Processing Tomato Cultivar Trials Research Report 1998

Transcription

1 February 1999 RIDGETOWN COLLEGE Processing Tomato Cultivar Trials Research Report 1998 Steve Loewen Introduction This report summarizes the results of processing tomato variety trials conducted during the 1998 season. The trials were conducted on a variety of soil types, and in a number of different growing areas in order to provide information on adaptability of cultivars over the entire growing area, as well as to provide some information as to which varieties may be best suited for specific tomato production areas in Ontario. The reader will find results from both the field performance (ie. yield trials), fruit characteristics (including size, uniformity, firmness and others), processing performance (ie. peeling trials) and juice quality characteristics in order to provide a more complete picture of a cultivar's suitability for the industry. What s Changed for 1998 (a) harvested fruit were sorted into red ripe, breakers, processing green, grass green and limited use & rot categories. It should be noted that the grades a grower receives will be better than those reported here since there was no field sorting in this trial as would normally be done on the harvester before shipping to the factory for grading in a commercial situation. (b) Turgitol was added to the caustic solution to improve peeling. (c) Bar graphs are included at various points through the report to display the data in a different form. (d) An AVC 80 microwave solids analyzer facilitated the measurement of total solids. (e) Soluble solids measurements were more in line with expected results due to the purchase of a new refractometer. PAGE -1-

2 Who Had a Part in This Project? This research was made possible through monetary and in-kind support provided by the following agencies:! Ontario Tomato Research Institute! Mid America Food Processors Association! Nabisco Brands Limited, Dresden! Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, Greenhouse and Processing Crops Research Centre, Harrow! Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, Pest Management Research Centre, London! Seed Specialties Inc./Heinz Seed! Tomato Solutions Inc.! Terra International Ltd. - Vegetable Division! Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs! University of Guelph Field space and plot maintenance was provided by the co-operators at each site. The careful and diligent work of Richard Wright, Technician; Jennifer Newport, Technical Assistant; Mike Tiffin, and many others is gratefully acknowledged. Plot Establishment Locations: 5 Replications per location: 3 Entries in trials: 27 Trial size:! Width: 9 rows wide! Length: 90 feet long Plot size! Plant spacing: twin rows, 18" apart, and plant spacing of 17" (= population of 12,375 pl/acre)! Length: 10' (= 14 plants per plot) Planting dates:! Harrow 22 May 1998! Wheatley 20 May! Bradley 20 May! Dresden 20 May! Ridgetown 13 May Fertilizer Rates: Starter fertilizer was used at Wheatley, Bradley and Ridgetown at a rate of 1 L of in 182 L of water, continuous flow of solution. At the Ridgetown site a soil test indicated that nutrient levels were very high. Based on fertilizer recommendations: 265 kg/ha of , were applied, all broadcast preplant. Weed Control: At the Ridgetown site weed control consisted of.7 L/ha Sencor 500, 1.9 L / ha Dual, tank mixed applied preplant-incorporated. Disease Control: At the Ridgetown site fungicide applications were timed according to TOM-CAST. PAGE -2-

3 Processing Tomato Cultivar Trial Entries 1998 GPCRC HRC H.J. Heinz Co. H 9314 H 9553 H 9701 H 9704 Nabisco Brands Ltd. CC 329 N 833 OARDC - OSU OX 52 OX 150 EX EX Ohio 7983 Petoseed Hypeel 696 PX PX PX Ridgetown College R 956 R 961 Ridgetown College / OARDC - OSU RO 971 RO 972 RO 974 RO 975 Terra TR 12 Tomato Solutions TS 75 TSH 1 TSH 2 TSH 3 Yield Evaluation Trials How Was Harvest Date Determined? Plots at each site were visited twice each week. A plot was harvested when 80% or more fruit were ripe. To see how much actual difference in maturity there is between varieties refer to Appendix 1. Otherwise many of the tables in this report have varieties ranked in order of maturity from earliest to latest - check the titles to be sure. How Was the Yield Actually Measured? For each plot, 5 representative plants, with no adjacent plants missing, were cut off at the soil level. Fruit were then shaken from the vines into a wheel barrow and then sorted into 5 categories: red ripe breakers processing green grass green limited use/ rots fruit that had less than 5% visible yellowish exterior colour more than 10% coloured and less than 10% green less than 100% green showing some visible blush of colour (yellow, pink) green or white green any fruit with a rotten spot 2 cm in diameter or greater, other blemishes, includes MOT Weights were taken for each of these categories and converted to yield on a tons/acre basis. PAGE -3-

4 WHAT DOES THIS TABLE TELL ME? Table 1 Answers the question, Which cultivar has the ability to produce the most tomatoes, regardless of the grade? You can find the best ones very quickly by looking at the top of the table. But, why do you bother to report yield potential? Tomatoes are paid for on the basis of grades. We report yield potential because the management system and microclimate of each grower will be slightly different. In an actual production situation, growers would be in a better position to minimize rots/greens through the use of Ethrel, and thus achieve yields closer to the potential than we were able to in our plots. Will someone please tell me what all the little letters behind the numbers mean? One of the challenges with field research on plants is that we have to cope with variations in soil, microclimate, and a whole host of other factors that affect plant growth. Although the numbers 45.4 and 44.6 are numerically different, the question scientists try to answer is, Are they actually different given the amount of variation that we find from plot to plot? Is the difference between those numbers due to the treatment (in this case genetics) or did we just get lucky and happen to pick the right plants to measure yield on? Is the difference real, or is it just because of the plants we happened to pick? Scientists use those letters, as part of something called a means separation procedure, to show which varieties are really different - or which varieties they are different from and similar to. In a cultivar trial like this one, noting the trends or rankings are probably as important as understanding the statistics. Cultivar or Variety - What s the difference? The term cultivar is a shortened form of 2 words; cultivated variety. This term was chosen by plant scientists to distinguish a variety which occurs in cultivation, (as a result of human activity), from a botanical variety, which can sometimes be found in nature. Although cultivar is the most correct term you will see both used interchangably in this report - mostly to avoid repetition of the same word over and over. PAGE -4-

