PROCESSING VEGETABLE

RESEARCH REPORT - 1998

 

Mark A. Bennett

Elaine Grassbaugh

Ken Scaife

David Francis

Dept. of Horticulture and Crop Science

and

R. Mac Riedel

Christian A. Wyenandt

Landon Rhodes

Dept. of Plant Pathology

The Ohio State University

Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center

 

 

Hort Series No. 683, January 1999

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the results of several vegetable studies conducted during 1998. Weather data for the ‘98 season are included at the end of this report. All cultural information and spray applications are also listed.

The excellent cooperation of branch/farm managers Ken Scaife and Mark Schmittgen, Jabe Warren, Sean Mueller, and Ken DeWeese; Dr. Winston Bash and Gary Wenneker (OSU Pilot Plant, Columbus) and many others is greatly appreciated. We hope this information is of benefit to the processing vegetable industry in Ohio and the Great Lakes region. Your comments and suggestions are always welcome.

Dr. Mark Bennett

Dept. of Horticulture & Crop Science

The Ohio State University

312A Kottman Hall

2021 Coffey Road

Columbus, OH 43210

phone: (614) 292-3864

FAX: (614) 292-7162

email: bennett.18@osu.edu

Ms. Elaine Grassbaugh

Dept. of Horticulture & Crop Science

The Ohio State University

303 Kottman Hall

2021 Coffey Road

Columbus, OH 43210

(614) 292-3858

FAX: (614) 292-7162

email: grassbaugh.1@osu.edu

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Our thanks to the following organizations who provided funding for these projects:

USDA/NRICGP

Mid-America Food Processors Association

Ohio Vegetable and Small Fruit Research and Development Program

Red Gold, Inc.

Agtrol Chemical Products

Appreciation is extended to the following who provided seed, transplants, or other supplies for these projects:

Hirzel Canning Company

Landmark Plastic Corp.

 

 

 

INFLUENCE OF ETHEPHON (ETHRELTM) ON PROCESSING TOMATO FRUIT FIRMNESS, COLOR UNIFORMITY AND PEELING

Co-Investigators:

Dr. David Francis, Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio State University

Dr. Winston Bash, Food Industries Center, Ohio State University

Objectives:

This study looked at 2 commercial cultivars of processing tomatoes and the effect of EthrelTM rates on fruit firmness, color uniformity and quality variables. This was the final year of this three-year study.

Materials and methods:

Processing tomato transplants of cultivars ‘OH8245' and ‘P696' were established on raised beds in single rows at the OSU/OARDC Veg. Crops Branch in Fremont, Ohio on May 22. Rows were 30' long spaced 5' apart. Each treatment was planted in 4 replications. Plots were separated by buffer rows to minimize effects of Ethrel drift to neighboring treatments. All production practices followed recommended practices for peeling tomato production in the midwest U.S. Ethrel applications for each cultivar were: 0, 0.5, 0.5 X 2 applications, 1, 1 X 2 applications, 1.5, 2, 4, and 6 pts/A. Ethrel applications were applied on

August 14 on ‘P696' and on August 17 for ‘OH8245'. Split applications of 0.5 and 1.0 pts/A received the second ethrel application on August 19 (‘P696') and August 22 (‘OH8245'). Yield was recorded at the time of mechanical harvest. ‘P696' receiving 4 pts/A and 6 pts/A applications were harvested on August 31. All other ‘P696' treatments were harvested on September 2. All treatments for ‘OH8245' were harvested on September 8. Fruit from all plots were tested for fruit firmness, color uniformity, pH, titratable acids, and soluble solids. Firmness was measured using an Ametek Force Gauge on 10 fruit/plot. A Minolta 300 Colorimeter was used to measure color on 20 fruit/plot; 3 measurements per individual fruit. Samples from treatments of Ethrel applications of 0, 1X2 applications, 2, 4, and 6 pts/A were taken to the OSU Pilot Plant. Samples were peeled and canned for color inspection in early 1998.

Results and discussion:

Tomatoes were harvested 14-22 days (265 - 454 GDD) after initial ethephon applications in 1998 (Table 2). Red fruit yields were excellent, averaging over 41 T/A (for ‘OH8245') and 44 T/A (‘P696'). Our planting dates and harvests were approximately 20 days earlier than in the ‘96 and ‘97 studies.

