Muck Vegetable Cultivar Trial &.. Research Report€¦ · Irwin Goldman Jim Chaput Cynthia...

Muck Vegetable Cultivar Trial&.. Research Report

1998

M.R. McDonald

S. janseK. Vander Kooi

M. Hovius

UNNERSITYgj'GUELPH

Department ofPlant AgricultureReport No.48

Muck CropsResearch StationKettleby, Ontario

RESEARCH AND CULTIVAR TRIAL REPORT FOR 1998

UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH, DEPARTMENT OF PLANT AGRICULTUREMUCK CROPS RESEARCH STATION

1125 WOODCHOPPERS LANER.R. #1, KETTLEBY, ONTARIO LOG IJO

Phone: (905) 775-3783 Fax: (905) 775-4546

INDEX

Page

- 1 -

IndexStaff/Co-operatorsSeed Sources - 1998Legend of Seed SourcesIntroduction and AcknowledgementsWeather Data: Precipitation

11ean TemperaturesExtreme TemperaturesGrowing Degree Days

RESEARCH PROJECTS

1-34-56-7

89

10-1112-1314-15

16

Minor Use 17- Onions- Lettuce- Celery, Spinach

Carrots1. Evaluation of Various Field and Post-Harvest Fungicide and Calcium Treatments

For the Control of Sclerotinia on Carrots in Storage, 1997/98. 18-19

2. Evaluation of Royal Mll 60 for Sprout Inhibiting on Carrots in Storage, 1997/98. 20-21

3. Evaluation of Tembind Mulch for the Weed Control and Soil Erosion, 1998. 22-23

4. Evaluation of Fungicides and Calcium for the Control of Violet Root Rot on Carrots,1998. 24

•5. Evaluation of Ridomil2 G + Ridomil Gold for the Control of Cavity Spot

Incidence and Severity on Carrots, 1998. 25

•

Celery6. Evaluation of Fungicides for the Control of Septoria Late Blight on Celery, 1998. 26

Onions7. Evaluation of the Effect of Priming Seed for Control of Onion Smut, 1998. 27

8. Evaluation of Synthetic Germination Stimulants for Control of Onion Smut, 1998. 28-29

- 2 -

RESEARCH PROJECTS - continued

9. Evaluation of Furrow Treatments for Control of Onion Smut, 1998.

10. Evaluation of Pro Gro in Combination with Insecticides for Control of OnionSmut Control: Field Trial in the Holland Marsh, 1998.

11. Evaluation ofDithane 75DG Furrow Treatments and Rootshield T-22 inCombination with Insecticides for Onion Smut Control: Field Trial in theHolland Marsh, 1998.

12. Evaluation of Fungicide Seed Treatments for Control of Onion Smut

13. Evaluation of FUITOW Fungicide and Drench Treatments for Control ofOnion Smut,1998.

14. Insecticide Seed-Coatings and Granular Insecticides for Onion MaggotControl.

Page

30-31

32-33

34-35

36-37

38-39

40-41

15. Evaluation of Split Applications ofLorsban 15 G and Lorsban 4 E for Controlof Onion Maggot Damage, 1998. 42-43

16. Field Evaluation of Diallyl Disulphide (DADS) for Control of Onion Bulb Infectionby the White Rot Pathogen, Sclerotium Cepivorum Berk, at Harvest, 1998. 44-45

17. Field Evaluation of Commercial Yellow Cooking Onion Cultivars and BreedingLines for Resistance to the White Rot Pathogen, Sclerotium Cepivorum Berk, 1998. 46-47

18. Field Evaluation of Tebuconazole Seed and Plant Base Drench Treatments for theControl of Onion White Rot (Sclerotium Cepivorum Berk), 1998. 48-49

19. Field Evaluation ofFuITOW Applications of Trichoderma Harzianum for theControl of Onion White Rot, (Sclerotium Cepivorum Berk), 1998. 50-51

20. Evaluation of Commercial Yellow Cooking Onion Cultivars and BreedingLines for Resistance to White Rot Using a Scale Inoculation Technique,1998. 52-53

21.

22.

23.

24.

Lettuce

25.

Evaluation of Commercial Yellow Cooking Onion Cultivars to White Rot Using aScale Inoculation Technique, 1998. 54-55

Efficacy of Fungicides for the Control of Botrytis Leaf Blight and Purple Blotchon Onions, 1998. 56-57

Evaluation of Royal HM 60 and Royal MH 30 for Sprout Inhibiting on YellowCooking Onions, 1997-98. 58-59

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Foliar Copper Applications, 1998. 60-61

Field Evaluation of Forecasting Systems to Optimize Fungicide Applications forDowny Mildew of Lettuce, 1998. 62-64

•

•

RESEARCH PROJECTS - continued Page

26. Field Evaluation of Furrow Applications of Ridomil for the Control ofPythium Stunt of Lettuce, 1998. 65

27. Control of Soil Heads and Weed Pressure in Lettuce Using Various Mulches, 1998. 66-67

28. Evaluation of the Herbicides Prowl 400 EC, Chloro IPC 4.8 EC and Kerb50 WP for Weed Control in Lettuce, 1998. 68-69

- 3 -

•

CULTIVAR TRIALSCarrotCarrot - Packaging Types

Carrot - Processing Types

Carrot - Cut and Peel Types

Carrot - Cut 'N' Peel Types

Onions - Yellow

Lettuce

Unusual Vegetables

- Season Summary- Management Procedures- Main- Adaptation-LTA- Storage Trial- LTA Storage- Management Procedures- Main- Adaptation - Slicer-LTA- Storage- LTA Storage- Industry Dicers & Slicers- Main Industry Dicers- Main Industry Slicers- Management Procedures- Main- Storage- Management Procedures Muck and Mineral- Muck Soil Management- Main- Mineral Management- Main- Season Summary- Management Procedures- Main- Adaptation-LTA- Storage- LTA Storage Trials- General Remarks - Head Lettuce & Romaine- Management Procedures- Main - Head Lettuce- Main - Romaine Lettuce- Management Procedures - Mineral Soil- Main- Management Procedures - Muck Soil- Main

7172-7374-7576-7778- 79

8081- 8283- 8485- 86

87888990

91- 9394- 9596- 99

100-101102-103

104105-107108-109110-118119-120121-126

127128-129130-133134-135136-137138-139140-141

142143144145

146-147148-152153-154155-160

- 4 -

STAFF - 1997 - 98

UNIVERSITY OF GUELPHDepartment of Plant Agriculture - Kettleby

Mary Ruth McDonald, Ph.D. Ag.

Shawn Janse

Kevin Vander Kooi

Marilyn Hovius

Patricia Flinn

Margaret West

Laura Byelveld

Maria Padouin

Lorrie Roberts

Cheryl Corbett

Phil Crosby

Christa Metcalf

Michael Vonk

Research Scientist

Agricultural Technician

Agricultural Worker

Research Associate

Office Administration Group

Office Administration Group

Field/Lab Assistant

Field/Lab Assistant

Field/Lab Assistant

Summer Assistant

Summer Assistant

Summer Assistant

Summer Experience Student

Jim Chaput

Tom Clarke

MUCK CROP RESEARCH STATION - O.M.A.F.R.A.AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DIVISION

Vegetable rPM Specialist

Horticultural Crops Advisor

CO-OPERATING SEED COMPANIES•

Special thanks for supplying seed used in many of the Research projects at the Muck CropsResearch Station.

•

Asgrow CanadaHarris Moran, CanadaPetoseed, USABejo/Seedway

Jim RobinsonFred FullerRob Maxwell and Paul LilleyMark Upton and Matt Valk

- 5 -

CO-OPERATING RESEARCH STAFF - EDUCATION/RESEARCH/GOVERNMENT

Gwen Ritcey

Racheal Cheverie

Irwin Goldman

Jim Chaput

Cynthia Scott-Dupree

Alan McKeown

Cathy Bakker

Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada


University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.

Vegetable IPM Specialist, OMAFRA, Guelph, Ontario, Canada


Simcoe Research Station, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada

Simcoe Research Station, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada

Wib Willows

Tim Moyes

Harold Wright

Brady Code

Rob Maxwell

Scott Hendricks

Jim Robinson

Irwin Schmidt

Willy Gubbels

Hubert O'Neal

Edward Brown

Leo Blydrop

Russel Wallace•

Caroline Dykstra

Mark Upton

CO-OPERATING RESEARCH STAFF - INDUSTRY/PRIVATE SECTOR

Oligosol, Burlington, Ontario, Canada

Uniroyal Chemical, Elmira, Ontario, Canada

Novartis Crop Protection, Cambridge, Ontario, Canada

Novartis Crop Protection, Cambridge, Ontario, Canada

Petoseed, Payette, Idaho, U.S.A.

Asgrow Seed, Deforest, Wisconsin, U.S.A.

Asgrow Seed, Newmarket, Ontario, Canada

United Agri-Products, Dorchester, Ontario, Canada

VanWaters & Rogers Ltd., London, Ontario, Canada

AGTROL International, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.

AGTROL International, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.

Bayer Inc., Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada

Bio-Works Inc., Geneva, New York, U.S.A.

Zeneca Agro, Stoney Creek, Ontario, Canada

Bejo Seeds, Geneva, New York, U.S.A.

- 6 -

SEED SOURCES - 1998 - CULTIVAR TIUALS

Asg Asgrow Seed Co., 220 Pony Dr., Unit #1, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 7B6 CanadaTel: (905) 895-7333

BEJO Bejo Seeds Inc., 1088 Healey Road, Geneva, New York 14456 U.S.A.Tel: (308) 789-4155

BO Brinker-Orsetti Seed Co., 2301 Technology Parkway, P.O. Box 2350, Hollister,California 95024-2350 U.S.A.Tel: (408) 636-4822

Car Cardinal Seed Co. Inc., 755 Highway 18 East, Kingsville, Ontario N9Y 2L1 CanadaTel: (519) 733-6025

Chr Chriseed, Box 1788, Mount Vernon, Washington 98273 U.S.A.Tel: (360) 336-9727

Cro Crookham Company, Box 520, Caldwell, Idaho 83606 U.S.A.Tel: (208) 459-7451

FM Ferry-Morse Seed Co., Box 392, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin 53590 U.S.A.Tel: (608) 837-3758

HM Harris Moran Seed of Canada, 250 South Canal Bank Rd., Kettleby, Ontario LOG 110CanadaTel: (905) 775-9696

Nor Norseco Inc., 2914 Labelle Blvd., Chomedey, Laval, Quebec H7P 5R9 CanadaTel: (514) 332-2275

PETO Petoseed Co., Box 4206, Saticoy, California 93004 U.S.A.Tel: (805) 647-1188

Rio Rio Colorado Seeds Inc., 16783-153 rd Avenue, Springlake, Michigan 49456 U.S.A.Tel: (616) 844-5021

RZ Rijk Zwaan Export B.V., P.O. Box 40,2678, 2G Delier, HollandTel: 0174-532300

Sak Sakata Seed Amercia Inc., Box 188, 18095 Serene Dr., Morgan Hill, California 95038 U.S.A.Tel: (408) 778-7758

Sol

Sto

Solar Seeds Co., 302 South Center St., Eustris, Florida 32726 U.S.A.Tel: (904) 357-5065

Stokes Seed Ltd., 39 James St., Box 10, St. Catharines, Ontario L2R 6R6 CanadaTel: (905) 688-4300

•

•

Sun Sunseeds, 8850 59th Avenue N.E., Brooks, Oregon 97305 U.S.A.Tel: (503) 393-3243

•

•

Tak American Takii Inc., 301 Natividad Rd., Salinas, California 93906 U.S.A.Tel: (408) 443-490 I

ViI Vilmorin Inc., P.O. Box 707, Empire, California 95319 U.S.A.Tel: (209) 529-6000

We would like to thank our seed suppliers for the various cultivar trials submissions in 1998.

- 7 -

- 8 -

LEGEND OF SEED SOURCES

A&C Abbott & Cobb Inc. Pol Polonica International

Aris Aristogenes Inc. Rio Rio Colorado Seeds Inc.

Asg Asgrow Seed Co. Rog Rogers Seed

BBI Bakker Brothers of Idaho, Inc. RS Royal Sluis Inc.

BEJO BEJO ZADEN RZ Rijk Zwaan Export B.V.

BO Brinker-Orsetti Seed Co. Sak Sakata Seed America Inc.

Car Cardinal Seed Co. Inc. Sham Shamrock Seed Co.

Chr Chriseed Sieg Siegers Seed Co.

Cro Crookham Company Sol Solar Seed Co.

CS Campbell Soup Co. Sto Stokes Seeds Ltd.

CU Cornell University Sun Sun Seeds

EJ. Erie James Ltd. Swy Seed way Inc.

FAIR Fairbanks Selected Seed Co. Tak American Takii Inc.

FM Ferry-Morse Seed Co. Toz A. L. Tozer Ltd.

HM Harris Moran Seeds UW University of Wisconsin

Nor Norseco Inc. VDH Vanderhave,

NUN Nunheim Seed Corporation ViI Vilmorin Inc.

NZ Nickerson-Zwaan B.V. ZW Zwaan Seeds, Inc.

PETO Petoseed Co.

•

•

..

INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Horticultural research programs for the fruit, vegetable and ornamentals industries in Ontario havetraditionally been the responsibility of the Horticultural Research Institute of Ontario (H.R.I.O.). As ofApril 1, 1997, this Institute became part of the University of Guelph. All of H.R.1.0., including theMuck Crops Research Station, is now conducting research and technology transfer programs as part ofthe Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph.

The Muck Crops Research Station, established in 1948, is responsible for conducting and co-ordinatingresearch projects to solve problems in the production of vegetables grown in organic soils. The OntarioMuck Crops Research and Services Committee (OMCRSC) representing researchers, industry,growers and crop advisors, makes recommendations for research on an annual basis.

In 1998, Muck Crops Research Station staff conducted and/or cooperated on research projects withresearchers of the Laboratory Services Division and Departments of Environmental Biology and PlantAgriculture of the University of Guelph; researchers from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada researchstations at London, Vineland Station and St. Jean, Quebec; research departments of the Crop ProtectionChemical Industry, numerous seed companies and growers.

The station also provides Advisory Services to growers and other members of agricultural industries inregard to production and marketing of horticultural crops.

Site specific Pest Management for growers in the Bradford area is coordinated by the Bradford andDistrict Pest Management Board in cooperation with Agriculture Division staff of the Ontario Ministryof Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Site specific pest monitoring is available to vegetable producerson a fee for service basis. General regional information about pest trends is available via the agriphoneat (905) 775-3493.

This report highlights the research projects which were conducted in 1998. The results published in thisreport should be treated as a progress report. Some of the chemicals used in the trials are not registeredfor use on the crops they were applied to. Additional trials may be necessary before firm conclusionsand recommendations can be made ..

I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation to the staff for their efforts inconducting these trials and producing this report. My thanks also to all the co-operating researchers,technicians and growers for their interest in muck crops.

Mary Ruth McDonald, Ph.D.Research ScientistDepartment of Plant Agriculture

- 9 -

......0

PRECIPITATION

Month 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993Rain Snow Rain Snow Rain Snow Rain Snow Rain Snow Rain Snow

mm em mm em mm em mm em mm em mm em

January 18 5 15 12 12 16 5 22 9 31 39 35

February 3 46 0 19 45 29 2 11 27 1 0 41

March 21 1 9 26 41 0 49 6 38 13 6 13

April 57 0 37 20 51 3 102 3 90 7 59 0

May 43 0 102 0 77 0 57 0 65 0 61 0

June 38 0 93 0 145 0 35 0 32 0 79 0

July 48 0 54 0 65 0 98 0 166 0 67 0

August 91 0 100 0 51 0 62 0 132 0 89 0

September 84 0 102 0 88 0 32 0 52 0 91 0

October 79 2 61 0 144 2 63 0 71 0 50 2

November 69 0 68 5 31 12 27 8 100 8 60 0

December 24 13 2 18 44 38 14 27 16 36 17 4Annual 575 67 643 100 764 100 546 77 798 96 618 95

Total Precipe 642 743 864 623 894 713

LTA = Long Term Average for university of Guelph, Department of Plant Agriculture - Kettleby1125 Woodchoppers Lane, R.R.#l Kettleby, ontario, LOG lJO. 24 Years (1975-1998)

11

•

•

PRECIPITATION

Month 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 LTARain Snow Rain Snow Rain Snow Rain Snow Rain Snow Rain Snow

mm em mm em mm em mm em mm em mm em

January 13 32 119 20 28 3 17 47 46 26 20 30

February 17 24 3 11 9 8 67 20 61 1 20 21

March 35 15 28 4 0 27 27 25 35 36 32 16

April 56 5 89 0 81 0 10 2 24 0 56 4

May 70 0 72 0 73 0 62 0 43 0 70 0

June 72 0 67 0 124 0 66 0 78 0 73 0

July 89 0 126 0 80 0 49 0 50 0 86 0

August 94 0 83 0 44 0 48 0 75 0 87 0

September 87 0 63 0 109 0 119 0 19 0 84 0

October 69 0 152 0 76 0 32 5 26 0 68 0

November 55 10 70 9 20 6 21 16 50 0 52 10

December 21 16 0 40 25 48 28 4 P P P PAnnual 515 81 872 84 669 92 546 119 P P P PTotal precipe 596 956 761 665 P P

LTA = Long Term Average for university of Guelph, Department of Plant Agriculture - Kettleby1125 Woodchoppers Lane, R.R.#l Kettleby, Ontario, LOG lJO. 24 Years (1975-1998)

12

..........

17

•

MEAN TEMPERATURE (oC)

Month 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 LTAMax. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min.

January -8.8 -18.9 -0.7 -6.7 -4.0 -11.6 -3.0 -11. 3 -0.5 -5.9 -2.9 -11. 3

February -4.5 -13.4 -4.1 -12.5 -2.4 -9.6 -0.4 -8.2 1.9 -4.7 -1.7 -10.4

March 2.7 -5.7 6.4 -4.3 1.2 -7.3 1.0 -6.1 4.6 -2.2 2.5 -5.6

April 12.3 2.0 7.3 -0.3 7.7 0.5 9.5 0.2 13.0 2.0 10.9 1.2

May 17.0 5.3 18.2 6.1 16.7 5.4 13.5 4.0 22.1 10.4 18.7 6.5

June 25.5 12.4 24.5 12.4 22.5 13.9 25.2 12.8 23.3 12.6 23.6 11. 2

July 26.9 15.2 26.2 15.5 23.9 13.5 25.0 13.7 25.5 14.2 26.3 14.1

August 24.0 12.5 26.9 15.6 25.4 13.4 22.4 11. 6 25.7 14.2 25.0 13.0

September 21.2 10.0 19.2 7.4 20.4 10.6 19.4 9.7 22.6 10.6 20.7 9.0

October 15.2 3.3 14.3 6.8 12.7 5.1 13.5 3.5 14.8 5.0 13.2 3.7

November 8.8 1.0 3.0 -2.6 3.3 -2.1 4.4 -0.6 6.8 1.1 5.9 -0.8

December 2.9 -5.5 -2.8 -9.1 1.3 -2.8 0.9 -3.8 P P P P

Mean 11.9 1.5 11.5 2.4 11.1 2.4 11.0 2.1 P P P P

LTA = Long Term Average for University of Guelph, Department of Plant Agriculture - Kettleby1125 Woodchoppers Lane, R.R.#l, Kettleby, ontario, LOG lJO. 24 Years (1975-1998)

18

.....w

......

.j::>

EXTREME TEMPERATURES (oC)

Month 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993H L H L H L H L H L H L

January 12.0 -28.0 10.0 -25.0 9.0 -16.0 3.0 -25.0 7.0 -26.0 11. 0 -20.0

February 6.5 -22.0 5.0 -27.0 10.0 -21.5 10.0 -22.0 4.0 -23.5 4.0 -30.0

March 15.0 -18.0 21.0 -24.0 22.0 -16.0 13.5 -11.5 11. 5 -17.5 15.5 -22.0

April 18.5 -4.0 18.0 - 5.5 30.0 - 4.5 26.5 -5.0 18.5 -7.0 20.5 -3.0

May 32.0 -0.5 29.0 - 1. 0 25.0 - 2.0 30.5 0.0 29.0 -1. 0 29.0 -3.0

June 35.5 0 30.0 6.0 30.0 3.0 33.5 5.5 29.5 0.5 28.5 3.0

July 36.0 5.0 32.5 3.5 34.0 7.0 33.0 8.0 27.0 5.0 33.5 7.0

August 34.5 4.0 32.0 2.5 31.5 6.0 33.5 7.5 31. 0 5.0 33.0 5.0

September 28.0 0 29.0 - 1.5 29.0 - 0.5 31.0 -6.5 27.5 -2.0 29.0 -2.0

October 25.5 -6.0 30.0 - 5.0 25.5 - 7.0 24.5 -5.5 24.5 -5.0 26.0 -5.5

November 15.5 -5.0 17.0 -18.5 24.0 - 7.5 16.5 -13.0 12.5 -11. 0 16.0 -13.0

December 10.0 -24.0 3.0 -28.0 11. 0 -16.5 12.0 -21. 0 8.0 -18.0 9.5 -23.5

Annual 36.0 -28.0 32.5 -28.0 34.0 -21.5 33.5 -25.0 31.0 -26.0 33.5 -30.0

LTA = Long Term Average for University of Guelph, Department of Plant Agriculture - Kettleby1125 Woodchoppers Lane, R.R.#l, Kettleby, ontario, LOG lJO. 24 Years (1975-1998)

23

EXTREME TEMPERATURES (oe)

Month 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 LTAH L H L H L H L H L H L

January 2.0 -29.0 13.0 -20.0 15.0 -28.5 9.0 -26.0 9.0 -19.0 15.0 -36.0

February 12.0 30.0 6.0 -24.5 7.0 -23.5 9.0 -25.0 8.5 -14.0 14.5 -33.0

March 14.0 16.0 21.0 -18.0 12.5 -18.5 12.5 -21. 0 23.0 -17.0 24.0 -29.0

April 24.0 -7.0 14.0 -9.5 19.5 -5.0 21.5 -10.0 22.0 -2.5 30.0 -14.0

May 30.0 -2.0 27.0 -2.0 29.0 -1. 0 22.0 -1. 0 30.0 2.5 32.0 -4.0

June 35.0 -2.0 35.0 5.0 29.5 4.0 29.5 4.0 31.5 2.5 35.5 -2.0

July 32.0 7.0 35.5 6.0 28.5 6.0 32.0 6.0 33.5 7.5 36.0 2.5

August 28.0 5.0 32.0 5.5 31.0 8.5 29.5 5.0 30.0 5.5 36.0 0.5

September 28.5 0.5 28.0 0.0 28.0 1.5 27.0 0.0 30.0 1.0 31.0 -6.5

October 24.5 -5.0 27.0 -0.5 23.0 -3.5 25.5 -3.5 22.0 -2.5 30.0 -9.0

November 18.0 -12.0 17.0 -15.0 18.0 -10.5 13.0 -9.0 17.5 -4.5 24.0 -22.0

December 10.5 -25.0 4.0 -19.5 11.5 -13.5 9.5 -19.0 P P 20.0 -31. 5

Annual 35.0 -30.0 35.5 -24.5 29.5 -28.5 32.0 -26.0 P P 36.0 -36.0

LTA = Long Term Average for university of Guelph, Department of Plant Agriculture - Kettleby1125 Woodchoppers Lane, R.R.#l, Kettleby, ontario, LOG lJO. 24 Years (1975-1998)

24

....<.n

GROWING DEGREE DAYS (5°C Base)

Month 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 LTA

January 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 5 2 0 4 1

February 0 0 1 2 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 1

March 13 6 42 13 3 7 5 25 6 5 60 14

April 49 31 139 126 67 76 90 17 39 63 82 74

May 273 230 189 344 223 214 192 221 190 117 350 235

June 358 389 397 453 317 346 420 427 397 420 394 358

July 531 458 460 480 372 478 498 488 424 440 459 467

August 481 409 435 474 372 465 414 501 455 366 463 432

September 292 310 284 269 286 236 318 246 314 287 348 285

October 70 161 134 164 101 101 135 223 127 133 153 122

November 28 20 53 17 17 18 61 13 14 14 22 28

December 0 0 3 2 0 1 5 0 4 0 P PAnnual 2095 2015 2137 2344 1758 1945 2194 2166 1972 1845 P P

LTA = Long Term Average for university of Guelph, Department of Plant Agriculture - Kettleby1125 Woodchoppers Lane, R.R.#l, Kettleby, ontario, LOG lJO. 24 Years (1975-1998)

6

......'"

•

MINOR USE RESEARCH PROJECTS -1998

The Muck Crops Research Station had the opportunity to participate in several Minor UseProjects during the 1998 season for possible future registration of chemicals for Muck Crops:

DITHANEDGIn furrow treatment.Residue and efficacy study for the control of onion smut.

ORTHENE SPFoliar sprays.Residue study for control of thrips on onions.

LORSBAN 15 GRANULAR AND LORSBAN 4 E.Split application efficacy study for the control of onion maggot.

KERB50WPBroadcast sprayEfficacy study for control of weeds in lettuce on muck soil.

TOPASFoliar sprays.Residue study for early and late blight on celery.

PIRIMORFoliar sprays.Residue and crop tolerance study for use on celery.

PIRIMORFoliar sprays.Residue and crop tolerance study for use on spinach.

GOVERNOR (cyromanzine) and Regent (friponil)Seed TreatmentEfficacy study for control of onion maggot.

- 17 -

- 18 -

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:

Carrot (Daucus carota) cv. CellobunchSclerotinia Rot, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib de Bary)

EVALUATION OF VARIOUS FIELD AND POST-HARVEST FUNGICIDE ANDCALCIUM TREATMENTS FOR THE CONTROL OF SCLEROTINIA ONCARROTS IN STORAGE, 1997/98

MATERIALS: BENLATE 50WP (benomyl 50%), BOTRAN 75W (dicloran 75%) BRAVO 500(chlorothalaniI50%), CALCIMAX (calcium 8%), NITRO 9 (calcium 7%)

METHODS: Carrots were direct seeded (96 seeds/m) in organic soil (pH 6.4, organic matter 60%)naturally infested with the fungus at the Muck Crops Research Station on 27 May, 1997. A randomizedcomplete block arrangement was used. Each replicate consisted of four raised beds (86 cm apart), 5 m inlength. There were two field treatments: BENLATE 50WP at 1.1 kg/ha and BRAVO 500 at 3.2 Llha.Both treatments were applied on 15,23 Sep and 8 Oct as foliar sprays using a pull type plot sprayer withD-3 hollow cone nozzles in 500 Llha of water at 100 psi (boom). Air temperatures were below the longterm (10 year) average for May, July and August, above for June and not different from the long termaverage for September and October. Total rainfall was below the long term (10 year) average for May(62.2 mm), June (65.8 mm), July (25.6 mm), August (48 mm) and October (32 mm) and above averagefor September (119 mm). A tap water washed check at 15°C and unwashed field check were alsoincluded. Carrots were harvested from the two center rows of each plot on 3 and 4 Nov, 1997. Twentyfour bushels (approx. 600 kg) were also harvested on 4 Nov, 1997 from adjacent untreated check plotsand were washed and dipped on 5 Nov, 1997 for 30 seconds in one of five solutions: BENLATE 50WPat 2.2 giL water; BRAVO 500 at 6 mIlL water; BOTRAN 75W at 3.7 g/L water; CALCIMAX at 0.1%solution (1.25 ml/L water) and NITRO 9 at 0.1% solution (1.42 ml/L water). An untreated washeddrench check was also included. All treatments were placed in a Filacell storage where the temperatureand relative humidity were kept at approximately 1°C and 95% respectively. The number of carrots withand without white mold (Sclerotinia) were counted on 30 Jan, 2 Feb, 1998 and 11 May, 1998. Data wereanalyzed using the General Analysis of Variance function of the Linear Models section of Statistix VA. I.

RESULTS: As presented in Table 1.

CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were found among treatments on both assessment dates.Sclerotinia disease infection (%) was the lowest in January and May in the BRAVO 500 drench and theunwashed field check, but they were not significantly lower than any of the other fungicide treatments.The five fungicide treatments had significantly lower percent infection than the CALCIMAX 0.1%drench and the washed field and washed drench checks in January and May. Both calcium treatmentshad high levels of infection but were significantly lower than the washed drench check in May. Thewashed field and drench checks had the highest percent infection both in January and May.

Funding for this project was made available by the Ontario Research Enhancement Program ofAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Table 1. Evaluation of various field and post harvest fungicide and calcium treatments for the control ofSclerotinia Rot on carrots in storage, 1997-98.

- 19 -

Treatments Rate ofProduct

Disease Infection ( % )Jan 98 May 98

Unwashed Field CheckWashed Field CheckWashed Drench CheckBENLATE 50WPBRAVO 500BENLATE 50WP DrenchBRAVO 500 DrenchBOTRAN 75W DrenchCALCIMAX 0.1 % DrenchNITRO 9 0.1 % Drench

1.1 kg/ha3.2 Llha2.2 giL6.0 ml/L3.7 giL1.25 ml/L1.42 ml/L

OJ a *14.8 e13.3 de2.9 ab4.1 ab2.1 ab0.8 a1.4 ab9.4 cd5.9 be

4.7 ab23.3 cd25.1 e

7.7 ab5.5 ab9.6 ab1.5 a9.2 ab

20.3 cd13.9 be

* Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05,Fisher's Protected LSD Test.

- 20 -

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:

Carrot (Daucus carotai cvs. Cellobunch and Six PakSprouting

EVALUATION OF ROYAL MH 60 FOR SPROUT INHIBITING ON CARROTSIN STORAGE, 1997/98

MATERIALS: ROYAL MH 60 (Maleic Hydrazide 60%)

METHODS: Carrots were seeded (65 seeds/m) into organic soil (pH 6.4, organic matter 60%) at theMuck Crops Research Station on 30 May, 1997. A randomized complete block arrangement with 4blocks per treatment was used. Each replicate consisted of two raised beds (86 ern apart) of Cellobunchand two raised beds of Six Pak, 5 m in length. There were three ROYAL MH 60 treatments as follows:6 weeks pre-harvest (8 Sep), 5 weeks pre-harvest (16 Sep) and 4 weeks per harvest (23 Sep). Anuntreated check was also included. Treatments were applied 5.0 kg/ha in 500 L of water using a pulltype plot sprayer with Tee-jet D-2 hollow cone nozzles at 100 psi (boom). The carrots were harvestedfrom the inner rows of each replicate on 23 and 24 Oct. All samples were placed in 12 kg plasticcontainers and put in a Filacell storage where the temperature and relative humidity are keep atapproximately 1°Cand 80% respectively. The numbers of carrots with and without visible sproutingwere counted on 2 Feb and 23 Jun, 1998. Data were analyzed using the General Analysis of Variancefunction of the Linear Models section of Statistix VA. I. with missing data from one rep ofROYAL MH 60 at 5.0 kg/ha 6 weeks pre-harvest.


CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were found among the ROYAL MH 60 treatments and thecheck in June in the percentage of carrots with sprouts and root growth. There were fewer carrots withboth sprouts and root growth when ROYAL MH 60 was applied at five or six weeks before harvest.These treatments also produced the most carrots with short (0-2) sprouts. The ROYAL MH 60treatments did not affect the total number of carrots with sprouts in February or June.

Funding for this project was made available by Uniroyal Chemical Co.

Table 1: Evaluation of ROYAL MH 60 on carrots for the control of sprouting in storage,1997/98.

- 21 -

Treatment & Rate Pre-HarvestTiming

% Carrots Sprouted

Feb Jun

June Evaluation

% Carrots withSprouts (ern)

0-2 2-5 5-10

% Carrots withSprouts &

Roots

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Check 7.7 a* 91.6 a 43.9 a 6.0 b 1.4 a 48.9 b

ROYAL MH 60 @ 4 weeks 7.3 a 82.4 a 70.4 a 0.4 a 0.0 a 29.3 b5.0 kglha

ROYAL MH 60 @ 5 weeks 7.8 a 84.4 a 94.1 c 0.9 a 0.0 a 5.0 a5.0 kglha

ROYAL MH 60 @ 6 weeks 12.5 a 85.2 a 86.2 be 0.8 a 0.0 a 6.9 a5.0 kglha

._--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05,Fisher's Protected LSD Test.

- 22 -

CROP:PEST:

Carrot (Daucus carota) cv. CellobunchWeeds and Soil Erosion

TITLE: EVALUATION OF TEMBIND MULCH FOR WEED CONTROL AND SOILEROSION, 1998

MATERIALS: TEMBIND A 002 (lignosulfanate, 48% solids)

METHODS: Carrots were seeded (96 seeds/m) into organic soil (pH 6.4, organic matter 60%) at theMuck Crops Research Station on 22 Jun. A randomized complete block arrangement was used. Eachreplicate consisted of four raised beds (86 em apart) 5 m in length. An untreated check was alsoincluded. TEMBIND was diluted from 48% to 35% by the addition of water prior to application. Thetreatments were as follows: TEMBIND applied over the entire treatment area at 2500 L/ha, 5000 L/haand 10000 L/ha. A treatment at 10000 L/ha was also applied to the hill but not over the seed row. Anuntreated check was also included. The treatments were applied on 27 Jun as a broadcast spray using apull type plot sprayer with Tee-Jet 8010 flat fan nozzles at 60 psi (pump). Soil moisture readings weretaken three times a week starting 10 Jul to 7 Oct from one replicate of each treatment using a timedomain reflectometry (TDR). A pair of 15 em probes were placed 5 em and 20 em deep at a 90° angle.Weed counts of 1rrr'were taken on 17 Jul, 4 Aug and 30 Oct. All treatments were sprayed withAFOLAN-F at 1.0 L/Ha in 350 L/Ha of water on 18 Jul to control weed growth. A harvest yield wastaken on 30 Oct of 2.33 m of row. The air temperatures were above the long term ( 10 year) average forMay and not different from the long term average for June, July, August and September. Total rainfallwas below the long term ( 10 year) average for May (42.6 mm), July (50.2 mm), and September(18.6 mm), above average for August (114.6 mm) and not different from the long term average forJune (78.4 mm). Data were analyzed using the General Analysis of Variance function of the LinearModels section of Statistix V.4.1.


CONCLUSIONS: TEMBIND was an interesting product to work with. The product is a thick blackliquid that requires large amounts of water per hectare to work properly. Large nozzles were used toprovide good coverage and proper flow. The treated areas were clearly visible 7-10 days afterapplication. The treated areas had a black appearance to them and when touched had a hard crust. Thehard crust did not, however, reduce carrot or weed germination. Weed counts were slightly lower in thetreated areas in July only. Yield was similar for all treatments. No phytotoxicity was noted during thetrial, on any of the treatments. TEMBIND did maintain the shape (structure) of the raised bed, but thelack of rainfall in the early stages of the trial may also have been a benefit.

Funding for this project was made available by Ologosol

•

Table 1: Evaluation of TEMBIND for weed control in carrots, 1998.

- 23 -

Treatment & Rate Weed Population (rrr') *17 Jul 14 Aug 30 Oct

Yield (kg)2.33 m

..Control 348.5 0.0 6.7 8.89

TEMBIND @ 2500 Llha 306.0 1.0 11.0 8.75

TEMBIND @ 5000 Llha 332.8 1.0 10.3 8.70

TEMBIND @ 10000 L/ha 307.0 0.5 15.3 9.44

TEMBIND @ 10000 L/ha 271.0 1.0 10.3 9.72(except seed row)

* Weeds present in total number are those of chickweed, common groundsel, oakleaf goose foot,mapleleaf goosefoot, portulaca, redroot pigweed and prostrate pigweed.

No significant differences (P = 0.05, Fisher's Protected LSD Test) were found among of thetreatments.

- 24 -

CROP:PEST:

Carrot (Daucus carota) cv. CellobunchViolet Root Rot, Rhizoctonia crocorum (Pers.:Fr.) DC.

TITLE: EVALUATION OF FUNGICIDES AND CALCIUM FOR THE CONTROL OFVIOLET ROOT ROT ON CARROTS, 1998

MATERIALS: RONALIN DF (vinclozolin 50%), ROVRAL (iprodione 50%), NOVA CAL (29.5%calcium, 18% sulphur, 3% magnesium)

METHODS: Carrots were direct seeded (96 seeds/m) in organic soil naturally infested with the fungusin a commercial field in the Holland Marsh on 15 Jun, 1998. A randomized complete block arrangementwas used. Each replicate consisted of four raised beds (86 em apart), 5 m in length. Two rates ofROVRAL were applied as drench at 2.25 kg/ha and 4.5 kg/ha in 1000 L of water. The RONALIN wasalso applied as a drench at 2.25 kgiha in 1000 L of water. The drench treatments were applied with a Vbelt seeder using a gravity flow line to place the drench directly in the seed furrow. NOVA CAL waspre-plant incorporated at 1000 and 2000 kg/ha. An untreated check was also included. Carrots wereharvested from the two center rows of each plot on 5 Oct. Carrots were evaluated on 10 Nov andassessed for disease severity and percent infected with the disease. NOVA CAL at 2000 kg/ha was notincluded in the analysis because most of the replicates were outside the heavily infested area. The airtemperatures were above the long term ( 10 year) average for May and not different from the long termaverage for June, July, August and September. Total rainfall was below the long term ( 10 year) averagefor May (42.6 mm), July (50.2 mm), and September (18.6 mm), above average for August (114.6 mm)and not different from the long term average for June (78A mm ). Data were analyzed using the GeneralAnalysis of Variance function of the Linear Models section of Statistix VA.l.


CONCLUSIONS: The were no significant differences found among any of the treatments. Alltreatments had severe disease development at harvest. Treatment location seemed to dictate diseaseseverity. No treatment appeared to provide any control of the disease, at these high levels of diseasepressure.

Table 1. Control of Violet Root Rot on carrots in 1998.

Treatment andRate

Application Disease Infection (%) Degree ofInfection *

2.2

2.9

1.873.6

87.5

100.0

Drench

Drench

Check

[email protected] kg/ha

[email protected] kg/ha

ROVRAL @ Drench 96.1 2.94.50 kg/ha

NOVA CAL @ Pre-plant 86.0 2.31000 kg/ha

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------No significant differences (P = 0.05, Fisher's Protected LSD Test) were found among anyof the treatments.

* 5.0 = no infection, 3.7 = 50% carrots infected, 1.0 = 100% infection, mycelium growth

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:

Carrot (DaUCllS carota) cv. Six PakCavity Spot, Pythium intermedium de Bary, Pythium irregulare Buisman and Pythiumsulcatum Pratt and Mitchell

EVALUATION OF RIDOMIL 2G AND RIDOMIL GOLD FOR THE CONTROLOF CAVITY SPOT INCIDENCE AND SEVERITY ON CARROTS, 1998

- 25 -

MA TERIALS: RIDOMIL 2G (2% metalaxyl), RIDOMIL GOLD 1G (1% mefanoxam )

METHODS: Carrots were direct seeded (96 seeds/m) in organic soil (pH 6A, organic matter 60%)naturally infested with the fungus at the Muck Crops Research Station on 28 May, 1998. A randomizedcomplete block arrangement was used. Each replicate consisted of six rows (55 ern apart), 5 m in length.RIDOMIL 2G and RIDOMIL GOLD 1G were applied in the seed furrow at a rate of 215g (product) per100m of row. An untreated check was also included. Recommended rates for weed and insect controlwere followed according to OMAFRA publication 363, Vegetable Production Recommendations 199899. Samples of 20 carrots were harvested from each replication every two weeks, starting 10 weeks afterseeding (6 Aug) and continuing until 26 Nov. Samples were washed, weighed, tops removed andassessed for incidence (area under the disease progress curve, AUDPC) and severity (area under diseaseindex curve for the growing season, AUDIC) of cavity spot. Cavity spot index was assessed as follows:very light <1 mm, light 1-2 mm, medium 2-5 mm, heavy 5-10 mm and very heavy >10 mm. The airtemperatures were above the long term ( 10 year) average for May and not different from the long termaverage for Jun, Jul, Aug and Sep. Total rainfall was below the long term ( 10 year) average for May(42.6 mm), Jul (50.2 mm), and Sep (18.6 mm), above average for Aug (114.6 mm) and not differentfrom the long term average for Jun (78A mm). Irrigation water was applied twice in July atapproximately 2.5 ern of water per application. Data were analyzed using the General Analysis ofVariance function of the Linear Models section of Statistix VA.I.


CONCLUSIONS: The application ofRIDOMIL 2G and RIDOMIL GOLD IG lowered cavity spotincidence and severity but these were not significant different from the control. The two fungicidetreatments were equal in both the cavity spot incidence and the severity index. A drier than averagegrowing season may have reduced the incidence of cavity spot.

Table 1. Fungicide treatment effects on cavity spot incidence (AUDPC) and severity index (AUDIC),1998.

Treatment

Control

RIDOMIL2G@215 g/IOOmrow

RIDOMIL GOLD IG@215 g/IOOmrow

AUDPC

7672.8 *

6807.8

6927.8

AUDIC

2672.0

2341.5

2334.3

* No significant differences (P = 0.05, Fisher's Protected LSD Test) were found among any of thetreatments.

- 26 -

CROP:PEST:

Celery (Apium graveolensi cv. Florida 683Septoria Late Blight, Septoria apiicola (Speg.)