5 Table 1. Processing Tomato Cultivar Trial, Yield Potential (tons/acre) over 5 locations. Name Yield Potential (tons/acre) HYPEEL A RO A B H A B C RO A B C D PX A B C D E H A B C D E TSHI 46.9 A B C D E F OX A B C D E F PX A B C D E F G OX B C D E F G TR B C D E F G H B C D E F G RO B C D E F G TSH C D E F G H EX C D E F G H H C D E F G H HRC C D E F G H RO C D E F G H TSH C D E F G H OHIO C D E F G H PX C D E F G H TS D E F G H R E F G H CC F G H EX G H R G H N H PROBABILITY CV 14.49% Mean 45.0 Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different, DMRT. Yields in this table are based on harvested fruit from 15 plots; 5 plants from each plot. This table answers the question, Which cultivar has the ability to produce the most tomatoes, regardless of the grade? You can find the best ones very quickly by looking at the top of the table. We report yield potential because the management system and microclimate of each grower will be slightly different. In an actual production situation, growers would be in a better position to minimize rots/greens through the use of Ethrel, and thus achieve yields closer to the potential than we were able to in our plots. PAGE -5-

6 PAGE -6-

7 PAGE -7-

8 WHAT DO THESE TABLES TELL ME? trends... In or a rankings cultivar trial is probably like this as one, important noting the as Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 This table answers the question, What were the best all round varieties for yield?. The table shows the results averaged over 5 different trial locations. The Total column shows the same numbers as in table 1 (ie. yield potential), but the cultivars are ranked according to maturity. This is probably a more fair way of comparing total yield since, at least historically, early maturing cultivars have tended to have lower yields than later cultivars. The Red column shows the yield of red ripe fruit at harvest in tons per acre. The other columns, Breakers, Processing Green, Grass Green, and Limited Use & Rots, show the yield, in tons per acre, of each grade category at harvest. Depending on the grade option that grow under/receive under, you may have interest in one of the last 3 columns. For example, the second last column, Red,Breakers,Processing Green is the total of those 3 separate columns. This shows the yield results you might expect if that happens to be the grading option you deal with. Each of these tables follows the same format as Table 2. The important difference is that these tables show the results for each trial location separately. If possible, it is valuable to look at the results from a trial location with a soil type and/or microclimate similar to the one you are working with. PAGE -8-

9 Table 2. Processing tomato yield trial, Yield (tons/acre) averaged over 5 locations. Name Total Red Breakers Processing Limited Use Grass Green Red & Breakers Green Rots Red, Breakers, Red, Breakers, Processing Green, Processing Green Grass Green R EFGH 34.3 CDEFGH CDEFGH 39.9 DEFGHIJ 41.5 DEFG TSH CDEFGH 35.0 CDEFGH CDEFGH 40.9 CDEFGHI 42.8 CDEFG RO CDEFGH 35.8 CDEFGH CDEFGH 40.7 CDEFGHI 42.3 DEFG EX CDEFGH 35.2 CDEFGH CDEFGHI 41.4 CDEFGHI 43.4 BCDEFG OHIO CDEFGH 35.1 CDEFGH CDEFGH 40.7 CDEFGHI 42.2 DEFG CC FGH 32.3 FGHI GHI 37.0 HIJ 39.6 FG OX ABCDEF 37.2 CDEF BCDE 43.8 ABCDEF 46.0 ABCDE OX BCDEFG 37.7 ABCDE BCDE 42.8 BCDEFG 44.5 BCDEF N H 30.9 HI HI 36.3 IJ 38.6 G H CDEFG 32.9 EFGHI CDEFGH 41.3 CDEFGHI 42.4 DEFG RO ABCD 38.2 ABCD ABC 45.1 ABCDE 47.0 ABCD RO BCDEFG 36.8 CDEFG CDEFG 42.0 BCDEFGH 43.8 BCDEFG TR BCDEFG 37.9 ABCDE BCDEF 42.7 BCDEFG 44.6 BCDEF EX GH 34.1 DEFGH EFGHI 38.7 FGHIJ 39.8 FG TSH CDEFGH 36.5 CDEFG BCDEF 42.2 BCDEFGH 43.8 BCDEFG PX ABCDE 39.3 ABC ABC 45.3 ABCD 46.9 ABCD HRC CDEFGH 35.2 CDEFGH CDEFGH 40.3 DEFGHI 42.4 DEFG HYPEEL A 42.0 AB A 48.7 A 50.9 A RO AB 42.5 A AB 47.1 AB 48.6 AB TSH ABCDEF 37.1 BCDEFG BCDEF 42.5 BCDEFG 44.6 BCDEF H ABC 36.9 CDEFG ABCD 46.0 ABC 48.2 ABC H ABCDE 39.1 ABCD ABCD 44.5 ABCDE 46.3 ABCDE PX ABCDEFG 37.5 BCDE BCDE 43.0 BCDEF 44.7 BCDEF R GH 28.5 I I 35.0 J 39.2 FG TS DEFGH 35.1 CDEFGH DEFGH 39.6 EFGHIJ 42.2 DEFG H BCDEFG 38.2 ABCD BCDEF 42.1 BCDEFGH 44.6 BCDEF PX CDEFG 32.0 GHI FGHI 37.5 GHIJ 41.0 EFG Probability CV 14.49% 16.11% 57.01% 64.33% 64.61% 91.21% 15.19% 14.83% 14.97% Mean Entries are ranked according to average maturity from 3 test sites. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different, DMRT. Yields in this table are based on harvested fruit from 15 plots; 5 plants from each plot. PAGE -9-

