osu 1986 VEGETABLE CULTIVAR EVALUATIONS * GREEN WRAP TOMATOES * FRESH MARKET STAKED TOMATOES * SUPER SWEET CORN * NORMAL SWEET CORN

Similar documents
EVALUATION OF SWEET CORN CULTIVARS

~culture Series No. 5~

PROCESSING CABBAGE CULTIVAR EVALUATION TRIALS. Department of Horticulture

PROCESSING TOMATO VARIETY TRIAL SUMMARY

CULTURAL STUDIES ON CUCUMBERS FOR PROCESSING 1979 and 1980 Dale W. Kretchman» Mark A. Jameson» Charles C. Willer and Demetrio G. Ortega» Jr.

0\ Horticuilture Series 609 January 1990

2003 NEW JERSEY HEIRLOOM TOMATO OBSERVATION TRIAL RESULTS 1

Department of Horticulture ~ The Ohio State University

1,9 83 FRESH MARKET STAKED TOMATO TRIAL

2002 NEW JERSEY CHERRY HEIRLOOM TOMATO OBSERVATION TRIAL RESULTS 1 INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS

2014 Evaluation of Sweet Corn Varieties, Jay, Florida

Department of Horticulture The Ohio State University Ohio Agricultural Research &Development Center Wooster, OH 44691

2016 Ohio Sweet Corn Evaluations

1973 SWEET CORN CULTIVAR TRIALS GREEN SPRINGS CROPS RESEARCH UNIT

Variety Name Seed Company Variety Name Seed Company. BHN 589 Seedway Mt. Merit Seedway. BHN 967 Siegers Seed Company Primo Red Harris Seed Company

Evaluation of Jalapeno, Big Chili, Poblano, and Serrano Chili Pepper Cultivars in Central Missouri

1. Title: Identification of High Yielding, Root Rot Tolerant Sweet Corn Hybrids

Performance of Fresh Market Snap Bean Cultivars, Plateau Experiment Station, Charles A. Mullins. Interpretative Summary

PERFORMANCE OF SUPERSWEET CORN AND SWEET CORN VARIETIES FOLLOWING SEVERE HAIL

EVALUATION OF FOURTEEN TOMATO CULTIVARS IN SOUTHWEST MICHIGAN Ron Goldy & Virginia Wendzel Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center

Performance of Pumpkin Cultivars, Ames Plantation, Charles A. Mullins, Marshall Smith, and A. Brent Smith. Interpretative Summary

Yield, Income, Quality, and Blotchy Ripening Susceptibility of Staked Tomato Cultivars in Central Kentucky

2002 NEW JERSEY MEDIUM ROUND HEIRLOOM TOMATO OBSERVATION TRIAL RESULTS 1. Rutgers Cooperative Extension INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS

Performance of Pumpkin Cultivars, Plateau Experiment Station, A. Brent Smith and Charles A. Mullins. Interpretative Summary.

At harvest the following data was collected using the methodology described:

Southwest Indiana Muskmelon Variety Trial 2013

rciion egelaihe D Sweet corn varieties tested

Evaluation of Bicolor and White Synergistic Sweet Corn in West Virginia

EVALUATION OF TOMATO VARIETIES FOR MECHANICAL HARVEST. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. Northwest Branch, Custar, Ohio

Performance of Pumpkin Cultivars, Highland Rim Experiment Station, Charles A. Mullins, Barry Sims, Bill Pitt, and Steve C.

2009 Great Lakes Vegetable Working Group Heirloom Tomato Project Summary Indiana

CONTROL OF EARLY AND LATE BLIGHT I N TOMATOES, N. B. Shamiyeh, A. B. Smith and C. A. Mullins. Interpretive Summary

OHIO. SfA1E SWEET CORN CULTIV AR EVALUATIONS Richard L. Hassell Horticulture & Crop Science OARDC/OSU Wooster, OH '

varieties had marginally higher sucrose levels than Golden Jubilee (3.7 % vs 3.1 %) while the supersweet varieties had much

GREENHOUSE TOMATO BREEDING SUMMER CROP 1988 FIELD EVALUATION TRIALS, WOOSTER W. A. Erb, N. J. Flickinger and J. Y. Elliott

Pepper Research for Adaptation to the Delmarva Region 2017

Evaluation of 16 Phytophthora capsici-tolerant Pepper Cultivars in Southwest Michigan

