• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Historic note
 Main














Group Title: Bradenton GCREC research report - University of Florida Gulf Coast Research and Education Center ; BRA1984-9
Title: Foliar applied nutrient sprays on tomatoes
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00065200/00001
 Material Information
Title: Foliar applied nutrient sprays on tomatoes
Series Title: Bradenton GCREC research report
Physical Description: 4, 10 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Csizinszky, Alexander Anthony, 1933-
Gulf Coast Research and Education Center (Bradenton, Fla.)
Publisher: Gulf Coast Research & Education Center, IFAS, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Bradenton FL
Publication Date: 1984
 Subjects
Subject: Tomatoes -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Tomatoes -- Nutrition   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: A.A. Csizinszky.
General Note: Caption title.
General Note: "August, 1984"
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00065200
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 62557917

Table of Contents
    Historic note
        Historic note
    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
        Page 14
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
-c IFAS, University of Florida
5007-60th Street East
Bradenton, FL 34203

Bradenton GCREC Research Report BRA1984-9 August 1984


FOLIAR APPLIED UUTRIE:T SPRAYS 0O TOMATOES

A. A. Csizinszky


Field trials were conducted at the Gulf Coast Research and Education Center,
Bradenton, for several seasons to evaluate the response of staked fresh
market tomatoes to foliar applied seaweed based (Goemar) sprays. The
effect of the various treatments on early fruit yield and fruit size was
of particular interest. This report summarizes the result of the trials.


MATERIALS AiD METHODS

Some of the experimental procedures were common in all trials. Plots were
established on Lau Gallie (formerly iyakka) fine sand. Cultural methods inclu-
ded full bed mulch and seepage irrigation. Seven beds, 3Q inches wide
and 9 inches high, were formed on 4.5 ft. centers between irrigation furrows
40.5 ft apart (7500 linear ft of mulched bed per acre). Soil fumigated
with MC-33 (33, chloropicrin and 66,% methyl bromide), applied with 3 chisels
at 154 lb per acre. Beds were mulched with black, 1.25 mil thick, poly-
ethylene in the spring (Feb-Hay) and white polyethylene in the
summer-fall (Aug-Dec) season. Insecticides and fungicides were applied
once per week. All nutrient sprays were applied by a hand sprayer with
a fan nozzle at 45 lb/sq in. pressure. At harvest, fruits were separated
into marketable and cull, then marketable fruits were graded into four
sizes (5xb, 6x6, 6x7 and 7x7), counted and weighed.

Fall 1981 and Spring 1982 Trials

Experimental design was split-plot, arranged in a randomized complete block
with 4 replications. Hain plots, 30 ft long, were nutritional treatments
and sub-plots each 15 ft long, were two tomato cultivars (cvs), 'Duke'
(Pdto Seed Co.) and 'Hayslip' (University of Florida, IFAS). Nutritional
treatments were: 1) complete fertilizers + water spray (control); 2) fertilizers
without Ag, 1 and Mo + water spray; 3) complete fertilizers + '11b6' spray
(Table 1); and 4) fertilizers without hg, B and Ho + 'B186' spray. The 'DM16'
spray was applied at 34 fl oz per acre in 53 to 8d gal ii 0, depending
on plant size.. In 19dl fall, first spray application was on Oct. 26, then
four more-times on Nov 4, 13, 25 and on Dec 1. In 1982 spring the 'BM86'
spray was applied six times: one week after transplanting (Mar 9),
then five more times at 14 day intervals, beginning at first bloom (Mar 30).
In the complete fertilizer treatments, nutrients applied (in lb per acre),were:
325 ~; 162 P205; 650 K20; 37 IgO; 0.97 B; 0.97 Cu; 5.34 Fe; 2.43 Mn; 0.066 Mo and
2.27 Zn. rlutrients were derived from KNO3, N!I4;O3, iMgSO4 and superphosphate
(20' P205) which also'contained 80 lb/ton micronutrients (F 503 oxide). In
the fertilizer treatments without Mg, B and Ho, P205 was derived from








superphosphate without the F-503 oxide and micronutrients were derived
from CuS04, Fe sequestrene, MInS04 and ZnS04. Phosphorous, Mg0, micronutrients
and 10% of the N and K20 were applied as bed mix, the remaining N and K
fertilizers were banded in two narrow, 1 to 2 inch deep furrows on each
half of the bed, 12 inches from the center. In fall 1981, due to two consecu-
tive days of frost, all marketable size fruit was harvested once over on
Dec 22. In 1982 spring, fruit was harvested four times in weekly intervals,-
beginning May 19.