TITLE: EVALUATION OF FUNGICIDES FOR THE CONTROL OF SEPTORIA LATE BLIGHTON CELERY, 1998

MATERIALS: BRAVO 500 (chlorothaloniI50%), CHAMP 2 F (copper hydroxide 37.5%), TOPAZ(propiconazole 25%), BRAVO UL TREX 825 (tetrachloroisophthalonitrile 82.5%), DITHANE DG (mancozeb75% )

METHODS: Celery was seeded into Plastomer plug trays (200 cells/tray) on 6 May, 1998. Fifty percent of thetrays were seeded with Septoria apiicola infested seed. A Septaria apiicola spore suspension(250 g diseased tissue in 1000 ml), was prepared from dried infected celery leaves collected in 1997. Florida 683celery seeds (35 g) were immersed in the suspension, continuously agitated for 24 hours, dried and then seeded intothe trays. The celery was transplanted out on 30 Jun. Clean and infected plants were transplanted in alternatingrows throughout the trial. A randomized complete block arrangement with four blocks per treatment was used.Each replicate consisted of 6 rows (55 em apart), 5 m in length. Spraying began when evidence of blight appearedin the trial. Treatments were applied on 11,20,29 Aug and 11 Sep using a pull type plot sprayer with Teelet D-3hollow cone nozzles at 100 psi (boom) and 500 Llha of water. CHAMP 2F at 5.0 L'ha, TOPAZ at 295 ml/ha,TOPAZ at 150 ml/ha + BRAVO 500 at 1.6 Llha and BRAVO ULTREX at 204 kg/ha were applied at each spray.DITHANE DG at 2.25 kg/ha was applied on 11,20 Aug and II Sep and BRAVO 500 at 3.0 L'ha on 29 Aug asrecommended in the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Publication #363, 1998/1999Vegetable Production Recommendations. An untreated check was also included. Visual ratings of the area ofleaves infected with Septoria Late Blight were taken using a scale of 1 to 5 on1 Oct. Harvest yields of ten plants and the percentage of blight on the ten oldest stalks were also taken. The airtemperatures were not different from the long term (10 year) average for June, July, August and September. TotalrainfalI was below the long term (10 year) average for July (50.2 mm), and September (18.6 mm), above theaverage for August (114.6 mm) and not different from the long term average for June (7804 mm). Data wereanalyzed using the General Analysis of Variance function of the Linear Models section of Stat istix VA.1.


CONCLUSIONS: The fungicide treatments effectively reduced the number of petioles with blight lesions but hadno effect on visual disease ratings or yield (Table I). AlI of the fungicide treatments were equalIy effective. Percentinfection was low throughout the entire trial compared to previous years. The light pressure could be a result of lowrainfalI during September or unsatisfactory seed inoculation prior to plug tray establishment.

Table 1. Evaluation offoliar applied fungicides for the control of Septoria Late Blight on celery, 1998.

Treatment Visual FieldBlight Rating *

% Petioles Average Plant Harvest YieldInfected Length (ern) 10 plants (kg)

15.615.915.018.2

680470.371.369.8

12.5 b***0.3 a0.3 a0.0 a

4.0NS**4044.24.3

CheckConventionalTOPAZ at 295 mUhaTOPAZ at 150 mUha +

BRAVO 500 at 1.6 LlhaBRAVOULTREXat2Akglha 404 0.5a 6904 16.3CHAMP 2F at 5.0 Llha 4.3 0.0 a 68.9 16.1._----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* 5.0 = no infection evident, 3.7 = infection on petioles and stalk, 1.0 = entire plant infected

** NS = no significant treatment effects were observed.

*** Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05, Fisher'sProtected LSD Test.

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.) cvs. Tribute, Festival and CopraOnion Smut (Urocystis cepulae Frost)

EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF PRIMING SEED FOR CONTROL OFONION SMUT, 1998

- 27 -

*

MATERIALS: PRO GRO (carbathiin 30%, thiram 50%), methyl cellulose

METHODS: Raw onion seed (46 seeds/m) of onion cultivars Tribute, Festival and Copra were seeded inorganic soil naturally infested with onion smut (pH 6.4, organic matter 60%) at the Muck CropsResearch Station on 13 May, 1998. Both primed and unprimed seed were from the same seed lot. Thestandard treatment for onion smut used was PRO GRO at 25 g/kg plus 1% methyl cellulose per kg ofseed. An untreated check was also included. A randomized complete block arrangement with 4 blocksper treatment was used. Each replicate plot consisted of2 rows (42 cm apart) of Tribute, Festival andCopra primed and two rows of non-primed, 5 m in length. All treatments were seeded using a push Vbelt seeder. Three random 1 m sections were marked off, and germination counts were recorded (25,27,29 May and 1 Jun) to determine an initial stand. At one (15 Jun.) and three (15 Jul) true leaves, one ofthe 1 m sections was harvested and evaluated by looking at the bulb and leaves for evidence of smut.The remaining 1 m section was evaluated on 11 Sep. 2.33 m was harvested on 25 Sep to determineyield. Air temperatures were above the long term ( 10 year) average for May and not different from thelong term average for June, July, August and September. Total rainfall was below the long term( 10 year) average for May (42.6 mm), July (50.2 mm), and September (18.6 mm ), above average forAugust (114.6 mm ) and not different from the long term average for June (78.4 mm ). Data wereanalyzed using the General Analysis of Variance function of the Linear Models section of Statistix V.4.1.

RESULTS: As outlined in Table 1.

CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were found between treatments or among cultivars.Priming lowers emergence time but this does not translate into a lower percentage of smut. Onion smutlevels were comparable for each cultivar whether the seed was primed or not. Priming onion seed mayhave a number of positive effects, however reduction of onion smut does not appear to be one of them.

!.~!.>!~_!__~_~aJ~.?~i~~_~f_the_~ff~!_~fp!i~i_~g.£~i~~_~~~~_fl?~!~~_~~!1~~~!.9_(9!1jS'E.~IE.t!b_l~2_8..: _

Incidence of Smut %Cultivar Treatment 15 Jun 15 Jul 11 Sep Yield t/ha *

Tribute Primed 62.7 13.7 3.4 65.0

Tribute Non-Primed 61.8 28.6 3.0 58.5

Festival Primed 54.7 21.2 4.9 61.2

Festival Non-Primed 45.7 20.2 8.4 61.4

Copra Primed 64.2 27.8 5.1 54.4

Copra Non-Primed 63.4 26.3 10.8 69.1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No significant differences (P = 0.05, Fisher's Protected LSD Test) were found among anyof the treatments or cultivars.Bushels per Acre = t/ha x 17.8

- 28 -

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.) cv. TributeOnion Smut (Urocystis cepulae Frost)

EVALUATION OF SYNTHETIC GERMINATION STIMULANTS FORCONTROL OF ONION SMUT, 1998.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work was to determine if synthetic germination stimulants asapplied for the control of Allium white rot, would reduce onion smut on onions.

MATERIALS: DADS ( diallyl disulphide 85.5%, diallyl sulphide 4.5%), DPDS (n-propyl disulphide88%, related compounds 2%)

METHODS:Greenhouse Trial: Trials were conducted in a commercial field and under controIled conditions

in the greenhouse to determine if the application of synthetic germination stimulants to soil wouldreduce the incidence of onion smut. For the greenhouse trials, naturally infested organic soil wascollected from the field and mixed with either of the synthetic germination stimulants: diallyl disulfide(DADS 85.5%, diallyl sulfide 4.5%, at a rate of I ml/m' in 50 ml of water) or n-propyl disulfide (DPDS,88%, related compounds 2%, at I or 2 ml/m' in 50 ml water ), obtained from United Agri-Products.These rates were calculated to reproduce a concentration equi valent to 10 L/ha in the top 20 ern of fieldsoil. However, as the result of a calculation error they represent a rate of 60 L/ha in the field. Treatedsoil was stored for three months in a closed black polyethylene bag. For Trial I, conducted duringFebruary and March 1998, treated and untreated soil was placed in plug trays (Plastomer 228 cells/tray)and seeded with onion CV.'s Taurus and Fortress. Trial 2 was conducted during November andDecember 1998 using cv.'s Quantum and Gazette. There were 50 onions per replication and six reps pertreatment. In Trial 1, onion smut was assessed weekly until the onions reached the 3 true leaf stage.Cumulative infection rates are presented. In Trial 2, 25 onions per replication were assessed at the firsttrue leaf stage ( data presented) and third true leaf stage (data not presented).

Field Trial: A commercial vegetable field in the Holland/Bradford Marsh was treated withDADS injected at depths of 10 and 20 cm at a rate of 10 L/ha in 500 L/ha of water on 19 Sep, 1996 and24 Sep, 1997. The solution was applied using a modified Vorlex soil fumigator with eleven injectionhoses spaced 20 em apart. The soil was sealed following treatment using a mechanical roller and the soilremained undisturbed until the following spring. Crops unrelated to Allium spp. were grown in theintervening years. In 1998 onions, (cv. Tribute), were seeded 2 Jun using a V-belt push seeder. Eachreplicate plot consisted of three 3 m rows There were three replications per treatment. Emergence wascounted in three 1 m sections per replicate, which were then pulled at the first (13 Jul) and third (5 Aug)true leaf and at harvest (25 Aug) and assessed for incidence of smut. Yields were taken from a 2 msection of row.

RESULTS: As presented in Tables 1,2 and 3.

CONCLUSIONS: In the greenhouse Trial 1, DADS and the higher rate ofDPDS reduced the incidenceon smut on cv. Taurus but not on Fortress (Table 1). In the second greenhouse trial, none of thetreatments had an effect on smut incidence, (Table 2) even though the incidence of smut in the checktreatments was similar in both trials. In the field trial, where the soil was treated twice before onionswere grown, onions in the plots treated with DADS had significantly less smut at the first and second,but not the third assessment (Table 3). This is quite common in smut trials, because the levels of smuttend to be low at the end of the season. There were no significant differences in yield. The level of smutin the untreated check was lower in the field trial than is usually observed in the Bradford area. This canbe attributed to the late seeding date ( 2 Jun) when the soil would be warmer. Warm soil contributes to arapid emergence of the onion seedlings which usually reduces the incidence of smut. In the field,DADS, as applied for white rot control, resulted in a small but significant reduction in incidence of onion

•

- 29 -

smut. Results from the greenhouse trials suggest that two applications of DADS are needed to reduce theincidence of smut under conditions of high inoculum concentration. There is also a possibility that DPDSat high rates may reduce smut. However, since DPDS is less effective for white rot control, the potentialfor developing this materials is limited. Under field conditions similar to the test area, DADSapplication for smut control alone would not be economical, but a gradual reduction of onion smut maybe a fringe benefit of DADS use for white rot control. This is the first report that synthetic germinationstimulants have the potential to reduce smut in onions.

Partial funding for this project was made available by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture andFood Food Systems 2002 Program, by the Ontario Research Enhancement Program of Agricultureand Agri Food Canada, United Agri-Products, The Bradford and District Vegetable GrowersAssociation and individual growers in the Bradford area.

Table 1. Greenhouse Trial 1: Effect of soil treatment with synthetic germination stimulants on onionsmut on two onion cultivars - Winter 1998.

Percent Onion Smut

Treatment Taurus Fortress

Check 62.5 a* 53.2 abc

DADS

DPDS

DPDS 2

38.8 cd

59.6 a

29.2 d

54.1 abc

40.5 bed

43.4 a-d

Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05,Fisher's Protected LSD Test.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*

Table 2. Greenhouse Trial 2: Effect of soil treatment with synthetic germination stimulants on onionsmut on two onion cultivars - Fall 1998.

Percent Onion Smut

Treatment Gazette Quantum

Check

DADS

DPDS

DPDS 2

67

56

71

73

75

58

73

69

No significant differences (P = 0.05) were found among treatments of between cultivars.

Table 3. Incidence of onion smut and yield of onions following two soil applications of DADS, 1998.Assessment Date

Treatment 13 Jul 5 Aug 25 Aug Yield (kg/2 m)

Check 45.0 a 46.0 a 11.0 a 4.9 a

DADS 31.1 b 26.4 b 10.0 a 3.0 a----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05,

Fisher's Protected LSD Test.

- 30 -

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.), cvs. Gazette and QuantumOnion Smut, Urocystis cepulae (Frost)

EVALUATION OF FURROW TREATMENTS FOR CONTROL OF ONIONSMUT, 1998

MATERIALS: PRO GRO (carbathiin 30%, thiram 50%), methyl cellulose, RAXIL (tebuconozole8%), VITAVAX (carbathiin 97%)

METHODS: Raw onion seed (46 seeds/m) of two cultivars Gazette and Quantum were seeded inorganic soil (pH 6.4, organic matter 60%) naturally infested with onion smut at the Muck CropsResearch Station on 5 and 6 May, 1998. The standard treatment for control of onion smut was PROGRO at 25 glkg plus 1% methyl cellulose per kg of seed. RAXIL at 36 ml/kg of seed and 72 ml/kg ofseed were applied to the seed. PRO GRO at 25 g/kg plus a 1% methyl cellulose solution were alsoapplied to both rates of RAXIL. VITAVAX at two rates (0.6 glm of row and 1.2 glm of row) wasapplied at seeding. An untreated check was also included. A randomized complete block arrangementwith 4 blocks per treatment was used. Each replicate consisted of 2 rows of Gazette and 2 rows ofQuantum (42 em apart), 5 m in length. All treatments were seeded using a push V-belt seeder.VITAVAX treatments were applied on the V-belt along with the seed. Three random 2 m sections weremarked off, and germination counts were recorded (19, 22, 25, 27 May) to determine initial stand. Atone (8 Jun) and three (13 Jul) true leaves, one of the 2 m sections were harvested and evaluated bylooking at the bulb and leaves for evidence of smut. The remaining 2 m section was evaluated on (21, 24Aug), and a yield section of 2.33 m was taken on 10 Sep. The air temperatures were above the longterm ( 10 year) average for May and not different from the long term average for June, July, August andSeptember. Total rainfall was below the long term ( 10 year) average for May (42.6 mm),July (50.2 mm), and September (18.6 mm), above average for August (114.6 mm) and not differentfrom the long term average for June (78.4 mm). Data were analyzed using the General Analysis ofVariance function of the Linear Models section of Statistix V.4.1.

RESULTS: As outlined in Tables 1 and 2.

CONCLUSIONS: The fungicide treatments significantly reduced onion smut incidence on the 8 Junassessment of Gazette (Table 1). Significant differences in yield were found among treatments for bothcultivars. Within the cultivar Gazette assessed on 8 Jun VITAVAX at 1.2 glm of row had the lowestincidence of smut and was significantly lower than the RAXIL at 36 ml/kg and the check. Nosignificant differences were found between any treatments on the other assessment dates (Table 1). Nosignificant differences were found on the first two assessments for the cultivar Quantum, but the checkdid have the highest percentage of smut on both dates (Table 2). On the third assessment the PRO GROand methyl cellulose had the lowest percentage of smut at 0.8 % and was significantly lower thanRAXIL plus PRO GRO and methyl cellulose (8.4%) and RAXIL at 36 ml/kg (10.9%). When yield wasassessed, PRO GRO plus methyl cellulose resulted in the highest yield in both cultivars (Gazette 77.5t/ha, Quantum 82.5 t/ha) and the untreated check the lowest (Gazette 37.5 t/ha, Quantum 42.5 t/ha.)VITAVAX applied in the seed furrow at 1.2 glm was as effective as the PRO GRO seed treatment.There was no advantage to applying RAXIL with PRO GRO.


..

Table 1. Evaluation of furrow fungicide treatment for the control of onion smut on cultivarGazette,1998.

Rate of Incidence of Smut % Yield.I!~~~~~~!~ ~!~P~~! ~}~_~ ]}_I~1 ~12~_~~~g !~~~ _Check 72.6 c** 29.6 NS*** 9.6 37.5 dPRO GRO + mc**** 25 g/kg seed 25.0 a 15.2 3.6 77.5 aRAXIL 36 ml/kg 52.9 b 33.4 5.2 60.0 abcRAXIL 72 ml/kg 31.3 a 16.5 12.3 57.5 beRAXIL + 36 ml/kg 32.6 a 10.1 3.5 72.5 ab

PRO GRO + me 25 g/kg seedRAXIL+ 72 ml/kg 29.2a 17.la 2.5a 57.5bc

PRO GRO + me 25 g/kg seedVITAVAX 0.6 g/m 36.7 ab 17.3 a 3.3 a 52.5 cd.Y.J~~~~~ l~~_g{~ ~~~~~ ]_6~~_~ ~~1_a ]_~.~_~~__

Table 2. Evaluation of furrow fungicide treatment for the control of onion smut on cultivarQuantum, 1998.

Rate of Incidence of Smut % YieldI!~~~~~pJ~ ~IQg~~J ~l~p )}_l~l ~l~~!L~~g JDl~~ _Check 58.5 NS*** 30.9 7.7 abc ** 42.5 cPRO GRO + mc**** 25 g/kg seed 40.2 14.0 0.8 a 82.5 aRAXIL 36 ml/kg 42.3 24.9 10.9 c 77.5 abRAXIL 72 ml/kg 32.3 29.5 3.3 ab 60.0 beRAXIL + 36 ml/kg 34.5 7.1 1.3 ab 80.0 ab

PRO GRO + me 25 g/kg seedRAXIL+ 72 ml/kg 21.2 a 13.5 a 8.4bc 75.0ab

PRO GRO + me 25 g/kg seedVITAVAX 0.6 g/m 30.0 a 16.9 a 1.3 a 62.5 abc.Y.J~~~~~ 1~~_g{~ ~2~~~ ]_8~1_~ ~~~_a_b_~ ]~~Q_~~__

- 31 -

*

**

***

****

Both tables - Bushels per Acre = t/ha x 17.8

Both tables - Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different atP = 0.05, Fisher's Protected LSD Test.

Both tables - NS = no significant treatment effects were observed.

Both tables - me = methyl cellulose

- 32 -

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.), cvs. Cortland and TributeOnion Smut tUrocystis cepulae Frost)

EV ALUATION OF PRO GRO IN COMBINATION WITH INSECTICIDES FORCONTROL OF ONION SMUT CONTROL: FIELD TRIAL IN THE HOLLAND MARSH,1998.

•

MATERIALS: PRO GRO (carbathiin 30% + thiram 50%), LORSBAN 15G (chlorpyrifos 15%),AZTEC G (phosetbupirin 2.0% + cyfluthrin 0.1%), GOVERNOR 75WP (cyromazine 75%), REGENT(fiprinol 500 giL).

METHODS: The trial was conducted in naturaUy infested muck soil (pH 604, organic matter 60%) atthe Muck Crops Research Station in the HoUand Marsh and was arranged in a randomized complete block withfour replications. PRO GRO and seed treatments were commercially custom-coated at rates of 20 g ai/kg andGOVERNOR 75WP 50 g ai/kg of seed (cv. Tribute) by Asgrow Seed Company. Similarly, Bejo Zaden Ltd.provided seed custom-coated with REGENT at a rate of 25 g ailkg of seed (cv. Cortland). The trial was seeded at arate of 47 seeds m of row on 26 May and 29 May using a push V-belt seeder. LORSBAN 15G (4.8 kg ai/ha) andAZTEC G (0.5 kg ai/ha) were placed on the seeder belt with the seed. Raw seed of both cultivars were included asuntreated checks. Each treatment plot consisted of four 6 m rows of onions spaced 40 em apart. Four separate 2 msections were designated for each of three onion smut assessments and final yield. To determine initial stand,emergence counts were taken on 10 Jun and 17 Jun in each 2 m section. At the first (2 Jul) and third and fourth (23Jul) true leaf stages of onions, and at final harvest (22 Sep) all the onions in the 2 m sections of row were puUed,washed and examined for onion smut infection. Harvest weight was taken from the remaining 2 m section ofonions. Data were analyzed using the General Analysis of Variance function of the Linear Models section ofStatistix, VA.\. Interaction between PRO GRO and insecticides (none, LORSBAN 15G, GOVERNOR 75WP,AZTEC G, REGENT) was analyzed using a 2 x 5 factorial design.

RESULTS: Data is summarized in Table 1.

CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were found among treatments for incidence of onion smut in the firstand second assessments and at final harvest (Table 1). A significant interaction between PRO GRO and theinsecticides was found in yield and all assessments except the third. Incidence of onion smut was less in allfungicide-insecticide combination treatments (significantly less with LORSBAN 15G) than those with PRO GROalone, with the exception of PRO GRO + REGENT where incidence of onion smut increased. The PRO GRO +LORSBAN 15G treatment consistently had the least incidence of onion smut throughout the season and the highestyield. Raw seed treated with LORSBAN 15G had significantly less incidence of onion smut than the checkthroughout the season. The nature of these results suggest a possible synergistic reaction between these twopesticides. Raw seed treated with GOVERNOR 75WP had significantly higher incidence of onion smut than thecheck at the first assessment. The highest yields occurred in combination treatments which is attributed to theadditional onion maggot control.

Partial funding of this project was made available by Food Systems 2002

Table 1. Percent incidence of onion smut on onions at the first and third and fourth true leaf stages and at finalharvest in onions treated with PRO GRO and insecticides.

- 33 -

Incidence of Onion Smut (%)

•Treatment Rate l" true leaf

2 Jul3-4 true leaf

23 Ju1Harvest22 Sep

Yield(kg/plot)

6 Oct

Check (Cortland) 44.3 bc· 40.9 a 6.75 a 5.42 eCheck (Tribute) 42.0 bc 33.3 a-c 3.86 a 5.61 dePROGRO 20 g ai/kg seed 35.0 b-f 27.1 b-e 4.63 a 7.06 cdLORSBAN 15G 4.8 kg ai/ha 19.4 d-f 25.2 b-f 4.15 a 7.53 beGOVERNOR 75WP 50 g ai/kg seed 62.3 a 28.7 a-d 3.70 a 5.27 eAZTEC G 0.5 kg ai/ha 4.76 a-c 34.5 ab 6.28 a 5.44 deREGENT 25 g ai/kg seed 38.0 b-d 15.2 d-f 4.29 a 9.70 aPROGRO

+ LORSBAN 15G 20 g ai/kg seed + 4.8 kg ai/ha 15.7 f 11.8 f 3.22 a 9.12 abPROGRO

+ GOVERNOR 75WP (20+50) g ai/kg seed 28.8 c-f 26.6 b-f 3.69 a 8.02 bePRO GRO + AZTEC G 20 g ai/kg seed + 17.7 ef 12.3 ef 3.38 a 8.19 a-c

0.5 kg ai/haPRO GRO + REGENT (20+25) g ai/kg seed 50.8 ab 19.0 c-f 4.83 a 9.09 ab

•Statistics performed on arcsinv'x transformed dataNumbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P=0.05, Fisher'sProtected LSD test.

- 34 -

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.), cvs. Cortland and TributeOnion Smut iUrocystis cepulae Frost)

EVALUATION OF DlTHANE 75DG FURROW TREATMENTS AND ROOTSHIELDT-22 IN COMBINATION WITH INSECTICIDES FOR ONION SMUT CONTROL: FIELDTRIAL IN THE HOLLAND MARSH, 1998.

MATERIALS: PRO GRO (carbathiin 30% + thiram 50%), DlTHANE 75DG (mancozeb 75%), ROOTSHIELDT-22 (Trichoderma harzianum Rifai strain KRL-AG2 1.15%, l x l O'cfu/g dry weight), LORSBAN 15G(chlorpyrifos 15%) AZTEC G (phosetbupirin 2.0% + cyfluthrin 0.1%), GOVERNOR 75WP (cyromazine 75%),REGENT (fiprinol 500 giL).

METHODS: The trial was conducted in naturally infested muck soil (pH 604, organic matter 60%) at the MuckCrops Research Station in the Holland Marsh and was arranged in a randomized complete block design with fourreplications. PRO GRO 30/50D and GOVERNOR 75WP seed treatments were commercially custom-coated atrates of20 g ai/kg and 50 g ai/kg of seed (cv. Tribute) by Asgrow Seed Company. Similarly, Bejo Zaden Ltd.,provided seed custom-coated with REGENT at a rate of25 g ai/kg of seed (cv. Cortland). The trial was seeded at arate of 47 seeds m of row on 15 May, using a push V-belt seeder. All granular formulations were placed on theseeder belt with the seed. These were LORSBAN 15G, AZTEC 2.0/0.1G, DlTHANE 75DG and ROOTSHIELDT-22 1.15%G (4.8 kg ai/ha, 0.5 kg ai/ha, 6.6 kg ai/ha respectively). Also at the time of seeding the DlTHANE75DG drench (6.6 kg ai/ha in 1000 Llha of water) was applied directly in the seed furrow with a gravity flow line.Raw seed of both cultivars were included as untreated checks. Each treatment plot consisted of four 6 m rows ofonions spaced 40 em apart. Four separate 2 m sections were designated for each of three onion smut assessmentsand final yield. To determine initial stand, emergence counts were taken on 2, 9 and 16 Jun in each 2 m section. Atthe first (25 Jun) and third and fourth (21 Jul) true leaf stages and at final harvest (22 Sep) all the onions in the 2 msections of row were pulled, washed and examined for onion smut infection. Harvest weight was taken from theremaining 2 m section of onions. Data were analyzed using the General Analysis of Variance function of the LinearModels section of Statistix VA.1. Interaction between fungicides (DITHANE 75DG granular, drench,ROOTSHIELD T-22) and insecticides (none, LORSBAN 15G, AZTEC G, GOVERNOR 75WP, REGENT)were analyzed using a 3 x 5 factorial design.

RESULTS: Results are summarized in Table 1.

CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were found among treatments for incidence of onion smut at the secondand third assessments and final yield (Table 1). A significant interaction between fungicides and insecticides wasfound in yield and all assessments except for the third. In general, treatment combinations that included DITHANE75DG granular had less incidence of onion smut and higher yield than the other fungicide treatments. Treatmentcombinations with REGENT and GOVERNOR 75WP had higher incidence of onion smut than treatments withonly fungicide(s), while those with LORSBAN 15G and AZTEC G enhanced onion smut control. The highestyields occurred in the treatments containing insecticide in addition to fungicide(s), which is a result of the additionalonion maggot control.

Partial funding for this project was made available by Food Systems 2002

Table 1. Percent incidence of onion smut at the first, third and fourth true leaf stages and final harvest of onionstreated with DlTHANE 75DG furrow treatments and ROOTSHIELD T-22 in combination with insecticides at theMuck Crops Research Station, Bradford, Ontario, 1998.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Incidence ofonion smut %

----_..................- ...-- - - - - - - _..................... ----- - - - - - ...-_... - --_............... ----_... YieldTreatment Rate 151 true leaf 3-4 true leaf Harvest' (kg/2m)

(g ai/ha) 25 Jun 21 lui 22 Sep 6 Oct-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Check (Cortland) 73.9 NS2 47.6 a' 22.2 a 1.30 hiCheck (Tribute) 84.4 60.0 a 16.9 ab 0.78 iPROGRO 20(S)4 60.8 27.7 b 3.7 cd 4.34 fgPRO GRO + DlTHANE 75DG 20(s)+6.6 56.5 6.34 ef 7.6 a-d 5.24 e-gPRO GRO+ DlTHANE 75DG

DRENCH 20(s)+6.6 68.4 8.94 ef 8.1 a-c 4.13 fgPRO GRO+ DlTHANE 75DG

+ LORSBAN 15G 20(s)+6.6+4.8 40.5 2.52 f 1.0 cd 8.70 a-cPRO GRO+ DlTHANE 75DGDRENCH + LORSBAN 15G 20(s)+6.6+4.8 60.0 7.21 ef 5.5 a-d 7.35 b-ePRO GRO+ DlTHANE 75DG

+AZTECG 20(s)+6.6+0.5 46.2 4.92 ef 4.3 b-d 8.93 abPRO GRO+ DlTHANE 75DG

DRENCH + AZTEC G 20(s)+6.6+0.5 42.8 5.21 ef 1.5 cd 7.45 b-dPRO GRO + DlTHANE 75DG

+ GOVERNOR 75WP 20(s)+6.6+50(s) 52.8 9.68 de 1.1 cd 8.55 a-cPRO GRO+ DlTHANE 75DG

DRENCH +GOVERNOR 75WP 20(s)+6.6+50( s) 73.9 12.4 c-e 0.8 d 6.61 c-e

PRO GRO+ DlTHANE 75DG+ REGENT 20(s)+6.6+ 25(s) 64.8 7.55 ef 1.8 cd 10.11 a

PRO GRO+ DlTHANE 75DGDRENCH + REGENT 20(s)+6.6+25(s) 69.3 13.1 c-e 3.2 cd 9.29 ab

PROGRO+ ROOTSHIELD T-22 20(s)+ 11.2 70.1 20.3 b-d 1.0 cd 3.38 gh

PRO GRO + ROOTSHIELD T-22+ LORSBAN 15G 20(s)+ 11.2+4.8 57.3 10.4 de 4.5 b-d 7.87 b-d

PROGRO+ ROOTSHIELD T-22+AZTECG 20(s)+ 11.2+0.5 37.0 13.7 c-e 5.0 b-d 7.23 d-f

PRO GRO +ROOTSHIELD T-22+ GOVERNOR 75WP 20(s)+ 11.2+50(s) 71.8 18.5 b-d 6.6 a-c 6.02 d-f

PROGRO+ ROOTSHIELD T-22+ REGENT 20(s)+ 11.2+25(s) 67.6 23.9 be 5.0b-d 8.67 a-c

Statistics performed on arcsinOx transformed dateNS = no significant treatment effects were observedNumbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05, Fisher'sProtected LSD test.Seed treatment: g ai/kg of seed

- 35 -

---------------~-------

- 36 -

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:


EVALUATION OF FUNGICIDE SEED TREATMENTS FOR CONTROL OFONION SMUT, 1998

MATERIALS: DIVIDEND (difenoconazole 32.8%), PRO GRO (carbathiin 30%, thiram 50%), methylcellulose

METHODS: Raw onion seed (46 seeds/m) of two cultivars Gazette and Quantum were seeded inorganic soil naturally infested with onion smut (pH 6.4, organic matter 60%) at the Muck CropsResearch Station on 13 May, 1998. The standard treatment for onion smut used was PRO GRO at25 g/kg plus 1% methyl cellulose per kg of seed. DIVIDEND at 2.38 mllkg of seed and 9.52 ml/kg ofseed were applied to the seed using a 1% methyl cellulose solution, to ensure proper distribution of thechemical. An untreated check was also included. A randomized complete block arrangement with 4blocks per treatment was used. Each replicate consisted of 2 rows of Gazette and 2 rows of Quantum(42 ern apart), 5 m in length. All treatments were seeded using a push V-belt seeder. Three random 2 msections were marked off, and germination counts were recorded (25, 27, 29 May and 1 Jun) todetermine initial stand. At one (15 Jun) and three (15 Jul) true leaves one of the 2 m sections wereharvested and evaluated by looking at the bulb and leaves for evidence of smut. The remaining 2 msection was evaluated on (11 Sep), and a yield section of2.33 m was taken on 25 Sep. The airtemperatures were above the long term ( 10 year) average for May and not different from the long termaverage for June, July, August and September. Total rainfall was below the long term ( 10 year) averagefor May (42.6 mm), July (50.2 mm), and Sepetember (18.6 mm), above average for August(114.6 mm) and not different from the long term average for June (78.4 mm). Data were analyzedusing the General Analysis of Variance function of the Linear Models section of Statistix VA.l.

RESULTS: As outlined in Tables 1, 2 and 3.

CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in incidence of smut among the treatments were only foundon the 15 Jun assessment for Gazette. The low rate of DIVIDEND at 2.38 ml/kg seed had the highestlevels of smut on all assessment dates for cultivar Gazette (Table 1) and was significantly higher than thePRO GRO and methyl cellulose on 15 Jun. The cultivar Quantum had similar levels of smut for alltreatments within assessment dates (Table 2). The standard treatment of PRO GRO and methylcellulose had the lowest levels of smut on the first assessment (15 Jun). The DIVIDEND treatment at9.52 ml/kg seed resulted in the highest yield on cultivar Gazette (65.0 t/ha); however it was notsignificantly higher than the check (57.5 t/ha). The standard PRO GRO and methyl cellulose treatmenthad the highest yield for cultivar Quantum, (82.5 t/ha) and the check had the lowest yield (57.5 t/ha).

Table 1. Evaluation of fungicide seed treatment for the control of onion smut on cultivar Gazette, 1998.

Rate of Incidence of Smut %I~~~~~~~~~ ~£~~~~! ~~J~_~ JJ_l~! J)_§~p _

- 37 -

CheckPRO GRO + mc***DIVIDENDDIVIDEND

25 g/kg seed2.38 ml/kg seed9.52 ml/kg seed

66.8 ab*51.6 a80.5 b65.4 ab

16.8 NS**21.527.329.5

5.06.47.22.8

Table 2. Evaluation of fungicide seed treatment for the control of onion smut on cultivar Quantum, 1998.

Rate of Incidence of Smut %I~~~~~~~~~ ~£~~~~! ~~J~_~ )J_l~! J)_~~ _

CheckPROGRO+mcDIVIDENDDIVIDEND


65.3 NS**46.258.865.2

14.420.118.714.0

2.94.02.91.9

Table 3. Yield data in tons per hectare of both cultivars Gazette and Quantum, 1998.

Rate of Yield in tlha****.I~~~~~~~~~ ~£~~~~! ~~~~~~~ 52~~~!~~ _

CheckPROGRO+mcDIVIDENDDIVIDEND


57.5 NS**65.052.570.0

57.582.567.565.0

*

**

***

****

All tables - Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at

P = 0.05, Fisher's Protected LSD Test.

All tables - NS = no significant treatment effects were observed.

All tables - me = methyl cellulose

Bushels per Acre = tlha x 17.8

- 38 -

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:


EVALUATION OF FURROW FUNGICIDE AND DRENCH TREATMENTS FORCONTROL OF ONION SMUT, 1998

MATERIALS: DITHANE DG (mancozeb 75 %), DITHANE M-45 (mancozeb 80%),PRO GRO (carbathiin 30%, thiram 50%), methyl cellulose

METHODS: Raw onion seed (46 seeds/m) of two cultivars Gazette and Quantum were seeded inorganic soil (pH 6.4, organic matter 60%) naturally infested with onion smut at the Muck CropsResearch Station on 30 Apr, 1998. The standard treatment for onion smut used was PRO GRO at25 g/kg plus a 1% methyl cellulose solution per kg of seed. Other treatments were: DITHANE DG at4.4 kg/ha and 8.8 kg/ha, PRO GRO seed treatment plus the high rate ofDITHANE DG, a drench ofDITHANE M-45 at 3.125 kglha in 1000 L of water was also applied, and an untreated check. Arandomized complete block arrangement with 4 blocks per treatment was used. Each replicate consistedof2 rows (42 em apart) of Gazette and Quantum, 5 m in length. All treatments were seeded using apush V-belt seeder. The DITHANE M-45 drench was applied using a gravity flow line placing thedrench directly in the seed furrow. All DITHANE DG treatments were applied on the V-belt along withthe seed. Three random 2 m sections were marked off, and germination counts were recorded (13, 19,22,25, May) to determine initial stands. At one (2 Jun) and three (7 Jul) true leaves, one of the 2 msections were harvested and evaluated by looking at the bulb and leaves for evidence of smut. Theremaining 2 m section was evaluated on 21 Aug, and a yield section of 2.33 m was taken on 10 Sep. Theair temperatures were above the long term ( 10 year) average for May and not different from the longterm average for June, July, August and September. Total rainfall was below the long term ( 10 year)average for May (42.6 mm), July (50.2 mm), and September (18.6 mm ), above average for August(114.6 mm) and not different from the long term average for June (78.4 mm). Data were analyzedusing the General Analysis of Variance function of the Linear Models section of Statistix V.4.1.

RESULTS: As outlined in Tables 1 and 2.

CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in the incidence of onion smut was found on 7 Jul in cv.Gazette (Table 1) and 8 Jun in cv. Quantum (Table 2). The treatments significantly effected yield in cv.Quantum but not in Gazette. DITHANE DG at 8.8 kglha and DITHANE DG plus the PRO GRO andmethyl cellulose were significantly lower than the untreated check and the DITHANE M-45 drench on7 Jul. The DITHANE M-45 drench was the only treatment with a higher incidence of smut than thecheck. Significant differences were found within the cultivar Quantum where the DITHANE DG plusPRO GRO and methyl cellulose had the lowest incidence of smut for all three assessment dates,however only the 8 Jun assessment date was significantly lower than all other treatments. The check andthe DITHANE M-45 drench had the highest incidence of smut for the 13 Jul assessment. Significantdifferences in the yield were found within Quantum only. DITHANE DG plus PRO GRO and methylcellulose had the highest yield (89.8 t/ha) of any treatment, and was significantly higher than the checkand DITHANE M-45 (47.3 and 45.2 t/ha respectively). The DITHANE M-45 drench had the lowestyields in both cultivars (Gazette 34.1 t/ha, Quantum 45.2 tlha) and within Quantum was significantlylower than DITHANE DG, PRO GRO and methyl cellulose and DITHANE DG plus PRO GRO andmethyl cellulose (74.1,79.6 and 89.8 t/ha respectively). The DITHANE DG at 8.8 kglha plus PROGRO and methyl cellulose resulted in the highest yield and the lowest incidence of smut in bothcultivars.

Partial funding for this project was made available by URMULE - User Request - Minor Use LabelExpansion Program

- 39 -

Table 1. Evaluation of furrow fungicide and drench treatments for the control of onion smut on cultivarGazette, 1998.

Rate of Incidence of Smut % YieldI~~~~~~~~~ ~!~9~~~ ~_~~~ ~]~l ~!~~~_~~S ~~~_

39.977.765.034.1

8.38.63.21.5

18.1 bc***11.3 ab4.5 a

23.9 c

49.7 NS**60.043.259.8

CheckDITHANEDGDITHANE DGDITHANE M-45

4.4 kg/ha8.8 kg/ha3.125 kg/ha

in 1000 LPRO GRO + mc**** 25 g/kg seed 36.2 8.8 ab 2.4 79.7DITHANE DG + 8.8 kg/ha 20.1 4.9 a 0.9 88.6,_~~~~~<?_~_~~ ~~ g/_k~~~~9 _

Table 2. Evaluation of furrow fungicide and drench treatments for the control of onion smut on cultivarQuantum, 1998.

Rate of Incidence of Smut % YieldI~~~~~~~~~ ~!~9~~~ ~]~~ ~~}~J ~~L~~_~~~ ~Q!~~_

47.3 be73.2 abc74.1 ab45.2 c

1.96.24.43.6

16.8 NS**8.74.6

16.5

52.3 b***49.9 b42.1 b52.5 b

CheckDITHANE DGDITHANE DGDITHANE M-45

4.4 kg/ha8.8 kg/ha3.125 kg/ha

in 1000 LPRO GRO + me 25 g/kg seed 41.4 b 6.2 1.3 79.6 aDITHANE DG + 8.8 kg/ha 17.8 a 3.1 0.0 89.8 a,_~~~~~<?_~_~~ ~~ g~~~~~9 _

* Both tables - Bushels per Acre = t/ha x 17.8

** Both tables - NS = no significant treatment effects were observed.

*** Both tables - Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different atP = 0.05, Fisher's Protected LSD Test.

**** Both tables - me = methyl cellulose

- 40 -

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.) cvs. Cortland & TributeOnion maggot, Delia antiqua (Meig.)

INSECTICIDE SEED-COATINGS AND GRANULAR INSECTICIDES FORONION MAGGOT CONTROL

MATERIALS: LORSBAN 15G (chlorpyrifos 15%), AZTEC G (phosetbupirin 2.0% + cyfluthrin0.1%), GOVERNOR WP (cyromazine 75%), REGENT (fipronil 500g/L), PRO GRO (carbathiin 30%+ thiram 50%), DITHANE DG (mancozeb 75%), T-22 (trichoderma harzianumi.

METHODS: The trial was arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications at theHolland Marsh on muck soil. Commercial custom-coated PRO GRO and GOVERNOR WP(50 g ai/kg of seed) treated seed was provided by the Asgrow Seed Co. Commercial film seed coatingREGENT (25 g ai/kg of seed cv. Cortland) was provided by Bejozaden Ltd., Warmenhuizen, Holland.LORSBAN 15G at the rate of 4.8 kg ai/ha and AZTEC G at the rate of 0.5 kg ai/ha were applied in thefurrow at planting time (15 May) by adding them with the seed (cv. Tribute) on a V-belt seeder. Foronion smut control, the DITHANE DG was applied in the furrow at planting time as a granular ordrench treatment at the rate of 6.6 kg ai/ha. The granular T-22 was applied in the furrow at planting timeat the rate of 44.4 gil 00 m of row. Each four-row plot was 6 m long and rows spaced 40 cm apart. Ineach plot four, 2 m lengths were designated for onion maggot - efficacy and the initial stand wasdetermined by counting the number of plants in each, 2 m lengths on 16 Jun. For the first generation thedesignated two, 2 m lengths were examined for onion maggot-damage in each plot twice weekly from16 Jun to 7 JuI. The plants that were wilted from onion maggot-damage were counted and removed. On9 Jul, the remaining plants were pulled and examined for onion maggot-damage. At the end of thesecond and third generation, 17 Aug and 22 Sep respectively, all plants were pulled from the designated2 m lengths in each plot and plants were examined for onion maggot-damage. On 6 Oct, the designated2 m length of onions was harvested for yield.

RESULT: Data are presented in table I.

CONCLUSION: In the first generation REGENT seed treatment with DITHANE DG granular anddrench treatments was the most effective insecticide treatment for controlling the onion maggotinfestation. The insecticide treatments with DITHANE DG granular treatment had the lower standlosses and the higher yields than the same insecticide treatment with drench application of the fungicide.REGENT seed treatment was the most effective of the granular and seed treatments for onion maggotcontrol.

Partial funding for this project was made available by Food Systems 2002

Table 1. Initial stand, percent onion maggot damage, percent stand loss, and yield following theindicated granular and seed treatments.