Three-year data for percent red fruit yield (Table 4) show a typical response to increasing amounts (0 to 6 pts/A) of applied ethephon. While high rates (4 or 6 pts/A) of ethephon gave some of the highest red fruit yields, and the greatest percent red fruit values, high rates were also linked with among the lowers fruit solids values (Table 4). Split application comparisons (0.5 pts/A X 2 applications vs. 1 pt/A, and 1 pt/A X 2 applications vs. 2 pts/A) showed little influence on the yield and fruit quality variables examined in this 3-year study at Fremont (Tables 4,5). Chroma values were improved (more vivid color) when 2 pts/A were applied vs. 1 pt. applied twice (Table 5). Split applications also tended to produce somewhat softer fruit vs. single applicaiton counterparts (Table 4). Fruit firmness from canned samples will be collected this winter to better assess this trend.

Table 2. Days to harvest and growing degree days (GDD) from ethephon application.

 

 

 

Growing degree days (GDD)*

Cultivar

EthrelTM Rate

Days to harvest from ethephon application

from ethephon application to harvest

‘P696'

0.5

19

370

 

0.5 X 2 applications

19/14

370/264

 

1.0

19

370

 

1.0 X 2 applications

19/14

370/264

 

1.5

19

370

 

2.0

19

370

 

4.0

17

340

 

6.0

17

340

 

 

 

 

‘OH8245'

0.5

22

454

 

0.5 X 2 applications

22/17

454/332

 

1.0

22

454

 

1.0 X 2 applications

22/17

454/332

 

1.5

22

454

 

2.0

22

454

 

4.0

22

454

 

6.0

22

454

* GDD = Maximum daily temperature + Minimum daily temperature /2 - Threshold (50)

(Minimum temp is not less than 50 degrees F and max temp is not more than 86 degrees F).

 

Table 3. Effect of Ethrel rates on processing tomato yield and fruit quality, Fremont, OH, 1998.

Fruit

Red Fruit

Green

Culls

Solids

Firmness

MAIN EFFECTS

T/A

% red

T/A

T/A

( o Brix)

(kg)

Cultivars

'OH8245'

41.4

85.5

4.4

2.6

3.11

5.37

'P696'

45.2

85.4

5.6

2.2

2.96

4.64

signif.

* * *

NS

* *

* *

*

* * *

Ethrel Trts. (pts/A)

0

41.2 b

81.2 e

7.4 a

2.2 b

3.08

5.40 a

0.5

43.0 ab

82.8 de

6.1 ab

2.8 a

3.08

5.02 b

0.5 (2 applications)

43.5 ab

85.1 cd

5.2 b

2.5 ab

3.01

5.12 ab

1.0

44.7 a

85.0 cd

5.5 b

2.3 ab

2.99

5.04 b

1.0 (2 applications)

43.8 ab

84.9 cd

5.4 b

2.4 ab

3.1

5.10 ab

1.5

44.4 ab

85.5 c

4.9 bc

2.6 ab

3.09

5.00 b

2.0

43.5 ab

86.3 bc

4.6 bc

2.3 ab

2.99

4.86 bc

4.0

42.3 ab

88.3 ab

3.5 cd

2.2 b

3.03

4.66 c

6.0

43.5 ab

90.3 a

2.1 d

2.6 ab

2.95

4.85 bc

signif.

*

* * *

* * *

*

NS

* *

LSD (0.05)

3.2

2.3

1.6

0.51

-

0.32

Cv X Trt

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

z = NS, *, * *, * * * = Nonsignificant differences, or significant at P = 0.05, 0.01, or 0.001; respectively

 

 

 

Table 4. Effect of Ethrel rates on processing tomato yield and fruit quality, Fremont, OH, 1996 - 1998.

Fruit

Red Fruit

Green

Culls

Solids

Firmness

MAIN EFFECTS

T/A

% red

T/A

T/A

( o Brix)

(kg)

Cultivars

'OH8245'

35.6

79.6

6.8

2.1

3.02

4.98

'P696'

41.0

81.0

7.2

2.3

2.84

4.63

z

signif.

* *

NS

NS

* *

*

* *

Year

1996

39.3

79.3

8.4

1.9

2.80

5.24

1997

32.3

76.2

7.7

2.3

2.95

4.18

1998

43.3

85.5

5.0

2.4

3.03

5.00

signif.

