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 AT48 AT10 AT71 AT89

BHN Seed BHN 102 BHN 358 BHN 503

BHN 301 BHN 373 BHN 454

BHN 500 BHN 501 BHN 524

LSL Technologies B807

Hazzera Seed HA 3640

Rogers (Syngenta) QualiT 21 QualiT 23 Bobcat (RFT 7041) RFT-8054

Petoseed (Seminis) PS 150440 PS 151123

Sunseeds Shady Lady Classy Lady SRT 6624 SRT 6718

SRT 6719

SRT 6721 SRT 6722 SRT 6724

United Genetics Fair Lady UGX 895 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 14.3LSD @ 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 10.9RFT 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 11.3AT 71 17.6 1,408 10.6 42.5 46.9 5.2 0.7 23.5 10.5AT 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 Maturity1 Fruit2 Shape

Fruit3 Smoothness

Fruit4 Firmness

Fruit Set Stemability5 Vine

Cover Fruit6 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

Table 3B. 2001 Fresh Market Tomato Variety Trials Eugene Caffese Farms/Ace Tomato Company, Farmington, CA

Observation Trial – “Round” Lines Variety Maturity1 Fruit2

Shape Fruit3

Smoothness Fruit4

Firmness Fruit Set Stemability5 Vine

Cover Fruit6 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 HA-3307 HA-3801

H.J. Heinz Seed Heinz 106 Heinz 113 Heinz 122

Petoseed PS 150351 SVR 2039

Sakata Seed America Monica

United Genetics Rio Oro 31 Rio Oro 35 San Isidro

11

Table 4. 2001 Yields And Grades of “Roma” Fresh Market Tomato Varieties Eugene Caffese Farms/Ace Tomato Co. – Farmington, California

Replicated Varieties

Market1

Yield/Acre Market Yield

Fruit Sizing Data (%)3 Culls2 Total Yield2 %2

Variety 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 28.6BHN 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%: n.s. C.V.%

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

Table 5. 2001 Yields and Grades of “Roma” Fresh Market Tomato Varieties Eugene Caffese Farms/Ace Tomato Co. – Farmington, California

Observation Varieties Market1

Yield/Acre

Fruit Sizing Data (%)3 Culls2 Total Yield2 %2

Variety 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 Maturity1 Fruit

Shape Fruit2

Smoothness Fruit3

Firmness Fruit Set Stemability4 Vine

Cover Fruit5

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 Maturity1 Fruit

Shape Fruit2

Smoothness Fruit3

Firmness Fruit Set Stemability4 Vine

Cover Fruit5 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 Rot

PS 150351 M blocky pear 2.5 4.0 fair-good 4.0 poor-fair M-L 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

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 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 11.5Bobcat Syngenta 20.6 31.5 8.3 18.5 33.3 16.1 25.3 39.1 4.9 18.0 22.2 3.8QualiT 23 Syngenta 20.3 31.6 10.2 21.3 29.5 12.7 22.7 38.9 5.1 17.0 26.6 12.8PS 150440 Seminis 20.2 30.4 17.2 24.4 36.4 17.3 23.0 38.6 7.4 13.1 16.2 27.0BHN 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 10.6BHN 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 15.8Classy Lady Sunseeds 18.1 28.9 8.4 22.2 32.6 10.2 21.0 37.0 7.9 11.1 17.0 7.1Sunbrite Seminis 17.7 30.7 20.4 19.4 29.5 29.3 18.0 39.9 11.7 15.7 22.6 20.3Shady Lady Sunseeds 17.7 31.7 20.8 18.1 34.1 25.0 21.2 40.2 12.5 13.7 20.9 24.9SXT 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 19.1 30.4 13.8 20.0 30.6 19.0 23.1 40.0 8.3 14.2 20.6 14.0LSD .05 4.2 5.5 6.5 6.5 8.1 9.3 5.8 8.3 5.3 5.1 5.6 13.6

CV % 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

Combined Market Kings Co. Merced Co. San Joaquin Co. Yield/Acre (early season) (midseason) (late season) Variety 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

Combined TOTAL Kings Co. Merced Co. San Joaquin Co. Yield/Acre (early season) (midseason) (late season) Variety 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 448CV % 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 Harvest1 - REPLICATED Varieties Summary of Three Fresh Market Tomato Trials - 2001

Percent Red Fruit at Harvest Variety 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