Treatments Initial % % Stand loss Yieldplant Maggot kg/ha

Insecticides Fungicides* count! damage x 103

6mrow

Gen 1 Gen 1&2 Gen 1,2&3raw seed 117 29.3b** 84.3a 90.8a 13.9hDITHANE T-22DG

126 28.7b 66.5ab 69.2bc 46.5fggranular 128 25.7b 54.8bc 51.3c-e 56.1e-gdrench 130 43.3a 84.2a 75.4ab 44.2fg

T-22 112 31.3b 58.9b 65.0b-d 36.2ghGranularLORSBAN 15G granular 152 4.9c-e 19.4e-h 20.8g-i 93.1a-cLORSBAN 15G drench 151 13.3c 32.6d-g 40.3e-g 78.6b-eLORSBAN 15G T-22 149 14.6c 33.9d-f 31.5e-i 84.2b-dAZTECG granular 149 4.2c-e 7.2h 15.7i 95.5abAZTECG drench 149 13.5c 49.6b-d 46.2d-f 79.7b-eAZTECG T-22 158 II.8cd 34.8d-f 34.8e-i 77.3b-eSeed treatmentGOVERNORWP granular 141 1.6de 13.8gh 18.7hi 91.5a-cGOVERNORWP drench 139 4.8c-e 33.4d-f 37.ge-h 70.8c-eGOVERNORWP T-22 133 8.9c-e 38.0c-e 49.1c-f 64.4d-fREGENT granular 136 l.2e 5.77h 14.3i 108.2aREGENT drench 147 1.2e 17.4f-h 25.3g-i 99.4abREGENT T-22 145 2.7de 20.le-h 30.5f-i 92.8a-c

ANOVA P~0.05 10.5 19.5 20.7 24.0

* All seeds treated with PRO GRO other than raw seed

** Numbers within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05Fisher's Protected LSD Test).

- 41 -

- 42 -

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.) cv, HamletOnion Maggot Fly (Delia antiqua (Meigen)

EVALUATION OF SPLIT APPLICATIONS OF LORSBAN 15G AND LORSBAN4E FOR CONTROL OF ONION MAGGOT DAMAGE, 1998

MATERIALS: LORSBAN 15G (chloropyrifos 15%), LORSBAN 4E (chloropyrifos 48%)

METHODS: Onions were direct seeded into organic soil (organic matter 60%, pH 6.4) on 24 Apr, 1998,at the Muck Crops Research Station where onion maggot flies are naturally present. A randomizedcomplete block arrangement with five replications per treatment was used. Each replicate consisted oftwo rows, 16 meters in length. LORSBAN 15G was applied in the furrow at seeding at 16 kg/ha and 8kg/ha. On 29 May LORSBAN 4E was applied at 2.5 L/ha as a drench over the rows of the 8 kg/hatreatment. An untreated check was also included. Four 2 m sections were marked off for first generationassessment and two 2 m sections were marked off for the second and third generations. Stand counts ofeach section were taken after emergence to determine an initial plant stand. Damage assessments beganone week after first generation peak (18 Jun) of onion maggot flies. Maggot damage was assessed once aweek by roguing out wilted onions and looking for symptoms of maggot damage atthe base of the plant.On 10 Jul all the remaining onions from the first generation were harvested and assessed. At the end ofthe second and third generations (20 Aug and 21 Sep respectively) all plants were harvested from thedesignated 2 m sections and assessed for damage. Harvest weights of onions in 2.33 m of row weretaken on 21 Sep. The air temperatures were above the long term ( 10 year) average for May and notdifferent from the long term average for June, July, August and September. Total rainfall was below thelong term ( 10 year) average for May (42.6 mm), July (50.2 mm), and September (18.6 mm), aboveaverage for August (114.6 mm ) and not different from the long term average for June (78.4 mm). Datawere analyzed using the General Analysis of Variance function of the Linear Models section of StatistixVA. I.


CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were found among any of the treatments. However theapplications ofLORSBAN 15G alone and the LORSBAN 15G plus LORSBAN 4E drench did lowerthe overall percentage of onion maggot damage. First generation onion maggot damage was high (40%)compared to the long term average (10 year) of first generation damage of 5.3%. The control also had ahigher yield than any of the LORSBAN treatments. The drier than average month of May could havereduced the effectiveness of the granular LORSBAN applications. The high levels of damage may alsoreflect increasing resistance of the onion maggot to LORSBAN. A repeat of this trial in 1999 would bebeneficial.

Table 1. Impact of onion maggots at the Muck Crops Research Station, Bradford, Ontario, 1998.

- 43 -

Treatments pI

Generation151 + 2nd

Generation151 + 2nd +3rd

GenerationYieldtlha**

*

Control 63.0 a * 42.6 a 48.8 a 65.7 a

LORSBAN 15 G @ 16 39.2 a 37.8 a 45.8 a 48.2 akg/ha

LORSBAN 15 G @ 8 39.2 a 39.0 a 45.0 a 58.4 akg/ha + LORSBAN 4 E@ 2.5 Llha

Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different atP = 0.05 Fisher's Protected LSD Test.

** Bushels per Acre = t/ha x 17.8

- 44 -

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Alliuni cepa L.)White rot, Sclerotium cepivorum (Berk)

FIELD EVALUATION OF DIALLYL DISULPHIDE (DADS) FOR CONTROL OFONION BULB INFECTION BY THE WHITE ROT PATHOGEN, SCLEROTIUMCEPIVORUMBERK, AT HARVEST, 1998.

MATERIALS: Sclerotia germination stimulant (synthetic garlic oil) DADS (diallyl disulphide 85.5%,diallyl sulphide 4.5%).

METHODS: Onions were assessed for incidence of white rot on 30 and 31 Jul (site 1), 10 (site 2) and 25Aug (site 3), 1998 in three commercial onion fields (organic muck soil) which had been established in

Sept, 1996, in the Holland Marsh, Ontario. These sites had known histories of white rot and had beentreated with DADS once (site 1) and twice (sites 2 and 3) including an untreated check. The treatments(DADS and check) were replicated 6 times and arranged in a randomized complete block design.Applications were made when the grower finished harvesting the crop which was present at the site andthe maximum soil temperature, 10 ern deep, remained below 21°C for several days in order to avoid thepossibility of soil temperatures exceeding 24°C at any time in the fall after treatment. The treatmentproduct, DADS was applied on 19 Sept, 1996 (all sites) and 24 Sept, 1997 (sites 2 and 3), to depths of 10and 20 em using a modified Vorlex soil fumigation apparatus with eleven injection hoses spaced 20 ernapart at a rate of 10 L of product/ha in 500 L of water/ha. The plot areas were sealed, followingtreatment, using a mechanical roller and the soil remained undisturbed until spring. In the spring of 1998,site 1 was transplanted in early Jun and sites 2 and 3 were seeded (mid-May) and managed, for the fullseason, by the grower. Recommended control procedures for fungal and bacterial pathogens, weeds andinsects were followed. Air temperatures were above the long term (10 year) average for May, and notdifferent from the long term average for Jun, Jul and Aug. Total rainfall was below the long term (10year) average for May (42.6 mm) and Jul (50.2 mm), above average for Aug (114.6 mm) and notdifferent from the long term average for Jun (78.4 mm). No irrigation was used to offset the lack ofprecipitation during seedling emergence and plant growth, with the exception of a mid-season irrigationat site 1. The lack of accumulated precipitation and the lack of irrigation resulted in a drought stresssituation. Onion were assessed from 4 subplots in each of the 6 replications at harvest maturity forincidence of white rot. Data were analyzed using the General Analysis of Variance function of the LinearModels section of Statistix, V. 4.1.


CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of white rot was low (0.09 to 3.66%) at all sites due to the hot dry weatherduring the growing season, which was unfavorable for white rot development. Nevertheless, onionsgrown in DADS treated soil at all sites had significantly (at P=0.05) lower levels of white rot than theuntreated checks. Two applications of DADS resulted in the lowest white rot incidence overall, reducingincidence, compared to the untreated control, by 81% (site 1),86% (site 2) and 96% (site 3). Therefore,two applications of DADS in consecutive years gives better disease control compared to one application.

* Partial funding for this project was made available by Food Systems 2002, OntarioResearch Enhancement Program, the Bradford and District Vegetable GrowersAssociation and United Agri Products Canada Ltd.

Table 1. Evaluation of DADS (diallyl disulphide) and an untreated check, for the control of white rotin muck soils, in the Holland Marsh, Ontario, at three commercial field sites, in 1998.

Onion bulb White Rot Incidence (%)

- 45 -

Treatment

DADS

Check

P-value (ANOVA) - Treatment

# Times DADS applied

Site I

0.71 a*

3.66 b

0.027

once

Site 2

0.13 a

0.94 b

0.031

twice

Site 3

0.09 a

2.35 b

0.045

twice

Dates DADS applied Sept, 1996 Sept 1996 & 1997 Sept 1996 & 1997--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P=0.05,

Fisher's Protected LSD test.

- 46 -

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.) cvs. Fortress and FrontierWhite rot, Sclerotium cepivorum (Berk)

FIELD EVALUATION OF COMMERCIAL YELLOW COOKING ONIONCULTIVARS AND BREEDING LINES FOR RESISTANCE TO THE WHITEROT PATHOGEN, SCLEROTIUM CEPIVORUM BERK, 1998.

MATERIALS: Onions breeding lines obtained from Dr. I.L. Goldman at the University of Wisconsin,R. Maxwell at Petoseed, Asgrow Ltd and Sun Seeds and 9 commercial cultivars, PRO GRO (carbathiin30%, thiram 50%) and methyl cellulose (1%).

METHODS: Field resistance to white rot was investigated at one commercial field site (organic mucksoil) with a history of white rot and in an outdoor pot trial at the Muck Crops Research Station, HollandMarsh, Ontario, 1998. Onion lines from three sources (University of Wisconsin, Petoseed, Asgrow andSun Seeds) and 9 commercial cultivars were seeded in 288 plug trays on 28 and 29 Apr and handtransplanted on 9 and 10 lune (commercial field site) and 23 Jun (pot trial). Each cultivar was replicatedfour times in a randomized complete block design. Each replicate consisted of one 3 m row, at 40plants/m with 42cm between rows in the commercial field trial. In the pot trial, each replicate consistedof one half of a pail (30cm in diameter, 36cm deep); with a barrier made of corrugated plastic to split thepail in half. White rot free organic muck soil was inoculated with sclerotia of Sclerotium cepivorum at300 viable (tested on potato dextrose agar) sclerotia per kg of soil, mixed with a hand trowel. Sevenplants were transplanted per replication, spaced 3 ern apart. Recommended control procedures for fungaland bacterial pathogens, weeds and insects were followed. Air temperatures were above the long term(10 year) average for May, and not different from the long term average for Jun, luI, Aug and Sept. Totalrainfall was below the long term (10 year) average for May (42.6 mm), Jul (50.2 mm) and Sept (18.6mm); above average for Aug (114.6 mm) and not different from the long term average for Jun (78.4mm). No irrigation was used to offset the lack of precipitation during plant growth in the commercialfield site. The lack of accumulated precipitation and the lack of irrigation resulted in a drought stresssituation for the plants in the commercial field site. The plants in the pot trial were watered when the soilappeared dry. Onion bulbs were assessed for visible white rot incidence, in the field, at harvest maturity,on 11 Sept and 18 Sept for the pot trial. Data were analyzed using the General Analysis of Variancefunction of the Linear Models section of Statistix, V. 4.1.


CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of white rot was low (0 to 12.8%) at the commercial field site and in thepot trial due to the hot dry weather during the growing season, which was unfavorable for white rotdevelopment. In the pot trial, a small sample size and high standard errors resulted in no significance.Significant differences were found among cultivars tested in the field trial. Three cultivars had thehighest incidences of white rot while almost no significant differences were found among the breedinglines.

* Partial funding for this project was made available by Food Systems 2002, OntarioResearch Enhancement Program, and the Bradford and District Vegetable GrowersAssociation.

**

__'!:~!?l~}.:_~~~t~_~~!..~~!:~~~~!Il~Lc!.<:.~~<:.i!}~!}!~Il~~~_~Il~S:.9_!!.1.!11 ~!:~Lal_fl~~c!. si~<:'~!l.sI_~Il~J~~!~!:i~lL12J_8_. _

__(~ltiY~[[~LQ~ §_~~~~e 1DfiQ~Df~_~[I~lQ_C?9J 1DfiQ~Df~_~QQ!~1 _

Turbo Stokes 12.8 a* 0 NS**

Top Notch Stokes 6.9 b 4.2

Headliner Petoseed 3.7 c 0

PSR650296 Petoseed 2.7 cd 3.6

PSR650096 Petoseed 2.5 c-e 0

Joint Venture Stokes 2.3 c-e 0

Prince Bejo/Seedway 1.8 c-e 6.7

PSR650196 Petoseed 1.3 c-e 5.0

WR1752 Petoseed 1.3 c-e 10.7

XPH15055 Asgrow 1.1 de 3.6

Norstar Stokes 0.9 de 0

Corona Bejo/Seedway 0.8 de 0

104-96 Wisconsin 0.7 de 0

918-97 Wisconsin 0.7 de 7.1

PSR650396 Petoseed 0.7 de 10.7

Frontier American Takii 0.7 de 0




WR447 Petoseed 0.2 de 5.0


XPH15056 Asgrow 0.2 de 10.7


WR457 Petoseed 0.2 de 3.6

B901-1 Sun Seeds 0.2 de 0



Fortress Asgrow 0.2 de 3.6

910-97 Wisconsin 0 e 3.6

924-97 Wisconsin 0 e 0__YY_~~~9 p_eJQ§~~g 0 ~ 5~9 _* Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P=0.05,

Fisher's Protected LSD test.NS - no significant treatment effects were observed.

- 47 -

- 48 -

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.), cv. FrontierWhite rot, Sclerotium cepivorum (Berk)

FIELD EVALUATION OF TEBUCONAZOLE SEED AND PLANT BASEDRENCH TREATMENTS FOR THE CONTROL OF ONION WHITE ROT(SCLEROTIUM CEPIVORUM BERK), 1998.

MATERIALS: Onions (cv. Frontier), RAXIL (tebuconazole 8%), FOLICUR (tebuconazole 38.7%),PRO GRO (carbathin 30%, thiram 50%) and methyl cellulose (1%).

METHODS: Raw onion seed (cultivar Frontier) was treated with PRO GRO at 25 g of product with 1%methyl cellulose per kg of seed on 4 May. The onions were seeded in two commercial field sites (organicmuck soil) with histories of white rot in the Holland Marsh, Ontario., on 6 and 7 May (site 1) and 13 and14 May (site 2), 1998. The 10 treatments consisted oftebuconazole seed treatments using RAXIL at 1 ga.i./kg of seed and plant base drenches using FOLICUR at 1 L/ha in 500 L of water, applied at differenttimes during the growing season (Table 1) using a Solo back pack sprayer (60 psi.) with a fan-jet nozzle.All seed for the RAXIL treatments was treated on 4 May. RAXIL was applied to the seed using methylcellulose to ensure proper distribution of the chemical. An untreated check was also included. The onionswere seeded using a V-belt push seeder delivering a spacing and depth at 1.5 to 2.0 ern. A randomizedcomplete block design with 4 replications per treatment was used. Each replicate consisted of 8 rows(site 1) and 4 rows (site 2), 42 em apart and 3 m in length. Recommended control procedures for fungaland bacterial pathogens, weeds and insects were followed. Air temperatures were above the long term(10 year) average for May, and not different from the long term average for Jun, Jul, Aug and Sept. Totalrainfall was below the long term (10 year) average for May (42.6mm), Jul (50.2mm) and Sept (18.6mm);above average for Aug (114.6mm) and not different from the long term average for Jun (78.4mm). Noirrigation was used to offset the lack of precipitation during seedling emergence and plant growth, exceptfor a mid-season irrigation at site 1. The lack of accumulated precipitation and the lack of irrigationresulted in a drought stress situation at all sites. Onion bulbs were assessed for visible white rotincidence, in the field, at harvest maturity, on 28 and 29 Sept (site 1) and 21 and 22 Sept (site 2). Datawere analyzed using the General Analysis of Variance function of the Linear Models section of Statistix,V.4.1.

RESULTS: The results are summarized in Table 1.

CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of white rot was low (0 to 1.93%) at both sites due to the hot dry weatherin 1998 which was unfavorable for white rot development, therefore, no significant differences betweenthe control and any of the tebuconazole treatments were found among treatments tested, at either site.Under low disease pressures, tebuconazole did not appear to give control over white rot bulb infection.At site 2, only replications one and two were assessed because replications three and four were lostduring commercial field harvesting. Phytotoxicity, as an effect of the RAXIL seed treatment wasobserved at seed emergence. Total number of bulbs at harvest, at sites I and 2, were significantly lower,62% and 64% respectively, in the RAXIL and RAXIL plus FOLICUR treatments than the check andFOLICUR treatments alone. Tebuconazole is currently registered as a seed treatment for control ofwhite rot in the United Kingdom and is being tested as seed and plant base drenches on garlic in Mexico.Initial results from Mexico, comparing a number of different fungicides show that tebuconazole has thebest efficacious properties against white rot infection. Continued research, under controlled conditions,testing different rates of RAXIL and FOLICUR is necessary to determine its effectiveness forcontrolling onion white rot in muck soils in Ontario. Tebuconazole will be tested in field trials in 1999on yellow cooking onions and residue trials for registration on green onions.


Table 1. Harvest incidence of white rot in one onion cultivar (Frontier) grown at two commercial sitesin the Holland Marsh, Ontario, treated with seed and plant base drenches of tebuconazole, in 1998.

- 49 -

FOLICURApplication

White Rot HarvestIncidence (%)

TreatmentTebuconazoleformulation

# oftimes

weeks afterseeding Site 1 Site 2

Check untreated NA* NA 0.82 NS** 1.48 NS**

Seed RAXIL NA NA 1.25 0

Plant base drench FOLICUR two 11 & 13 0.67 1.46



Plant base drench FOLICUR one 17 1.17 0.21

Seed + Plant base drench RAXIL + FOLICUR two 11 & 13 0.38 0

Seed + Plant base drench RAXIL + FOLICUR two 13 & 15 1.06 1.44

Seed + Plant base drench RAXIL + FOLICUR two 15 & 17 0.42 0

Seed + Plant base drench RAXIL + FOLICUR one 17 1.83 0

***

NA = not applicableNS - no significant treatment effects were observed.

- 50 -

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.), cvs. Fortress and FrontierWhite rot, Sclerotium cepivorum (Berk)

FIELD EVALUATION OF FURROW APPLICATIONS OF TRICHODERMAHARZ/ANUM FOR THE CONTROL OF ONION WHITE ROT (SCLEROTIUMCEP/VORUM BERK), 1998.

MATERIALS: Onions (cv. Fortress and Frontier) and T-22 ROOT SHIELD DRENCH (Trichodermaharzianum Rifai strain KRL-AG2 1.15%, contains at least 1 x 107 colony forming units/g dry weight),T-22G BIOLOGICAL PLANT PROTECTANT GRANULES (Trichoderma harzianum Rifai strainKRL-AG2 1.15%, contains at least 1 x 107 colony forming units/g dry weight), PRO GRO (carbathiin30%, thiram 50%) and methyl cellulose (1%).

METHODS: Raw onion seed of cultivars Fortress and Frontier, were treated with PRO GRO at 25 g ofproduct with 1% methyl cellulose per kg of seed on 11 May. The onions were seeded in two commercialfield sites (organic muck soil) with histories of white rot in the Holland Marsh, Ontario., on 15 May (site1) and 22 May (site 2),1998. The treatments consisted offurrow applications of: 1) T-22GBIOLOGICAL PLANT PROTECTANT GRANULES applied at 44.8 g/lOO m of row, 2) T-22ROOT SHIELD DRENCH applied at 4.48 g/IOO m of row in 1500 L ofwater/ha (low rate) and 3) T-22ROOT SHIELD DRENCH applied at 22.5 g/lOO m ofrow in 1500 L of water/ha (high rate) applied toboth Fortress and Frontier. An untreated check was also included. The onions were seeded using a V-beltpush seeder delivering a spacing and depth of 1.5 to 2.0 ern. T-22G was applied on the V-belt along withthe seed. The T-22 DRENCH treatments were applied using a gravity flow line placing the drenchdirectly in the seed furrow. Each treatment and cultivar combination was replicated four times in arandomized complete block design. Each replicate consisted of one 3 m row. Recommended controlprocedures for fungal and bacterial pathogens, weeds and insects were followed. Air temperatures wereabove the long term (10 year) average for May, and not different from the long term average for Jun, Jul,Aug and Sept. Total rainfall was below the long term (10 year) average for May (42.6 mm), Jul (50.2mm) and Sept (18.6 mm); above average for Aug (114.6 mm) and not different from the long termaverage for Jun (78.4 mm). No irrigation was used to offset the lack of precipitation during seedlingemergence and plant growth. The lack of accumulated precipitation and the lack of irrigation resulted ina drought stress situation at all sites. Onion bulbs were assessed for visible white rot incidence, in thefield, at harvest maturity, on 19 Sept (site 1) and 21 Sept (site 2). Data were analyzed using the GeneralAnalysis of Variance function of the Linear Models section of Statistix, V. 4.1.


CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of white rot was low (0 to 3.85%) at all sites due to the hot dry weatherduring the growing season, which was unfavorable for white rot development. No significant differenceswere found among treatments between or within the two cultivars tested, Fortress and Taurus. Tharzianum did not appear to give control of onion white rot. When the trials were seeded in the springthe soil was extremely dry (powdery), T harzianum does not survive well or colonize host rootsextensively under harsh conditions. Throughout the growing season, the rhizosphere (area around theplant root) is subject to rapid and long-term fluctuations in water, salt, pH, nutrients, temperature andmicroorganism population due to plant growth and development and changing environmental andclimatic conditions. It is not understood what these changes are or how the changes affect the efficacy ofT harzianum in controlling white rot. T harzianum has broad range of activity against a number of plantpathogens utilizing various control mechanisms. With many biocontrol agents, trials conducted onnumerous crops in multi-year, multi-locational trials at different times of the year have demonstrated thatthe environment can alter the efficacy of the test product. Therefore, replicated, multi-location and multiyear trials are required to indicate the level of variability inherent with the use of T harzianum.

The experimental label from Bio Works (product supplier) gives a label rate for greenhouse control ofwhite rot on onions, therefore, the efficacy of this product will continue to be tested. Research, undercontrolled conditions, testing different modes of application and application rates and timing, using T.harzianum is necessary to determine its effectiveness for controlling onion white rot before continuingwith field trials.

- 51 -

* Partial funding for this project was made available by Food Systems 2002, OntarioResearch Enhancement Program, and the Bradford and District Vegetable GrowersAssociatio n.

Table 1. Harvest incidence of white rot in two onion cultivars grown at two commercial sites in theHolland Marsh, Ontario, treated with granular and drench formulations of the fungus, Trichodermaharzianum, in 1998.

Cultivar Treatment

Rate/100mofrow

White Rot HarvestIncidence (%)

Site 1 Site 2

Fortress Check 0.58 NS* 3.60 NS*

Fortress T-22G BIOLOGICAL PROTECTANT 44.8 g 0 1.82GRANULES

Fortress T-22 ROOT SHIELD DRENCH 4.48g 1.17 O.

Fortress T-22 ROOT SHIELD DRENCH 22.5 g 0 3.85

Frontier Check 0 1.11

Frontier T-22G BIOLOGICAL PROTECTANT 44.8 g 0 0GRANULES

Frontier T-22 ROOT SIDELD DRENCH 4.48g 0 0.30

Frontier T-22 ROOT SHIELD DRENCH 22.5 g 1.06 0.43-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* NS - no significant treatment effects were observed.

- 52 -

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.)White rot, Sclerotium cepivorum (Berk)

EVALUATION OF COMMERCIAL YELLOW COOKING ONION CULTIVARSAND BREEDING LINES FOR RESISTANCE TO WHITE ROT USING A SCALEINOCULATION TECHNIQUE, 1998.

MATERIALS: Onions bulbs harvested from the 1997 White Rot Resistant field trials grown in theHolland Marsh. Onion breeding lines obtained from Dr. LL. Goldman at the University of Wisconsin,Petoseed, Asgrow Ltd and 6 commercial cultivars. Three isolates of Sclerotium cepivorum Berk, MCG-l,MCG-2, and MCG-3.

METHODS: Scale segments of harvested yellow cooking onion bulbs of 6 commercial cultivars and 18breeding lines, grown in the Holland Marsh, Ontario, in a commercial field in 1997, were inoculated withmycelial plugs of three isolates of Sclerotium cepivorum in Jan, 1998. Onion scale segments wereprepared for inoculation as follows: bulbs were surface disinfested, after removal of outer scales, in a10% Javex bleach solution (5 min), rinsed and air dried. Segments (7 em x 7 em) were cut, the innermembrane was removed and the scales were inoculated. Three S. cepivorum isolates were used forinoculation representing three distinct mycelial compatibility groups (MCG-l, MCG-2 and MCG-3)present in the Holland Marsh. Agar discs, 5 mm in diameter, were cut from the margins of activelygrowing cultures using a sterile cork borer and placed mycelium side down in the center of each segment(concave side). Each mycelial line was replicated four times in a randomized complete block design insterilized plastic trays and stacked in a plexiglass chamber, filled with water to 7.5 ern. A hygrothermograph was placed inside and the chamber was covered with a black sheet. After 7 days incubation,at room temperature, the lesion diameter on each scale (convex side) was measured. All data wereanalyzed using the General Analysis of Variance function and the Pearson Correlation function of theLinear Models section of Statistix, V. 4.1.


CONCLUSIONS: Significant (P=0.05) differences were found in lesion diameters (13.9 to 32.6 mm)among onion lines and cultivars harvested in 1997 and inoculated in 1998. There was a significant(P=O.OOOOl) MCG isolate by onion interaction, therefore, the results from the three isolates could not bepooled. Within MCG-l and MCG-2, the breeding lines from the University of Wisconsin had the largestlesions and the smallest lesions were found on the Petoseed lines (in contrast to previous years), but thecontrast was not significant. The University of Wisconsin breeding line, W9l297 had the largest lesiondiameter which was significantly larger than most of the other breeding lines and cultivars wheninoculated with MCG-l and MCG-2. The Petoseed, PS650096 breeding line had the smallest lesiondiameter when inoculated with all 3 MCG's and was significantly smaller than approximately one thirdof the other breeding lines and cultivars. There was a significant, positive Pearson correlation amongdiameters of lesions formed by MCG-l and MCG-2 on the 18 breeding lines (r2=0.61, P=O.OOOO 1). Theonion lines which had the largest lesion diameters when inoculated with MCG-l, also had the largestlesion diameters when inoculated with MCG-2. The resulting correlation is not high, indicating that thereare more factors than the onion cultivarlbreeding line and MCG involved in determining the resultinglesion diameter. MCG-l tended to result in larger lesions overall than MCG-2; the isolate, MCG-l isconsidered more virulent than MCG-2. The MCG-3 cultures used for inoculation resulted in variableresults among replicates with no significant differences among cultivars. MCG-3 was consistently lesspathogenic than MCG-l and 2.


Table 1. Onion scale lesion diameters 7 days after Sclerotium cepivorum mycelia inoculation, 1998.

- 53 -

OnionCultivar/Line Source MCG-l MCG-2 MCG-3

**

W91297 Wisconsin 32.6 a* 30.7 a 21.5 NS**

W91097 Wisconsin 32.1 a 26.4 b 19.3

Norstar Stokes 29.6 ab 26.8 b 16.3

WI0596 Wisconsin 28.8 be 26.6 b 18.2

PSW457 Petoseed 28.7 be 24.7 be 17.8

WI0196 Wisconsin 28.7 be 24.3 b-d 17.5

Paragon Sun Seeds 28.2 b-d 26.2 b 14.6

XPH 15055 Asgrow 28.1 b-e 24.8 be 17.2

WI0496 Wisconsin 28.0 b-e 23.8 b-e 17.6

W92097 Wisconsin 27.5 b-f 24.7 be 16.2

Joint Venture Stokes 27.2b-f 21.5c-e 17.7

Fortress Asgrow 27.2 b-f 26.8 b 16.8

W91897 Wisconsin 27.1 b-f 23.4 b-e 15.7

W91697 Wisconsin 27.1 b-f 24.0 b-e 18.9

Prince Seedway 26.7 b-g 24.9 be 14.3

Hamlet Asgrow 26.2 c-h 24.1 b-e 18.9

PSWR465 Petoseed 26.1 c-h 20.9 de 16.1

WI0296 Wisconsin 25.7 d-h 23.5 b-e 17.8

PS650196 Petoseed 25.2 e-h 24.5 b-d 18.2

W91497 Wisconsin 25.2 e-h 24.1 b-e 15.1

PS650396 Petoseed 25.0 f-h 23.3 b-e 17.2

W92497 Wisconsin 24.6 f-h 21.8 c-e 15.9

PS650296 Petoseed 24.1 gh 20.9 de 15.5

_P~_~~QQ~§ P~JQ~~~Q ~~~~P ~Q~1~ 1~~ _* Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P=0.05,

Fisher's Protected LSD test.NS - no significant treatment effects were observed.

- 54 -

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.)White rot, Sclerotium cepivorum (Berk)

EVALUATION OF COMMERCIAL YELLOW COOKING ONION CULTIVARSTO WHITE ROT USING A SCALE INOCULATION TECHNIQUE, 1998.

MATERIALS: Onion bulbs harvested from the 1997 Muck Crops Research Station Main Cultivar Trial.Three isolates of Sclerotium cepivorum Berk, MCG-l, MCG-2, and MCG-3.

METHODS: Scale segments of harvested yellow cooking onion bulbs of 32 commercial cultivars,grown in the Holland Marsh, Ontario, at the Muck Crops Research Station in 1997, were inoculated withmycelial plugs of three isolates of Sclerotium cepivorum in Feb, 1998. Onion scale segments wereprepared for inoculation as follows: bulbs were surface disinfested, after removal of outer scales, in a10% Javex bleach solution (5 min), rinsed and air dried. Segments (7 em x 7 em) were cut, the innermembrane was removed and the scales were inoculated. Three S. cepivorum isolates were used forinoculation representing three distinct mycelial compatibility groups (MCG-l, MCG-2 and MCG-3)present in the Holland Marsh. Agar discs, 5mm in diameter, were cut from the margins of activelygrowing cultures using a sterile cork borer and placed mycelium side down in the center of each segment(concave side). Each mycelial line was replicated four times in a randomized complete block design insterilized plastic trays and stacked in a plexiglass chamber, filled with water to 7.5 em. A hygrothermograph was placed inside and the chamber was covered with a black sheet. After 7 days incubation,at room temperature, the lesion diameter on each scale (convex side) was measured. All data wereanalyzed using the General Analysis of Variance function and the Pearson Correlation function of theLinear Models section of Statistix, V. 4.1.


CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant (P=O.OOO 1) MCG isolate by onion cultivar interaction,therefore, the results from the three isolates could not be pooled. Significant (P=0.05) differences inlesion diameters (20.5 to 31.8 mm) were found among onion cultivars harvested in 1997 and inoculatedwith MCG-2. There was no significant (at P=0.05) Pearson correlation between lesion diameters formedby MCG-l and MCG-2. There were no significant differences in lesion diameters among cultivars wheninoculated with either MCG-l or MCG-3. It was observed that the MCG-l stock cultures appeared tohave slower mycelial growth than previously seen. The MCG-3 cultures used for inoculation resulted inhighly variable results among replicates with no significant differences among cultivars. MCG-3 wasconsistently less pathogenic than MCG-l and 2.


._JJ!.l.!le_l.:..QDiQ.D_s.s:jll~J~.§iQ.!1J!ijl.m~t~rl'_O.§l]_gE-YlU!fJ:~r_!icj§£(21i.l!!!JJ2~i.\:.oJJ!!l.UJ1"y~~lj!!jD.9_C_uJE-1LoJh.. _

__CyltiyE-I ~Qyr£~ ~CS!~~L~(Q1_fD) ~CS!~~~_(Q1_fD) ~CS!~~L~(Q1JD) _

Benchmark Asgrow 26.5 NS* 31.8 a** 18.0 NS*

Frontier American 28.5 31.2 ab 20.3

HMX4633 Harris Moran 27.0 31.2 ab 21.8

Precedent Sun Seeds 23.8 28.5 a-c 22.5

Hoopla Solar 27.6 28.3 a-d 26.7

Prince Bejo/Seedway 23.2 28.0 a-d 18.7

Corona Bejo/Seedway 25.6 27.5 a-e 23.0

XPH15039 Asgrow 26.9 27.3 a-e 22.0

Tornado Bejo/Seedway 26.3 27.2 a-f 22.5

Festival Bejo/Seedway 26.8 26.9 a-f 23.6

Norstar Stokes 26.8 26.8 a-f 29.5

Gazette Stokes 26.2 26.3 a-g 24.5

V.L. 224 Vilmoran 23.4 26.0 a-g 22.3

Livingston Solar 26.4 25.8 b-g 17.3

Express Pak Norseco 26.8 25.5 b-g 27.2

Spectrum Sun Seeds 30.6 25.3 b-g 24.0

Quantum Petoseed 28.2 25.2 c-g 23.8

Barrage Asgrow 24.4 25.0 c-g 18.3

V.L. 221 Vilmoran 27.6 24.7 c-g 19.5

Advancer Harris Moran 26.2 24.2 c-g 19.0

Tamara Bejo/Seedway 24.7 24.0 c-g 18.0

Uniglobe Petoseed 25.5 23.8 c-g 19.2

Hamlet Asgrow 24.3 23.7 c-g 22.0

Tribute Asgrow 26.7 23.7 c-g 18.3

XPH15038 Asgrow 23.4 23.7 c-g 20.0

Arsenal Asgrow 27.6 23.3 c-g 20.5

Headliner Stokes 22.9 23.2 c-g 15.5

Uniglobe Petoseed 26.4 22.7 c-g 22.3

XPH94396 Crookham 26.8 22.5 d-g 28.3

• Stanley Solar 23.2 21.7 e-g 16.3

Topnotch Crookham 19.8 21.3 fg 21.0

__~jlLep_Qi~_fD ____~YD_~~~Q~_______2~~l________ ~________2Q~lll _______________21~Q________________

- 55 -

***

NS - no significant treatment effects were observed.Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P=0.05,Fisher's Protected LSD test.

- 56 -

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.), cv. HamletBotrytis Leaf Blight, Botrytis squamosa (Walker) Purple Blotch, Alternaria porri (Ellis)

EFFICACY OF FUNGICIDES FOR THE CONTROL OF BOTRYTIS LEAFBLIGHT AND PURPLE BLOTCH ON ONIONS, 1998

MATERIALS: CHAMP 2F (copper hydroxide 37.5%), ULTRA CHAMP DF (copper 36.3%),CHAMPION WP (metallic copper equivalent 50%), DITHANE DG (mancozeb 75% ), ROVRAL(iprodione 50%)

METHODS: Onions were seeded (36 seeds/m) into naturally infested soil (pH 6.4, organic matter 60%)at the Muck Crops Research Station on 24 Apr, 1998. A randomized complete block arrangement withfour blocks per treatment was used. Each replicate consisted of 8 rows (42 em apart), 5 m in length.Treatments were applied on 18,28 Jul and 4 Aug using a pull type plot sprayer with TeeJet D-3 hollowcone nozzles at 100 psi (boom) in 500 L/ha of water. CHAMP 2F at 1.56 L/ha, ULTRA CHAMP DFat 1.50 kg/ha and CHAMPION WP at 2.25 kg/ha were applied at each spray. Conventional treatmentsofDITHANE DG at 2.25 kg/ha were applied on 18,28 Jul and ROVRAL at 0.75 kg/ha was added on 4Aug as recommended in the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Publication 363,1998/1999 Vegetable Production Recommendations. An untreated check was also included. Twenty-fiveplants per replicate were harvested on 12 Aug when the plants were near maturity. The three oldestgreen leaves per plant with 80% or more ofnon-necrotic tissue were evaluated for Botrytis Leaf Blight.The percentage of green tissue area was rated using The Manual of Assessment Keys for Plant Diseasesby Clive James, Key No. 1.6.1. The total number of green and dead leaves were also recorded. PurpleBlotch was assessed by looking at all leaves, dead and green and counting the number and length oflesions. A harvest yield of 4.66 m was taken on 28 Aug. The air temperatures were above the long term(10 year) average for May and not different from the long term average for June, July, August andSeptember. Total rainfall was below the long term ( 10 year) average for May (42.6 mm),July (50.2 mm ), and September (18.6 mm ), above average for August (114.6 mm ) and not differentfrom the long term average for June (78.4 mm ). Data were analyzed using the General Analysis ofVariance function of the Linear Models section of Statistix V.4.1.

RESULTS: As presented in Tables 1 and 2.

CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in levels of Botrytis Leaf Blight (Table 2) or number ofPurple Blotch lesions (Table 1) were found. The treatments also had no effect on yield. The warm anddry summer may have slowed the development of the disease in this trial.

Funding for this project was made available by AgTrol International

•

Table 1. Evaluation offungicides for the control of Purple Blotch on all leaves, 1998.

Treatment Total # Total # Total # Harvest YieldPurple Blotch lesions/ dead leaves/ green leaves/ t/ha **

. ~~~l~~~~ ~~~l~~~~ ~~FJ~~~~ _

Check 7.3 NS* 70 166 45.9Conventional 10.3 74 152 49.9CHAMPIONWP 11.5 61 175 53.5CHAMP2F 6.0 60 170 49.8ULTRA CHAMP DF 9.5 71 146 52.8

Table 2. Effect of fungicide treatments on frequency of onion leaves with different severity levels ofBotrytis Leaf Blight, 1998.

- 57 -

Treatment0-2%

Leaf area infected (%)2-5% 5-10% 10-15%

Check 33.8 NS* 45.0 17.5 2.5Conventional 36.3 48.8 11.3 3.8CHAMPIONWP 42.5 45.0 10.0 2.5CHAMP2F 30.0 52.5 17.5 0.0ULTRA CHAMP DF 33.8 50.0 16.3 0.0

*

**

Both tables, NS = no significant treatment effects were observed.

Table 1,BushelsperAcre=tlha x 17.8

- 58 -

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onion (Allium cepa L.) cv. HamletSprouting

EVALUATION OF ROYAL HM 60 AND ROYAL MH 30 FOR SPROUTINHIBITING ON YELLOW COOKING ONIONS, 1997-98

MA TERIALS: ROYAL MH 60 (Maleic Hydrazide 60%),ROYAL MH 30 XTRA (MaleicHydrazide 30%)

METHODS: Onions were direct seeded (42 seeds/m) into organic soil (organic matter 60%, pH 6A) on22 Apr, 1997, at the Muck Crops Research Station. A randomized complete block arrangement with fourblocks per treatment was used. Each replicate consisted of eight rows (42 ern apart), 5 meters in length.ROYAL MH 60 was applied at 3.75 kg/ha product and ROYAL MH 30 XTRA at 8.33 Llha on 8 Sepwhen 85% of the onion tops were down. An untreated check was also included. Treatments were appliedusing a pull type plot sprayer with Tee-Jet D-2 hollow cone nozzles at 100 psi (boom) in 500 Llha ofwater. The onions were harvested from the inner rows of each replicate on 7 Oct. All samples wereplaced in 25 kg containers and put in a common storage were the temperature and relative humidity arekept at 10 C and 70% respectively. The number of onions with and without visible sprouting werecounted on 4, 5 Feb and 21 Jul, 1998. Onions were also evaluated for separation and root growth fromthe basal plate of the onions. Data were analyzed using the General Analysis of Variance function of theLinear Models section of Statistix VA.l.


CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were found among the treatments in July. TheROYAL MH 60 and ROYAL MH 30 XTRA had the lowest percentage of onions with sproutsat 22.5 and 26.6% respectively. The ROYAL MH 60 and ROYAL MH 30 XTRA treatmentshad a significantly higher percentage of onions with basal plate separation at 77.7 and 82.3%compared to the check at 4.1% but had low percentages of onions stating to produce root growth.The check had the highest (84.6%) percentage of onions with root growth. No significantdifferences were found among treatments in February. The ROYAL MH treatments preventedthe development of root growth from the basal plate but do not stop the basal plate fromseparating from the onion. There seems to be little difference in the effectiveness of the liquidROYAL MH compared to the dry formulation.


Table 1. Evaluation of ROYAL MH 60 and ROYAL MH 30 XTRA on onions for control ofsprouting in storage, 1997/98.

- 59 -

Treatment & Rate % Onions Sprouted

Feb Jul

July% Onions with basal

plate separation

July% Onions with basal

root growth

*

Control 5.1 a* 90.1 b 4.1 a 84.6 b

ROYAL MH 60 2.1 a 22.5 a 77.7 b 7.7 a@ 3.75 kg/ha

ROYALMH30 3.1 a 26.6 a 82.3 b 4.3 aXTRA@ 8.33 L/ha


- 60 -

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa 1.) cvs. Gazette and HamletMirco-nutrient Deficiency (Copper)

EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FOLIAR COPPERAPPLICATIONS, 1998

MATERIALS: Copper Sulfate (99%), "This Copper" (Copper 5%, Sulfur 4%)

METHODS: Two cultivars, Gazette and Hamlet were direct seeded into organic soil (organic matter65%, pH 604) on 29 Apr, 1998 at the Muck Crops Research Station. A randomized complete blockarrangement with four blocks per treatment was used. Each replicate consisted of four rows (42 emapart) of Gazette and four rows (42 em apart) of Hamlet, 5 m in length. Treatments included wereCopper Sulfate at 5.0 kg/ha, "This Copper" alone at 660 ml/ha and Copper Sulfate at 5.0 kg/ha +"This Copper" at 660 kg/ha. An untreated check was also included. The Copper Sulfate was broadcastand incorporated into the soil prior to seeding. Sprays of "This Copper" were applied using a pull typeplot sprayer on 8,18,28 Jul and 4 Aug. Plants were evaluated for tip die-back (a symptom of copperdeficiency) on 11 Aug. The length and degree of tip-die back were recorded and the number of greenand dead leaves was also recorded. Onions in 2.33 meters of row were harvested and weighed on 9 Septo determine yield. The air temperatures were above the long term ( 10 year) average for May and notdifferent from the long term average for June, July, August and September. Total rainfall was below thelong term ( 10 year) average for May (42.6 mm ), July (50.2 mm), and September (18.6 mm), aboveaverage for August (114.6 mm) and not different from the long term average for June (7804 mm). Datawere analyzed using the General Analysis of Variance function of the Linear Models section of StatistixVA.1.

