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-
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 10-34-0 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 33-19-0, 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-
Processing Tomato Cultivar Trial Entries 1998 GPCRC HRC 91219 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 98013 EX 97623 Ohio 7983 Petoseed Hypeel 696 PX 33011 PX 50514 PX 213015 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-
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-
Table 1. Processing Tomato Cultivar Trial, 1998. Yield Potential (tons/acre) over 5 locations. Name Yield Potential (tons/acre) HYPEEL 696 51.8 A RO 975 50.4 A B H9704 48.8 A B C RO 972 48.6 A B C D PX 21305 48.2 A B C D E H9314 47.2 A B C D E TSHI 46.9 A B C D E F OX 150 46.8 A B C D E F PX 33011 46.3 A B C D E F G OX 52 46.2 B C D E F G TR 12 46.1 B C D E F G H9553 45.9 B C D E F G RO 971 45.4 B C D E F G TSH 2 44.6 C D E F G H EX 97623 44.2 C D E F G H H9701 44.1 C D E F G H HRC 91219 44.1 C D E F G H RO 974 43.6 C D E F G H TSH 3 43.4 C D E F G H OHIO 7983 43.3 C D E F G H PX 50514 43.1 C D E F G H TS 75 42.9 D E F G H R 961 42.4 E F G H CC 329 41.1 F G H EX 98013 40.7 G H R956 40.5 G H N 833 39.4 H PROBABILITY 0.0000 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-
PAGE -6-
PAGE -7-
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-
Table 2. Processing tomato yield trial, 1998. 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 961 42.4 EFGH 34.3 CDEFGH 4.6 1 1.6 0.9 38.9 CDEFGH 39.9 DEFGHIJ 41.5 DEFG TSH 3 43.4 CDEFGH 35.0 CDEFGH 4.3 1.5 1.9 0.6 39.4 CDEFGH 40.9 CDEFGHI 42.8 CDEFG RO 974 43.6 CDEFGH 35.8 CDEFGH 3.4 1.5 1.5 1.3 39.2 CDEFGH 40.7 CDEFGHI 42.3 DEFG EX 97623 44.2 CDEFGH 35.2 CDEFGH 4.9 1.3 2 0.9 40.1 CDEFGHI 41.4 CDEFGHI 43.4 BCDEFG OHIO 7983 43.3 CDEFGH 35.1 CDEFGH 4.8 0.9 1.5 1.1 39.9 CDEFGH 40.7 CDEFGHI 42.2 DEFG CC 329 41.1 FGH 32.3 FGHI 3.1 1.6 2.6 1.5 35.4 GHI 37.0 HIJ 39.6 FG OX 150 46.8 ABCDEF 37.2 CDEF 4.7 1.9 2.2 0.9 41.8 BCDE 43.8 ABCDEF 46.0 ABCDE OX 52 46.2 BCDEFG 37.7 ABCDE 3.8 1.3 1.7 1.6 41.5 BCDE 42.8 BCDEFG 44.5 BCDEF N 833 39.4 H 30.9 HI 4 1.4 2.3 0.8 34.9 HI 36.3 IJ 38.6 G H 9701 44.1 CDEFG 32.9 EFGHI 6.9 1.4 1.1 1.7 39.8 CDEFGH 41.3 CDEFGHI 42.4 DEFG RO 972 48.6 ABCD 38.2 ABCD 5.8 1 1.9 1.7 44.0 ABC 45.1 ABCDE 47.0 ABCD RO 971 45.4 BCDEFG 36.8 CDEFG 3.8 1.5 1.8 1.6 40.6 CDEFG 42.0 BCDEFGH 43.8 BCDEFG TR 12 46.1 BCDEFG 37.9 ABCDE 3.3 1.6 1.9 1.5 41.1 BCDEF 42.7 BCDEFG 44.6 BCDEF EX 98013 40.7 GH 34.1 DEFGH 3.2 1.4 1.2 0.8 37.3 EFGHI 38.7 FGHIJ 39.8 FG TSH 2 44.6 CDEFGH 36.5 CDEFG 4.3 1.4 1.6 0.8 40.8 BCDEF 42.2 BCDEFGH 43.8 BCDEFG PX 213015 48.2 ABCDE 39.3 ABC 4.7 1.4 1.6 1.3 43.9 ABC 45.3 ABCD 46.9 ABCD HRC 91219 44.1 CDEFGH 35.2 CDEFGH 3.9 1.2 2.1 1.7 39.1 CDEFGH 40.3 DEFGHI 42.4 DEFG HYPEEL 696 51.8 A 42.0 AB 5.1 1.6 2.2 1 47.1 A 48.7 A 50.9 A RO 975 50.4 AB 42.5 A 3.6 1.1 1.5 1.9 46.0 AB 47.1 AB 48.6 AB TSH 1 46.9 ABCDEF 37.1 BCDEFG 3.6 1.7 2.2 2.3 40.8 BCDEF 42.5 BCDEFG 44.6 BCDEF H9704 48.8 ABC 36.9 CDEFG 6.7 2.4 