FRESH MARKET TOMATO Variety & Disease Control Trials In San Joaquin & Stanislaus Counties

FRESH MARKET TOMATO 2001 Variety & Disease Control Trials In San Joaquin & Stanislaus Counties University of California Cooperative Extension 420 S. Wilson Way Stockton, CA 95205

2001 SAN JOAQUIN AND STANISLAUS COUNTIES FRESH MARKET TOMATO VARIETY AND DISEASE CONTROL TIRALS Conducted by: Bob Mullen, UC Farm Advisor, San Joaquin County and Jesus Valencia, UC Farm Advisor, Stanislaus County Contributing Authors: Marita Cantwell de Trejo, Extension Postharvest Specialist, UC Davis Don Colbert, BASF Corporation Matt Ehlhardt, Aventis Crop Science Scott Whiteley, Extension Field and Laboratory Technician, San Joaquin County Chuck Cancilla, Extension Field Assistant, Stanislaus County Ernesto Garcia-Ortega, Extension Field Assistant, Stanislaus County Michelle Leinfelder, Extension Student Intern, San Joaquin County Nick Prichard, Student Assistant, San Joaquin County The need to find fresh market tomato varieties with disease and nematode resistance, as well as improved horticultural characteristics (fruit size, firmness, color, smoothness, easy stemming or jointless stems, small blossom and stem scars, less fruit cracking and better flavor), along with yield potential, continues to be of great importance to fresh market tomato growers and shippers in both San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties. Contributing to this increased need is the fact that all of the suitable ground for tomatoes has been cropped to either fresh market or processing tomatoes at one time or another over the years and particularly over the past few seasons. Resistance of varieties to both Races 1 and 2 Fusarium wilt is very common. Virtually all lines have resistance to Race 1 of Verticillium wilt, but there is no known resistances to Verticillium wilt Race 2. Presence of the disease in local fresh market tomato fields has been limited but is increasing. Potential loss of soil fumigation materials has caused seed breeders to develop nematode resistance in most of their newer lines. Many of the newer lines also possess tobacco mosaic, Alternaria and Stemphyllim resistance, and a few have bacterial speck resistance. Additional concerns by growers and shippers relate to effective management of powdery mildew and Phytophthora late blight, particularly with anticipated and actual losses of fungicides due to recent and proposed legislation, as well as current pathogen resistance to some existing fungicides. Possible loss of certain insecticides increased the need for varietal resistance efforts in this area. Insect resistance to insecticides is a continuing concern as well. Another source of concern to growers is the nagging uncertainty of an adequate labor force to harvest the crop. Acreage in the San Joaquin-Stanislaus district has stabilized, after increasing dramatically over the past few years. Interest is high in developing varieties that will retain good horticultural and yield characteristics and yet lend themselves to hand picking and/or mechanical 2

harvest. With this in mind, a number of varieties from private seed company breeding programs have been evaluated for both jointless or arthritic stem characteristics. The bottom line in varietal development and acceptance revolves around having cultivars that yield and ship well enough to offset increased production costs, while providing the quality and flavor characteristics buyers and consumers demand. 2001 Variety Trials During 2001, two fresh market tomato variety trials (one with standard Round lines and the other with Roma-type cultivars) were cooperatively conducted in the northern San Joaquin Valley with Eugene Caffese Farms (Gene Caffese) and Ace Tomato Company (Dean and Kathy Janssen, Jeff Rurup) near Farmington, California. Additional support for conducting the trials was provided by the California Tomato Commission and its president, Ed Beckman. Input from the field managers of a number of fresh market shippers in the San Joaquin Valley on selection of varieties evaluated in the trials was most appreciated. The trial of Round varieties contained 12 replicated lines with an additional 22 cultivars in single replication observation plots. The Roma-type trial contained four replicated varieties with another ten lines in observation. Transplants for both trials were produced by Craven Transplants (Grant Craven and Brad Bonnett) near Crows Landing, California. The field varieties at the trial site were QualiT 21 in the Round portion of the field and Monica in the Roma-type section of the field. The trials were transplanted on June 14, 2001, under very warm climatic conditions. Stand survival was good for the most part with some lines experiencing the loss of a few plants due to the heat. A timely furrow irrigation prevented any further stand loss in the trial. The soil type at the trial site was a Stockton adobe clay. Vine growth in the trials and fruit set were good. Unfortunately, a late season irrigation resulted in excess water running back up the rows causing development of Phytophthora root rot just as fruit were sizing and maturing. Due to the disease pressure, yields were not as high as hoped, and fruit size was generally smaller compared to earlier trials. One outgrowth of the trial was demonstrated tolerance to Phytophthora by a number of varieties. In the replicated Round variety block, QualiT 21, QualiT 23 and Bobcat showed very good disease tolerance with SunBrite showing a good level of tolerance. In the observation block, where disease pressure was lower, RFT 8054, SRT 6718, SRT 6719, SRT 6722, and XPH 12298 showed an apparent tolerance to Phytophthora, followed by BHN 301, RHN 454, BHN 500 and BHN 524. In the replicated Roma trial, some Phytophthora tolerance was demonstrated by Monica and BHN 523. Observation Roma lines were led in tolerance to Phytophthora by Heinz 122 with some tolerance shown by SVR 2039 and Rio Oro 35. The observations on disease tolerance are probably more accurate in the replicated blocks of both the Round and Roma trials where the disease was more severe. The trials, both Round and Roma-type varieties, were hand harvested on September 9 and 10, 2001. Given the Phytophthora problem previously discussed, yields were reasonably good with a number of lines, and fruit size was moderate in both the Round and Roma-type variety trials. 3

Complete data on yield and fruit size for the Replicated Round varieties are given in Table 1. The best yield of marketable red and green fruit was achieved by QualiT 21 at 18.8 tons/acre, followed by Bobcat (18.0 tons/acre), QualiT 23 (17.0 tons/acre) and SunBrite (15.7 tons/acre). In the single replication Observation Round variety block, the highest yield of marketable red and green fruit occurred with SRT 6719 at 31.4 tons/acre, followed by SRT 6722 (29.2 tons/acre), XPH 12298 (27.4 tons/acre), BHN 500 (27.0 tons/acre), SRT 6718 (24.4 tons/acre), B-807 (24.4 tons/acre) and RFT 8054 (24.0 tons/acre). Table 2 provides complete yield and fruit sizing data for Round varieties trial in the observation block. Fruit quality characteristics such as crop maturity, fruit shape and size, fruit smoothness, fruit set, fruit firmness, stemability of fruit, along with notes on vine cover and other observations are provided in Table 3A for the Replicated Round lines and Table 3B for the Observation Round varieties. In the Roma-type fresh market tomato Replicated trial block, the greatest yield of marketable red and green fruit was produced by Monica at 20.25 tons/acre followed by closely by BHN 523 (20.15 tons/acre) and Heinz 106 (17.64 tons/acre). Yield, crop maturity and fruit sizing data are given in Table 4. In the Observation trial area of the Roma-type fresh market tomato variety trial, the best yield of marketable red and green fruit was achieved by BHN 621 at 20.91 tons/acre, followed by Heinz 122 (18.30 tons/acre), PS 150351 (17.42 tons/acre), San Isidro (17.42 tons/acre) and Rio Oro 31 (14.81 tons/acre). Table 5 provides data on yield, crop maturity and fruit size for all of the lines evaluated in the observation block of the Roma-type varieties. Observations on maturity, fruit shape, fruit smoothness, fruit firmness, fruit set and size along with notes of vine cover and other comments are shown in Table 6A and Table 6B for both the replicated and observation Roma-type lines in the trial. From the standpoint of overall fruit quality, the leading Round replicated lines were QualiT 21, Bobcat, SunBrite and QualiT 23. Best Round observational lines included RFT 8054, XPH 12298, B807, SRT 6718 and Fair Lady. Of the replicated Roma-type lines, Monica and BHN 523 gave the best combination of yield and fruit quality. In the Roma-type observation block, BHN 621, Heinz 122 and PS 150351 provided the best combination of yield and fruit quality. Rio Oro 35 showed good fruit quality but low yield due to Phytophthora. Most of the other Roma-type lines were square round in shape or nontraditional fruit shapes. A comprehensive report by Marita Cantwell de Trejo, Extension Postharvest Specialist at UC Davis, on postharvest evaluation of fruit from selected varieties in the four variety trials (three Round and one Roma) that were conducted this year by farm advisors in Tulare/Kings, Merced and San Joaquin Counties is available at our office by request. 4

