Gulf Coast Research and!
13138 Lewis Gallagher Rsaad
Dover, FL 33527
GCREC-Dover Research Repwot.
DOV-1994-3 (November 199 )
SOURCES OF STRAWBERRY TRANSPLANTS ON FLORIDA
WINTER FRUIT PRODUCTION
E. E. ALBREGTS AND C. K. CHANDLER ^,,
JAN 2 5 995
ini sii of Flcrid
GCREC-Dover Re earch Report DOV1994-3 November 1994
EFFEC OF SOURCES OF STRAWBERRY TRANSPLANTS ON FLORIDA
WINTER FRUIT PRODUCTION
E. E. Albregts and C. K. Chandler1
G lf Coast Research & Education Center-Dover
University of Florida, IFAS
13138 Lewis Gallagher Road
Dover, FL 33527
Some strawberry transplants have been shipped into Florida from other
areas in the Uni ed States and Canada for winter fruit production for at
least 25 years. nthracnose and some other diseases are generally reduced
in the fruiting field with the use of transplants from northern areas of
the United States and southern Canada. However, angular leaf spot and the
twospotted and cylamen mites may infest transplants shipped into Florida
from these northern areas. The shorter daylength and the cooler weather
the northern pla ts receive before plant harvest promote earlier fruit
harvest than that of local transplants. However, chilling can vary from
year to year bec use of variations in the weather. Because of these
advantages, many rowers set at least a part of their strawberry acreage
using northern tr nsplants. However, transplants from northern nurseries
are generally mor expensive because of higher shipping costs. About
22,000 plants per cre are needed for a fruit production field. A one or
two cents additional cost per transplant makes a $220 to $440 difference
in production cos s. The objective of this study was to evaluate the
fruiting response of three strawberry clones as affected by transplant
source. The clone evaluated in this study are the major cultivars grown
in Florida and hav been grown in Florida fruiting fields for two to five
Transplants of 'Swe t Charlie', 'Oso Grande', and 'Seascape' were obtained
from local nurseries and from the Ghesquiere nursery in Canada.
Transplants were se and established on fertilized, mulched, and fumigated
beds during two sea ons. Planting dates were October 15, 1992 and October
11, 1993. Overhead sprinkler irrigation was provided for soil moisture,
plant establishment and freeze protection.
'Sweet Charlie' tra plants from Canada fruited in November each season
and had higher frui yield in December the second season. Total fruit
yields of Canadian Sweet Charlie' transplants were higher during both
seasons (Table 1). During the second season, the Canadian source
transplants of 'Swe t Charlie' lost considerable foliage because of
angular leaf spot in February and March but this did not seriously reduce
fruit yields. 'Seas ape' transplants from Canada had higher fruit yield
through December both seasons, but total yield was the same or higher with
'Professor Emeritus a d Soil Scientist and Associate Professor of Plant
the Florida grown plants. 'Oso Grande' transplants from Canada gave
higher December fruit yields, but seasonal yields were not affected by
transplant source. Fruit from all locally grown transplants were as large
or larger than Canadian fruit during both seasons (Table 2).
The average fruit weight was usually greater with the Florida grown clones.
The percent marketable fruit was not different because of plant source for
'Sweet Charlie' but was greater with the Florida 'Oso Grande' in 1992-93
and for the Canadian 'Seascape' in 1993-94. The percent marketable fruit
as related to transplant source varied with the season, as did the cull
The expected gross returns for each month and the season are given in
Table 3. The average monthly fruit price for the five years, 1989-90
through 1992-93 (Freie and Pugh, 1994) was used to obtain the monthly
monetary returns for sale of fruit. The production, harvest, marketing,
and transplant costs have not been deducted from the data in Table 3.
A. Transplant Sources
1. Total fruit yield of transplant sources varied from season to
season except for the 'Sweet Charlie' cultivar.
2. Canadian grown transplants fruited earlier than Florida grown
B. In particular
1. Seascape: Cull yields and average fruit weight were higher
with Florida grown transplants.
2. Sweet Charlie: Cull yields, average fruit weight, and %
marketable fruit were similar with both transplant sources.
3. Oso Grande: Average fruit weight was greater with the Florida
transplant source, while cull weight varied with the season.
C. Monetary returns with a five year average fruit price during two
seasons before all costs of production were deducted.
1. 'Sweet Charlie': Canadian transplants gave higher monetary
returns than Florida plants.
2. 'Seascape': Florida transplants gave higher monetary returns
than Canadian plants.
3. 'Oso Grande': Florida transplants gave higher monetary returns
than Canadian plants.
Table 1. Monthly a d total marketable fruit yields of Canadian and Florida grown
transplants for 992-93 and 1993-94 season.