* * *

* *

*

* *

* *

CV x YR

NS

NS

*

* * *

NS

Ethrel Trts. (pts/A)

0

35.5 e

73.6 f

10.4 a

2.2 ab

2.93 abc

4.98 a

0.5

36.5 de

75.4 f

9.4 ab

2.2 ab

2.86 bc

4.72 c

0.5 (2 applications)

37.6 cd

78.0 e

8.1 c

2.3 ab

2.92 abc

4.67 c

1.0

39.4 abc

78.9 de

8.4 bc

2.0 b

3.00 ab

4.88 abc

1.0 (2 applications)

38.4 bcd

80.8 cd

6.6 d

2.3 ab

3.01 a

4.86 abc

1.5

38.5 bcd

80.5 cd

6.7 d

2.4 a

3.02 a

4.69 c

2.0

38.1 bcd

81.8 c

6.0 d

2.2 ab

2.94 abc

4.95 ab

4.0

40.0 ab

85.9 b

4.4 e

2.1 ab

2.82 c

4.74 bc

6.0

40.7 a

88.1 a

3.3 f

2.2 ab

2.84 c

4.78 abc

LSD (0.05)

2.03

2.02

1.11

0.31

0.149

0.221

Trt X Yr

NS

* * *

NS

* * *

NS

* *

Trt X Cv

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

Trt X Yr X Cv

NS

*

NS

NS

*

* *

z = NS, *, * *, * * * = Nonsignificant differences, or significant at P = 0.05, 0.01, or 0.001; respectively

 

 

Table 5. Fruit color variables for Ethrel study on processing tomatoes, Fremont, OH , 1996-1998

z

y

x

MAIN EFFECTS

L

A

B

Hue

Chroma

Cultivars

'OH8245'

42.73

27.24

26.95

45.02

39.22

'P696'

43.21

25.79

26.31

46.25

37.72

w

signif.

NS

*

NS

* * *

NS

Year

1996

43.24

28.28

27.87

45.27

40.56

1997

39.82

28.23

25.27

41.68

38.26

1998

45.51

23.22

26.60

49.53

36.56

signif.

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

Cv X Yr

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

Ethrel Trts. (pts/A)

0

42.56 b

26.72 cd

25.94 c

44.55 cd

38.00 de

0.5

44.94 a

23.88 e

27.12 a

49.39 a

37.43 e

0.5 (2 applications)

44.26 a

25.29 de

26.89 ab

47.40 ab

37.85 de

1

43.97 a

25.92 d

27.00 ab

46.82 bc

38.44 cd

1.0 (2 applications)

40.92 d

28.31 abc

26.20 bc

42.81 de

39.11 bc

1.5

42.32 bc

27.68 bc

26.92 ab

44.31 cde

39.29 ab

2

40.70 d

29.64 a

26.27 bc

41.76 e

40.03 a

4

41.07 cd

28.38 ab

26.35 abc

43.26 de

39.42 ab

6

40.57 d

28.91 ab

26.55 abc

42.50 de

39.83 ab

LSD (0.05)

1.31

1.65

0.83

2.55

0.83

Trt X Yr

* * *

NS

NS

NS

NS

Trt X Cv

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

Trt X Yr X Cv

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

z L - measure of lightness (0-100 scale, zero = very dark, 100 = very pale)

y Hue - measure of color; correlates well with A/B ratio. Lower values indicate more red vs. orange

x chroma - measures color saturation or vividness. Higher values indicate more vivid color.

w NS, *, * *, * * * = Nonsignificant differences, or significant at P = 0.05, 0.01, or 0.001; respectively

 

 

 

GibGro 4LS Use on Processing Tomatoes

 

Objective:

To test the effectiveness of GibGro 4LS (liquid gibberellic acid) application on processing tomatoes to remove the first fruit set on split-set cultivars.

