• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Main
 Tables
 Copyright






Group Title: Strawberry variety trials.
Title: Strawberry variety trials. 1983
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076493/00003
 Material Information
Title: Strawberry variety trials. 1983
Series Title: Strawberry variety trials.
Alternate Title: Research report - Dover, Florida Agricultural Research and Education Center ; DOV-1983-2
Physical Description: Serial
Language: English
Creator: Albregts, E. E.
Howard, C. M.
Publisher: Agricultural Research and Education Center, IFAS, University of Florida
Publication Date: 1983
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076493
Volume ID: VID00003
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 143118825

Table of Contents
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Tables
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Copyright
        Copyright
Full Text
lrb
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER
IFAS, University of Florida
3-o- Rt. 2, Box 157
Dover, Florida 33527

Dover ARC Research Report DOV-1983-2 November 1983

STRAWBERRY VARIETY TRIALS 198 ;'- LI ` RA Y

E. E. Albregts and C. M. Howa d JUN 19 C

INTRODUCTION !..A.S. Univ. of Florida

Strawberry fruit yield and quality characteristics are dependent on the clone,
climate, soil, fertility, irrigation, and cultural conditions. Since these
conditions are only somewhat similar over a regional area, clones must be evaluated
within a region to ascertain those clones most adapted. The purpose of this report
is to provide results from a trial with selected strawberry cultivars and the most
promising breeding lines grown at the Agricultural Recearch Center, D.v r, rti -T-P
during the winter of 1982-83.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Five cultivars and 36 advanced breeding lines were evaluated in the fruit
production field during the winter of 1982-83. Included in this report are the
performance results of five cultivars and eighteen of the best responding breeding
lines. Beds were fumigated with MC-33 at 400 lbs/bedded acre, and fertilized with
10-4-10 at 2000 Ibs/acre. One fourth of the fertilizer was broadcast before bed
preparation, and the remainder was banded 2 inches deep in bed center. One-half of
the applied nitrogen was from sulfur coated urea. All plants were set on October
14, 1982. All breeding lines and the 'Dover' cultivar were from ARC-Dover
nurseries. The other cultivars were obtained from a local grower. A randomized
complete block design with 5 replications per cultivar and 14 plants per replication
was used. Plants were sprayed with pesticides as needed, and moisture was applied
as required by overhead sprinkler irrigation. Fruit were harvested twice weekly
from late December (included in January yield) through April and graded, counted,
and weighed. Marketable fruit were also evaluated for several quality factors as
noted in the Tables.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
January marketable fruit yields (Table 1) were highest for clones 80-456,
'Florida Belle', 80-1283, 77-163, 80-1332, 80-733, and 80-933. Clones 77-163,
80-733, 80-933, and 80-1283 also gave high February yields. 'Douglas', 'Tufts',
'Pajaro', 77-869, and 80-1340 yields were low in January and February. Since fruit
prices generally decline with time, early yields are important for a profitable
season. Seasonal marketable yields were numerically highest with the clones 80-456,
80-1232, 80-933, 80-733, 80-991, 77-198, 77-873, and 80-1283. Seasonal yields were
numerically lowest with 'Douglas' and 'Tufts'. 'Douglas' had the lowest percentage
of its fruit rated cull while clones 80-1283, 'Dover', 80-952, and 77-873 had the
greatest percent cull fruit (Table 2). As noted in Table 2 most cull fruit are
harvested late in the season. The principal reason for cull fruit is small size.
The large number of fruit on some clones during the latter part of the season plus
the high temperatures often encountered at that time result in many small fruit.
This is especially true of those fruit ripening last in a fruiting cycle.

Professor (Soils) and Professor (Plant Pathologist), respectively, with the
University of Florida, IFAS, Agricultural Research Center, Rt. 2, Box 157, Dover,
Florida 33527.







Clones 77-869, 78-1268, and 79-1126 were rated as the firmest fruit while
'Tufts' and 'Douglas' fruit were rated as the softest (Table 3). However, fruit
firmness is not an accurate measure of shipping ability. Resistance to abrasion
is one of the more important characteristics of a good shipping berry. Clones
80-933, 79-1125, 79-1126, and 78-1268 were rated highest in resistance to abrasion
although many other clones were also highly resistant to abrasion. The clone
'Douglas' had the least resistance to abrasion of the clones tested.