RESULTS: As presented in Table 1 and 2.

CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were found among treatments in the average length of tip dieback. The combination of the Copper Sulfate and "This Copper" resulted in the lowest average length(24.7 mm). The check had the highest at 39.2 mm. Significant differences between cultivars in theaverage length of tip die-back were also observed ( 41.9 Gazette, 23.8 Hamlet). Significant differencesbetween Hamlet and Gazette were observed in percentage of leaves with tip die-back (Hamlet 93.3% andGazette 77.3%). However, no significant differences in yield were found among treatments or betweencultivars.

Table 1. Evaluation of foliar copper applications, 1998.

- 61 -

Treatments

Check

Copper Sulfate @5.0 kg/ha

Copper Sulfate @5.0 kg/ha + "ThisCopper" @ 660ml/ha

"This Copper"@660 ml/ha

% of leaves withtip die-back

86.4 a *

83.6 a

80.5 a

90.8 a

Avg. length of tip dieback (mm)

39.2 b

29.8 ab

24.7 a

37.6 b

Yieldt/ha**

56.9 a

59.4 a

55.2 a

59.1 a

*

**


Bushels per Acre = t/ha x 17.8

Table 2. Evaluation of foliar and broadcast copper applications between cultivars Gazette andHamlet, 1998.

Cultivar

Gazette

Hamlet

% ofleaves withtip die-back

77.3 a *

93.3 b

Avg. length of tipdie-back ( mm)

41.9 b

23.8 a

Yieldt/ha**

57.2 a

58.0 a

*

**


Bushels per Acre = t/ha x 17.8

- 62 -

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:

Iceberg Head Lettuce tLactuca sativa L.) cv 'Ithaca'Downy mildew, Bremia lactucae

FIELD EVALUATION OF FORECASTING SYSTEMS TO OPTIMIZEFUNGICIDE APPLICATIONS FOR DOWNY MILDEW OF LETTUCE, 1998.

MATERIALS: Lettuce (cv. Ithaca) and DITHANE DG (mancozeb 75%), RIDOMIL GOLD MZ(metalaxyl-m 3.9%, mancozeb 64%), RIDOMIL GOLD 1G (mefanoxam 1%), RIDOMIL 240 EC(metalaxyl 240g/L) and ALIETTE (fosetyl AL 80%).

METHODS: Three Muck Crops Research Station (MCRS) sites (sites 1,2 and 3, organic muck soil, pH6.4, organic matter 60%) and 1 commercial field site (site 4, organic muck soil) were established in theHolland Marsh, Ontario. Site 1 was transplanted (3 heads per m with 4 rows per bed) and sites 2, 3 and 4were direct seeded. All sites were assessed for downy mildew beginning after transplanting (site 1, 12May) or thinning (rows thinned to 3 heads per m with 4 rows per bed [site 2, 2 Jun and site 3, 14 Aug], 3rows per bed [site 4, 28 Jul]). Each weekday, between 8 and 11 am, 15 plants per replication wereassessed until harvest. Each plot consisted of 7 (sites 1 and 2), 9 (site 3) or 8 (site 4) treatments with 4replications in a randomized complete block design. Fungicide treatments, were initiated followingtransplanting or thinning. On-station, the fungicides were applied using a pull type plot sprayer with DGTee jet 8002 VS flat fan nozzles at 100 psi. (boom) and at the commercial site using a Solo back packsprayer (60 psi.) with a fan-jet nozzle.

TREATMENTS: The Conventional treatments (sprayed as recommended in the Ontario Ministry ofAgriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Vegetable Production Recommendations, Pub 363 1996/1997) weresprayed on a 7 to 10 day (protection period) schedule with DITHANE DG or ALIETTE or a 14 to 21day (protection period) schedule with RIDOMIL GOLD MZ. Two RIDOMIL 240 EC drenches beforetransplanting (site 1) and two RIDOMIL GOLD 1G seed in-furrow granular application (sites 2,3 and4) treatments were included, with no subsequent fungicide applications in one treatment and in the other,subsequent fungicide applications began 28 days after thinning using Forecasting system I (explainedbelow). The Forecasting system (FS) treatments were sprayed when the model criteria were met. Thefirst criteria was the achievement of a sporulation infection period (SIP), recorded each time the leaveswere wet for 3-5 hours before dawn and remained so until lOam. From when a SIP occurred, degreedays (DD) were calculated (base O°C). When 110 DD were accumulated, plots were sprayed withDITHANE DG (FSI) or ALIETTE (FSIII) and in FSII treatment plots, at 135 DD, RIDOMIL GOLDMZ was applied. Subsequent sprays were made when a SIP had the accumulated DD number and theprevious fungicide protection period was over.

ENVIRONMENT: Leaf wetness was assessed visually and also recorded at 1 min intervals using anelectronic grid leaf wetness sensor and temperature was recorded using a HMP35C temperature andrelative humidity probe, placed within the canopy at leaf height and connected to a CR21X CampbellScientific Data logger and stored at 15 min averages. No fungicides were applied to the control plots.Recommended control procedures for fungal and bacterial pathogens, weeds and insects were followed.Air temperatures were above the long term (10 year) average for May, and not different from the longterm average for Jun, Jul, Aug and Sept. Total rainfall was below the long term (10 year) average forMay (42.6 mm), Jul (50.2 mm) and Sept (18.6 mm); above average for Aug (114.6 mm) and not differentfrom the long term average for Jun (78.4 mm). Sites 2 and 3 were irrigated twice throughout the growingseason to offset the lack of natural precipitation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At harvest a sample of 25 heads from each repetition ofMCRS sites 1 and 2 were graded for downy mildew incidence and disease severity. Disease severity wasassessed using a scale from zero to five: zero - no lesions, one - 1 lesion, two - 2 to 5 lesions, three - 6 to10 lesions, four - 11 to 15 lesions and five - >& = 16 lesions. The total head number/scale was thenmultiplied by a factor (zero x 0, one xl, two x 2, three x 4, four x 8 and five x 16) and summed to fordisease severity. Head weight, of25 heads, was recorded from sites 1 and 2. Data were analyzed usingthe General Analysis of Variance function of the Linear Models section of Statistix, V. 4.1.

- 63 -


CONCLUSIONS: The transplant trial (Site 1) did not develop any signs of downy mildew infection.Downy mildew incidence and severity at site 2 was low with no significant differences among treatments(Table 1). Sites 1 and 2, established as early season trials, had hot dry climatic conditions not conduciveto downy mildew infection. Significant differences in downy mildew incidence and severity were foundamong treatments at sites 3 and 4. At site 3, the conventional RIDOMIL GOLD MZ treatment had thelowest incidence but was not significantly different from the conventional ALIETTE treatment and FSIIand III (RIDOMIL GOLD MZ and ALIETTE respectively). Downy mildew incidence in the controlwas significantly higher than all but two treatments, in-furrow RIDOMIL GOLD IG and FS I(DITHANE DG). The conventional DITHANE DG treatment had a significantly lower downy mildewincidence than its respective FS. Within the conventional and FS treatments RIDOMIL GOLD MZresulted in significantly lower incidence than DITHANE DG. The downy mildew incidence in the infurrow RIDOMIL GOLD IG was not significantly higher than the in-furrow plus FSI. At site 3, thecontrol and in-furrow RIDOMIL GOLD IG had significantly higher downy mildew severity than allother treatments. Severity ranged from 64.5 to 2.3 in the rest of the treatments but there were nosignificant differences. Site 4 did not develop downy mildew until 14 days before harvest. The threeconventional DITHANE DG, ALIETTE and RIDOMIL GOLD MZ treatments had the lowest downymildew incidence, significantly lower than their respective FS. The highest downy mildew incidenceoccurred in the in-furrow RIDOMIL GOLD IG treatment which was not significantly different fromFSI, II and the in-furrow RIDOMIL GOLD IG with FSI. Within the conventional and FS treatmentsthere were no significant differences among RIDOMIL GOLD MZ, DITHANE DG and ALIETTE.The SIP criteria called for one more spray application in all FSs but days to harvest had to be followed.Weather and grower responsibilities delayed the harvest. This resulted in higher downy mildewincidences since the heads were unprotected and conditions were optimum for infection. Fungicideapplications using the SOLO back pack sprayer were not optimum. Complete coverage of the lettuceleaves did not occur and the spray pressure and droplet size were not uniform from rep to rep.Commercial field sites may not be feasible for assessment of the FSs if standard spray equipment cannotbe used. At all sites the FSs resulted in fewer fungicide applications than their respective conventionaltreatments (Table 2). At the sites where downy mildew incidence was significantly lower or not differentfrom the conventional controls (sites 1,2 and 3) the reduction in fungicide applications was thereforesuccessful. Timing and form of application were crucial to controlling downy mildew. Significantdifferences in harvest weights were found at site 1 only (Table 2). The RIDOMIL 240 EC drench plusFSI resulted in the lightest harvest weights but was not significantly different from RIDOMIL 240 ECalone. The drench treatment plants exhibited phytotoxicity (visibly smaller from thinning to harvest) toRIDOMIL 240 EC. Further research into drench rates is necessary to avoid this problem.

* Partial funding for this project was made available by Food Systems 2002.

- 64 -

Table 1. Downy mildew incidence % (DMI) and severity (DMS) from 25 heads (Sites 2 & 3) and 15(Site 4) at harvest, at 2 MCRS and one off station field (in the Holland Marsh) site (S) in 1998.

Treatment DMI (%) DMS

S2 S3 S4 S2 S3

Control 4 a* 88 a 1.5 a 166.5 a •Drench/In-furrow - RIDOMIL 240EClGOLD IG 3 a 74 ab 93 a 1.8 a 134.5 a

Forecasting system 1- DITHANE DG Oa 71 ab 82 ab Oa 64.5 b

Drench/In-furrow - RIDOMIL 240EClGOLD Oa 57 be 82 ab Oa 40.3 bIG+FSI

Conventional - DITHANE DG Oa 38 cd 23 c Oa 22.3 b

Forecasting system 11- RIDOMIL GOLD MZ 1 a 24 de 78 ab 0.3 a 10.0 b

Conventional - ALIETTE 16 de 25 c 4.8 b

Forecasting system III - ALIETTE 14 e 68 b 4.8 b

Conventional - RIDOMIL GOLD MZ 1 a 8e 40 c 0.3 a 2.3 b._---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2. Lettuce head harvest weights (kg) of 25 heads and number of spray applications in1998.

Treatment Weight (kg) # Times Sprayed

Sl S2 Sl S2 S3 S4

Forecasting system 11- RIDOMIL GOLD MZ 23.4 a* 30.4 a 2

Conventional - DITHANE DG 23.1 a 28.8 a 5 4 4 5

Control 22.6 a 30.0 a 0 0 0

Forecasting system I - DITHANE DG 21.4 ab 27.6 a 4 2 2 2

Conventional - RIDOMIL GOLD MZ 21.3 ab 27.7 a 3 2 2 2

Drench/In-furrow - RIDOMIL 240 ECiGOLD IG 18.6 be 29.4 a 0 0 0 0

Drench/In-furrow - RIDOMIL 240 ECiGOLD IG 17.6 c 27.9 a 2+FSI

Conventional - ALIETTE 4 5

Forecasting system III - ALIETTE 2 2------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Both tables, numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different atP=0.05, Fisher's Protected LSD Test.

- 65 -

CROP:PEST:

Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L) cv. 'Ithaca'Pythium stunt, Pythium spp.

TITLE: FIELD EVALUATION OF FURROW APPLICATIONS OF RIDOMIL FOR THECONTROL OF PYTHIUM STUNT OF LETTUCE, 1998.

MATERIALS: Lettuce (cv. Ithaca) and RIDOMIL 2G (metalaxyl 2%)and RIDOMIL GOLD IG(mefanoxam 1%).

METHODS: Lettuce was direct seeded, using a Stan Hay precision seeder, into organic soil (pH 6.4,organic matter 60%) on 22 April in a commercial field site, with a history of pythium stunt, in theHoIland Marsh, Ontario. In-furrow treatments consisted of a control, RIDOMIL 2G and RIDOMILGOLD IG both at 115 g of product per 100 m of row. All lettuce plants were assessed for pythium stuntafter thinning (rows thinned to 3 heads per m with 4 rows per bed) was complete and continued once perweek until harvest. Plants with pythium stunt were counted weekly, beginning on 21 May and rogued outof the plots. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications pertreatment. Air temperatures were above the long term (10 year) average for May and not different fromthe long term average for June. Total rainfall was below the long term (10 year) average for May (42.6mm) and not different from the long term average for June (78.4 mm). No irrigation was used to offsetthe lack of precipitation during seedling emergence and plant growth. Recommended control proceduresfor fungal and bacterial pathogens, weeds and insects were followed. Data were analyzed using theGeneral Analysis of Variance function of the Linear Models section of Statistix, V. 4.1.


CONCLUSIONS: Incidence ofpythium stunt was low. These low levels could have been due to thevery dry conditions during the first 6 weeks of plant emergence and growth. Even so, significantdifferences (P=O.OOO 1) were found among the treatments. Levels of pythium stunt in lettuce treated withRIDOMIL GOLD IG and RIDOMIL 2G were significantly lower than those in the untreated controlbut were not significantly different from each other.

* Partial funding for this project was made available by Food Systems 2002.

Table 1. Cumulative incidence of pythium stunt of lettuce from thinning to harvest, in a commerciallettuce field in the Holland Marsh, Ontario, 1998.

Treatment Application rate /100 m of row Cumulative pythium stunt incidence(%)

RIDOMIL GOLD IG 115 g

RIDOMIL 2G 115 g

CONTROL

0.22 a*

0.98 a

10.30 b

Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P=0.05,Fisher's Protected LSD test.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*

- 66 -

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:

Lettuce cv. IthacaWeeds

CONTROL OF SOIL IN HEADS AND WEED PRESSURE IN LETTUCEUSING VARIOUS MULCHES, 1998.

MATERIALS: Black Plastic Mulch, Barley Seed, Wood chips 2.5 ern and smaller, obtainedfrom York Region's Organic Waste Composting Facility, POAST EC (sethoxydim 18.4%),MERGE, TEMBIND A 002 (lignosulfanate 48% solids, diluted to 35% solids) Cone CoffeeFilters #6

METHODS: The trial was conducted at the Muck Crops Research Station where weed seeds arenaturally present in the soil. Lettuce was seeded into plug trays (128's) on 9 Jun and transplantedinto organic soil (organic matter 60%, pH 6.4) on 6 Jul. A randomized complete blockarrangement with four blocks per treatment was used. Each replicate consisted of 8 rows (42 cmapart), 5 m in length. The plastic mulch was put down prior to transplanting and the lettuceplants were placed in holed cut into the plastic. The wood chips, barley at 60 kg/ha and 120 kg/hawere applied immediately after transplanting. The TEMBIND was applied on 15 Jul at 5000L/ha product. An untreated check of bare soil was also included. Once the barley reached 10 cmin height it was sprayed dead using POAST at 1.6 L/ha and MERGE at 1.0 L/ha. Weed countsof 1m2 were taken on 20 Jul, 4 and 20 Aug. The entire trial was hand weeded following the weedcounts been taken. Eighteen heads per replicate were harvested, weighed and washed on 20 and21 Aug. The wrapper leaves were removed and the heads were washed in a tub with 15 L ofwater to remove any dirt. The water was then filtered through #6 Cone Coffee Filters to removethe dirt from the water. The filters were allowed to air dry and then weighed. The air temperatureswere above the long term ( 10 year) average for May and not different from the long term average forJune, July, August and September. Total rainfall was below the long term ( 10 year) average for May(42.6 mm), July (50.2 mm), and September (18.6 mm), above average for August (114.6 mm) and notdifferent from the long term average for June (7804 mm ). Data were analyzed using the General Analysisof Variance function of the Linear Models section of Statistix VA.l.


CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were found among treatments in weed populations.The plastic mulch had the best control over the three assessment dates. The barley treatment hadthe highest weed counts on the first and third assessment dates at 32.8 and 50.5 weedsrespectively. The TEMBIND gave good control on the first assessment but was not differentfrom the check on the second and third, this could be result of disturbing of the soil when handweeding. No significant differences were found in soil in the heads. All treatments had less than1.0 grams of soil except the barley at 60 kg/ha. The plastic mulch and TEMBIND also had highamounts of soil. The barley applied at120 kg/ha had the lowest amount ofdirt at 0.63 grams.Significant differences were found in yield. The control had the highest yield at 0.97 kg/headwhich was significantly higher than the plastic mulch and the two barley treatments. The highrate ofbarley had the lowest yield at 0.76 kg/head. Lower yields in the plastic mulch wereunexpected, but may have been a result of the high temperatures during the trial. TheTEMBIND treatment was not phytotoxic to lettuce.

Table 1. Evaluation of various mulches for control of soil in heads and marketable weight, 1998.

- 67 -

Treatment MarketableWeight/head

Case of 18's(kg)

Soil/Head (g)

*

Control 0.97 17.4 a * 0.73 a

Wood Chips 0.92 16.5 ab 0.78 a

Plastic Mulch 0.79 14.3 be 0.85 a

TEMBIND @ 5000 Llha 0.89 16.0 abc 0.92 a

Barley @ 60 kg/ha 0.82 14.7 be 1.23 a

Barley @ 120 kg/ha 0.76 13.6 c 0.63 a


Table 2. Evaluation of various mulches for weed control in lettuce, 1998.

Treatment 20 JulWeed Populations (m")"

4 Aug 20 Aug

*

Control 22.3 cd** 5.8 c 16.3 a

Wood Chips 13.8 be 11.5 d 6.5 a

Plastic Mulch 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 a

TEMBIND @ 5000 Llha 6.8 ab 4.0 be 12.0 a

Barley @ 60 kg/ha 32.8 d 3.5 be 50.5 b

Barley @ 120 kg/ha 17.5 be 1.5 ab 25.3 ab

Weeds present in the total count are common groundsel, chickweed, oakleaf goosefoot,biannual wormwood and redroot pigweed.

** Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different atP = 0.05 Fisher's Protected LSD Test.

- 68 -

CROP:PEST:

TITLE:

Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) cv. IthacaWeeds

EV ALUAnON OF THE HERBICIDES PROWL 400 EC, CHLORO IPC 4.8 ECAND KERB 50 WP FOR WEED CONTROL IN LETTUCE, 1998

MATERIALS: PROWL 400 EC (pendimethalin 40%), CHLORO IPC 4.8 EC (chloropropham),KERB 50 WP (pronamide 50%)

METHODS: Lettuce was direct seeded (40 seeds/m) using a Stan Hay Precision seeder into organic soil(organic matter 60%, pH 6.4) naturally infested with weed seeds at the Muck Crops Research Station on7 May. Plants were thinned to 30 em within the rows on 1 Jun. A randomized complete blockarrangement with 4 blocks per treatment was used. Each replicate consisted of 8 rows (40 em apart), 5 min length. The treatments were as follows: KERB 50 WP at 5.0 kglha applied pre-emergence; KERB50WP at 9.0 kg/ha applied pre-emergence; CHLORO IPC at 10.0 Llha applied pre-emergence; KERB50 WP at 5.0 kg/ha applied pre-emergence and PROWL 400 EC at 4.0 Llha applied post-emergenceand CHLORO IPC at 10.0 Llha applied pre-emergence and PROWL 400 EC at 4.0 Llha applied postemergence. An untreated check was also included. All treatments were applied using a pull type plotsprayer with Tee Jet 8004 flat fan nozzles at 25 psi (boom) in 350 Llha of water. The pre-emergencetreatments were applied on 8 May. The post-emergence application of PROWL 400 was on 5 Jun.Weed counts of 1 m2 were taken on 27 May, 26 Jun and 9 Jul. All treatments were hand weeded after theweed counts were taken. Twenty-five heads were harvested and weighed on 8 Jul. The air temperatureswere above the long term ( 10 year) average for May and not different from the long term average forJune, July, August and September. Total rainfall was below the long term ( 10 year) average for May(42.6 mm), July (50.2 mm), and September (18.6 mm), above average for August (114.6 mm) and notdifferent from the long term average for June (78.4 mm ). Data were analyzed using the General Analysisof Variance function of the Linear Models section of Statistix VA. 1.


CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were found among treatments during the entire trial period.The application of the herbicides did lower the weed population for May and June but not for July. Theweather played a key role in the trial. The lower than average rainfall in May may have reduced theeffectiveness of the herbicides. Significant differences in yield were found among treatments. Thecheck had the highest yield at 26.8 kg. The two post-emergence PROWL applications had significantlylower yields than the other treatments. Common groundsel was not controlled by the herbicidestreatments and accounted for the largest portion of the total weed counts. All other weed populationswere lowered by the herbicide applications.

Table 1. Evaluation of KERB 50WP, CHLORO IPC and PROWL 400 for weed control inlettuce, 1998.

Treatment and Rate Weed Population (rrr' )* % Change in Population Yield27 May 26 Jun 9 Jul May - Jun Jun - Jul kg/25

heads----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Check 41 a** 16 a 4a - 66 a - 74 a 26.8 a

KERB 50 WP at 5.0 kg/ha 28 a 11 a 4a - 66 a - 67 a 26.3 ab

KERB 50 WP at 9.0 kg/ha 25 a 9 a 3 a - 60 a - 69 a 25.5 ab

CHLORO IPC at 10.0 27 a 12 a 5 a - 55 a - 58 a 24.0bL/ha

KERB 50 WP at 5.0 kg/ha 33 a 8 a 2a - 73 a - 69 a 21.5c+ PROWL 400 at 4.0 L/ha

CHLORO IPC at 10.0 22 a 7 a 2a - 68 a - 69 a 21.5cL/ha + PROWL 400 at 4.0

L/ha

- 69 -

*

**

Weeds present in total number are those of chickweed, common groundsel, oakleafgoosefoot, biannual wormwood, portulaca and redroot pigweed.


_ 70 -

•I

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1. 1

1

" 11

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1• 1

1

• 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

11

CARROT CULTIVAR TRIALS 1998SEASON SUMMARY

The weather during the 1998 growing season had a number of effects on the Carrot Cultivar Trials. Air temperatures were above the long term(10 year) average for May and October and not different from the long term average for June, July, August and September. Total rainfall wasbelow the long term (10 year) average for May (42.6 mm), July (50.2 mm), Sep (18.6 mm) and Oct (26.2 mm) and above for Aug (114.6 mm)and not different from the long term average for June (78.4 mm). Even though the Holland Marsh experienced an early spring (planting 7 to 10days early on average), the carrot trials were seeded approximately the same time as in previous years. The soil conditions at seeding were quitedry and irrigation water was applied to encourage seed germination. A strong wind storm occurred on 31 May, which caused erosion of theraised seed beds. However, luckily no seeds or seedlings were lost. The storm did not seem to cause any long term ill effects to the carrot trials.The weather in June was favourable and allowed for good emergence and stand in most cultivars. Weeds also grew well during June, and due tothe wind storm of May, the pre-emergence herbicide was lost. Several low rate applications of LOROX close together helped to bring the weedsunder manageable control. Irrigation water was applied a couple of times during July to provide moisture. The carrot tops slowed in growth andappeared to stall for most of July. In early August a weather system moved in for approximately two days and delivered 2 inches of rain. Thisrain really re-started the carrots' growth. The tops seemed to double in size over a one week period. Thanks also to the dryer season, Alternarialeaf blight was not a major problem until fall.

When the Cut and Peel Trial was harvested in late August, the yield was disappointing. The dry conditions of the summer had a negative effecton the carrots' length and width. At Open House (3 Sep), a small sample was pulled from the trials for display. At this time the PackagingCarrots looked great. Size, length and appearance of most cultivars was better than in previous years. When the Processing Carrots were pulled,there was again some disappointment. The size (width and length) of all cultivars was smaller than expected. Poor size could be attributed to thedry conditions, but length should have been better.

At harvest in October, very little had changed in the Packaging or Processing Trials since late August. Packaging Carrots were still quite nice.There were fewer forked carrots than in previous years; however a slight increase in split carrots was noted. Once regular fungicide sprays hadstopped in early September, the Alternaria leaf blight settled in as a result of the cool nights and heavy dews of September. This allowed a goodvisual blight rating to be made. For the Processing Carrots, the same comments could be made except yield was poorer than in previous years.The warm weather at harvest did not affect our harvest. Fortunately our Filacell storage was able to cool down the carrots quickly. Some localfarmers started slightly later or slowed down harvest until colder weather prevailed.

During the evaluation of the carrot trials in December, yields in the Packaging Trial appeared to be the same as in previous years. All the carrotcultivars were, in general, of good quality and appearance. The one surprise was that cavity spot was high, which was unexpected due to the dryseason. In the Processing Trial some cultivars scored well in overall quality and appearance and some were average. The yield was definitelydown in 1998. Cavity spot was also higher than in previous years for all the processing varieties.

In conclusion, the Carrot Cultivar Trials performed well in 1998 and weather played a role. Some yields were slightly below average, and ingeneral most cultivars produced carrots of good quality and appearance.

... Icontinued......~

CARROT CULTIVAR TRIALS - 1998 - PACKAGING TYPES

MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES

Fertilizer:60 kglha Nitrogen + 20 kg/ha Phosphorous + 80 kglha Potassium was worked into the soil.

Seeded:All trials were seeded 27 and 28 May using a V-Belt seeder equipped with a 5 ern wide scatter shoe. Germination of95 to 100%, a target of 28 seedsper foot was desired. All trials were seeded on beds 86 em apart. The seeding rate was according to germination. Ridomil2G was applied at 25 kglhain the seed furrow. Main Trial was replicated three times. Adaptation Trial was not replicated.

"N

Weed Control:Pre-emergence:Post-emergence:

1 application Gesagard 3.75 kglha 30 May.2 applications Lorox DF 1.5 kglha 1 July and 11 July.

Insect and Disease Control:According to IPM recommendations.

Harvest:The Main Trial and Adaptation Trial were harvested 14,15,16 and 19 Oct. All trials were immediately placed in a temperature and humiditycontrolled storage (OOe, 95 % RH) respectively.

EVALVAnON PROCEDURESThe cultivars were evaluated on 30 Nov and 1 and 2 Dec after 6 weeks in storage.

# Carrots Harvested:Total number of carrots harvested from 2.32 m of row.

Harvest Weights:Weights from the harvested 2.32 m of row.

Marketable Yield t/ha + BA:Marketable yield includes the packaging size, 2.0 to 4.4 ern ('i4 to 1W') as well as the oversize >4.4 ern (> 1'i4").

% Oversize:The percentage of carrots> 4.4 em (> l'i4 ") and greater.

... /continued

..

CARROT CULTIVAR TRIALS -1998 - PACKAGING TYPES - continued

Shape: GP = Gold Pak NAN = Nante IMP = Imperator C = Cylindrical.

StandfMeter:Stand/meter of row divided by 3.28 = stand per foot.

Blight:Regular fungicide applications were discontinued on 5 Sep to allow the cultivars to be evaluated for tolerance to leaf blights. Evaluation tookplace at harvest. 5.0 = Most Desirable, no lesions. 4.0 = Good, mild lesions on leaves, nothing on petioles. 3.7 = Moderate, lesions on leaves,some lesions on petioles. 2 = Poor, numerous lesions on leaves, numerous lesions on petioles. 1 = Severe, tops completely rotted, crop can not beharvested.

% Cavity Spot & Degree:The number indicates the percentage of roots with cavity spots.The letters indicate the degree to which the roots were infected.VL = Very Light, cavity spots are few and barely visible.L = Light, few small spots. M = Medium, roots borderline marketable. H = Heavy, large cavity spots, roots unmarketable. VH = Very Heavy,many large cavity spots, roots unmarketable.Example: 50 H =50% of the roots were heavily infected with cavity spots, roots unmarketable.

Resistance to Greening:The higher the number the less green tissue on the crown of the carrot 5.0 = no green tissue, 3.7 = moderated green tissue, 1.0 = total green tissue.

External Colour:DO = Dark Orange 0 = Orange

Internal Colour:WO = White Orange 0 = Orange

Score:

BO = Bright Orange

BO = Bright Orange

The average of the 7 marks from Uniformity of Shape to External Colour.

Rusty Root:In the past few years, Rusty Root has not been a problem at the Muck Crops Research Station. If any Rusty Root is found on any cultivars, aspecial notation is placed below the cultivar results.

. . . /continued

"'"oJW

.....~

I

CARROT CULTIVAR MAIN TRIAL -1998 - PACKAGING TYPES

bil bil '-'<l)

c, c, enJ: E bil

<l)

o"0 bIl u C,~ ·0 '<t "0

t:'" ~ ..,f E '"<l)

> - , u<l) '0... '<t'" '" E :D <l) ... c,<l)::r: 1: u ..,f '" N <l) ell

'" N II ti Vi ti Coj

~... '0 -t: ...'" <l) ::r: J: J: .;;> t:

<l)<l) --- J:u bIl bIl

oj > "0 '"- ... oj c;;·iJ ·iJ oj <r: ~ 0

c, t: bIl U:; :::> U '0 ::r: '" '"0~ ~ --- ~ ~

..c: til co ~U ell 'It: E- :;, CI:l 0 0 ell 0

CANADA SUPER X Sol 126 15.30 11.49 3.04 73 1170 94.9 a * 20 IMP 54 3.7 53 MH94668 A.Ch. 154 18.24 12.50 4.69 86 1384 94.1 a 25 GP 66 4.0 60HSTX 3110 Sto 162 19.15 16.35 1.51 89 1438 93.3 a 8 IMP/CYL 70 4.4 47MSUNRISE Cro 173 18.80 14.11 3.38 87 1408 92.9 a 17 GP 75 4.1 60MHM02 HM 147 19.00 14.28 3.34 88 1419 92.7 a 18 IMP 63 3.9 72M

IOWA BEJO 163 16.93 10.73 4.76 77 1247 91.9 a 29 GP 70 4.2 70MSIX PAK.II HM 141 16.86 13.03 2.28 77 1232 90.9 a 14 IMP 61 3.9 52MORANGETTE Sto 165 19.04 14.03 3.18 86 1386 90.3 a 17 GP 71 4.1 70MXPH 95W6 Cro 142 18.05 11.48 4.83 82 1312 90.2 a 27 IMP 61 4.4 73 HXP3973 Asg 149 19.47 12.83 4.74 88 1414 90.1 a 24 IMP 64 4.2 80M

DAWN DEE Sol 134 17.35 10.12 5.47 78 1255 89.8 a 31 IMP 58 4.4 77MH18002 Asg 124 15.08 9.27 4.01 66 1069 88.1 a 27 IMP 53 4.3 75MHORANGEPAK. Nor 103 16.54 7.73 6.76 72 1166 87.4 a 41 GP 44 3.3 62MHM03 HM 128 14.62 10.51 2.11 63 1015 87.0 a 15 IMP 55 3.6 48MHCELLO BUNCH Asg 134 18.97 12.79 3.66 82 1324 86.8 a 20 IMP/CYL 58 3.9 70MH

ITHICA BEJO 143 17.38 12.72 2.29 75 1208 85.3 a 13 GP 62 4.7 67MTEMPTATION PETO 143 20.15 15.01 2.18 86 1384 85.2 a 10 GP 61 4.2 62MHINDIANA BEJO 155 17.23 12.52 1.91 72 1162 83.7 a 11 IMP 67 4.1 93MHSIX PAK. HM 171 16.42 12.62 1.04 68 1100 83.1 a 6 IMP 74 3.9 43 MSTYLOS PETO 173 20.26 14.67 1.79 82 1325 80.8 a 9 IMP 75 4.3 78M

Listed in order of % Marketable.

* No significant differences (P = 0.05, Fisher's Protected LSD Test) were found among any of the cultivars.

CARROT CULTIVAR MAIN TRIAL -1998 - PACKAGING TYPES

eJ) eo eo..c c "=: "=:<l.l .s: '6iJ c (;j0- il (;jCIl C <l.l 0::E E ..c

~<l.l ~ 0::

VJ -J 0... ::; .... ...

~ ~ E ..... ..... ..... ::> ::> ::>0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0..c ..c o <l.l "0 "0 "0 "0eo :0

'-' c-, c-, c-, U <l.l U UC <l.l "§ "§ "§ c o U U.... <l.l

~"~ r:! c (;j (;j (;j (;jCIl <l.l -J VJ CIl CIl E E>

~ <2 <2 <2 <l.l ti E E <l.l- 0 0 <l.l 0- "iii <l.l <l.l a:; ::> a "c >< ><<l.l <l.l

0 0 0 c c 0- <l.l E E uu VJ 0:: 0:: U ::J ::J ::J <C 0:: U.l U.l VJ

CANADA SUPER X Sol 25 3.4 1.3 4.3 4.1 3.8 3.9 4.6 0 4.1 0 4.2 4.14 a94668 A.Ch. 20 3.0 1.2 4.2 4.3 4.0 3.7 4.4 0 4.1 0 4.2 4.14 aSTX 3110 Sto 23 3.6 1.3 4.0 4.3 4.0 4.2 4.2 BO 4.1 BO 4.0 4.11 aSUNRISE Cro 22 3.5 1.5 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.7 4.4 BO 4.1 BO 4.1 4.00 aHM02 HM 25 3.3 1.3 4.4 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.7 0 4.1 WO 4.0 4.19 a

IOWA BElO 19 3.7 2.3 4.1 4.1 3.8 3.6 4.7 DO 4.1 BO 4.1 4.07 aSIX PAK II HM 24 3.6 1.5 3.9 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.4 BO 4.1 0 3.9 4.10 aORANGETTE Sto 23 3.6 1.5 3.8 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.4 0 4.1 0 3.9 4.00 aXPH 95W6 Cro 22 3.7 1.5 3.8 4.0 3.7 3.8 4.7 BO 4.1 BO 4.0 4.01 aXP3973 Asg 24 3.6 1.4 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.4 BO 4.1 a 3.9 4.09 a

DAWNDEE Sol 22 3.7 1.7 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.9 5.0 DO 4.1 BO 4.1 4.12 a18002 Asg 24 3.5 1.3 4.1 3.8 3.8 3.8 4.7 0 4.1 a 3.9 4.03 aORANGEPAK Nor 27 3.5 1.4 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.7 4.6 0 4.1 a 3.6 3.97 aHM03 HM 24 3.4 1.5 4.7 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.7 0 4.1 WO 3.7 4.19 aCELLOBUNCH Asg 23 3.6 1.5 4.2 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.1 BO 4.1 a 3.9 4.03 a

ITHICA BEla 20 3.4 1.1 4.3 4.1 4.2 3.8 4.4 BO 4.1 a 4.1 4.15 aTEMPTATION PETO 22 3.6 1.3 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.7 0 4.1 a 4.2 4.11 aINDIANA BEla 25 3.3 1.2 4.3 4.0 3.9 3.9 4.7 0 4.1 BO 4.1 4.14 aSIXPAK HM 22 3.2 1.2 4.3 4.0 3.8 3.9 4.6 0 4.1 a 4.0 4.10 aSTYLOS PETO 26 3.4 1.3 4.4 4.3 3.7 4.2 3.8 BO 4.1 a 4.3 4.12 a

Listed in orderof % Marketable. Root Length (em): 20cm = 8 inches

5.0 = Most Desirable, 4.7 = Good, 3.7 = AverageI

'-l<.T1

CARROT CULTIVAR ADAPTATON TRIAL -1998 -PACKAGING TYPES

----<1J<1JOil ---- ....

~ Oil Oil'-' ~ <1J

.E '-' ---- Q"0 Oil E Oil "0<1J ~.....- '0 u '-' I':Vl

~ "': E <<1Je .....- "1" u <1J "0'" Vl , "1" ::0 <1J ....

0-<1J E:r:: e ~ .f f3 N [/)

U3 <1JVl

'"('oj II <1J E Co.... "0 ::r: ~ ....

'" <1J .E .E ... <1J '>>- u t:: '5 Oil Oil '" >- <1J "0 .E '".....- ... '" '0 '0 '" ~ ::E 0 0- I': Oil U~

;::l u S '" f30 0~ ~ ~

..J:: iii ~u [/) 'It: f-< a:l "of. 0 o: o: 0

XPH97W96 Cro 94 11.61 9.57 1.69 56 906 97.0 14.6 IMP 41 4.3 100MHHMX 5315 HM 120 12.64 11.16 0.88 60 969 95.3 7.0 GP/CYL 52 4.0 95M18004 Asg 79 12.21 6.58 5.01 58 933 94.9 41.0 GP 34 4.7 65LMZINO Car 89 14.97 10.87 3.24 71 1136 94.3 21.6 NAN 38 4.3 65M

SEMPRA Car 87 13.30 8.91 3.59 63 1006 94.0 27.0 NAN 38 4.7 35 MPX 44994 PETO 134 14.84 11.98 1.91 69 1118 93.6 12.9 IMP 58 3.7 100MFORT KNOX BO 166 14.74 13.16 0.55 69 1104 93.0 3.7 GP 72 4.7 100 H18006 Asg 106 13.61 11.02 1.50 63 1008 92.0 11.0 GP 46 4.3 55 M

MICHEL Car 107 14.86 11.87 1.72 68 1094 91.5 11.6 N/CYL 46 4.0 67MPX 131695 PETO 171 18.38 14.05 1.98 80 1290 87.2 10.8 GP 74 4.7 100MHPX 140395 PETO 166 17.29 15.05 0.00 75 1212 87.0 0.0 IMP 72 4.7 100MKWIKPAK Nor 113 15.13 9.20 3.83 65 1049 86.1 25.3 GP 49 3.7 85 M

CUBIC Car 97 15.44 6.91 6.35 66 1067 85.9 41.1 GP 42 4.3 93 HHMX6320 HM 109 12.37 9.05 1.51 53 850 85.4 12.2 IMP 47 4.0 75 MPRIMECUT 59 Sun 171 17.91 13.81 0.73 73 1170 81.2 4.1 IMP 74 4.7 100MHSRC 3285 Sun 90 10.57 6.88 0.30 36 578 67.9 2.8 IMP 39 4.3 90MHSRC X73 Sun 104 17.68 7.54 0.87 42 677 47.6 4.9 IMP 45 4.7 100H


.......0'>

CARROT CUL TIVAR ADAPTATON TRIAL -1998 - PACKAGING TYPES

oJ) oJ) oJ).l:: l=: l=: ,5Q) ...r:: 0'rJ '8 '~

0- -B ~ ~

---- '" l=: Q) 0:::a ---- ...r:: ~Q) Q) 0:::a ell .....l .... .... ....

u a C> ;:::l ;:::l .... ....'-' u '- '- 4-< 0 0 ;:::l ;:::l

'-' 0 0 0 .8 0 0.s .s u Q) "0 "0 "0 "0oJ) '-' c c c u Q) U Ul=: '"0 Q) '§ '§ '§ l=: u U U.... Q)

~N '" l=: (;J (;J

'" Q) .....l U3 .... .s (;J (;Jof; '" E Eu <8 <.8 <8 Q) Ul E E Q).... "0 "0 Q)

0- 'Vi 2 Q) ...."5 ;:::l .... '8 '8 '8 ~ 2 Q) 0

0 0 0 0 0- Q) ~ :s uU ell 0::: 0::: U ~ ~ ~ <t:: 0::: U.l U.l l=: ell-XPH97W96 Cro 23.4 3.7 1.5 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.0 4.7 DO 4.0 0 4.3 4.27HMX 5315 HM 23.3 3.5 1.3 4.3 4.3 4.0 4.0 4.7 0 4.3 WO 4.0 4.2318004 Asg 23.3 3.6 1.3 4.0 4.3 4.0 4.3 4.7 0 4.0 0 4.0 4.19ZINO Car 20.7 3.8 1.9 4.3 4.3 4.0 3.3 3.3 BO 4.3 BO 4.0 3.93

SEMPRA Car 18.2 3.7 1.4 4.3 4.3 3.7 4.3 4.3 BO 4.7 BO 4.7 4.33PX 44994 PETO 25.1 3.3 1.3 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.7 0 4.3 0 4.0 4.23FORT KNOX BO 20.5 3.7 1.1 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 5.0 DO 4.7 BO 4.3 4.1118006 Asg 22.7 3.6 1.5 3.7 4.3 4.0 4.3 4.7 0 4.0 BO 3.7 4.10

MICHEL Car 20.0 3.8 1.6 4.7 4.0 3.3 4.3 4.3 BO 4.7 WO 4.0 4.19PX 131695 PETO 23.3 3.7 1.1 4.3 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 BO 4.3 BO 4.3 4.26PX 140395 PETO 24.6 3.4 1.3 4.3 4.0 4.0 4.3 5.0 0 4.3 0 4.3 4.31KWIKPAK Nor 22.1 3.5 1.3 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.3 BO 4.7 0 4.3 4.19

CUBIC Car 20.6 3.8 1.8 4.3 3.7 3.0 3.3 3.3 BO 3.7 BO 4.0 3.61HMX 6320 HM 25.4 3.2 1.2 4.7 4.3 4.0 4.3 4.7 0 4.0 0 3.7 4.24PRIMECUT 59 Sun 25.1 3.5 1.5 4.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 BO 4.3 BO 4.3 4.19SRC 3285 Sun 24.4 3.3 1.3 4.3 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.7 DO 4.0 BO 4.0 3.96SRC X73 Sun 28.4 3.5 1.4 4.7 4.0 4.3 4.0 4.0 0 4.3 0 4.3 4.23

Listed in orderof % Marketable. '-J'-J

LONG TERM AVERAGE OF CARROT CULTIVARS - PACKAGING TYPES

MARKETABLE# YEARS LENGTH YIELD %

CULTIVAR SOURCE TESTED cm Inches t/Ha BfA MARKETABLE SCORE *

STYLOS PETO 2 26.70 10.51 83.20 1341 84 4.10HM02 HM 2 25.30 9.96 83.60 1346 87 4.14HM03 HM 2 24.20 9.53 67.10 1096 85 4.17ORANGEPAK Nor 5 24.00 9.45 83.50 1342 86 3.78CARO-CHIEF Asg 4 23.65 9.31 76.10 1359 82 4.09CXC 2670 Chr 2 23.40 9.21 66.30 1064 74 3.94PAYDIRT Sham 2 23.40 9.21 96.05 1715 89 3.94ORANGETTE Sto 3 23.20 9.13 105.60 1399 85 3.92CANADA SUPER X Sol 13 22.80 8.98 79.90 1367 82 3.93PREMIUM Asg 2 22.80 8.98 80.40 1291 82 3.88SUNRISE Cro 9 22.80 8.98 86.90 1469 84 3.91ORLANDO GOLD Sto 7 22.63 8.91 69.18 1235 86 4.18

XPH95W6 Cro 2 22.60 8.90 70.80 1139 89 4.02LEGEND PETO 4 22.45 8.84 62.68 1119 75 3.90SIXPAK HM 14 22.40 8.82 76.00 1309 81 3.96CELLOBUNCH Asg 9 21.90 8.62 94.30 1586 85 3.94SIX PAK II HM 13 21.90 8.62 78.20 1342 84 3.8824 KARAT FM 3 21.73 8.56 90.09 1609 88 3.71IMPERATOR 58 Cro 9 21.69 8.54 50.34 899 78 3.64FIRST CLASS Asg 3 21.60 8.50 74.30 1197 70 3.90TEMPTATION PETO 2 21.60 8.50 78.50 1267 80 4.13AVENGER PETO 7 21.50 8.46 81.00 1369 80 3.94MOTHERLODE Sham 2 21.50 8.46 92.75 1656 85 3.80

"ex>

Listed in order of length. * 5.0 = Most Desirable, 4.0 = Good, 3.7 = Average

,

LONG TERM AVERAGE OF CARROT CULTIVARS - PACKAGING TYPES

MARKETABLE# YEARS LENGTH YIELD %

CULTIVAR SOURCE TESTED cm Inches tlHa BIA MARKETABLE SCORE *

CARO-CHOICE Asg 2 21.25 8.37 93.00 1661 86 3.72DAWN DEE Sol 3 21.20 8.35 58.70 938 66 4.02ORANGE SHERBET Sto 10 21.17 8.33 73.36 1310 84 3.81CAROPAK Asg 8 20.93 8.24 74.11 1323 85 3.88CHANCELLOR Asg 7 20.92 8.24 76.79 1371 83 3.86FLAME Rog 4 20.83 8.20 73.50 1313 79 3.72GOLDPAK28 FM 12 20.76 8.17 55.91 998 85 3.84PAKMOR HM 5 20.74 8.17 62.40 1114 81 3.79PARAMOUNT Asg 7 20.55 8.09 82.14 1467 85 3.89PLATO Chr 2 20.55 8.09 101.00 1804 82 3.80PROSPECTOR PETO 5 20.23 7.96 94.99 1696 83 4.02DISCOVERY Sieg 3 20.01 7.88 70.60 1261 78 3.92

SEMINOLE Sun 4 20.01 7.88 69.31 1238 77 3.89DOMINATOR Sun 13 19.74 7.77 63.88 1141 85 3.85KLONDIKE NANTES Sto 10 19.59 7.71 72.10 1287 85 3.87SIXPENCE HM 4 19.56 7.70 79.48 1419 80 3.80DELPHI RZ 3 19.53 7.69 93.97 1678 83 3.88BLAZE Rog 4 19.33 7.61 71.88 1284 78 3.95INGOT A.Ch. 3 19.06 7.50 74.10 1323 71 3.88MOKUM BEIO 3 18.03 7.10 103.99 1857 80 3.90SPARTAN CLASSIC 80 Cro 3 17.93 7.06 63.33 1131 78 3.78SCARLET NANTES Asg 8 14.50 5.71 66.00 1179 75 3.46EARLIBIRD NANTES Sto 2 14.25 5.61 116.00 2071 89 3.63

Listed in order of length. * 5.0 = Most Desirable, 4.0 = Good, 3.7 = Average-...J<D

coCARROT CULTIVAR STORAGE TRIAL - PACKAGING 1997/1998 0

% % % DEGREECULTIVAR SOURCE MARKETABLE WEIGHT LOSS DECAY OF ROT **

HM03 HM 84 a * 8 7 4.4 aHM02 HM 84 a 11 6 4.7 aORANGEPAK Nor 82 ab 8 10 4.4 aCANADA SUPER X Sol 77 abc 9 14 4.3 aCELLOBUNCH Asg 77 abc 11 12 4.5 aPREMIUM Asg 75 abc 12 12 4.6 aORANGE PAK germ + Nor 75 abc 12 13 4.1 aTEMPTATION PETO 72 a-d 11 16 4.2 aFIRST CLASS Asg 71 a-d 11 17 4.2 aSIX PAK II HM 68 a-d 12 21 4.2 a

AVENGER PETO 67 a-d 10 23 4.1 aXPH 95W6 Cro 66 a-d 13 21 4.4 aSIXPAK HM 65 bcd 10 25 3.9 abSUNRISE Cro 64 bcd 10 25 4.3 aSTYLOS PETO 62 cd 11 27 4.2 aPS 140395 PETO 61 cd 12 27 4.0 abCXC 2670 Chr 54 de 11 36 3.7 abDAWN DEE Sol 40 e 9 51 2.6 cCXC 94668 Chr 36 e 12 52 3.0 be

Listed in order of % Marketable. Storage period was approximately 38 weeks

* Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05, Fisher's Protected LSD Test.