Evaluation of Insect-Protected and Noninsect-Protected Supersweet Sweet Corn Cultivars for West Virginia 2014

Report To The Oregon Processed Vegetable Commission

Tomato Variety Observations 2009

2013 Safflower Irrigation Research Results

Evaluation of 17 Specialty Pepper Cultivars in Southwest Michigan

Performance of Pumpkin Cultivars, Plateau Experiment Station, Charles A. Mullins. Interpretative Summary

Evaluation of 18 Bell Pepper Cultivars In Southwest Michigan

Midwest Cantaloupe Variety Trial in Southwest Indiana 2015

Sweet Corn Variety Performance

Results and Discussion Eastern-type cantaloupe

Performance of SE Sweet Corn Cultivars, Plateau Experiment Station, A. Brent Smith and Charles A. Mullins. Interpretative Summary

2012 Organic Broccoli Variety Trial Results

What Do you Get When You Mix Pumpkins, Cowpeas, Buckwheat and Mycorrhiza? Steven Kirk Field Supervisor

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE BICOLOR FRESH MARKET VARIETY TRIAL RESULTS

CAULIFLOWER TRIAL,

Trial Report: Cantaloupe Variety Evaluation 2015

Performance of New Vegetable Pepper and Tomato Cultivars Grown in Northwest Ohio 2009

S.z. Berry W.A. Gould G.D. Dyer C.C. Willer N.J. Flickinger

2006 Strawberry Variety Research Fresno County

Evaluation of 15 Bell Pepper Cultivars in Southwest Michigan

Slicing Cucumber Performance in Southwest Michigan

Title: Report, High Tunnel Fresh Market Slicer Tomato Variety Trial 2010

Influence of GA 3 Sizing Sprays on Ruby Seedless

2009 Barley and Oat Trials. Dr. Heather Darby Erica Cummings, Rosalie Madden, and Amanda Gervais

Supersweet Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Northern Indiana, 2008

THE EFFECT OF SIMULATED HAIL ON YIELD AND QUALITY OF PUMPKINS AND TWO SQUASH VARIETIES

Opportunities for strawberry production using new U.C. day-neutral cultivars

Collaborators: Emelie Swackhammer, Horticulture Educator Penn State Cooperative Extension - Lehigh/Northampton County

Sugar-enhanced and Synergistic Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Northern Indiana, 2014

Sugar-enhanced Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Northern Indiana, 2009

Northern Ohio Sweet Corn Evaluation 2005

Research Progress towards Mechanical Harvest of New Mexico Pod-type Green Chile

Bell Pepper Cultivar Evaluation, 2017

Testing Tomato Hybrids for Heat Tolerance at West Tennessee Experiment Station, Jim E. Wyatt and Craig H. Canaday. Interpretative Summary

Evaluation of 15 Specialty Pepper Cultivars In Southwest Michigan

WATERMELON AND CANTALOUPE VARIETY TRIALS, PO Box 8112, GSU Statesboro, GA

What's New with Blackberry Varieties

Midwest Vegetable Trial Report for 2018

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE VARIETY TRIAL RESULTS

Northern Ohio Sweet Corn Evaluation 2008

Tomato Cultivar Evaluation in High Tunnels, Northern Indiana, 2017

Sweet corn insect management by insecticides in Ohio, 2015 Final report 12/31/2015

2010 Winter Canola Variety Trial

Irradiation of seeds of Pineapple orange resulted in the generation of a mutant,

Pumpkin Variety Trial 2005

Northern Ohio Sweet Corn Evaluation 2004

Specialty Cantaloupe Variety Performance

2008 Kraut Cabbage Variety Evaluation

NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR(S) AND THEIR AGENCY:

Trial Report: Yellow Squash and Zucchini Spring and Fall Variety Evaluation 2015

Beit Alpha Cucumber: A New Greenhouse Crop for Florida 1

Parthenocarpic Cucumbers Are a Successful Double Crop for High Tunnels

1

Spring Red and Savoy Cabbage Variety Evaluation 2013

Annual Report for the Pennsylvania Vegetable Research and Marketing Board

THE 2017 OHIO SOYBEAN PERFORMANCE TRIALS

Influence of Cultivar and Planting Date on Strawberry Growth and Development in the Low Desert

Silage Corn Variety Trial in Central Arizona

Effects of Preharvest Sprays of Maleic Hydrazide on Sugar Beets

Selecting Collard Varieties Based on Yield, Plant Habit and Bolting 1

WALNUT HEDGEROW PRUNING AND TRAINING TRIAL 2010

Jonathan R. Schultheis Brad Thompson Department of Horticulture Science North Carolina State University Hort. Series No. 187

Tolerance of Arbequina Olives (Olea europaea Arbequina) to Mission Herbicide.

