A4
LEAFLET 78
NOVEMBER 1969
V 'i _
BIGHART-
Improved
Variety of
PIMIENTO'
PEPPER
W H GREENLEAF, P-ofo-., o Hort-
M. H. HOLLINGSWORTHH Superintendent, North Alobomo Horticulture Substotion
HUBERT HARRIS, Associate Professor of Horticulture
K. S. RYMAL, Assistant Professor of Horticulture
IG (fAIl I IS -1-11 NAN1 \'TI iVel tol M1 iii)
1)1111 ed ilieiVI(to pc p pQe r ( 1/) sic ' taiii
i101 L. ) vaii et', tie'eloped Mt Auburun
II iixersitv A."ieuittiial Exper imien t Sta-
tiooi. The ii\\ pepper' \\ as eleased i
Niecldts aiid large 11 11lt f h IflSJ (Illalitv.. Ill
cultilrer( Sub1station, Cullman, the l h( I(\\ \- I-
riet\ pirodnued t 4 per enit higiei x ilds
rietv~ for m11ia v Yeals. Ill aditioli). thec
fru1Iits \\ crc ;3- per cnIt It wa\iert. 101(1 1:3
per 'iiit tlictker w alls, altl gave 1t) per
ceit ,ii gIi i rcscoxiti- 
of' camlltd oitliuit
(Cliittattc d ilit set alld fl-It matlllitv of1
111achiii Ile harvest. FruitfillS ]f habit mid1 frulit
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMFNT STATION
E. V. Smith, Director AUBURN UNIVERSITY Auburn, Alabomo
quality are illustrated by the title photo-
graphs.
PIMIENTO VARIETY DEVELOPMENT
The first pimiento pepper variety
grown in the United States was intro-
duced into Georgia from Spain out of
New World material in 1911. This sweet
pepper, which had large, pointed, heart-
shaped fruits with distinctive aromatic
flavor, was destined to start the U.S.
pimiento industry. The canned, red ripe
product that was known as pimiento at
the time was being imported from Spain.
Today, the word pimiento refers to either
the canned product or to one of several
pepper varieties with pimiento type fruit
derived from the original Spanish intro-
duction.
In 1913, S. D. Riegel and Sons, of
Experiment, Georgia, introduced the Per-
fection Pimiento variety. It was devel-
oped from a single plant with beautiful
fruits selected out of the original Spanish
introduction.
The Truhart Perfection variety was re-
leased by Cochran (1) in 1943. It was a
bulk of several selfed plants that had
been selected out of Perfection for su-
perior yield and fruit type. Truhart Per-
fection is still the leading variety today.
In 19638, Dempsey (2) released the va-
riety Truhart Perfection-D, which was
derived from a cross of Truhart with the
Japanese variety Santanka. However,
Truhart-D has not replaced Truhart.
The nematode resistant pimiento va-
riety Mississippi Nemaheart was released
by Hare (5,6) in 1966. Its parentage in-
volved Truhart and a hairy-leaved, root-
knot nematode resistant, pungent Mexi-
can pepper, M152B. Because Nemaheart
lacked fruit size, it was not commercially
acceptable even though it was nematode
resistant.
The Peto Seed Company of California
markets still another variety, Pimiento-L.
ORIGIN OF BIGHART PIMIENTO
Bighart is the result of a wide-cross-
breeding program started by the senior
author in 1945 at the Georgia Agricul-
tural Experiment Station. The pedigree
of Bighart, shown on page 3, comprises
36 generations and includes the following
pepper varieties, all of which are Capsi-
cum annum L.:
