.5 c-e 6.0 a
Hybrid 26 31.8 a-d 10.3 b-g 14.6 ab 6.1 a-c 0.8 a 65.0 ab 5.1 d
IFAS 7178 27.9 a-e 8.8 c-g 14.0 ab 4.8 a-d 0.3 be 60.2 a-d 5.4 b-d
FTE 12 22.7 a-e 8.2 d-g 10.7 ab 3.5 a-d 0.2 be 66.4 ab 5.2 d
IFAS 7168 25.5 a-e 11,0 b-g 11.3 ab 2.8 b-d 0.3 be 36.4 e 5.5 a-d
IFAS 7192 16.1 c-e 8.2 d-g 5.5 b 2.4 b-d 0.0 c 40.9 de 6.0 ab
Pacific 28.7 a-e 13.7 b-f 11.2 ab 3.8 a-d 0.0 e 53.7 a-e 5.4 a-d
Summit 19.0 a-e 9.4 b-g 8.0 ab 1.6 d 0.0 c 49.2 b-e 5.8 a-c
Horizon 20.8 a-e 7.3 e-g 9.5 ab 3.8 a-d 0.2 c 67.3 ab 5.2 cd
IFAS 7131 17.7 b-e 6.8 e-g 8.3 ab 2.6 b-d 0.0 c 72.1 a 5.3 cd
IFAS 7181 13.0 de 5.2 fg 5.7 b 2.2 cd 0.0 c 53.6 a-e 5.5 a-d
IFAS 7183 11.0 e 2.7 g 6.5 ab 1.8 d 0.0 c 59.7 a-d 5.2 cd

2-z-


Carton = 25 lbs. Acre = 9680 linear ft o d.


All yields adjusted to 100% plant stan Extra


diameter and larger; large (6x6) 2 16/32 to 2 26/32 inches diameter; medium (6x7) 2 8/32 to
small (7x7) 2 5/32 to 2 10/32 inches diameter.

Y Mean separation within columns by Duncan's Multiple Range Test, 5% level.


large (5x6) 2 24/32 inches
2 18/32 inches diameter;









Table 5. Percentage of seasonal marketable yield by harvest, fall 1986.


First Second
Harvest Harvest
Entry Nov. 6 Nov. 13
--------()--


All Star 35.7 64.3
Sunny 39.1 60.9
IFAS 7182 45.1 54.9
Duke 51.6 48.4
Freedom 58.4 41.6
Piedmont 51.2 48.8
Hybrid 26 52.7 47.4
IFAS 7178 48.4 51.6
FTE 12 43.2 56.8
IFAS 7168 49.3 50.7
IFAS 7192 32.5 67.5
Pacific 60.4 39.6
Summit 46.5 53.5
Horizon 55.3 44.7
IFAS 7131 51.8 48.2
IFAS 7181 39.3 60.4
IFAS 7183 42.0 58.0












Table 6. Yield and fruit size of tomato entries for the second harvest on November 13, 1986.


Marketable Yieldst (cartons/l000 LFB) Average
Extra Large Large Medium Small Culls Fruit Wt.
Entry Total (5 x 6) (6 x 6) (6 x 7) (7 x 7) (%) (oz)


All Star 64.3 ay 3.9 b 23.6 a 27.2 a 9.5 a 38.7 de 4.1 b-d
Sunny 52.5 ab 1.2 b 21.4 ab 23.8 a 6.2 be 50.4 b-d 4.1 b-d
IFAS 7182 45.6 bc 11.7 a 15.9 be 14.2 b-d 3.7 c-g 40.6 de 4.6 a
Duke 33.8 ed 1.1 b 9.9 c-e 16.8 b 6.0 b-d 57.7 a-c 3.9 b-d
Freedom 28.4 d-f 0.4 b 8.5 e-e 13.7 b-d 5.8 b-e 56.3 a-c 3.8 d
Piedmont 31.5 c-e 0.6 b 13.7 ed 14.0 b-d 3.1 c-g 35.7 e 4.3 a-c
Hybrid 26 28.6 d-f 0.0 b 6.2 de 14.4 b-d 8.0 ab 52.3 a-d 3.7 d
IFAS 7178 29.7 d-f 1.2 b 9.9 c-e 13.9 b-d 4.7 c-f 47.8 b-e 3.9 b-d
FTE 12 29.9 d-f 0.5 b 9.8 c-e 15.4 be 4.2 c-g 61.9 ab 4.0 b-d
IFAS 7168 26.2 d-f 1.1 b 7.7 de 12.6 b-d 4.8 c-f 45.4 c-e 3.9 b-d
IFAS 7192 33.5 cd 7.2 ab 13.3 c-e 10.8 b-e 2.2 fg 46.9 c-e 4.4 ab
Pacific 18.8 d-f 0.5 b 5.6 de 8.8 de 3.8 c-g 59.3 a-c 3.8 cd
Summit 21.9 d-f 1.1 b 8.2 c-e 10.0 c-e 2.5 e-g 51.4 a-d 4.0 b-d
Horizon 16.8 ef 0.8 b 5.1 e 8.0 de 2.8 d-g 65.3 a 3.9 b-d
IFAS 7131 16.5 ef 0.0 b 5.1 e 8.7 de 2.6 e-g 65.1 a 3.9 b-d
IFAS 7181 20.0 d-f 0.6 b 8.4 c-e 8.9 de 2.2 fg 48.4 b-e 4.1 b-d
IFAS 7183 15.2 f 0.8 b 7.9 c-e 5.2 e 1.3 g 53.0 a-d 4.1 b-d