Transcription:

Horticulture Series No. 568 December, 986 osu 986 VEGETABLE CULTIVAR EVALUATIONS * GREEN WRAP TOMATOES * FRESH MARKET STAKED TOMATOES * SUPER SWEET CORN * NORMAL SWEET CORN Department of Horticulture The Ohio State University Ohio Agricultural Research &!c Development Center Columbus, Ohio

This page intentionally blank...

KNOWLEDGEMENTS The 986 Ohio State University cultivar evaluations are sponsored by the folowing organizations. Grateful appreciation is given to these organizations without whom these projects would not be possible. * OHIO VEGETABLE RESEARCH FOUNDATION * ARCO SEED COMPANY * HARRIS MORAN SEED COMPANY * BHN RESEARCH All publications of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center are available to all on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, national origin, sex, or religious affiliation. /86-S-444/

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page. Tomato Studies, Introduction.... Green Wrap Tomatoes-Fremont (Table ).... Stake Tomatoes - Columbus (Table )... 4 4. Stake Tomatoes, Horticultural Characteristics. 5 5. Sweet Corn Studies, Introduction... 6 6. Super Sweet Corn-Fremont (Table )... 9 7. Super Sweet Corn-Columbus (Table )... 8. Normal Sweet Corn-Fremont (Table )... 9. Normal Sweet Corn-Columbus (Table 4).... Sweetness Characteristics, Supersweet-Columbus

986 GREENWRAP AND STAKE TOMATO CULTIVAR EVALUATION - FREMONT & COLUMBUS Robert J. Precheur, Gerry Myers and Charles Willer Data Analysis and Report: Robert J. Precheur Mailing Address: Department of Horticulture The Ohio State University Fyffe Court Columbus 4 This is a summary of our work evaluating several green wrap tomato cultivars in Fremont ~nd fresh market stake cultivars in Columbus. FREMONT Trial Design ~ Cultural Practices Transplants were obtained through BHN research of Florida. Seven cultivars were grown in a randomized complete block design with replications. Spacing was 6 inches between rows and 8 inches between plants within rows. There were 5 plants per plot and they were planted on May 5, 986. Stakes were placed at two plant intervals. Plants were pruned according to directions provided by BHN research. For Sunny, -4 suckers were removed; BHN 4: suckers removed; BHN 8 and 66 were pruned the same as Sunny, and BHN 67 & 69B were pruned more sucker than Sunny. On May, 7 lbs/a of -- were applied broadcast and disced in. The field was then sprayed with 4 lbs/a Devrinol. At planting / pint of -4- was applied per plant. On June, l/ pint of Sencor was applied post. On June 8, the plants were sidedressed with 5 lbs/a of - 4-. The insecticide/fungicide schedule is as follows: Material Copper Manzate Guthion Kocide & Dyrene Sevin Bravo Benlate Dithane M 45 Dates 6/4, 6/ 6/4, 6/, 7/4, 7/8, 6/, 7/ 7/4 7/4, 7/7, 8/4, 8/ 7/8 8/4 COLUMBUS Trial Design ~ Cultural Practices Trial design was as for Fremont. Seed was sown on March and 7, 986. Seedlings were transplanted to /4" cell paks and moved outdoors to