Materials and Methods:

Processing tomato transplants of cultivar ‘SO12' were established in raised beds at the Veg Crops Branch (VCB) Fremont, Ohio on June 1, 1998 in single rows 30 feet long and spaced 5 feet apart. Plants were spaced 12 inches apart in the row. Each treatment was planted in 4 replications with buffer rows between treatment rows to minimize drift. GibGro 4LS application treatments consisted of an untreated check and plots receiving the following:

  • 4 oz /A at first flower

(July 7)
  • 8 oz/A at first flower

(July 7)
  • 16 oz/A at first flower

(July 7)
  • 4 oz/A 10 days after first flower set

(July 17)
  • 8 oz/A 10 days after first flower set

(July 17)
  • 16 oz/A 10 days after first flower set

(July 17)

Additional treatments for observation purposes were planted in 3 reps:

All production practices followed recommended practices for processing tomato production in the midwest U.S. GibGro was applied on July 7 (at first flower) and where applicable, July 17 (10 days after first flower). Plots were machine-harvested on September 17. Reds, greens, rots and average fruit size were recorded.

Results:

No statistical differences were noted in yield or average fruit size on plots receiving a one-time application of GibGro. Percent red fruit values at harvest tended to be slightly higher (3-5%) from the plots receiving the GibGro 10 days after 1st flower set compared to control plots .

 

 

Table 6. GibGro on Processing tomatoes, Veg Crops Branch, Fremont, OH - 1998.

Cultivar: ' SO12'

Avg. fruit

% red at

Treatment/A

Red T/A

Grn T/A

Cull T/A

size (lb)

harvest

Untreated check

30.4

3.3

2.9

.15

83

4 oz at 1st flower

28.2

3.0

2.4

.16

84

8 oz at 1st flower

31.3

3.9

2.9

.15

82

16 oz at 1st flower

30.1

5.2

2.8

.15

79

Untreated check

31.5

4.6

3.3

.15

80

4 oz 10 days after 1st flower set

31.8

4.5

2.6

.15

83

8 oz 10 days after 1st flower set

31.5

3.1

2.4

.15

85

16 oz 10 days after 1st flower set

30.9

3.8

2.3

.16

84

LSD (0.05)

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

p value

0.92

0.37

0.14

0.81

0.06

C.V.

11.6

36.6

21.1

5.1

3.5

4 oz X 2 applications*

29.8

3.5

2.2

.14

84

16 oz X 2 applications*

27.5

3.6

1.7

.14

84

*'Split applications were planted in 3 replications

applications made at first flower and 10 days after 1st flower

 

 

 

 

Sweet Corn Seed Treatment and Seedling Establishment Trial - 1998

Objective:

To evaluate 11 seed treatments (10 chemical combinations + 1 biological) on 2 cultivars of sweet corn ‘Parfait’ (se) and ‘Even Sweeter’ (sh2) at two field locations to determine the best performing seed treatments for optimum stand establishment. This study is part of a multi-location seed treatment study developed by The Seed Treatment Committee of the National Sweet Corn Breeders Association and coordinated by Dr. Krishna Mohan and Vincent Bijman, University of Idaho.

Materials and Methods:

Pre-treated seed (11 treatments + one control) was shipped from the University of Idaho. Plots were established at the Waterman Research Farm in Columbus, Ohio and at the Vegetable Crops Branch (VCB), Fremont, Ohio. Plots in Columbus were established using a 2-row cone seeder on May 12. Each treatment was replicated 4 times. Plots consisted of twin rows 30 feet long and spaced 18 inches apart. Plots were spaced 5 feet on center. Seeds were planted 7 inches apart. Soil type was a Crosby silt loam. Stand counts were taken 37 days after planting.

Plots at the VCB in Fremont were established using a 4-row cone seeder on April 24. Each plot was a single row 40 feet long with seeds spaced 5 inches apart and

30 inches between rows. Soil type was a Rimer sandy loam. Stand counts were recorded 28 days after planting.

Results and Discussion:

Stand count results from both Ohio locations show a higher percent emergence for the sh2 cultivar (‘Even Sweeter’) compared to the se variety (‘Parfait’) (Table 1).

 

Table 7. Sweet corn seed treatment trial, Columbus and Fremont, OH, 1998.