2.2 0.6 43.6 ABCD 46.0 ABC 48.2 ABC H9314 47.2 ABCDE 39.1 ABCD 3.8 1.5 1.9 0.9 42. ABCD 44.5 ABCDE 46.3 ABCDE PX 33011 46.3 ABCDEFG 37.5 BCDE 4.5 1 1.7 1.6 42.0 BCDE 43.0 BCDEF 44.7 BCDEF R 956 40.5 GH 28.5 I 3.9 2.5 4.2 1.3 32.5 I 35.0 J 39.2 FG TS 75 42.9 DEFGH 35.1 CDEFGH 3.1 1.4 2.6 0.7 38.2 DEFGH 39.6 EFGHIJ 42.2 DEFG H9553 45.9 BCDEFG 38.2 ABCD 2.6 1.2 2.5 1.3 30.9 BCDEF 42.1 BCDEFGH 44.6 BCDEF PX 50514 43.1 CDEFG 32.0 GHI 3.8 1.8 3.5 2 35.8 FGHI 37.5 GHIJ 41.0 EFG Probability 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CV 14.49% 16.11% 57.01% 64.33% 64.61% 91.21% 15.19% 14.83% 14.97% Mean 45.0 36.0 4.2 1.5 2.0 1.3 40.3 41.7 43.8 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-
PAGE -10-
Table 3. Processing tomato yield trial, 1998. 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 961 61.7 ABC 53.7 A 3 0.8 2.1 2.2 56.7 A 57.5 AB 59.5 ABC TSH 3 50.1 BCD 43.4 ABCDEFG 3 0.9 1.6 1.2 46.4 ABCDE 47.3 BCDE 48.9 BCD RO 974 50.2 BCD 44.7 ABCDEF 2.1 0.4 0.9 2 46.8 ABCDE 47.3 ABCDE 48.2 BCD EX 97623 49.1 BCD 42.1 ABCDEFG 1.7 1.1 2.9 1.4 43.8 ABCDE 44.8 BCDE 47.7 BCD OHIO 7983 43.3 D 38.0 DEFG 1.1 0.4 0.8 3 39.1 DEF 39.5 EF 40.3 D CC 329 52.2 ABCD 44.4 ABCDEF 2.5 1 2.6 1.7 46.9 ABCDE 47.9 ABCDE 50.5 BCD OX 150 56.5 ABCD 40.5 BCDEFG 5 2.9 5.5 2.5 45.6 ABCDE 48.5 ABCDE 54.0 ABCD OX 52 61.3 ABC 49.5 ABCD 4.5 2.2 3.3 1.9 54.0 ABC 56.2 ABC 59.5 ABC N 833 47.6 BCD 36.9 DEFG 3.9 1.7 3.9 1.3 40.8 CDE 42.4 CDEF 46.3 BCD H 9701 51.6 BCD 42.7 ABCDEFG 2.4 0.5 1.3 4.7 45.1 ABCDE 44.6 BCDE 46.9 BCD RO 972 45.3 BCD 36.3 EFG 2.8 0.6 3.1 2.5 39.1 DEF 39.7 EF 42.8 CD RO 971 51.3 BCD 38.1 DEFG 3.9 2 4.5 2.9 42.0 BCDE 44.0 BCDEF 48.4 BCD TR 12 49.6 BCD 40.0 BCDEFG 2.5 1.9 2.9 2.3 42.5 BCDE 44.4 BCDEF 47.2 BCD EX 98013 41.3 D 32.0 FGH 3.4 2.1 2.7 1.1 35.5 EF 37.5 EF 40.2 D TSH 2 49.7 BCD 37.9 DEFG 5.1 2.6 3.5 0.6 43.0 ABCDE 45.5 BCDE 49.0 BCD PX 213015 48.9 BCD 39.5 CDEFG 2.3 1.8 2.8 2.5 41.7 CDE 43.6 BCDEF 46.4 BCD HRC 91219 44.6 CD 33.9 FGH 3.6 1 3.1 3 37.5 EF 38.5 EF 41.6 D HYPEEL 696 62.2 AB 47.3 ABCDE 4.5 3.5 5.5 1.5 51.8 ABCD 55.2 ABCD 60.7 AB RO 975 49.1 BCD 40.4 BCDEFG 2.6 1.2 2.1 2.9 43.0 ABCDE 44.2 BCDEF 46.3 BCD TSH 1 50.0 BCD 37.7 DEFG 3.3 2.4 4.7 1.8 41.1 CDE 43.3 BCDEF 48.1 BCD H9704 68.5 A 50.9 ABC 4.7 5.6 5.8 1.3 55.8 AB 61.4 A 67.2 A H9314 62.4 AB 52.6 AB 3.3 1.7 3 1.8 55.8 AB 57.6 AB 60.6 AB PX 33011 53.4 ABCD 43.5 ABCDEF 3.3 1.9 2.9 1.7 46.8 ABCDE 48.8 ABCDE 51.7 ABCD R 956 42.9 D 23.6 H 3 3.7 11.2 1.5 26.5 F 30.2 F 41.4 D TS 75 47.2 BCD 34.7 EFGH 4 1.9 5.8 0.9 38.7 DEF 40.6 DEF 46.4 BCD H9553 53.1 ABCD 40.5 BCDEFG 3.7 2 4.2 2.7 44.2 ABCDE 46.2 BCDE 50.4 BCD PX 50514 45.4 BCD 30.6 GH 3.2 2.6 7.8 1.2 33.8 EF 36.4 EF 44.2 BCD Probability 0.0272 0.0001 0.376 0 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0007 0.0288 CV 0.1663 0.1583 0.5056 0.4982 0.5787 0.4307 0.1601 0.1608 0.1762 Mean 51.4 40.6 3.3 1.9 3.7 2.0 43.8 45.7 49.4 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-