COMBINED RESULTS KINGS COUNTY MERCED COUNTY SAN JOAQUIN CNTY (early season) (midseason) (late season) % Market Yield % Market Yield % Market Yield % Market YieldVariety Company X-Large Large Med X-Large Large Med X-Large Large Med X-Large Large Med QualiT 21 Syngenta 40.3 37.0 22.7 44.4 43.6 12.0 54.9 32.6 12.5 21.5 34.9 43.6Bobcat Syngenta 31.1 41.1 27.8 41.5 39.3 19.3 46.4 39.8 13.8 5.4 44.3 50.3QualiT 23 Syngenta 27.4 28.0 44.6 34.6 42.4 23.0 47.6 36.8 15.6 0.0 4.8 95.2PS 150440 Seminis 32.0 38.2 29.8 32.3 40.0 27.7 56.9 32.7 10.3 6.8 41.8 51.4BHN 503 BHN Seed 32.2 39.7 28.1 43.6 38.0 18.4 43.3 40.7 16.0 9.6 40.4 50.0BHN 102 BHN Seed 22.2 39.4 38.5 25.6 40.5 33.9 36.7 43.1 20.3 4.2 34.6 61.2Classy Lady Sunseeds 28.5 34.1 37.4 37.8 40.7 21.5 47.6 37.5 14.9 0.0 24.1 75.9Sunbrite Seminis 31.4 44.4 24.2 37.8 44.3 17.9 46.7 40.2 13.1 9.7 48.7 41.6Shady Lady Sunseeds 27.1 40.8 32.1 37.2 38.0 24.8 31.2 49.8 19.0 12.8 34.6 52.6SXT 6624 Sunseeds 21.5 34.0 44.6 25.4 44.6 30.1 39.1 44.0 16.9 0.0 13.3 86.7

Average 29.4 37.7 33.0 36.0 41.1 22.9 45.0 39.7 15.2 7.0 32.2 60.9LSD 0.05 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

23

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 10.9SRT 6722 Sunseeds 24.0 32.5 5.9 17.7 25.4 11.5 25.2 39.3 6.2 29.2 32.9 0.0SRT 6719 Sunseeds 22.5 32.9 8.4 20.1 26.4 18.7 16.1 34.4 6.4 31.4 37.9 0.0BHN 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 6.8BHN 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 3.8XP 12298* Seminis 21.5 33.0 18.9 18.2 31.9 35.2 18.8 36.7 11.0 27.4 30.5 10.4RFT 8054 Syngenta 20.1 28.9 1.8 11.4 15.3 0.0 24.8 41.4 5.4 24.0 30.1 0.0Fair 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 1.8SRT 6724 Sunseeds 19.6 29.5 10.3 14.9 22.2 16.7 22.6 37.6 8.8 21.3 28.7 5.3SRT 6721 Sunseeds 19.5 30.5 8.2 18.1 26.5 11.2 19.6 37.9 7.9 20.9 27.0 5.6SRT 6718 Sunseeds 19.5 24.8 3.0 9.4 11.7 5.1 24.6 32.6 3.9 24.4 30.1 0.0AT 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 6.4AT 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 10.5PX 151123 Seminis 17.0 25.3 13.4 18.7 22.7 5.5 17.7 30.0 11.0 14.5 23.2 23.6AT 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 17.8AT 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 30.9UGX 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.

Table 2-A

Marketable Yield (TONS/Boxes per Acre)1 - OBSERVED Varieties Summary of Three Fresh Market Tomato Trials - 2001

Combined Market Kings Co. Merced Co. San Joaquin Co. Yield/Acre (early season) (midseason) (late season) Variety 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

25

Table 2-B

TOTAL Yield (TONS/Boxes per Acre)1 - OBSERVED Varieties Summary of Three Fresh Market Tomato Trials - 2001

Combined TOTAL Merced Co. San Joaquin Co. Yield/Acre (early season) (midseason) (late season) Variety 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 25.0 2002 35.9 2874 27.9 2228 LSD .05 8.7 695 CV % 17.7 17.7

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.

Table 2-C

Percent (%) Red Fruit at Harvest1 - OBSERVED Varieties Summary of Three Fresh Market Tomato Trials - 2001

Variety Company Combined Kings Merced San Joaquin XP 12298* Seminis 18.9 35.2 11.0 10.4 AT 10 Am Takii 16.7 19.1 0.0 30.9 AT 71 Am Takii 16.4 23.2 15.6 10.5 UGX 895* United Genetics 13.7 25.2 9.2 6.7 PX 151123 Seminis 13.4 5.5 11.0 23.6 Fair Lady United Genetics 12.0 27.1 7.1 1.8 AT 89 Am Takii 11.8 17.2 11.7 6.4 BHN 500 BHN Seed 10.3 17.1 7.0 6.8 SRT 6724 Sunseeds 10.3 16.7 8.8 5.3 B-807 LSL 9.7 10.6 7.6 10.9 AT 48* Am Takii 9.5 0.0 10.8 17.8 BHN 454 BHN Seed 8.4 13.6 7.9 3.8 SRT 6719 Sunseeds 8.4 18.7 6.4 0.0 SRT 6721 Sunseeds 8.2 11.2 7.9 5.6 SRT 6722 Sunseeds 5.9 11.5 6.2 0.0 SRT 6718 Sunseeds 3.0 5.1 3.9 0.0 RFT 8054 Syngenta 1.8 0.0 5.4 0.0 Average 10.5 15.1 8.1 8.3 LSD .05 12.7 CV% 72.7