z Carton = 25 lbs. Acre 9680 linear ft of bed. All yields adjusted to 100% plant stand. Extra
diameter and larger; large (6x6) = 2 16/32 to 2 26/32 inches diameter; medium (6x7) 2 8/32 to
small (7x7) = 2 5/32 to 2 10/32 inches diameter.

SMean separation within columns by Duncan's Multiple Range Test, 5% level.


large (5x6) 2 24/32 inches
2 18/32 inches diameter;









Table 7. Fruit and plant characteristics for replicated trial entries.


IFAS 7182 m 3 ug J 3 f 3.5 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 4,5 4.8 5
2 3 f 4 3 4 4. 45

Piedmont t 3 ug 2.5 f 2 2 5 5 5 2 5 3 2.5 5 T
H 0 4 a



Hybrid 26 -t 2 gb jo 4 f 4.5 2.5 3. 3 4 5 3 5 4,5 2 5
IFAS 7178 3.5 gb jo 4 4.5 3.5 4 5 5 4 5 2 4.5 5
IFA 712 m- 3 ug j2 3 f 43 3.5 3 4 5 5 35 5 4.5 4 5
DukeIFAS 7168 m ug 2 3 f 4 3 35 4.8 5 5 2.5 5 .5 4.5 5
IFAS 719 t 3 ug j2 f 3.5 3 3. 5 5 5 25 5 32 5
Pacifiedmont t 3 gb jo 2.5 f 4 2 3 3 5 5 2 5 4.5 3.5 5
Subrid m-t 3 gb J2 3 f 4.5 2.5 3 35 5 2 5 2.5 5 5
IAS 78 3 4 gb jo 4 .5 3.5 4 5 5 5 4 4. 5 5 5
IFAS 71 m-t 3 ug j2 3 f 4 3.5 5 3.5 5 1.5 5 4.5 4 5
IFAS 718 g 2 3 f 24 3 5 4. 5 5 2 5 45 45 5


IFAS 718m t 3 ug J2 3 f 2.5 3 3 5 5 5 2 5 3 4 5
Piedmro t 3 ug jo 2.5 f 4un 2 3 g 5 5 2 5 5 gre.5 5



oSummit -t 3 gb J 3 f 3.5 2.5 2 5 5 5 2 5 2.5 5 5jointless.
Hlridons mtt 4 gb 2a 4 f 4.5 s 5 e 5 3vey c5 5 on5 5
If = flat leaves; s = slightly curled leaves; c = curled leaves.5 2 4.5 5
IFAS 7131 m-t 3 gb j2 3 f 4 3.5 2.3 4.8 5 5 3.5 5 3.5 5 5 4 5
IFAS 7181 t 4 ug J2 3 f 2.5 4 5 4.5 4.5 5 2.5 5 3.5 45 5 TM, variable

IFAS 718392 t 3.5 ug j2 4 f 2.5 3. 5 4 4.5 5 5 2 5 2 3 5

jo Pacific t 3 gb jo 2.5 f 4.5 2 3 3 5 2 5 4.5 3.5 5jontless.
Summ = inconsistent; 3 gb j2 3 f 3.5 2.5 2 5e, 5 5 shape very consistent.2 5 2.5 5 5





1 = poor; 5 = excellent.

1 = severe; 5 = absence of defect,
tb.e. blossom end.






Table 8, Fruit and plant characteristics for observational trial entries.