Spring 1983

Experimental design was split-plot, arranged in a randomized complete block,
replicated four.times. Main plots, 40 ft long, were spray treatments,
'BM86' and water control, and sub-plots, 20 ft long, with two cvs,
'Sunny' (Asgrow Seeds) and 'Hayslip'. 'BM86' spray was applied six
times: on the day of transplanting (Mar 9), then 5 more times in
14 day intervals. Nutrient rates were similar as described above for the
complete fertilizer treatments. Nitrogen and K, however, were derived from
KN03, 18-0-25+2, and isobutylidene diurea (IBDU). Fruits were picked twice, on
June 13 and 21.

Fall 1983 and-Spring 1984.

Experimental design, cvs and fertilizer rates were as described above for
spring 1983. Spray treatments were: water control; 'B10'; 'BM86'; '1Z63' (Table
1); 'MZ63 + B10' and 'MZ63 + BMT6'.

Sprays were applied four times during the season: one week after transplanting
(Aug 29, 1983 and Feb 24, 1984) then three more times at two-week
intervals beginning at first bloom. In the combination sprays, the 'MZ63' was
applied in the first two treatments, then 'B10' or 'BM86' sprays were
applied in the third and fourth treatments. Fruit was picked 4 times, in
weekly intervals, beginning on Nov 9 in 1983 and 3 times in weekly
intervals beginning on May 8 in 1984.


RESULTS AMD DISCUSSION

Fall 1981 and Spring 1982 Trials

Tomato yields, weight, and number of fruit set, were not significantly
different with any of the four treatments. Fertilizer treatments of
six applications of 'BM86' sprays had no effect on fruit size or earliness
on either of the two cultivars.

Spring 1983

Foliar application of 'BM86', averaged over two cvs and four replications,
increased (P < 0.05) 5x6 yield by 3700 lb/A, combined 5x6 + 6x6 yield by
4300 lb/A and marketable yield by 4200 lb/A over control in the 1st pick
(Fig 1). The effect of BM86 sprays on the 5x6 yield was greater (by 25%)
on the 'Hayslip' than on 'Sunny', which had a 16% yield increase compared to
control. In the second pick, yields were not significantly different with
or without 'BM86' sprays.





-3-


Fall 1983

In the first pick, 'MZ63 + BM86' treatment increased (P 0.05) 5x6 yield
compared to control (Fig. 2). Tomato plants in plots treated with 'B10',
'BM86', or 'MZ63' had lower but statistically similar yields to 'MZ63 + BM86'
treated plots. 'MZ63 + B10' sprays did not .increase 5x6 yields over control;
Combined 5x6 + 6x6 yields in the first pick (Fig. 3) were highest with
the 'MZ63 + BM86' treatment, followed by 'BM86' and 'MZ63' sprays. Plots,
treated with 'B10'. and 'MZ63 + B10', had similar yields to control plots.
Marketable yields (Fig. 4) were not affected by seaweed based spray
treatments. The proportion of fruit harvested in the first pick for
each grade is listed on Table 2. Seaweed based sprays increased the
early yield of extra large (5x6) fruit in the first pick, compared to
control. The effect of Goemar sprays on the early and total yields of
'Hayslip' and 'Sunny' is on Tables 3 and 4. The results indicate a
different cultivar response to the sprays. In the first pick, 5x6
yields of 'Hayslip' (Table 3) were increased by '11Z63 + B-186','BM8i6' and 'MZ63'
sprays. Yields of 5x6 + 6x6 and marketable fruits were increased by all
of the 5 seaweed based sprays compared to control. For the total harvest,
only 'MZ63 + BM66' spray increased 5x6 fruit yields. All other seaweed
based sprays reduced 5x6, 5x6 + 6x6 and marketable fruit yields for
'Hayslip'. 'Sunny' yields in the first pick were increased by all
seaweed based spray treatments (Table 4). Yields of 5x6 and 5x6 + 6x6
fruits were particularly high with 'MZ63 + Bn86' and 'BlO'.sprays. For the
total harvest, the combination of 'MZ63 + BH86' sprays increased 5x6,
5x6 + 6x6 and marketable yields and 'B10' spray increased 5x6 fruit yields.
Ione of the five seaweed based sprays caused a significant yield
reduction in 'Sunny' for the total harvest.