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

COMBINED RESULTS KINGS COUNTY MERCED COUNTY SAN JOAQUIN CNTY (early season) (midseason) (late season) % Market Yield % Market Yield % Market Yield % Market YieldVariety 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 41.5SRT 6722 Sunseeds 34.1 43.4 22.4 33.6 46.5 19.9 31.3 48.8 19.9 37.5 35.0 27.5SRT 6719 Sunseeds 25.2 42.2 32.6 41.7 33.1 25.2 28.0 49.0 22.9 5.8 44.5 49.7BHN 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 53.6BHN 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 34.7XP 12298* Seminis 28.4 46.3 25.4 33.4 43.2 23.4 43.8 40.4 15.9 7.9 55.3 36.8RFT 8054 Syngenta 23.5 40.8 35.7 19.6 57.7 22.7 42.2 44.0 13.9 8.8 20.6 70.6Fair Lady United Genetics 38.7 27.3 34.0 34.5 36.9 28.7 36.5 50.5 12.9 11.0 28.6 60.4SRT 6724 Sunseeds 17.1 45.3 37.6 20.8 49.9 29.3 30.4 48.9 20.6 0.0 37.1 62.9SRT 6721 Sunseeds 30.4 42.9 26.7 36.7 41.3 22.0 47.1 39.2 13.6 7.4 48.1 44.5SRT 6718 Sunseeds 32.0 38.7 29.2 31.8 42.7 25.5 53.7 36.9 9.4 10.6 36.6 52.8AT 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 72.6AT 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 46.9PX 151123 Seminis 25.2 38.3 36.5 33.9 44.0 22.2 41.6 38.3 20.1 0.0 32.7 67.3AT 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 72.2AT 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 18.6UGX 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/Acre1 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 mid-fall. 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 CO2 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

2001 Fresh Market Tomato Late Blight Control

Bava Farms – Waterloo, California

Treatment* Rate Lb./Acre

Spray Frequency

Marketable Yield1 (Red + Green Fruit)

Tons/Acre

Cabrio (20WDG) 0.10 Weekly 28.4

Cabrio 0.20 Weekly 27.0

Previcur (6L) + Bravo Ultrex (82.5 WDG) 1.00 + 1.50 Weekly 25.6

Previcur/Bravo Ultrex 1.00/1.50 Alternating Weekly 29.9

Reason (4.17E) + Previcur 0.18 + 0.50 Weekly 26.4

Reason/Previcur 0.18/1.00 Alternating Weekly 25.8

KQ 667 (68.75 WG) 1.03 Weekly 24.6

KQ 667` 1.38 Weekly 25.7

KQ 667 + Kocide 101 (77WP) 1.03 + 2.31 Weekly 24.8

Tanos (50WG)/Manzate (75DF) 0.25/1.50 Alternating Weekly 24.9

Tanos/Manzate 0.38/1.50 Alternating Weekly 23.8

Bravo Ultrex 1.50 Weekly 25.6

Manzate 1.50 Weekly 25.3

Quadris (2.08SC)/Bravo Ultrex 0.10/1.50 Alternating Weekly 26.0

Gavel (75DF) 1.50 Weekly 25.7

Untreated Control ------ ----- 21.4 1 Average of four replications * All treatments, including the untreated control, had Confirm (2E) added to the spray mix at each of the four application dates for the control of worms.

