Title: Vegetarian
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00087399/00431
 Material Information
Title: Vegetarian
Series Title: Vegetarian
Physical Description: Serial
Creator: Horticultural Sciences Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Publisher: Horticultural Sciences Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Horticultural Sciences Department
Publication Date: September 2000
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00087399
Volume ID: VID00431
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.


This item has the following downloads:

september ( PDF )

Full Text


Vegetarian Newsletter

A Vegetable Crops Extension Publication
University of Florida
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Cooperative Extension Service
Vegetarian 00-09
September 2000

"Index Page

-lA dobe Acrobat



Spring 2000 GCREC Cantaloupe Variety Evaluation

Reflective Mulches and Their Effect on Tomato Yield and Insect and Disease Management

Performance of Bell Pepper Varieties, Delray Beach, FL, Fall/Winter 1999-2000

Using Urban Plant Debris to Produce Organic Vegetables and Herbs

On-Farm Demonstration Project: Using Containerized Transplants for Establishing Annual Winter Strawberries in Central


Fall Vegetable Gardens in Florida

List of Extension Vegetable Crops Specialists

(Note: Anyone is free to use the information in this newsletter. Whenever possible, please give credit to the authors. The purpose of trade names in
this publication is solely for the purpose of providing information and does not necessarily constitute a recommendation of the product.)

.......si Prfsio 2000, Prfesonle'tn...... ,a..&Amr............. e-. -i

IFlorida Association of Extension Professionals 2000 Professional Improvement Meeting & Administrative Conference -

Page 1


September 11-15, Hutchinson Island, Marriott and Marion, Stuart, FL http://extension.ifas.ufl.edu for registration form and hotel
The FL-107 Design Team will meet during breakfast (September 15, 7:00 9:00 AM) at the Florida Agriculture Extension
Professionals Meeting. Check out this web site for more information.
http://districtl .extension.ifas.ufl.edu/FAEP2000/faep administrative session%205-04-00.htm Contact: Steve Sargent
Florida Agricultural Conference and Trade Show (FACTS) September 26-27. Civic Center, Lakeland, FL. Contact Elizabeth Lamb
at 561-468-3922.
2000 FACTS Meeting, Florida Postharvest Horticulture Institute September 26-27
This year's theme: "Maximizing Produce Quality through Effective Cooling". Cosponsored by: Horticultural Sciences Department, Cooperative Extension Service,
University of Florida and the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Contact Steve Sargent at 352-392-1928 x215.
Leadership in Vegetables (LIV) South Florida (southern region FL 107) November 2 ,10:00 AM 4:00 PM, Immokalee, FL.
Contact Charlie Vavrina at 941-658-3400.

Spring 2000 GCREC Cantaloupe Variety Evaluation

Cantaloupe is included in the melon group Cucumis melo cantalupensis in the Cucurbitaceae family. Cantaloupes are a relatively minor
crop in Florida so there are no data available on commercial acreage, yield, production or value. However, there was a great increase in
spring 2000 production in west-central Florida indicating the potential for a strong commercial cantaloupe industry in Florida.

The principal restraint on expansion of the cantaloupe industry in Florida has been the lack of dependable, high quality varieties. The ideal
shipping variety for Florida should combine the following traits: 1) capacity to produce high yields; 2) fruit that is sutureless or nearly so,
round to slightly oval, fully netted, a minimum 3 lb. weight with a thick, deep salmon interior, a small, tight seed cavity, and high soluble
solids; 3) a pleasant aroma and taste; and 4) resistance to fruit rots and foliar diseases, especially downy and powdery mildew. Despite
the absence of an intensive private and public breeding effort specifically for Florida, some material approaches these qualities. The
object of this trial was to further evaluate outstanding varieties from the 1999 trial to identify non-sutured or slightly sutured, heavily netted
cantaloupe varieties for potential production in west central Florida.

The EauGallie fine sand was prepared in early March by incorporation of 0-0.8-0 lb. N-P205-K20 per 100 linear bed feet (Ibf). Beds were
formed and fumigated with methylbromide:chloropicrin, 67:33 at 2.3 lb/100 Ibf. Banded fertilizer was applied in shallow grooves on the bed
shoulders at 2.52-0-3.50 Ib N-P205-K20/100 Ibf after the beds were pressed and before the black polyethylene mulch was applied. The
final beds were 32-in. wide and 8-in. high, and were spaced on 5-ft centers with six beds between seepage irrigation/drainage ditches
which were on 41-ft centers.

Eleven cantaloupe hybrids were direct seeded on 21 March in holes that were punched 2 ft apart in the black polyethylene mulch. The
20-ft long plots contained 10 plants each and were replicated four times in a randomized, complete block design. Weed control in row
middles was by cultivation and application of paraquat. Pesticides were applied as needed for control of silverleaf whitefly endosulfann
and imidacloprid), downy mildew (chlorothalonil and azoxystrobin), and lepidopteris larvae (Bacillus thuringiensis, spinosad, and
methomyl). Plant stand counts recorded just before the vines grew together showed that the stand of 'Market Dream' was only 70% and
significantly lower than other entries despite reseeding.

Cantaloupes were harvested seven times beginning on 5 June and ending on 19 June. Marketable fruit were separated from culls that
included fruit weighing less than 2.0 Ib or that were cracked, rotted, or poorly shaped. Observations were made on fruit shape, sutures,
and netting. Soluble solids were determined with a hand-held digital refractometer on several fruit from each entry on several harvest

Early yields as represented by the first two of seven harvests ranged from 36 cwt/acre for 'Market Dream' to 367 cwt/acre for 'Athena'.
'Eclipse' early yields was 364 cwt/acre. Average fruit weight of early-harvested cantaloupes varied from 3.5 pounds for 'Sweet America' to

Page 2


8.6 pounds for 'Minerva'.