MANY THANKS! Many thanks to Eugene Caffese (Eugene Caffese Farms) and Dean and Kathy Janssen and Jeff Rurup (Ace Tomato Company) for their participation and cooperation in these trials. Thanks also to Ed Beckman and John Le Boenf and members of the California Tomato Board for their continued support of variety evaluation research. Thanks also to Marita Cantwell de Trejo (UC Cooperative Extension Postharvest Specialist at UC Davis) for her continued help in postharvest evaluation of the fruit from many of the cultivars tested. Also, a special thanks to Michelle le Strange (Farm Advisor in Tulare and Kings Counties) for the outstanding Statewide Variety Trial report she prepared. She spent many days combining the data from the three Round variety trials and statistically analyzing the results. She is to be highly commended for the high quality report she prepared and the leadership in the Fresh Market Tomato Variety Evaluation Trials project she provided. Finally, thanks to the seed industry for providing the basic material for the trials as well as continued financial support to the UC Farm Advisor project. 5

2001 Fresh Market Tomato Varieties Round Lines Seed Company Replicated Observation Asgrow (Seminis) SunBrite XPH 12298 American Takii BHN Seed LSL Technologies AT48 BHN 102 BHN 358 BHN 503 AT10 AT71 BHN 301 BHN 373 BHN 454 B807 Hazzera Seed HA 3640 Rogers (Syngenta) QualiT 21 QualiT 23 Bobcat (RFT 7041) RFT-8054 Petoseed (Seminis) PS 150440 PS 151123 Sunseeds United Genetics Shady Lady Classy Lady SRT 6624 SRT 6718 SRT 6719 Fair Lady UGX 895 AT89 BHN 500 BHN 501 BHN 524 SRT 6721 SRT 6722 SRT 6724 Simone 6

Table 1. 2001 Yields And Grades Of Fresh Market Tomato Varieties Eugene Caffese Farms/Ace Tomato Co. Farmington, California Replicated Varieties Market Yield/Acre % Market Yield Non Market Yield Total Yield Code Variety Tons Boxes X-Large Large Medium Small T/A Culls T/A T/A % Reds 8 QualiT 21 18.8 1,504 21.5 34.9 43.6 4.2 2.3 25.3 11.5 7 Bobcat 18.0 1,440 5.4 44.3 50.3 2.3 1.9 22.2 3.8 9 QualiT 23 17.0 1,360 0.0 4.8 95.2 7.4 2.2 26.6 12.8 1 Sunbrite 15.7 1,256 9.7 48.7 41.6 5.0 1.9 22.6 20.3 AT48 14.0 1,120 11.1 16.7 72.2 6.5 0.7 21.1 17.8 11 Shady Lady 13.7 1,096 12.8 34.6 52.6 5.0 2.2 20.9 24.9 4 BHN 358 13.4 1,072 10.5 45.6 43.9 3.5 2.9 19.8 14.3 3 BHN 102 13.3 1,064 4.2 34.6 61.2 1.7 1.5 16.4 15.8 6 PS 150440 13.1 1,048 6.8 41.8 51.4 1.0 2.1 16.2 27.0 5 BHN 503 11.9 952 9.6 40.4 50.0 5.2 3.5 20.6 10.6 10 Classy Lady 11.1 888 0.0 24.1 75.9 4.4 1.5 17.0 7.1 12 SXT 6624 10.0 800 0.0 13.3 86.7 5.6 2.1 17.7 6.2 Average: 14.2 1,133.3 7.6 32.0 60.4 4.3 2.1 20.5 14.3 LSD @ 5%: 5.1 405.6 n.s. 5.6 13.6 C.V.% 24.9 24.9 18.9 7

Table 2. Yields And Grades Of Fresh Market Tomato Varieties Eugense Caffese Farms/Ace Tomato Co. Farmington, California Observation Varieties Market Yield/Acre % Market Yield Non Market Yield Total Yield Code Variety Tons Boxes X-Large Large Medium Small T/A Culls T/A T/A % Reds SRT 6719 31.4 2,512 5.8 44.5 49.7 3.9 2.6 37.9 0.0 SRT 6722 29.2 2,336 37.5 35.0 27.5 1.7 2.0 32.9 0.0 XPH 12298 27.4 2,192 7.9 55.3 36.8 1.3 1.8 30.5 10.4 BHN 500 27.0 2,160 9.8 36.6 53.6 2.6 4.8 34.4 6.8 SRT 6718 24.4 1,952 10.6 36.6 52.8 4.4 1.3 30.1 0.0 B-807 24.4 1,952 7.0 51.5 41.5 4.1 7.6 36.1 10.9 RFT 8054 24.0 1,920 8.8 20.6 70.6 4.4 1.7 30.1 0.0 BHN 373 23.1 1,848 13.6 42.2 44.2 2.6 5.6 31.3 0.0 BHN 501 23.1 1,848 14.8 32.0 53.2 4.8 3.5 31.4 9.8 Fair Lady 23.1 1,848 11.0 28.6 60.4 1.7 1.7 26.5 1.8 Simone 23.1 1,848 0.0 52.5 47.5 1.3 3.5 27.9 6.6 BHN 524 22.7 1,816 21.8 27.2 51.0 4.4 1.7 28.8 6.1 SRT 6724 21.3 1,704 0.0 37.1 62.9 3.9 3.5 28.7 5.3 BHN 454 20.9 1,672 10.4 54.9 34.7 3.9 2.2 27.0 3.8 HA 3640 20.9 1,672 0.0 50.0 50.0 4.5 3.3 28.7 10.8 SRT 6721 20.9 1,672 7.4 48.1 44.5 3.5 2.6 27.0 5.6 UGX 895 18.3 1,464 0.0 36.8 63.2 3.8 1.3 23.4 6.7 BHN 301 18.0 1,440 12.5 41.7 45.8 4.8 1.3 24.1 11.3 AT 71 17.6 1,408 10.6 42.5 46.9 5.2 0.7 23.5 10.5 AT 89 17.4 1,392 0.0 27.4 72.6 5.7 0.2 23.3 6.4 PS 15123 14.5 1,160 0.0 32.7 67.3 4.8 3.9 23.2 23.6 AT 10 13.1 1,048 47.8 33.6 18.6 1.9 1.0 16.0 30.9 Average: 22.1 1,768 10.8 39.4 49.8 3.6 2.6 28.3 7.6 8