LSD @ 5%: 5.1 C.V. =13.9%

32

A Powdery Mildew Control Trial In Fresh Market Tomatoes. Robert J. Mullen, Donald Colbert, Scott Whiteley and Chuck Cancilla Powdery Mildew (Leveillula taurica) occurs commonly in California’s Central Valley where both processing and fresh market tomatoes are grown. The disease causes a defoliation of the crop’s leaves from the ground up resulting in fruit being exposed to the sun. Serious yield losses can occur, particularly in fresh market tomatoes where even slightly sunburned fruit have to be culled. A preventative spray program with fungicides, utilizing weather station data on temperature and relative humidity, is essential. The need to identify effective fungicide materials, used in a rotational program to prevent disease resistance, is critical. This year a trial was established, evaluating four fungicide materials as stand alone treatments, at Bava and Son Farms (Vern Bava, Pete Katzakian) on September 14, 2001 near Waterloo, California. All treatments were applied over and into the crop canopy at mid fruit development (2.0 to 3.0 inch diameter) as soon as disease incidence was identified. Treatments were made using a handheld CO2 backpack sprayer with 8004 nozzles at 30 psi in a spray volume of 30 gallons per acre water. The soil type at the trial site was a Wyman clay loam, the field variety was QualiT 23, and the field was furrow irrigated on a 7 to 10 day schedule throughout the season. A second application of all treatments was made on September 25, 2001. Moderate disease pressure occurred and disease severity ratings were taken on 9/14/01, 9/26/01 and 10/10/01. Best control of Powdery Mildew was achieved by Folicur (tebuconazole), followed closely by the high rate of Cabrio (pyraclostrobin) and then the low rate of Cabrio. Rally (myclobutanil) and Thiolux (micronized sulfur) provided less control of the disease. The trial was hand harvested on October 22, 2001. All treatments, led by both rates of Cabrio, gave greater yields than the untreated control. The high rate of Cabrio gave a significantly higher yield. Work on evaluating existing and new fungicide chemistry for Powdery Mildew control in tomatoes will continue in 2002.

33

2001 Fresh Market Tomato Powdery Mildew Control

Bava Farms – Waterloo near Stockton, California

Disease Severity1 Rating Treatment

Rate Lb./Acre

a.i. 9/14 9/26 10/10

Marketable Yield2 (Red + Green)

Tons/Acre Sunburn

Fruit2

Rally (40WP) 0.125 1.3 2.6 3.0 24.4 9.9

Folicur (3.6F) 0.200 1.0 2.4 2.5 24.7 9.2

Cabrio (20WDG) 0.100 0.9 2.4 2.8 25.5 7.7

Cabrio 0.200 1.1 2.3 2.6 27.8 7.6

Thiolux (80DF) 8.000 1.1 2.9 3.1 24.6 11.0

Untreated Control ------ 1.3 3.6 4.3 22.2 12.1

LSD @ 5%: 4.0 C.V. = 10.8%

n.s. 36.4%

1 Average of four replications and the following disease severity rating scale:

Disease severity rating - Barratt/Horsfall System

Grade % Plant Infected

% Plant Healthy Grade

% Plant Infected

% Plant Healthy Grade

% Plant Infected

% Plant Healthy

0 0 100 4 12 to 25 75 to 88 8 88 to 94 6 to 12 1 0 to 3 97 to 100 5

50 to 75 25 to 50 10 97 to 100

2 Average of four replications

25 to 50 50 to 75 9 94 to 97 3 to 6 2 3 to 6 94 to 97 6 0 to 3 3 6 to 12 88 to 94 7 75 to 88 12 to 25 11 100 0

34

This is a report of work in progress only. The chemicals and uses contained in this publication are experimental data and should not be considered as recommendations for use. Until the products and their uses given in this report appear on a registered pesticide label or other legal, supplementary direction for use, it is illegal to use the chemicals as described.

WARNING ON THE USE OF CHEMICALS Pesticides are poisonous. Always read and carefully follow all precautions and safety recommendations given on the container label. Store all chemicals in their original labeled containers in a locked cabinet or shed, away from food or feeds, and out of the reach of children, unauthorized persons, pets, and livestock. Recommendations are based on the best information currently available, and treatments based on them should not leave residues exceeding the tolerance established for any particular chemical. Confine chemicals to the area being treated. THE GROWER IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for residues on his crops as well as for problems caused by drift from his property to other properties or crops. Consult your County Agricultural Commissioner for correct methods of disposing of leftover spray material and empty containers. Never burn pesticide containers.

PHYTOTOXICITY Certain chemicals may cause plant injury if used at the wrong stage of plant development or when temperatures are too high or when overcast conditions occur. Injury may also result from excessive amounts or the wrong formulation or mixing incompatible materials. Inert ingredients such as wetters, spreaders, emulsifiers, diluents, and solvents, can cause plant injury. Since manufacturers often change formulations, it is possible that plant injury may occur, even though no injury was noted in previous seasons.

No endorsement of named products is intended, nor is criticism implied

of similar products that are not mentioned.

University of California Cooperative Extension of San Joaquin County 420 South Wilson Way, Stockton, California 95205-6243 Telephone (209) 468-2085

The University of California prohibits discrimination against or harassment of any person on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, or status as a covered veteran (special disabled veteran, Vietnam-era veteran or any other veteran who served on active duty during a war or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized).

University Policy is intended to be consistent with the provisions of applicable State and Federal laws.

Inquiries regarding the University's nondiscrimination policies may be directed to the Affirmative Action/Staff Personnel Services Director, University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources,

1111 Franklin, 6th Floor, Oakland, CA 94607-5200, (510) 987-0096.

Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, U.S. Department of Agriculture, University of California and San Joaquin County Cooperating

35