Spring 1984

'In the first pick, 'MZ63' and 'hiZ63 + Bl386' sprays slightly increased 5x6
yields over control (Fig. 5). In the second pick, 5x6 fruit yields
in the 'MZ63' treated plots were 3%5 higher than in the control plots,
10,680 lb/A vs. 7,750 lb/A, respectively, for the two treatments. Two
of the treatments, 'B10' and 'MZ63 + BM186', reduced 5x6 fruit yields when
averaged over the two cvs and four replications. Combined 5x6 + 6x6
yields (Fig. 6),.have shown similar trends to the 5x6 yields. 'MZ63'
sprays alone increased fruit yields, compared to control; 'B10' and 'MZ63'
+ BMG6' sprays reduced 5x6 + 6x6 yields. Marketable yields (Fig. 7), were
als6 showing similar trends to 5x6 and 5x6 + 6x6 yields: a slight
increase with 'MZ63', 'MZ63 + B10' and 'BM86' sprays over control, and lower
yields with 'B10' and 'MZ63 + BM86' sprays in this season. The two cvs, as
in the fall of 1983, again had a different response to seaweed based
sprays (Tables 5 and 6). In 'Hayslip', only the 'MZ63 + B3M6' spray increased
yields in the 5x6 fruit in the first pick (Table 5). All other seaweed
spray treatments reduced yields, compared to control. In the 5x6 + 6x6
and marketable sizes, '1M63 + BM86' and 'MZ63 + B10' sprays increased yields.
All other spray treatments reduced 'Hayslip' yields in the first pick.
For the season (Table 6), 'Hayslip' yields slightly increased with the
'MZ63 + B10' spray, other seaweed sprays had no effect on or reduced
yields. 'Sunny' yields in the first pick (Table 6) except with '310'
spray, were increased with seaweed based sprays. The greatest yield
increase, in 5x6, 5x6 + 6x6 and marketable fruits, was recorded with the 'MZ63'
spray. Total harvest yields of 'Sunny' were also higher with seaweed sprays








than with water control, except with 'B10' treatment which depressed fruit
yields. In summary, Goemar seaweed based foliar sprays increased tomato
yields in three of the five seasons. Yield increases were due to increased
early yields of 5x6 and 5x6 + 6x6 size fruits. Cultivars responded differently
to seaweed based sprays. 'Hlayslip' yields in both seasons in the first
pick increased only with the 'MZ63 + BM86' sprays. However, total
yield of 'Hayslip' increased only slightly with 'MZ63 + BM86', or was not
different from control yields. 'Sunny' yields in 1983 fall were highest
with the 'MZ63 + BM86' spray. In 1984 spring, 'Sunny' yields were highest
with the 'MZ63' spray.


ACINOWLEDGMENT

The support of Goemar International Corporation of Atlanta, Georgia for
this research is gratefully appreciated.


Table 1. pH, seaweed paste and mineral concentrations in Goemar sprays.

Spray
B10 BM86 MZ63

pH 7.2 .6.2 5.9

--------------o--------------z/gal

Seaweed paste 40.0 21.4 40.0
i (as urea) 5.34 5.34
Mg 3.86 3.86
S 3.20 5.90
B 2.14 2.64 --
Cu 1.04
MIn 2.10
Mo 0.013
Zn 3.15


-4-








Table 2. Proportion of 1st pick of fruit in the total yield. Fall 1983.z
Treatment
Fruit size and grade Control B10 BM86 MZ63 HZ63 + B10 MZ63 + BM86
--------------------------- --------- -----

5x6 41 51 64 64 54 62
6x6 13 16 20 15 18 15
6x7 3 4 4 5 5 3
7x7 3 4 3 4 3 2
Total marketable 11 15 17 15 14 16
Cull 22 26 20 25 20 24
Marketable + cull 13 17 18 18 15 18
Combined 5x6 + 6x6 20 27 33 31 27 29

ZAveraged over 2 cvs and 4 replications.