Marketable size fruit were rated for their quality characteristics, -and -thebe
are presented in Table 4. Fruit of the clones 80-456, 80-733, and 77-163 had the
greatest percentage green tips. 'Florida Belle', 'Pajaro', and 80-933 fruit had
the most green shoulders while fruit from clones 80-456 and 80-933 had more
deformed tips. Clone 80-933 had the most split fruit and 'Florida Belle' the most
misshapen fruit. 'Pajaro' produced the greatest percent water damaged fruit and
'Douglas' and 'Tufts' the most fruit shaped as fans. Soluble solids of fruit on
March 4 and 22 and results of evaluation of fruit after one week of storage are
given in Tables 5, 6, and 7. Fruit of the clones 77-873, 80-456, 77-869, and
77-163 had highest soluble solids on March 4 while fruit of the clones 'Florida
Belle', 'Pajaro', and 77-163 had highest soluble solids on March 22. taste of the
fruit was usually sweet with the higher soluble solids content. Clones 78-1268
and 77-869 had best fruit quality after one week of storage. However, storage
tests must be conducted several times during a season for reliable results.





Table 1. Marketable fruit yield for several cultivars and breeding lines for 1982-
83 season.

Cultivars Marketable yields (flats/acre) Average
or fruit iwt.
lines January February March April Totaly (grams/fruit)

77-163 984bx 807 852 338 2982bc 16.34d
77-169 744cd 200 966 1240 3151bc 15.42e
77-198 784cd 121 1251 1088 3245b 15.57e
80-456 1214a 269 1390 1045 3918a 17.77bc
80-733 968b 745 1001 783 3497ab 19.04a
77-869 452e 207 1226 985 2869bc 14.19fg
77-873 786cd 255 625 1609 3245b 16.93cd
80-933 932bc 779 987 1081 3778ab 17.30c
80-952 869c 449 819 397 2534c 12.92g
80-991 758cd 159 939 1630 3487ab 15.35e
79-1119 735cd 43 1027 1265 3071bc 15.19ef
79-1120 688d 186 1278 990 3142bc 14.52f
79-1125 729cd 84 998 795 2605c 15.04e
79-1126 719cd 83 789 1446 3036bc 15.63e
80-1232 984b 260 1329 1319 3892a 17.00cd
78-1268 762cd 401 1235 565 2963be 15.51e
80-1283 1020b 863 966 349 3199b 13.66
80-1340 586de 248 1278 885 2996be 14.12Mg
Dover- 833c 327 1297 1248 2729kb 14:96ef
Douglas 304e 138 742 903 2088c 18.02b
Fla. Belle 1040b 190 317 1615 3161bc 17.71bc
Pajaro 565de 153 281 1968 2967bc 15.98de
Tufts 397e 96 807 1102 2401c 14.51f


ZFruit weighing 10 gram (1/3 ounce) or more and of marketable quality.

YMay total more than 100% because of rounding.


"Numbers followed by different letters in a column
Duncan multiple range test, 5% level.


are significantly different by


v"28.5 gram/ounce.





Table 2. Cull fruit yield for cultivars and breeding lines for 1982-83 season.


Cultivars Cull yield (flats/acre)
or
lines January February March April Total % Cull

77-163 40 119 664 325 1147cdy 22.53
77-169 39 48 272 788 1146cd 21.55
77-198 128 133 287 715 1263c 22.71
80-456 18 30 240 604 892de 14.66
80-733 63 174 597 580 1414bc 23.39
77-869 91 58 194 521 863de 18.50
77-873 18 19 142 1340 1519b 26.11
80-933 57 117 360 877 1410bc 21.98
80-952 130 147 357 581 1214c 26.57
80-991 24 34 380 1008 1446bc 23.85
79-1119 74 36 185 816 lllOcd 21.44
79-1120 70 37 198 674 978d 19.02
79-1125 37 58 244 632 971d 21.96
79-1126 77 107 309 888 1381bc 25.56
80-1232 29 79 248 695 1051d 16.68
78-1268 84 98 198 390 769e 14.08
80-1283 79 316 761 613 1767a 29.44
80-1340 39 85 249 620 994d 20.03
Dover 63 178 440 1273 1954a 28.48
Douglas 19 30 8 250 307f 10.00
Fla. Belle 35 102 50 910 1097cd 20.75
Pajaro 13 42 13 567 636e 12.22
Tufts 51 91 85 434 661e 17.21


ZCull fruit were those
were damaged, or were


that either weighed less
severely misshapen.


than 10 grams (1/3 ounce), had rot,


YNumbers followed by different letters in a column are significantly different by
Duncan's multiple range test, 5% level.





-5-


Table 3. Fruit firmness and resistance to abrasion for several cultivars and
breeding lines for 1982-83 season.