Table 3A. 2001 Fresh Market Tomato Variety Trials Eugene Caffese Farms/Ace Tomato Company, Farmington, CA Replicated Trial Round Lines Variety Maturity 1 Fruit 2 Fruit 3 Fruit 4 Fruit Stemability 5 Vine Fruit 6 Shape Smoothness Firmness Set Cover Size Other Notes BHN 102 ML G 4.0 3.5 good 4.0 fair M-L Pointed globe; some speckled fruit, some Phytophthora BHN 358 ML FR 2.5 3.0 good 2.0 fair M-L Some Phytophthora infection; open vine BHN 503 ML G 2.5 3.0 good 3.0 fair M-L Pointed globe; deep fruit sutures; heavy Phytophthora SunBrite M FR-G 2.5 3.5 fair-good 3.0 fair-good M-L Some deep sutured fruit; some Phytophthora tolerance PS 150440 ME G 3.0 3.0 good 2.0 fair M-L Open vine; some fruit sutures; heavy Phytophthora QualiT 21 M G 3.5 3.5 good 4.0 fair-good M-L Some pointed fruit & fruit sutures; good Phytophthora tolerance QualiT 23 M G 3.5 3.5 good 3.0 good M Deep globe shape; some fruit sutures; good Phytophthora tolerance Bobcat ML FR-G 3.5 4.0 good 2.0 good M-L Some fruit sutures; good Phytophthora tolerance SXT 6624 M G 3.0 3.0 fair-good 4.0 fair M Pointed globe; some deep sutured fruit; heavy Phytophthora Shady Lady ME FR-G 3.5 3.5 good 3.0 fair M-L Some sutured fruit; moderate Phytophthora infection Classy Lady M G 2.5 3.5 fair 2.0 fair M Deep globe shape; open vine; heavy Phytophthora AT 48 M FR-G 3.0 4.0 fair-good 4.0 fair-good M Small plants, some sutured fruit; moderate Phytophthora 1 M = Midseason Maturity; E = Early Maturity; L = Late Maturity; ME = Early to Midseason Maturity; ML = Mid Late Maturity 2 Fruit Shape: FR = Flat Round; G = Globe 3 Fruit Smoothness: 1 = bad; 5 = excellent 4 Fruit Firmness: 1 = soft; 5 = very firm 5 Stemability: 1 = hard stemming (many stems attached to fruit); 5 = stems easily 6 Fruit Size: L = Large; XL = Extra Large; M = Medium 9

Variety Maturity 1 Fruit 2 Shape Fruit 3 Smoothness Table 3B. 2001 Fresh Market Tomato Variety Trials Eugene Caffese Farms/Ace Tomato Company, Farmington, CA Observation Trial Round Lines Fruit 4 Firmness Fruit Set Stemability 5 Vine Cover Fruit 6 Size Other Notes AT10 M G 2.5 3.0 fair-good 3.0 poor-fair M-L Pointed deep globe; open vine; some fruit sutures, heavy Phytophthora infection AT71 ML G 3.0 3.0 good 2.0 fair M Pointed deep globe; vine somewhat open; moderate Phytophthora AT89 L G 3.0 3.0 good 3.0 fair M Pointed deep globe; some sutured fruit; moderate Phytophthora BHN 301 ML FR-G 2.5 3.0 good 4.0 fair-good M-ML Some fruit sutures & speckled fruit; light Phytophthora BHN 373 L G 3.0 3.0 fair-good 4.0 poor-fair M-L Pointed deep globe; some fruit sutures; open vine, moderate Phytophthora BHN 454 L FR-G 3.5 3.0 good 4.0 good M-L Some sutured fruit; light Phytophthora BHN 500 L FR-G 3.0 3.0 good 4.0 fair-good M-L Deep sutured fruit; light Phytophthora BHN 501 ML G 4.0 1.5 fair-good 2.0 poor-fair M-L Pointed deep globe; open vine; moderate Phytophthora BHN 524 L G 2.5 3.0 fair-good 4.0 good M-L Pointed deep globe (persimmon shape); light Phytophthora; some sutured fruit RFT 8054 L G 3.0 4.0 good 2.5 fair M-L Deep globe; somewhat open vine; some sutured fruit; good Phytophthora tolerance PS 15123 M G 2.5 3.0 good 4.0 poor-fair M Deep globe; deep sutured fruit; heavy Phytophthora infection SRT 6718 L G 3.5 3.5 good 4.0 good M-L Deep globe; some sutured fruit; good Phytophthora tolerance SRT 6719 L FR-G 2.5 3.0 good 4.0 fair-good M-L Some deep sutured fruit; good Phytophthora tolerance SRT 6721 ML G 3.5 3.0 fair-good 4.0 poor M-L Open vine; some sutured fruit; heavy Phytophthora infection XPH 12298 ML FR 2.5 3.0 good 4.0 good L Some sutured fruit; good Phytophthora tolerance SRT 6722 L G 2.5 4.0 good 3.0 good L Pointed deep globe; deep sutured fruit; good Phytophthora tolerance SRT 6724 L FR-G 2.5 3.0 good 4.0 poor-fair M-L Open vine; moderate Phytophthora HA 3640 ML FR-G 2.5 4.0 fair-good 4.0 fair-good M-L Some sutured fruit; moderate Phytophthora B807 ML FR 3.0 3.5 good 4.0 poor-fair L Slightly pointed fruit; open vine; moderate Phytophthora Simone ML FR-G 3.0 3.5 fair-good 4.0 fair-good M-L Some sutured fruit; deep globe; light Phytophthora Fair Lady L G 3.0 3.5 good 4.0 fair M-L Some sutured fruit; deep globe; moderate Phytophthora UGX 895 ML G 3.0 3.0 good 4.0 fair M-L Some sutured fruit; deep globe; moderate Phytophthora 1 M = Midseason Maturity; E = Early Maturity; L = Late Maturity; ME = Early to Midseason Maturity; ML = Mid Late Maturity 2 Fruit Shape: FR = Flat Round; G = Globe 3 Fruit Smoothness: 1 = bad; 5 = excellent 4 Fruit Firmness: 1 = soft; 5 = very firm 5 Stemability: 1 = hard stemming (many stems attached to fruit); 5 = stems easily 6 Fruit Size: L = Large; XL = Extra Large; M = Medium 10

2001 Fresh Market Tomato Varieties Roma Lines Seed Company Replicated Observation BHN Seed BHN 523 BHN 621 Hazzera Seed HA-3302 H.J. Heinz Seed Heinz 106 Petoseed Sakata Seed America United Genetics Monica HA-3307 HA-3801 Heinz 113 Heinz 122 PS 150351 SVR 2039 Rio Oro 31 Rio Oro 35 San Isidro 11

Variety Table 4. 2001 Yields And Grades of Roma Fresh Market Tomato Varieties Eugene Caffese Farms/Ace Tomato Co. Farmington, California Replicated Varieties Market 1 Yield/Acre Market Yield Fruit Sizing Data (%) 3 Culls 2 Total Yield 2 % 2 Tons Boxes X-Large Large Medium Small T/A T/A Reds Monica 20.25 1,620 2.8 `18.9 35.5 42.8 2.1 22.35 28.6 BHN 523 20.15 1,612 0.0 19.3 38.8 41.9 1.2 21.35 29.4 Heinz 106 17.64 1,411 0.0 0.0 26.1 73.9 1.9 19.54 42.0 HA-3302 13.94 1,115 0.0 8.4 21.7 69.9 2.0 15.94 9.4 LSD @ 5%: C.V.% n.s. 22.3% 1 Average of four replications marketable yield of extra large, large, medium and small red + green fruit 2 Average of four replications 3 Fruit Sizing Criteria: Extra Large>165 g; Large 130 to 165 g; Medium 90 to 130 g; Small 50 to 90 g Variety Table 5. 2001 Yields and Grades of Roma Fresh Market Tomato Varieties Eugene Caffese Farms/Ace Tomato Co. Farmington, California Observation Varieties Market 1 Yield/Acre Fruit Sizing Data (%) 3 Culls 2 Total Yield 2 % 2 Tons Boxes X-Large Large Medium Small T/A T/A Reds BHN 621 20.91 1,673 0.0 15.5 37.4 47.1 0.9 21.81 12.0 Heinz 122 18.30 1,464 0.0 0.0 48.7 51.3 0.3 18.60 44.4 PS 150351 17.42 1,394 10.0 13.3 33.3 43.4 0.9 18.32 23.8 San Isidro 17.42 1,394 4.3 13.5 32.6 49.6 0.4 17.82 22.0 Rio Oro 31 14.81 1,185 3.6 8.6 28.6 59.2 0.0 14.81 26.5 HA-3801 13.50 1,080 00 0.0 20.0 80.0 1.3 14.80 52.9 Rio Oro 35 12.89 1,031 0.0 11.1 29.2 59.7 0.9 13.79 38.0 Heinz 113 12.63 1,010 0.0 0.0 11.7 88.3 0.9 13.53 58.1 SVR 2039 11.76 941 0.0 6.5 14.0 79.5 2.6 14.36 24.2 HA-3307 9.76 781 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 0.9 10.66 32.8 1 Average of one replication marketable yield of extra large, large, medium and small re + green fruit 2 Average of one replication 3 Fruit Sizing Criteria: Extra Large>165 g; Large 130 to 165 g; Medium 90 to 130 g; Small 50 to 90 g 12