Table 3. Effect of Goemar sprays on 'lHayslip' yields (lb/A)z'y GCREC-Bradenton.
Fall 1983.

----------------------- Treatment -----------------------
Fruit size and grade Control B10 BH86 MZ63 MZ63 + B10 iZ63 + BMd6

First pick:

5x6 2255 2189 3680 3605 2074 4571
(100) (97) (163) (160) (92) (203)
5x6 + 6x6 3273 3955 5311 5635 3955 6672
(100) (121) (162) (172) (121) (204)
Marketable 3716 4277 6178 6531 4478 7217
(100) (115) (166) (176) (121) (194)

Total Harvest:

5x6 6'200 5295 6195 5805 4413 7160
(100) (85) (100) (94) (71) (116)
5x6 + 6x6 22403 19620 18960 21953 17648 23290
(100) (88) (85) (98) (79) (1p4)
Marketable 49614 40233 40243 43438 39594 45341
(100) (81) (81) (88) (80) (91)


ZAverage of 4 replications.
YYield difference (%) compared


to control in-bracket (control = 100e).







Table 4. Effect of Goemar sprays on 'Sunny' yields Ilb/A)z'y GCREC-Bradenton.
Fall 1983.
----------------------- Treatment -----------------------
Fruit size and grade Control B10 BM86 MZ63 MZ63 + B10 MZ63 + BM86

First pick:

5x6 2335 4241 3528 3526 2921 4549
(100) (182) (151) (151) (125) (195)
5x6 + 6x6 5451 7068 7253 6480 6438 7494
(100) (140) (133) (119) (118) (137)
Marketable 6499 8369 8392 7781 7893 8575
(100) (129) (129) (120) (121) (132)

Total Harvest:

5x6 4483 7240 4680 4725 4283 6960
(100) (161) (104) (105) (96) (155)
5x6 + 6x6 20046 21158 16658 21096 20118 24253
(100) (106) (93) (105) (100) (121)
Marketable 41579 44628 44441 48171 47559 52163
(100) (107) (107) (116) (114) (126)


ZAverage of 4 replications.
Yield difference (Q) compared to control in bracket (control = 1005).


Table 5.. Effect of Goemar sprays on Hayslip yields (Ib/A)z'y GCREC-Bradenton.
Spring 1984.
----------------------- Treatment -----------------------
Fruit size and grade Control B10 BM86 MZ63 HZ63 + B10 MZ63 + BM86

First pick:

5x6 1784 1439 1654. 1657 1677 2177
(100) (81) (93) (93) (94) (122)
5x6 + 6x6 2288 1957 2211 2081 2540 2949
(100) (86) (97) (91) (111) (129)
Marketable 2410 1985 2343 2183 2650 3004
(100) (82) (97) (90) (110) (124)

Total Harvest:

5x6 14777 9634 12731 12437 15858 13050
(100) (65) (86) (84) (107) (83)
5x6 + 6x6 23792 19149 23577 23504 27937 23183
(100) (80) (99) (99) (117) (97)
Marketable 29024 25020 33172 30336 33695 29858
(100) (84) (111) (102) (113) (100)


ZAverage of 4 replications.
YYield difference (0) compared


to control in bracket (control = 100%).








Table 6. Effect of Goemar sprays on 'Sunny' yields (lb/A)z'y GCREC-Bradenton.
Spring 1984.
----------------------- Treatment -----------------------
Fruit size and grade Control B10 BM86 MZ63 MZ63 + B10 HZ63 + BM86

First pick:

5x6 1506 1210 2056 2456 1731 1756
(100) (80) (136) (163) (115) (116)
5x6 + 6x6 1819 1623 2596 3084 2233 2153
(100) (89) (143) (170) (123) (118)
Marketable 1847 1656 2646 3189 2261 2178
(100) (90) (143) (173) (122) (118)

Total Harvest:

5x6 14209 11477 21262 24438 19200 13418
(100) (81) (150) (172) (135) (94)
5x6 + 6x6 23762 19051 33560 37613 34085 26741
(100) (80) (141) (158) (143) (112)
Marketable 29688 24079 40410 42842 39882 32262
(100) (81) (136) (144) (134) (109)


Average of 4 replications.
YYield difference (%) compared


to control in bracket (control = 1000).