** 5.0 = No disease, 3.7 = Moderate, 1.0 = Severe (liquefied)

"

LONG TERM AVERAGES - CARROT CULTIVAR STORAGE TRIAL - PACKAGING TYPES

% WEIGHT DEGREE*#YEARS % LOSS % OF

CULTIVAR SOURCE TESTED MARKETABLE IN STORAGE DECAY DECAY

SPARTAN CLASSIC 80 Sto 4 90.8 6.8 2.4 3.5GOLD PAK 28 Sto 3 86.7 10.0 3.3 4.2LEGEND PETO 3 85.9 8.4 5.3 3.3KLONDIKE NANTES Sto 4 85.6 8.1 6.3 3.7BLAZE Rog 4 84.4 10.0 4.8 3.2CUTLASS Sun 4 84.3 9.3 6.4 3.524 KARAT FM 3 84.0 7.2 8.6 3.3DELPHI RZ 3 83.9 12.4 3.5 4.0PAY DIRT Sham 2 83.8 9.3 9.7 3.8DOMINATOR Sun 4 83.5 9.3 7.2 3.1

ICE GOLD Nor 2 83.3 12.1 4.2 3.5ORANGE SHERBET Sto 6 82.9 9.0 8.1 2.8PAK MOR HM 6 82.7 11.5 6.5 2.6GOLDEN STATE A.Ch. 2 82.0 8.5 9.0 3.0CELLOBUNCH Asg 6 81.2 11.5 8.0 3.5PROSPECTOR PETO 4 80.0 6.3 13.3 2.7AVENGER PETO 7 79.5 11.5 8.7 4.0CANADA SUPER X Sol 12 79.4 10.4 10.0 3.3CRUSADER FM 2 79.3 15.4 4.9 3.7CARO-CHIEF Asg 5 78.5 10.1 11.0 3.3MOKUM BElO 3 78.5 7.9 13.3 2.5

Listed in order of% marketable. Storage period is approximately 9 months.

*5 = No Disease, 3.7 = Moderate, 1.0 = Severe (Liquefied)co.....

coN

I

LONG TERM AVERAGES - CARROT CULTIVAR STORAGE TRIAL - PACKAGING TYPES

% WEIGHT DEGREE*#YEARS % LOSS % OF

CULTIVAR SOURCE TESTED MARKETABLE IN STORAGE DECAY DECAY

DISCOVERY Rog 3 77.8 8.5 13.2 2.7ORANGEPAK Nor 4 77.8 12.6 9.5 3.7SIX PAK HM 13 77.8 11.2 10.9 3.3SEMINOLE Sun 3 77.3 10.0 12.3 2.9SUNRISE Cro 8 77.0 12.5 10.3 3.7ORANGETTE Sto 2 76.9 19.2 4.4 3.7NEPTUNE Chr 2 76.8 19.1 2.7 4.2CENTENNIAL Asg 2 76.5 3.0 20.0 2.8SIX PAK II HM 12 76.5 10.9 12.4 3.3MOTHERLODE Sham 2 76.4 9.6 14.2 3.4CHANCELLOR Asg 7 75.3 11.3 13.3 2.2

ORLANDO GOLD Sto 6 75.2 12.7 12.1 2.2FANCI PAK Rog 3 73.4 10.2 16.2 2.7PARAMOUNT Asg 3 73.0 13.3 13.7 3.1PREMIUM Asg 2 72.9 18.6 7.9 4.2SIX PENCE HM 4 72.7 8.4 18.4 2.0FIRST CLASS Asg 3 72.0 13.6 12.4 4.0FLAME Rog 4 70.8 11.4 17.4 2.9SPECIAL NANTES 616 Sto 2 68.3 7.4 24.3 2.0CAROPAK Asg 4 67.0 10.7 22.3 2.2CXC 2670 Chr 2 61.9 17.9 20.6 3.9DAWN DEE Sol 2 52.2 18.2 29.6 3.6

Listed in order of % marketable. Storage period is approximately 9 months.

*5 = No Disease, 3.7 = Moderate, 1.0 = Severe (Liquefied)

CARROT CULTIVAR TRIALS - 1998 - PROCESSING TYPES


Fertilizer:60 kg/ha Nitrogen + 20 kg/ha Phosphorous + 80 kg/ha Potassium was worked into the soil.

Seeded:All trials were seeded 26 and 27 May using a V-Belt seeder equipped with a 5 cm wide scatter shoe. All trials were seeded on beds 86 em apart.Germination of95 to 100%, a target of 14 seeds per foot was desired. The seeding rate was according to germination. Ridomil2G was applied at25 kg/ha in the seed furrow. Main Trial was replicated three times. Adaptation Trial was not replicated.

Weed Control:Pre-emergence:Post-emergence:

I application Gesagard 3.75 kg/ha 30 May.2 applications Lorox DF 1.5 kg/ha I Jul and 11 Jul.


Harvest:The Main and Adaptation Trials were harvested on 13 and 14 Oct. Both trials were immediately placed in a temperature and humidity controlledstorage (OOe, 95% RH) respectively.

EV ALUATION PROCEDURESThe cultivars were evaluated on 9 and 10 Dec after 8 weeks in storage.



Marketable Yield t/ha + B/A:Marketable yield includes the processing sizes> 6.5 em (2 \/2") 6.5 em to 3.8 em (2 \/2" to 1 \/2") and < 3.8 ern to « 1 \/2") in diameter.56 t/ha = 1,000 bushels per acre.

. . .Icontinued

00w

CARROT CULTIVAR TRIALS - 1998 - PROCESSING TYPES - continuedco.j::>

Shape:GP = Gold PakSP. = Spartan Bonus

D = DanverIMP = Imperator

L.D. = Long DanverGPN = Gold Pak Nante

NAN = NanteC = Cylindrical.

Weight Root (g):The average weight of a root 6.5 em to 3.8 em (2 12" to 112") in diameter.

% Cavity Spot & Degree:The number indicates the percentage of roots with cavity spots.The letters indicate the degree to which the roots were infected.VL = Very Light, cavity spots are few and barely visible.L = Light, few small spots. M = Medium, roots borderline marketable. H = Heavy, large cavity spots, roots unmarketable. VH = Very Heavy,many large cavity spots, roots unmarketable.

Example: 50 H = 50% of the roots were heavily infected with cavity spots, roots unmarketable.

Shape of Crown:Rated on degree of indentation. CX = Convex CV = Concave.

Resistance to Greening:The higher the number the less green tissue on the crown of the carrot 5.0 = no green tissue, 3.7 = moderate green tissue, 1.0 = total green tissue.

External Skin Colour:O=Orange, BO = Bright Orange, LO = Light Orange, DO = Dark Orange.

Score:The average of the 10 marks from Uniformity of Width to Internal Uniformity of Colour.

Blight:Regular fungicide applications were discontinued on 5 Sep to allow the cultivars to be evaluated for tolerance to leaf blights. Evaluation took placeat harvest. 5.0 = Most Desirable, no lesions. 4.0 = Good, mild lesions on leaves, nothing on petioles. 3.7 = Moderate, lesions on leaves, some lesionson petioles. 2 = Poor, numerous lesions on leaves, numerous lesions on petioles. 1 = Severe, tops completely rotted, crop can not be harvested.

Rusty Root:In the past few years, Rusty Root has not been a problem at the Muck Crops Research Station. If any Rusty Root is found on any cultivars, a specialnotation is placed below the cultivar results.

. . .Icontinued

CARROT CULTIVAR MAIN TRIAL - 1998 - PROCESSING TYPES

,-..,M ,-.., <1)...:.:: M <1)

'--' ...:.:: .....E ,-.., '--' ,-.., M

"0M E

M <1)M ...:.:: ...:.:: c

~ ·0 '--' u '--' ,-..,Vl

~ E E ,-.., E ,-.., 06<1) V) E~ u I.Ci u M u E 0.... 0 '--' '--' ~ro Vl V) I 00 ::0 .E 0..::c: <1) I.Ci ~

..c: ..c: u

~00 ro M en .:0

'--' enVl II ~ V "0 ·0 l:: <1) .c.... '0 ro ...:.:: <1)

~N

ro <1) ::c: .E .E .E ... ~ .....:I ii3 .;;:> u t:: ro <1)

;;; M M M ::E 0.. '0 0 '0 <1) ro.... ... ro ro U"5 ;:l u '0 ·0 ·0 <1) ro ....0

~ ~ ~ ~::r: ..c: 0 0 0 0

~U en 'It: E-< ';:, en ~ ~ ~ u

BRADFORD BElO 83 21.18 2.87 16.58 1.30 98 a * 104 GP/CYL 259 a 22.0 5.0 2.8 90MH

BOOMER Sol 74 16.85 1.36 12.51 2.40 97 ab 81 CYL 229 abc 21.2 4.4 2.5 85 MFONTANA BElO 102 18.70 0.19 15.34 2.55 97 ab 90 GP 182 de 21.3 4.9 2.3 88MH

IDAHO BElO 106 16.65 0.00 11.21 4.86 96 ab 80 GP 157 e 23.0 4.4 1.9 93MCARSON BElO 82 16.76 3.72 11.47 0.74 95 abc 80 D 211 bed 14.7 5.2 2.8 80MGOLIATH PETO 72 17.00 3.92 11.49 0.72 95 abc 81 GP 237 ab 19.6 5.1 2.6 70LM

PROCESSOR II Sto 104 19.00 5.08 11.91 0.95 94 abc 90 D 186 cde 16.3 5.2 2.6 80M55-82 R2 RZ 100 21.14 2.52 15.82 1.60 94 abc 100 GP 213 bed 22.2 5.1 2.7

MANGO RZ 106 17.67 0.65 12.55 3.46 94 abc 83 GP/CYL 168 de 21.3 4.7 2.3 73LM

CANADA BElO 92 19.10 2.32 14.87 0.70 94 abc 89 GP 212 bed 18.0 5.0 2.7 90MXP3973 Asg 96 15.41 2.46 10.29 1.40 92 be 71 D 164 e 16.2 5.4 2.2 73MHERITAGE Asg 97 16.72 0.66 11.46 3.11 91 cd 76 GP 173 de 22.9 4.4 1.6 95M

EARLY GOLD PETO 71 18.13 5.90 9.43 0.37 87 d 78 D 261 a 17.1 5.3 2.8 77 LFMX 291 HM 77 18.45 7.37 8.19 0.39 86 d 80 D 240 ab 15.2 5.2 2.4 80M

Listed in order of % Marketable. Root Length = (em): 20 em = 8 inches.

* Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05, Fisher's Protected LSD Test. 00<.T1

com

CARROT CULTIVAR MAIN TRIAL - 1998 - PROCESSING TYPES

...~0

"0C1l ... U

C1l '--5 .:: .§ ~ 0 C1l

-5 il) '8 0 t::C1l c, CIl "0 0 .....'"0 .:: CIl il)

~ CIl

~il) .s:: il) U '§ ~....:I en .:: ... ... ...o il)

'- '- '- ::: ;:l ~ ... .:: <.2...

0 0 il)0 0 0 0 0 "0 "0

~ 0 ... ,S!Vl ... ..... 0 N '80 0 0 Vl U il) U u "0 ~ U3il) E 0 t>'§ '§ '§ .§ '- u u "0... 0 .:: (;j (;j ~ (;j...

CIl il) CIl E E ><: :D u 0;> u <.2 <.2 <.2 0 il) ....

il) E il) ... .EVl..... ... 0 c, 'Vi il) il) ..... E il) ... il)

1f"3 ;:l '8 '8 '8 E CIl~ ~

... ... il) 0 u0 .s:: il) 0 CIl 0 E u 0U en t> t> t> en en ~ UJ UJ U U U ...... en 0:1

BRADFORD BElO 4.2 3.9 4.3 3.8 CX 4.2 BO 4.3 4.1 4.1 3.8 4.0 4.07 a * D4.2 3.6 deBOOMER Sol 4.0 4.1 4.3 3.6 CV 3.5 BO 4.2 3.7 3.4 3.7 3.6 3.80 cd S 4.0 4.4 abFONTANA BElO 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.7 CV 4.5 0 4.2 4.2 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.03 ab D 3.9 3.2 e

IDAHO BElO 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.7 CV 4.7 DO 4.2 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.7 4.03 ab S 4.2 4.8 aCARSON BElO 4.0 3.9 4.1 4.0 CV 4.2 0 4.3 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.07 a D 3.7 4.7 aGOLIATH PETO 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.1 CX 4.3 0 4.1 4.1 3.8 4.1 3.8 4.02 ab D 3.9 4.2 be

PROCESSOR II Sto 4.1 3.8 4.1 3.9 CV 3.9 0 4.2 3.8 3.7 3.8 4.1 3.94 abc D 3.6 4.4 ab55-82 R2 RZ 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.1 CX 4.3 0 4.3 4.0 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.06 ab D4.0 3.2 eMANGO RZ 4.1 3.9 4.3 4.2 CV 4.2 BO 4.2 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.98 ab S 4.1 3.9 cd

CANADA BElO 4.1 3.1 3.7 3.8 CV 4.0 0 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.2 3.94 abc D 3.9 4.7 aXP3973 Asg 3.9 3.7 4.2 3.9 CV 4.4 DO 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.92 be D 3.8 3.8 cdHERITAGE Asg 4.0 3.8 3.8 4.0 CV 4.2 BO 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.05 ab S 3.9 4.1 be

EARLY GOLD PETO 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.2 CV 4.3 0 4.1 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.9 4.06 ab D 4.1 4.2 beFMX 291 HM 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.9 CV 3.7 0 4.0 3.8 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.75 d D 3.7 3.8 cd

Listed in the order of % Marketable. 5.0 = Most Desirable, 4.0 = Good, 3.7 = Average


CARROT CULTIVAR ADAPTATION TRIAL - 1998 - PROCESSING TYPES SLICERS

---CJ) --- vC CJ) v

C ....;:: --- CJ)

SCJ) v

"0 CJ) C 0v "~ u E.....

~ E --- --- ~V) "'1" Ev -.0 u CJ) o --- '0C ..... v '-' '-' ~ EV) I 00 ::0 ;:: c,'" v M .s .s ~ IZl::c: C 00 ~ CJ) CJ)

M A v "~ I:::: "0 11) C.... ~ '" ~ 11)

~N

'" V 0 ::c: ;:: ;:: .... ~ .....l iZi ";;:- u .... (;J CJ) CJ) '" 11) ;:: '"..... .... '" "~ "~ ~ '"c, '0 '0 '0 11)

CJ) u"5 ;:l u '0 '" ....0

~ ~ ?J. ::c: ..c: 0 0 0 0 @ ?J.u IZl ~ E-< ~ IZl c.::: c.::: c.::: u

HM03 HM 109 18 11.58 4.5 89.3 58 CYL 165 23.1 4.4 2.0 4.3 90LM

NEVIS BElO 88 19.48 13.76 2.57 83.8 69 CYL 221 23.2 4.5 1.8 4.7 80M

NAPA BElO 94 14.07 3.67 6.19 70.1 18 IMP/CYL 150 24.5 4.3 1.4 4.7 35 L

cCJ) CJ) .... "§

.s I:::: I:::: ;:l<8..c: CJ) v "2 ..... 0

"0 I:::: c, '" "0 "2'"

11) c.:::~

11) ..c: 11) U ~.....l I:::: .... .... ....'-

IZl~ 0 ;:l ;:l v ....

'- '- .... I:::: ;:l0 0 0 ;:l0 0 0 B "0 "0 0 .... 0 CJ).c V) .... 0 N ;:l "0 I::::C C V) u 11) u u "0v E 0 u ....."§ "§ "§ .§ '- u u "0 '".... 0 I:::: (;J (;J ;:l (;J c.:::'" 11) '0 ~ E E ><: .s U:- u <8 <8 <8 11)

V) 11) E 11) ......... .... 0 c, 11) 11) 1::: E v .... v"5 ;:l "2 "2 "2 E '" V)

~ ~.... 11) 0 u

0 ..c: 11) 0 '" 0 2 u U3U IZl ~ ~ ~ IZl IZl c.::: u.l u.l U U U ...... IZl

HM03 HM 4.0 4.3 4 4.0 CX 4.3 0 4.0 4.3 4.0 4.3 4.0 4.12 4.3

NEVIS BElO 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.0 CV 4.0 BO 4.3 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.7 4.00 4.3

NAPA BElO 4.3 4.0 4.3 3.7 CX 4.7 DO 4.3 4.3 4.0 4.3 4.0 4.19 4.0

Listed in orderof % Marketable. 5.0 = MostDesirable, 4.7 = Good, 3.7 = Average co"

LONG TERM AVERAGE OF CARROT CULTIVAR - PROCESSING TYPES

MARKETABLE#YEARS YIELD

CULTIVAR SOURCE TESTED tlHa t/A COLOUR SCORE

DESS DAN Sto 14 81.0 36.1 4.12 3.96SPARTAN BONUS Sto 11 75.0 33.4 4.08 3.94SPARTAN BONUS 80 Asg 9 73.5 32.7 4.07 3.93BERLANDA Nor 3 107.3 47.8 3.99 3.84LUCKY'S GOLD A.Ch. 4 52.9 23.6 3.99 4.20HERITAGE Asg 5 92.6 41.2 3.98 3.97MEDOC RZ 2 47.4 21.1 3.97 3.91PROCESSOR II Sto 11 92.6 41.2 3.97 3.91EARLY GOLD PETO 2 81.1 36.1 3.95 4.01GOLIATH PETO 4 94.1 41.9 3.93 3.99XPH 87W341 Cra 3 73.0 32.5 3.93 3.98FONTANA BEJO 7 104.3 46.4 3.89 3.89

CH. RED CORED A.Ch. 6 71.5 31.8 3.88 3.70MAGNO RZ 2 88.0 39.2 3.85 3.87ORANZA BEJO 5 79.6 35.4 3.85 3.70CUMBERLAND Asg 2 90.2 40.2 3.84 3.92SPARTAN PREMIUM Cra 8 73.4 32.7 3.83 3.78DANVERS 126 Asg 12 67.1 29.9 3.77 3.66ECLIPSE Asg 2 91.6 40.8 3.68 3.75GIANT 114 Sol 6 89.3 39.8 3.68 3.72RED CORE CHANTENAY Asg 9 72.8 32.4 3.66 3.55EXP 660 Sol 5 81.4 36.3 3.54 3.64CHANTENAYSUPREME HM 3 85.1 37.9 3.45 3.50

Listed in Order of Colour 5 = Most Desirable, 4 = Good, 3.7 = Average

"

coco

CARROT CULTIVAR STORAGE TRIAL - PROCESSING - 1997/1998

'.

% % % DEGREECULTIVAR SOURCE MARKETABLE WEIGHT LOSS DECAY OF ROT *

MAGNO RZ 85.6 8.7 5.4 4.0EARLY GOLD PETO 80.7 11.8 8.9 3.3

HERITAGE Asg 80.1 13.5 5.9 4.4FONTANA BElO 79.7 11.0 9.0 2.9

NR: 8018 RZ 79.5 14.0 6.0 3.9GOLIATH PETO 79.1 13.5 7.2 4.0

EXP 660 PES 78.3 10.6 10.6 3.2PROCESSOR II Sto 76.6 11.9 11.8 3.5

GIANT 114 PES 75.8 13.5 11.4 3.7PS 31689 PETO 69.0 21.4 11.6 3.8

Listed in order of % Marketable. Storage period was approximately 38 weeks

No significant differences (P = 0.05, Fishers Protected LSD Test) were found among any cultivars.

* 5.0 = No disease, 3.7 = Moderate, 1.0 = Severe (liquefied)

co

'"

LONG TERM AVERAGES - CARROT CULTIVAR STORAGE TRIAL - PROCESSING TYPES

# YEARS % % WEIGHT % DEGREECULTIVAR SOURCE TESTED MARKETABLE LOSS DECAY OF DECAY *

XPH 87W341 Cro 2 93.8 5.4 0.2 4.6SPARTAN PREMIUM Sto 2 89.2 8.0 2.8 4.5CHANTENAYSUPREME HM 3 88.1 3.6 9.1 4.0DESS DAN Sun 10 84.9 8.5 6.6 3.5MEDOC RZ 2 84.2 12.0 3.7 4.5SPARTAN WINNER Sto 3 84.1 9.3 6.6 3.1XPH 985 Asg 3 83.2 8.7 8.1 3.2

SPARTAN BONUS 80 Asg 8 82.1 8.7 9.1 3.3RED CR. CHANTENAY Asg 5 81.3 7.1 11.6 3.1CAMDEN Sto 6 79.4 8.0 12.6 3.4PROCESSOR II Sto 8 79.2 7.3 14.1 3.6ECLIPSE Asg 2 78.4 11.1 9.7 3.9HERITAGE Asg 3 77.0 11.1 11.7 4.0FONTANA BElO 5 76.7 7.7 15.6 3.3

CASEY Asg 4 75.2 9.0 15.5 3.5ORANZA BElO 4 74.5 6.6 18.1 2.8MIDAS TOUCH FM 3 74.1 10.3 15.6 3.5GIANT 114 Sol 6 71.3 8.2 20.5 3.3DANVERS 126 Asg 6 69.0 7.2 23.8 2.7CHANTENAY RED CR. A.Ch. 3 67.7 11.3 21.0 3.3TAHOE Rog 2 67.0 13.5 19.5 3.0

Listed in Order of % Marketable Storage Period approximately 8 months

* 5.0 = No Disease, 3.7 = Moderate, 1.0 = Severe (liquified)

-0o

PROCESSING INDUSTRY CARROT CULTIV AR TRIAL - 1998DICERS AND SLICERS

In 1998 the Muck Crops Research Station participated in a co-operative research program with Dr. Alan McKeown from Simcoe ResearchStation; the OVGMA (Ontario Vegetable Growers Marketing Board and OFPA (Ontario Food Processors Association) on cultivar evaluation ofprocessing carrots. Two trials were conducted, one on muck soil (Muck Crops Research Station, Kettleby) and one on mineral soil (Simcoe).The trials consisted of 25 Slicer cultivars and 18 Dicer cultivars. Evaluation samples of each cultivar were taken along with a storage sample tobe evaluated in early 1999. The data presented in the following report is from the muck soil trials. Results from the mineral soil trials may beavailable. Please contact us if you wish to see them.


Fertilizer:60 kg/ha Nitrogen + 20 kg/ha Phosphorous + 150 kg/ha Potassium was worked into the soil.

Seeded:The trial was seeded on 3, 4 and 10 Jun using a V-belt seeder equipped with a 5 em wide scatter shoe. (Germination of 95 to 100%, atarget of 12 seeds per foot was desired for Dicers and 25 seeds per foot was desired for Slicers. The trial was seeded on beds 86 emapart. The seeding rate according to germination. Ridomil 2G was applied at 25 kg/ha in the seed furrow. The trial was replicated fourtimes.

Weed Control:Pre-Emergence:Post-Emergence:

1 application Lorox DF 2.0 kg/ha 10 Jun2 applications Lorox DF 560 g/ha plus Assist Oil 56 ml/ha 2 and 6 Jul1 application Lorox DF 1.5 kg/ha plus Assist Oil 500 ml/ha 11 Jul

Insect and Disease Control:According to IPM recommendations

Harvest:The trial was harvested on 19, 20, 21,22 and 26 Oct. The samples were placed in a temperature and humidity controlled storage(O°C, 95% RH) respectively, immediately after harvest.

... /continued

co~

PROCESSING INDUSTRY CARROT CULTIVAR TRIAL -1998 - continuedDICERS AND SLICERS

EVALUATION PROCEDURESThe trial was evaluated on 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 23 Nov after 4 weeks in storage.



Marketable Yield t/ha: 56 tfha = 1,000 bushels per acreDicers - Marketable yield includes the processing sizes> 3.8 em (1IIzII) and < 3.8 cm (1 Y2") in diameter.Slicers - Marketable yield includes the processing sizes> 4.4 cm (1%") and 1.9-4.4 em (%"-1 %") in diameter.

Shape:GP = Gold Pak, D = Danver, L.D. = Long Danver, NAN = Nante, SB = Spartan Bonus, IMP = Imperator, GPN = Gold Pak Nante,CYL = Cylindrical, C = Chantenay

Weight (g) Root:Dicers - The average weight ofa root> 3.8 em (1W') in diameter.Slicers - The average weight of a root 1.9 em to 4.4 em (%"to 1%") in diameter.

Blight:Regular fungicide applications were discontinued on 4 Sep to allow the cultivars to be evaluated for tolerance to leaf blights. Evaluationtook place at harvest. 5.0 = Most Desirable, no lesions. 4.0 = Good, mild lesions on leaves, nothing on petioles. 3.7= Moderate, lesionson leaves, some lesions on petioles. 2 = Poor, numerous lesions on leaves, numerous lesions on petioles. 1 = Severe, tops completelyrotted, crop can not be harvested.

1.0N

Shape of Crown:CX= Convex CV = Concave

Resistance to Greening:The higher the number the less green tissue on the crown of the carrot. 5.0 = No green tissue, 3.0 = Moderate green tissue,1.0 = Total green tissue

... Icontinued

PROCESSING INDUSTRY CARROT CUL TIVAR TRIAL - 1998 - continuedDICERS AND SLICERS

External Colour:RO = Red Orange

Core Colour:GO = Green Orange

BO = Bright Orange DO = Dark Orange

BO = Bright Orange DO = Dark Orange

0= Orange

0= Orange

Core Distinction:5.0 = Core indistinguishable from rest of carrot3.0 = Core moderately distinguishable from rest of carrot1.0 = Core very distinguishable from rest of carrot

% Cavity Spot & Degree:The number indicates the percentage of roots with cavity spots. The letters indicate the degree to which the roots were infected.VL = Very Light, cavity spots are few and barely visible. L = Light, few small spots. M = Medium, roots borderline marketable.H = Heavy, large cavity spots, roots unmarketable. VH = Very Heavy, many large cavity spots, roots unmarketable.

Rusty Root:In the past few years, Rusty Root has not been a problem at the Muck Crops Research Station..If any Rusty Root is found on any cultivars, a special notation is placed below the cultivar results.

... / continued

'"w

PROCESSING INDUSTRY CARROT CULTIVAR TRIAL - 1998 - DICERS lO~

eo:6

'"0 :c eo eo1:l t>O :6 :6'"

.OJE ECl)

~ E E :§> o o u....~ Cl) '-' ~o:l '" 00 00 ::0 :c::r: Cl) M M ...c ...c> o:l t>O eo

'" .... 1\ V tl 'OJ I': -B.... 0 o:l

::r: ..>0:~

Cl)

~o:l Cl) t: :c :c .... -l> u o:l Cl) :c~ .... o:l "@ t>O t>O ::2 P- o 0 0::; ::l U 0 'Qj .OJ o:l o:l t>O

0~ ~ ~ S .s: 0 0 0

05u e/) 'It: f0- tr: 0::: 0::: 0:::

FONTANA BEJO. 60 15.41 14.13 0.71 96.6 a * 74 GP/LD 279 a-d 22.4 5.1 3.3BERGEN BEJO 53 13.91 12.09 1.27 94.8 ab 67 GP 300 ab 23.4 5.0 4.0FAYETTE BEJO 70 19.31 15.05 3.09 93.2 abc 91 GP 265 bed 21.5 5.2 3.6PS 31689 PETO 63 18.55 16.92 0.33 93.2 abc 86 LD 297 ab 18.9 6.0 3.7CARSON BEJO 54 15.62 14.24 0.48 92.8 abc 72 D 289 abc 17.8 5.7 3.9SDC 1742 CS 63 13.50 11.09 1.10 90.4 a-d 61 GP/D 220 e 19.7 4.8 3.5

SDC 1443 CS 73 17.42 14.60 1.12 90.2 a-d 79 D 243 de 18.8 5.4 4.2GOLIATH Sto 68 16.97 13.94 0.91 87.4 a-e 74 LD 252 cde 20.0 5.2 3.8KINGSTON BEJO 66 17.79 14.40 1.21 87.3 a-e 78 LD 267 bed 20.5 4.9 4.0CASCADE BEJO 57 17.83 15.58 0.20 86.9 a-e 79 C/D 294 abc 16.3 6.1 3.8SDC 1682 CS 77 18.67 14.66 1.34 85.2 b-e 80 LD 238 de 19.6 5.1 3.8CANADA BEJO 56 15.66 12.75 0.51 84.4 b-e 66 D 275 a-d 19.5 5.3 3.8

HALFBACK BEJO 59 18.45 14.66 0.60 83.9 b-e 76 D 301 ab 18.9 5.9 3.9SDC 1374 CS 56 15.65 12.46 0.71 83.6 cde 66 LD/GP 280 a-d 20.7 5.3 3.7FULLBACK BEJO 53 15.44 12.84 0.20 83.6 cde 65 D 272 a-d 18.1 5.6 3.9CALGARY BEJO 62 16.56 12.58 0.97 80.5 de 68 D 265 bed 18.6 5.7 4.0SCD 1747 CS 41 14.24 10.87 0.36 77.6 e 56 LD 314 a 20.2 5.5 3.5SDC 1679 CS 36 9.28 6.38 0.92 77.0 e 36 GP 266 bcd 21.7 5.1 3.6

Listed in order of % Marketable. Root Length = (ern): 20 em = 8 inches.


PROCESSING INDUSTRY CARROT CULTIVAR TRIAL - 1998 - DICERS

...;:l 11)

CJ) ..s 11)......t:: s:: 0 OIl.,s en '2 u 11)

"0 s:: 11)

~0

~11) 11)

~.....l s:: ... ... U.l s::4-< 4-< ~ CI ;:l

4-< ,g "00 0 0 0 0 0 u(J) ... .... "0 ... 0..C C (J) u C ;:l o§ (/J

11) 11) U 0'§ '§ ~

4-< U '§ "0 (J) C... 0 s:: c;"" 11) .s E u 0 ';;> u <2 <2 0 11)

(J) <2 ... "".... ... 0 0.. 11) 11) 11) 11) u:3 ;:l '2 '2 S "" (J)

~ '2 ... ... u0 ...t:: 11) 0 0 isu (/J ::J ::J (/J (/J cG U.l ::J U U ::?0

FONTANA BElO 4.0 3.3 3.0 CX 3.0 BO 3.8 0 2.5 4.3 30LBERGEN BElO 4.0 3.5 3.0 CX 3.0 BO 3.5 0 2.3 4.3 28MFAYETTE BElO 4.3 3.3 2.8 CV 3.3 BO 4.0 BO 3.8 4.0 33LMPS 31689 PETO 3.3 3.5 3.5 CV 3.5 RO 3.3 BO 3.3 4.0 43 HCARSON BElO 4.0 4.3 3.3 CV 2.8 DO 3.5 BO 4.0 4.0 45LMSDC 1742 CS 4.0 3.8 4.0 CX 3.3 BO 3.8 BO 3.0 3.7 28M

SDC 1443 CS 3.8 3.8 3.5 CV 3.8 RO 3.3 0 3.0 4.0 33LMGOLIATH Sto 3.3 3.0 3.8 CV 3.3 0 3.3 0 3.5 4.0 43MKINGSTON BElO 3.8 4.0 3.5 CV 3.8 BO 3.8 BO 3.8 4.0 50MCASCADE BElO 4.3 3.8 3.8 CV 2.8 BO 3.8 GO 3.3 4.5 28LMSDC 1682 CS 3.8 3.5 3.5 CV 3.3 BO 3.3 GO 3.5 3.7 33 MCANADA BElO 3.8 3.0 3.3 CV 2.8 BO 3.5 0 4.0 4.5 30M

HALFBACK BElO 3.5 3.8 2.5 CV 3.5 RO 3.3 0 3.3 4.0 45MSDC 1374 CS 3.5 3.5 3.3 CV/CX 4.3 DO 3.3 DO 3.3 3.7 25MFULLBACK BElO 3.8 4.0 3.5 CV 3.3 BO 3.8 0 2.5 4.0 55 MCALGARY BElO 3.5 3.3 3.0 CV 3.5 RO 3.5 BO 3.3 4.0 55MHSCD 1747 CS 3.3 3.5 3.3 CV 3.5 RO 3.3 BO 3.0 4.3 25MSDC 1679 CS 4.0 3.8 3.5 CV 4.3 BO 3.8 0 3.0 4.0 28M

Listed in the order of % Marketable. 5.0 = Most Desirable, 4.0 = Good, 3.0 = Average.0(Jl

PROCESSING INDUSTRY CARROT CULTIVAR TRIAL -1998 - SLICERS

----co----~ co'--' ~

1: ---- '--''"0 co aco ~~ .~ '--' u ----VJ

~ a 0:0 a ----Qj "f" a~

u .,r u.... Qj '--' '--' U<U VJ "f" I :0 1: .s '--'

::r: Qj .,r ...c:e 01 12 co co .:0VJ <U 1\ - Qj .~ i=:... "0 ::r: 1: 1:~

~Qj

~<U Qj ... .....l;;. u t:: <U Qj 1:.... ... <U ;; co co ::E 0.. "0 "0 "0;:l .~ .~ <U <U .~"3 0 u (5~ ~ ::s: $ ...c: 0 0 0 @u CIl 'It: f-< 0 CIl ~ ~ ~

NAPA BElO 119 16.88 3.88 12.01 93.9 a * 79 GP/CYL 131.8 20.1 3.5 3.3BERGEN BElO 120 19.96 7.33 11.40 93.9 a 94 GP 136.7 20.0 3.8 3.8BERLANDA BElO 131 18.59 5.40 11.98 93.2 ab 87 GP/CYL 120.6 19.0 3.8 3.8

BOLERO Sto 136 18.78 4.91 12.56 92.7 ab 87 CYL 115.0 19.0 3.7 4.1KAMARAN BElO 118 19.19 8.55 8.99 91.8 abc 88 GP 124.4 18.4 3.8 3.9NEAL BElO 115 17.56 5.32 10.67 90.6 abc 80 CYL 131.3 19.5 3.6 4.0

NEVIS BElO 128 17.38 3.87 11.93 90.5 abc 79 GP 122.9 18.9 3.7 4.0IDAHO BElO 127 18.04 4.91 11.30 89.5 abc 81 GP 116.1 20.4 3.5 4.0CHEYENNE Sto 82 12.30 3.92 6.93 88.5 a-d 54 IMP 120.4 22.6 3.4 4.0

HM03 HM 136 13.23 0.32 11.21 88.4 a-d 58 IMP 91.7 21.9 2.9 3.9RCR 1851A Rog 89 12.93 4.41 6.90 88.3 a-d 57 G 113.1 20.0 3.5 3.2VITA-TREAT Sto 95 15.51 4.63 8.67 87.7 a-d 66 IMP 125.7 21.6 3.3 4.1

-0O'l



.,

PROCESSING INDUSTRY CARROT CULTIV AR TRIAL - 1998 - SLICERS

....;:J <U

OIl0 <U

'0 ......t:: ~ OIl

..t:: bo °a o <U.c;~ <U ...; c

~<U <U ~

~.....l ~.... .... ~ ~

..... ..... ~ o ;:J ..... .g '000 0 0 0 '0 0 .... u OIl 0..'" .... ....-;:J ~ ~.c .c '" u .c [JJ

<U <U U 0 ....- ";;jo§ o§ .§ ..... u o§ '0 '" .c.... 0 ~ '(;l 6 p:::ell <U ellE: u 0;;:

0::: u c.8 c.8 0 <U ....-c.8 ....

'" ell....- .... 0 0.. 0u; <U <U <U <UU"5 ::s °a °a s ell ;: °a .... .... u

0 ..t:: <U 0 0u [JJ ~ ~ [JJ [JJ p::: ~ ;=I u u [JJ ~0

NAPA BElO 3.5 3.0 4.0 CV 4.0 BO 3.8 BO 3.8 3.8 38 MBERGEN BElO 3.5 3.8 3.5 CX 3.3 BO 3.5 0 3.3 3.8 30LBERLANDA BElO 3.3 3.3 3.3 CV/CX 3.5 BO 3.5 0 3.3 3.8 35M

BOLERO Sto 3.5 3.8 3.5 CV/CX 3.0 RO 3.8 GO 3.0 3.8 28MKAMARAN BElO 3.8 3.5 3.5 CX 3.5 BO 3.8 BO 4.3 2.5 38MNEAL BElO 4.0 4.3 3.5 CV 4.0 BO 3.5 BO 4.0 4.5 43M

NEVIS BElO 3.5 3.3 3.3 CV 3.8 BO 3.8 BO 4.0 3.5 35LMIDAHO BElO 3.8 3.8 3.3 CV 4.3 BO 3.5 BO 3.5 3.3 38MCHEYENNE Sto 3.3 2.7 3.0 CX 4.7 DO 3.7 BO 3.7 3.0 47M

HM03 HM 3.3 3.3 3.3 CV 4.3 DO 3.0 0 3.7 3.0 27MRCR 1851A Rog 3.5 3.5 3.8 CV 4.3 BO 3.3 0 3.8 3.5 38MVITA-TREAT Sto 3.3 3.0 3.7 CV 4.0 BO 3.7 BO 3.7 3.3 27M

Listed in the orderof % Marketable. 5.0 = MostDesirable, 4.0 = Good, 3.0 = Average

'".....