1% U 1.w $
14 55 0 4 $4 1
1 5 .0 0 0
*0 43 0 3 N 0 'I
0 "4 e &i -s U ^ s I

'4 5 0) fl. 0 N $4 *4 U w 05 *o
0 0 0 ~ 4 4 1 -2 0 *4 Comments
Et 3 $4 3 0 J 0 0y 43 $' U 0 4 C d .4 0y


ACX 860872 AC m
Independence AC m
Summer Flavor
4000 AC m-t


Summer Flavor
5000
Summer Flavor
6000
ARCO 992
ARCO 1033
ARCO 1133
Burton
Carmelita
Castlecrown

Castlehy 1080
Castlehy 1082
Castlehy 1083

Castleking
XPH 5031
XPH 5129
Gator
Hybrid 724
Pacific
LEX 272
Dukado
BUX IT637
BUX 3T299
BUX 3T649

FMX 79
F1X 86
Atlantic City
Bingo
Count Fleet
7177
7193
7194
860344-1
S860351-8


AC m

AC m-t
AR m
AR m-t
AR m
AR t
AR t
AR s

AR m-t
AR t
AR m-t


2 gb jo 4.5
2.5 gb J2 2

4 gb J2 1.5

2 gb jo 3.5

3 ltgb j2 2
3.5 gb jo 4.5
4 gb jo 3
3.5 gb jo 4
3 gb jo 4
4 gb jo 2
4 ug j2 3

2 ug J2 3.5
2 ug J2 4
3.5 ug j2 2


AR m 4 ug j2 4
AS t 4 gb j2 3.5
AS m-t 4 ug J2 4
AS m-t 3 gb j2 4
AS s-m 3.5 gb j2 3.5
AS m-t 3 gb Jo 3
AZ m 3.5 gb jo 4
BR m 3.5 gb jo 4
BU t 3 gb jo 4
BU v.t. 4 gb jo 4
BU t 3 ug jo 2


3 gb J2 3
4 gb j2 4
2 ug j2 3.5
4 ug 12 4
4 ug jo 4
4 ug J2 4
4.5 ug Jo 4
4 ug J2 4
3.5 ug j 4
4.5 gb- Jo 3.5
ug


4.5 1 3 f 4 3 3 5
2 2 4 f 4 2 3.5 5

3 1 2.5 f 3 3 3.5 5

3 1.5 3.5 f 4.5 2.5 3 5

2 2 4 f 4.5 4 2 4
3 2 4 sle 4 4 3.5 5
2 2 4 f 4 3.5 3.5 4
2 1.5 3 f 5 2.5 2.5 5
3 3 3 f 4.5 3.5 2.5 5
3 3 3 2.5 3 3 5
4 2 3.5 sie 4 3 3.5 4

3 2 2 slc 3 3.5 2 5
4 2 3.5 sic 2.5 2 1.5 5
4 3 4 f 3.5 3 4 5

3 2 4 f 4 3.5 3.5 5
4 3 4 f 3.5 2 4 5
5 2 4 f 3.5 2.5 2 5
3 2 4 f 4.5 2.5 3.5 2
2 2 3 f 5 3.5 1.5 5
2 3 3 i 4 3 3 2
3 2 3 f 4 2.5 3 5
4 2 3 f 3.5 2.5 2 4
1 3 2 f 4 1.5 2 5
1 2 4 f 5 2 2.5 1
3 3 4 f 4 2.5 1.5 5

2 4 4 f 3 3 3 3
3 3.5 4 sic 4 4 3.5 5
2 4 4 f 4.5 3 3.5 4
2 1.5 4 sc 5, 3 3 5
4 3 4 f 4.5 3 4 5
4 3 4 f 2 3.5 3 4
2.5 2 4 f 3 3 3 5
4 3 4 f 1 3.5 3 5
4,5 3 4.5 f 2, 3 3 4
2 3 2 f 3 2.5 2 5


5 5 4 5 4 5 5 TMV, splits
5 5 3.5 5 5 5 5 Recessed b.e.

5 5 2.5 5 3.5 3.5 5 IMV

5 5 4 5 2 5 5


5 5
5 4.5
5 5
3.5 4.5
5 4
5 2.5
5 3


.5
















.5




'.5


4 5 Elongate fruit
4 5
5 5
4.5 5 Pointed b.e.
4 5
5 5
4.5 5 Recessed &
pointed b.e.
4 5 Recessed b.e. hvy
3 5 Pointed b.e.
5 5 Earliness
variable
4 5
5 5
4.5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
4 5
4.7 5
3.5 5
2 5
4 5 Variable fruit
size
2 5
3 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 3
5 5
5 5
5 5 Prominent green
stripes on fruit





Table 8 Cont.