Total marketable yields for the entire season varied from 265 cwt/acre for 'Market Dream' to 681 cwt/acre for 'Minerva'. Three other
entries had yields similar to those of 'Minerva'. Average fruit weight ranged from 3.6 pounds for 'Sweet America' to 8.3 pounds for
'Minerva' which was statistically superior to all other entries. Soluble solids varied from 10.0% for HMX 7608 to 12.5% for 'Vienna'. Very
good internal quality is used to describe cantaloupes containing not less than 11% soluble solids. Using this criterion, only HMX 7608
would fail to qualify for very good internal quality. Cull fruit was between 56 cwt/acre for 'Eclipse' and 237 cwt/acre for 'Market Dream',
despite having a reduced plant stand. The principal causes of cull fruit were stem-end cracks, fruit rots, misshapen fruit and undersized
fruit. Marketable fruit per plant varied from 1.7 for 'Vienna' to 3.5 for 'Sweet America', but there was no significant difference among the

Cantaloupe variety evaluation was conducted at this location in the spring 1999 season. Previous trials were in the spring 1988, 1990,
and 1991 seasons. Total marketable yields from commercial hybrids in 2000 varied from 265 cwt/acre to 681 cwt/acre; in 1999 they
ranged from 382 cwt/acre to 660 cwt/acre; in 1991 yields varied from 327 cwt/acre to 547 cwt/acre; in 1990 yields of commercial hybrids
ranged from 300 to 566 cwt/acre. Accordingly, yields in 1999 and 2000 appear to be about 100 cwt/acre greater than those obtained
almost a decade ago. Also, some of the more recently introduced hybrids are more dependable producers and have better shipping
qualities than those previously available.

A complete report on this trial is available from the author at dnma@)gnv.ifas.ufl.edu

Table 1. Early and total marketable yields, average fruit weight, soluble solids, cull weight, fruit per plant, and plant stand for cantaloupe. Gulf Coast
Research and Education Center, Bradenton. Spring 2000.

Early Harvest1

Marketable Avg
Entry Source (cwt/A)2 fruit W

(RML 669) Novartis 112 e-f 3 8.6 a

Athena Novartis 367 a 5.4 cd

HMX 7608 Harris Moran 160 d-f 4.4 ef

Eclipse Petoseed 364 a 5.9 c

SMX 7119 Sunseeds 344 ab 7.0 b

Vienna Asgrow 253 b-d 7.5 b

Star Fire Harris Moran 192 c-e 4.7 de

American Fun Genetics 111 e-f 4.0 ef

Sweet Eagle 275 a-c 4.1 ef

Sweet America Genetics 82 fg 3.5 f

Market Dream enete36 g 4 e

1 First two of seven harvests.
2 Acre = 8712 linear bed feet.

Total Harvest

Marketable Avg fruit
(cwt/A)2 wt (Ib)

681a 8.3 a

625ab 5.6 c

611 ab 4.8 d

591 ab 5.8 c

534 be 7.0 b

519 bc 7.1 b

514 bc 4.8 d

504 bc 4.0 ef

404 cd 4.1 ef

286 de 3.6 f

265 e 4.5 de

solids (%)

11.4 ab


10.0 c

12.4 a

11.9 ab

11.1 be

12.2 ab

12.2 ab

11.7 ab

11.4 ab

Fruit Plant
(cwtlA) 24 per stand
(cwt/A)2,4 plant (%)

140 a-c 2.0 a 98 a

59 c 2.7a 98 a

141 a-c 3.0 a 98 a

56 c 2.4 a 100 a

233 ab 1.9 a 95 a
233ab 1.9a 95a

111 bc 1.7 a 100 a

136 a-c 2.5 a 100 a

104 c 3.0 a 95 a

106 bc 2.3 a 100 a

179 a-c 3.5 a 80 ab

237 a 2.2 a 70 b

Page 3


3 Mean separation in columns by Duncan's multiple range test, 5% level.
4 By weight.

(Maynard, Vegetarian 00-08)

Reflective Mulches and Their Effect on Tomato
Yield and Insect and Disease Management

Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus (TSWV) was first documented in the north Florida/ south Georgia production area in 1986. In the beginning the
virus was at a low level with periodic outbreaks in the fall. In the past few years it has become a serious problem in the spring crop, with
incidence ranging from as little as 10 % to almost 100 %. Most losses from TSWV are due to primary infection, which past research has
shown that primary infection can not be prevented with insecticide sprays. Secondary infection within a field can however be reduced by
insecticide applications. The primary vector in the spring has been the Western Flower Thrips (WFT). At this time the lack of reliable
management tactics stands as a major impediment to the implementation of integrated pest management in tomatoes in the
southeastern United States.

For the past 5 years experiments have been conducted at the North Florida Research and Education Center (NFREC), Quincy to
investigate tactics that can reduce WFT numbers and incidence of TSWV. Potential management strategies would include those which
prevent or slow the initial movement of thrips onto plants in the tomato fields, which would reduce the primary spread of TSWV. One
such tactic which is showing a great deal of promise is use of highly reflective metalizedd) mulches. These metalized mulches have a thin
layer of aluminum applied to a polyethylene mulch and usually have reflectance levels of 75 % or higher.

Insect and Disease Control: In replicated spring trials from 1996 through 2000, metalized mulches have consistently reduced WFT
numbers by up to 50 % in tomato flowers. When the number of thrips is reduced, the primary spread of TSWV is also reduced. For
example, in 1997, nearly 40 % of plants grown on black mulch were infected, while only about 20 to 25 % of plants grown on metalized
mulch plots were infected with TSWV at harvest time.