Table 4. Processing tomato yield trial, 1998. 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 961 37.2 E 28.0 DE 6.1 1.4 1.3 0.5 34.1 EF 35.5 DE 36.7 E TSH 3 48.8 ABCD 41.5 ABC 3.7 1.1 2 0.5 45.2 ABCD 46.3 ABCD 48.3 ABCD RO 974 51.6 ABC 45.5 A 3.4 0.7 1.3 0.7 48.9 AB 49.6 ABC 50.9 ABC EX 97623 49.2 ABCD 38.6 ABC 8.1 0.5 1.4 0.5 46.6 ABCD 47.2 ABC 48.6 ABCD OHIO 7983 48.8 ABCD 37.9 ABCD 8 0.6 2 0.4 45.9 ABCD 46.5 ABCD 48.4 ABCD CC 329 39.1 DE 30.9 CDE 1.5 1.6 4 1.1 32.4 F 34.0 E 38.0 DE OX 150 48.6 ABCDE 38.7 ABC 6.6 1 1.8 0.5 45.3 ABCD 46.3 ABCD 48.1 ABCD OX 52 44.3 BCDE 38.8 ABC 3.5 0.3 1.4 0.3 42.3 ABCDEF 42.6 ABCDE 44.0 BCDE N 833 41.7 CDE 31.5 BCDE 6 1.1 2.6 0.4 37.5 CDEF 38.6 CDE 41.2 CDE H 9701 45.7 ABCDE 25.4 E 17.5 0.7 1 1 42.9 ABCDE 43.6 ABCDE 44.6 ABCDE RO 972 56.7 A 39.5 ABC 12.8 1 2.5 1 52.2 AB 53.3 A 55.7 A RO 971 49.2 ABCD 41.1 ABC 5.5 0.7 0.9 1 46.6 ABCD 47.3 ABC 48.2 ABCD TR 12 53.4 ABC 44.9 A 4.5 1.4 2.2 0.4 49.4 AB 50.8 AB 53.0 AB EX 98013 45.8 ABCDE 41.9 AB 2.2 0.9 0.2 0.6 44.0 ABCDE 44.9 ABCD 45.1 ABCDE TSH 2 47.2 ABCDE 43.5 A 1.8 0.4 1.2 0.3 45.3 ABCD 45.7 ABCD 47.0 ABCDE PX 213015 47.5 ABCDE 39.4 ABC 5.3 0.6 1.4 0.7 44.7 ABCDE 45.4 ABCD 46.8 ABCDE HRC 91219 48.1 ABCDE 38.9 ABC 4.5 1.4 2.5 0.8 43.3 ABCDE 44.7 ABCDE 47.3 ABCDE HYPEEL 696 55.3 AB 48.2 A 4.7 0.4 1.6 0.5 52.9 A 53.3 A 54.9 AB RO 975 54.8 AB 47.8 A 4.3 0.4 1.2 1.1 52.0 AB 52.5 A 53.7 AB TSH 1 51.7 ABC 43.3 A 4.9 1.3 1.5 0.8 48.2 ABC 49.5 ABC 50.9 ABC H9704 47.7 ABCDE 39.2 ABC 5.5 1.3 1.4 0.2 44.7 ABCDE 46.0 ABCD 47.5 ABCDE H9314 52.7 ABC 47.2 A 3 0.6 1.3 0.6 50.2 AB 50.8 AB 52.1 ABC PX 33011 52.5 ABC 41.2 ABC 8.6 0.3 1.6 0.8 49.9 AB 50.1 AB 51.7 ABC R 956 46.4 ABCDE 30.7 CDE 6.2 3.8 3.4 2.2 37.0 DEF 40.8 BCDE 44.2 ABCDE TS 75 52.5 ABC 45.6 A 3.5 0.9 1.9 0.5 49.1 AB 50.1 AB 52.0 ABC H9553 51.2 ABC 44.8 A 2.8 0.8 1.9 1 47.6 ABCD 48.4 ABC 50.2 ABC PX 50514 46.9 ABCDE 38.4 ABC 2.9 1.4 3.2 1.1 41.2 BCDEF 42.6 ABCDE 45.9 ABCDE Probability 0.0236 0.0000 0.0009 0.0197 0.0387 0.0082 0.0012 0.0061 0.0193 CV 11.75% 13.77% 65.40% 85.50% 59.31% 64.91% 12.28% 12.27% 12.00% Mean 48.7 39.7 5.5 1.0 1.8 0.7 45.2 46.2 48.0 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-
Table 5. Processing tomato yield trial, 1998. 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 961 28.9 D 22.3 FG 2.9 0.7 2.7 0.3 25.2 EFG 25.9 DE 28.6 CD TSH 3 37.0 BCD 27.1 BCDEFG 5 1.3 3.2 0.4 32.1 ABCDEFG 33.4 ABCDE 36.6 ABC RO 974 37.0 BCD 28.9 ABCDEFG 2.8 1.9 2 1.4 31.7 ABCDEFG 33.6 ABCD 35.6 ABCD EX 97623 36.8 BCD 29.8 ABCDEFG 2.3 1.1 2.3 1.2 32.1 ABCDEFG 33.3 ABCDE 35.6 ABCD OHIO 7983 31.9 CD 25.3 DEFG 2.9 1.2 2.3 0.3 28.2 CDEFG 29.3 CDE 31.6 BCD CC 329 29.6 D 23.8 FG 2.2 0.8 1.9 0.9 26.0 DEFG 26.8 DE 28.7 CD OX 150 40.0 ABCD 34.4 ABCD 2.5 1.2 0.9 0.9 36.9 ABCD 38.1 ABC 39.0 ABC OX 52 38.7 ABCD 30.3 ABCDEFG 1.4 1 1.3 4.7 31.7 ABCDEFG 32.7 ABCDE 34.0 BCD N 833 29.7 D 22.8 FG 2.9 1.1 1.8 1.1 25.7 EFG 26.8 DE 28.6 CD H 9701 33.1 BCD 24.1 EFG 3.9 2.3 2.1 0.7 28.0 CDEFG 30.3 BCDE 32.4 BCD RO 972 43.0 ABC 35.7 ABC 2.8 0.7 0.9 3 38.4 ABC 39.1 ABC 40.0 AB RO 971 43.4 ABC 34.7 ABCD 2.7 1.7 2.2 2.1 37.3 ABC 39.1 ABC 41.3 AB TR 12 37.2 BCD 