Table 6A. 2001 Fresh Market Tomato Variety Trials Eugene Caffese Farms/Ace Tomato Company, Farmington, CA Replicated Trial Roma Lines Variety Maturity 1 Fruit Fruit 2 Fruit 3 Fruit Stemability 4 Vine Fruit5 Shape Smoothness Firmness Set Cover Size Other Notes Monica ME long blocky pear 4.0 4.0 good 4.0 fair-good M-L Light Phytophthora infection BHN 523 ME long blocky pear 4.0 3.0 good 4.0 good M-L Light Phytophthora infection Heinz 106 E pear 3.0 3.0 good 4.0 fair-good S-M Heavy Phytophthora infection; semi-open vine HA-3302 L blocky pear 3.0 3.5 fair-good 4.0 fair-good S-M Moderate Phytophthora infection; small vine 1 M = Midseason Maturity; E = Early Maturity; L = Late Maturity; ME = Early to Midseason Maturity; ML = Mid Late Maturity 2 Fruit Smoothness: 1 = bad; 5 = excellent 3 Fruit Firmness: 1 = soft; 5 = very firm 4 Stemability: 1 = hard stemming (many stems attached to fruit); 5 = stems easily 5 Fruit Size: L = Large; XL = Extra Large; M = Medium; S = Small Table 6B. 2001 Fresh Market Tomato Variety Trials Eugene Caffese Farms/Ace Tomato Company, Farmington, CA Observation Trial Roma Lines Variety Maturity 1 Fruit Fruit 2 Fruit 3 Fruit Stemability 4 Vine Fruit 5 Shape Smoothness Firmness Set Cover Size Other Notes BHN 621 ML long pear 2.5 3.0 fair-good 4.0 fair-good M Some sutured fuit; moderate Phytophthora infection Heinz 113 E blocky pear 3.0 3.5 good 4.0 fair S-M Some sutured fruit; moderate Phytophthora infection Heinz 122 E square round 3.0 3.5 good 4.0 fair-good S-M Good Phytophthora tolerance; some Fusarium Foot PS 150351 M blocky pear 2.5 4.0 fair-good 4.0 poor-fair M-L Rot Open vine; some sutured fruit; moderate Phytophthora SVR 2039 M square round 2.5 4.0 fair 4.0 good S-M Split fruit set; light Phytophthora infection Rio Oro 31 M square round 2.5 3.5 fair-good 4.0 poor-fair S-M Open vine; some sutured fruit; heavy Phytophthora Rio Oro 35 ME pointy pear 3.0 4.0 fair-good 4.0 good M Split fruit set; some sutured fruit; light Phytophthora San Isidro M egg to pear 2.5 4.0 fair-good 4.0 fair-good M Some sutured fruit; moderate Phytophthora infection HA-3307 ME square round 3.0 3.0 fair-good 4.0 poor S Open vine; heavy Phytophthora infection HA-3801 E square round 4.0 4.0 fair-good 4.0 fair S Heavy Phytophthora infection; vine semi-open 1 M = Midseason Maturity; E = Early Maturity; L = Late Maturity; ME = Early to Midseason Maturity; ML = Mid Late Maturity 2 Fruit Smoothness: 1 = bad; 5 = excellent 3 Fruit Firmness: 1 = soft; 5 = very firm 4 Stemability: 1 = hard stemming (many stems attached to fruit); 5 = stems easily 5 Fruit Size: L = Large; XL = Extra Large; M = Medium; S = Small 13

Statewide Fresh Market Tomato Variety Trials 14

Statewide Variety Trials Michelle Le Strange, Bob Mullen, Bill Weir, and Scott Stoddard Farm Advisors, Tulare & Kings, San Joaquin, and Merced Counties, and Staff Research Associate, Merced County Introduction Fresh market tomato variety trials are conducted in major tomato-growing regions in California to evaluate the performance of new varieties and breeding lines from universities and commercial plant breeder programs. Variety trials provide the opportunity to evaluate and compare fruit quality characteristics and yield under the same field conditions. It is important to test the varieties in several areas to assess performance under different climatic conditions and soils. The objective is to identify dependable, higher yielding and higher quality variety releases that can be grown over a wide geographic area under varying environmental conditions. To determine which varieties/lines are tested, growers/packers/shippers and seed company representatives are surveyed throughout the state. Replicated varieties have been previously tested in grower fields in California. Observed lines usually represent the plant breeder=s most promising lines for California=s commercial growing conditions and markets. Trial Locations County farm advisors conduct the statewide variety trials in a uniform fashion so that local results can be compared with other locations. Three round variety trials and one roma variety trial were grown and harvested in commercial fields in 2001. Kings County: April 17 - July 12 with Jones Farms near Kettleman City (Michelle Le Strange) Merced County: May 16 - August 10 with Live Oak Farms near LeGrand (Bill Weir and Scott Stoddard) San Joaquin County: June 14 - Sept 15 with Caffese Farms near Farmington round and roma trial (Bob Mullen) Approximately 12 varieties were replicated and 20 lines/varieties were grown under single plot observation at each site, representing eight commercial seed companies. Each farm advisor prepares a research progress report that lists the production and postharvest performance of the varieties in their county location. These reports are mailed to the tomato industry and interested persons. They are available upon request and should be obtained and consulted with regard to variety performance in market yield, fruit sizing data, and fruit quality observations for that particular trial location. The three round tomato variety trials had 10 replicated and 17 observed (non-replicated) varieties in common. The production results are presented in a series of tables that are described below. Postharvest samples from 10 varieties were collected from all trials at the time of harvest and transported to the Mann Laboratory at UC Davis for color, firmness, and composition evaluations at the table-ripe stage. Fruit were harvested as mature greens, but some cultivars were also harvested as vine ripe. A complete summary of the postharvest results is included in this research report. 15

Results: Combined Summary Tables Replicated Varieties (3 locations) Table 1: Yield and Maturity Summary Table 1-A: Market Yield - Tons/Acre and Boxes/Acre Table 1-B: Total Yield - Tons/Acre and Boxes/Acre Table 1-C: Percent Reds Table 1-D: Size Grades - % Market Yield Observed Varieties (3 locations) Table 2: Yield and Maturity Summary Table 2-A: Market Yield - Tons/Acre and Boxes/Acre Table 2-B: Total Yield - Tons/Acre and Boxes/Acre Table 2-C: Percent Reds Table 2-D: Size Grades - % Market Yield Miscellaneous Varieties (2 locations) Table 3: Yield and Maturity Summary Discussion Tables 1, 2, and 3 summarize the data. Tables A-B-C include equivalent information and rank the varieties from highest to lowest. Tables 1-D and 2-D reflect the size grade percentages of marketable yield and were included as an afterthought, so no statistics were performed on the combined results. The summary tables are included as an aid to assess and compare performances among varieties at the different locations. Replicated Varieties Market yield: There was no significant difference in marketable yield between the top six varieties listed in Table 1, although yields ranged from 24.1 to 19.4 tons per acre. QualiT 21, Bobcat, QualiT 23, PS 150440, BHN 503, and BHN 102 ranked highest in combined results, and this virtually mirrors results obtained in Kings and Merced Counties, with one exception in Kings. Bobcat did not yield so well in Kings, whereas Classy Lady did. San Joaquin County got better yields with Sunbrite and Shady Lady than with PS 150440 and BHN 503. Total yield: When varieties are combined over location and total yields are compared, there is only an 8.6 ton difference between the highest and lowest yielding variety. SXT 6624 was the only variety significantly lower in total yield than QualiT 21. In general terms, all varieties exhibit good yield potential. % Reds: The data reflects a lot of variability in maturity (as measured by % red fruit at harvest) within varieties and between locations. Shady Lady was the earliest variety when data was combined but was not the earliest variety at any single location. Shady Lady and Sunbrite were in the earliest three varieties of each location. Bobcat was a late variety in Merced and San Joaquin, but mid-maturity in Kings County. SXT 6624 was the earliest variety in Merced, fourth in Kings, and almost the latest variety in San Joaquin. PS 150440 was the earliest variety in San Joaquin, mid-maturity at Kings, and even later in Merced. BHN 503 was second earliest in Kings, fourth in Merced, and seventh in San Joaquin. % Size Grades: Of the top six varieties in market yield QualiT 21 averaged 40.3% extra large fruits, which was 8-20% higher than all other varieties. It also had a substantial amount (37%) of large and a small amount (23%) of medium fruit. Bobcat, PS 150440, and BHN 503 averaged 16