Large scale grower trials have also been evaluated. In early April of 1998 approximately 1 acre of a 15 acre tomato field had metalized
mulch applied. Early growth was slower than the black mulch due the cooling effect of the metalized mulch. As temperatures increased
the growers remarked that the plants on the metalized beds caught up with the plants on the black mulch and by the end of the season
the plants on the metalized beds were larger than those on the black mulch. The 1 acre block was scouted separately from the rest of the
field. By harvest time the incidence of TSWV was only 10 % in the metalized area compared to 19 % in the black mulch area. In the
spring of 2000 these same growers had a field of 30 acres where they used the metalized mulch for tomato production. At final scouting
date (6/18/00), the metalized field had an incidence of 11 % compared to 45 % in the black mulched area, a 75 % reduction in virus.

Yields: The metalized mulch was also evaluated for its effect on tomato yield and fruit size. In the spring of 1998, with 'FL 47' tomatoes,
the black mulch produced significantly higher yield on a per plant basis than those on the metalized mulch beds ( Table 1). However, on a
per acre basis there were no differences in yields between the two mulch systems. One reason for this is that the metalized mulches are
much cooler than the black mulch due to the reflection of sunlight back up away from the beds. Early season growth on the metalized
mulch is mulch slower, thus the reduction in yield on a per plant basis. Early season soil temperatures have been more than ten degrees
cooler under the metalized mulch than the black mulch. However, the overall yields with the metalized mulch were equal to those
produced on the black mulch due to the reduction of TSWV with the metalized mulch. Fruit size was not affected by mulch type. Because
of this cooling effect on soils we do not recommend use of metalized mulches for late February or early March planting in the north
Florida/ south Georgia production area.

In the fall of 1998, production on metalized mulch was compared to production on white on black mulch which is standard for fall (mid
July to mid August) planting. From earlier trials the metalized films were found to have even greater cooling effects on beds than the
white on black. Neither yields or fruit size of 'Equinox' tomatoes were affected by mulch type ( Table 2).

In the spring of 1999, from a late March planting, neither yields or fruit size were affected by mulch type ( Table 3). Early production
season of 1999 was warmer than 1998 negating early growth differences. Also incidence of TSWV was not affected by mulch type,
probably due to plot to plot interference of mulch type. In our experiments we have found the presence of the metalized mulch can have
an affect on plots as far away as 18 feet and can confound small plot trials.

Page 4



Summary: The use of metalized mulches in tomato production for suppression of WFT numbers and incidence of TSWV has shown
great promise. Our research has shown that use of the metalized mulch can result in a reduction in TSWV even greater than currently
labeled insecticides when compared to unsprayed controls. Costs of the metalized mulch are about 25 % higher than that of other
mulches currently used in tomato production, but large scale field trials have shown that the extra costs are justified due to the
suppression of TSWV. At this time we do not recommend their use for early spring plantings due to their cooling effect on the beds. In
some grower trials, we have looked at using metalized strips in the drive rows during early plantings and have shown reduction in TSWV
in the rows next to the metalized strip. We also plan to evaluate painting a narrow strip black down the middle of the metalized beds to
look at the effect on early plantings for yields and thrips and TSWV control. The metalized mulches are hard for the field crews to work
around due to their blinding effect and growers have had to provide sunglasses to their field help.

Mulch Boxes/a

Metalized 2257

Black 2189

P level ns

(Olson, Vegetarian 00-08)

Page 5

Table 1. Effect of mulch type on yield and fruit size of FL 47 tomatoes. NFREC,
Quincy, FL. Spring, 1998.

Mulch Lbs/plant Boxes/acre Fruit wt. (oz)

Metalized 10.67 1311 7.4

Black 12.06 1277 7.3

P level 0.05 ns ns

Table 2. Effect of mulch type on yield and fruit size of
Equinox tomatoes. NFREC, Quincy, FL. Fall 1998.

Mulch Boxes/acre Fruit wt. (oz)

White on black 1468 5.9

Metalized 1488 5.9

P level ns ns

Table 3. Effect of mulch type of yield and fruit size of FL 47
tomatoes. NFREC, Quincy, FL. Spring, 1999.

Fruit wt. (oz)





Performance of Bell Pepper Varieties,
Delray Beach, FL, Fall/Winter 1999-2000

The value of fresh market green bell peppers was $243 million for the 1998-99 season (Fla. Agric. Stat. Serv., 2000). During that season
21.6 million bushels (28-lbs) were harvested from 19,000 acres for an average yield of 1,138 bushels per acre. The average price per
bushel was $11.24. Pepper production is concentrated in South Florida with 25% (4,700 acres) being produced in Eastern Palm Beach
County. Bacterial leaf spot, caused by Xanthomonas compestris pv.vesicatoria, is one of the most widespread and serious diseases
affecting production of pepper in Florida (Pohronezny et al., 1993 and Pernezny et al., 1998). Pepper varieties with resistance to races 1,
2, and 3 of the pathogen have been commercially available for several years and seed companies continue to develop new cultivars with
resistance to this disease (Shuler, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and Shuler et al., 2000).

Experimental Design: Forty-three varieties were replicated in a complete block with four replications for the evaluation of green fruit. All
of the varieties were resistant to bacterial spot races 1, 2, and 3 except PR 93-2-1 (resistant to race 2 only) and Paladin (no resistance).
The demonstration was in a commercial planting managed by Thomas Produce, Inc. and located at Bob West Rd., and US 441, Delray
Beach, FL. The soil type was a Myakka sand.

Plots were single beds spaced 5.0 feet on center and 9.0 feet long with two rows of plants spaced 18 inches apart. Within-row plant
spacing was 9 inches (12 plants per row or 24 plants per plot, 23,232 plants per acre).

Crop Culture and Evaluation: Transplants were grown by LaBelle Plant World in flats (228 cell) and were seeded September 9. Plants
were 47 days old when transplanted on October 26, 1999. Plants were set on raised beds with white on white polyethylene plastic mulch.
The beds had been fumigated with methyl bromide/chloropicrin 67/33. Severely weakened and dying plants were counted on October 28
and November 4 and 10 and replaced with original transplants. Plots were also evaluated for either dead or weakened plants on
November 18 and at each harvest, but these plants were not reset. The plants were relatively small and were not tied.