31.0 ABCDEF 1.4 0.8 0.8 3.1 32.4 ABCDEF 33.3 ABCDE 34.1 BCD EX 98013 33.3 BCD 28.5 ABCDEFG 1.6 0.8 1 1.4 30.1 BCDEFG 30.9 BCDE 31.9 BCD TSH 2 40.1 ABCD 35.5 ABCD 1.9 0.7 1 1.1 27.4 ABC 38.0 ABC 39.0 ABC PX 213015 42.5 ABC 34.3 ABCDE 1.8 2.6 1.9 1.8 36.1 ABCDE 38.8 ABC 40.6 AB HRC 91219 33.8 BCD 25.5 CDEFG 2.9 1.5 2.1 1.9 28.4 CDEFG 29.9 CDE 32.0 BCD HYPEEL 696 43.5 AB 37.3 AB 2.6 1.4 1.4 0.8 39.9 AB 41.2 AB 42.7 AB RO 975 48.9 A 38.2 A 2.9 1.4 2.5 3.8 41.1 A 42.5 A 45.1 A TSH 1 36.1 BCD 31.7 ABCDEF 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.2 32.4 ABCDEF 33.5 ABCDE 34.9 ABCD H9704 32.6 BCD 28.4 ABCDEFG 1.9 0.7 1.3 0.4 30.3 ABCDEFG 31.0 BCDE 32.3 BCD H9314 34.6 BCD 28.9 ABCDEFG 2.5 0.8 1.7 0.8 31.4 ABCDEFG 32.2 ABCDE 33.9 BCD PX 33011 35.5 BCD 30.3 ABCDEFG 1.5 0.7 1.1 1.9 31.8 ABCDEFT 21.5 ABCDE 33.6 BCD R 956 36.4 BCD 29.9 ABCDEFG 2.6 0.7 2.5 0.8 32.5 ABCDEF 33.2 ABCDE 35.6 ABCD TS 75 32.5 BCD 25.6 CDEFG 2.8 1 2.4 0.7 28.4 CDEFG 29.4 CDE 31.7 BCD H9553 29.3 D 23.0 FG 1.1 1 3 1.3 24.0 FG 25.0 DE 28.0 CD PX 50514 30.7 D 20.1 G 1.3 1.2 2.8 5.4 21.4 G 22.5 E 25.4 D Probability 0.0043 0.001 0.3796 0.0332 0.06 0.0001 0.003 0.0021 0.0059 CV 15.92% 17.78% 63.25% 55.10% 50.14% 73.86% 17.46% 16.87% 16.10% Mean 36.1 29.2 2.4 1.2 1.9 1.6 31.5 32.7 34.5 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-
Table 6. Processing tomato yield trial, 1998. 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 961 48.2 BCD 37.3 CDEFGH 8.8 1.2 0.6 0.3 46.1 BCDE 47.3 BCDE 47.9 BCDE TSH 3 47.1 BCD 37.0 DEFGH 7.5 1.2 1.1 0.2 44.6 CDE 45.8 BCDE 46.9 BCDE RO 974 46.5 CD 35.1 EFGH 7.1 2.8 1.5 0.1 42.1 DE 44.9 CDE 46.4 BCDE EX 97623 44.8 D 31.2 H 9.6 2.2 1.4 0.3 40.8 E 43.0 DE 44.5 CDE OHIO 7983 50.3 ABCD 38.6 BCDEFGH 9.7 1.1 0.6 0.4 48.3 ABCDE 49.4 ABCDE 49.9 ABCDE CC 329 47.9 BCD 34.9 FGH 7.1 2.5 2.8 0.6 41.9 DE 44.4 CDE 47.3 BCDE OX 150 47.0 BCD 34.5 FGH 7 3.7 1.7 0.2 41.5 DE 45.2 CDE 46.9 BCDE OX 52 49.4 BCD 38.4 CDEFGH 8.6 1.5 0.6 0.3 47.0 BCDE 48.5 ABCDE 49.1 ABCDE N 833 45.5 CD 38.4 BCDEFGH 5.3 0.9 0.3 0.5 43.8 CDE 44.7 CDE 45.0 CDE H 9701 42.9 D 32.2 GH 8.6 1.2 0.4 0.5 40.8 E 42.1 E 42.4 DE RO 972 56.6 ABC 44.4 ABCDE 9.3 1.5 0.6 0.7 53.8 ABC 55.3 ABC 55.9 ABC RO 971 42.2 D 35.0 EFGH 5.2 0.9 0.2 0.9 40.2 E 41.1 E 41.3 E TR 12 49.9 ABCD 42.0 BCDEF 5.3 1 0.8 0.8 47.3 BCDE 48.3 ABCDE 49.1 ABCDE EX 98013 45.5 CD 36.4 DEFGH 7 1 0.6 0.4 43.5 CDE 44.4 CDE 45.1 CDE TSH 2 49.5 BCD 36.5 DEFGH 10 2.1 0.9 0.1 46.4 BCDE 48.5 ABCDE 49.4 ABCDE PX 213015 58.2 AB 46.5 ABC 9.7 0.5 0.3 1.2 56.2 AB 56.7 AB 57.0 AB HRC 91219 51.7 ABCD 41.1 BCDEFG 6 1.4 0.6 2.4 47.4 BCDE 48.8 ABCDE 49.4 ABCDE HYPEEL 696 51.3 ABCD 38.2 CDEFGH 10.6 1.1 0.9 0.5 48.8 ABCDE 49.9 ABCDE 50.8 ABCDE RO 975 61.0 A 51.4 A 6.8 1 0.9 1 58.1 A 59.2 A 60.0 A TSH 1 47.9 BCD 37.7 CDEFGH 7.2 1.8 1.0 0.3 44.8 CDE 46.6 BCDE 47.6 BCDE H9704 52.8 ABCD 33.2 FGH 16.3 1.6 1.2 0.5 49.4 ABCDE 51.1 ABCDE 52.2 ABCDE H9314 51.0 ABCD 37.6 CDEFGH 9.4 2.4 1.0 0.7 47.0 BCDE 49.3 ABCDE 50.3 ABCDE PX 33011 50.0 ABCD 41.6 BCDEFGH 6.2 0.6 0.3 1.3 47.8 ABCDE 48.4 ABCDE 48.7 ABCDE R 956 43.5 D 36.8 DEFGH 4.5 0.6 0.4 1.2 41.4 DE 41.9 E 42.4 DE TS 75 45.4 CD 41.7 BCDEF 2.