close to 30-40 - 30 % extra large, large, and medium fruit. QualiT 23 had the most medium size fruits (44.6%) with the remaining 55% split evenly between large and extra large sizes. BHN 102 had the smallest percentage of extra large fruit (22.2%), which was considerably less than the combined trials= average of 29.4%. Observed Varieties The single plot observation varieties from each location were combined and analyzed as a replicated field study. There was a lot of variability within varieties between locations, which makes summarizing performance difficult. The data should be viewed with less confidence than replicated tests. Assuming that Kings is early, Merced is midseason, and San Joaquin is late, then in general, Some perform better EARLY than LATE: Market yield: BHN 454, AT 10 Total yield: BHN 454, AT 10, RFT 8054 Percent red: Fair Lady, B 807, SRT 6719 Some perform better LATE than EARLY: Market yield: SRT 6722, SRT 6718, XP 12298, PX 151123 Total yield: SRT 6722, SRT 6718, SRT 6719 Percent red: PX 151123, AT 48 Some perform BETTER in MIDSEASON: Market yield: AT 71, AT 48, RFT 8054, SRT 6724 Total yield: AT 71, B 807 Percent red: AT 10, AT 89 Some perform WORSE in MIDSEASON: Market yield: B 807, SRT 6719, BHN 500 Total yield: XP 12298 Some perform RELATIVELY CONSISTENT at all sites: Market yield: Fair Lady, SRT 6721, UGX 895, AT 89 Total yield: Fair Lady, SRT 6721, UGX 895, AT 89, AT 48, BHN 500, PX 151123 Percent red: XP 12298, AT 71, UGX 895, BHN 500, SRT 6724, BHN 454, SRT 6721, SRT 6722, SRT 6718, RFT 8054 Final Remarks Determining what variety to plant for a complex fresh market industry is outside the scope of this evaluation. The purpose of this research is to assist growers, packers, shippers, and the seed industry with variety selections and evaluations. The strength of the farm advisors= variety trial is in side-by-side comparisons of yields and quality characteristics in a commercial setting across a range of conditions. The ultimate test of variety performance is commercial scale success on individual farms over a number of seasons. 17

Table 1 Yield & Maturity of Fresh Market Tomato Varieties - Replicated Varieties Summary of Three Fresh Market Tomato Trials - 2001 Variety COMBINED RESULTS KINGS COUNTY MERCED COUNTY SAN JOAQUIN CNTY (early season) (midseason) (late season) Yield T/A % Yield T/A % Yield T/A % Yield T/A % Company Market Total Reds Market Total Reds Market Total Reds Market Total Reds QualiT 21 Syngenta 24.1 33.8 9.3 23.5 31.8 12.3 30.0 44.5 4.3 18.8 25.3 11.5 Bobcat Syngenta 20.6 31.5 8.3 18.5 33.3 16.1 25.3 39.1 4.9 18.0 22.2 3.8 QualiT 23 Syngenta 20.3 31.6 10.2 21.3 29.5 12.7 22.7 38.9 5.1 17.0 26.6 12.8 PS 150440 Seminis 20.2 30.4 17.2 24.4 36.4 17.3 23.0 38.6 7.4 13.1 16.2 27.0 BHN 503 BHN Seed 19.6 31.1 15.8 20.6 29.1 28.4 26.2 43.6 8.4 11.9 20.6 10.6 BHN 102 BHN Seed 19.4 28.7 12.4 20.0 28.9 13.8 25.1 40.6 7.5 13.2 16.5 15.8 Classy Lady Sunseeds 18.1 28.9 8.4 22.2 32.6 10.2 21.0 37.0 7.9 11.1 17.0 7.1 Sunbrite Seminis 17.7 30.7 20.4 19.4 29.5 29.3 18.0 39.9 11.7 15.7 22.6 20.3 Shady Lady Sunseeds 17.7 31.7 20.8 18.1 34.1 25.0 21.2 40.2 12.5 13.7 20.9 24.9 SXT 6624 Sunseeds 13.8 25.2 14.7 12.4 20.3 24.8 19.0 37.5 13.1 10.0 17.7 6.2 Average LSD.05 CV % 19.1 30.4 13.8 20.0 30.6 19.0 23.1 40.0 8.3 14.2 20.6 14.0 4.2 5.5 6.5 6.5 8.1 9.3 5.8 8.3 5.3 5.1 5.6 13.6 20.6 16.8 44.2 21.6 17.7 30.5 18.1 14.7 45.3 24.9 18.9 65.9 Variety x Location - LSD.05 5.8 7.3 9.4 Market Yield = average weight in pounds of four replications converted to tons and boxes per acre of all marketable extra large, large, and medium sized fruit. Small fruit were considered unmarketable this year. TOTAL Yield = Marketable yield plus small sized and cull fruit. Percent Red = % reds by weight of TOTAL yield including culls to indicate maturity relative to all tested varieties. 18

Table 1-A Marketable Yield (TONS/Boxes per Acre) 1 - REPLICATED Varieties Summary of Three Fresh Market Tomato Trials - 2001 Variety Combined Market Kings Co. Merced Co. San Joaquin Co. Yield/Acre (early season) (midseason) (late season) Company Tons Boxes Tons Boxes Tons Boxes Tons Boxes QualiT 21 Syngenta 24.1 1925 23.5 1876 30.0 2396 18.8 1504 Bobcat Syngenta 20.6 1647 18.5 1477 25.3 2023 18.0 1440 QualiT 23 Syngenta 20.3 1628 21.3 1707 22.7 1816 17.0 1360 PS 150440 Seminis 20.2 1616 24.4 1953 23.0 1837 13.1 1048 BHN 503 BHN Seed 19.6 1566 20.6 1647 26.2 2096 11.9 954 BHN 102 BHN Seed 19.4 1552 20.0 1597 25.1 2010 13.2 1058 Classy Lady Sunseeds 18.1 1446 22.2 1776 21.0 1677 11.1 886 Sunbrite Seminis 17.7 1416 19.4 1552 18.0 1439 15.7 1256 Shady Lady Sunseeds 17.7 1413 18.1 1446 21.2 1694 13.7 1096 SXT 6624 Sunseeds 13.8 1103 12.4 994 19.0 1517 10.0 802 Average 19.1 1531 20.0 1603 23.1 1851 14.2 1140 LSD.05 4.2 340.0 6.5 520 5.8 466 5.1 406 CV % 20.6 20.6 21.6 21.6 18.1 18.1 24.9 24.9 Variety x Location - LSD.05 5.8 464.0 1 - Market Yield = average weight in pounds of four replications converted to tons and boxes per acre of all marketable extra large, large, and medium sized fruit. Small fruit were considered unmarketable this year. 19