Figure 1. *
EFFECT OF BM86 ON TOMATO YIELDz (SPRING 1983)

1 1ST PICK E 2ND PICK

Y
1E 80000.00_______________---

600.00 ___________________ 4--- ----
L
D
40000.00 A..... -

N


B r__ *.^ *t"
B 2000. 00 L. IIi :-:


T C T C T C T C .T C T C
5/6 6/6 Marketable G Cull Marketable + 5/6 + 6/6
Cull
Spray treatment, fruit size and grade
Legend: T = BM86 spray, C = control
zAveraged over 2 cultivars and 4 replications
*Mean difference is significant at the.5% level






Figure 2.


EFFECT OF GOEMAR SPRAYS ON


5/6 TOMATO YIELDSz


Fall 1983.


10000.00


3000.00

6000.00


2000.00


- 1ST PICK I ZND PICK 3RD PICK 4TH PICK


SF'RAY TREATMENTS


Legend: C = control; T1 = B10; T2 = BM86; T3 = MZ63; T4 = MZ63 + B10; T5 = MZ63 + BM86
ZAveraged over 2 cultivars and 4 replications
YMean separation- between columns for the 1st pick by Duncan's multiple range test at P 0.05


Y
I
E
L
D
L
B
S
/
A


O ab ab

T .I T2 .., T4 T5






































Legend: C = control; T1 = B10; T2 = BM86; T3 = MZ63; T = MZ63 + B10, T5 = MZ63 + BM86
Averaged over'2 cultivars and 4 replications
YMean separation between columns for the 1st pick by Duncan's multiple range test, at P < 0.05






Figure 4.
EFFECT
Fall 1983.


OF 6OEM FRf


S P iA YS ON


MARKETABLE


YIELDS


i l- 1ST PICK


gi ZND PICK


m 3RD PICK


E 4TH PICK


SPRAY


TREATMENTS


Legend: C = control; T1 = B10; T2 = BM86; T3 = MZ63; T = MZ63 + BI0; T5 = MZ63 + BM86
ZAveraged over 2 cultivars and 4 replications


50000.00

40000.00

30000.00

Z0000.00

10000.00


L
B
SS
/
A


0.00


OF _O A SPAY O






Figure 5.


EFFECT OF GOEMAR SPRAYS ON


5/6 YIELDS SPR 784z


M 1ST PICK I ND PICK 3RD PICK


,F 'i "- "r 'l

_,, ,-L.-_. Io -_ I,- ._ ., ..^. .2. .
r .,; .r,'. ;.: ""'"...'": /. ". ";/',;/":> S'':-;" : .:.': ''.'.':.:' '


.SPRAY TREATMENTS


Legend: C = control; T = B10; T = BM86; T = MZ63; T = MZ63 + B10; T5 = MZ63 + BM86
ZAveraged over 2 cultivars and 4 replications


Y
I
E
L
D
L
B
S
A


20000.00

16000.00

12000.00

8000.00

4000.00

0.00






Figure 6. z


Ci ,irCrT


nF: fcngMnR


SF P RYR


L I L.r7 I ti ...... .- .S -Y -- -5


ON 5/6+6/6


YIELDS


Spring 1984


35000.00




21000.00

14000.00

7000.00 -

0.00 -


S- 1ST PICK


zi


- ZND PICK 3RD PICK


C TZ TZ T3 T4 T5


SPRAY


TREATMENTS


Legend: C = control; T1 = B10; T2 = BM86; T3 = MZ63;
ZAveraged over'2 cultivars and 4 replications


T Z3+BU _1t 1 ~ii


T = MZ63 + BLU; 5 = MZbJ + t6eO


Y
I
E
L
D

L
B
S
/
A


Figure 6.






Figure 7.
EFFECT
Spring 1984


OF GOEMAR SPRAYS ON MARKETABLE YIELDSz


i 1st pick


III2- 2nd pick


- 3rd pick


Y
I
E
L
D

L
B
S
/
A


40000.00

32000.00

24000.00

16000.00

8000.00

0.00


C TI T2 T3 T4 T5

.SPRAY TREATMENTS


Legend: C = control; T = B10; T2 = BM86; T3 = MZ63; T4 = MZ63 + B10; T = MZ63 + BM86
ZAveraged over.2 cultivars and 4 replications




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs