Spring 2006 Commercial Vegetable Variety Trials
November 2006 Regional Bulletin 17 Auburn University University of Georgia Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station Richard Guthrie, Director Auburn University, Alabama
Printed in cooperation with the Alabama Cooperative Extension System (Alabama A&M University and Auburn University)

Contents
page Authors........................................................................................................................................................................4 Tips for Interpreting Vegetable Varieties Performance Results ..................................................................................5 Alabama Trials Experimental Cantaloupe Varieties Compared to Market Standard ...........................................................................7 Tomato Varieties Resistant to Spotted Wilt Increase in Popularity ............................................................................9 Experimental Seedless Watermelon Show Promise in North Alabama .................................................................... 11 Conqueror III Summer Squash Produces Highest Yields for Another Year ............................................................13 Georgia Trials 2006 Vidalia Onion Variety Trial ..............................................................................................................................15 Evaluation of Non-Traditional Onion Varieties ........................................................................................................18 Georgia Cantaloupe Variety Trial, First Time on Plastic ..........................................................................................21 Georgia Notes to Researchers Georgia 2006 Watermelon Variety Trial Yields Poor Results ...................................................................................22 Seed Sources for Alabama Trials ..............................................................................................................................24 Guidelines for Contributions to the Vegetable Variety Regional Bulletin

Names of chemicals are mentioned only for describing the production practices used. This represents neither a recommendation nor an endorsement of these products.

Information contained herein is available to all persons without regard to race, color, sex, or national origin.

Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work in agriculture and home economics, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, and other related acts, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Alabama Cooperative Extension System (Alabama A&M University and Auburn University) offers educational programs, materials, and equal opportunity employment to all people without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, veteran status, or disability.

Authors
Randy Akridge Superintendent Brewton Agriculture Research Unit P.O. Box 217 Brewton, AL 36427 (251) 867-3139 Bob Boland Extension Agent, Brantley County 104 Allen Road Nahunta, GA 31553 George Boyhan Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist Georgia Cooperative Extension Sevice Statesboro, Georgia (912) 386-3442 Jason Burkett Superintendent E.V. Smith Research Center (334) 727-6159 Arnold Caylor Superintendent North Alabama Horticulture Research Center (256) 734-5820 Mike Dollar Extension Agent, Evans County 201 Freeman Street Suite 9 Claxton, GA 30417 Randell Hill Research Station Superintendent 8163 Hwy 178 Lyons, GA 30436 Chris Hopkins Extension Agent, Toombs County 200 Courthouse Square Lyons, GA 30436 chrishop@uga.edu (912) 526-1012 Joe Kemble Associate Professor and Extension Vegetable Specialist Department of Horticulture Auburn University, AL (334) 844-3050 kembljm@auburn.edu Thad Paulk Research Professional Department of Horticulture Coastal Plain Experiment Station Tifton, GA 31793-5401 Cliff Riner Extension Agent, Tattnall County P.O. Box 58 Reidsville, GA 30453 Reid L. Torrence County Extension Coordinator Tattnall County Extension Office P.O. Box 58 Reidsville, GA 30453 Edgar Vinson Research Associate III Department of Horticulture Auburn University, AL (334) 844-8494 vinsoed@auburn.edu