Fruit yield by month and seasonal yield (lbs.acre 1 x 1000)
Cultivar So rce November December January February March April Total
Sweet Charlie Ca ada 0.13 2.71 az 4.64 a 7.85 a 8.23 a 4.26 a 27.81 a
Fl rida ---- 2.60 a 4.54 a 7.31 a 6.92 a 4.19 a 25.56 b
Seascape Can da 0.17 2.86 a 5.36 b 2.43 a 13.04 b 5.29 b 29.14 b
Flo ida --- 1.02 b 9.29 a 1.04 b 18.27 a 6.77 a 36.38 a
Oso Grande Can da ---- 2.25 a 4.52 b 6.88 a 14.60 a 4.24 b 32.49 a
Flo ida ---- 0.49 b 7.51 a 3.68 b 14.13 a 7.17 a 32.97 a
Sweet Charlie Cana a 0.62 4.03 a 5.46 b 14.22 a 5.03 a 3.78 a 33.15 a
Flor da ---- 2.17 b 8.56 a 12.24 b 7.58 a 2.43 b 32.98 a
Seascape Cana a ---- 1.04 5.14 a 8.70 a 9.33 a 3.69 a 27.90 a
Flor da ---- ---- 6.43 a 10.44 a 7.43 a 2.49 a 26.79 a
Oso Grande Cana a ---- 1.94 3.63 b 7.29 b 15.23 a 2.08 a 30.16 a
Florida ---- ---- 6.38 a 10.90 a 12.34 b 2.27 a 31.88 a
zMeans within a cultiva and month and followed by different letters are significantly
different by Duncans m ltiple range test (5% level).
Table 2. Seasonal average fruit weight, percent marketable, and cull weight for 1992j
and 1993-94 seasons.
Avg. fruit wt. % Cull
Cultivars Source grams Marketable (lbs.acre 1000)
1992 93 season
Sweet Charlie Canada 16.50 bz 71.17 a 11.3 a
Florioa 17.07 a 69.09 a 11.4 a
Seascape Canada 16.92 b 74.80 a 9.8 b
Florida 19.46 a 74.36 a 12.6 a
Oso Grande Canada 18.58 b 67.30 b 15.8 a
Florida 19.87 a 75.50 a 11.3 b
1993 94 Season
Sweet Charlie Canada 16.91 a 80.99 a 8.5 a
Florida 16.49 a 79.61 a 7.8 a
Seascape Canada 17.21 b 84.44 a 5.2 a
Florida 19.24 a 82.84 b 5.5 a
Oso Grande Canada 16.57 b 82.57 a 7.4 a
Florida 20.11 a 80.20 a 6.7 a
ZMeans within a cultivar and followed by different letters are significantly different
Duncans multiple range test (5% level).
Table 3. Gross ret rnsz (dollars) from sale of marketable fruit from one acre for fruit
yields and treat ents as represented in Table 1.
Month of Florida
Cultivar Sour e November December January February March April Total transplant
Sweet Charlie Cana a 159 3317 4826 7058 4789 1465 21,453
Florida --- 3182 4722 6572 4244 1441 19,718 -1,735
Seascape Cana a 208 3500 5574 2185 7588 1819 22,479
Florida --- 1248 9662 935 10631 2328 28,065 +5,586
Oso Grande Canad --- 2754 4701 6185 8496 1458 25,064
Flori a --- 560 7810 3309 8222 2465 25,434 +371
Sweet Charlie Canad 759 4932 5678 12784 2927 1300 25,573
Flori a --- 2656 8902 11004 4411 835 25,442 -132
Seascape Canad --- 1273 5346 7822 5429 1269 21,523
Flori a --- ---- 6687 9386 4324 856 20,667 -856
Oso Grande Canad --- 2374 3775 6554 8862 715 23,266
Flori a --- ---- 6635 9800 7181 780 24,593 +1,327
Production, harvestin m
returns on sale of fr it.
marketing, and plant costs have not been deducted from monetary
Monthly fruit prices were the average for the past 5 years.
Q The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
University of Florida.
Q A statewide organization dedicated to teaching,
research and extension.
O Faculty located in Gainesville and at 13 research
and education centers, 67 county extension
offices and four demonstration units throughout
o A partnership in food and agriculture, and natural
and renewable resource research and education,
funded by state, federal and local government,
and by gifts and grants from individuals, founda-
tions, government and industry.
O An organization whose mission is:
Educating students in the food, agricultural,
and related sciences and natural resources.
-Strengthening Florida's diverse food and
agricultural industry and its environment -.
Enhancing for all Floridians, the application of
research and knowledge to improve the quality
of life statewide through IFAS extension
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
site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.
Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University