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 44.1 CDE 44.5 CDE 44.8 CDE H9553 53.9 ABCD 47.6 AB 2.7 1 1.7 0.9 50.3 ABCDE 51.3 ABCDE 53.1 ABCD PX 50514 56.8 ABC 45.4 ABCD 6.5 1.6 1.4 1.9 51.9 ABCD 53.3 ABCD 54.9 ABC Probability 0.0167 0.0002 0.0019 0.0531 0.0203 0.0001 0.0069 0.0237 0.0314 CV 11.75% 12.17% 39.22% 70.10% 83.47% 72.80% 11.69% 11.81% 11.92% Mean 49.5 38.9 7.6 1.4 0.9 0.7 46.5 47.9 48.8 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-
Table 7. Processing tomato yield trial, 1998. 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 961 35.8 BC 30.0 ABCD 2.5 0.8 1.4 1.2 32.5 ABCD 33.2 ABC 34.6 ABC TSH 3 34.2 C 26.1 BCD 2.4 3.1 1.7 0.8 28.6 ABC 31.7 ABC 33.4 ABC RO 974 32.6 C 25.0 CD 1.6 1.6 2.1 2.4 26.6 BC 28.2 C 30.3 C EX 97623 41.3 ABC 34.4 ABCD 2.8 1.3 1.9 0.9 37.2 ABC 38.5 ABC 40.0 ABC OHIO 7983 42.2 ABC 35.7 ABC 2.2 1.1 1.7 1.5 37.9 ABC 38.9 ABC 40.7 ABC CC 329 36.7 ABC 27.5 ABCD 2.2 2.2 1.7 3.1 29.7 ABC 31.9 ABC 33.6 ABC OX 150 42.1 ABC 37.7 ABC 2.2 0.9 0.9 0.4 39.9 AB 40.8 ABC 41.7 ABC OX 52 37.0 ABC 31.5 ABCD 1.1 1.3 2.1 1 32.6 ABC 34.0 ABC 36.1 ABC N 833 32.7 C 25.0 DE 1.7 2.4 2.9 0.7 26.7 BC 29.1 BC 32.0 BC H 9701 47.2 AB 40.1 A 2.2 2.5 0.8 1.6 42.4 A 44.8 A 45.6 A RO 972 41.6 ABC 35.2 ABCD 1.4 1.4 2.4 1.1 36.6 ABC 38.1 ABC 40.5 ABC RO 971 40.9 ABC 35.2 ABCD 1.5 1.9 1.3 1 36.7 ABC 38.6 ABC 39.8 ABC TR 12 40.6 ABC 31.4 ABCD 2.7 2.9 2.7 0.8 34.2 ABC 37.1 ABC 39.8 ABC EX 98013 37.4 ABC 31.7 ABCD 1.9 2.1 1.2 0.5 33.6 ABC 35.7 ABC 36.9 ABC TSH 2 36.4 ABC 29.0 ABCD 2.8 1.3 1.5 1.8 31.8 ABC 33.1 ABC 34.6 ABC PX 213015 43.9 ABC 36.6 ABC 4.2 1.3 1.5 0.3 40.8 A 42.2 AB 43.7 AB HRC 91219 42.0 ABC 36.4 ABC 2.3 0.9 2 0.4 38.7 ABC 39.6 ABC 41.7 ABC HYPEEL 696 46.8 AB 39.1 AB 3.1 1.5 1.7 1.5 42.1 A 43.6 A 45.3 A RO 975 38.5 ABC 34.6 ABCD 1.3 1.3 0.8 0.5 35.9 ABC 37.2 ABC 37.9 ABC TSH 1 48.8 A 35.3 ABCD 2 2 2.2 7.2 37.3 ABC 39.4 ABC 41.6 ABC H9704 42.5 ABC 32.8 ABCD 5.1 2.7 1.4 0.5 37.9 ABC 40.6 ABCD 42.0 ABC H9314 35.2 BC 29.3 ABCD 0.9 2.1 2.3 0.6 30.2 ABC 32.3 ABC 34.7 ABC PX 33011 40.3 ABC 31.0 ABCD 2.6 1.6 2.8 2.3 33.7 ABC 35.3 ABC 38.0 ABC R 956 33.3 C 21.7 D 3.3 3.7 3.6 0.9 25.1 C 28.8 C 32.4 BC TS 75 36.7 ABC 28.0 ABCD 2.6 2.8 2.7 0.5 30.6 ABC 33.4 ABC 36.2 ABC H9553 41.8 ABC 35.3 ABCD 2.9 1.2 1.9 0.6 38.1 ABC 39.3 ABC 41.2 ABC PX 50514 35.4 BC 25.5 BCD 5 2 2.1 0.7 30.5 ABC 32.6 ABC 34.7 ABC Probability 0.1051 0.1379 0.2239 0.2913 0.5215 0.1192 0.115 0.1407 0.2156 CV 15.85% 21.78% 64.13% 64.04% 63.37% 151.93% 20.01% 18.12% 16.77% Mean 39.4 31.9 2.5 1.9 1.9 1.3 34.4 36.2 38.1 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-
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-
PAGE -17-