Green peppers were picked three times: January 26, February 16, and March 9. At each harvest marketable fruit were counted and
weighed. At first pick ten pepper each from two blocks were randomly selected and measured for length and width, number of lobes, and
pointed and blunted fruit were counted. Colored fruit (red or yellow) from a separate block were picked four times: February 8, 17, 29, and
March10 and evaluated for softness, sunburn, flat and misshapen, soft rot, stip, and for being completely colored with no green showing.
Incidence of bacterial leaf spot was relatively low for most varieties; varieties were rated for the disease on January 27 (one day after first

Weather and Crop Conditions: Weather was considered moderately favorable for crop growth. On October 15, after the beds were
made, Hurricane Irene passed by bringing strong winds and heavy rainfall with temporary flooding which may have leached out some of
the preplant fertilizer. Two weeks after transplanting, leaves of some plants had a light yellow caste and the plants seemed to stop
growing. After three weeks the yellowing seemed to be confined mostly to the lower, older leaves. This yellowing/stunted response
seemed to be associated with specific plant rows since by the third week most of the plants had darker green foliage and had resumed

Results and Discussion: Varieties are listed in order of total yield for green fruit, Table 1. For most of the columns of data, values for the
top ten varieties are in bold face. Desirable characteristics for pepper include high yields, large fruit (low numbers of fruit/carton), ratio of
length to width near 1.00 (blocky), a high percentage of 3 and 4 lobed fruit with the average number of lobes near 4.0, and a low
percentage of blunt or pointed fruit. Fruit characteristics (length and width, number of lobes, and blunt or pointed fruit) were only evaluated
for the first pick when fruit size is usually the largest. A low rating in any one of these areas could be a reason for not growing a variety.

Green Fruit There were relatively small differences in yield between varieties with a range of 107 cartons/A for the top five varieties, a
range of 74 cartons/A for varieties ranked 6-10, and a range of 54 cartons/A for varieties ranked 11-15. Four of the top ten yielding
varieties were also among the top ten in fruit size (Enza 31702, Lafayette (5044, yellow), Rogers 6088, and PR 93-2-1). All of these four
were considered blocky to slightly elongated except Lafayette which was slightly flattened (length to width ratio 0.94). Each of these four
had 100% 3 & 4 lobed fruit except Rogers 6088 which had 90%. Five of the top 10 yielding varieties were considered very blocky (length
to width ratio 0.95 to 1.10): Orion, Crusader, Rogers 6088, PR 93-2-1, and ACX 217. There were 11 varieties which had no blunt or
pointed fruit at the blossom end; only one of these varieties, Sentry, was among the top10 in yield. Three of the top 10 yielding varieties

Page 6


had only 5% blunt or pointed fruit at the blossom end.

Colored Fruit Fruit which were picked were considered to be in some stage of color development on approximately 67% of their surface.
It is not known how quickly or completely these fruit would have turned to full color.

In the Fall 1998 demonstration, a grower selected four varieties at first pick as being especially desirable for red fruit [Sakata 6112,
Crusader (6110), Legionnaire (6089), and Lexington]. In the Fall 1999 demonstration, the primary cause for culls was fruit with soft or
wrinkled sides. This may indicate that fruit were over mature when picked. If fruit had been picked earlier there would have probably have
been less loss to this problem. Stip was only found in five of the 43 varieties (Paladin, X3R Camelot, X3R Wizard, Sakata 7118, and
Rogers 6088). Paladin had the largest number of fruits with stip with 23.2%. The severity of stip was very light to light and it was judged
that many of the fruit would have been marketable.

Literature Cited

Florida Agricultural Statistics Service. 2000. Vegetable summary 1998-99. Florida Agric. Stat. Serv., Orlando, FL.

Pohronezny, K., R. E. Stall, S. Subramanya, and K. D.Shuler. 1993. Integrated control of bacterial spot on peppers. Florida Grower and
Rancher. 86(6):8.

Pernezny, Ken, Robert Stall, Ken Shuler, Janice Collins, and Myrene Hewitt. 1998. Results of a survey of bacterial spot races
(Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria) in pepper in South Florida, spring 1998. Palm Beach County Extension Report (PBCER)

Shuler, K. D. 1993. Performance of bell pepper varieties with resistance to bacterial spot, DuBois Growers, Boynton Beach, FL, fall/winter
1993. PBCER 1994-1.

Shuler, K. D. 1993. Effect of different within-row plant spacings and tying on bell pepper yield, DuBois Growers, Boynton Beach, FL,
fall/winter 1993. PBCER 1994-3.

Shuler, K. D. 1995. Performance of bell pepper varieties with resistance to bacterial spot, DuBois Farms, Boynton Beach, FL, fall/winter
1994. PBCER 1995-2.

Shuler, K. D. 1996. Performance of bell pepper varieties, Thomas Produce, Boca Raton, FL, winter/spring 1995-96. PBCER 1996-6.

Shuler, K. D. 1997. Performance of bell pepper varieties over seven sequential plantings in Southeast Florida, 1996-97. Proc. Fla. State
Hort. Soc. 110: 287-294.

Shuler, K. D. 1998. Performance of bell pepper varieties, planting #2, Green Cay Farm, Boynton Beach, FL, fall 1997-98. PBCER 1998-2.

Shuler, K. D. 1998. Performance of bell pepper varieties, planting #3, Thomas Produce, One Mile Road Farm, Delray Beach, FL,
fall/winter 1997-98. PBCER 1998-3.

Shuler, K. D. 1998. Performance of bell pepper varieties, planting #4, Bedner Farms, Bowman Land, Starkey Road, Delray Beach, FL,
fall/winter 1997-98. PBCER 1998-4.