10 PAGE -10-

11 Table 3. Processing tomato yield trial, Yield (tons/acre) from the Bradley site (clyde loam - very high organic matter). Name Total Red Breakers Processing Limited Use Grass Green Red & Breakers Green Rots Red, Breakers, Red, Breakers, Processing Green Processing Green, Grass Green R ABC 53.7 A A 57.5 AB 59.5 ABC TSH BCD 43.4 ABCDEFG ABCDE 47.3 BCDE 48.9 BCD RO BCD 44.7 ABCDEF ABCDE 47.3 ABCDE 48.2 BCD EX BCD 42.1 ABCDEFG ABCDE 44.8 BCDE 47.7 BCD OHIO D 38.0 DEFG DEF 39.5 EF 40.3 D CC ABCD 44.4 ABCDEF ABCDE 47.9 ABCDE 50.5 BCD OX ABCD 40.5 BCDEFG ABCDE 48.5 ABCDE 54.0 ABCD OX ABC 49.5 ABCD ABC 56.2 ABC 59.5 ABC N BCD 36.9 DEFG CDE 42.4 CDEF 46.3 BCD H BCD 42.7 ABCDEFG ABCDE 44.6 BCDE 46.9 BCD RO BCD 36.3 EFG DEF 39.7 EF 42.8 CD RO BCD 38.1 DEFG BCDE 44.0 BCDEF 48.4 BCD TR BCD 40.0 BCDEFG BCDE 44.4 BCDEF 47.2 BCD EX D 32.0 FGH EF 37.5 EF 40.2 D TSH BCD 37.9 DEFG ABCDE 45.5 BCDE 49.0 BCD PX BCD 39.5 CDEFG CDE 43.6 BCDEF 46.4 BCD HRC CD 33.9 FGH EF 38.5 EF 41.6 D HYPEEL AB 47.3 ABCDE ABCD 55.2 ABCD 60.7 AB RO BCD 40.4 BCDEFG ABCDE 44.2 BCDEF 46.3 BCD TSH BCD 37.7 DEFG CDE 43.3 BCDEF 48.1 BCD H A 50.9 ABC AB 61.4 A 67.2 A H AB 52.6 AB AB 57.6 AB 60.6 AB PX ABCD 43.5 ABCDEF ABCDE 48.8 ABCDE 51.7 ABCD R D 23.6 H F 30.2 F 41.4 D TS BCD 34.7 EFGH DEF 40.6 DEF 46.4 BCD H ABCD 40.5 BCDEFG ABCDE 46.2 BCDE 50.4 BCD PX BCD 30.6 GH EF 36.4 EF 44.2 BCD Probability CV Mean Entries are ranked according to average maturity from 3 test sites. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different, DMRT. Yields in this table are based on harvested fruit from 15 plots; 5 plants from each plot. PAGE -11-

12 Table 4. Processing tomato yield trial, Yield (tons/acre) from the Dresden site (berrian sand - low organic matter). Name Total Red Breakers Processing Limited Use Grass Green Red & Breakers Green Rots Red, Breakers, Red, Breakers, Processing Green, Processing Green Grass Green R E 28.0 DE EF 35.5 DE 36.7 E TSH ABCD 41.5 ABC ABCD 46.3 ABCD 48.3 ABCD RO ABC 45.5 A AB 49.6 ABC 50.9 ABC EX ABCD 38.6 ABC ABCD 47.2 ABC 48.6 ABCD OHIO ABCD 37.9 ABCD ABCD 46.5 ABCD 48.4 ABCD CC DE 30.9 CDE F 34.0 E 38.0 DE OX ABCDE 38.7 ABC ABCD 46.3 ABCD 48.1 ABCD OX BCDE 38.8 ABC ABCDEF 42.6 ABCDE 44.0 BCDE N CDE 31.5 BCDE CDEF 38.6 CDE 41.2 CDE H ABCDE 25.4 E ABCDE 43.6 ABCDE 44.6 ABCDE RO A 39.5 ABC AB 53.3 A 55.7 A RO ABCD 41.1 ABC ABCD 47.3 ABC 48.2 ABCD TR ABC 44.9 A AB 50.8 AB 53.0 AB EX ABCDE 41.9 AB ABCDE 44.9 ABCD 45.1 ABCDE TSH ABCDE 43.5 A ABCD 45.7 ABCD 47.0 ABCDE PX ABCDE 39.4 ABC ABCDE 45.4 ABCD 46.8 ABCDE HRC ABCDE 38.9 ABC ABCDE 44.7 ABCDE 47.3 ABCDE HYPEEL AB 48.2 A A 53.3 A 54.9 AB RO AB 47.8 A AB 52.5 A 53.7 AB TSH ABC 43.3 A ABC 49.5 ABC 50.9 ABC H ABCDE 39.2 ABC ABCDE 46.0 ABCD 47.5 ABCDE H ABC 47.2 A AB 50.8 AB 52.1 ABC PX ABC 41.2 ABC AB 50.1 AB 51.7 ABC R ABCDE 30.7 CDE DEF 40.8 BCDE 44.2 ABCDE TS ABC 45.6 A AB 50.1 AB 52.0 ABC H ABC 44.8 A ABCD 48.4 ABC 50.2 ABC PX ABCDE 38.4 ABC BCDEF 42.6 ABCDE 45.9 ABCDE Probability CV 11.75% 13.77% 65.40% 85.50% 59.31% 64.91% 12.28% 12.27% 12.00% Mean Entries are ranked according to average maturity from 3 test sites. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different, DMRT. Yields in this table are based on harvested fruit from 15 plots; 5 plants from each plot. PAGE -12-

13 Table 5. Processing tomato yield trial, Yield (tons/acre) from the Harrow site (fox sand - low organic matter). Red, Breakers, Processing Limited Use Red, Breakers, Processing Green, Name Total Red Breakers Grass Green Red & Breakers Green Rots Processing Green Grass Green R D 22.3 FG EFG 25.9 DE 28.6 CD TSH BCD 27.1 BCDEFG ABCDEFG 33.4 ABCDE 36.6 ABC RO BCD 28.9 ABCDEFG ABCDEFG 33.6 ABCD 35.6 ABCD EX BCD 29.8 ABCDEFG ABCDEFG 33.3 ABCDE 35.6 ABCD OHIO CD 25.3 DEFG CDEFG 29.3 CDE 31.6 BCD CC D 23.8 FG DEFG 26.8 DE 28.7 CD OX ABCD 34.4 ABCD ABCD 38.1 ABC 39.0 ABC OX ABCD 30.3 ABCDEFG ABCDEFG 32.7 ABCDE 34.0 BCD N D 22.8 FG EFG 26.8 DE 28.6 CD H BCD 24.1 EFG CDEFG 30.3 BCDE 32.4 BCD RO ABC 35.7 ABC ABC 39.1 ABC 40.0 AB RO ABC 34.7 ABCD ABC 39.1 ABC 41.3 AB TR BCD 31.0 ABCDEF ABCDEF 33.3 ABCDE 34.1 BCD EX BCD 28.5 ABCDEFG BCDEFG 30.9 BCDE 31.9 BCD TSH ABCD 35.5 ABCD ABC 38.0 ABC 39.0 ABC PX ABC 34.3 ABCDE ABCDE 38.8 ABC 40.6 AB HRC BCD 25.5 CDEFG CDEFG 29.9 CDE 32.0 BCD HYPEEL AB 37.3 AB AB 41.2 AB 42.7 AB RO A 38.2 A A 42.5 A 45.1 A TSH BCD 31.7 ABCDEF ABCDEF 33.5 ABCDE 34.9 ABCD H BCD 28.4 ABCDEFG ABCDEFG 31.0 BCDE 32.3 BCD H BCD 28.9 ABCDEFG ABCDEFG 32.2 ABCDE 33.9 BCD PX BCD 30.3 ABCDEFG ABCDEFT 21.5 ABCDE 33.6 BCD R BCD 29.9 ABCDEFG ABCDEF 33.2 ABCDE 35.6 ABCD TS BCD 25.6 CDEFG CDEFG 29.4 CDE 31.7 BCD H D 23.0 FG FG 25.0 DE 28.0 CD PX D 20.1 G G 22.5 E 25.4 D Probability CV 15.92% 17.78% 63.25% 55.10% 50.14% 73.86% 17.46% 16.87% 16.10% Mean Entries are ranked according to average maturity from 3 test sites. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different, DMRT. Yields in this table are based on harvested fruit from 15 plots; 5 plants from each plot. PAGE -13-

14 Table 6. Processing tomato yield trial, Yield (tons/acre) from the Ridgetown site (berrian sandy loam). Red, Breakers, Processing Limited Use Red, Breakers, Processing Green, Name Total Red Breakers Grass Green Red & Breakers Green Rots Processing Green Grass Green R BCD 37.3 CDEFGH BCDE 47.3 BCDE 47.9 BCDE TSH BCD 37.0 DEFGH CDE 45.8 BCDE 46.9 BCDE RO CD 35.1 EFGH DE 44.9 CDE 46.4 BCDE EX D 31.2 H E 43.0 DE 44.5 CDE OHIO ABCD 38.6 BCDEFGH ABCDE 49.4 ABCDE 49.9 ABCDE CC BCD 34.9 FGH DE 44.4 CDE 47.3 BCDE OX BCD 34.5 FGH DE 45.2 CDE 46.9 BCDE OX BCD 38.4 CDEFGH BCDE 48.5 ABCDE 49.1 ABCDE N CD 38.4 BCDEFGH CDE 44.7 CDE 45.0 CDE H D 32.2 GH E 42.1 E 42.4 DE RO ABC 44.4 ABCDE ABC 55.3 ABC 55.9 ABC RO D 35.0 EFGH E 41.1 E 41.3 E TR ABCD 42.0 BCDEF BCDE 48.3 ABCDE 49.1 ABCDE EX CD 36.4 DEFGH CDE 44.4 CDE 45.1 CDE TSH BCD 36.5 DEFGH BCDE 48.5 ABCDE 49.4 ABCDE PX AB 46.5 ABC AB 56.7 AB 57.0 AB HRC ABCD 41.1 BCDEFG BCDE 48.8 ABCDE 49.4 ABCDE HYPEEL ABCD 38.2 CDEFGH ABCDE 49.9 ABCDE 50.8 ABCDE RO A 51.4 A A 59.2 A 60.0 A TSH BCD 37.7 CDEFGH CDE 46.6 BCDE 47.6 BCDE H ABCD 33.2 FGH ABCDE 51.1 ABCDE 52.2 ABCDE H ABCD 37.6 CDEFGH BCDE 49.3 ABCDE 50.3 ABCDE PX ABCD 41.6 BCDEFGH ABCDE 48.4 ABCDE 48.7 ABCDE R D 36.8 DEFGH DE 41.9 E 42.4 DE TS CD 41.7 BCDEF CDE 44.5 CDE 44.8 CDE H ABCD 47.6 AB ABCDE 51.3 ABCDE 53.1 ABCD PX ABC 45.4 ABCD ABCD 53.3 ABCD 54.9 ABC Probability CV 11.75% 12.17% 39.22% 70.10% 83.47% 72.80% 11.69% 11.81% 11.92% Mean Entries are ranked according to average maturity from 3 test sites. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different, DMRT. Yields in this table are based on harvested fruit from 15 plots; 5 plants from each plot. PAGE -14-

15 Table 7. Processing tomato yield trial, Yield (tons/acre) from the Wheatley site (berrian sandy loam). Name Total Red Breakers Red, Breakers, Processing Limited Use Red, Breakers, Grass Green Red & Breakers Processing Green, Green Rots Processing Green Grass Green R BC 30.0 ABCD ABCD 33.2 ABC 34.6 ABC TSH C 26.1 BCD ABC 31.7 ABC 33.4 ABC RO C 25.0 CD BC 28.2 C 30.3 C EX ABC 34.4 ABCD ABC 38.5 ABC 40.0 ABC OHIO ABC 35.7 ABC ABC 38.9 ABC 40.7 ABC CC ABC 27.5 ABCD ABC 31.9 ABC 33.6 ABC OX ABC 37.7 ABC AB 40.8 ABC 41.7 ABC OX ABC 31.5 ABCD ABC 34.0 ABC 36.1 ABC N C 25.0 DE BC 29.1 BC 32.0 BC H AB 40.1 A A 44.8 A 45.6 A RO ABC 35.2 ABCD ABC 38.1 ABC 40.5 ABC RO ABC 35.2 ABCD ABC 38.6 ABC 39.8 ABC TR ABC 31.4 ABCD ABC 37.1 ABC 39.8 ABC EX ABC 31.7 ABCD ABC 35.7 ABC 36.9 ABC TSH ABC 29.0 ABCD ABC 33.1 ABC 34.6 ABC PX ABC 36.6 ABC A 42.2 AB 43.7 AB HRC ABC 36.4 ABC ABC 39.6 ABC 41.7 ABC HYPEEL AB 39.1 AB A 43.6 A 45.3 A RO ABC 34.6 ABCD ABC 37.2 ABC 37.9 ABC TSH A 35.3 ABCD ABC 39.4 ABC 41.6 ABC H ABC 32.8 ABCD ABC 40.6 ABCD 42.0 ABC H BC 29.3 ABCD ABC 32.3 ABC 34.7 ABC PX ABC 31.0 ABCD ABC 35.3 ABC 38.0 ABC R C 21.7 D C 28.8 C 32.4 BC TS ABC 28.0 ABCD ABC 33.4 ABC 36.2 ABC H ABC 35.3 ABCD ABC 39.3 ABC 41.2 ABC PX BC 25.5 BCD ABC 32.6 ABC 34.7 ABC Probability CV 15.85% 21.78% 64.13% 64.04% 63.37% % 20.01% 18.12% 16.77% Mean Entries are ranked according to average maturity from 3 test sites. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different, DMRT. Yields in this table are based on harvested fruit from 15 plots; 5 plants from each plot. PAGE -15-

16 Handling Evaluations After plot harvest, samples from the second replication at each site were retained for fruit handling evaluation trials. Step 1: Weigh out a 3 kg sample of fruit and drop the sample onto a concrete floor from a height of 4 feet. Only the fruit with cracks extending into the flesh are weighed. This test estimates resistance to cracking or firmness. It answers the question, Which cultivar is firmest? This procedure also simulates mechanical handling on the tomatoes that will be peeled at a later step. Step 2: Count the number of fruit that have stems still attached. This will provide an answer to the questions, Is the cultivar jointless?, Are there any stems attached after harvest?. Depending on the end use, and methods used, some processors are able to tolerate a few attached stems, while others are not. Step 3: Count the total number of fruit in the 3 kg sample. This provides an answer to the question, What is the average fruit size? Step 4: The uniformity of fruit size is estimated, on a weight basis by grading the fruit into 4 categories. (a) 1" or less - fruit in this category are smaller that most users will want to deal with (b) greater than 1" and less than or equal to 1 1/2" - this is a fairly typical size for wholepeel tomatoes (c) greater than 1 1/2"and less than or equal to 1 3/4" - this is also a fairly typical size for whole, canned tomatoes (d) greater than 1 3/4" - these fruit tend to be a bit too large, depending on the size of can Wholepeel tomatoes need to have cosmetic appeal - in other words, they need to look good. A can of very uniformly sized, shaped, and coloured tomatoes will be more attractive to look at than a can of tomatoes that contains a mixture of sizes, shapes and colours (degrees of redness). Consumers tend to equate attractive food with good quality food. The more uniform the tomatoes, the more likely the repeat sale. PAGE -16-

17 PAGE -17-

18 Table 8. Average fruit size and uniformity of fruit size, 1998 Name Average Fruit Size Size (1)% <1" Size (2)% >1" & <1.5" Size (3)% >1.5" & <1.75" Size (4)% >1.75" Size (2+3)% CC ABCD EX ABCDE EX HI H ABCDE H ABCDE H HI H GHI HRC DEFG HYPEEL HI N ABCD OHIO ABCDEF OX ABCD OX EFGH PX DEFG PX FGHI PX I R A R ABCD RO CDEFG RO ABCD RO ABCDE RO BCDEFG TR EFGH TS ABCDE TSH AB TSH ABCD TSH ABC Probability CV 10.42% % 20.10% 34.20% 56.03% 13.56% Mean Means in the average fruit size column followed the same letter are not significantly different, DMRT. The sum of different size categories across rows may not total 100 due to rounding off. Means are based on 5 samples. Each sample consisted of 3kg of fruit. PAGE -18-

19 Table 9. Percent fruit with stems still attached after shaking from plant, Name Stems % H CC H TS R H RO OHIO R PX TSH PX TR RO HYPEEL TSH RO OX H TSH RO PX OX N HRC EX EX Probability CV % Mean 1.1 Means are based on 5 samples. Each sample consists of 3 kg of fruit. PAGE -19-

20 Table 10. Percent fruit (by weight) with cracks extending into the flesh after dropping on concrete from a four foot height, This test estimated firmness. Name Cracked Fruit (%) N G TSH G H FG TS EFG PX DEFG H DEFG H DEFG R DEFG TSH DEFG TSH DEFG R CDEF PX CDEF CC CDEF OX BCDE HYPEEL BCDE OHIO BCD H BCD OX BCD RO BCD TR ABC EX ABC RO ABC HRC ABC RO ABC RO AB EX AB PX A Probability CV 36.3% Mean 27.3 Means are based on 5 samples. Each sample consisted of 3 kg of fruit. PAGE -20-

21 PAGE -21-

22 Peeling Evaluations After going through the handling evaluations (Steps 1 through 4) described above, the 3 kg fruit samples were peeled. Step 5: The tomatoes were submerged in caustic potash (20% solution by weight) with Turgitol surfactant (0.3% by volume), at 103 +/- 1EC for 45 seconds. The sample was rinsed twice in water and the peels were removed mechanically. The peeled tomatoes were rinsed in a citric acid solution (ph 3.5) to neutralize any remaining caustic solution. The tomatoes were drained and weighed. The weight measured here (in kg) was divided by the initial weight (3 kg) to determine what percent of the weight was lost in the chemical action of the caustic and the aggressive action of the peeling equipment. What does this tell me? These results, shown in Table 11, answer the questions, What is the peeling recovery?, How much is lost in the peeling process?, or conversely, How much remains after the peels are taken off?. There is some evidence that peeling recovery is also a good indicator of firmness. PAGE -22-

23 Table 11. Percent (by weight) of fruit recovered after peeling but before sorting. Demonstrates how much remains after exposure to caustic and peeler Name Peeling Recovery (%) PX A H A N AB H ABC TSH ABCD H ABCD TS ABCDE TSH ABCDEF H ABCDEFG HRC ABCDEFG PX ABCDEFGH RO ABCDEFGH TSH BCDEFGH HYPEEL BCDEFGH TR CDEFGHI R DEFGHI OHIO DEFGHI EX DEFGHI OX EFGHI RO FGHI OX GHI RO GHI EX GHI CC HI R HI RO HI PX I Probability 0 CV 4.1 Mean Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different, DMRT. Means are based on 5 samples. Each sample consisted of 3kg of fruit. PAGE -23-

24 Step 6: After peeling, the tomatoes were sorted for colour, peels still attached, and blemishes. The Colourmet spectrophotometer was used as a standard for acceptable colour. Fruit with more than 50% of the peel remaining on the fruit were also graded out and weighed separately. After sorting the fruit that were good enough to be canned were weighed. This weight was divided by the weight of peeled tomatoes. The resulting number, the Percent Cannable (Table 12), shows the percent of fruit that have no significant colour defects, and that peeled relatively easily. What does this tell me? This answers the following questions, How much sorting will be required in the factory?, What percent of tomatoes will have to be put into the juice/sauce line after peeling?, How good do the tomatoes look after they ve been peeled?. TECHNICAL NOTE ON STEP 6: The peeling process in this study was kept the same for all cultivars. In actual practice, processors can adjust the time, temperature and concentration of caustic, in the peeling procedure in order to remove the peels from most cultivars. As a result, our study may penalize some cultivars too much for % Cannable, since tomatoes with more than 50% of the peel remaining were considered not peeled. To compensate for this, a number called % Potential Cannable was calculated using the following formula: { [ (initial wt x 1000) - peeling recovery wt. ] } { } x fr with > 50% peels wt. { [ peeling recovery wt. - fr. with >50% peels wt ] } This equation yields a value which is the weight of the tomatoes with >50% peel remaining if they were peeled. What does this tell me? These results show the potential benefits in percent cannable fruit by a more aggressive peeling procedure than what was used in this study. The potential percent cannable calculation does have its limitations since it is based on three assumptions: (a) all of the losses in peeled weight belong to the fruit which did peel (b) all fruit with >50% peel remaining are of good colour - and so poor colour is not the main reason for difficulty in peeling (c) a more aggressive peeling procedure does not damage fruit that were previously considered acceptable or good PAGE -24-

25 Table 12. Percent (by weight) of cannable tomatoes when sorted after peeling, Shows how little or how much sorting is required after peeling. Percent potential cannable demonstrates the potential percent increase in cannable fruit with the use of more aggressive peeling techniques. Name % Cannable % Potential Cannable % Difference TR A 87.5 AB 1.9 R AB 80.2 ABCD 2.6 OHIO AB 84.1 ABC 4.8 EX ABC 78.8 ABCD 0.4 PX ABC 78.0 ABCD 0.8 RO ABC 80.9 ABCD 8.1 TS ABC 88.7 A 16.7 RO ABCD 82.5 ABC 10.7 EX ABCD 77.3 ABC 6 RO ABCD 74.0 ABCD 3.5 H ABCD 74.5 ABCD 4.8 TSH ABCDE 81.7 ABC 14.1 HRC ABCDE 74.2 ABCD 7.1 CC ABCDE 72.6 ABCD 5.9 RO ABCDE 70.1 ABCD 4 HYPEEL ABCDE 74.8 ABCD 9 OX BCDE 73.5 ABCD 8.9 TSH BCDE 76.8 ABCD 14.7 R BCDEF 69.4 BCD 7.4 OX BCDEF 66.1 CD 4.6 TSH BCDEF 80.6 ABCD 19.1 H BCDEF 77.7 ABCD 16.7 PX CDEF 77.0 ABCD 18.8 H DEF 75.6 ABCD 23.9 PX EF 62.4 D 14.9 N F 69.8 BCD 25.3 H F 66.6 CD 22.8 Probability 0 0 CV 19.88% 15.79% Mean Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different, DMRT. Means are based on 5 samples. Each samples consisted of 3 kg of fruit. PAGE -25-