Introduction: Tips for Interpreting Vegetable Varieties Performance Results
Edgar Vinson and Joe Kemble he srping 2006 variety trials regional bulletin includes research results from Auburn University and the University of Georgia. The information provided by this report must be studied carefully in order to make the best selections possible. Although yield is a good indicator of varietal performance, other information must be studied. The following provides a few tips to help producers adequately interpret results in this report. Open pollinated or hybrid varieties. In general, hybrids (also referred to as F1) are earlier and produce a more uniform crop. They have improved disease, pest, or virus tolerance/resistance. F1 varieties are often more expensive than open pollinated varieties (OP), and seeds cannot be collected from one crop to plant the next. Despite the advantages hybrids offer, OP are still often planted in Alabama. Selecting a hybrid variety is the first step toward earliness and quality. Yield potential. Yields reported in variety trial results are extrapolated from small plots. Depending on the vegetable crop, plot sizes range between 100 to 500 square feet. Yields per acre are estimated by multiplying plot yields by corrective factors ranging from 100 to 1,000. Small errors are thus amplified, and estimated yields per acre may not be realistic. Therefore, locations cannot be compared by just looking at the range of yields actually reported. However, the relative differences in performance among varieties are realistic, and can be used to identify best-performing varieties. Statistical interpretation. The coefficient of determination (R2), coefficient of variation (CV) and least significant difference (LSD, 5%) are reported for each test. These numbers are helpful in separating the differences due to small plots (sampling error) and true (but unknown) differences among entries. R2 values range between 0 and 1. Values close to 1 suggest that the test was conducted under good conditions and most of the variability observed was mainly due to the effect of variety and replication. Random, uncontrolled errors were of lesser importance. CV is an expression of yield

T

variability relative to yield mean. Low CVs (under 20%) are desirable but are not always achieved. There must be a minimum yield difference between two varieties before one can statistically conclude that one variety actually performs better than another. This is known as the least significant difference (LSD). When the difference in yield is less than the LSD value, one cannot conclude that there is any real difference between two varieties. For example, in the cantaloupe trial presented in this issue conducted at the E.V. Smith Research Center, ‘SSX 1098’ yielded 24,714 pounds per acre, while ‘Odyssey’ and ‘Aphrodite’ yielded 15,299 and 10,925 pounds per acre, respectively. Since there was less than a 10,541 difference between ‘SSX 1098’ and ‘Odyssey’, there is no statistical difference between these two varieties. However, the yield difference between ‘SSX 1098’ and ‘Aphrodite’ was 13,789, indicating that there is a real difference between these two varieties. From a practical point of view, producers should place the most importance on lsd values when interpreting results. Testing conditions. AU vegetable variety trials are conducted under standard, recommended commercial production practices. If the cropping system to be used is different from that used in the trials, the results of the trials may not apply. Information on soil type (Table 1), planting dates, fertilizer rates, and detailed spray schedule are provided to help producers compare their own practices to the standard one used in the trials and make relevant adjustments. Ratings of trials. At each location, variety trials were rated on a 1 to 5 scale, based on weather conditions, fertilization, irrigation, pest pressure and overall performance (Table 2). Results from trials with ratings of 2 and under are not reported. These numbers may be used to interpret differences in performance from location to location. The overall rating may be used to give more importance to the results of variety performance under good growing conditions. Where to get seeds. Because seeds are alive, their performance and germination rate depends on how old they

6

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

are, where and how they were collected, and how they have been handled and stored. It is always preferable to get certified seeds from a reputable source, such as the ones listed in Seed Sources, page 29. Several factors other than yield have to be considered when choosing a vegetable variety from a variety trial report. The main factors are type, resistance and tolerance to diseases, earliness, and of course, availabil-

ity and cost of seeds. It is always better to try two to three varieties on a small scale before making a large planting of a single variety. Vegetable trials on the Web. For more vegetable variety information be sure to visit our Web page at http://www.aces. edu/dept/com_veg/veg_trial/vegetabl.htm. Our Web site will provide a description of variety types, a ratings system, and information about participating seed companies.