Cultivars Fruit firmness Resistance to abrasiony
or
lines H F S VS A B C

Percent of harvests that fruit exhibited these qualities

77-163 16dex 74a llcd 96ab 3b Ic
77-169 33cd 6lab 5cd lb 98a lb Ic
77-198 23d 69ab 8cd 99a lb
80-456 13de 63ab 24bc 96ab 3b Ic
80-733 15de 64ab 18c 2b 90b 3b 7b
77-869 62ab 37bc Id 99a lb
77-873 27cd 71ab 2d 98a lb le
80-933 40c 54ab 5cd lb 100a
80-952 25cd 60ab 15c 98a lb Ic
80-991 14de 58ab 28b lb 96ab 4b
79-1119 i4de 70ab 15c 99a Ib Ic
79-1120 20de 53b 27bc lb 96ab 2b 2c
79-1125 29cd 63ab 8cd lOOa
79-1126 60b 39bc Id lO0a
80-1232 18de 64ab 18b 91b 4b 5bc
78-1268 75a 25c l00a
80-1283 10de 68ab 22bc 98a Ib Ic
80-1340 30cd 68ab 2d 99a Ic
Dover 27cd 64ab 8cd 99a lb
Douglas 10de 41bc 45a 3b 77c 1Oa 12a
Fla. Belle 25cd 60ab 14cd lb 91b 4b 4bc
Pajaro 54bc 43bc 3cd 99a lb
Tufts 3e 35bc 56a 6a 93b 3b 4bc


"Fruit firmnes': Relative resistance to
F = firm, S = soft, and VS = very soft.


pressure when hand squeezed, H = hard,


YResistance to abrasion: Damage to flesh surface when rubbing fruit surface with
mild pressure, A = high rating means no damage to fruit, B = slight damage to
fruit, and C = considerable damage to fruit.

XNumbers followed by different letters in a column are significantly different by
Duncan's multiple range test, 5% level.







Table 4. Quality of marketable size fruit of several cultivars and'breeding lines
for,1982-83 variety trial.


Cultivars Moderately Slightly
or Green Green deformed deformed Water
lies tips -shoulders .tips tips Split Misshapen damaged Fans

Percent of total marketable size fruit with the listed characteristics

77-163 7.87 0.77- 3.03 0.08 0.48 0.65 3.43 0.16
77-169 3.97 2.42 2.20 0.18 1.19 1.48 2.52 1.19
77-198 2.76 9.37 3.32 0.11 1.24 2.05 18.56 3.04
80-456 8.45 6.65 4.28 0.00 1.20 1.27 3.34 0.97
80-733 8.42 12.07 2.93 0.00 2.13 1.00 3.57 0.28
77-869 0.29 5.97 0.66 0.00 0.07 0.44 2.51 0.07
77-873 2.65 10.11 1.42 0.08 3.07 1.81 19.64 0.50
80-933 3.24 17.03 4.01 0.17 4.25 2.16 16.05 0.61
80-952 6.27 1.95 1.16 0.00 0.15 0.79 1.16 0.45
80-991 4.31 5.19 0.52 0.03 0.32 2.47 5.58 0.32
79-1119 3.50 0.51 3.57 0.07 .3.13 1.79 3.97 1.09
79-1120 4.63 2.25 3.00 0.07 2.55 0.48 1.57 .4.90
79-1125 2.17 2.47 1.11 0.04 1.02 2.04 12.68 3.15
79-1126 7.35 4.93 3.15 0.19 0.95 1.48 2.05 1.36
80-1232 5.40 6.84 3.28 0.00 0.61 2.99 2.12 1.80
78-1268 1.12 4.24 1.31 0.15 1.46 3.28 5.28 2.78
80-1283 3.14 9.81 0.66 0.00 '0.03 0.82 3.52 1.92
80-1340 0.94 4.58 0.80 0.00 0.14 1.87 4.69 2.46
Dover 4.79 14.04 1.72 0.03 0.21 1.46 1.22 4.43
Douglas 3.05 2.80 0.64 0.00 1.59 1.59 18.75 8.90
Fla. Belle 1.44 45.38 1.86 0.00 1.16 3.38 13.12 2.27
Pajaro 0.87 18.61 0.75 0.08 0.28 1.51 26.15 1.43
Tufts 1.87 2.14 1.11 0.00 0.85 2.49 5.03 6.23




-7-


Table 5. Soluble solids for cultivars and breeding lines tested March 4, 1983.