1. Truhart Perfection Pimiento,
2. The bacterial leaf spot resistant,
pungent, Japanese variety Santanka,
3. Holmes' tobacco mosaic virus
(TMV) resistant experimental bell type,
No. 1950-2015C (7),
4. The tobacco etch virus (TEV) re-
sistant South Carolina Cayenne type,
S.C. 46252 (4,9),
5. Keystone Resistant Giant Bell, and
6. Yolo Wonder-A Bell.
Three earlier experimental varieties
that resulted from this breeding program
were released to breeders and seedsmen
during 1956-58. These were Pimsan 1,
Pimsan 2, and Pimsan 3. (The name
Pimsan denotes Pimiento-Santanka an-
cestry.) These varieties carried L-gene
resistance against TMV, and Pimsan 3
also possessed TEV resistance derived
from S.C. 46252. Pimsan 2 is still being
maintained by the W. Attlee Burpee
Seed Company.
A breakthrough in the breeding of Big-
hart occurred in 1962 when a superior
plant with extra large, well shaped pi-
miento type fruits segregated in the F
2
from a near-sibcross (see pedigree). This
plant has transmitted its superior charac-
teristics through successive generations.
The original F
2 
plant and selections
made through F
5 
were selfed. Of 10 F
6
selections made in 1966, five were selfed
and five open pollinated. The 29 F
7 
se-
lections made in 1967 were selfed and,
from the combined seed plus some seed
from certain F
6 
X F
7 
sib-crosses, 6,000
plants were grown for seed increase at
the North Alabama Horticulture Substa-
tion in 1968. Nineteen pounds of Bighart
seed were saved, with 17 pounds distrib-
uted to the six member companies of the
Associated Pimiento Canners, to which
the variety was released.
[2]
PEDIGREE OF BIGHART PIMIENTO
Greeneaf 1945 
Holmes- 1934
oRF Santanka x Truhart-Ft 
Bell x Tabasco (LL)
T 
T
OFt B CI F2 x Truhart 
Fn Bell derivative
T T
C7) Ft BC2 F3 x Truhart 
Holmes Bell (LL)
T T
?Ft BC3 F3 x Truhart 
Ft 1950-2015C x Truhart
Fti
F2- BCt 0
---F3 BC?2 ? -x Cayenne S.C. 46252 
TEVR
-jT
BC3?@ @F1
FIBC4?aF
3 
?F2 TEV screened F2 54306 P1
-- F6 8 F4 BCt15
Pimsan-t (LL) Pimsan-2(LL)
1'956 ?1957 
F6 BC.2()
?Pimsan-2(LL) I
5626 F2 TEV screened
F7I @F2 55530-533
?56522AP1 ? Ft BC3 56500-515
Winter t956?FIBC4 57102-126
?F2
9
CQq 5-750t -526 TEV screened
Pimsan- 3(LL eta eta)
@Ft [(Pimsan 3xFt(Pimsan FiBC4xYWA) 
@Ft [Ft(Pimsan- 3xTruhart)
xFt(Truhari x KR) Ft(Truhari x KRG)1
T KG]T
OF2 
?F2
OjFt 60-2Pt Ft 60-6Pt
@26054 P6
TEV screened
KF -0-t1 * PF
OF262-tB-t-4 **Bighart type
OF5 'Keeled" Leaf Strain 
@?F5 "Standard' Leaf% Strain
0F9 Bigha-KL .969 
0F19 Bighart-SL 1969
Abbreviations
YWA =Yolo Wonder-A Bell
KRG= Keystone Resistant Giant Belt
Superior selections
O Number of generati-ons
Two Strains of Bighart Selected
Two strains of Bighart, based on leaf
type and plant habit, were selected be-
ginning with the F
5 
generation. The one
designated K for "Keeled" has an up-
folded leaf blade with prominent midrib
resembling the keel of a boat, in contrast
to the flatter leaf blade of the normal
"Standard" - designated S - plant type.
Keeled is a true breeding recessive trait,
probably monogenic. Hence, Bighart-K
breeds true for "Keeled," whereas Big-
hart-S still segregates "Keeled" plants up
to a maximum of one-sixth of the plant
population.