PROCESSING INDUSTRY CARROT CULTIVAR TRIAL -1998 - SLICERS

,-...OJ) ,-...~ OJ)'--'

~

~,-... '--'

'"0OJ)

EOJ) ~2 .;:) '--' u ,-...CJl ::: E -.:t ,-... E ,-...OJ OJ) E, u ..,f u..... OJ '--' '--' U0::1 CJl -.:t I :0 ~ ..c:: '--'

::c: OJ ..,f Oil ..c::, 0- 0::1 OJ)

~ 0::1 /\ ...... ~ .;:) I::: .:0....0 ::c: ~ ::: OJ

~0::1 <I) :c: ~ .... .....:l05 u t:: 0::1 OJ ~.... 0::1 c; OJ) OJ)

~ 0.. 0 "0 "0;:: .;:) 0::1 1fa u "0 OJ S0::1

0 ::: ::: ~..c:: 0 0 0

C/) 'It: E-< 0 C/) ~ ~ ~ IJ:l

HMX 5315 HM 106 12.06 1.41 9.56 87.6 a-d * 55 IMP 110.2 21.8 3.4 3.8CANDY STICK PETO 131 14.05 1.54 10.75 87.5 a-d 61 GPIIMP 99.8 21.6 3.3 3.7ORANGETTE Sto 98 13.91 3.74 8.31 86.5 a-d 60 IMP 126.2 22.5 3.6 4.0

NANDRIN BElO 104 19.16 5.92 11.30 86.4 a-d 86 CYL 156.3 20.5 3.9 3.7APACHE Sto 121 15.57 4.73 8.77 86.4 a-d 67 IMP 102.9 20.9 3.4 4.2IOWA BElO 128 15.78 4.99 8.59 86.0 a-d 68 GP/SB 97.3 18.4 3.8 4.2

ITHACA BElO 118 14.10 1.79 10.25 85.6 a-d 60 GP/CYL 114.2 20.8 3.4 4.2INDIANA BElO 137 14.60 1.22 11.38 84.8 b-e 63 IMP 101.8 22.5 3.1 4.0IVANHOE BElO 121 16.14 3.74 9.86 84.3 b-e 68 IMP 112.9 21.9 3.5 3.8

CHOCTAW Sto 120 14.57 4.63 7.55 83.4 cde 61 IMP 103.9 21.6 3.5 3.8NEWPORT BElO 114 12.45 1.72 8.23 80.3 def 50 IMP 98.5 22.4 3.3 3.7HM02 HM 125 13.88 1.71 10.62 76.0 ef 62 IMP 106.8 22.2 3.1 3.7HMX 6320 HM 94 11.12 0.59 7.45 71.4 f 40 IMP 114.1 23.2 3.4 3.9

-0co



..

PROCESSING INDUSTRY CARROT CULTIVAR TRIAL - 1998 - SLICERS

...;:::l (1)0 (1)

0fJ "0 ...,..c:: s:: 0fJ

-S On ";:: u (1)

-c s:: (1)

~0

~(1) (1) o<l.....:l s:: ... ... ~

s::4-< 4-< ~ 0 ;:::l

4-< .g '000 0til

0 B "0 0 ... o 0fJ 0....."S.c .c til u (1) u Co ;:::l s:: (/)

(1) 0 .... ~"§ "§ .§ 4-< U "§ "0 til Co... 0 s:: 0; is ~o:l (1) o:l E u ";;;;- o <8 <8 0 (1) ....<8 ..."- ... 0 0.. til

(1) (1) (1) (1) o:l.... "in U~

;:::l ";:: ";:: s o:l~ ";:: ... ... u

0 ,..c:: (1) 0 0U3 ~u (/) ::> ::> (/) (/) ~ ~ ::> u u 0

HMX 5315 HM 3.8 3.3 3.3 CV 4.0 RO 3.3 0 3.3 3.3 35LMCANDY STICK PETO 3.5 3.0 3.8 CX 4.0 BO 3.5 GO 3.3 3.0 45LMORANGETTE Sto 3.5 3.5 3.0 CV 4.3 BO 3.8 BO 3.3 2.8 40LM

NANDRIN BElO 4.0 3.0 4.3 CX 1.8 BO 4.3 0 2.8 4.0 35MAPACHE Sto 3.5 2.8 3.0 CX 5.0 RO 3.8 BO 4.0 3.3 55LMIOWA BElO 4.0 3.5 3.0 CX 4.3 DO 3.5 DO 4.0 2.0 33M

ITHACA BElO 3.8 3.3 3.3 CV 4.0 BO 3.8 BO 4.0 4.3 35LMINDIANA BElO 3.5 3.3 2.8 CX 4.3 RO 3.5 DO 3.5 3.8 48 HIVANHOE BElO 4.0 2.8 3.0 CX 4.5 BO 3.3 DO 4.0 2.8 58M

CHOCTAW Sto 3.5 3.0 3.3 CX 5.0 BO 3.8 DO 3.8 2.5 65MNEWPORT BElO 3.5 3.0 3.0 CX 4.5 RO 3.3 BO 3.3 3.5 53 MHM02 HM 3.8 3.5 3.3 CX 4.3 RO 4.0 0 2.8 3.5 20MHMX 6320 HM 3.8 3.8 3.8 CV 4.0 BO 3.5 BO 3.8 3.8 20LM

Listed in the orderof % Marketable. 5.0 = Most Desirable, 4.0 = Good, 3.0 = Average

\D\D

CARROT CULTIVAR TRIALS - 1998 - CUT AND PEEL TYPES


Fertilizer:60 kg/ha Nitrogen + 20 kglha Phosphorous + 120 kglha Potassium was worked into the soil.

Seeded:The trial was seeded 9 Jun using a V-Belt seeder equipped with a 5 cm wide scatter shoe. Germination of 95 to 100%, a target of 40 seeds perfoot was desired. The trial was seeded on beds 86 cm apart. Ridomil 2G was applied at 25 kglha in the seed furrow. The seeding rate wasaccording to germination. The trial was replicated three times.

......oo

Weed Control:Pre-emergence:Post- emergence:

Insect and Disease Control:According to IPM Instructions.

1 application Gesagard 2.25 kglha on the 15 Jun.2 applications Lorox DF at 1.5 kglha 11 JuI.

Harvest:The trial was harvested on 26 Aug. The trial was immediately placed in a temperature and humidity controlled storage (0° C, 95% RH)respectively.

EVALUATION PROCEDURESThe cultivars were evaluated on 14, 15 and 16 Dec after 15 weeks in storage.



Marketable Yield t/ha + BIA:Marketable yield includes the carrot sizes 1.3 - 2.2 cm (WI - 7fall) in diameter.

% Oversize:The percentage of carrots> 2.2 cm (> 7fa").

. .. Icontinued

CARROT CULTrVAR TRIALS - 1998 - CUT AND PEEL TYPES - continued

Shape:IMP Imperator GP Gold Pak C = Cylindrical

% Core:The percentage of the carrot diameter which is taken up by the core.

Resistance to Green:The higher the number the less green tissue on the crown of the carrot. 5.0 = no green tissue, 3.7 = moderate green tissue, 1.0 = total green tissue.

Internal Colour:0= Orange BO = Bright Orange

External Skin Colour:o = Orange BO = Bright Orange DO = Dark Orange

Cut and Peel Rating:An over all rating of external features based on General Appearance, Length, Width, Over All Uniformity of Shape, Colour and Smoothness.

Score:The average of the 8 marks from Uniformity Shape to External Colour.

StandlMeter:Stand/meter of row divided by 3.28 = stand per foot.

% Cavity Spot & Degree:The number indicates the percentage of roots with cavity spots. The letters indicate the degree to which the roots were infected.VL = Very Light, cavity spots are few and barely visible.L = Light, few small spots.M = Medium, roots borderline marketable.H = Heavy, large cavity spots, roots unmarketable. VH = Very Heavy, many large cavity spots, roots unmarketable.

Example: 50 H = 50% of the roots were heavily infected with cavity spots, roots unmarketable.

...lcontinued

.....o.....

.....0

CARROT CULTIVAR TRIAL - 1998 - CUT 'N' PEEL TYPESN

bObOC

.E bO C"'0 OJ) C EE .a:; o EIII :::: E N EOJ;> - u N OJ ~ III

~.... :;0:1 III N , ::0 .c::r: OJ N OJ to u .c;> '"" ~ N -0III .... 1\ ......: OJ .iii I': E.... 0 0:1~ .... OJ

~0:1 OJ ::r: .E - OJ -l o OJ;> u t .c 0:1 ;> OJ V)

....OJ) OJ) 0

~.... 0:1 c;; .a:; .a:; 0:1

~ ::E 0 0- 0 "-< 0 u::; ::I U 0 ::r: 0:10 0 00 :::: :::: ::R ::R .c

'Cf-u r:/J 'It: f-. ~ co 0 0 o: ~ 'It: ~

HM03 HM 300 7.71 1.57 5.68 30 58 97 * 11 IMP 19.8 4.0 2.0 39HM02 HM 243 7.86 2.37 5.07 26 60 97 16 IMP/CYL 19.8 4.0 2.0 34VITA-TREAT PETO 268 9.20 4.64 4.15 21 71 96 32 GP 17.6 3.5 2.1 33CAROPRIDE Asg 281 8.53 4.01 4.03 21 65 96 27 GP 17.6 3.5 2.0 34CANDY STICK PETO 241 7.15 2.99 3.74 19 54 96 24 GP 16.7 3.3 2.0 40

XRC 7315 Sak 263 7.98 2.37 5.12 26 60 96 17 IMP 20.6 4.1 2.0 36STYLOS PETO 256 8.56 4.16 3.91 20 65 95 29 IMP 19.7 3.9 2.0 32PRIME CUT Sun 241 8.64 3.56 4.46 23 65 95 24 GP/CYL 18.0 3.6 2.0 35XPH 18006 Asg 255 6.54 2.39 3.56 19 48 95 18 GP 17.7 3.5 2.0 41FORT KNOX BO 241 7.84 4.46 2.90 15 59 95 37 GP 16.8 3.4 2.3 26

SRC 3292 Sun 208 6.85 2.50 3.76 20 50 94 20 GP/CYL 19.6 3.9 1.9 36SRC 3291 Sun 206 7.08 2.69 3.85 20 53 94 22 IMP/CYL 19.7 3.9 2.0 42SRC 3288 Sun 206 6.34 1.89 3.78 20 46 94 13 IMP/CYL 20.6 4.1 2.0 37ENTERPRISE PETO 267 8.32 3.57 4.11 21 62 94 24 GP 17.8 3.6 2.0 29INDIANA BEJO 236 7.23 1.58 4.98 26 53 94 12 IMP/CYL 19.0 3.8 2.0 36

SRC 3284 Sun 205 5.51 1.07 3.82 20 39 93 9 IMP/CYL 19.2 3.8 1.9 37NEWPORT BEJO 244 7.40 2.34 4.40 23 54 93 16 IMP 17.7 3.5 1.9 37SCR 7190 Sak 230 8.07 0.85 6.34 33 58 92 6 IMP/CYL 22.1 4.4 1.9 34SCR 7248 Sak 218 6.71 1.02 4.87 26 47 92 8 IMP 22.3 4.5 1.9 29B-1812 BEJO 243 6.62 1.25 4.41 24 46 90 10 GP/CYL 18.6 3.7 2.0 41

Listed in order of % Marketable. Root Length (em): 20cm = 8 inches

* No significant differences (P = 0.05, Fisher's Protected LSD Test) were found among any of the cultivars.

CARROT CULTIVAR TRIAL - 1998 - CUT 'N' PEEL TYPES

<1J<1J

I:>J) I:>J) MI:>J) <1J..r::: c .f c Cl<1J ..r::: bn c ~0- -B ~ "0ro c <1J 0:: I:>J)

..r::: ~<1J <1J 0:: c c

u:J .....:I Q ... s ... ros :l ~...... ...... ...... :l 0 0 0:: '00 0 0

til0 0 0

"0 "0 ... 0-- "0 "0 <1J u:Jz- ;>,~

til <1J U U -0 '0<1J u U U <1J§ '§ '§ c ~... ..r::: c (;j (;j (;j (;j 0.. ~ .;;:ro <1J '0 S E E j:: :::0> u <£ <£ <£ til E E <1J ro'a s 0 'Ui '" '" (; c u:J '2 '2 E '" '" ;< ;< - ro0 c '" .§ .§ :l uU u:J ::> ~ ::> u:J 0:: U-l U-l U u:J U5 ~

HM03 HM 4.3 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.9 0 3.8 BO 4.2 4.0 3.76 cd * 129 43 LMHM02 HM 4.1 3.9 4.1 4.0 4.8 0 4.0 BO 4.0 4.0 3.73 cde 104 43 LMVITA-TREAT PETO 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.8 5.0 BO 4.0 BO 3.9 3.7 3.68 d-g 115 35 MCAROPRIDE Asg 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.7 5.0 0 4.1 0 3.9 3.2 3.51 ij 121 48 MCANDY STICK PETO 4.0 4.0 3.7 4.0 5.0 0 3.9 0 4.1 3.6 3.67 efg 103 42M

XRC 7315 Sak 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.3 5.0 0 4.2 BO 4.0 3.9 3.79 be 113 37LMSTYLOS PETO 4.3 4.1 3.9 4.3 4.9 0 3.9 BO 4.4 4.1 3.84 ab 110 53 MPRIME CUT Sun 4.0 4.1 3.7 3.8 5.0 0 3.8 DO 4.0 3.8 3.66 efg 103 52MXPH 18006 Asg 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.8 5.0 0 3.8 BO 4.1 3.8 3.68 efg 110 55 MFORT KNOX BO 3.9 3.8 3.1 3.6 4.9 0 3.7 BO 4.1 3.2 3.43 j 103 50M

SRC 3292 Sun 3.9 3.8 3.9 3.7 5.0 0 4.1 0 4.1 3.8 3.67 efg 89 43 LM

SRC 3291 Sun 3.9 3.9 4.0 3.4 5.0 0 4.0 0 3.9 3.7 3.63 gh 88 52M

SRC 3288 Sun 4.1 3.8 3.9 3.7 5.0 BO 4.0 DO 4.1 3.8 3.68 d-g 88 63 M

ENTERPRISE PETO 4.1 3.8 3.7 3.7 5.0 BO 4.0 BO 3.9 3.8 3.62 fgh 114 42LM

INDIANA BEJO 4.2 4.0 3.9 3.9 5.0 BO 4.0 BO 3.9 3.9 3.72 cde 101 50LM

SRC 3284 Sun 4.3 4.0 3.8 3.7 5.0 BO 4.0 0 4.0 3.9 3.71 c-f 88 70MNEWPORT BEJO 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.7 4.9 0 3.8 0 3.8 3.7 3.54 hi 105 48MSCR 7190 Sak 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.7 0 4.3 BO 4.2 4.3 3.88 a 99 52LMSCR 7248 Sak 4.3 4.1 4.1 4.1 5.0 BO 4.0 BO 4.2 4.1 3.83 ab 94 48LMB-1812 BEJO 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.8 4.9 0 3.8 0 3.7 3.8 3.58 hi 104 45 M

Listed in order of % Marketable. 5.0 = Most Desirable, 4.7 = Good, 3.7 = Average

* Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05, Fisher's Protected LSD Test......0w

I......0.j:>o

CARROT CULTIVAR STORAGE TRIAL - CUT 'N' PEELTYPES-1997/1998

% DEGREECULTIVAR SOURCE % MARKETABLE WEIGHT LOSS % DECAY OF ROT **

HMX 6320 HM 78.0 a * 16.6 5.1 a 4.7 aHM03 HM 74.3 ab 16.8 8.2 ab 4.3 aSBC X89 Sun 73.5 ab 13.9 11.9 abc 4.2 aELFINA FM 69.8 abc 16.1 13.4 a-d 4.1 aSCB Y35 Sun 68.6 a-d 15.6 15.0 a-e 3.9 aCAROPAK Asg 68.6 a-d 19.6 11.1 ab 4.2 aPX 46295 PETO 68.0 a-d 16.1 15.3 a-e 4.4 aCXC 2624 Chr 67.8 a-d 15.6 16.1 a-e 4.2 aGLADIATOR FM 66.8 a-e 19.0 13.7 a-d 4.6 aHM02 HM 66.3 a-e 19.0 14.1 a-d 4.3 aRCR2567 Rog 65.0 a-e 14.9 17.9 a-g 4.1 aENTERPRISE PETO 64.2 a-e 17.5 17.9 a-g 4.7 aSCX 3274 Sun 63.6 a-e 21.3 14.7 a-e 4.1 a

IRVINE BElO 63.2 a-e 16.0 20.1 a-g 4.2 aTERMINATOR FM 62.0 a-e 20.1 17.5 a-f 4.2 aINDIANA BElO 61.0 a-f 14.8 23.8 a-g 4.4 aNEWPORT BElO 60.1 a-f 16.0 23.6 a-g 3.6 aRCR2566 Rog 56.7 b-f 16.5 26.4 b-g 4.0 aCXC 94611 Chr 52.5 c-f 15.2 31.9 d-h 4.0 aBENlI Sol 52.4 c-f 16.3 30.7 c-h 4.1 aSTYLOS PETO 50.1 d-g 15.8 33.5 e-h 3.9 aPREMIUM Asg 48.0 efg 18.2 33.3 e-h 3.7 aSNAKPAK Asg 48.0 efg 19.6 31.5 d-h 4.0 aFIRST CLASS Asg 48.0 efg 15.7 36.0 fgh 3.8 aCXC 95533 Chr 41.9 fg 20.9 36.7 gh 3.4 aRCR4677 Rog 32.2 g 18.7 49.0 h 3.6 a

Listed in order of % Marketable. ** 5.0 = Most Desirable, 3.7 = Moderate, 1.0 = Severe (liquefied)


CUT 'N' PEEL MANAGEMENT TRIAL - 1998 - MUCK AND MINERAL SOIL

INTRODUCTION:

The objective of this project was to determine the optimum production practices for Cut 'N' Peel carrots on Ontario muck soils. Commercialcultivars have been developed for Cut 'N'Peel carrot production in other growing areas. The question was, How do these Cut 'N' Peel cultivarsperform on Ontario muck soils? In addition, seeding rates, and seeding and harvest dates may differ from the standard processing or packagingcarrot production which dominate the Ontario muck soil acreage.

A research project was established in 1997 with information from seed companies, industry and the staff at the Muck Crops Research Station toevaluate Cut 'N' Peel production on Ontario muck soil. Four Cut 'N' Peel cultivars were chosen to be used in the trials; one cultivar from the topCut 'N' Peel cultivars of four different seed companies. The four cultivars in 1998 were Caro-Pride (Asgrow Seed Co.); Indiana (Bejo Seed Co.);HM03 (Harris Moran Seed Co.) and Vita-Treat (Petoseed). Due to seed supply shortages, all of 1997's cultivars could not be repeated.

SEEDING:

The 1998 Cut 'N' Peel management trial was conducted at two sites, one on muck soil (organic matter 60%, pH 6.0) and the other on mineral soil(organic matter 5.0%, pH 7.2) to allow a comparison. The muck soil trial consisted of three seeding dates at three week intervals. The mineralsoil trial consisted of two seeding dates at a three week interval. The muck soil and mineral soil trials were seeded one week apart. Threeseeding rates were chosen at 55, 40 and 25 seeds per foot based on a 95 to 100% germination rate for both trials. The trials were arranged in arandomized complete block design with the muck soil trial having four replicates and the mineral soil trial having three replicates per treatment.Each replicate consisted of two raised beds (86 cm apart), 6 m in length.

Seeding began on 14 May on the mineral soil trial followed by the second seeding on 3 Jun. On muck soil, the first seeding was on 22 May,second seeding on 11 Jun and third seeding on 13 Jul. A cone hand push seeder was used on the mineral soil trial and a V-belt hand push seederwas used on the muck soil trial. Both seeders had a 5 cm wide scatter shoe. Ridomil2G at 25 kg/ha was applied in the seed furrow on eachseeding date. Weed, insect and disease controls were according to the Vegetable Production Recommendations 1998-1999, OMAFRAPublication 363.

HARVEST:

The first harvest of each seeding date on both trials was determined by taking a weekly random sample. This sample consisted of taking severalcarrots from each replicate. The sample was then measured to determine the percentage that fell in the marketable range of W' - 7Ja" in diameter.Once the marketable percentage was at or above 80%, the harvest occurred. The second and third harvest followed at 15 and 30 days after thefirst harvest, respectively. A 1.16 m sample was taken from each of the two raised beds, leaving a 0.5 m buffer space between harvest. Theharvest sample had the tops removed and was placed in a meshed bag. The harvest samples were placed in a Filacell storage where temperatureand relative humidity is controlled at 0°C and 95% RH respectively until evaluations.

. .. Icontinued.~

C>U'1


EVALUATION:

Evaluation of the Cut 'N' Peel carrots started on 17 Aug and continued on intermittently until 23 Nov. Each replicate was washed and spread out.The carrots were sized according to the diameter of the crown into one of the three categories: under Ih", Y2" - 7Ie", and over 7Ie". Culls were alsoseparated out and the type recorded. Weights of each size along with total number per size were recorded. All other assessments were based onthe desired size of Y2" - 7Ie" in diameter. The shape of the carrots was determined by the majority showing a particular shape. A random sampleof twenty carrots was taken and the average length, and width recorded. The carrots were separated and recorded into length categories of0" - 4",4" - 8" and 8" - 12". The uniformity of shape, length and width was measured using the following scale:

I RATING I DESCRIPTION I PERCENTAGE OF CARROTS I3.0 Poor 40

3.3 Slightly Below Average 50

3.7 Average 60

4.0 Above Average 65-70

4.3 Good 70-80

4.7 Very Good 80

5.0 Perfect 95-100

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS:

The weather during the 1998 growing season had an affect on the Cut 'N' Peel trials. Air temperatures were above the long term (10 year)average for May and October and not different from the long term average for June, July, August and September. Total rainfall was below thelong term (10 year) average for May (42.6 mm), July (50.2 mm), September (18.6 mm) and October (26.2 mm) and above average for August(114.6 mm) and not different from the long term average for June (78.4 mm). For the first seeding date on the muck soil trial and the two seedingdates on mineral soil trial, soil conditions at seeding were quite dry and irrigation water was not available. A strong wind storm occurred on31 May which caused erosion of the raised beds and damaged the young seedlings on the first seeding date of the muck soil trial. The stormcaused some long term effects with a lower stand and slower growth for approximately a month. The second seeding date of the muck soil trialon 11 June benefitted from more moisture in the soil and better germination. The final seeding date of the muck soil trial of 13 July had dry soilconditions and germination was slightly affected.

. .. /continued

......o

'"


Growth of the carrot tops on all seeding dates of both muck and mineral soil trials were slowed during the dry month of July. In early August, aweather system moved in for approximately two days and delivered 2" of rain. However, the rainfall was a little too late for the first seeding dateon the muck soil trial which was harvested only a week later. All other seeding dates and soil type seemed to be stimulated in growth. The dryconditions in September and October also reduced yield on the later seeding dates for both muck and mineral soil trials. The drier season seemedto have a more detrimental effect on the mineral soil trials than the muck soil trials. The weather reduced the potential of the entire projectthrough reduced stand, carrot length/width and yields.

. .. /continued

.....o.....

CUT 'N' PEEL MANAGEMENT TRIAL - 1998 - MUCK SOIL


Fertilizer:60 kglha Nitrogen + 20 kg/ha Phosphorous + 150 kglha Potassium.

Seeded:The first seeding date was 22 May, the second seeding date was 11 Jun, and the third seeding date was 13 Jul. For each seeding, fourcultivars were seeded at three densities (seeds/foot). The four cultivars were Caro-Pride, Indiana, HM03, and Vita Treat. The seedingdensities were at 55, 45, and 25 seeds/foot at a seed germination rate of95 to 100%. The seeding was done using a V-belt hand pushseeder with a 5 em wide scatter shoe. The trials were seeded on beds 86 ern apart. Ridomil 2G was applied at 25 kglha in seed furrow.The trial was replicated four times.

>--'oco

Weed Control:Pre-emergence

Post-emergence

1 application Gesagard 3.75 kg/ha151 Seeding 27 May2ndSeeding 15 Jun3'dSeeding 17 Jul

1 application Lorox DF 1.5 kg/ha and Assist Oil at 500 mllha151 Seeding 29 Jun2ndSeeding 11 Jul3'd Seeding 18 Aug


Harvest:The first harvest of each seeding date was determined by taking a weekly random sample. Once the sample had 80% of the carrots in themarketable range of (YzII to 7Ia") the carrots were harvested. The second and third harvest followed at 15 and 30 days after the firstharvest respectively. All harvested samples were immediately placed in a temperature and humidity controlled storage (O°C, 95% RH)respectively.

. .. /continued

CUT 'N' PEEL MANAGEMENT TRIAL - 1998 - MUCK SOIL - continued

Harvest -continued:

9Sep (110)21 Sep (102)21 Oct (100)

Seeding Date

1st 22 May2nd 11 Jun3rd 13Jul

1sl Harvest

10 Aug (80)21 Aug (71)22 Sep (71)

2nd Harvest 3rd Harvest(Number of days after Seeding)

24 Aug (95)4 Sep (85)9 Oct (88)

EVALUATION PROCEDURESThe trials were evaluated from 2 Oct to 13 Nov.

Total Harvest Weight (Kg):Weights from the harvested 2.32 m ofrow.

Marketable Yield B/A:Marketable yield includes the sizes, Yz" to 7Ja" (13 mm to 23 mm), > 7Ja" (>23 mm) as well as the oversize.

Shape: IMP = Imperator GP = Gold Pak C = Cylindrical

Stand/Foot:Actual number of carrots harvested per foot.

Score:The average of three marks of Uniformity of Shape, Uniformity of Length, and Uniformity of Width.

% Oversize:The percentage of carrots> 7Ja" (23 mm) and greater.

... /continued

.....o1.0

..........CUT 'N' PEEL MANAGEMENT TRIAL - 1998- MUCK SOIL

0

First SeedingFirst Harvest

~

OJ)...><:'--'

E~ ..cOJ) <l) on ..c

OJ) ...><:~ N 0- .!5'Q) '--' OJ) 00 ~ ro I::~ "f ~::: OJ) ...><: , "7 E ~

~<l)

...><: 00 '--' E .....l'--'

-<, 0 "f" 00 uU 4- 4-.... r-- <l) '--' 4-

V'J 00 :0 V'J V'J V'J ..c '--' 0 0 0¢: <l) ~

, -<,

-0 -0 -0 ..cr-- '"<l) on -0 b b bl- t:: ~ ~N l: l: l: .!5

<l) '" V II 'Vi I':

~0 '§ '§ '§I-

0- X .... ...><: I- '" '" '" <l) r..<...'" E E I- U U U .....l;>- ..c <l)<l)

-<,V'J OJ) OJ) OJ) '" ;>- 4- -0 <2 <2 <2 <l).... -0 c;;

~ 0 0- 4- 4- -0 -0 I:: I-<l) 'Q) 'Q) 'Q) < '" 0 0 0 0"3 -0 0 0 '" I:: I:: I::<l) ;:: ;:: ;:: -<,

::R ::R ..c ?f? ::R ::R ri5 ou CIJ E-< 0:1 0 0 CIJ 0 0 c:.:: c:.:: ::J ::J ::J CIJ

Indiana 55 6.53 0.05 2.21 3.21 276 84 49 IMP/C 2 78 21 18.7 1.9 20 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.08Indiana 40 5.85 0.04 1.57 3.21 271 83 . 57 IMP/C 0 70 30 19.2 1.9 16 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.23Indiana 25 3.63 0.01 0.41 2.54 208 81 70 IMP 0 52 48 20.8 1.9 7 4.2 4.4 4.2 4.3

Caro PrideCaro PrideCaro Pride

554025

8.22 0.05 2.05 5.096.86 0.03 0.97 4.957.39 0.00 0.52 5.86

426406476

878786

627279

GPIMP

IMP/C

624

878479

71417

15.7 1.917.0 1.917.3 1.9

261614

4.2 3.84,3 4.13.9 4.0

4.0 3.994.2 4.184.2 4.04

HM03HM03HM03

554025

7.82 0.066.38 0.016.42 0.01

3.88 2.872.25 3.201.39 3.86

262276321

878682

375160

GP/CIMPIMP

321

918272

61628

17.1 1.918.2 1.919.2 2.0

311916

4.14.54.6

4.14.54.7

4.04.54.6

4.054.484.63

Vita TreatVita TreatVita Treat

554025

8.25 0.10 3.30 3.49 3077.85 0.03 1.81 5.26 4385.89 0.00 0.31 5.09 412

839092

42 GP/IMP 367 GP/C 186 GP/IMP 2

918765

5 15.7 1.812 17.8 2.033 18.3 2.0

332210

4.0 4.04.0 4.24.2 4.3

3.9 3.954.1 4.094.3 4.24

CUT 'N' PEEL MANAGEMENT TRIAL - 1998- MUCK SOILFirst SeedingSecond Harvest

,.....,0/)

~

:c ,.....,,..<::0/) I!) en ,..<::

0/) ~ ---- N 0.. :0'0) ----0/)

"T 00 ~ ---- o:l I:

~0/) ~ E ---- 6i I!)

~ 00, ,

E .....l~ -<, 0 '7 00 u- l"- I!) '-' ~ ...... ...... ......

Ul

~, 00 :0 Ul Ul Ul ,..<:: 0 0 0

<::: I!) -<,I!) (5 (5 (5 ,..<::e I"- o:l en (5 .c .c .c..... ~ d) N t:: t:: t:: :0

..... I!) o:l V /\ 'Vi I:

~0 '§ '§ "§0.. ::r: ~ ..... o:l o:l o:l I!)

""'o:l :c :c :c I!) u o U .....l> Ul o:l I!) --- c2 c2 c20/) 0/) 0/) > "0 I!)'';:: "0 c;j ::E 0 0.. ...... ...... ...... (5 (5 I: .....:; I!) (5 '0) '0) '0) --< o:l 0 0 0 "\: '\: '\: 0

I!) -<, ,..<:: 0 0 o:lU

U CIl E--< ~ ~ ~ co ~ ~ CIl ~ ~ ~ 0::: 0::: Ul :J :J :J CIl0 0 0 0 0

Indiana 55 9.13 0.01 1.61 6.03 498 84 66 C 3 82 15 16.9 1.9 22 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.19Indiana 40 8.86 0.01 0.94 6.46 527 84 73 C 2 80 18 17.3 1.9 18 3.9 4.2 4.1 4.06Indiana 25 6.20 0.01 0.30 4.68 379 81 76 C 1 76 23 16.7 1.7 8 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.05


55 10.91 0.03 1.53 8.42 69040 10.21 0.01 0.98 8.18 66625 8.69 0.00 0.42 7.18 581

929087

77 C80 C83 GP

66o

888582

6 15.6 1.810 16.1 1.918 16.5 1.8

26 3.920 3.714 4.2

3.93.84.0

3.9 3.853.9 3.803.9 4.03

HM03HM03HM03


55 9.80 0.05 2.46 5.86 49140 9.10 0.02 1.13 6.69 54825 8.02 0.01 0.46 6.42 520

55 11.57 0.10 2.49 7.17 59740 11.70 0.04 0.95 9.43 76625 9.58 0.02 0.09 8.44 680

858686

848989

60 GP 474 IMP/C 280 GP 0

62 GP 880 GP/C 388 GP 0

898574

888262

6 16.7 1.913 16.9 1.926 19.4 1.9

4 15.2 1.914 16.0 1.913 12.2 1.4

29 3.919 4.114 4.5

34 3.823 3.811 4.8

3.94.44.4

3.73.94.4

4.14.34.5

3.83.84.8

3.954.254.48

3.753.834.68

...............

............

CUT 'N' PEEL MANAGEMENT TRIAL - 1998- MUCK SOILN

First SeedingThird Harvest

,..-.,ell

,.;.::'-'

:c ,..-.,...<:ell 0 to ...<:

ell ,.;.:: ,..-., N 0- ~'0 '-' ell 00 ,..-., '" s::,..-.,""f '"7 ~::: ell ,.;.:: , E

,..-., ...<: 0,.;.:: 00 '-' E UJ .....l'-' ;:::: 0 "<t" 00 u..... 00 0 '-' u "- "- "-

til , ::0 til til til ~'-' 0 0 0

¢:: 0 ~-<;

0 '0 '0 '0 ...<:i:: r- '" to '0 .? >, 0... ~ -0 N l: l:: l:: ~ .....

0 '" V II 'in s:: 0 '§ .~ '§... ,.;.:: '" '" '" 0~'" 0- ::r:: :c :c :c ... u...

;. @ 0 0 u u U .....l ;,til ell ell ell ;. <2 <2 <2 0',= "0 c;~ 0- "- "- "- '0 '0'0 '0 '0 <t: 0 '" 0 0 0 s:: ...

:i 0 '0 '" 'c 'c ·c 00 ::: ::: ::: -<;

~ ~...<:

~ ~ 'cf(0 0

til uu UJ f-< co 0 0 UJ 0 0 0:: 0:: ::J ::J ::J UJ

Indiana 55 10.42 0.05 1.25 7.16 587 81 69 IMP/C 2 90 8 16.4 2.0 21 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.00Indiana 40 8.50 0.00 0.44 5.97 484 76 70 IMP/C 1 84 15 17.7 2.0 12 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.27Indiana 25 7.49 0.02 0.19 5.55 448 78 75 IMP/C 0 77 23 18.9 1.9 9 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.09

Care PrideCare PrideCare Pride

554025

11.84 0.0211.71 0.0110.32 0.01

0.97 9.230.58 9.350.13 8.80

751757709

868587

788085

IMP/CIMP/CGP/C

953

899389

238

14.8 1.9 2214.9 1.9 2217.2 2.0· 12

3.93.83.8

3.83.94.1

4.04.04.4

3.873.904.11

HM03HM03HM03


554025

554025

10.67 0.04 1.68 7.2410.24 0.02 0.80 7.469.27 0.00 0.38 6.75

13.22 0.03 1.45 9.0312.42 0.02 0.81 9.8710.67 0.00 0.15 8.67

596607546

739801699

848177

798783

687373

688081

IMP/CIMP/CIMP/C

GP/CGP/C

GP

55o

784

908661

908996

59

39

33o

15.9 1.915.7 1.917.8 2.0

14.4 1.915.9 1.914.9 2.0

251913

312212

4.0 3.94.0 4.34.3 4.4

3.8 3.73.9 3.94.1 4.2

4.0 3.954.3 4.224.5 4.37

3.9 3.803.9 3.884.4 4.23

CUT 'N' PEEL MANAGEMENT TRIAL - 1998- MUCK SOILSecond SeedingFirst Harvest

,-...eoc-.E

,-... ..<::eo v ..<::eo c- ,-... N 0- til "5'0 ,-... eo "f 00 ~ E

o:l i=

~:s eo C- o 0,-... ..<:: v

~00 E (/) .....l--.. 0 ~.... "-' r- V ..". 00

~ 4-< 4-< 4-<'fJ 00 :0 'fJ 'fJ 'fJ 0 0 0

G=: v ~0 --.. v 0 0 0

..<:: ..<::~

r- o:l eiJ 0 ~ ~ ~.... ~ "0 N t: t: t: "5.... v o:l V II 'Vi i=

~0 '§ '§ '§

o:l 0- X .E .E .... ~ .... eo o:l o:l V ....>- ..<:: .... v U U U .....l --..

'fJ o:l >- v <2 <2 <2'';; '"0 <;j eo eo eo~

0- 4-< 4-< 4-< 0 0'"0 V

0 ...."a v 0 '0 '0 '0 -<t: o:l 0 0 0 i= ';: 0o:lv :s :s :s '<,

~ ~..<::

~ ~ ~0 0

ci5i= i= u

U tr: f-< co (/) 0 0::: 0::: ;:J ;:J ;:J tr:

Indiana 55 5.75 0.60 4.19 0.44 69 91 8 IMP I 90 9 16. I 1.6 40 4.0 4. I 3.9 4.01

Indiana 40 5.47 0.28 4.01 0.53 75 88 9 IMPIC 2 82 16 17.4 1.6 31 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.95Indiana 25 5.39 0.07 3. I 9 1.58 153 90 29 IMP 2 74 25 18. I 1.9 21 4.2 4. I 4. I 4.10


554025

6.63 0.40 4.42 1.34 1446.92 0.19 3.99 2.19 2096.34 0.05 2.22 3.60 308

939292

20 GP 143 I IMP 757 IMPIC 5

778577

9 16.0 1.7 408 16.7 1.8 3718 17.9 1.9 21

3.9 3.7 3.8 3.803.9 3.9 4.0 3.933.9 3.9 4.0 3.95

HM03HM03HM03

554025

6.71 0.45 5.13 0.577.68 0.62 5.09 1.075.59 0.05 3.44 1.73

87127167

928993

81431

GPGPIMP

3II

918871

7 16.7 1.7I I 17.6 1.829 19.0 1.9

423322

4.3 4.34.3 4.24.4 4.5

4.0 4.184.2 4.194.3 4.41


554025

6.68 0.28 4.62 1.087.23 0.13 3.97 2.446.16 0.06 2.22 3.41

124229293

909092

163356

GPGPIMP

74I

908886

3813

15.8 1.716.9 1.817.4 1.7

423319

3.9 3.74.1 4.24.2 4.2

3.7 3.784.1 4.104. I 4. I3

............w

~

~

.j:>.

CUT 'N' PEEL MANAGEMENT TRIAL - 1998- MUCK SOILSecond SeedingSecond Harvest

Cil..><:'-'

.:E ---- ...<:co I!) .sco ..><:----

0- til'0 '-' co 1-

N

---- til t: "0

---- 00

~::: co ..><: , '"7 E E ...<: I!)

00 '-' (/J .....:I..><: --- 0 u... '-' r- I!) '<t 00 '-' o 4-. 4-. 4-.

'" ~00 z '" '" '" .s: '-' 0 0 0

<t: I!) --- I!) -0 -0 -0 ...<:(: r- til Oil -0 C C C.... ~ ~

N t: t: t: .:0.... I!) til V II 'Vi t:

~0 '§ '§ '§0- ::r:: ..><: .... til til til I!) r.x..til .:E .:E .:E .... I!) o o U .....:I> I!)

-<;

'" co co co til > "0 <2 <2 <2 I!)... "0 3 :::E 0 0- 4-. 4-. 4-. -0 -0 ....-a I!) '[) '[) '0 ~ til 0 0 0 t: ';::: 0

0 0 0 til t: t:I!) ::: ::: ::: '2f?. '2f?....<:

'2f?. :::R. '2f?. c/i oo (/J f- c:o (/J 0 ~ ~ :J :J :J (/J

Indiana 55 8.63 0.31 5.25 2.26 224 91 26 lMP/C 8 87 5 16.6 1.8 44 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.05Indiana 40 8.31 0.09 4.51 2.95 274 91 35 lMP/C 5 85 10 16.7 1.8 34 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.28Indiana 25 7.63 0.02 2.20 4.83 407 92 65 lMP/C 3 68 29 18.4 1.9 22 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.60


55 9.09 0.155 4.38 3.92 35140 9.17 0.11 3.74 4.63 40225 8.92 0.41 1.16 6.79 556

939294

43 lMP/c 16 8250 GP 9 8576 lMP/C 5 84

2 14.1 1.8 43 3.9 3.85 15.9 1.9 35 4.0 3.912 17.1 2.0 22 4.0 4.2

3.9 3.854.0 3.964.2 4.13

HM03HM03HM03

554025

8.96 0.23 5.94 2.29 2328.75 0.19 4.76 3.13 2907.59 0.04 2.66 4.45 379

949294

26 GP 436 IMP 359 IMP 1

899176

7 16.5 1.86 16.9 1.823 17.9 1.9

44 4.237 4.023 4.5

4.24.34.5

4.3 4.224.3 4.194.6 4.54


55 9.48 0.23 5.03 3.31 30740 9.98 0.09 3.40 5.53 47325 9.40 0.02 2.00 6.78 562

909094

35 lMP/C 12 8655 lMP/C 8 8572 GP/C 4 86

2 14.8 1.8 46 3.9 3.77 15.7 1.9 34 3.9 4.010 16.5 1.9 25 3.9 4.0

3.9 3.834.1 4.004.1 4.00

CUT 'N' PEEL MANAGEMENT TRIAL - 1998- MUCK SOILSecond SeedingThird Harvest

,-...eo~"---'

1:,-... ...r::I:lJl (l) t1J ..seo .~ ,-... c,

'0 "---' eo N '" J:: "0,-...""" 00 ...... S ~:::: eo ~ I I I S ...r:: (l)

~00 "---' rJ) .....l--. 0 """ 00 u.... '-" r- (l) '-" ~ 4-< 4-< 4-<

'" 00 :0 '" '" '" ..s 0 0 0¢:: (l) ~

I --. (l) 0 0 0 ..se ~r- E N I:lJl 0 .c .c .c.... v 1\ (l) 'iii t:: t:: t:: J:: "0 0 '§ '§ '§(l) '" ~

.... c, ::r: ~ .... '" '" '" Il)

~'" 1: 1: 1: .... (l) u u U .....l> '" '" > (l)

<8 <8 <8 (l).... "0 ~ eo I:lJl eo ;:;8 0c, 4-< 4-< 4-< 0 0 J:: ....