Cultivars
or Range of
lines soluble solids Average Comments

77-163 7.0 10.1 9.0 Sweet
77-169 7.6 9.4 8.4 Slightly sweet
77-198 6.6 7.4 7.0 Bland
80-456 9.0 12.0 9.5 Good flavor
80-733 8.0 9.2 8.5 Slightly sweet
77-869 8.2 10.2 9.4 Sweet (good)
77-873 7.8 12.8 9.6 Slightly sweet
80-933 6.8 9.2 8.0 Sweet
80-952 6.4 10.2 8.4 High reading sweet, low
tart
80-991 6.8 7.4 7.2 Slightly sweet
79-1119 ---------------------
79-1120 7.4 9.2 8.1 Slightly sweet
79-1125 8.4 8.4 Slightly sweet
79-1126 7.0 10.0 8.5 Bland
80-1232 6.8 9.8 8.4 Slightly sweet
78-1268 6.0 7.6 6.8 Bland
80-1283 6.0 7.6 6.5 Bland
80-1340 6.8 9.0 7.5 Bland
Dover 7.2 7.6 7.4 Slightly sweet
Douglas
Fla. Belle ---------- ----------
Pajaro 8.0 9.0 8.5------------
Tufts 5.0 8.2 6.5 Bland





-8-

Table 6. Soluble solids for cultivars and breeding lines tested March 22, 1983.


Cultivars
or Range of
lines soluble solids Average Comments


77-163
77-169
77-198
80-456
80-733
77-869

77-873
80-933
80-952
80-991
79-1119
79-1120
79-1125
79-1126
80-1232
78-1268
80-1283
80-1340
Dover
Douglas
Fla. Belle
Pajaro
Tufts


7.6
5.8
5.4
6.6
6.4
7.6

7.0
5.8
6.2
5.4
5.6
5.6
5.6
6.4
4.2
5.0
6.4
7.4
6.2
7.6
7.8
7.8
5.6


7.8
7.6
8.4
7.8
11.4
9.6

8.4
7.8
7.2
7.0
6.4
7.2
7.4
8.2
7.4
6.2
9.6
8.4
7.0
9.0
11.8
11.4
8.2


9.1
6.5
7.1
7.2
8.9
8.9


8.0
7.2
6.6
6.2
6.0
6.6
6.3
7.2
5.7
5.7
7.6
7.8
6.5
8.6
9.8
9.3
6.8


Sweet
Slightly sweet to bland
Bland
Bland
Slightly sweet
Slightly sweet, light
flavor
Slightly sweet
Bland
Slightly tart
Bland
Bland
Bland
Slightly sweet
Slightly sweet
Bland
Bland
Slightly sweet to sweet
Slightly sweet, good
Slightly sweet to bland
Tart sweet (seedy)
Sweet
Sweet (good)
Slightly sweet (seedy)


if 1







Table 7. Strawberry fruit of cultivars and breeding lines harvested on March 4,
1983 fruit and stored in cooler until evaluated on March 9, 1983.


Cultivars
or % %
lines Calyx color Color General appearancez Bruised Rot

77-163 Mod. green V. light red Fair dull 46.15 7.69
77-169 Mod. green Light red Fair to good 58.82 5.88
77-198 Mod. green Light red Somewhat dull fair 46.67 6.67
80-456 Good green Mod. red Good 57.14 ---
80-733 Mod. green Light red Dull, green shoulders 68.18 18.18
77-869 Mod. green Good red Dull, good overall 18.75 6.25
77-873 Mod. green Mod. red Good 53.33 20.00
80-933 Mod. green Red pink Fair 58.82 ---
80-952 Mod. green Mod. red Dull 58.82 5.88
80-991 Mod. green V. light red Dull 69.23 ---
79-1119 ---- ----- -- ------ --- ---
79-1120 Dull green Light red Slightly dull 38.46 ---
79-1125 ------ ------ -------- ---
79-1126 Dull green Mod. red Slightly dull good --- ---
80-1232 Bright green Mod. red Good 28.57 14.29
78-1268 Mod. green Deep red Very good 8.57 ---
80-1283 Mod. green Mod. red Good 54.05 5.41
80-1340 Mod. green Light red Fair 55.56 7.41
Dover Mod. green Mod. deep red Dry but good 26.32 5.26
Douglas ------ ----- ------- -- ---
Fla. Belle ------ ----- -------- ---
Pajaro ---- ------ ------- ---
Tufts ------ ----- -------- ---



"General appearance: Fruit quality characteristics (seediness, green tips or
shoulders, shape, splits, etc) and color intensity.


,









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




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