Processing Peach Cultivar Evaluations 2004 Progress Report

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Processing Peach Cultivar Evaluations 2004 Progress Report"

Transcription

1 Processing Peach Cultivar Evaluations 2004 Progress Report Cedar Springs Research Station Ridgetown College University of Guelph J.W. Zandstra G.J. Watt

2 TITLE: PROCESSING PEACH CULTIVAR EVALUATION EXPERIMENT DETAILS Experimental Design: Randomized complete block design Treatments: 11 Replications: 4 Plot size: 1 tree FIELD PROGRAM Location: Soil Type: Soil Management: Cedar Springs Research Station Fox gravelly loam Permanent sod with a herbicide strip Sod: creeping red fescue 50% kentucky blue grass 10% perennial ryegrass 40% Seeding Rate: 44 Kg/Ha Planting Date: 01 May, 2000 Planting Method: Tree auger Tree Spacing: 3.65 * 5.5 m (12 ft * 18 ft.) Trees/Hectare: 500 trees/ha. Cultivars: Rootstock: 1. V Vinegold 2. V Virgil 3. V Catherina 4. V Babygold 7 5. V Venture 6. Vulcan Bailey Training System: Irrigation System: Central Leader System Trickle irrigation Two emitters per tree (1 gallon/hour) 1

3 Harvest Protocol -Processing Peaches Ratings based on a scoring system as follows (unless otherwise stated) 9 = exceptional 7 = good 5 = commercially acceptable < 5 = unacceptable 1. Wi - Winter Injury amount of dead bloom and length of dead tips on shoots 2. Pc - amount of peach canker 9 = no canker; 7 = small branches; 5 = major scaffold; 3 = loss of scaffold 3. Bd - bloom date: date at which 80% of flowers are open 4. Cr - weight of fruit at harvest (kg/tree) 5. Cu - cumulative yield over harvest years (kg/tree) 6. Rd - ripe date. Date of first commercial harvest 7. Un - uniformity of fruit on the tree 1 harvest = 9; 2 harvest = 8; 3 harvests = 7 etc 8. Fs - Fruit size 9 = > 3" 6 = 2 ½ - 2 3/4" 3 = 2 1/8-2 1/4" 8 = 2 3/4-3" 5 = 2 1/2" 2 = 2-2 1/8" 7 = 2 3/4" 4 = 2 1/4-2 1/2" 1 = < 2" 9. Sp - splot pits; none = 9; 5% = 7; 10% = 5; 25% = Ls - leaf spot very resistant = 9; moderately resistant = 7; somewhat susceptible = 5; very susceptible =3 11. Fs - fruit spot; same as above 12. Or - overall rating; considers above ratings and also includes susceptibility to diseases, skin pubescence etc. 2

4 Table 1: Summary of annual trunk diameters. Processing peach cultivar trial. Cedar Springs Research Station, Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Cultivar Trunk Diameter (mm) At Planting Fall 2001 Fall, 2002 Fall, 2003 Fall, 2004 V V V V V Vulcan Vinegold Virgil Catherina Babygold Venture* * Note: replaced in spring

5 Table 2: Tree and fruit characteristics. Processing peach cultivar trial. Cedar Springs Research Station, Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Cultivar* 1. Wi 2. Pc 3. Bd 4. Cr 5. Cu 6. Rd 7. Un 8. Fs 9. Sp 10. Ls 11. Fs 12. Or V84061 (3) May Aug V84072 (3) May Sept V85168 (3) May Sept V (4) May Oct V85169 (2) May Sept Vulcan (1) May Aug Vinegold (4) May Aug Virgil (4) May Aug Catherina (4) May Aug Babygold 7 (1) May Sept Venture (4) May Sept * - number behind the cultivar indicates the number of trees in the trial. Losses were not able to be replaced due to availability of cultivars outside quarantine zones in Niagara. DISCUSSION The trees were pruned too heavily in 3 of the 4 replicates in the spring of 2004, which reduced yield potential. Virgil continues to be the highest yielding commercial variety, followed by Vinegold. V85169 is the highest yielding numbered selection, which is consistent with the 2003 data. Babygold 7 was rated highest overall in terms of fruit quality, disease, fruit size, while V84061 was the highest rated numbered selection. Vulcan and Catherina trees have the largest trunk diameter suggesting the greatest vigor. Winter injury was minimal to moderate, and only apparent in the named commercial cultivars. Vulcan is the earliest maturing variety in the trial; V84061 is the earliest maturing numbered selection. V is very late maturing, with harvest occurring on 10 October; at this point the fruit quality was still not ideal but it was getting so late in the season that it was harvested so data could be collected. Given the late 4

6 maturity, the usefulness of this cultivar in southwestern Ontario is questionable. 5