Shuler, K. D. 1999. Performance of bell pepper varieties, DuBois Farm, Delray Beach, FL, winter/spring 1998-99. PBCER 1999-2.

Shuler, K. D., K. L. Pernezny, and J. L. Collins. 2000. Performance of bell pepper varieties, Thomas Produce, Snake Farm, Delray
Beach, FL, fall/winter 1999-2000. PBCER 2000-2.

Table 1. Summary of yield and fruit characteristics for a bell pepper variety demonstration, Thomas Produce, Snake Farm, Bob West Road, Delray Beach.,
Florida, 1999-2000.z

Page 7

Plot Seed B. spot
no. Variety Source resistance

41 Enza 31702 Enza 1,2,3

39 Orion Enza 1,2,3

4 Lafayette u Rogers 1,2,3

Crus~aldger, Rogers 1,2,3
7 6110 Rogers 1,2,3

6 RPP 6088 Rogers 1,2,3

16 ACX223 A&C 1,2,3

25 PR 93-2-1 Pep. Res. 2

2 Sentry Rogers 1,2,3

3 Commandant Rogers 1,2,3

15 ACX217u A&C 1,2,3

43 Enza 31715 Enza 1,2,3

28 PR 99Y-4 Pep. Res. 1,2,3

19 Lexington Asgrow 1,2,3

26 PR99R-1A Pep. Res. 1,2,3

40 Diego Enza 1,2,3

8 Legionnaire,
8 6089 Rogers 1,2,3

27 PR 99Y-3 Pep. Res. 1,2,3

24 Boynton Bell Pep. Res. 1,2,3

31 PR9701R-4 Pep. Res. 1,2,3
23 Bennington,
23 Bengg8ton, Asgrow 1,2,3

34 Early Petoseed 1,2,3
SSunsation u

22 Ex 12293 Asgrow 1,2,3

14 ACX 209 A&C 1,2,3

17 ACX228 A&C 1,2,3

20 Yorktown Asgrow 1,2,3

11 XPP8124 Sakata 1,2,3

25 Ib crtsn/A Length x F
25bcrtsn/A No. Fruits Lengthx
r pr p width
First fruits/crn perplant (inches)Y


lobes Avg. no.
b(s loesy

1526 111965 a 44.7 3.90 a-d [3.99x3.591 1.11 100 3.7
1929 x 3.72
1390 19 48.6 4.10 a-c 3.74 x 3.72 1.01 90

1476 _1923a_ 43.8 3.82 a-f 3.79 x4.03 0.94 100 3.4

1890 F E3.69
1398 a-d 51.0 4.23 ab 3.72x3.69 1.01 95 3.6

1430 1858 48.3 4.23 ab 4.04 x 3.82 1.06 90 3.6

1326 1843 54.9 4.45 a 4.65x 3.21 1.45 95 3.5

1406 1825a 45.9 3.89 a-e 3.89 x3.88 1.00 100 3.7
1 a-g
a1567 1 48.6 3.88 a-e 3.38 x3.77 0.90 100 3.5

1447 17 49.5 3.78 a-f 4.00x3.53 1.13 3

1368 1707 49.2 3.65 b-g 4.34x26 3.54 1.234 100 3.
1 47.8 3.81 a-f 4.30x 3.82 1.13 3
1398 a176 0 49.1 3.77 a-f 3.896 x 3.67 1.03 100 3.3

14257 17- 48.3 3.636 b-f 3.63 x 3.40 1.0711 95 3.5
14 j 1 52.3 3 3. x 3.

1047 169j 49.5 3.78 a-f 4.3 x 3.1 1.13 85 3.9

1413 1713 49.4 3.79 a-f 3.8155 x 3.62 0.98 100 3.6
1407 707 49.2 3.63 b-g 4.34 x 3.54 1.23 10 0 3.2
1378 1703a 1 49.07 3.71 a-f 3.66 x 3.54 1.03 1 00 3.2
1264 48.7 3.2 b-g 3.69 x 3.57 1.02 100 3.5

1421 166_ 48.3 3.66 b-f 3.63x 3.40 1.07 95 3.5

1249 1658 52.3 3.88 a-e 3.63x3.57 1.02 95 3.9

1304 1644 51.1 3.90 a-d 3.95 x 3.41 1.16 85 2.9

1282 1640 54.2 3.89 a-e 3.81 x 3.40 1.12 100 3.5

1131 1620 51.5 3.63 b-g 4.05x3.76 1.08 95 3.2

1291 1612 51.7 3.71 a-f 3.93x3.43 1.15 90 3.1

1316 1603 51.0 3.52 b-g 3.69 x 3.57 1.04 95 3.5
HE 55

Blunt Stip
(%)y (N)W


5 | 0 3.8 bc

20 0 6.4 a

5 0 2.2c-h

10 0 2.8 b-h

10 1 2.1 c-h

50 0 1.5e-h

15 0 2.1 c-h

0 0 1.7d-h

15 0 2.3 c-h

5 0 2.2 c-h

35 0 3.3 b-e

10 0 1.2 f-h

S 0 2.1 c-h

10 0 1.6e-h

30 0 1.9 c-h

5 0 2.3c-h

5 0 1.7e-h

40 0 2.9 b-g

15 0 2.8 b-h

30 0 2.8 b-h

0 0 2.0 c-h

35 0 2.1 c-h

5 0 2.3 c-h

50 0 2.4 c-h

0 0 1.4 e-h

5 0 1.2 f-h

Page 8

33 X3R Wizard Petoseed 1,2,3

21 Defia2nce, Asgrow 1,2,3

42 Enza 33702u Enza 1,2,3

13 Ss 830 A&C 1,2,3

35 X3RAladdinU Petoseed 1,2,3

5 Paladin Rogers --

30 PR99R-7 Pep. Res. 1,2,3

1 Brigadier Rogers 1,2,3

18 Enterprise Asgrow 1,2,3

9 SPP6112 Sakata 1,2,3

29 PR9701R-3 Pep. Res. 1,2,3

36 X3R Chalice Petoseed 1,2,3

12 XPP8125 Sakata 1,2,3

32 X3R Camelot Petoseed 1,2,3

10 SPP7118 Sakata 1,2,3

3 a Sia Petoseed 1,2,3

X3R Red Petoseed 1,2,3



1586 A, 2 1 r c,, IIanQ 3 4 117

an I

. II e-m I I .... II_..... I I g.. ..
1358 1581 47.9 3.52 b-g 3.83 x 3.54 1.08 90 3.2