Associated with "Keeled" is a more
compact plant type and probably a more
concentrated basal fruit set and maturity
than "Standard" - characteristics essen-
tial for once-over harvest. The "S" strain
is preferred for repeated hand harvests.
Both strains are relatively well fixed ge-
netically for earliness, concentrated ma-
turity, and a heavy crown set of large,
well shaped fruits. One strain could prob-
ably be substituted for the other, as they
TABLE 1. PIMIENTO
are indistinguishable in fruit size, shape,
and quality.
Of the 29 Bighart selections made in
1968, 16 were of the "K" and 13 of the
"S" strain.
CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE
Tobacco Mosaic Virus Resistance
Both Bighart-K and Bighart-S breed
true for the L-gene that was discovered
by Holmes (7) in the Tabasco pepper (C.
frutescens L.) variety and transferred
by him to C. annum L. No. 1950-2015C.
The L-gene confers resistance equivalent
to field immunity to all tobacco form
strains of TMV by localizing the virus at
the site of infection, thus preventing sys-
temic spread. Unfortunately, the L-gene
is ineffective against the pepper form of
TMV to which no resistance has as yet
been discovered (3).
Fruit Yield
Fruit yields in 1966 averaged only
about one-third those of 1967, Table 1.
The relative yield rank of the entries was
VARIETY YIELD TRIALS, NORTH ALABAMA HORTICULTURE
SUBSTATION, 1966-67
Variety or line
1966
Nemaheart
Pimiento-Peto
Truhart-Pomona
AU-Fo66-48 
.............
Truhart-King Pharr
Bighart
1967
Truhart-D ........
Truhart-King Pharr
Truhart-Pomona
AU F,67-30 .......
Bighart ..........
Marketable weight
per 100 plants
1
Lb.
13.8 cd'
- 
d'e'
16.0 cd d'e'
26.3 bc c'd'
36.5 bc b'c'
49.7 b b'
90.1 a a'
78.1 bc c'd'
82.6 bc c'd'
92.2 bc b'c'
123.2 ab a'b'
154.0 a a'
Marketable fruits Average fruit
per 100 plants' weight
No. Lb.
110 b 'c'd'
166 b b'c'
207 b b'
181 b b'c'
392 a a'
530 a a'
547 b'
394 b'
513 b'
698 a'
518 
b'
0.125 b'
0.098 b'
0.125 b'
0.200 a'
0.126 b'
0.170 a'
0.143 cd e'
0.210 b b'
0.180 bc b'c'
0.176 bc c'd'
0.297 a a'
1 Marketable weights and marketable numbers of fruits are totals from four plots of 
25
plants each, spaced 2 feet apart in rows spaced 44 inches. Three harvests 
were made each
year. To convert these plot yields to per acre yields, multiply by 59.4.
2 Values followed by different letters within a comparison differ significantly 
at P<0.01
for plain letters and at P<0.05 for primed letters according to Duncan's 
new multiple
range test.
' These two lines are earlier sister lines of Bighart from the same superior 
single plant
selection.
[4]
CLrr. 1 1)) 1 , . ~;---_I
-- - - -- -- - - -- --
similar, with Bighart outproducing the
higher yielding of the two commercial
Truhart strains by 81 per cent in 1966
and by 67 per cent in 1967. Bighart
fruits averaged heavier than those of the
heaviest Truh art strain - 34 per cent
heavier in 1966 and 41 per cent heavier
in 1967.
Fruit Recovery
In 1966, Elonza Ward, of the King
Pharr Canning Company, made a pre-
liminary check of the recovery weights of
fruit of Bighart an d Truhart. About 800
pounds of fruit (one pallet box) of each
variety was cored, and Bighart had 17
per cent more recovery weight than Tmu-
hart.