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 329 43.8 2.4 62.7 31.7 2.5 94.4 ABCD EX 97623 45.4 0.7 48.2 38.9 12.1 87.1 ABCDE EX 98013 57.7 0.1 27.8 31.2 41.0 59.0 HI H9314 44.6 0.3 56.6 29.5 12.6 86.1 ABCDE H9553 47.5 0.1 49.5 37.0 13.3 86.5 ABCDE H9701 52.4 0.1 16.7 44.7 34.6 61.4 HI H9704 50.0 0.0 25.4 40.3 35.0 65.7 GHI HRC 91219 48.2 1.3 47.3 30.9 18.0 78.2 DEFG HYPEEL 696 53.5 0.6 24.9 32.4 41.4 57.3 HI N833 43.0 0.8 66.1 25.5 7.6 91.6 ABCD OHIO 7983 51.1 0.1 45.3 38.5 15.9 83.9 ABCDEF OX 52 41.1 1.4 62.6 28.8 6.3 91.4 ABCD OX 150 51.6 0.3 31.9 40.7 26.8 72.6 EFGH PX 50514 49.7 0.2 43.5 34.2 22.1 77.7 DEFG PX 33011 53.7 0.1 34.5 34.3 30.4 68.8 FGHI PX 213015 59.7 0.1 19.3 34.1 46.6 53.4 I R 961 42.8 1.3 79.2 19.5 0.0 98.7 A R 956 45.8 0.3 66.9 27.4 5.0 94.3 ABCD RO 975 46.1 0.5 45.9 33.3 19.8 79.2 CDEFG RO 974 50.0 0.5 54.7 35.7 8.9 90.4 ABCD RO 972 46.8 0.7 56.3 32.0 11.3 88.3 ABCDE RO 971 44.7 0.3 49.4 32.0 17.9 81.4 BCDEFG TR 12 46.3 1.1 42.8 29.3 19.0 72.1 EFGH TS 75 45.0 2.4 66.1 20.8 10.4 86.9 ABCDE TSH 3 39.5 2.0 76.2 21.2 0.4 97.2 AB TSH 2 50.7 0.4 58.6 34.6 6.3 93.1 ABCD TSH 1 45.5 0.4 67.1 28.1 3.8 95.2 ABC Probability 0.0000 0.1384 0.0000 0.0697 0.0000 0.0000 CV 10.42% 191.69% 20.10% 34.20% 56.03% 13.56% Mean 48.0 0.7 49.1 32.1 17.4 81.2 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-
Table 9. Percent fruit with stems still attached after shaking from plant, 1998. Name Stems % H9701 6.0 CC 329 4.9 H9704 2.9 TS 75 2.6 R 956 2.2 H9314 1.9 RO 971 1.6 OHIO 7983 1.4 R 961 1.3 PX 213015 1.1 TSH 2 0.8 PX 33011 0.7 TR 12 0.6 RO 972 0.6 HYPEEL 696 0.6 TSH 3 0.4 RO 975 0.3 OX 52 0.3 H9553 0.3 TSH 1 0.0 RO 974 0.0 PX 50514 0.0 OX 150 0.0 N833 0.0 HRC 91912 0.0 EX 98013 0.0 EX 97623 0.0 Probability 0.0000 CV 129.80% Mean 1.1 Means are based on 5 samples. Each sample consists of 3 kg of fruit. PAGE -19-
Table 10. Percent fruit (by weight) with cracks extending into the flesh after dropping on concrete from a four foot height, 1998. This test estimated firmness. Name Cracked Fruit (%) N833 6.5 G TSH 1 6.7 G H9553 12.3 FG TS 75 15.2 EFG PX 50514 17.0 DEFG H9314 19.1 DEFG H9704 19.3 DEFG R 961 19.6 DEFG TSH 2 19.8 DEFG TSH 3 20.9 DEFG R 956 25.1 CDEF PX 33011 25.1 CDEF CC 329 26.2 CDEF OX 150 29.0 BCDE HYPEEL 696 29.3 BCDE OHIO 7983 30.2 BCD H9701 30.8 BCD OX 52 31.3 BCD RO 972 32.0 BCD TR 12 36.2 ABC EX 97623 37.0 ABC RO 974 37.4 ABC HRC 91219 38.6 ABC RO 971 38.8 ABC RO 975 41.5 AB EX 98013 42.1 AB PX 213015 49.5 A Probability 0.0000 CV 36.3% Mean 27.3 Means are based on 5 samples. Each sample consisted of 3 kg of fruit. PAGE -20-
PAGE -21-
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-
Table 11. Percent (by weight) of fruit recovered after peeling but before sorting. Demonstrates how much remains after exposure to caustic and peeler 1998. Name Peeling Recovery (%) PX 50514 88.6 A H9704 88.6 A N833 87.6 AB H9314 87.5 ABC TSH 2 86.9 ABCD H9553 86.7 ABCD TS 75 86.4 ABCDE TSH 1 85.9 ABCDEF H9701 84.8 ABCDEFG HRC 91219 84.8 ABCDEFG PX 33011 84.2 ABCDEFGH RO 975 83.9 ABCDEFGH TSH 3 83.3 BCDEFGH HYPEEL 696 83.0 BCDEFGH TR 12 82.4 CDEFGHI R 961 82.3 DEFGHI OHIO 7983 82.1 DEFGHI EX 97623 81.9 DEFGHI OX 150 81.5 EFGHI RO 971 81.0 FGHI OX 52 80.5 GHI RO 974 80.3 GHI EX 98013 80.1 GHI CC 329 79.4 HI R 956 79.0 HI RO 972 79.0 HI PX 213015 77.6 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-