1100 1569frm 56.1 3.91a-d 3.89 x 3.38 1.15 100 3.5

1223 58.1 3.96 a-d 3.86x3.41 1.13 33

1343 I1560m 49.0 3.47 c-g 3.90 x 3.58 1.09 90 3

1321 1504 50.8 3.36 c-g 3.70 x 3.67 1.01 9 37

1222 1478 51.4 3.60 b-g 3.53 x 3.79 0.93 100 3.3

1270 1477 50.0 3.48 b-g 3.89 x3.50 1.11 95 3.6

1138 1468kJm 52.1 3.40 c-g 3.88 x 3.27 1.16 95 3.3

1252 1460k 53.5 3.71 a-f 3.95 x3.88 1.02 100 34

1218 1444km 55.2 3.43 c-g 4.05 x 3.37 1.20 95 3.3

1223 1388 53.9 3.22 d-g 4.13 x 3.42 1.20 90 3.3

1255 1353 45.1 3.09 fg 3.87 x 3.59 1.08 95 3.2

1181 1 1353m 52.4 3.15 e-g 4.00 x 3.43 1.17 100 3.5

963 1024 n 59.1 2.91g 3.80 x 3.37 1.13 95 3.7

30 2 4.8 ab

30 0 2.0 c-h

5 0 24 c-h

10 0 2.1 c-h

0 0 1.4e-h

0 23 1.8c-h

0 0 1.9 c-h

5 0 1.2 f-g

0 0 1.4 e-h

10 0 1.4 e-h

25 0 3.2 b-f

0 0 37 b-d

0 0 1.6d-h

15 3 0.9gh

0 2 1.5 e-h

20 0 2.4 c-h

5 0 0.7h

z Average of four replications. Single bed plots, 5' x 9'. Two rows per bed, 12 plants per row, 24 plants per bed, 23,231 plants/A (nine inch within-row spacing).
Transplanted Oct. 26, 1999 (transplants grown by LaBelle Plant World). 92 days to first pick. Mean separation by Waller-Duncan K-ratio T test, 5% level,
means with the same letter are not significantly different.
Y Average of 20 fruits, 10 each from blocks 1&2, first pick, January 26, 2000.
x Scale: 1.00 = blocky, width same as length. >1.00 = degree of elongation, length greater than width. <1.00 = degree of flatness, lengtless than width. W Flat
or pointed at blossom end with very little indentation of lobes.
w Evaluation of colored pepper picked four times.
v Plants evaluated Jan. 27, 2000, one day after first pick, by K.Pernezny, J. Collins, A. Carroll, and K. Shuler.
u Green to yellow.

Table 2. C,:,l,:r-'1 l f ir-, I re -iir A I rirnmiar, of9 ,i1, An. ,I i :r, i:|l r-n:|n : [i[:,:,-r ar-j ,*I,-nrlc:,i,-:rli,:n il,,:,rj-Z Pr,.i:ii n ik,- Farnm B:.'h tV- -:_ R .: ,,l
D -ira, r, B :i :,rI a l';i';';i- 'i'I I -i: I

Full, r P1.l ,k:-lril- A- '- ,l ,i
,:,:,l,:,r -,1 ir u it Ir, i ..i ,:,l I ,l l 11-3 1
,,l i r,_ :l ri. ', I
n ln ,-_ rk_ tlI

6 RPP 6088 62
4- Lafae-i- 74


C Iull i[ r _.-n l

ni :- I_ r- ,[i r- r r.. r k -- P

0 1 1 0 1 9
I< 2 .II 1:1 i: 24

I II II I 22

Page 9

.. ari,:_ I,


14 AC:- : 2('i .(I

1li Le- in.rll:rn 68

2.1 ,:,rkI,:. 72

1,. Enerpr.i-e 64

SSPPi. 1 12 64

22E 122i' 5

11 :,1PP1 ,.124 j r

2 Snr, 76

. C :nini, r.'l 1 nr.' l i 1

C ru i ,:l-r

1 Bri.gIi.r 69

1in S I 71 1,. 67

1 I. Ss 830 58

12:.1' PP ,:. 125 "5'

li: C : 2 1 -i .

.1 PR' ';Ti ilR.4 55

,. L-gionnaire, 47

5 PaIHlllr T5

25 PR tii. 2 1 .i

XI:PR R- 1
G -a tIa .1

17 Z.C X

S .)' rio.n 1.

- ;i PR '*;riR-7 | :.4

' -nnin .-n -: .

. 3:,3R Red 70

- ,. PRI. lr -- 1.-1

-4.:1 D"-C. R d

46 23 11

50 23 4

45 ;. 1 (

51 19 i:

51 16 I

41 23

42 24 II

41 45 i .

.i II


47 2. 4

38 31 0 1

41 2,-. 1' !.

2 ;. i 1 I i:


}.I. 1, 1 II I

32 31 0 0

it:. 44

t16 21 i 3i

21 52 '

27 64 0 3

2 -24 I1 in

1 4 .. 11. i

1 i, i, 24

I Ii ,i 27

SII iI 20


II ) 24

II. 25

II IIi 46


4 ,*'

. 2 I. .I': : ,i

3 0 0 35 light

1 (4II II 4 I

1II II t-j-
long) a:o
S1 1 .' : r. ,: k

4 2 5

o0 0 33

:- i, l I
z *iral.