Fruit Quality
Laboratory tests at Auburn compared
Bighart with Trubart in soluble and total
solids, pH, titratable acidity, percentage
of trimmed recovery, fruit wall thickness,
and color of canned product. Bighart
was superior in both soluble and total
solids, but there were no appreciable
differences in pH or in titratable acidity
Table 2. Average recovery percentage of
five Bighart lines exceeded the average
of three Truhart strains by 12.1 per cent,
Table 3. The highest recovery in line No.
12 exceeded that of the highest Truhart
(Pomona) strain by 10.0 per cent.
The 12.1 per cent average gain in
trimmed recovery from Bighart reflects
TABLE 2. PIMIENTO VARIETY QUALITY TESTS
Panel evaluation of
canned fruit'
Variety or line
Truhart-King Pharr-
Truhart-D---------
Truhart-Pomona----
Bighart lines
F
7
67-12 ---------
F,67-17---------
F
7
67-18------ ---
Y,67-21 --------
F767-22------ ---
Soluble Total
solids solids
Pct.
*7.35
7.80
7.80
8.75
8.50
8.30
8.60
-8.40
Titratable
pH 
acidity,
pct.
citric acid
Pct.
Appear- 
Texture
ance
Flavor
Pet.
8.02 5.05 .247
8.50 5.25 .255
8.50 5.30 .250
9.40 5.18
9.30 5.15
9.05 5.10
--- 5.20
5.15
.250
.240
.240
.255
.225
6.6 8.2 7.3
7.6 8.2 7.8
8.4 8.6 8.0
8.4 8.6 8.6
8.2 7.9 7.9
' Each figure is an average of 10 scores assigned by 10 panelists on a scale of 1
to 10 - best. Evaluations were made of the 2-year canned product in 1969.
TABLE 3. COMPARATIVE PREPARATION LOSSES AND 'RECOVERY OF CANNED PRODUCT
FROM TRUHART AND BIGHART PIMIENTO VARIETIES
Variety or line
Truhart-King Pharr
Truhart-D
Truhart-Pomona
AVERAGE------
Bighart lines
67-12
67-17
67-18
67-21 ------ --- --
67-22
AVERAGE------
Average Raw Flaming Core
fruit weight fruit weight loss weight
Lb. Lb. Pct. Pet.
0.210 50.69 16.7 27.0
0.227 11.37 16.4 28.9
0.209 10.44 16.2 28.5
0.213 16.6 27.5
- 0.297
0.350
0.343
* 0.324
0.324
0.335
9.81
70.00
51.38
49.90
32.37
17.1
13.7
15.2
12.4
15.0
14.1
22.9
20.3
20.6
23.6
21.2
21.4
Total Trimmed
loss recovery
Pet. Pet.
48.1 51.9
44.7 55.3
44.1 55.9
47.0 53.0
38.5
41.2
42.2
39.0
40.4
40.6
61.5
58.8
57.8
61.0
59.6
59.4
[5]
Fresh fruit
poorest
'1 - --
TABLE 4. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF TRUHART AND BIGHART PIMIENTO VARIETIES
Variety
Truhart-King Pharr
Truhart-D
Truhart-Pomona
AVERAGE
Bighart lines
67-12 ..........
67-17
67-18 ..........
67-21
67-22 ..........
AVERAGE .....
Specific volume,
whole fresh
1
Per pod
3 
Per pound
Cu. in. Cu. in.
41.1
42.0
42.9
42.0
48.0
46.4
46.3
46.8
48.5
47.0
9.5
10.83
9.4
9.8
. 14.8
16.5
S15.9
16.5
16.5
16.1
Properties of canned product in pint
jars, average 
of duplicate 
tests
2
Drained wt. Pod 
surface Color'
per jar area per lb.
Lb. Sq. in.
0.88
0.82
0.77
0.84
0.80
0.88
0.88
0.94
0.89
0.88
123.3
133.6
137.3
131.4
107.7
113.1
112.4
113.2
114.4
112.2
819
820
820
819
819
719
820
820
1 Samples from 1967 crop at North Alabama Horticulture Substation, Cullman.
2 Canned product tested May 1969.
Based on water displacement of 10-pod samples.