Table 1-B TOTAL Yield (TONS/Boxes per Acre) 1 - REPLICATED Varieties Summary of Three Fresh Market Tomato Trials - 2001 Variety Combined TOTAL Kings Co. Merced Co. San Joaquin Co. Yield/Acre (early season) (midseason) (late season) Company Tons Boxes Tons Boxes Tons Boxes Tons Boxes QualiT 21 Syngenta 33.8 2707 31.8 2544 44.5 3556 25.3 2024 QualiT 23 Syngenta 31.6 2531 29.5 2360 38.9 3110 26.6 2126 Bobcat Syngenta 31.5 2521 33.3 2664 39.1 3126 22.2 1776 Shady Lady Sunseeds 31.7 2538 34.1 2728 40.2 3217 20.9 1670 BHN 503 BHN Seed 31.1 2489 29.1 2328 43.6 3491 20.6 1648 Sunbrite Seminis 30.7 2452 29.5 2360 39.9 3194 22.6 1806 PS 150440 Seminis 30.4 2430 36.4 2912 38.6 3085 16.2 1292 Classy Lady Sunseeds 28.9 2309 32.6 2608 37.0 2961 17.0 1358 BHN 102 BHN Seed 28.7 2293 28.9 2312 40.6 3249 16.5 1314 SXT 6624 Sunseeds 25.2 2013 20.3 1624 37.5 2996 17.7 1416 Average 30.4 2428 30.6 2444 40.0 3199 20.6 1643 LSD.05 5.5 440 8.1 648 8.3 664 5.6 448 CV % 16.8 16.8 17.7 17.7 14.7 14.7 18.9 18.9 Variety x Location - LSD.05 7.3 587 1 - TOTAL Yield = Marketable Yield plus small sized and cull fruit. 20

Table 1-C Percent (%) Red Fruit at Harvest 1 - REPLICATED Varieties Summary of Three Fresh Market Tomato Trials - 2001 Variety Percent Red Fruit at Harvest Company Combined Kings Merced San Joaquin Shady Lady Sunseeds 20.8 25.0 12.5 24.9 Sunbrite Seminis 20.4 29.3 11.7 20.3 PS 150440 Seminis 17.2 17.3 7.4 27.0 BHN 503 BHN Seed 15.8 28.4 8.4 10.6 SXT 6624 Sunseeds 14.7 24.8 13.1 6.2 BHN 102 BHN Seed 12.4 13.8 7.5 15.8 QualiT 23 Syngenta 10.2 12.7 5.1 12.8 QualiT 21 Syngenta 9.3 12.3 4.3 11.5 Classy Lady Sunseeds 8.4 10.2 7.9 7.1 Bobcat Syngenta 8.3 16.1 4.9 3.8 Average 13.8 19.0 8.3 14.0 LSD.05 6.5 9.3 5.3 13.6 CV % 44.2 30.5 45.3 65.9 Variety x Location - LSD.05 9.4 Percent Red = % reds by weight of TOTAL yield including culls to indicate maturity relative to all tested varieties. 21

Table 1-D Size Grades of Fresh Market Tomato Varieties - Replicated Varieties Summary of Three Fresh Market Tomato Trials - 2001 Variety COMBINED RESULTS KINGS COUNTY MERCED COUNTY SAN JOAQUIN CNTY (early season) (midseason) (late season) % Market Yield % Market Yield % Market Yield % Market Yield Company X-Large Large Med X-Large Large Med X-Large Large Med X-Large Large Med QualiT 21 Syngenta Bobcat Syngenta QualiT 23 Syngenta PS 150440 Seminis BHN 503 BHN Seed BHN 102 BHN Seed Classy Lady Sunseeds Sunbrite Seminis Shady Lady Sunseeds SXT 6624 Sunseeds Average LSD 0.05 40.3 37.0 22.7 44.4 43.6 12.0 54.9 32.6 12.5 21.5 34.9 43.6 31.1 41.1 27.8 41.5 39.3 19.3 46.4 39.8 13.8 5.4 44.3 50.3 27.4 28.0 44.6 34.6 42.4 23.0 47.6 36.8 15.6 0.0 4.8 95.2 32.0 38.2 29.8 32.3 40.0 27.7 56.9 32.7 10.3 6.8 41.8 51.4 32.2 39.7 28.1 43.6 38.0 18.4 43.3 40.7 16.0 9.6 40.4 50.0 22.2 39.4 38.5 25.6 40.5 33.9 36.7 43.1 20.3 4.2 34.6 61.2 28.5 34.1 37.4 37.8 40.7 21.5 47.6 37.5 14.9 0.0 24.1 75.9 31.4 44.4 24.2 37.8 44.3 17.9 46.7 40.2 13.1 9.7 48.7 41.6 27.1 40.8 32.1 37.2 38.0 24.8 31.2 49.8 19.0 12.8 34.6 52.6 21.5 34.0 44.6 25.4 44.6 30.1 39.1 44.0 16.9 0.0 13.3 86.7 29.4 37.7 33.0 36.0 41.1 22.9 45.0 39.7 15.2 7.0 32.2 60.9 9.4 NS 7.5 7.8 6.8 5.2 Market Yield = average weight in pounds of four replications converted to tons and boxes per acre of all marketable extra large, large, and medium sized fruit. Small fruit were considered unmarketable this year. % Market Yield = the percentage of each fruit size of the market yield. 22

Table 2 Yield & Maturity of Fresh Market Tomato Varieties - Observed Varieties Summary of Three Fresh Market Tomato Trials - 2001 COMBINED RESULTS KINGS COUNTY MERCED COUNTY SAN JOAQUIN CNTY (early season) (midseason) (late season) Yield T/A % Yield T/A % Yield T/A % Yield T/A % Variety Company Market Total Reds Market Total Reds Market Total Reds Market Total Reds B-807 LSL 24.1 38.0 9.7 30.2 40.6 10.6 17.6 37.4 7.6 24.4 36.1 10.9 SRT 6722 Sunseeds 24.0 32.5 5.9 17.7 25.4 11.5 25.2 39.3 6.2 29.2 32.9 0.0 SRT 6719 Sunseeds 22.5 32.9 8.4 20.1 26.4 18.7 16.1 34.4 6.4 31.4 37.9 0.0 BHN 500 BHN Seed 21.7 35.4 10.3 23.4 33.1 17.1 14.6 38.8 7.0 27.0 34.4 6.8 BHN 454 BHN Seed 21.6 34.4 8.4 18.9 31.7 13.6 25.1 42.8 7.9 20.9 28.8 3.8 XP 12298* Seminis 21.5 33.0 18.9 18.2 31.9 35.2 18.8 36.7 11.0 27.4 30.5 10.4 RFT 8054 Syngenta 20.1 28.9 1.8 11.4 15.3 0.0 24.8 41.4 5.4 24.0 30.1 0.0 Fair Lady United Genetics 19.8 32.2 12.0 17.3 31.7 27.1 18.9 38.3 7.1 23.1 26.5 1.8 SRT 6724 Sunseeds 19.6 29.5 10.3 14.9 22.2 16.7 22.6 37.6 8.8 21.3 28.7 5.3 SRT 6721 Sunseeds 19.5 30.5 8.2 18.1 26.5 11.2 19.6 37.9 7.9 20.9 27.0 5.6 SRT 6718 Sunseeds 19.5 24.8 3.0 9.4 11.7 5.1 24.6 32.6 3.9 24.4 30.1 0.0 AT 89 Am Takii 18.4 28.6 11.8 17.7 24.1 17.2 20.1 38.5 11.7 17.4 23.3 6.4 AT 71 Am Takii 17.9 28.5 16.4 13.9 19.5 23.2 22.1 42.4 15.6 17.6 23.5 10.5 PX 151123 Seminis 17.0 25.3 13.4 18.7 22.7 5.5 17.7 30.0 11.0 14.5 23.2 23.6 AT 48* Am Takii 16.4 23.9 9.5 14.4 19.0 0.0 20.8 31.7 10.8 14.0 21.1 17.8 AT 10 Am Takii 15.2 21.5 16.7 20.3 28.1 19.1 12.3 20.3 0.0 13.1 16.0 30.9 UGX 895* United Genetics 14.2 23.2 13.7 10.5 15.5 25.2 13.8 30.7 9.2 18.3 23.4 6.7 Average 19.6 29.6 10.5 17.4 25.0 15.1 19.7 35.9 8.1 21.7 27.9 8.3 LSD.05 8.0 8.7 12.7 CV % 24.5 17.7 72.7 Market Yield = average weight in pounds of four replications converted to tons and boxes per acre of all marketable extra large, large, and medium sized fruit. Small fruit were considered unmarketable this year. TOTAL Yield = Marketable yield plus small sized and cull fruit. Percent Red = % reds by weight of TOTAL yield including culls to indicate maturity relative to all tested varieties. 23