4 i .:. .: .la
-l r'I 9icII-

S- IIr,,:
-_ rl r1 _

141 i 1:1 54

0 0 0 62

,[,-.1 n

Page 10


- 1

J 1I Er: -. 1(2

E-r2 : a P 17 1

I rTari I ariI,:- -1 1.) 1 ;1j '.J-J)n-rI aIIJr PloI. z ::- iI) f
al I~-.~-i ulii iii ~Ir--1 r~I Iri~i ir Ii.Oiri. irrrim rP':-iariI':- I ul
*r1r.ii-.rIri1-~ h.ci full Ir-1 ri.r1 rI .ill, l--1
air,1r ar-.- MIohtaIzCri-- l


4: 7


Il Il Il

Il Il Il

Il Il Il



Il Il Il

Il Il Il

1'1 1'1 :' 1 :

Il Il Il Il

4r. r-

a1. II


J 211
ar i i

(Shuler, Pernezny, Collins, Vegetarian 00-08)

Using Urban Plant Debris to Produce Organic Vegetables and Herbs

Composted yard waste is currently available free in selected Florida Counties. Florida law requires that yard waste be separated from
other municipal solid waste. This provides an opportunity for agriculture to recycle the product if it is properly composted. Urban plant
debris (UPD) that goes through the proper composting techniques can be certified for use in organic crop production. Unfortunately, there
is little consistency among counties in how the yard waste is handled once separated and many counties do not properly compost the

Orange County has a well decomposed product which is chopped, screened, and windrowed, then turned periodically until it is completely
decomposed to a soil-like consistency. This product has been shown to be acceptable as an amendment for ornamental potting soil.
Seminole County goes through a similar process but only piles the screened product and does not turn it, resulting in a fine mulch-like
material. Work conducted at the Seminole Community College Horticultural Unit for the last two years has shown that urban plant debris
(the Seminole County product) can be used to produce vegetables and herbs if special attention is paid to managing pH and nutrient
availability by the addition of other amendments and fertilizers.

Horticultural peat was used to reduce the pH of the UPD. Mineral analysis of the material 15 weeks into the trailing indicated the plant
debris, when used alone, was tying up added nitrate nitrogen even though it contained very high levels of total nitrogen and organic
fertilizers containing nitrogen were added. The addition of 50% perlite to the UPD (v/v) allowed added nitrogen to be just as available as
when 100% perlite was used. Perlite should be looked at more closely as a means to increase nutrient availability when UPD is used.

Yields of organically grown greenhouse lettuce and European cucumbers were best when 50% perlite / 50% UPD was used. Leaf petiole
nitrate-nitrogen of European cucumber was the same when perlite was used alone or when mixed with UPD. One year later, marketable
yields of colored bell pepper were not significantly different between 100% perlite, 50% perlite / 50% UPD, and 100% UPD treatments
which may indicate that the UPD had mineralized enough over time so that it was not tying up nutrients.

Concurrent demonstrations outdoors with organic production practices showed similar slow growth of vegetables the first year with the
exception of collards, which thrived on the UPD. Collards would make a good candidate for organic production provided the UPD could be
certified. Herbs produced with UPD the second year responded quickly when chemical fertilizers were added. Several varieties of mint
and oregano covered the 4x50 ft grow bed and overflowed the sides in about six months from transplanting.

Page 11


In summary, it was difficult to get a quick growth response to added organic fertilizers when the Seminole County urban plant debris was
used alone. However, with the addition of perlite, added organic nutrients were more available to the plant. Once the UPD product was
fully decomposed, there was little difference between treatments in the organic production system. The use of chemical fertilizers with the
UPD produced quick plant growth responses as would be expected under conventional methods.

(Tyson, Vegetarian 00-08)

On-Farm Demonstration Project: Using Containerized Transplants for Establishing
Annual Winter Strawberries in Central Florida

Introduction: Containerized transplants (or plugs) can be used instead of bare-root transplants to establish annual winter strawberry
crops in Central Florida. The advantages of using plugs include much less water use for crop establishment, less plant mortality than with
bare-root transplants, and often earlier fruit production than bare-root transplants. While these advantages are helpful in some aspects,
growers are unsure whether the increased costs of using plugs (they can cost twice as much as bare-root plants) are worth paying in
order to receive the advantages of using plugs.

Objectives: This on-farm demonstration project sought to bring the use of plugs to the attention of growers on a large-scale basis so they
could see the use of the plugs on a first-hand basis, evaluate the data we collected and analyzed, and then come to a decision regarding
whether to use plugs for crop establishment.

Materials and Methods: One-quarter acre of plug transplants (cv. "Sweet Charlie") were planted next to one-quarter acre of bare-root
transplants on five different farms in Hillsborough County, FL for the 1999-2000 winter strawberry season. The bare-root plants were
established with the traditional overhead irrigation program used for strawberry crop establishment, while the plug plants were established
using minimal amounts of water primarily using drip irrigation. The growers on each farm recorded yield data from the two sections
throughout the season.

Results: The data from a typical farm in this project shows the trend the yields from the bare-root and plug established plants generally
followed (Figure 1). The plug-established plants produced a small yield of fruit 7 to 10 days before the bare-root-established plants began
to yield fruit. The bare-root plants produced statistically higher yields than the bare-root transplants in mid-December. In mid-January, the
plug-established plants had apparently (statistical analysis was not performed for this period) higher yields than the bare-root plants. This
yielding pattern was observed on all of the demonstration farms. Another example of this trend can be seen in Figure 2 for Farm B. The
total yields for the season from the bare-root plants were statistically similar to yields from the plug plants when compared across all five

Conclusions: In previous research at the GCREC-Dover, plug plants produced higher yields than bare-root plants during November and
December. However, in thel999-2000 season, bare-root-established plants had higher earlier yields than plug plants during this same
period. This happened despite the fact that the plug-established plants started producing fruit about a week earlier than the
bare-root-established plants. However, initial yields from plug transplants were very low. This reversal from the trend of the previous two
years can be explained in part by the fact that environmental conditions in this season were what many growers considered to be optimal
for growing strawberries. This is in contrast with the previous year in which temperatures at the start of the season were higher than
normal. Under the more stressful conditions of that season, plug transplants produced higher early yields and higher total yields for the
season than bare-root transplants.