harden them off on May 6. Cul tivars: Taurus, Mountain Pride, Celebrity, HXP 87, and Pik Red were planted in the field on May. Cultivar~: Castle Crown, Revolution, Castle King, Taylor, and Burton were planted on May 9. One thousand pounds/a of 5-5-5 were broadcast and worked in after plowing. At field planting, each plant received / pint of -5-8 starter solution, mixed pounds per 5 gallons of water. Sencor was applied post at /4 pound ai/a after the plants were well established. Irrigation was applied at the rate of inch per week. No fungicides were applied during the season. There were two applications of Sevin and Thiodan and application of Guthion for insect control. Weather Data Vegetable Crops Branch - Fremont Month May June July August Septem. Precipitation Rain{inches) 4.46.7 5.5.79.8 >> See sweet corn trials for Columbus weather data. Table Of Seed Sources: Table Code. Abbott & Cobb, Inc., Box 7, Feasterville, PA 947. AG Agri-Seed & Chemical, 85 Dryden Rd., Metamora, MI 48455. AR ARCO Seed Co. East Ross Ave., El Centro, CA 94-9797 4. AS Asgrow Seed Co., P.. Box 9, Mechanicsburg, PA 755-9 5. H Harris Moran Seed Co., Moreton Farm, 67 Buffalo Rd., Rochester, N.Y. 464 6. P Peto Seed Co., Inc., Greenwood, SC 9647

Table. Yield, Grade, and Fruit Size of Greenwrap Tomato Cultivars, Fremont-986 First Harvest August 7, 986 Total Harvest to Oct., 986 Marketable Yield Marketable Yield ----------------- Percent by WT Fruit ---------------- Percent by WT Fruit Cultivar No US # Total Wt ------------- Size No US # Total Wt ------------- Size (/A) (Tons/A) us # Culls (lb) (/A) (Tons/A) us # Culls (lb). BHN 68 B 5. 4.7 54.7 65. 7. 54.84. BHN 67 B 4. 4.9 55 9.4 54.8 5.5 5.9. Mountain Pride..6 48 9.4 66.8 4. 58 7.7 4. Sunny.9 5. 6. 49 75.5. 45 7.5 5. BHN 66.5 4. 5.7 58.9 8.7 44 9.64 6. BHN 4.7 4.5 54.8 54.5 7.4 4 9.64 7. BHN 8. 4. 5 8.9 4.8 4.8 4 4.68 LSD (.5).6. 7.78 6. 7.8 Vl

Table. Yield, Grade, and Fruit Size of Staked Tomato Cultivars, Columbus-986 Early Harvest (7- to 8-7-86) Total Harvest to Sept. 9 Marketable Yield Marketable Yield Seed ---------------- Percent by NO. Fruit ---------------- Percent by WT Fruit Cultivar Source us # Total WT -------------- Size us # Total WT ------------- Size (/A) (Tons/A) us # Culls ( lb) (/A) (Tons/A) us # Culls (lb). Celebrity p 5. 9 4.48 7 4 44.4 77 o. 4. Mountain Pride AG 5 7. 8.4 5 4.9. HXP87 H 4 8.9 86 5.4 7 7 9.5 8 8 9 9.7.8 4. Revolution 66. 8.4 7 5 8.9 8.8 5. Taurus AG 48 9. 79 6.7 5 6. 7 6.5 6. Taylor AR. 8 5. 4 9 4. 7.4 7. Pik Red H 49.7 8.48 4 8 4. 8. 48 8. Burton AR 6 4.6 8 8.6 87. 9. Castle 6 8. Crown AR 7 5. 88 4.9 65 8.8. Castle 68.5 King AR 6 4.7 9.5 6 6 5.7 6 7. LSD (.5).7. 54..6 5.8 See: "Seed Sources" for explanations of seed source codes. +o-

Table. Quality Ratings for Staked Tomato Cultivars, Columbus-986 External Fruit Quality Internal ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fruit Quality Seed General Green Cone. Radial Deform. Blot. ------------------ Cultivar Source Appear. Shoulder Crack. Crack. Cat face Zipper Fruit Ripen. Core Color Overall. Celebrity p G 5 4.5 4.5 5 4.5 5 5 4.5 4.. Mountain Pride AG G 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4. 4.. HXP87 H G 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.5.8 4. Revolution G 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.5 4. 5. Taurus AG G 5 5 4.5 5 4.5 5 5 4..5 6. Taylor AR G 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.5 4. 7. Pik Red H G 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4. 4.5 8. Burton AR G 5 5 4.5 4.5 5 5 5.5.5 9. Castle Crown AR G 5 5 5 5 4.5 5 5.5 5.. Castle King AR G 5 5 4.5 5 5 5 5 4..8 4. 4.5 4..8.8.5 4..5 4. 4. Seed Sources: see Table of Seed Sources for explanation of the seed source codes. External Fruit Appearance & Disorders (from L tor): General Appearance, Concentric Cracking, Radial Cracking, Catfacing, Zippering, Deformed Fruit, Blothcy Ripening. >>SCALE: 5 = Very Good, = Poor. Internal Fruit Ratings: Core: size and appearance at stem end. >>SCALE: 5 = Very Good, = Poor. All ratings based on harvest in August. U