UN
k 0


0 .0 P 0 q
00 i w Comments
.0 I n. &i i I IllI1
N' "4 N gB
44 WI .4)
0)r "4 $4 .4 ~ .$, ~ U N~ .~ oiz


860455-3
860507-15
860522-24
860525-35
860530-29
860530-32
860535-1
860839-SBK
860842
860843
860845
860846
860847
860851
860856
860858
Burgis
Flora-Dade

Floradel
Floramerica
Florida 1A

Florida 1B
Florida IC
Hayslip
MH-1
Suncoast
Walter PF
4X 4813
01e

Viva
NCEBR-2
PS 34183

PSR 34283
PSR 67782
PSR 76184
PSR 77584


t 4.5 ug J2
t 4.5 gb jo
m 3.5 gb jo
m 3 gb j
t 3.5 gb j
t 3 tgb jo
s 4 ug jo
m 4.5 ug jo
m 3 ug J2
m-t 3 ug J2
a 4 ltgb J2
m 3 ug Jo
t 3 gb jo
m 3 gb J2
t 4 ltgb J2
t 3 ug J2
a 4 ug J2
a 3.5 gb J2

t 3.5 gb jo
a 3 gb jo
8 3 gb jo

s 3 Itgb jo
s 4 gb jo
t 2.5 gb j2
m 3.5 gb j2
s-m 4.5 ug Jo
m 4 gb jo
m 4 Itgb J2
a 3 gb Jo

m 3 ug j2
m-t 4 ug J2
m-t 3 gb J2

a 3 gb J2
t 4 ug Jo
m-t 3 gb jo
m-t 3.5 ltgb J2


3.5 3
4.5 4
3 3.5
3.5 2.5
2 2.5
2 2.5
3 2
5 3
4 3
3.5 3.5
3 3
4 3.5
3.5 2.5
2.5 3
4 2.5
2 2
3.5 3
4 2

3 2.5
2.5 3.5
4 4

4 4
3 -2.5
3.5 3
3 2.5
3.5 4.5
4 3
3.5 3.5
3 3.5

2.5 3.5
4 4
4.5 3

4 2.5
4 4
4 3
3.5 3


3 5
4.5 5
2 5
2.5 5
4 5
3 3.5
4 5
3.5 5
3 5
4 5
4 5
4.5 3
4 5
2.5 5
3.5 4
4 5
3.5 5
2 5

2 5
3.5 4.5
2.5 5

3.5 5
2.5 5
1.5 5
3 5
4 5
3 5
3.5 5
3 5

2 5
3.5 5
2.5 5

3 5
4 5
3 5
3.5 5


5 5 Puffy fruit
4 5 Oval fruit
4 5 S1. puffy
5 5 Recessed b.e.
4.5 5
5 5 ITH
5 5
5 5
5 5 Recessed b.e.
5 5
4.5 5
4.5 5 TMV
5 5
2.5 5 Recessed b.e.
5 5 TMV
5 5 Rough b.e.
5 5
5 5 Arthritic joint,
recessed b.e.
3.5 5
4.5 5
4 5 Radial splits
hvy.
3 5
4 5
4 5 Variable size
5 4.5 Recessed b.e.
4 5
5 5 Recessed b.e.
5 5
4 5 MV, recessed
b.e., open b.e.
5 5
5 5 Recessed b.e.
4.5 5 Variable set,
splits
4 5 Puffy
5 5
4.7 5
5 5





Table 8 Cont.


0 aI.
Su 4a 0 q


Entry I I I W k CommentsI I

PSR 77784 P M-t 3.5 gb J2 3 2 3 3 f 3.5 3.5 3.5 5 5 5 2.5 4.5 4 4.5 5 Recessed b.e.
Celebrity P t 2 Itgb Jo 4 2 5 4 f 5 2.5 3 4 5 5 2 5 2 5 5
Flora Tom II P t 3 gb J2 3.5 3.5 3 4 f 2 3.5 3 5 5 5 4 5 5 3 5
Mountain Pride P t 3.5 ug jo 3 2 3.5 4 f 3 3.5 3 4 2.5 5 2 5 2 4 5
RS 821313 RS m-t 3 ug jo 4 2.5 2 3.5 f 4 3 3 5 5 5 3 5 4 3 5
Shamrock #1-1 SH m-t 3 gb J2 3 3.5 2 3 f 4.5 4 2 5 5 5 2 5 5 3.5 5 Recessed b.e.
Shamrock #1-2 SH t 3 gb J2 4 3 2 4 f 4 3.5 3 5 4.8 5 2 4.5 4.5 4 5 Recessed b.e.
Mistic SU m 4 gb J2 3 2 3 3 f 4.5 3 2.5 5 5 5 2.5 5 5 4 5


zAC Abbott & Cobb; AR Arco; AS
N North Carolina S.U.; P Petos


- Asgrow; AZ A. R. Zwaan; BR Bruinsma; BU Burpee; FM a Ferry-Morse; G Gulf Coast REC; HM Harris Moran;
eead; SH Shamrock; SU Sunseeds.


1 rough; 5 smooth; ug uniform green; gb green base; ltgb light green base.

Xjo jointed; j2 jointless.
1 poor; 5 excellent
1 small, 5 extra large.

Ul early, 5 late.

t1 inconsistent; 3 average amount of variability; 5 shape very consistent.

f flat leaves; sic slightly curled leaves; c curled leaves.

r severe; 5 absence of defect.
b.e. blossom end.