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. ] } { 1 - ------------------------------------------------------------ } 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-
Table 12. Percent (by weight) of cannable tomatoes when sorted after peeling, 1998. 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 12 85.6 A 87.5 AB 1.9 R 956 79.6 AB 80.2 ABCD 2.6 OHIO 7983 79.3 AB 84.1 ABC 4.8 EX 98013 78.4 ABC 78.8 ABCD 0.4 PX 213015 77.2 ABC 78.0 ABCD 0.8 RO 971 72.8 ABC 80.9 ABCD 8.1 TS 75 72.0 ABC 88.7 A 16.7 RO 975 71.8 ABCD 82.5 ABC 10.7 EX 97623 71.3 ABCD 77.3 ABC 6 RO 974 70.5 ABCD 74.0 ABCD 3.5 H9701 69.7 ABCD 74.5 ABCD 4.8 TSH 3 67.6 ABCDE 81.7 ABC 14.1 HRC 91219 67.1 ABCDE 74.2 ABCD 7.1 CC 329 66.7 ABCDE 72.6 ABCD 5.9 RO 972 66.1 ABCDE 70.1 ABCD 4 HYPEEL 696 65.8 ABCDE 74.8 ABCD 9 OX 52 64.6 BCDE 73.5 ABCD 8.9 TSH 2 62.1 BCDE 76.8 ABCD 14.7 R 961 62.0 BCDEF 69.4 BCD 7.4 OX 150 61.5 BCDEF 66.1 CD 4.6 TSH 1 61.5 BCDEF 80.6 ABCD 19.1 H9553 61.0 BCDEF 77.7 ABCD 16.7 PX 50514 58.2 CDEF 77.0 ABCD 18.8 H9704 51.7 DEF 75.6 ABCD 23.9 PX 33011 47.7 EF 62.4 D 14.9 N833 44.5 F 69.8 BCD 25.3 H9314 43.8 F 66.6 CD 22.8 Probability 0 0 CV 19.88% 15.79% Mean 65.9 76.1 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-
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-
Table 13. Percent (by weight) canning recovery and Percent potential canning recovery,, 1998. 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 12 70.5 A 72.1 AB 1.6 OHIO 7983 65.9 AB 70.0 ABC 4.1 R 956 63.2 AB 63.6 ABC 0.4 EX 98013 62.7 ABC 63.1 ABC 0.4 TS 75 61.9 ABC 76.7 A 14.8 RO 975 60.1 ABC 69.4 ABC 9.3 PX 213015 60.1 ABC 60.7 ABC 0.6 H9701 59.0 ABC 63.2 ABC 4.2 RO 971 58.9 ABC 65.9 ABC 7 EX 97623 58.9 ABC 63.9 ABC 5 HRC 91219 57.0 ABC 63.2 ABC 6.2 RO 974 56.6 ABCD 59.6 BC 3 TSH 3 56.1 ABCD 68.3 ABC 12.2 HYPEEL 696 55.0 ABCDE 62.8 ABC 7.8 TSH 2 54.8 ABCDE 68.3 ABC 13.5 TSH 1 52.9 BCDEF 70.0 ABC 17.1 H9553 52.7 BCDEF 67.5 ABC 14.8 OX 52 52.7 BCDEF 60.3 ABC 7.6 CC 239 52.6 BCDEF 57.4 BC 4.8 RO 972 52.5 BCDEF 55.8 BC 3.3 R 961 52.2 BCDEF 58.6 BC 6.4 PX 50514 51.5 BCDEF 68.7 ABC 17.2 OX 150 50.8 BCDEF 54.6 C 3.8 H9704 45.7 CDEF 67.3 ABC 21.6 PX 33011 39.8 DEF 53.0 C 13.2 N833 38.9 EF 61.4 ABC 22.5 H9314 37.5 F 58.4 BC 20.9 Probability 0 0 CV 20.42% 17.24% Mean 54.8 63.8 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-
PAGE -28-
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 1999. 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-
Table 14. Results of quality evaluations on juice samples, 1998. Name Agtron Soluble Solids ph Modified Boswick (cm) Total Solids CC 329 24.0 BCDEFG 5.7 ABCD 4.35 AB 6.7 6.3 ABCD EX 97623 29.8 AB 5.1 ABCD 4.24 EFGH 6.6 5.9 CDE EX 98013 20.2 FGH 5.2 ABCD 4.31 BCD 7.1 6.1 ABCDE H9314 25.8 ABCDEFG 5.1 ABCD 4.27 CDEFGH 5.2 6.2 ABCDE H9553 26.8 ABCDEFG 5.5 ABCD 4.22 GH 4.9 6.3 ABCD H9701 21.8 DEFGH 4.8 D 4.28 CDEFG 4.7 5.8 DE H9704 22.4 CDEFGH 5.1 ABCD 4.26 DEFGH 4.8 6.0 BCDE HRC 91219 17.4 H 5.1 ABCD 4.40 A 5.8 5.7 DE HYPEEL 696 27.0 ABCDEF 5.1 ABCD 4.24 EFGH 5.8 6.2 ABCDE N833 31.8 A 5.9 AB 4.29 BCDEF 5.4 6.7 A OHIO 7983 30.4 AB 5.0 BCD 4.23 FGH 5.1 5.8 DE OX 52 29.6 AB 5.1 ABCD 4.24 EFGH 5.7 6.0 BCDE OX 150 21.6 EFGH 5.1 ABCD 4.30 BCDE 6.9 5.9 CDE PX 50514 27.4 ABCDE 5.3 ABCD 4.21 H 4.3 6.1 ABCDE PX 33011 28.8 ABC 5.3 ABCD 4.26 DEFGH 5.2 6.0 BCDE PX 213015 26.4 ABCDEFG 4.9 CD 4.28 CDEFG 7.5 5.6 E R 961 31.8 A 5.2 ABCD 4.33 BC 6.1 5.9 CDE R 956 30.4 AB 5.0 BCD 4.30 BCDE 5.4 5.9 CDE RO 975 25.6 ABCDEFG 4.9 CD 4.32 BCD 7.0 5.7 DE RO 974 25.6 ABCDEFG 5.1 ABCD 4.29 BCDEF 6.3 6.1 ABCDE RO 972 26.6 ABCDEFG 5.0 BCD 4.27 CDEFGH 5.8 5.7 DE RO 971 30.6 AB 5.8 ABC 4.24 EFGH 6.1 6.0 BCDE TR 12 28.6 ABCD 5.0 BCD 4.24 EFGH 4.5 5.7 DE TS 75 20.0 GH 6.0 A 4.39 A 6.2 6.6 AB TSH 3 25.0 ABCDEFG 5.5 ABCD 4.31 BCD 6.2 6.3 ABCD TSH 2 28.6 ABCD 5.6 ABCD 4.31 BCD 6.1 6.6 AB TSH 1 29.2 ABC 5.6 ABCD 4.29 BCDEF 5.9 6.5 ABC Probability 0.0000 0.0830 0.0000 0.0578 0.0003 CV 17.29% 11.32% 1.09% 25.35% 6.88% Mean 26.4 5.3 4.28 5.8 6.1 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-
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 9553 - H 9701- had excellent recovery after peeling similar to 1997 - H 9704 - good firmness, similar to 1997, and excellent peeling recovery - H 9314 - excellent peeling recovery, good firmness and excellent red ripe yield - H 9553 - late maturing, excellent firmness, red yield and very good peeling recovery GPCRC - Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, Harrow - varieties tested: GPCRC 91219 - GPCRC 91219 - 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 98013 - EX 97623 - early maturing, good canning recovery - Ohio 7983 - early season check - OX 150 - good red ripe yield, good Agtron colour - OX 52 - good red ripe yield - EX 98013 - large fruit size, excellent Agtron colour and canning recovery Petoseed - varieties tested: PX 213015, Hypeel 696, PX 33011, PX 50514 - PX 213015 - excellent red yield, very good canning recovery and yield potential, large fruit may have affected firmness - Hypeel 696 - mid/late season check - PX 33011 - good yield potential and red ripe yield - PX 50514 - excellent firmness and peeling recovery, late maturing Ridgetown College PAGE -31-
- varieties tested: R 961, RO 974, RO 972, RO 971, RO 975, R 956 - RCAT 961 - similar to 1997 was early maturing and firm - RO 974 - early, good fruit size - RO 972 - excellent yield potential, very good red ripe yield - RO 971 - good canning recovery - RO 975 - excellent yield potential and red ripe yield, very good canning recovery - RCAT 956 - 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-
Appendix 1. Maturity ranking. Name Maturity Scale R 961 1.44 TSH 3 1.96 RO 974 2.18 EX 97623 2.18 OHIO 7983 2.4 CC 329 2.58 OX 150 2.84 OX 52 2.96 N833 3.07 H9701 3.07 RO 972 3.29 RO 971 3.71 TR 12 3.76 EX 98013 3.84 TSH 2 3.89 PX 213015 3.89 HRC 91219 3.96 Hypeel 696 4.16 R0 975 4.38 TSH 1 4.4 H9704 4.49 H9314 4.49 PX 33011 4.76 R 956 4.98 TS 75 5.64 H9553 6 PX 50514 6.29 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-
PAGE -34-