6 986 SWEET CORN CULTIVAR EVALUATION COLUMBUS: Gerald Myers, Ken DeWeese, Laura Brinkman, Gail Edgington, and Jeff Hartline FREMONT: Charles Willer and staff Data Analysis and Report: Robert J. Precheur Mailing Address: Department of Horticulture The Ohio State University Fyffe Court Columbus 4 This is a summary of our work evaluating several super and normal sweet corn cultivars. The same cultivars were evaluated at both Fremont and Columbus in 986. However, due to labor restraints, weather, and the increased number of research projects at Fremont, not all of the Fremont plots could be harvested at the proper time. Trial Design At both locations, thirteen super-sweet cultivars were grown in a randomized complete block design with 4 replications. Twelve normal sweet corn cu tivars were evaluated in Fremont and normal varieties were evaluated in Columbus. Spacing was 6 inches between rows and 8- inches between plants within rows. There were 45 seeds per plot. FREMONT Cultural Practices: Seed was sown on June, 986. Guard rows were planted to the north and south sides of rows running east and west at Fremont. All plots were planted with hand jabbers at a plant spacing as mentioned above. Super Sweet Corn plots were isolated from normal sweet corn plots. Nine hundred pounds/a of -- were broadcast and worked in after plowing. One hundred fifty pounds of -- fertilizer was was worked in and marked out weeks prior to planting. The corn was sidedressed with ammonium nitrate at a rate of 5 lbs/a. Three quarts of Lasso per acre were used for weed control. Insecticides were applied on a regular spray schedule, See below: Material Sevin Lannate Dipel Date Applied 7/4, 7/8 7/8, 8/ 8/

7 Weather Data Vegetable Research Branch - Precipitation Month Rain(inches) Fremont April May June July August September.78 4.46.7 5.5.79.8 COLUMBUS Cultural Practices: Corn was seeded on May 4, 986. Plot size and spacing were as mentioned above for Fremont. Guard rows were planted to the east and west sides of rows running north and south with guard hills-across the north and south ends of the entire planting. In addition to the other guard rows, 4 rows of an early maturing and a late maturing cultivar were planted on both the east and west sides of the entire planting of plots to enhance pollination. Super Sweet Corn plots were isolated from normal sweet corn plots. All plots were planted by hand jabber. Prior to plowing, 5-5-5 fertilizer was applied broadcast at a rate of lbs per acre. There was also 5 pounds 6-4- placed inches to the side and inches below the seed at planting time. Dual herbicide was applied immed.iatel y after planting. Most lots of seed had been treated with a fungicide and/or insecticide. Irrigation was' used throughout the season as needed. There were no sprays for worm control as indicated by the excessive amount of ears lost to worm damage.

8 Weather Data University Weather Station - Columbus Month, Precipitation Rain( inches) May June July August Septem.. 6..7.6 4. Table of Seed Sources Table Codes... 4. 5. H L TW su Abbott & Cobb, Inc., Box 7, Feasterville, PA 947 Joseph Harris Co., Moreton Farm, 67 Buffalo Rd., Rochester, N.Y. 464 Liberty Seed Co., P.O.Box 86, New Philadelphia, OH 4466 Twiley Seed Co.Inc., Greenwood, SC 9647 Sun Seeds, Eden Prairie, MN 5544