26 Step 7: This step really consists only of making a calculation of % Canning Recovery with data already gathered. In step 6 above, we looked at % Cannable by comparing the weight of the tomatoes after peeling, with the weight after sorting. In this step the % Canning Recovery is calculated by comparing the weight of tomatoes before peeling with the weight after sorting. What does this tell me? These results answer the questions, Of the initial weight of tomatoes received at the factory, what % will actually end up in the can?, If 100 tons of tomatoes are put in the flume, how many tons will end up in a can? The actual % canning recovery that processors get will probably be very different than what we report here. In this case it s more important to look at the ranking of cultivars, rather than the actual numbers. TECHNICAL NOTE ON STEP 7: Since the calculation of % Canning Recovery has a component of the Peeling Recovery in it, it will also tend to be too severe in penalizing some entries in the trial. Similar to Step 6, we have calculated a % Potential Canning Recovery in order to show a more realistic % Canning Recovery. What does this tell me? Again, these data show the overall potential benefits of a more aggressive peeling procedure to the final recovery of fruit. This was calculated using a similar formula and has the same limitations as the one used in Step 6. Refer to the Technical Note on Step 6 for more details. PAGE -26-

27 Table 13. Percent (by weight) canning recovery and Percent potential canning recovery,, Shows the percent fruit suitable for canning based on the initial weight sent through the peeling line. Demonstrates percent increase in canning recovery with the use of more aggressive peeling techniques. Name % Canning Recovery % Potential Canning Recovery % Difference TR A 72.1 AB 1.6 OHIO AB 70.0 ABC 4.1 R AB 63.6 ABC 0.4 EX ABC 63.1 ABC 0.4 TS ABC 76.7 A 14.8 RO ABC 69.4 ABC 9.3 PX ABC 60.7 ABC 0.6 H ABC 63.2 ABC 4.2 RO ABC 65.9 ABC 7 EX ABC 63.9 ABC 5 HRC ABC 63.2 ABC 6.2 RO ABCD 59.6 BC 3 TSH ABCD 68.3 ABC 12.2 HYPEEL ABCDE 62.8 ABC 7.8 TSH ABCDE 68.3 ABC 13.5 TSH BCDEF 70.0 ABC 17.1 H BCDEF 67.5 ABC 14.8 OX BCDEF 60.3 ABC 7.6 CC BCDEF 57.4 BC 4.8 RO BCDEF 55.8 BC 3.3 R BCDEF 58.6 BC 6.4 PX BCDEF 68.7 ABC 17.2 OX BCDEF 54.6 C 3.8 H CDEF 67.3 ABC 21.6 PX DEF 53.0 C 13.2 N EF 61.4 ABC 22.5 H F 58.4 BC 20.9 Probability 0 0 CV 20.42% 17.24% Mean Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different, DMRT. Means are based on 5 samples. Each sample consisted of 3 kg of fruit. PAGE -27-

28 PAGE -28-

29 Quality Evaluations When yield was evaluated in the field, a sample of tomatoes were taken to the pilot plant for handling and peeling evaluations. Part of this same sample was used for juice quality evaluations. Step 8: The tomatoes for quality evaluations were washed and dried and cut in half from end to end. One half of each tomato was blended, under vacuum, for 40 seconds. The other half of each tomato went into a covered pyrex dish for microwave heating (to 95 EC for 15 sec) in order to deactivate the pectinase enzyme. Step 9: Juice from the blended sample was collected through a screen to remove seeds. Agtron colour, ph and Total Solids (on an AVC 80) were measured. What does this table tell me? The lower the number for Agtron colour, the better the red colour in the juice. A ph value of 4.3 is considered the threshold for food safety. If the ph is higher than this, there may be concerns about can spoilage unless more acid is added to the can. The total solids provide a measure of all of the solids (excluding the seeds and skin) - both the soluble solids and the water insoluble solids. Step 10: Microwaved tomato halves were run through a finisher (0.033 mesh) and the juice was cooled to 20 +/- 2 EC. Consistency was estimated using this juice (50 ml for 30 sec) on a Bostwick consistometer. Soluble solids were measured on a Palette PR101 digital refractometer. (This procedure will be changed for SS will be measured on plain juice.) What does this tell me? Soluble solids are important in the manufacture of paste since paste is bought and sold on the basis of the solids content. If the soluble solids content is low, then it is more expensive to evaporate more water to get the required solids content. A low Bostwick reading is important. It indicates that paste made from these tomatoes will be relatively thick. In some tomato products sugar can be added but, by definition, no starch or other thickeners may be added. All of the thickness of the end product must come from the tomato. PAGE -29-