Table 2-A Marketable Yield (TONS/Boxes per Acre) 1 - OBSERVED Varieties Summary of Three Fresh Market Tomato Trials - 2001 Variety Combined Market Kings Co. Merced Co. San Joaquin Co. Yield/Acre (early season) (midseason) (late season) Company Tons Boxes Tons Boxes Tons Boxes Tons Boxes B-807 LSL 24.1 1926 30.2 2419 17.6 1407 24.4 1952 SRT 6722 Sunseeds 24.0 1924 17.7 1416 25.2 2020 29.2 2336 SRT 6719 Sunseeds 22.5 1802 20.1 1606 16.1 1287 31.4 2512 BHN 500 BHN Seed 21.7 1734 23.4 1870 14.6 1171 27.0 2160 BHN 454 BHN Seed 21.6 1730 18.9 1509 25.1 2008 20.9 1672 XP 12298* Seminis 21.5 1717 18.2 1452 18.8 1506 27.4 2192 RFT 8054 Syngenta 20.1 1606 11.4 912 24.8 1987 24.0 1920 Fair Lady United Genetics 19.8 1583 17.3 1385 18.9 1515 23.1 1848 SRT 6724 Sunseeds 19.6 1571 14.9 1196 22.6 1812 21.3 1704 SRT 6721 Sunseeds 19.5 1561 18.1 1445 19.6 1566 20.9 1672 SRT 6718 Sunseeds 19.5 1559 9.4 756 24.6 1968 24.4 1952 AT 89 Am Takii 18.4 1474 17.7 1419 20.1 1611 17.4 1392 AT 71 Am Takii 17.9 1430 13.9 1112 22.1 1771 17.6 1408 PX 151123 Seminis 17.0 1333 18.7 1500 17.7 1339 14.5 1160 AT 48* Am Takii 16.4 1313 14.4 1156 20.8 1663 14.0 1120 AT 10 Am Takii 15.2 1219 20.3 1627 12.3 981 13.1 1048 UGX 895* United Genetics 14.2 1137 10.5 841 13.8 1105 18.3 1464 Average 19.6 1566 17.4 1389 19.7 1572 21.7 1736 LSD. 05 8.0 638 CV % 24.5 24.5 1 - Market Yield = average weight in pounds converted to tons and boxes per acre of all marketable extra large, large, and medium sized fruit (box = 25 lbs). * Includes 2 observation trials + the average of one replicated trial: XP 12298 replicated in Kings; AT 48 replicated in San Joaquin; UGX 895 replicated in Merced. 24

Table 2-B TOTAL Yield (TONS/Boxes per Acre) 1 - OBSERVED Varieties Summary of Three Fresh Market Tomato Trials - 2001 Variety Combined TOTAL Merced Co. San Joaquin Co. Yield/Acre (early season) (midseason) (late season) Company Tons Boxes Tons Boxes Tons Boxes Tons Boxes B-807 LSL 38.0 3042 40.6 3245 37.4 2992 36.1 2888 BHN 500 BHN Seed 35.4 2834 33.1 2647 38.8 3104 34.4 2752 BHN 454 BHN Seed 34.4 2756 31.7 2540 42.8 3424 28.8 2304 XP 12298* Seminis 33.0 2643 31.9 2552 36.7 2936 30.5 2440 SRT 6719 Sunseeds 32.9 2632 26.4 2113 34.4 2752 37.9 3032 SRT 6722 Sunseeds 32.5 2604 25.4 2036 39.3 3144 32.9 2632 Fair Lady United Genetics 32.2 2574 31.7 2538 38.3 3064 26.5 2120 SRT 6721 Sunseeds 30.5 2439 26.5 2124 37.9 3032 27.0 2160 SRT 6724 Sunseeds 29.5 2360 22.2 1777 37.6 3008 28.7 2296 RFT 8054 Syngenta 28.9 2314 15.3 1222 41.4 3312 30.1 2408 AT 89 Am Takii 28.6 2290 24.1 1925 38.5 3080 23.3 1864 AT 71 Am Takii 28.5 2276 19.5 1557 42.4 3392 23.5 1880 PX 151123 Seminis 25.3 2024 22.7 1815 30.0 2400 23.2 1856 SRT 6718 Sunseeds 24.8 1984 11.7 937 32.6 2608 30.1 2408 AT 48* Am Takii 23.9 1914 19.0 1517 31.7 2536 21.1 1688 UGX 895* United Genetics 23.2 1856 15.5 1241 30.7 2456 23.4 1872 AT 10 Am Takii 21.5 1717 28.1 2248 20.3 1624 16.0 1280 Average 29.6 2368 LSD.05 8.7 695 CV % 17.7 17.7 25.0 2002 35.9 2874 27.9 2228 1- Total Yield = Market yield + small fruit + cull fruit Culls = all unsalable fruit (catfaced, diseased, misshapen, wormy, sunburned, etc.) and extra small fruit in tons per acre. (This year there were NO extra small fruit at harvest.) * Includes 2 observation trials + the average of one replicated trial: XP 12298 replicated in Kings; AT 48 replicated in San Joaquin; UGX 895 replicated in Merced. 25

Table 2-C Percent (%) Red Fruit at Harvest 1 - OBSERVED Varieties Summary of Three Fresh Market Tomato Trials - 2001 Variety Company Combined Kings Merced San Joaquin XP 12298* Seminis 18.9 35.2 AT 10 Am Takii 16.7 19.1 AT 71 Am Takii 16.4 23.2 UGX 895* United Genetics 13.7 25.2 PX 151123 Seminis 13.4 5.5 Fair Lady United Genetics 12.0 27.1 AT 89 Am Takii 11.8 17.2 BHN 500 BHN Seed 10.3 17.1 SRT 6724 Sunseeds 10.3 16.7 B-807 LSL 9.7 10.6 AT 48* Am Takii 9.5 0.0 BHN 454 BHN Seed 8.4 13.6 SRT 6719 Sunseeds 8.4 18.7 SRT 6721 Sunseeds 8.2 11.2 SRT 6722 Sunseeds 5.9 11.5 SRT 6718 Sunseeds 3.0 5.1 RFT 8054 Syngenta 1.8 0.0 11.0 10.4 0.0 30.9 15.6 10.5 9.2 6.7 11.0 23.6 7.1 1.8 11.7 6.4 7.0 6.8 8.8 5.3 7.6 10.9 10.8 17.8 7.9 3.8 6.4 0.0 7.9 5.6 6.2 0.0 3.9 0.0 5.4 0.0 Average 10.5 LSD.05 12.7 CV% 72.7 15.1 8.1 8.3 1 - Percent Red = percent reds by weight of the TOTAL yield including culls to indicate maturity relative to all tested varieties. * Includes 2 observation trials + the average of one replicated trial: XP 12298 replicated in Kings; AT 48 replicated in San Joaquin; UGX 895 replicated in Merced. 26

