Processing Tomato Cultivar Trials
tne2668
Canada: Processing Tomato Cultivar Trials in 2001
In 2001, 36 cultivars of processing tomato were grown at 4 locations on different soil types in the production regions of south-western Ontario to evaluate yield, handling traits, processing traits and general quality.
Seeds (variety trials)
May 2003
by Steve Loewen, Ridgetown College,
University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Objectives
To evaluate yield, handling traits, processing traits and quality of processing tomato cultivars grown on different soil types in the production regions of south-western Ontario.
Procedures
36 cultivars were grown at 4 locations with 3 replications at each location. In mid May, transplants were set out in twin rows 45 cm apart, 42 cm within row spacing and 1.5 meters between beds. Plots were 10.5 meters long. Liquid starter fertilizer was applied through the transplanter. All other fertilizer was applied before planting.
Plots at each location were visited twice each week. A plot was harvested when 80 % or more fruit were red ripe. For each plot, 5 representative plants, with no adjacent plants missing, were cut off at the soil level. Vines were shaken by hand and fruit were collected into a bin and then sorted into 5 categories shown in Table 1.
Four samples from each cultivar were evaluated for tendency to cracking by dropping from a height of 1.2 meters onto a concrete floor. Any fruit with cracks extending into the endocarp were weighed and reported as percent of total sample weight. Each sample was sorted according to fruit diameter to determine uniformity of fruit size. Tomatoes were exposed to caustic potash and the peels removed mechanically to evaluate the canning recovery. Colour, pH and solids were measured on juice prepared from the samples.
Results
The trials suffered because of the very low rainfall and higher than normal temperatures during the 2001 growing season.
The yield results, averaged over 4 locations, are shown in Table 2. The cultivars are arranged by maturity from early to late. The last column is included to represent one example of a grade option used by some processors. The results for fruit size evaluations and cracking are shown in table 3. Table 4 summarizes the results on peeling and juice quality.
Entries are listed in order of observed maturity in 2001.
Heinz Seed: H9997, H9661, H9996, H9995, H9423, H9992, H9704, H9553, H9706
H9997 - good peeled colour and appearance, midseason maturity
H9661 - large fruit, good yield and firmness
H9996 - combines good yield, firmness, colour and fruit size
H9423 - mid-late season check, good performer
H9992 - good peeled colour
H9706 - late maturity, good yield and peeled colour similar to last year, excellent solids
Ohio State University: Ohio 7983, OX 52, OX23, OX 328, OX 329, OX150, OX 325, OX 323
Ohio 7983 - early season check, had poor colour this year
OX 328 - midseason maturity, good yield and firmness
OX 329 - good peeled colour and appearance
OX 325 - excellent yield, good firmness, good visual appeal rating, late maturing
OX 323 - very good yield, excellent firmness and peeled colour, very late maturing
Petoseed: Hypeel 312, Hypeel 2130, Hypeel 696
Hypeel 312 - very early maturity, good solids
Hypeel 696 - mid/late season check, colour was poor this year
Ridgetown College: R9812, R003, R002, R9814
R 9812 - good early season performance with good yield, peeled colour and good fruit size
Land O’Lakes: TR 12, TR 82, TR 90
TR 12 - early maturity, good firmness and good yield
TR 82 - good performance this year, similar to last year
Tomato Solutions: TSH 6, TSH 9, TSH 7, TSH 5, TSH 4, TSH 2, TSH 10, TSH 8, TSH 1
TSH 6 - very early, good yield and firmness
TSH 9 - excellent peeling characteristics and good solids
TSH 4 - excellent peeled colour, good SS similar to last year
TSH 2 - excellent peeling recovery, good firmness, excellent SS and total solids, similar performance last year
TSH 8 - very firm, good peeled colour
TSH 1 - very good peeling recovery similar to last year