Table. Yield, and Other Characteristics of Super Sweet Corn Cultivars, Fremont-986 Cultivar Seed Source Days to First Harvest Marketable Yield/A Dozen Wt Mkt Ears (tons/a) % Percent Stand Ear Length Husked (in) Ear Width Husked (in) Ear Damage (Number I 4 reps) Ear Worms Smut Tip Cover Tip Fill Husk Tightness Bi-COLOR. Summer Sweet 78. Double Delight. Summer Sweet 85 LI 8 8 8 654 6 7.8 5. 6.4 75 68 8 85 7 78 7.8 6.8 8..9.8. 4 Yellow 4. Summer Sweet 78 5. Pinnacle 6. Sweet Time 7. Landmark 9. Summer Sweet 7. Summer Sweet 77. Summer Sweet 76. Main Time. Miracle HA TW HA TW LI 8 74 8 74 74 78 8 8 78 67 855 85 795 54 4 8 5 9. 5.85 8.6 8.6 7.8 6. 6.49 6. 5.9 88 9 88 87 8 79 7 7 8 86 78 8 89 8 8 86 85 8 8. 8.9 8. 8. 8.5 8.6 7.8 8. 8..9.7.8.8.7.8.9.9.9 o 7 6 LSD (.5).64.7 EAR SIZE: based on total length, diameter of husked ears per cultivar. EAR DAMAGE: based on total number of ears from 4 plots. >> Tip Cover, Husk Tightness, and Tip Fill: based on average rating of ears per plot. TIP COVER: = exposed; = inches covered. TIP FILL: = filled; ~ unfilled inch or less; = unfilled greater than inch. HUSK TIGHTNESS: = loose; = firm; = tight. \

Table. Yield, and Other Characteristics of Super Sweet Corn Cultivars, Columbus-986 Cultivar Seed Source Days to First Harvest Marketable Yield/A Dozen Wt Mkt Ears (tons/a) % Percent Stand Ear Length Husked (in) Ear Width Husked (in) Ear Damage (Number I 4 reps) Ear Worms Smut Bird Tip Cover Tip Fill Husk Tightness Bi-COLOR. Summer Sweet 78. Double Delight. Summer Sweet 85 LI 79 79 79 756 565.87. 47.9 7 4 54 8 7. 6.9.8.7.5.5 66 8 45 5 4 49 5 Yellow 4. Summer Sweet 76 5. Pinnacle 6. Summer Sweet 78 7. Main Time 8. Sweet Time 9. Summer Sweet 7. Landmark. Miracle. Summer Sweet 77. Summer Delicious HA TW TW HA LI LI 79 79 84 84 84 79 78 79 84 8 787 746 676 655 655 575 444 44 9 5.65.97.48..6.9.9.78. 67.5 4 4 9 4 4 45 56 55 45 58 49 7 55 5 49 7. 8.. 7. 7. 8..8 7.4 7. 8.4.6.7.5.5.4.7.7.7.. 5 4 7 48 4 6 47 7 5 5 6 5 4 5 45 5 5 4 4 69 LSD (.5) 79.6.7. EAR SIZE: based on total length, diameter of husked ears per cultivar. EAR DAMAGE: based on total number of ears from 4 plots. >> Tip Cover, Husk Tightness, and Tip Fill: based on average rating of ears per plot. TIP COVER: ; exposed; = inches covered. TIP FILL: = filled; = unfilled inch or less; = unfilled greater than inch. HUSK TIGHTNESS: = loose; = firm; = tight. f--

NORMAL SWEET CORN CULTIVAR EVALUATIONS Table. Yield, and Other Characteristics of Normal Sweet Corn Cultivars, Fremont-986 Seed First Dozen Wt Cultivar Source Harvest Ears (tons/a) Bi-COLOR Ear Damage Marketable Yield/A Ear Ear (Number I 4 reps) Days to ------------------- Length Width --------------- Mkt % %Plt Stand Husked (in) Husked (in) Ear Worms Smut Tip Cover Tip Fill Husk Tightness. Sweet Sal ( I 8) $ HA 6 775 6.46. Carnival AS 8 58 6.59. Honeymoon L 5 5.7 4. Calypso ('8)* R 6 6.4... WHITE.................. ~..................... 5. White Lightning 6 87 6.5 6. Snow Belle AS 7 9.8. Platinum Lady L 7 76.56... Yellow 49 66 6 6 8 85 69 85 9 99 9 66 89 89 76 7.9 9.8 7. 7.8 7.9 7.6 7.5.6.9.7..7.7.7 6 4 5 8. Supreme 9. Sundance ('84)* HA 74 65 5 8 5.8 4.65 86 9 89 8 7. 7..6.7 LSD (.5) 66.64. * Seed Age. EAR SIZE: based on total length, diameter of husked ears per cultivar. EAR DAMAGE: based on total number of ears from 4 plots. >> Tip Cover, Husk Tightness, and Tip Fill: based on average rating of ears per plot. TIP COVER: = exposed; = inches covered. TIP FILL: = filled; = unfilled inch or less; = unfilled greater than inch. HUSK TIGHTNESS: = loose; = firm; = tight. t-' t-'