 

Columbus

Fremont

 

% stand

% stand

% stand

% stand

 

‘Even Sweeter’

‘Parfait’

‘Even Sweeter’

‘Parfait’

Treatments and rates (fl oz or oz/cwt)

(sh2)

(se)

(sh2)

(se)

1. Captan (3.0), Thiram (2.5), Apron FL (0.75)

56

43

61

29

2. Captan (3.0), Thiram (2.5), Apron FL (0.75), Flo Pro IMZ (0.5)

66

52

65

30

3. Captan (3.0), Thiram (2.5), Apron FL (0.75), Raxil (50 ppm a.i.)

73

51

66

30

4. Captan (3.0), Thiram (2.5), Apron FL (0.75), Quadris (0.25)

70

60

62

33

5. Captan (3.0), Thiram (2.5), Apron FL (0.75), Topsin 70 WP (3.0)

74

52

63

35

6. Captan (3.0), Thiram (2.5), Apron FL (0.75), Divident (0.5)

69

50

67

34

7. Captan (3.0), Thiram (2.5), Apron FL (0.75), Baytan (3.0)

65

49

62

24

8. Captan (3.0), Thiram (2.5), Apron FL (0.75), Vitivax (3.0)

52

53

62

27

9. Captan (3.0), Thiram (2.5), Apron FL (0.75), GB49 (0.1) [Biological]

64

50

62

31

10. Maxim (0.08), Apron XL (0.32)

68

56

47

31

11. Maxim (0.08), Apron XL (0.32), Dividend (0.5)

74

55

66

36

12. Check

34

15

10

1

LSD (0.05)

9.5

9.5

10.2

8.6

CV

19.6

25.6

28.9

36.1

 

 

Cultural Practices and Spray Applications for Sweet Corn Seed Treatment Trial - 1998, OSU Waterman Agricultural & Natural Resources Laboratory, Columbus, OH

Fall, 1997

Chisel plowed

 

 

May 12, 1998

Seed planted with a 2-row cone seeder

 

 

May 13

Lasso 2 qts/A + Bladex 2 qts/A

 

 

June 12

Larvin 20 fl oz/A

 

 

June 18

Final stand count taken

 

 

 

Cultural Practices and Spray Applications for Sweet Corn Seed Treatment Trial - 1998, Vegetable Crops Branch, Fremont, OH

Fall, 1997

Chisel plowed

 

 

April 23, 1998

375 lbs N/A (34-0-0)

 

 

April 24

Seed planted using a 4-row corn seeder

 

 

April 25

Broadcast 1.5 pt/A Dual 8E herbicide

 

 

May 6, 12

Sevin XLR Plus 1 qt/A

 

 

May 22

Final stand count taken

 

 

 

Vegetable Crops Branch, Fremont, OH

Fall 1997

250 lb/A K2O + 60 lb/A P205

 

 

May, 1998

70 lb N/A - 34-0-0

 

 

June 1

Plants transplanted into single rows 30 feet long and 5' on center

 

 

July 6

20 lb N/A (25% urea-ammonium nitrate solution)

 

 

July 7

GibGro applied to plots receiving application at 1st flower set and to split application plots

 

 

July 17

GibGro applied to plots receiving application 10 days after 1st flower set and to split application plots

 

 

September 17

All plots mechanically harvested

 

 

 

Weather Data 1998 (Vegetable Crops Branch) Fremont, Ohio

 

1998

Long- Term Averages

 

Average Air Temp oF

Average

Average

Month

Minimum

Maximum

Minimum

Maximum

April

36.9

60.8

37.8

59.0

May

53.3

76.5

48.2

70.4

June

56.8

80.5

58.0

80.1

July

57.9

83.4

61.6

83.9

August

57.7

82.6

59.3

81.9

September

50.9

79.6

52.1

75.4

 

Month

‘98 Rainfall (inches)

Long-Term Average

April

4.23

3.35

May

1.44

3.56

June

3.05

3.96

July

3.26

3.85

August

7.47

3.50

September

0.95

3.00

April thru September:

20.40

21.22

 

 

Weather Data 1998 (Waterman Agricultural & Natural Resources Laboratory) Columbus, Ohio

 

 

Long- Term Averages

 

1998 Average Air Temp oF

Average

Average

Month

Minimum

Maximum

Minimum

Maximum

April

41.3

63.1

40.4

61.8

May

55.5

78.1

50.3

72.6

June

61.6

80.0

59.4

81.3

July

62.7

84.3

63.2

85.1

August

62.8

87.3

61.7

83.6

September

56.7

84.2

54.7

77.5

 

Month ‘98

Rainfall (inches)

Long-Term Average

April

7.64

3.79

May

3.54

4.37

June

0.51

4.44

July

0.35

4.60

August

0.96

3.69

September

1.09

2.92

April thru September:

14.09

23.81