SOpened, drained pods from pint jar laid fiat in rectangular form and area determined.
Based on comparison with British Color Council Horticultural Color Chart. Each num-
ber refers to a color plate with four tones. The higher the number, the darker the color:
No. 719 "Signal Red," No. 819 "Orient Red," and No. 820 "Blood Red."
lower preparation losses from its larger,
thicker walled fruits. This gain is the
result of the following combination of
lower processing losses as compared with
those of Truhart: 15.1 per cent from
flaming, 22.2 per cent from core weights,
and 13.6 per cent from total losses in-
cluding trimming, Table 3.
Canned Product Quality
Of particular interest are the measure-
ments of pod surface area per pound of
fruit in the canned product, Table 4.
These values are a measure of average
fruit wall thickness. Bighart averaged
17.2 fewer square inches of fruit wall
per pound of drained canned product
than did Truhart. This is a gain of 13.3
per cent in fruit wall thickness over Tru-
hart. A thicker fruit wall produces a
firmer, better looking canned product.
The canned product of Bighart was su-
perior to that of Truhart in appearance,
texture, and flavor as judged by a taste
panel, Table 2.
Seed Production
Fruit weight averaged 0.31 pound for
514 first harvest Bighart fruits from se-
lected plants gathered August 8, 1968.
Moist, freshly harvested seed accounted
for 1.57 per cent and air-dried seed for
0.79 per cent of the fresh fruit weight.
Dry seed yield per ton of fruit calculated
from the latter value was 15.8 pounds, a
satisfactory seed yield for pepper ac-
cording to Knott (8). However, higher
seasonal temperatures reduced seed pro-
duction in Bighart, as shown by the fol-
lowing seed yields in pounds per ton at
four successive 1968 harvest dates: Au-
gust 9- 14.4 pounds; August 28- 1.8
pounds; September 18 - 4.0 pounds; and
October 7- 5.2 pounds. Thus, it is es-
sential to harvest seed from early set
fruit. A pound of Bighart seed contains
about 63,000 seeds.
SUMMARY
Value of the Bighart Pimiento variety,
developed by Auburn University Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, has been es-
tablished in Station tests. Being superior
to the commercial Truhart variety in sev-
eral economically important characteris-
tics, Bighart should become important to
the pimiento industry.
[6]
LITERATURE CITED
(1) COCHRAN, H. L. 1943. The Truhart
Perfection Pimiento. Ga. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bull. 224.
(2) DEMPSEY, A. H. 1963. Truhart Per-
fection-D Pimiento. Ga. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Leaf. No. N.S. 42.
(3) GREENLEAF, W. H., A. A. COOK, AND
A. N. J. HEYN. 1964. Resistance to
Tobacco Mosaic Virus in Capsicum, with
Reference to the Samsun Latent Strain.
Phytopathology 54:1367-1371.
(4) . 1956. Inheritance
of Resistance to Tobacco-Etch Virus in
Capsicum frutescens and in Capsicum
annum. Phytopathology 46:371-375.
(5) HARE, W. W. 1966. New Pimiento 
is
Resistant to Nematodes. Miss. Farm
Res. Vol. 29, No. 2.
(6) . 1957. Inheritance of
Resistance to Root-Knot Nematodes in
Pepper. Phytopathology 47:455-459.
(7) HOLMES, F. O. 1934. Inheritance of
Ability to Localize Tobacco-Mosaic Vi-
rus. Phytopathology 24:984-1002.
(8) KNOTT, J. E. 1966. Handbook of Vege-
table Growers. Revised Printing. John
Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y.
(9) McKINNEY, H. H. 1952. Two Strains
of Tobacco-Mosaic Virus, One of which
is Seed-Borne in an Etch-Immune Pun-
gent Pepper. U.S. Dept. Agr. Plant
Disease Reporter. 36:184-187.
[7]