NORMAL SWEET CORN CULTIVAR EVALUATIONS... Table 4. Yield, and Other Characteristics of Normal Sweet Corn Cultivars, Columbus-986 Ear Damage Marketable Yield/A Ear Ear (Number I 4 reps) Days to ------------------- Length Width -------------------- Seed First Dozen Wt Mkt % Plt Husked Cul tivar Source Harvest Ears (tons/a) ' Stand (in) Bi-COLOR.... Sweet Sal ( 8)* HA 78 4 5.87 5 69 7.9. Honeymoon L 8 9 4. 46 7 7.. Carniv~l AS 79 98.9 49 65 8.8 4. Calypso ('8)* R 84 4.5 7 7.... WHITE... 5. White Lightning 87 978.6 67 6.9 6. Snow Belle AS 78 958.6 5 6 6.. Platinum Lady L 78.76 4 57 7.... Yellow I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8. Sugar Loaf -- 78 968.5 56 5 7.8 9. Supreme HA 78 776.6 8 7 7.. Seneca Sentry ('8)* L 85 756.66 5 6 8.6. Zenith HA 79 746.55 48 4 8.. Seneca Pinto L 84 9.6 4 57 6.9. Sundance ( 84)* -- 78 8.4 6 7.9 LSD (.5) 8.. Husked (in) * Seed Age EAR SIZE: based on total length, diameter of husked ears per cultivar. EAR DAMAGE: based on total number of ears from 4 plots. >> Tip Cover, Husk Tightness, and Tip Fill: based on average rating of ears per plot. TIP COVER: = exposed; = inches covered. TIP FILL: = filled; = unfilled inch or less; = unfilled greater than inch. HUSK TIGHTNESS: = loose; = firm; = tight. Ear Worms.6.7 8.6.4 6.4 56. 8.4 5.8 9.7 5.7 4.7.5 6.7 9 Smut Bird Damage 8 5 56 8 6 5 6 5 9 7 5 Tip Cover Tip Husk Fill Tightness -' N

Table 5. Sweetness Characteristics of Super Sweet Corn Cultivars At Post-Harvest Intervals, Columbus- 986 Days Post-Harvest 5 Days Post-Harvest 8 Days Post-Harvest Cultivar Soluble Solids Refractive Index Soluble Solids Refractive Index Soluble Solids Refractive Index Bi-COLOR.... Summer Sweet 78.. 4. Summer Sweet 85 9.8. 47 Double Delight LI 9..47... Yellow... 4. Summer Delicious LI.8.68 5. Sweet Time TW 4.8.55 6. Landmark HA 4.6.455 7. Summer Sweet 77 4.6. 55 8. Summer Sweet 78 4.4.54 9. Miracle LI 4..5. Main Time TW.5.5. Summer Sweet 76.5. 5. Pinnacle HA..5. Summer Sweet 7..49.6.. 8.6. 4. 5..5 8.8.7....5. 5.5. 6. 5.54.56.5.6.5.5. 5.5 4..8 9.7.6 4.5.6.6 4. 8..8..8.4.54.5.5.66.54.5.5.54.6.5. 5.5.49 LSD (.5).8.8.76.4 4..6 At harvest, a sample was taken for analysis for soluble solids (SS) and refractive index (RI). The sample was divided into lots and stored at 4 degrees F. The post-harvest analysis appears in the table above for the time periods. For each test period, certain cultivars are signticantly sweeter than others at that particular time and also for the three periods. However, it cannot be determined it one cultivar is better than holding sugar than another since some cultivars seem to be gaining sugar from day to day 7. This sugar increase indicates the wide variation in sugar content from ear to ear at harvest. On day after harvest, Summer Delicious had significantly greater soluble solids and Landmark had significantly greater refractive index than all other cultivars. On day 5, Summer Delicious and Miracle were sweeter than all other cultivars. On day 7, Summer Delicious is again sweeter than all other cultivars except tor Miracle. The LSD values can be used to make other comparisons since there are other significant differences in sweetness. Much appreciation is given to Winston Bash, Jeff Thomas, and Andrea Anderson from the pilot plant who ran the various sugar tests for this report. I-' vl

This page intentionally blank.

This page intentionally blank.

This page intentionally blank.