'5 (l) 0 '0 '0 'v < '" 0 0 0 'a 'a 'a 0(l) :::: :::: :::: --. ...r:: 0 0 '" u

U rJ) E-< o::l ~ ~ rJ) ~ ~ ~ p::: p::: cZi ;:J ;:J ;:J rJ)

Indiana 55 11.29 0.11 4.21 5.81 502 90 51 C 11 83 6 15,5 1.8 40 3.5 3.9 3.8 3.70Indiana 40 11.09 0.06 3.45 6.51 552 90 58 GP/C 6 83 11 15.0 1.8 31 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.74Indiana 25 10.62 0.01 1.31 8.28 677 90 78 C 1 83 16 16.9 1.9 20 3.9 4.1 4.0 3.98


HM03HM03HM03

554025

554025

9.71 0.16 3.57 6.99 45111.43 0.13 2.51 8.31 68411.15 0.04 0.97 9.31 757

10.64 0.22 5.40 4.30 3898.69 0.07 4.27 5.83 37810.21 0.03 1.58 7.70 633

919092

938791

467383

414776

GP/CGP/C

GP

C

GP/CC

211412

652

778174

918985

1 13.4 1.85 14.5 1.814 16.1 1.9

3 15.3 1.86 16.9 1.812 17.0 1.9

463822

483623

3.4 3.33.6 3.53.7 3.6

3.8 3.93.8 4.03.9 4.0

3.5 3.403.4 3.503.8 3.71

3.7 3.773.7 3.813.9 3.93


554025

12.97 0.19 4.03 7.70 65213.47 0.07 3.32 8.88 74112.70 0.04 0.73 11.06 896

929193

606687

GP/CGP/CGP

16128

838481

14

11

13.8 1.814.2 1.816.8 1.9

494121

3.6 3.53.7 3.83.8 3.6

3.4 3.493.6 3.683.9 3.73

......

......(J'1

........0'1

CUT 'N' PEEL MANAGEMENT TRIAL - 1998- MUCK SOILThird SeedingFirst Harvest

----00..:.:'-'

:c ---- ...c00 Q) 00 ...c00 ~ ---- N 0- ~'Qj

----00 ~ 00 "7 E '" t::

~~00 ..:.: I , E ...c Q)

..:.: 00 '-' ir: -l-<, 0 o.... '-' r-- Q) "'T 00 '-' .2.- ...... ...... ......Vl

~I

00 :0 Vl Vl Vl ...c 0 0 0<t: Q) -<,

Q) 0 0 0 ...cc: ~r- .s N on ~ 0 0 0 0... V /\ Q) 'Vi t: t: t: t:: 0 .~ '~ .~... Q) '"0- :r:: ..:.: ... '" C':l C':l Q)

~ """'" :c :c :c ... Q) u u U -l> Q) -<,Vl 00 00 00 '" > "'0 c.8 c.8 c.8 Q).... "'0 (;i

~ 0 0- ...... ...... ...... 0 0 ...'"5 Q) 0 'Qj 'Qj 'Qj -< '" 0 0 0 t:: 'i= 0'"Q)

~ ~ ~ --- ::R ~...c

~ ~ ~0 0 .... t:: t:: U

U [/) f-o III 0 [/) ~ ~ [/) ::::J ::::J ::::J [/)

Indiana 55 4.86 0.06 3.06 1.25 125 89 27 IMP 2 55 43 21.0 1.8 16 4.1 4.2 3.9 4.06Indiana 40 3.52 0.05 1.80 1.11 104 84 32 IMPIC 1 56 43 21.3 1.8 13 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.75Indiana 25 2.90 0.03 1.04 1.52 131 89 52 IMP 0 39 61 21.7 1.9 9 404 4.2 4.3 4.29

Caro PrideCam PrideCaro Pride

554025

5.19 0.10 2.60 2.15 1945.19 0.05 1.62 3.15 2664.19 0.03 1.05 2.92 243

939395

426170

IMPIMPIMP

725

726153

21 18.0 1.836 18.7 1.842 1904 1.8

23 4.3 3.6 3.6 3.8216 404 4.1 4.1 4.1712 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.17

HM03HM03HM03

554025

5.88 0.23 4.85 0046 765.12 0.09 3.79 0.90 1034045 0.06 2049 1048 139

949390

8 IMP 317 GP/IMP 133 IMP 1

896866

8 17.2 1.6 3931 18.2 1.8 2533 19.9 1.8 17

4.2 4.0 3.9 4.064.3 4.2 3.9 4.084.2 4.2 4.0 4.13


554025

5.99 0.284.84 0.053.87 0.05

3.95 1.352.27 2.080.70 2.75

140186227

939190

224272

IMPIMPIMP

33o

897855

8 16.3 1.719 18.3 1.845 2004 6.6

342012

4.04.14.2

3.94.0404

3.83.84.3

3.883.964.30

r

CUT 'N' PEEL MANAGEMENT TRIAL - 1998- MUCK SOILThird SeedingSecond Harvest

Cil~

.E,......,

..r::OJ) Il) en ..r::OJ) ~ ,......, N c, :0'~ OJ) :<t- ,......, o:l s::

Cil ~00 - E

,......, ..r:: Il)

~::: 00, , ,

E (/) .....l~ ....... 0 '1" 00 u... t- Il) '-' ~ '- '- '-

'" ~, 00 ::0 '" '" '" ~ 0 0 0

¢:: Il) ....... Il) a (3 a ..r::t: ~

t- o:l N en :0 a c c c... v t t t... Il) o:l V /\ 'u; s::~

0 '§ '§ '§c, ::c: .E -" ... o:l o:l o:l Il)

"""o:l .E .E ... Il) u u U .....l;;- Il)-<,

'" -; co OJ) OJ) o:l ;;- "'0 <8 <8 <8 Il)... "'0 ::E 0 P. 4- '- '- a a ..."5 Il) a '~ '~ '~ ~ o:l 0 0 0 s:: 0o:l

Il) ::: ::: ::: '<fl. '::R ..r:: '::R '<fl. '<fl.0 0

c/ls:: s:: s:: u

U (/) f-< co 0 (/) 0 ~ ~ :::::> :::::> :::::> (/)

Indiana 55 6.92 0.03 1.55 4.4 367 86 64 C 7 73 19 17.2 1.9 16 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.05Indiana 40 6.02 0.02 0.80 4.10 337 81 68 C 7 60 33 17.9 1.9 14 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.88Indiana 25 4.34 0.01 0.37 3.25 264 84 75 IMP 1 72 26 17.8 1.9 8 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.18


HM03HM03HM03


554025

554025

554025

8.57 0.07 2.39 5.34 4498.40 0.02 1.22 6.53 5367.39 0.03 0.44 6.54 530

8.64 0.18 4.55 3.18 2938.28 0.05 2.93 4.44 3818.07 0.05 1.58 5.76 476

9.12 0.13 3.32 4.89 4208.45 0.03 1.65 5.96 4937.10 0.02 0.37 6.10 494

919295

929092

919091

62 GP/C 2079 C 988 GP 5

37 GP 854 iP/IMJ 671 C 3

54 GP/C 770 GP 986 IMP 6

777773

898576

888686

3 14.0 1.914 16.5 1.922 16.8 1.9

3 16.1 1.98 15.7 1.8

21 17.4 1.9

5 15.6 1.95 15.8 1.99 16.5 1.9

32 3.720 3.814 4.0

42 3.929 4.121 4.1

35 3.822 4.116 4.2

3.53.84.0

4.04.34.4

3.94.04.0

3.84.04.0

3.84.14.0

3.94.04.1

3.663.884.00

3.884.154.14

3.854.034.10

..............,

CUT 'N' PEEL MANAGEMENT TRIAL - 1998- MUCK SOIL ............Third Seeding co

Third Harvest

---OJ),..>('-'

E Oil 11).s: .s:

OJ) ,..>( --- N P. 00 :0'~ '-' OJ)~ --- C<l I::--- 00 -::: OJ) 00 ,..>( , , E --- ..r:: 11) 3,..>( '<, '-'0 u E C/l .-l- '-' r- 11) "<t 00 '-' U 4- 4- 4-

til 00 ::0 til til til ..r:: '-' 0 0 0et: 11) ~

I -- 11) "0 "0 "0 ..r::e ~r- C<l N 00 :0 "0 0 0 00-

V 1\ d:l 'tij t: t: t: I:: '§ '§ '§0- 11) C<l

~0c, ::c ,..>( 0- C<l C<l C<l 11) t.L..C<l E E E 0- 11) U U U .-l;> '<,

til C<l ;> 11) "0 <E <E <E 11)- "0 c;j OJ) OJ) OJ)

~ 0 P. 4- 4- 4- "0 "0 0-

:; 11) "0 '~ '~ '~ <t: C<l 0 0 0 I:: 0C<l11) ::: ::: ~ -- ~ ~..r::

~ ~ ~0 0

r/JI:: I:: I:: o

U C/l r-- co C/l 0::: 0::: ::J ::J ::J C/l

Indiana 55 8.88 0.01 1.51 6.47 533 90 73 IMP/C 8 73 19 16.8 1.9 21 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.03Indiana 40 7.18 0.02 0.78 5.74 468 91 79 IMPIC 9 65 26 16.8 1.9 14 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.08Indiana 25 5.70 0.01 0.21 4.84 391 89 85 IMP 5 46 48 17.2 1.9 9 4.3 4.2 4.3 3.22


554025

9.88 0.07 2.11 7.1110.35 0.01 0.82 8.539.03 0.00 0.38 7.85

589693635

949091

728287

IMPIC

IMPIMP

24165

737482

3 14.9 1.910 16.7 1.913 17.32.0

302115

3.9 3.83.9 3.84.2 4.3

4.0 3.893.9 3.874.2 3.18

HM03HM03HM03

554025

9.93 0.22 4.37 4.71 4149.72 0.05 2.69 6.27 5268.60 0.00 0.87 6.86 559

949390

47 GP/IMP 9

64 GP 880 IMP 4

878273

4 14.8 1.8 4310 16.7 1.9 2923 17.7 2.0 18

4.1 4.0 3.9 3.984.5 4.4 4.2 4.384.3 4.3 4.5 4.34


554025

10.83 0.10 2.99 6.8910.71 0.04 1.35 8.589.72 0.01 0.25 8.75

579701707

929393

648090

GP/CGP/C

IMP

152017

827170

3912

16.6 1.914.9 1.914.1 1.9

362414

4.0 3.94.0 3.84.3 4.1

~

3.9 3.934.1 3.973.9 4.12

..

CUT 'N' PEEL MANAGEMENT TRIAL - 1998 - MINERAL SOIL


Fertilizer:Applied by grower.

Seeded:The first seeding date was 14 May and the second seeding was 3 Jun. For each seeding four cultivars were seeded at three densities(seeds/foot). The four cultivars were Caro-Pride, Indiana, HM03, and Vita Treat. The seeding densities were at 55, 45, and 25 seeds/footat a seed germination rate of 95 to 100%. The seeding was done using a Cone hand push seeder with a 5 cm wide scatter shoe. The trialswere seeded on beds 86 cm apart. Ridomil 2G was applied at 25 kg/ha in seed furrow. The trial was replicated three times.

Weed, Insect and Disease Control:All pesticide treatments were applied by grower.

Harvest:The first harvest of each seeding date was determined by taking a weekly random sample. Once the sample had 80% of the carrots in themarketable range (Y2" to 7fa") the carrots were harvested. The second and third harvest followed at 15 and 30 days after the first harvestrespectively. All harvest samples were immediately placed in a temperature and humidity controlled storage (O°C, 95% RH) respectively.

Seeding Date:

14 May3 Jun

1sl Harvest

12 Aug (90)24 Aug (82)

2ndHarvest(Number of days after seeding)

27 Aug (105)8 Sep (97)

3'd Harvest

11 Sep (120)23Sep (\12)

... /continued

........\0

CUT 'N' PEEL MANAGEMENT TRIAL - 1998 - MINERAL SOIL

EVALUAnON PROCEDURESThe trials were evaluated from 17 Aug to 23 Nov.

Total Harvest Weights (Kg):Weights from the harvested 2.32 m of row.

Marketable Yield B/A:Marketable yield includes the sizes, Y2" to 7/a" (13 mm to 23mm) as well as the oversize > ?fa" (>23 mm).

% Oversize:The percentage of carrots> 7/a" (23 mm) and greater.

No

Shape: IMP = Imperator GP = Gold Pak C = Cylindrical

Stand/Foot:Actual number of carrots harvested per foot.

Score:The average of three marks ofUnifonnity of Shape, Uniformity of Length, and Uniformity of Width.

"

. .. /continued

CUT 'N' PEEL MANAGEMENT TRIAL - MINERAL SOIL - 1998First SeedingFirst Harvest

----ClJ,.;.:'-"

.:E ---- ..c:ClJ iU en ..c:ClJ C ~ N 0. -B'0 ---- '<t 00 - ---- c<:I C

~~ClJ ,.;.: I I I S ---- ..c: iU

,.;.: 00 '-" S if) .....l-- o..... '-" r- iU 0 '<t 00 '-" o '- '- '-<JJ

~I

00 :0 <JJ .I!l <JJ ..c: '-" 0 0 0c::: iU -- iU 0 0 ..c:c: ~

r- n N 0 to -B 0 C C C.... t:: t:: t::iU '" V 1\ iU <JJ C 0 '§ '§ '§....0.. ::r:: ,.;.: .... c<:I c<:I '" <U

~ ~'" .:E .:E .:E .... <U U U U .....l.. <JJ"@ ClJ ClJ ClJ c<:I > <U <.8 <.8 <.8 <U

'"0 :::E 0 0.. '- '- '- 0 0 ...."3 <U 0 '0 '0 '0 < c<:I 0 0 0 c '2 '2 '2 0c<:I

<U~ ~ ~

-<,~ ~

..c:~ ~ ~

0 0US ou Cf.l E-< o:l 0 0 Cf.l 0 0 0 e::: e::: ~ ~ ~ Cf.l

Indiana 55 5.30 0.18 3.23 1.52 148 93 27 IMP/C 0 75 25 19.9 1.7 23 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.93Indiana 40 4.38 0.05 2.33 1.53 142 90 34 IMP/C 0 63 37 20.2 1.8 14 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.10Indiana 25 4.44 0.06 2.15 1.96 175 94 44 IMP 2 57 41 21.1 1.8 13 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.24


554025

7.43 0.07 3.58 3.276.31 1.45 2.10 2.415.20 0.01 1.09 3.65

194211303

939491

453870

GP1MPIC

GP

62o

917185

3 16.0 1.927 19.1 1.815 19.7 2.0

301713

4.3 3.93.9 3.93.9 4.1

4.1 4.104.0 3.934.2 4.07

HM03HM03HM03

554025

6.36 0.21 5.08 0.54 844.91 0.11 3.58 0.92 1034.23 0.06 2.80 1.20 119

919496

8 IMP/C 219 GP 128 IMP 0

907767

8 17.71.7 3321 19.6 1.8 2133 21.1 1.8 15

3.8 4.0 3.7 3.824.3 4.2 4.1 4.204.6 4.6 4.4 4.52


554025

6.06 0.08 2.54 2.68 2366.17 0.03 2.57 3.16 2755.18 0.03 1.03 3.74 309

849393

435172

IMPGPGP

52o

867286

9 16.8 1.826 19.3 1.914 19.0 1.9

24 3.8 3.6 3.7 3.6819 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.9713 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.07

....N....

.....N

CUT 'N' PEEL MANAGEMENT TRIAL - MINERAL SOIL - 1998 N

First SeedingSecond Harvest

---..OJ)

:::.,;: eil Q)

...<:: ...<::OJ) ~

eil N 0- to :0"0:; '-' '" l::eil :::., ""'"

00 '7 E E ..r::: (1)

~~ 00 0 0 en .....l:::., -..... 0""'"

00 o.... r-- (1) '-' ~ "- "- "-III

~, 00 z III III III ...<:: 0 0 0

c::: (1) -..... (1) '0 '0 '0 ..r:::i:: r-- .c:! N to :0 '0 .c- o 0.... ~ I: I: I:.... (1) '" V A (1) 'Vi l::

~0 '§ '§ '§0- ::r:: .... .... ~ .... '" '" '" (1)~'" E .... (1) u u U .....l;> ..r::: ..r::: (1) -.....

III OJ) OJ) OJ) '" ;> '"0 <E <E <E (1).... '"0 ~ ~ 0 0- "- "- "- "0 '0 l:: ....'"5 (1) "0 '0:; '0:; '0:; < '" 0 0 0

0 0 '" l:: 'I:: l:: 0(1)

~ ~ ~-<;

~ ~..r:::

~ ~ ~ ciS ou CIl E- m CIl P:: P:: ::J ::J ::J CIl

Indiana 55 7.15 0.17 3.51 2.81 254 91 38 IMP/C 2 77 21 18.5 1.8 25 4.1 4.4 4.1 4.21Indiana 40 6.33 0.02 2.10 3.31 283 86 53 IMP/C 0 73 26 19.4 1.9 16 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.30Indiana 25 5.83 0.05 1.51 3.96 331 94 67 IMP/C 0 64 36 19.2 1.9 12 4.4 4.6 4.3 4.43


HM03HM03HM03

554025

554025

9.27 0.11 3.38 4.948.14 0.05 1.92 5.717.09 0.02 0.80 5.40

8.56 0.21 3.89 3.776.95 0.09 4.11 2.125.50 0.03 2.69 2.48

425475441

335204221

919487

929195

53 GP/C 970 IMP/C 576 IMP/C 4

45 IMP/C 229 GP/C 145 IMP 0

857969

836872

7 16.4 1.916 17.3 1.927 17.8 1.9

15 17.8 1.832 18.9 1.828 19.2 1.8

342214

362315

4.0 3.94.1 4.24.3 4.3

4.4 4.74.4 4.74.2 4.4

3.8 3.904.1 4.134.4 4.37

4.4 4.524.3 4.484.4 4.36


554025

8.86 0.06 3.23 4.469.34 0.05 1.95 6.687.54 0.02 0.81 6.17

385554503

879393

50 IMP 772 IMP/C 382 IMP/C 2

828189

11169

16.2 1.816.3 1.917.1 1.9

292315

4.1 4.23.9 4.04.0 4.6

"

4.0 4.104.0 3.974.4 4.33

J

CUT 'N' PEEL MANAGEMENT TRIAL - MINERAL SOIL - 1998First SeedingThird Harvest

""""'enc.-.:c """"' £en (l) .cen c.- eo N 0- en .:a'0 00 '" t:

""""' '1 '"7 """"' F5i(l)

~~en c.- o E E,..:.: 00 .....l

'<, 0 u.... '-' r- (l) "<t 00 '-' u <.0- <.0- <.0-U"l

~0

00 ::c U"l U"l U"l £'-' 0 0 0

c:::: (l) '<,(l) "0 "0 "0 ~~ ~

r- .s N en "0 .2:' .2:' .2:'... V /\ (l) ·tii t: t: t: t: 0 '§ '§ '§... (l) '" ~'" 0- ::r: .:c .:c .:c ,..:.: ... '" '" '" (l)~

;0.... (l) u u U .....l '<,

U"l

3 en en en '" ;0. (l) "0 <2 <2 <2 (l)'';:; "0 ~

0. <.0- <.0- <.0- "0 "0'0 '0 '0 -< 0 t: ...:; (l) '" 0 0 0 '" 'c 'c 0

(l) 0~ ~ ~

'<,

~ ~.c

~ ~ ~0 0

U)t: u

U Ul E- o::l Ul 0 ~ ~ :;J :;J :;J Ul

Indiana 55 8.34 0.14 3.44 4.00 349 91 47 IMP/C 3 77 20 17.0 1.8 26 4.2 4.3 4.0 4.18

Indiana 40 7.35 0.31 0.89 5.18 424 87 71 IMP/C 1 77 21 18.1 1.8 16 4.2 4.6 4.2 4.32

Indiana 25 7.06 0.03 1.22 5.20 428 91 74 IMP/C 2 68 30 18.8 1.9 12 4.0 4.3 4.2 4.17

Cam PrideCaro PrideCam Pride

HM03HM03HM03

554025

554025

9.76 0.04 2.68 6.33 5319.92 0.02 1.37 7.70 6317.57 0.00 0.67 6.13 499

9.08 0.19 3.73 3.81 3377.55 0.04 3.32 3.69 3246.29 0.02 1.59 3.89 326

939290

859387

657882

424962

IMP/CIMP/CIMP/C

1MPIC

IMP/CIMP/C

551

11o

907576

867860

5 15.7 1.920 16.0 1.923 17.4 1.9

13 17.5 1.821 17.7 1.940 18.6 2.0

30 4.0 4.121 4.1 4.213 4.2 4.2

35 4.3 4.322 4.4 4.412 4.6 4.7

4.1 4.074.2 4.184.3 4.24

4.1 4.264.3 4.374.7 4.66


554025

10.07 0.0511.84 0.039.50 0.03

2.14 6.501.57 9.210.82 8.06

540754656

869294

647885

IMP/CIMP/CIMP/C

575

838285

121010

16.0 1.916.5 1.913.5 1.6

262415

4.04.22.7

3.94.02.9

4.1 4.004.1 4.112.8 2.78

~

NW

~

'"CUT 'N' PEEL MANAGEMENT TRIAL - MINERAL SOIL - 1998~

Second SeedingFirst Harvest

,-..,co~'-'

.:E,-.., ..<:co l1J Co ..<:

co ~ ,-.., N 0- :0'0 '-' co ,-.., "" I::,-..,"T 00 '"7 ~~

co ~ , E,-..,

r53l1J

~00 '-' E .....l

'-'-<, 0 '<1" 00 u

~ r- l1J '-' U 4- 4- 4-

'" I00 :0 '" '" '" ..<: '-' 0 0 0

c::: l1J ~'<,

l1J '0 '0 '0 ~e r- "" CiJ '0 Q ?;> Q.... ~ ~ N t:: t:: t::l1J '" V II l1J 'u; I:: 0 '§ '§ '§....~ "" '" '" l1J

~'" 0- ::r: 1: .:E 1: .... >.t-.;- .... l1J

l1J U U U .....l~'" co co co '" ;- <E <E <E l1J

~ "'0 ";;j~ 0 0- 4- 4- 4- '0 '0 I:: ....

;; l1J '0 '0 '0 '0 < '" 0 0 0'" 'c 'c 'c 0

l1J~ ~ ~

'<,

::R ::R ..<: ::R ::R ::R0 0

U5 uu [/) E- iJ::l 0 0 o: 0 0 0 cG cG :::J :::J :::J [/)

Indiana 55 4.15 0.48 3.02 0.25 44.4 88.6 5.6 GP/C 4 91 5 15.5 1.7 32 4.0 4.2 4.0 4.07Indiana 40 4.08 0.26 3.19 0.26 46.4 90.9 6.4 GP 3 91 6 15.7 1.6 27 4.1 4.4 4.2 4.26Indiana 25 3.18 0.12 2.50 0.21 36.8 87.1 6.2 IMP/C 4 91 5 15.3 1.7 16 4.2 4.4 4.3 4.32


554025

4.90 0.41 3.54 0.75 88.6 95.74.44 0.26 3.33 0.69 82.4 96.73.88 0.08 2.22 1.41 131.6 95.5

14.7 GP15.4 GP35.9 IMP/C

1243

748483

141114

16.7 1.717.1 1.815.9 1.8

342617

4.24.24.1

4.14.24.2

4.04.14.0

4.114.194.10

HM03HM03HM03

554025

4.75 0.52 3.85 0.12 40.7 94.74.61 0.28 3.73 0.32 55.5 93.92.58 0.21 1.96 0.22 33.5 92.7

2.36.88.0

GPGP

GP/C

246

929190

544

15.9 1.616.9 1.716.6 1.7

29 4.6 4.3 4.229 4.4 4.5 4.215 4.3 4.4 4.1

4.364.374.30


554025

6.12 0.33 4.81 0.54 82.5 93.0 9.04.56 0.27 3.50 0.54 71.9 94.6 11.93.53 0.04 2.13 1.22 115.4 95.3 33.9

GP/CGP

GP/C

987

898587

176

14.5 1.713.8 1.715.5 1.9

42 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.1030 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.0815 4.1 4.3 4.1 4.18

~

)

CUT 'N' PEEL MANAGEMENT TRIAL - MINERAL SOIL - 1998Second SeedingSecond Harvest

----OIl...><:'--'

:c ---- ...OIl n) til ~OIl 6 ~ N 0-

"n)---- ~ 00 E

ro f::

~~OIl 6 , "7 E ~

n)00 .....l...><: '<, (:;, ~ u- '--' r- n) 00 '--' ~

.... .... ....'" ~

00 ::0 Vl Vl Vl ..c 0 0 0.::: n) '<,

n) '0 '0 '0 ..c,~

r-~ N til .!O '0 C C C.... V II n) "Vi t: t: t: f:: 0 "§ "§ "§.... n) o:l

~o:l 0- ::r:: :c :c - ...><: .... o:l o:l o:l n) t.L..>- ~

.... n)n) u u U .....l ::a'" OIl OIl ro >- <2 <2 <2 n)- -0 <;;

~ 0 0- .... .... .... '0 '0 f:: ....;:; n) '0 "n) "n) "n) < ro 0 0 0 ro ";:: ";:: ";:: 0

n)

~ ;3: ~'<,

~ ~..c

~ ~ ~0 0

ell ou C/) f-; co C/) ~ ~ ;:::l ;:::l ;:::l C/)

Indiana 55 6.31 0.17 3.95 1.62 162 90 26 GP/C 9 88 3 14.7 1.8 33 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.93Indiana 40 5.67 0.15 3.41 1.61 157 90 26 GP 4 88 8 15.4 1.8 25 4.1 4.3 4.1 4.18Indiana 25 4.73 0.04 2.12 1.94 173 82 36 GP/C 8 87 5 15.7 1.8 16 4.0 4.4 4.0 4.14


HM03HM03HM03


554025

554025

554025

7.40 0.10 3.58 3.096.64 0.04 2.65 3.556.37 0.03 1.66 4.43

7.03 0.14 5.23 1.106.68 0.05 4.27 2.053.79 0.02 2.25 1.13

8.97 0.09 4.94 3.297.19 0.03 2.59 4.105.37 0.00 0.97 4.09

278307370

130200109

305351337

919496

929590

939395

405469

153029

375674

GPGP

GP/C

GP/CGP/CGP

GP/CGP/CGP/C

2254

542

1293

707489

929068

888887

8 14.2 1.820 17.5 1.88 16.5 1.9

3 16.0 1.87 16.3 1.8

30 17.7 1.8

o 13.6 1.84 15.2 1.99 16.1 1.9

242316

362715

382413

4.1 4.04.0 4.23.9 4.0

4.2 4.24.1 4.24.3 4.5

4.0 3.74.1 4.13.9 4.2

3.9 4.004.1 4.124.1 4.00

4.0 4.144.1 4.144.2 4.33

3.9 3.874.0 4.094.3 4.14

.....NU"l

......N

CUT 'N' PEEL MANAGEMENT TRIAL - MINERAL SOIL - 1998 0'1

Second SeedingThird Harvest

----OJ)...>::'-'

..E ---- ~

OJ) Q) to~

OJ) ...>::---- N 0- oB'0 '-' OJ) ~ 00 ---- '" l::

---- '"7 ~~OJ) 00 ...>:: , , E ---- ..<: Q)

...>:: -<, '-' 0 (,) E rIl ....l~ '-' r- Oo

Q) '<t 00 '-' (,) '- '- '-<JJ , :0 <JJ <JJ <JJ ..<: '-' 0 0 0

<t:: Q) ~-<,

Q) "0 "0 "0 ..<:C r- Zl to "0 C C C... ~

N l: l: l: oBQ) '" V II Q) .iii l::

~0 '§ '§ '§~ 0- ::r:: ..E ..E ..E ...>:: .... '" '" '" Q) u,.... Q) u u U ....l;;- <JJ '" Q)

-<,

<2 <2 <2'3 OJ) OJ) OJ) ;;- "0 Q)'p "0 ~ 0 p.. '- '- '- "0 "0 ....;; Q) 'Q) '0 '0 -< '" 0 0 0 l:: 'i:: 'i:: 'i:: 0'"Q) 0

~ ~ ~-<,

~ ~..<:

~ ~ ~0 0

riJ (,)

U rIl E- o:l 0 0 rIl 0 0 c::: c::: ~ ~ ~ rIl

Indiana 55 8.32 0.16 4.15 2.91 268 86 35 GP/C 7 89 5 14.3 1.8 36 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.77Indiana 40 7.54 0.06 2.59 4.11 351 90 54 GP/C 5 88 7 14.9 1.9 22 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.77Indiana 25 7.04 0.02 1.42 4.91 406 89 71 GP 5 88 7 15.4 1.8 16 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.78


HM03HM03HM03


554025

554025

554025

9.67 0.08 3.41 5.66 4838.06 0.06 2.29 5.32 4478.61 0.02 1.00 7.01 572

8.97 0.07 4.82 3.55 3258.99 0.04 3.56 4.59 3985.76 0.03 1.93 3.39 288

11.86 0.07 4.82 6.25 54210.12 0.02 2.53 7.20 6008.61 0.04 0.80 7.21 587

949593

949093

949692

586881

395159

537083

GP/CIMPGP/C

GP/CGPC

GP/CGP/CGP/C

1364

462

1387

817587

898974

868591

6 14.4 1.818 16.4 1.910 16.1 2.0

7 15.4 1.75 16.2 1.8

24 18.1 1.9

1 14.0 2.07 14.9 1.92 15.2 1.9

352618

353017

462617

3.6 3.33.7 3.63.6 3.6

3.8 3.73.6 3.84.0 3.9

3.7 3.63.9 3.73.6 3.7

~

3.6 3.483.7 3.633.9 3.68

3.7 3.723.8 3.723.8 3.90

3.8 3.693.8 3.793.7 3.64

ONION CULTIVAR TRIAL 1998SEASON SUMMARY

The weather in 1998 played a key role in the Onion Cultivar Trial. Air temperatures were above the long term (10 year) average for April andMay and not different from the long term average for June, July, August and September. Total rainfall was below the long term (10 year) averagefor April (23.6 mm), May (42.6 mm), July (50.2 mm) and September (18.6 mm); above average for August (114.6 mm) and not different fromthe long term average for June (78.4 mm). As a result of the early warm weather, the Onion Cultivar Trial was seeded approximately 7 to 10days earlier than normal. The onions took an average of 7 to 10 days to emerge. Onion smut incidence appeared to be low. A strong wind stormoccurred on 31 May which slightly bruised the onions and caused some leaf curling. The onions recovered quickly from the damage. Onionmaggot pressure was high and some cultivars experienced heavy stand loss. On closer observation, it was noted that most of the onions damagedor killed by maggots had onion smut. A Lorsban 4 E drench was applied to control onion maggot damage (26 Jun). Some of the earlier maturingcultivars began to bulb by the first week of July and were starting to lodge by the end of July. All of the onion cultivars were approximately 2weeks earlier in bulbing and lodging. Botrytris leaf blight was well within manageable levels and never posed a serious problem, likely due tothe dry conditions. Irrigation was a key to the good crop this year. Irrigation water was applied often starting in July, especially during the latterpart of the month to help in bulbing. Luckily, in early August a weather system moved through (2 days) that delivered approximately 2 inches ofrain. This heavy rainfall came at a key time and was a great benefit to the later maturing (storage) types of onions. These cultivars absorbed themoisture and sized up well. Unfortunately it was a little too late for the earlier type cultivars to help in sizing. As a result of the dry conditionsagain in late August and early September the onions cured nicely and only had to be dried to remove some light field moisture. When evaluationwas done in December there was noticeable differences in stand (population). Those hurt by heavy onion maggot damage could be quicklypicked out. The general size of the onions was down compared to previous years. Most cultivars had a very good skin thickness and attachment.Neck finish also was also good in 1998. There was little problem with rots (neck, base plate, etc.) and most culls were doubles, or maggotdamaged, rather than rotted. It was difficult to determine the shape of the onions, since most cultivars were very uneven in shape (RG, FG, etc).In conclusion, the onion eultivar trial performed very well in 1998, although some onion maggot and weather problems did effect yields for somecultivars.

. .. /continued

.....N....

ONION CULTIVAR TRIALS-1998


Fertilizer:90 kglha Nitrogen +20 kglha Phosphorous +150 kglha Potassium +5 kg/ha copper (99% Cu).

Seeded:All trials were seeded 28 and 30 Apr. Pelletized onion seed was seeded with a Stan-Hay precision seeder. Raw onion seed was seeded with a V-Beltseeder equipped with a 5 em wide scatter shoe. Row spacing was 43 em. The raw seed was coated with Pro-Gro at 60 g/2.3 kg seed plus methylcellulose at 100 m1/2.3 kg seed. Lorsban 15G was applied at 18.5 kglha in the seed furrow. Main Trial was replicated three times. Adaptation Trialwas not replicated.

.....N00

Weed Control:Pre-emergence:Post emergence:

1 application Gramoxone 2.50 Llha on 9 May.1 application Prowl 400 4.7 Llha on 14 May and 9 Jun.

Dual and Pardner are not registered for use on onions in Ontario, but were applied at Muck Crops Research Station for the purposes ofthis experiment.

1 application: Dual 1.2 Llha on 19 Jun3 applications: Pardner 140 mllha, Goal 140 mllha and Manganese 2 kglha on 23 and 27 May and 20 Jun1 application: Goal 210 mllha, and Manganese 2.5 kglha on 11 Jul

Minor Elements:Five foliar sprays Tecmangam 2.0 kglha.

Insect and Disease Control:According to IPM recommendations. Note Well: Due to heavy Onion Maggot pressure, a Lorsban 4E drench was applied at 4.0 Llha in2000 Llha of water on 26 Jun.

Sprout Inhibition:Royal MH 60SG, 3.75 kglha in 550 Llha water on 8 Aug.

Harvest:The Main and Adaptation Trials were pulled 26 and 27 Aug and topped 10 and 11 Sep. Both trials were placed in a forced air and temperaturecontrolled storage 14 Sep. Both trials were cured for 48 hours (30°C, minimum 65% RH). After curing the temperature was lowered 5°C perweek until O'C,

... Icontinued

.•

ONION CULTIVAR TRIALS - 1998 - continued

EVALUATION PROCEDURESThe cultivars were evaluated 3, 4, 7 and 8 Dec after 11 weeks in storage.

# Onions Harvested:Total number of onions harvested from 4.66 m of row.


Marketable Yield t/ha & B/A:Number of onions> 76 mm (> 3"), 76 mm to 44 mm (3" to 17"4"),44 mm to 32 mm (17"4" to 1~II).

Shape: HG = High Globe FG = Flatten Globe G = Globe SP = Spindle T = Top

Stand/Meter:StandlMeter divided by 3.28 = onions per foot.

WeightlBulb (g):The total weight in grams of all bulbs divided by the total number of bulbs. A bulb 51 mm (2") in diameter weighs 70 g. A bulb 57 mm (2~II) indiameter weighs 100 g. A bulb 64 mm (2Yz") in diameter weighs 135 g.

Days to Harvest:Number of days from seeding until 85% of the tops were down.

Colour:LG = Light Golden G = Golden DG = Dark Golden LC = Light Copper C = Copper DC = Dark Copper.

Skin Thickness:5.0 = Most Desirable 4.0 = Good

Score:

3.7 = Average

The average of seven marks at evaluation from Firmness to Neck Finish.

Percent Onion Maggot Damage:Ranges from pin hole damage to completely unmarketable

... Icontinued .....N<0

......w0

MAIN ONION CULTIVAR TRIAL-1998

Oil Oil Oil Oil ""'~ Oil........ C C C ........

:c x:Oil E E E ::;

'"0 0Qj E E E co2 ---~ \0 "T N :c ~

til til<l)

~ r- "T M <l) Oil <l);> I ..+ Q) ;>til II \0 ::0 ........ <l) ....o:l ;> r- "T o:l Il)

~ '":r:: .... 0<l) ~ ~ :r::o:l s: 0;

<l) 0.... Oil ~ .o E <l)o:l til :r:: E .... Oil 2<l) .o E .... E;> U ::l o:l '" <l) '"0 o:l~ .... ::; 0; -, .....l CIl o:l ~ ::l 0-

~.... til

::; ::l co 0 .s ...., o:l <l) >-.0 - - - S ..c o:l ;> '"U CIl 'It: E- 'It: 'It: 'It: co ~ ~ CIl Ul <: 00

TAMARA BEla 76 11.67 2.67 8.92 0.03 58.1 1034 99.6 a * 14 FG 16 158.0 115FLAGSHIP Asg 127 13.26 0.07 12.93 0.19 66.0 1175 99.5 ab 1 HG 27 105.0 101HEADLINER PETO 57 8.80 2.47 6.24 0.05 43.8 779 99.4 ab 18 FG 12 158.0 117GAZETTE PETO 123 14.16 0.28 13.67 0.12 70.4 1253 99.4 ab 1 FG 26 115.7 106TRAPPS #7 Cro 129 13.44 0.00 13.16 0.18 66.7 1188 99.3 ab 0 G 28 104.9 102RCS 10513 Rio 127 12.34 0.41 11.45 0.39 61.3 1091 99.3 ab 2 HG 27 99.0 101

LIVINGSTON Sol 121 13.13 0.22 12.21 0.61 65.2 1161 99.2 ab 1 G 26 108.3 109CHATEAU Asg 109 12.16 0.53 11.35 0.19 60.3 1074 99.2 ab 2 HG 23 113.6 100RCS 10968 Rio 84 10.22 0.33 9.67 0.13 50.7 902 99.1 ab 1 HG 18 120.4 111TRIBUTE Asg 114 13.62 0.23 13.10 0.16 67.5 1201 99.1 ab 1 HG 25 119.8 105PRINCE BEla 108 15.15 2.89 11.99 0.12 75.0 1335 99.0 ab 12 HG 23 141.0 109HAMLET Asg 112 15.41 1.14 13.92 0.18 76.2 1357 99.0 ab 4 HG 24 139.4 104

SALEM BEla 85 12.69 2.78 9.64 0.14 62.8 1118 98.9 abc 14 FG 18 150.7 108TURBO Cro 112 13.76 1.06 12.32 0.22 68.0 1210 98.8 abc 4 HG 24 123.7 112TORQUE Cra 119 13.47 0.31 12.71 0.28 66.5 1184 98.8 abc 1 HG 25 114.3 107SPECTRUM Sun 114 13.39 0.81 12.28 0.13 66.1 1176 98.7 abc 3 G 24 118.7 103LORENZO ViI 107 13.67 1.12 12.17 0.15 67.2 1196 98.4 a-d 5 FG 23 128.3 102FESTIVAL BEla 102 13.56 1.81 11.38 0.15 66.7 1186 98.3 a-d 8 HG 22 133.9 108


* Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05 Fisher's, Protected LSD Test.

..

~

MAIN ONION CULTIVAR TRIAL-1998

ll.lb1lo:l

E~

ll.l o:lVl 0. ll.l Clll.l o:l N> .s:

Ui 0I- r/lo:l Vl b1l::r: "- "- eo Vl b1l

0 0 c ll.l o:l

~ 0 0 j .s:~~ Vl

Vl Vl '§ '§ c::: u b1l ';:: cI- Vl Vl :E c i.i: 0o:l ll.l ll.l ll.l l- I- f-.~ u ~ c <8 <8 ;:l ;:l ';:: ll.l ';::

I- § § 0 0 ~ ~~ I- 0"'3 ;:l '0 "0 u 0

0 c c :..:2 :..:2 ll.l UU ir: i.i: i.i: ;:J ;:J u U ir: r/l Z v: ~

TAMARA BElO 5.0 4.7 a * 4.1 4.1 D.G 4.0 4.5 4.8 4.1 3.79 ab 57.4 jkFLAGSHIP Asg 5.0 4.6 ab 3.9 4.1 C 4.2 3.9 4.7 4.3 3.71 a-e 24.9 a-eHEADLINER PETO 5.0 4.7 ab 3.9 4.1 G 4.2 4.3 5.0 4.0 3.78 ab 47.7 hijGAZETTE PETO 5.0 4.4 abc 4.0 4.0 C 4.4 3.9 4.6 4.2 3.69 a-g 30.4 a-gTRAPPS #7 Cro 4.7 4.3 bed 4.0 3.9 C 4.1 3.8 4.7 4.3 3.64 d-i 18.8 aRCS 10513 Rio 4.9 4.3 bed 3.9 4.1 C 4.1 4.0 4.7 4.4 3.69 a-g 32.9 a-h

LIVINGSTON Sol 5.0 4.7 a 3.8 3.9 C 4.1 4.1 4.7 4.1 3.67 b-h 26.7 a-fCHATEAU Asg 5.0 4.6 ab 4.0 4.0 D.G 4.2 4.0 4.7 4.4 3.74 a-d 31.6 a-gRCS 10968 Rio 5.0 4.7 a 4.2 4.2 G 4.1 4.3 4.6 4.3 3.80 a 40.4 f-iTRIBUTE Asg 4.9 4.7 a 4.1 3.9 C 4.3 4.2 4.9 4.3 3.80 a 31.3 a-gPRINCE BElO 5.0 4.7 a 3.9 3.9 G 4.1 4.4 4.6 4.1 3.71 a-e 30.3 a-gHAMLET Asg 4.9 4.6 ab 4.0 4.1 D.G 4.3 4.0 4.7 4.2 3.73 'a-d 32.6 a-h

SALEM BElO 5.0 4.6 ab 4.0 3.9 C 4.1 4.3 4.8 4.1 3.72 a-e 40.9 f-iTURBO Cro 4.9 4.6 ab 4.1 4.0 C 4.3 4.1 4.9 4.1 3.76 ab 29.6 a-gTORQUE Cro 5.0 4.2 cde 4.0 3.8 G 4.0 3.7 4.7 4.2 3.58 g-k 23.6 a-dSPECTRUM Sun 4.6 4.0 def 3.7 3.8 C 4.1 3.9 4.6 4.6 3.58 g-k 34.2 b-hLORENZO ViI 4.9 4.3 bed 3.9 4.3 C 4.2 4.1 4.6 4.2 3.70 a-f 29.7 a-gFESTIVAL BEla 4.9 4.4 abc 4.2 3.9 C 4.1 4.2 4.9 4.1 3.73 a-e 36.4 c-h



I

.....W.....