The variation in yielding pattern between the two propagation systems, without regard to which system produces earlier in a given season,
may be an excellent farm management tool. For example, this variation in timing may lead a grower to establish his/her crops using both
systems on separate portions of their farm in order to achieve a more consistent yield throughout the season. Therefore, as one system
declines in yields the other system may be increasing in yields. Having a more consistent harvesting pattern, rather than having dramatic
swings in yields, is the goal of many growers because it leads to easier management of harvesting personnel and a more steady (and
possibly greater) flow of income, particularly if their peak yields coincide with a poor market.

The advantages of these differences in yielding pattern may be even more pronounced if these trends can be even further defined and
correlated to particular weather patterns and specific cultivars. We might find, for example, that a hot fall will lead to earlier "Sweet
Charlie" yields with plug transplants than with bare-root transplants while a mild fall will lead to earlier yields with bare-root transplants.

Page 12


Recent advances in long-term weather forecasting and ongoing research with plug transplants will make this type of planning possible.

Another vital consideration when deciding whether to use plug transplants is connected to the loss of methyl-bromide and weed control.
No other single alternative presently available is as effective as methyl-bromide in controlling weeds. One of the most effective ways to
control weeds without methyl-bromide is to incorporate pre-plant herbicides into the bed. However, the overhead irrigation used to
establish bare-root transplants washes much of the pre-plant herbicide out of the bed, severely limiting the herbicide's usefulness. Plug
transplants require no overhead irrigation, therefore pre-plant herbicides will be more effective in controlling weeds when used in
conjunction with plug transplants.

Other advantages of using plug transplants include the reduction of on-farm water use (this has both economic and environmental
benefits) and less costs for labor and plant replacement associated with replanting as plugs have a lower mortality rate than bare-root

Figure 1. Comparison of Yield Data

for Plug and Bare-root Propagated
Strawberries on Farm A

m4. :P ..q ..I' ii1IJf.., '

s .. .' 1 1111 .1111 11111 n J11 I : *

Vf '1 11 1

a 20('
E, -,*


~k I~

-{ ----*.pu, .a .'e.

0) C) C" 0 0 0C
0') ,- 0 0 0 0
-3 I) *- r
i" I _

Page 13



(Waldo and

Duval, Vegetarian 00-08)

r H a117.. 1111


Fall Vegetable Gardens in Florida

While spring is the season most Florida gardeners prefer to have a vegetable garden, the fall is not far behind. While many of the warm
season crops, especially the faster-maturing ones like beans and cucumbers, can be planted in September, most fall gardens will contain
the cool season crops. These include English peas, the cole crops, beets, radish, lettuce, onions, and strawberries.

It is especially important that two crops of this group are started in the fall to ensure a harvest in the spring. These are bulbing onions and
strawberries. Plants need exposure to the cool, short days of the winter to initiate bulbing in onions and fruiting in strawberries. For this
reason, I am including the following planting chart for these two popular Florida garden crops.


Amaryllidaceae Allium

Page 14

Figure 2. Comparison of Yield Data for
Plug and Bare-root Propagated
Strawberries on Farm B

'I -I I ,-

g oI I.I*]
= Y- V 1, ,-
.01 C. C
80 .
i: L- -- '


., .- -., C
r r"
(.4 _


Rosaceae -

Fragaria spp

~'-r a :..~.1.....1:.1.

j -., ..-

Planting times:

NF: Sept-Nov (s)

Nov-Jan (t)

CF: Oct-Nov (s)

Dec-Jan (t)

SF: Oct-N (s)

Dec-Jan (t)


Bulb 4x18"

Bunch 2 x18"

Multipliers 6x18"

Bulb varieties:



Sweet Dixie

Tropicana Red

Bunching varieties:


Perfecto Blanco

Multipliers (shallots)


Planting time:

NF: Sep 20-Nov

CF: Oct-Nov

SF: Oct-Nov

Plant spacing: 12x36"

Plants/100' row = 100

Days: 60-90 (t)

Yield/100' row = 50#





Florida Belle


Oso Grande


Strawberry Festival

Sweet Charlie

(Stephens, Vegetarian, 00-08)

Page 15


Extension Vegetable Crops Specialists

Daniel J. Cantliffe
Professor and Chairman, Horticultural Sciences Department
Timothy E. Crocker
Professor, deciduous fruits and nuts, strawberry
John Duval
Assistant Professor, strawberry
Chad Hutchinson
Assistant Professor, vegetable production
Elizabeth M. Lamb
Assistant Professor, production
Yuncong Li
Assistant Professor, soils
Donald N. Maynard
Professor, varieties

Stephen M. Olson
Professor, small farms

Mark A. Ritenour
Assistant Professor, postharvest
Ronald W. Rice
Assistant Professor, nutrition
Steven A. Sargent
Professor, postharvest
Eric Simonne
Assistant Professor and Editor, vegetable nutrition
William M. Stall
Professor, weed control
James M. Stephens
Professor, vegetable gardening
Charles S. Vavrina
Associate Professor, transplants
James M. White
Associate Professor, organic farming

FastCounter by LinkExchange
This page is maintained by Susie Futch.... if you have any questions or comments, contact me at
zsf@amail.ifas.ufl. edu

Page 16

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