30 Table 14. Results of quality evaluations on juice samples, Name Agtron Soluble Solids ph Modified Boswick (cm) Total Solids CC BCDEFG 5.7 ABCD 4.35 AB ABCD EX AB 5.1 ABCD 4.24 EFGH CDE EX FGH 5.2 ABCD 4.31 BCD ABCDE H ABCDEFG 5.1 ABCD 4.27 CDEFGH ABCDE H ABCDEFG 5.5 ABCD 4.22 GH ABCD H DEFGH 4.8 D 4.28 CDEFG DE H CDEFGH 5.1 ABCD 4.26 DEFGH BCDE HRC H 5.1 ABCD 4.40 A DE HYPEEL ABCDEF 5.1 ABCD 4.24 EFGH ABCDE N A 5.9 AB 4.29 BCDEF A OHIO AB 5.0 BCD 4.23 FGH DE OX AB 5.1 ABCD 4.24 EFGH BCDE OX EFGH 5.1 ABCD 4.30 BCDE CDE PX ABCDE 5.3 ABCD 4.21 H ABCDE PX ABC 5.3 ABCD 4.26 DEFGH BCDE PX ABCDEFG 4.9 CD 4.28 CDEFG E R A 5.2 ABCD 4.33 BC CDE R AB 5.0 BCD 4.30 BCDE CDE RO ABCDEFG 4.9 CD 4.32 BCD DE RO ABCDEFG 5.1 ABCD 4.29 BCDEF ABCDE RO ABCDEFG 5.0 BCD 4.27 CDEFGH DE RO AB 5.8 ABC 4.24 EFGH BCDE TR ABCD 5.0 BCD 4.24 EFGH DE TS GH 6.0 A 4.39 A AB TSH ABCDEFG 5.5 ABCD 4.31 BCD ABCD TSH ABCD 5.6 ABCD 4.31 BCD AB TSH ABC 5.6 ABCD 4.29 BCDEF ABC Probability CV 17.29% 11.32% 1.09% 25.35% 6.88% Mean Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different, DMRT. Please see text for explanation of the modified bostwick measurement. Means are based on 5 samples. Each sample consisted of 3 kg of fruit. PAGE -30-

31 Summary These summary statements are presented in this format with the understanding that end users of cultivars may have preferences for a particular cultivar source based on general characteristics of material released from that program or on past experience. Processors and growers are encouraged to evaluate material, on a relatively small scale, from a variety of programs in order to find the cultivars that best meet their particular management methods and ultimate needs. It should be noted that these conclusions are based primarily on the results from the 1998 season. Having acknowledged this limitation, the following summary comments are provided. (For each source, the entries are listed in order of observed maturity in 1998.) Heinz Seed - cultivars tested: H9701, H9704, H9314, H H had excellent recovery after peeling similar to H good firmness, similar to 1997, and excellent peeling recovery - H excellent peeling recovery, good firmness and excellent red ripe yield - H late maturing, excellent firmness, red yield and very good peeling recovery GPCRC - Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, Harrow - varieties tested: GPCRC GPCRC good peeling recovery and excellent Agtron colour Nabisco Brands Ltd. - varieties tested: CC329, N833 - CC329 - early season check - matured later than expected this year - N833 - similar to 1997 this entry was very firm, had good soluble solids and excellent peeling recovery Ohio State University - varieties tested: EX97623, Ohio 7983, OX 150, OX 52, EX EX early maturing, good canning recovery - Ohio early season check - OX good red ripe yield, good Agtron colour - OX 52 - good red ripe yield - EX large fruit size, excellent Agtron colour and canning recovery Petoseed - varieties tested: PX , Hypeel 696, PX 33011, PX PX excellent red yield, very good canning recovery and yield potential, large fruit may have affected firmness - Hypeel mid/late season check - PX good yield potential and red ripe yield - PX excellent firmness and peeling recovery, late maturing Ridgetown College PAGE -31-

32 - varieties tested: R 961, RO 974, RO 972, RO 971, RO 975, R RCAT similar to 1997 was early maturing and firm - RO early, good fruit size - RO excellent yield potential, very good red ripe yield - RO good canning recovery - RO excellent yield potential and red ripe yield, very good canning recovery - RCAT excellent canning recovery Terra International, Inc. - Vegetable Division - variety tested: TR 12 - TR 12 - excellent canning recovery Tomato Solutions - varieties tested: TSH 3, TSH 2, TSH 1, TS 75 - TSH 3 - early, good firmness, good peeling recovery - TSH 2 - excellent peeling recovery, good firmness - TSH 1 - very good peeling recovery, excellent firmness - TS 75 - very good peeling recovery, excellent SS, late maturing, excellent firmness, good Agtron colour. SO WHICH CULTIVARS SHOULD I WATCH FOR OVER THE NEXT YEAR OR SO? With 27 entries in the trial the question that always remains is, What should I grow next year? There are several ways that this question can be answered. Here is a very simple method (there may be other preferable ways): If we assume that yield and firmness are the 2 highest priorities, then we can look at the tables in this report and assign a score of 1 to every variety that is equal to, or better than the average for that trait. In this example, if we choose 4 traits: red ripe yield, red + breakers yield, cracking/firmness and % peeling recovery, then the following 5 cultivars would be the only ones to have a score of 4. TSH 1 PX33011 H9704 TSH 2 H9314 You can try this yourself by picking and choosing which traits are most important to you and finding which entries will get a perfect score, or at least the highest score. Please note that this simple method provides only a guide for picking cultivars for trial. This method is not a substitute for proper, on-site trials and evaluations of varieties under your specific management system, soils and microclimate. PAGE -32-

33 Appendix 1. Maturity ranking. Name Maturity Scale R TSH RO EX OHIO CC OX OX N H RO RO TR EX TSH PX HRC Hypeel R TSH H H PX R TS H PX A change of 1.00 unit on the scale is equal to a change of 3.5 days. There is a difference of approximately 17 days from the earliest variety to the latest. PAGE -33-

34 PAGE -34-