MAIN ONION CULTIVAR TRIAL-1998 >-'wN

I

UOJ)

'"E~

u '"'" 0.. u 0u '" N;- ..c U3 a... C/J'" '" OJ)

::c: '+-< '+-< OJ) '" OJ)0 0 I': u

'"c;; Z;> Z;>I': ..c

~c;; .:-: '"u 0i=... '" '" o§ o§ 0::~

OJ) I':'" '" I': ii: 0o:l u u u ... ...

;- u I': I': <2 <2 ::s ::s 0i= u 0i=~

... E E 0 0 I': I': .:-: ... 0::s u 0:; 0 I': :5 "0 "0 ;.Q ;.Q u uU C/J ii: ii: ~ u u C/J C/J Z C/J ~

ADVANCER HM 407 3.8 fg * 4.1 3.9 L.G 4.1 3.9 4.2 4.4 3.56 h-k 22.2 abcUNIGLOBE 108 PETO 4.9 4.2 cde 4.1 4.0 C 4.1 3.9 4.4 4.3 3.63 d-i 22.6 a-dSTANLEY Sol 4.9 4.3 bed 3.9 3.8 C 4.0 4.2 4.7 4.2 3.64 c-i 27.8 a-gARSENAL Asg 4.7 4.3 bed 4.1 3.9 G 4.3 4.1 4.7 4.3 3.72 a-e 33.5 a-hMILLENNIUM Sun 5.0 4.4 abc 4.1 4.0 D.G 4.3 4.1 4.6 4.3 3.73 a-e 37.6 d-iMELIA BElO 5.0 4.3 bed 4.0 3.9 C 4.0 4.3 4.8 4.3 3.71 a-f 33.5 a-h

UNIGLOBE 100 PETO 4.9 4.4 abc 3.9 3.9 D.G 4.2 4.3 4.7 4.2 3.71 a-f 42.4 g-jCORTLAND BElO 5.0 4.4 abc 3.9 3.7 G 4.0 4.1 4.6 4.3 3.63 d-i 30.8 a-gFRONTIER Tak 4.9 4.5 abc 4.1 4.3 C 4.2 4.1 4.7 4.4 3.78 ab 30.1 a-gTOPNOTCH Cro 5.0 4.3 bed 3.7 3.9 C 4.1 3.9 4.7 3.9 3.56 h-k 39.9 e-iHUSTLER HM 4.8 4.2 b-e 3.8 3.9 L.C 4.0 3.6 4.1 4.7 3.54 ijk 31.1 a-gQUANTUM PETO 4.7 3.9 efg 4.0 3.7 G 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.6 3.50 jk 19.6 ab

WOLF(T-383) Tak 4.4 3.8 fg 4.0 3.8 L.G 4.3 3.8 3.9 4.7 3.54 ijk 35.1 c-hNORSTAR Tak 4.6 3.7 fg 4.0 3.8 L.G 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.7 3.57 h-k 28.8 a-gHOOPLA Rio 4.6 3.6 g 3.8 4.2 L.C 4.1 3.7 3.8 4.7 3.48 kl 26.1 a-fHOOPLA Sol 4.3 3.7 fg 3.8 3.9 C 4.0 3.4 3.8 4.4 3.38 I 28.9 a-gCORONA BElO 4.7 3.8 fg 4.1 4.1 L.G 4.1 4.3 4.0 4.6 3.61 e-j 52.6 ijkCISCO BElO 4.7 3.9 efg 4.0 4.0 L.G 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.4 3.53 ijk 36.2 c-hPRECEDENT Sun 4.8 4.0 def 4.0 3.8 G 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.2 3.59 f-k 65.8 k



.. , ~

')

ONION ADAPATION TRIAL -1998

<l,)OJ)o:l

E<l,)

o:l

§' <l,)0

..s:: N "C/l i:I.i '"OJ)

'- '- OJ) '"OJ)

0 0 I:: <l,) --<c c -;;; 12 ..s:: :::2'"'" "§ "§ ~

u OJ) "2 I::.... '" :.a I:: ~ 0o:l <l,) <l,) .... ....'E u § <8 <8 ;::l ;::l f-; "§ ~

<l,) "2.... 0 .s I:: .... 0""5 ;::l "2 "2 -0 ;Q ;Qu 0

0 0 <l,) uU C/l ~ :::J :::J u u C/l C/l Z C/l '::!2.0

PS 456894 PETO 4.3 3.7 3.7 L.C 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.7 4.10 57.8PS 352892 PETO 4.0 4.3 3.7 C 3.7 4.0 4.3 4.0 4.00 54.3

T-422 Tak 4.3 4.0 3.7 G 3.7 4.0 4.7 4.7 4.16 65.2RNX 11392 Rio 4.3 3.7 4.0 C 4.0 3.3 4.7 4.3 4.04 26.6

RNX 11978 Rio 4.3 4.0 4.3 D.G 4.3 4.3 5.0 4.0 4.31 45.8VDH 93729 Car 4.7 3.7 3.7 C 4.0 4.3 4.7 4.0 4.16 66.7

EXPNORSECO 1. Nor 4.3 4.0 4.0 C 4.0 4.0 4.7 4.3 4.19 50.69307B Tak 4.3 3.7 4.0 C 4.3 4.3 4.7 4.3 4.23 52.2

T-418 Tak 4.0 3.7 4.0 G 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.3 4.14 95.0XPH 94394 Cro 4.3 4.0 4.0 L.G 4.0 4.0 4.7 4.3 4.19 64.6

EXPNORSECO 2. Nor 4.0 3.7 3.7 D.G 4.0 4.0 4.7 4.0 4.01 57.9EXP NORSECO 3. Nor 4.0 3.7 4.3 RED 4.0 3.7 4.7 4.0 4.06 46.5

......w+:>

Listed in orderof % Marketable.

4

5.0 = Most Desirable, 4.0 = Good, 3.7 = Average

,

•

ONION ADAPATION TRIAL -1998

en en en en en~ c ~'--' c '--''--'

;:: .D

CIl

~ ~ ~:;

"'0 'v o:lB

~ "'1" N~ ....

<Jl \0 ..= <JlIII .... r-- "'1" M III CIl III

I::I -+ 'v I::<Jl /\ \0 ::0 ....

ellIII r-- "'1" III

~ ell

::r:: I:: 0III

~ V ::r::ell .D C;; III.... <Jl ::r:: S CIl ~ ::E IIIBell III .D

.... S .... CIl

of u ;:l ell ell III ~ ell.... :; c;; ....., .....:l U) ::E c, .... <Jl

:; ;:l o:l 0ell < ell ;::: III ;:...

0 ...... ...... ...... ::r:: --- ..= ell ;;. ell

U U) =tt: f-< =tt: =tt: =tt: ~ o:l 'cF. U) U5 < Ci

PS 456894 PETO 64 6.81 0.08 6.66 0.07 34.1 606 100 G 14 106 99PS 352892 PETO 94 13.60 3.25 10.11 0.15 67.6 1202 99 HG 20 145 110

T-422 Tak 92 13.59 4.85 8.49 0.13 67.4 1199 99 G 20 148 100RNX 11392 Rio 124 15.54 1.71 13.58 0.07 76.8 1367 99 HG 27 125 103

RNX 11978 Rio 96 13.30 0.74 12.17 0.22 65.7 1169 99 HG 21 139 100VDH 93729 Car 69 8.90 0.55 8.08 0.13 43.8 780 98 G 15 129 117

EXP NORSECO 1. Nor 83 10.06 0.91 8.75 0.24 49.5 881 98 FG 18 121 1059307B Tak 90 12.40 3.25 8.63 0.24 60.6 1079 98 HG 19 138 111

T-418 Tak 40 7.19 2.77 4.21 0.04 35.1 625 98 HG 9 180 103XPH 94394 Cro 65 13.33 1.99 10.51 0.23 63.7 1133 95 HG 14 205 117

EXP NORSECO 2. Nor 38 8.10 5.22 2.36 0.06 38.2 680 94 HG 8 213 117EXP NORSECO 3. Nor 71 10.45 3.74 5.10 0.10 44.7 796 86 HG 15 147 117


t-'W<.n

.....W0'

LONG TERM AVERAGES OF ONION CULTIVARS

#YEARS MARKETABLE YEILD DAYS TO FIRMNESS*CULTIVAR SOURCE TESTED t/Ha BfA MATURITY A B

HUSTLER HM 11 46.7 832 96 4.37 3.37WOLF (T-383) Tak 3 72.2 1283 99 4.47 3.43ADVANCER HM 11 60.5 1078 104 4.54 3.71ESKIMO Tak 7 54.5 970 105 4.21 3.69NORSTAR Tak 11 62.0 1105 105 4.42 3.40TRAPPS #7 Cro 4 62.9 1119 105 4.90 4.20

FRONTIER Tak 5 68.3 1215 106 4.98 4.26IMPACT HM 3 50.3 894 106 4.70 3.83LORENZO ViI 2 70.4 1250 106 5.00 4.30QUANTUM PETO 3 74.8 1329 106 4.70 3.97CORONA Swy 5 74.2 1319 107 4.80 3.86FLAGSHIP Asg 2 72.4 1288 107 5.00 4.70

CORTLAND BElO 2 78.5 1397 108 5.00 4.30TARMAGON Sto 7 64.8 1157 108 4.43 3.62ROCKET Asg 13 54.6 972 109 - 3.82SALEM BElO 2 66.3 1180 109 5.00 4.50SPECTRUM Sun 3 74.4 1322 109 4.67 4.03STANLEY Sol 2 70.2 1250 109 4.95 4.50

EARLYPAK Cro 10 54.3 967 III 3.99 3.93PRINCE Swy 7 67.9 1208 111 4.92 4.47TAURUS Asg 12 54.0 961 111 - 3.79UNIGLOBE 108 PETO 2 71.9 1280 III 4.90 4.30CAPABLE Sun 7 55.3 979 112 4.38 3.83HEADLINER PETO 4 55.9 993 112 4.98 4.50

• ,

•

LONG TERM AVERAGES OF ONION CULTIVARS

#YEARS MARKETABLE YEILD DAYS TO FIRMNESS*CULTIVAR SOURCE TESTED tfHa BfA MATURITY A B

PARAGON Sun 8 62.5 1110 112 4.62 4.14TOPNOTCH Cro 5 60.0 1067 112 4.96 4.42TORQUE Cro 4 63.4 1126 112 4.93 4.18TRAPP #8 E.J. 12 57.7 1027 112 4.40 4.19TRIBUTE Asg 2 68.4 1217 112 4.95 4.35GAZETTE PETO 4 62.9 1119 113 4.88 4.43

HAMLET Asg 5 72.8 1297 113 4.92 4.38DJANGO VDH 5 50.3 815 114 4.20 3.80BENCHMARK Asg 5 60.2 1068 115 4.93 4.42TAMARA BEJO 5 63.6 1131 115 4.92 4.46TURBO Cro 3 64.8 1151 115 4.93 4.30UNIGLOBE 100 PETO 2 65.6 1167 115 4.90 4.45

CANADA MAPLE Sto 17 57.2 1018 116 - 4.18FORTRESS Asg 5 57.8 1025 116 4.57 4.08AUTUMN KEEPER JHK 8 53.7 956 117 - 4.09SWEET SANDWICH PETO 7 69.0 1228 117 3.80 3.86CLIPPER VDH 5 59.3 1020 120 4.15 3.90COPRA BEJO 6 66.8 1189 121 4.39 4.08

Listed in order of Days to Maturity. 5.0 = Most Desirable, 4.7 = Good, 3.7 = Average

......w......

ONION CULTIVAR STORAGE TRIAL 1997-98

% WEIGHT % % % % FIRMNESS **CULTIVAR SOURCE LOSS SPROUTS ROT SOFT MARKETABLE IN OUT

TRIBUTE Asg 15.1 8.9 4.9 12.8 62.4 a * 5.0 4.0 ab

V.L. 224 ViI 15.0 21.8 5.9 5.8 56.9 ab 5.0 4.1 ab

MILLENNIUM Sun 17.6 7.8 20.1 6.8 54.0 abc 5.0 3.7 a-d

BENCHMARK Asg 21.0 9.7 21.6 4.0 51.2 abc 4.9 3.7 a-e

FLAGSHIP Asg 15.2 20.6 4.4 16.1 50.0 a-d 5.0 3.6 a-f

HEADLINER Sto 18.0 22.6 11.9 4.7 49.7 a-e 5.0 3.9 abc

FESTIVAL BElO 19.0 13.4 11.9 14.8 48.8 a-f 4.9 3.3 c-g

CHATEAU Asg 19.9 14.6 10.9 15.4 47.6 a-f 5.0 3.3 c-g

HMX4633 HM 23.0 18.7 22.9 11.4 44.4 b-g 5.0 3.8 a-d

LIVINGSTON Sol 17.7 22.2 13.5 12.3 43.2 b-g 5.0 3.7 a-d

ARSENAL Asg 14.5 21.5 7.7 20.4 42.8 b-h 4.9 3.0 f-i

SPECTRUM Sun 19.2 17.0 17.4 13.1 42.5 b-i 4.7 3.6 a-f

STANLEY Sol 17.8 31.4 8.3 9.7 41.4 b-j 5.0 3.7 a-d

PRINCE BElO 20.1 19.9 21.7 7.0 40.6 c-j 5.0 3.7 a-d

TAMARA BElO 21.7 18.2 17.6 13.3 39.9 c-j 5.0 3.6 a-f

HAMLET Asg 20.9 14.4 21.2 13.8 39.6 c-j 4.9 3.3 c-g

UNIGLOBE 108 PETO 21.4 27.3 16.8 10.1 36.5 d-k 4.8 3.5 b-g

TOPNOTCH Cra 21.3 34.2 12.1 9.1 35.1 e-l 5.0 3.6 a-f

.....wco

•,.

.. •

ONION CULTIVAR STORAGE TRIAL 1997-98

•

% WEIGHT % % % % FIRMNESS **CULTIVAR SOURCE LOSS SPROUTS ROT SOFT MARKETABLE IN OUT

ADVANCER HM 20.7 34.4 13.7 8.4 34.6 f-m * 4.9 2.6 ij

TORNADO BEJO 20.8 27.0 17.8 11.8 34.4 f-m 4.7 2.9 ghi

FRONTIER Tak 19.1 46.8 6.6 7.8 31.5 g-n 5.0 3.6 a-f

QUANTUM Peto 23.8 45.3 10.6 12.2 30.8 g-o 4.7 2.6 ij

UNIGLOBE 100 Peto 21.6 43.4 12.9 8.1 28.1 h-o 5.0 2.7 hij

GAZETTE Sto 23.8 28.8 22.6 12.2 27.8 i-o 4.9 3.7 a-e

CORONA BEJO 22.9 33.0 20.9 11.8 26.8 j-o 5.0 3.1 e-i

LORENZO ViI 23.3 24.3 22.2 30.1 22.6 k-p 5.0 1.3 k

XPH 94396 Cro 24.8 30.8 32.4 8.1 21.4 l-p 5.0 3.0 ghi

NORSTAR Sto 25.8 51.1 16.5 7.2 20.0 m-p 4.7 1.3 k

EXPRESS PAK Nor 22.7 71.9 1.8 5.3 16.9 nop 4.8 1.3 k

BARRAGE Asg 20.1 39.3 28.4 12.3 16.3 op 4.8 2.3 j

HOOPLA Sol 26.4 35.9 41.6 10.5 11.8 P 4.7 3.2 d-h

PRECEDENT Sun 29.6 30.5 35.2 19.3 11.1 P 4.7 1.4 k

Listed in order of % Marketable. Storage period approximately 48 weeks.

* Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05 Fisher's Protected LSD Test.

~

W<0

......

LONG TERM AVERAGES OF ONION STORAGE TRIALS "'"0

%WT LOSS %ROT,# YEARS % IN SOFT & FIRMNESS

CULTIVAR SOURCE TESTED MARKETABLE STORAGE SPROUT IN OUT

COPRA BElO 5 86.2 8.6 5.7 4.30 4.08CANADA MAPLE Sto 9 83.3 8.3 8.3 - 4.13TAURUS Asg 9 82.9 7.3 9.8 - 3.64TRAPP #8 EJ. 9 79.9 8.9 11.3 - 3.81PARAGON Sun 10 73.5 11.2 17.1 4.70 3.95

VOYAGER HM 4 71.2 13.6 20.1 4.80 4.10ESKIMO Tak 5 70.9 11.9 17.5 4.30 3.26TARMAGON Sto 6 70.5 10.1 19.1 4.36 3.35BENCHMARK Asg 5 70.5 12.8 21.3 4.82 3.94FORTRESS Asg 7 70.5 11.6 20.1 4.60 3.70

CAPABLE Sun 9 70.1 11.1 18.8 4.23 3.40HAMLET Asg 6 70.1 12.4 22.2 4.70 3.08TRAPP'S # 7 Cra 2 68.5 10.6 26.8 4.90 4.10GUARDIAN HM 6 68.4 12.1 20.3 4.50 3.75PRINCE Swy 6 66.2 13.1 24.9 4.77 3.82

SPECTRUM Sun 2 64.5 14.2 30.2 4.70 3.55ADVANCER HM 10 64.2 11.1 27.9 4.36 2.94HUSTLER HM 10 64.2 9.8 27.7 4.20 3.40CLIPPER VDH 4 63.6 11.3 25.2 4.03 3.38IMPACT HM 5 63.5 13.5 28.9 4.60 3.60

.. . ..

..

LONG TERM AVERAGES OF ONION STORAGE TRIALS

%WTLOSS %ROT,# YEARS % IN SOFT & FIRMNESS

CULTIVAR SOURCE TESTED MARKETABLE STORAGE SPROUT IN OUT

HEADLINER PETO 3 63.0 13.9 31.5 4.97 4.13SWEET SANDWICH Sol 8 62.3 11.3 29.6 4.09 ·3.16PROMISE Cro 2 61.2 14.0 35.2 4.90 3.90AUTUMN KEEPER Cro 5 61.1 12.6 26.4 4.16 3.56TURBO Cra 5 60.7 11.2 31.9 4.64 3.56

WOLF (T-383) Tak 2 60.6 11.6 34.1 4.60 2.80TOPNOTCH Cro 3 60.2 15.6 3.6 4.97 3.83TAMARA BEJO 3 59.8 14.0 36.0 4.90 3.87TORQUE Cro 2 57.3 14.3 41.4 4.90 3.80DJANGO VDH 5 55.8 12.8 32.4 4.10 3.14

UNIGLOBE 100 PETO 2 55.0 16.5 40.8 4.95 3.25UNIGLOBE 108 PETO 2 54.5 17.4 40.4 4.80 3.70QUANTUM PETO 2 53.9 17.5 45.2 4.70 3.25GAZETTE PETO 3 52.3 16.7 42.5 4.83 3.93NORSTAR Tak 10 51.0 12.6 40.7 4.18 2.49

FRONTIER Tak 3 50.5 12.0 45.8 5.00 3.93NEW YORK EARLY Sun 3 46.7 13.7 39.6 3.86 2.70CORONA Swy 4 40.9 16.6 53.6 4.83 3.15

Listed in order of % Marketable. Storage period approximately 11 months.

5.0 = Most Desirable, 4.7 = Good, 3.7 = Average......-l'>......

Head Lettuce and Romaine Cultivar Trials

Bradford and area lettuce growers requested interest that the Muck Crops Research Station conduct a head lettuce and romaine varietytrial. The response from the seed companies was less than expected. We received six head lettuce varieties and six romaine varieties. The trialwas grown as transplants which were started in the greenhouse on 12 May in 128 cell seedling trays. The trial was transplanted into the field on15 & 16 Jun. Eighteen heads were harvested and evaluated on 23 Jul. The air temperatures were not different from the long term average forJune and July. Total rainfall was below the long term (10 year) average for July (50.2 mm ) and not different from the long term average for June(78.4 mm). Due to the lower than average amounts of rainfall irrigation was applied twice during the trial period. Some varieties showed signsof tip bum at evaluation which was related to the dry conditions. Additional comments taken at evaluation on each cultivar are listed below:

Head Lettuce:

Ithaca 989 - iceberg type head lettuce, good size, some heads were immature at harvest.

Dublin - iceberg type with dark green leaves, compact heads, good uniformity, tip bum

Porto - large firm heads, smooth dark green leaves, uniform in size and shape

Rondo - red/green leaf lettuce, slightly over mature, 100% of heads with tip bum

Salinas 88 Dacapo - smooth dark green leaves, slightly immature, soft, 75% of heads with tip bum

Ithaca MI - iceberg type, good size, good colour

Romaine:

Attico - butterhead/romaine type, short compact heads, many suckers

Bakito - red/green romaine, medium height, loose heads

Little Ferro - butterhead/romaine type, slightly over mature, short compact heads, 70% tip bum

Ferro - butterhead/romaine, very short plants, odd shaped heads, yellow centers

LM 8931 -romaine type, large uniform heads, good height, dark green colour

PS 77393 - romaine type, good colour, large full heads, good height

..

......

.j::,N

•

LETTUCE CULTIVAR TRIAL - 1998 - HEAD AND ROMAINE


• ..

Seeded:The trial was seeded on 12 May in 128 seedling trays filled with an equal mixture of 50% Sunshine #2 and 50% ABSsoilless mix at 2 seeds per cell. The lettuce was thinned to one plant per cell at the second true leaf stage.

Fertilizer:Greenhouse:

Field:

20-20-20 at 50 ppm until transplanted.1 application of 10-52-10 at a rate of 3.1 kg/1000 L of water just prior to transplant.120 kg/ha Nitrogen + 20 kg/ha Phosphorous + 80 kg/ha Potassium was worked into the soil.

Transplanted:Three replications were transplanted in the field on 15 and 16 Jun at a spacing of 40 ern apart rows and 30 em plantspacmg.

Weed Control:The trial was hand weeded several times during the trial period.


Harvest:Harvest and evaluation took place on 23 Jul (18 heads cut per replicate).

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Field Weight:Total weight of 18 heads before trimming.

Marketable Weight:Weight of marketable heads after trimming and culls removed.

Reason Non-Marketable:ODD = Odd Shape

Score:

ROT = Rotten Head Sm = Small TB = Tip Bum

The average of 5 marks from Degree of Tip Bum to Over All Rating.. . /continued

......

.j:>w

HEAD LETTUCE CULTIVAR TRIAL -1998

bilII)

::0~ £3 ,.-., II)

.E II) a E 0 0..

bil..>t: o:leo ....

~;:l 0::: ...c

~ '0:; o:l o:l o::::8 .... E

~II) E 0.. "-' eo

.E ::0 I

E= 0 0 I::II)

I:: II)

E t .....eo o:l 0 E 0 C o:l'0:; ::0 v Z ;:l "-' 0:::o:l 0 o:l '" '§....~

o:l ..>t: o:l '"o:l II)..... .... I:: o II) II) II) c;j;;- u II) o:l 0 0.. II) II) § <2 II).~ .... '"r:::l ..>t:

:::8 '" oil E= .... .... .... .........;:l v .... o:l eo eo .;:: II) 0;:; 0 o:l II) ;;- II) II) ;;- u

U o: i.i: :::8 6'2. 0::: <r: ~ c c ~ ::J 0 o:0

ITHACA 989 Asg 16.64 13.94 ab * 100 a ---- 15.4 0 5.0 4.5 3.9 4.3 3.9 4.33 ab

PORTO Car 17.86 14.86 ab 98 a ODD 15.5 32 4.7 4.8 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.47 a

SALINAS 88 DACAPO Car 15.84 13.51 b 96 a ROT 14.9 84 4.4 4.7 3.7 4.1 3.7 4.13 b

DUBLIN Car 18.09 14.96 a 94 a ROT 15.2 32 4.7 4.9 4.3 4.6 4.3 4.55 a

ITHACAMI Sto 17.99 14.07 ab 94 a SM 14.8 3 4.9 4.6 4.1 4.1 3.9 4.31 ab

RONDO Car 12.10 7.56 c 72b TB 14.5 91 3.9 4.3 4.0 4.7 3.9 4.15 b

......

.j:>

.j:>



..

•

ROMAINE CULTIVAR TRIAL - 1998

..

~

OIl~'-"

~II)

:r: 6 I:: "0 0..~ ~

.... roOIl u ;:l ~ ..<::OIl 'v '-" 6 o:le.- 6 CIl

~.... U 4-< OIlII) II) '-" 0..:c: :0 v f= 8 0 I:::r: e ....

OIl II)lS 6 '0 C ro

:0 OIl 4-<'v II) ro 'v ;:l 0 c:l til '§ ~....~

ro ~ o:l tilro II) V .... 0 ::r:: II) II) II)

~-5 ro 0.. II) II) §u -e ~ .... .... r.2 .... II)....~ oil oil f= ....

;:l v .... OIl OIl II) 0;; ro > > Il) II) :5 >0 i.i: ~ <f-. --< --< ~ 0 0 i.i: 0u

U CIl 0 CIl

ATTICa Car 7.34 6.61 b * 100 ** 13.5 14.8 31 4.6 4.9 4.7 4.6 3.6 4.46 be

BAKlTO Car 8.35 7.67 b 100 14.5 28.6 a 5.0 4.8 4.1 4.9 4.4 4.65 ab

FERRO Car 5.85 5.06 c 100 12.2 11.5 29 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.3 3.1 4.27 c

LITTLE FERRO Car 8.11 7.36 b 100 12.3 14.4 68 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.8 3.3 4.39 be

LM 8931 Car 17.97 16.22 a 100 15.9 31.2 15 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.9 4.7 4.73 ab

PS 77393 PETO 17.90 16.47 a 100 14.0 33.6 28 4.7 4.6 4.4 4.9 4.6 4.63 ab



** No significant differences (P = 0.05, Fishers Protected LSD Test) were found among any of the cultivars.

.....~

<.n

UNUSUAL VEGETABLES CULTIVAR TRIAL - 1998 - MINERAL SOIL


......"""'"


Field:

20-20-20 at a rate of 50 ppm for the first two weeks, then 100 ppm (Ebb & Flow Bench) prior to transplant.1 application of 10-52-10 at a rate of3.1 kg/IOOO L water just prior to transplant.

The trial was conducted on an organic based operation.No chemical fertilizers were applied to the soil.Cattle manure and green manure plow down were applied to the soil to build up nutrients.

Seeded:Numbers 1 - 9

10 - 2930 - 42

10 Jun.17 Jun.24 Jun.

Were seeded in seedling trays, 128 plugs/tray, filled with a 50:50 mix of ASS soilless mixture and Sunshine #2 with approximately3 seeds per cell. The plants were thinned to one plant per tray approximately two weeks after emergence.

Transplanted:Three replications were planted in the field on 21 JuI. Row spacing was 40 em apart and plant spacing was 25 ern to 35 em apart.

Weed Control:Hand weeding a couple of times.

Insect and Disease Control:Trial conducted at an organic based operation - no insecticides or fungicides were applied.

Harvest:The trial was harvested (yields) and evaluated on 17 and 24 Sep.

. .. /continued

..

..

UNUSUAL VEGETABLES CULTIVAR TRIAL - 1998 - MINERAL SOIL

EVALUA TION PROCEDURES

Harvest Weights:Weight of 10 plants.

Bottom Rot Rating:5.0 = No Rot.4.0 = Some older leaves slightly rotted or yellowing.1.0 = Rotted base/leaves.

Firmness:5.0 = Solid, very finn, tight head.3.7 = Finn, compact head.1.0 = Loose, open head.

Uniformity:Based on uniformity of length, width, shape, growth, colour.

5.0 = Most Desirable4.0 = Good3.7 = Average

Overall Rating:Based on appearance, colour uniformity, maturity of cultivar, size, shape.

5.0 = Most Desirable4.0 = Good3.7 = Average

..

... /continued

......~......

......UNUSUAL VEGETABLES CULTIVAR TRIAL - 1998 - MINERAL SOIL .j>o

co

----OJ)~ ----'-" S;:: ----u SOJ) '-"'0:; ... u OJ)

<l.l '-" .5~ d) ;:: 'c<iS OJ)- OJ) ~ ,5'" .~<l.l <l.l '0 .c 'c<i, c ::r:: '"... c<:S <l.l <l.l ~ '" '§ ~ i::::r:: '" <l.lc<:S OJ) OJ) S <l.l C;; §> c<:S c<:S §....... ... ... 0 c.8 ...- c<:S <l.l <l.l :t= <l.l'"5 '0 > > 0 '6 > 0

U f-< < < a:l ~ ~ 0 u

1. Italian Dandelion 0.92 12.0 29.0 4.9 3.9 4.2 4.0 - no insect or disease damage- smaller in size than muck soil- nice, healthy plantsred, good colour

3. Sorrel 0.98 12.5 21.2 5.0 3.3 3.5 3.5 - insect damage no disease- uneven growth- light in colour

7. Kalura - 2.47 15.2 17.3 N/A 4.2 3.7 3.9 - short uneven growthGreen Romaine - leaves thick and heavy

- pale centre colour

8. Rosalita - 1.70 11.4 21.6 N/A 3.5 3.5 3.7 - no insect or disease damageRed Romaine - uneven in colour red/green

- uneven growth - small/loose

10. Sylvetta- 1.83 16.6 11.0 N/A N/A 4.2 4.0 - lots of seedersGreen Arugula - insect damage

- fewer leaves than muck soil

12. Vitamin Green 4.06 13.7 27.1 5.0 3.7 3.4 3.7 - small, uneven growth- insect damage, no disease- better than on muck soil

... /continued

'" •

• r

UNUSUAL VEGETABLES CULTIVAR TRIAL - 1998 - MINERAL SOIL - continued

~

bJl~ ~

'-' S1:: ~

eo ~ S'0 ....

~bJl

II) .S~. "0 1:: ~S bJl..... bJl ~ .5VJ CIl '0II)

i:5 '0 C ~~ ::c: VJ

.... CIl II) II) ~ VJ '§ ~ t::VJ

CIl ::c: bJl bJl S II)II)

;> CIl CIl 0 § <2(;j §.- ] .... .... ......... II) II) t II)

"5 0 ;> ;> 0 'a ;> 0U E-< -< -< a:l i.i: ~ 0 u

13. Coral Escarole 2.76 22.4 N/A 4.7 4.3 4.2 4.3 - green, leafy plant- full size- even growth- nice!!!

14. Neos - Endive 2.51 23.7 N/A 4.7 4.3 4.3 4.3 - strong, healthy plants- no insect or disease damage- light centre colour- outer leaves very dark green

15. Carisma- 0.83 12.2 N/A 4.9 3.4 3.5 3.5 - small plants (tiny)Red Lollo Lettuce - uniform size

- good colour

16. Catalogna Special - 1.35 13.0 27.2 4.9 3.9 4.0 4.0 - no insect or disease damageItalian Dandelion - nice dark colour leaves

- more upright than red dandelion

19. Amaranth- 0.20 7.7 12.7 5.0 N/A 3.3 3.2 - poor looking plantGreenleaf Vegetable - looks like a weed

- poorer than on muck soil

20. Royal Oak - 1.57 16.9 N/A 4.7 3.9 3.9 4.0 - no insects - some diseaseGreen Oakleaf - 10% seeders

Lettuce - small, even growth

... /continuedI

..-+:>1.0

UNUSUAL VEGETABLES CULTIVAR TRIAL -1998 - MINERAL SOIL - continued~

U"10

I

~

enc ~

.E S~

ee ~ S'(j) .... u en

Cl.l '-' .§~ ~ ......

S ..c: «:I eo.... eo ~ .SVl «:I '(j)Cl.l Q '0 C -:;;c: ::r: Vl

.... «:I Cl.l Cl.l~ Vl '§ ~ ~

::r: Vl Cl.l«:I ee eo S Cl.l (iJ §;> «:I «:I § <8- .... .... 0 .....::: r:l Cl.l Cl.l t: 'a Cl.l;::l 0 ;> ;> 0 .... ;> 0

U f-< <t: <t: a:l i.L; ~ 0 u

22. Cerize - 1.01 14.5 14.7 4.3 4.0 3.8 3.8 - no insect or disease damageRed Oakleaf - short, small

Lettuce - nice!!!

23. Nevada - 2.43 15.9 N/A 4.3 4.0 4.2 4.0 - no insect or disease damageGreen Summer - BostonlRomaine type lettuceCrisp Lettuce - good colour

24. Centennial- 1.88 15.8 N/A 4.2 3.5 3.5 3.5 - head type lettuceGreen Summer - insect damage, no diseaseCrisp Lettuce - uneven growth

- not very nice

25. Sierra- 2.44 15.3 N/A N/A 4.0 4.2 4.2 - even growthRed Summer - no insect or disease damage

Crisp Lettuce - thick, heavy leaves- nice!!!

26. Cardinale- 1.54 15.8 N/A 4.9 3.9 3.7 3.7 - no insect or disease damageRed Summer - Boston type lettuce

Crisp Lettuce - good colour - red

27. Red Sails- 0.90 11.7 N/A 4.7 3.7 3.9 3.7 - even growth, but smallGrand Rapids - loose red leaf lettuce

Red Leaf Lettuce - no insect or disease damage

... /continued

.. '-

,.

UNUSUAL VEGETABLES CULTIV AR TRIAL - 1998 - MINERAL SOIL - continued

en..!<

S'-...'

E u SCI) '-...'

.~ ..... u CI)

~ '-...' 05~ (l) ES CI:l CI)..... CI) cz::: .5Vl .s:l .~(l) '0 C ~e Q ::c: Vl

..... CI:l (l) (l) cz::: Vl '§ cz::: 'i::::c: Vl (l)

CI:l CI) CI) S (l) <;~> CI:l CI:l §.- <; ..... ..... 0 <8 .......... (l) (l) t:: (l)

"; '0 > > 0 'a > 0U f-< -< -< o:l ii: :J 0 u

28. Crisp & Green - 1.57 15.5 N/A 4.9 3.9 4.0 3.9 - green leaf lettuceGrand Rapids - pale centres

Green Leaf - insect damageLettuce - uneven growth

29. Green Vision - 1.67 15.6 N/A 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.7 - uneven growthGrand Rapids - pale colour

Green Leaf - some seedersLettuce

30. Roquette - 3.78 15.9 31.9 N/A 4.0 4.2 4.0 - insect damageArugula - nice plants

32. Rhodos - Endive 1.11 16.4 N/A 4.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 - light centre colour- small in size- firm, thick leaves

35. Manto - Red Bibb 1.06 15.7 N/A 4.7 3.7 4.0 4.0 - slightly immature- nice colour- no insect or disease damage- Boston type

36. Punch - Green Bibb 1.76 15.3 N/A 4.9 3.9 4.2 4.2 - Boston type- light in colour- some disease

... Icontinued......r..n......

I-'

UNUSUAL VEGETABLES CUL TIVAR TRIAL - 1998 - MINERAL SOIL - continued(J1

N

r--,bIJ

C r--,

~E r--,

bIJ ~ E'v .... u bIJ

<1J '-" .§~. ti j:1E ro bIJ.... bIJ ~ .§'" ro 'v<1J B '0 Ct: ::r: ro '"ro <1J <1J

~ '" '§ ~ i::.... ::r: '" - <1Jro bIJ bIJ E <1J;;. ro ro § <2

c;j §.... c;j .... .... 0 ....<1J <1J t:: '2 <1J"5 '0 ;;. ;;. 0 ;;. 0

U f-< -< -< co ii: ;::J 0 u

38. LM 8560- 0.51 11.7 N/A 4.5 3.3 4.0 3.3 - good colourRed Leaf - small plants (tiny)

39. Pluto - Oakleaf 1.17 16.2 16.6 4.5 4.2 4.4 4.2 - light in colour- no insect or disease damage- a little small

40. Mascara- 1.91 20.7 N/A 4.2 4.0 4.3 4.3 - nice plantsRed Oakleaf - pale centres

- no insect or disease damage

41. Revolution- 0.58 12.4 N/A N/A 3.5 3.7 3.3 - small plantsRed Looseleaf - nice colour

- no insect damage

42. Ibis- 0.75 12.1 N/A N/A 3.2 3.4 3.4 - seedersRed Looseleaf - nice dark colour

- small in size

.. ./continued

oJ .. ~

UNUSUAL VEGETABLES CULTIVAR TRIAL - 1998 - MUCK SOIL



Field:

20-20-20 at a rate of 50 ppm for the first two weeks, then 100 ppm (Ebb & Flow Bench) prior to transplant.1 application of 10-52-10 at a rate of 3.1 kg/lOOO L water just prior to transplant.

120 kg/ha Nitrogen + 20 kg/ha Phosphorous + 80 kg/ha Potassium.

Seeded:NumbersNumbersNumbers

1 - 9 10 Jun10 - 29 17 Jun30 - 42 24 Jun

Were seeded in seedling trays, 128 plugs/tray, filled with a 50:50 mix of ASB soilless mixture and Sunshine #2 with approximately3 seeds per cell. The plants were thinned to one plant per tray approximately two weeks after emergence.

Transplanted:Three replications were planted in the field according to plant size in the plug starting on 14 to 21 Jul. Row spacing was 43 em apart andplant spacing was 25 em to 35 em apart.

Weed Control:Hand weeding several times.

Insect and Disease Control:According to IPM recommendations

Harvest:The trial was harvested (yields) and evaluated on 18, 19,26 and 27 Aug.

. .. /continued

......(Jl

w

UNUSUAL VEGETABLES CULTIVAR TRIAL - 1998 - MUCK SOIL - continued ......U'1coI

coC ---:c: E r-..u Eco '-'

"iU .... u coE '-' ~

c;j~ (l) :c: ....

E rn co.... co ~ .§ ~en rn "iU (l)(l) "0t:: 0 ::r: e- rn "0 en~ en "§ ~ P-. ~.... rn (l) (l) en (l)rn ::r: co co E (l) - ....

'S rn rn §c;j (l) §c;j .... .... 0 <8 .... ~

(l) (l) t:: '1:: (l) ....'"5 "0 ;> ;> 0 ;> rn 0U f--; <r: <r: i=Q ~ ~ 0 ~ o

27. Red Sails - 5.18 23.4 N/A 4.3 3.7 4.1 3.9 5.0 - suckersGrand Rapids -tender leaves

Red Leaf Lettuce - very loose heads

28. Crisp and Green 4.97 21.1 N/A 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.3 - strong, healthy leavesGrand Rapids - a little yellowing on leaves

Green Leaf Lettuce - nIce

29. Green Vision 5.40 21.2 N/A 4.5 4.2 4.2 4.2 3.7 - uneven growthGrand Rapids - yellowing tips on leaves

Green Leaf Lettuce - plants OK

30. Roquette - Arugula 5.42 14.7 N/A 4.3 4.1 4.1 4.1 5.0 - tall plants- strong odour- healthy, nice plants- no insect or disease damage

31. Red Orach 5.16 N/A 98.4 5.0 N/A 4.2 4.2 5.0 - looks like a weed- 50% red - 50% green- tall bush like plant- insect damage

32. Rhodos - Endive 6.40 23.2 N/A 4.4 4.2 4.6 4.3 5.0 - nice, full, compact heads- no insect or disease damage- good colour

... /continued

.. - ,..

UNUSUAL VEGETABLES CULTIVAR TRIAL - 1998 - MUCK SOIL - continued

"""'CJl~ """''-' E:c: """'~ ECJl CJl.Qj .... u

2 '-' .5~. Il) :c: .... ~

E ell CJl ......... .~ 0::: l:: l::til.~Il) Il) (5 .... Il)

t: CI ::r::: c ell (5 til

ell Il) Il) 0::: til .§ 0::: c, "E....::r:::

til - Il)ell CJl CJl E Il) ....

.::: ell ell § <8c;j Il) §- .... .... 0 .... ~.... .s Il) Il) t:: ·a Il) ....;:; 0 > > 0 > ell 0

U f-< -< -< CO i.L: ::J 0 :::2 u

35. Manto - Red Bibb 5.12 18.0 N/A 4.3 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.3 - suckers- slightly over mature- slightly uneven growth

36. Punch- 6.34 18.5 N/A 3.6 4.4 4.2 4.3 5.0 - Boston typeGreen Bibb - some bottom rot

- nice plants- no insect or disease damage

37. Impuls - Red Leaf 1.10 9.53 16.2 5.0 4.3 4.2 4.2 5.0 - small plants- nice- strong, healthy leaves

38. LM 8560- 1.43 14.2 N/A 4.6 3.3 4.2 4.2 5.0 - small, sturdy plantsRed Leaf - loose leaf

- no insect or disease damage

39. Pluto - Oakleaf 4.92 23.1 N/A 4.3 3.9 4.2 4.3 5.0 - suckers- red/green oakleaf- uneven growth (maturity)

40. Mascara- 3.80 27.3 N/A 4.8 4.0 4.6 4.6 5.0 - tender leavesRed Oakleaf - suckers

- slightly pale in colour- nice plants

... /continuedI

......(J1

\0

UNUSUAL VEGETABLES CULTIVAR TRIAL -1998 - MUCK SOIL - continued~

O'l0

I-01)

c -:2 S

S~01) 01)'v ... u2 '-' s:: <;~. 11) :c '[;Js 01).... 01) 0::: s:: '2CJ) ,S:: 'v 11)11) 0 '[;Jt: c:l ::r: C- o CJ)

... cu 11) 11) 0::: CJ) '§ 0::: Po; '2CJ) 11)cu ::r: 01) 01) S 11) - ....

-5 cu cu § c.2 Ol 11) §- ... ... B ... ~

:3 ~ 11) 11)

0 's 11) ...0 ;:- ;:- ;:- cu 0

U f-; -c -c ~ i.i: :J 0 ~ u

41. Revolution- 1.28 13.6 N/A 4.8 3.7 4.6 4.2 4.3 - small, healthy plantsRed Loose Leaf - very loose leaves

42. IBIS- 1.80 13.4 21.6 4.9 4.4 4.3 4.3 5.0 - tender leavesRed Loose Leaf - compact plants

- nIce- no insect or disease damage

• r -... Icontinued

~

Date post:	19-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Muck Vegetable Cultivar Trial &.. Research Report€¦ · Irwin Goldman Jim Chaput Cynthia...

Documents