Table 2-D Size Grades of Fresh Market Tomato Varieties - Observed Varieties Summary of Three Fresh Market Tomato Trials - 2001 Variety COMBINED RESULTS KINGS COUNTY MERCED COUNTY SAN JOAQUIN CNTY (early season) (midseason) (late season) % Market Yield % Market Yield % Market Yield % Market Yield Company X-Large Large Med X-Large Large Med X-Large Large Med X-Large Large Med B-807 LSL 36.3 41.1 22.7 42.1 36.7 21.3 59.7 35.0 5.3 7.0 51.5 41.5 SRT 6722 Sunseeds 34.1 43.4 22.4 33.6 46.5 19.9 31.3 48.8 19.9 37.5 35.0 27.5 SRT 6719 Sunseeds 25.2 42.2 32.6 41.7 33.1 25.2 28.0 49.0 22.9 5.8 44.5 49.7 BHN 500 BHN Seed 41.4 33.1 25.5 43.2 41.1 15.7 71.1 21.6 7.3 9.8 36.6 53.6 BHN 454 BHN Seed 22.3 50.0 27.7 26.5 48.3 25.2 30.1 46.8 23.1 10.4 54.9 34.7 XP 12298* Seminis 28.4 46.3 25.4 33.4 43.2 23.4 43.8 40.4 15.9 7.9 55.3 36.8 RFT 8054 Syngenta 23.5 40.8 35.7 19.6 57.7 22.7 42.2 44.0 13.9 8.8 20.6 70.6 Fair Lady United Genetics 27.3 38.7 34.0 34.5 36.9 28.7 36.5 50.5 12.9 11.0 28.6 60.4 SRT 6724 Sunseeds 17.1 45.3 37.6 20.8 49.9 29.3 30.4 48.9 20.6 0.0 37.1 62.9 SRT 6721 Sunseeds 30.4 42.9 26.7 36.7 41.3 22.0 47.1 39.2 13.6 7.4 48.1 44.5 SRT 6718 Sunseeds 32.0 38.7 29.2 31.8 42.7 25.5 53.7 36.9 9.4 10.6 36.6 52.8 AT 89 Am Takii 23.3 38.7 38.0 28.0 49.7 22.2 41.8 38.9 19.3 0.0 27.4 72.6 AT 71 Am Takii 30.5 43.8 25.7 43.8 40.5 15.7 37.2 48.4 14.4 10.6 42.5 46.9 PX 151123 Seminis 25.2 38.3 36.5 33.9 44.0 22.2 41.6 38.3 20.1 0.0 32.7 67.3 AT 48* Am Takii 24.2 36.1 39.7 25.0 46.7 28.3 36.4 44.9 18.7 11.1 16.7 72.2 AT 10 Am Takii 37.2 42.4 20.4 38.3 41.8 19.9 25.6 51.7 22.7 47.8 33.6 18.6 UGX 895* United Genetics 23.5 41.8 34.7 41.4 38.5 20.2 29.1 50.0 20.8 0.0 36.8 63.2 Average 28.3 41.4 30.3 33.8 43.4 22.8 40.3 43.1 16.5 10.9 37.6 51.5 Market Yield = average weight in pounds of four replications converted to tons and boxes per acre of all marketable extra large, large, and medium sized fruit. Small fruit were considered unmarketable this year. % Market Yield = the percentage of each fruit size of the market yield. 27

Table 3 Comparison of Varieties Replicated or Observed at Two Locations Only Market TOTAL Yield/Acre 1 Yield/Acre % Variety Company Tons Boxes Tons Boxes Red Replicated BHN 358 BHN Seed Kings 34.4 2751 45.7 3656 28.6 San Joaquin 13.4 1072 19.8 1584 14.3 Average 23.9 1913 32.8 2624 21.5 Observed Simone United Genetics Kings 23.3 1867 39.2 3136 32.7 San Joaquin 23.1 1848 27.9 2232 6.6 Average 23.2 1858 33.6 2688 19.7 BHN 373 BHN Seed Kings 9.5 759 15 1200 0 San Joaquin 23.1 1848 31.3 2504 7.2 Average 16.3 1304 23.1 1848 3.6 BHN 501 BHN Seed Kings 21.8 1744 31.6 2528 27.9 San Joaquin 23.1 1848 31.4 2512 9.8 Average 22.4 1796 31.5 2520 18.9 BHN 524 BHN Seed Kings 14 1122 28.5 2280 7 San Joaquin 22.7 1816 28.8 2304 6.1 Average 18.4 1469 28.7 2296 6.6 1 - Market Yield = average weight in pounds converted to tons & boxes per acre of all marketable extra large, large, and medium sized fruit (box = 25 lbs) 2 - Total Yield = market yield + small fruit + cull fruit 3 - Percent Red = percent reds by weight of the TOTAL yield including culls to indicate maturity relative to all tested varieties. 28

Disease Control Trials 29

CAUTION This publication is a research progress report of fresh market tomato cultivar evaluation trials and pest management studies conducted in San Joaquin County during 2001. This report presents results of fresh market tomato disease management trials conducted with local grower cooperators. They should not, in any way, be interpreted as a recommendation of the University of California. Chemical or common names of pesticides are used in this report instead of the more common trade names of these products. No endorsement of products mentioned or criticism of similar products is intended. The rates of pesticides in this report are always expressed as active ingredients (a.i.) of the material per treated acre, unless otherwise indicated. Trade Name Common or Chemical Name Manufacturer Cabrio (20WDG) pyraclostrobin BASF Corp. Previcur (6L) propamacarb hydroxide Aventis Crop Science Bravo Ultrex (82.5WDG) chlorothalonil Syngenta (Zeneca Ag Products) Reason (4.17E) fenamidone Aventis Crop Science KQ 667 (68.75WG) famoxadone + mancozeb DuPont Ag Products Kocide 101 (77WP) copper hydroxide Griffen L.L.C. Tanos (50WG) famoxadone + cymoxanil DuPont Ag Products Manzate 200 (75DF) mancozeb DuPont Ag Products Quadris (2.08SC) azoxystrobin Syngenta (Zeneca Ag Products) Gavel (75DF) zoxamide + mancozeb Dow Agro Sciences Rally (40WP) myclobutanil Dow Agro Sciences Folicur (3.6F) tebuconazole Bayer Ag Chemicals Thiolux (80DF) micronized sulfur Syngenta Crop Protection 30

Fresh Market Tomato Late Blight Control Robert J. Mullen, Donald Colbert, Matt Ehlhardt, Scott Whiteley, Chuck Cancilla Late Blight (Phytophthora infestans) presents a recurring problem for the fresh market tomato industry in the northern San Joaquin Valley, where production occurs from mid-summer to midfall. In 1998 the effects of El Niño were felt over a wide area of California s Central Valley, with widespread outbreaks of Late Blight in both processing and fresh market tomatoes from spring until late fall. Virtually all of the reports of Late Blight infection involved metalaxyl resistant strains of the disease. Like last year, the 2001 season was warm and dry with essentially no reports of Late Blight problems in tomatoes. This does not discount a real need for continued evaluation of new chemical and/or bio-fungicides that could provide protective and/or curative (systemic) control of Late Blight. Disease control remains a high priority because pathogen development could return quickly anytime in the future. This year s trial, evaluating 10 fungicides and/or combination treatments together or as alternate spray treatments, was established at Bava and Son Farms (Vern Bava, Pete Katzakian) near Waterloo, California in a market tomato field planted to the variety QualiT 23. Treatments were initiated on September 6, 2001 with subsequent sprays applied on 9/14/01, 9/23/01 and 10/3/1. At the onset of treatment the crop was at mid fruit development (2.0 to 3.0 inches in diameter for crown set fruit). Applications were made roughly on a 7-day spray schedule with treatments broadcast over and into the tomato crop utilizing a handheld CO 2 backpack sprayer with 8004 nozzles at 30 psi in a spray volume of 50 gallons per acre water. The soil type at the trial site was a Wyman clay loam and the field was irrigated on a 7 to 10 day schedule throughout the growing and fruit-sizing season. Due to the warm, dry conditions that prevailed throughout the season, no Late Blight outbreak developed. The trial was hand harvested on October 10 and 11, 2001. Fruit samples were taken from each plot and incubated at 55 F and a relative humidity of 85% for 14 days to see if any fruit infection would occur. The samples were evaluated and absolutely no fruit infection from Late Blight occurred. All treatments, led by an alternating spray program of Previcur (propamacarb), followed by Bravo Ultrex (chlorothalonil) and then the weekly spray programs of 2 different rates of Cabrio (pyraclostrobin), outyielded the untreated control. Apparently the various spray programs worked on secondary pathogens present, resulting in yield increases over the untreated control. Work with fungicides as stand alone treatments and particularly as alternate sprays with other fungicides with different modes of disease action for resistance management will continue in 2002. 31