Table 1. Soil Types at the Location of the Trial Location
Gulf Coast Research and Extension Center (Fairhope) Brewton Agricultural Research Unit (Brewton) Wiregrass Research and Extension Center (Headland) Lower Coastal Plain Research and Extension (Camden) EV Smith Research Center, Horticultural Unit (Shorter) Chilton Area Horticultural Substation (Clanton) Upper Coastal Plain Research and Extension Center (Winfield) North Alabama Horticultural Research Center (Cullman) Sand Mountain Research and Extension Center (Crossville) Water holding Capacity (in/in) 0.09-0.19 0.12-0.14 0.14-0.15 0.13-0.15 0.15-0.17 0.13-0.15 0.13-0.20 0.16-0.20 0.16-0.18 Soil Type Malbis fine sandy loam Benndale fine sandy loam Dothan sandy loam Forkland fine sandy loam Norfolk-orangeburg loamy sand Luvernue sandy loam Savannah loam Hartsells-Albertville fine sandy loam Wynnville fine sandy loam

Table 2. Description of Ratings
Rating 5 4 3 2 1 Weather Very Good Favorable Acceptable Adverse Destructive Fertilizer Very Good Good Acceptable Low Very Low Irrigation Very Good Good Acceptable Low Insufficient Pests None Light Tolerable Adverse Destructive Overall Excellent Good Acceptable Questionable Useless

SPRING 2006 COMMERCIAL VEGETABLE VARIETY TRIALS

7

Experimental Cantaloupe Varieties Compared to Market Standard
Joe Kemble, Edgar Vinson, and Jason Burkett A small melon trial was conducted at the E.V. Smith Research Center (EVSRC) in Shorter, Alabama (Tables 1 and 2). Soils were fertilized according to the recommendations of the Auburn University Soil Testing Laboratory. For current recommendations for pest and weed control in vegetable production in Alabama, consult your county extension agent (see http://www.aces.edu/counties/). Cantaloupe varieties were direct-seeded on May 9 into 20 foot rows with 6 feet between rows and a within row spacing of 1.5 feet. Drip irrigation and black plastic mulch were used. Melons were harvested seven times at the half slip stage of maturity from July 5 through July 30 (Table 3). Several experimental cantaloupe lines were compared to the market standard ‘Athena’ and several other commercial varieties. SSX 1098, SSX 1268, SSX 1574, and Eclipse produced yields that were statistically higher than ‘Athena’.
Table 1. Ratings of the 2006 Canteloupe Variety Trial1
Location Weather Fertility Irrigation Pests Overall
1

EVSRC 5 5 5 5 5

See introduction for description of ratings scales

‘Athena’ had yields statistically similar to all other commercial varieties and experimental lines. For commercial cantaloupe production individual fruit weight should be 4 to 6 pounds. Larger fruit are generally sold at road side markets. Higher yields achieved by experimental lines were not attributed to high individual fruit weights but rather to higher numbers of fruit that were within the 4 to 6 pound range.

Table 2. Seed Source, Fruit Characteristics, and Relative Earliness of Selected Cantaloupe Varieties
Seed Rind Flesh Days Disease source aspect2 color3 to harvest claims4 Variety Type1 SSX 1098 F1 Sakata E O — — Aphrodite (RML 8793) F1 Seedway/Novartis E O — — Athena4 F1 Seedway/Novartis E O 80 FW, PM Aurora OP Auburn University E O — FW, PM Eclipse F1 Seminis E O 85 FW, PM Minerva (RML 6969) F1 Seedway/Novartis E O 77 FW, PM Odyssey F1 Nunhems E O 75 FW, PM Orange Star F1 Seminis E O — — SSX 1268 F1 Sakata E O — — SSX 1574 F1 Sakata E O — — SSX 1044 F1 Sakata E O — — SSX 1243 F1 Sakata E O — — SSX 1271 F1 Sakata E O — — 1 Type: F1 = Hybrid OP = Open Pollenated; 2 Rind Aspect: E = Eastern; 3 Flesh color: O = Orange; 4 Disease claims: FW = Fusarium Wilt, PM = Powdery Mildew; 4Not sensitive to sulfur; — = not found, from seed catalog.

8

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 3. Yield of Selected Eastern Cantaloupe Varieties
Variety Marketable yield lbs/a 24,714 24,621 23,644 22,433 20,250 18,796 17,133 16,369 15,299 10,925 10,866 5,934 5,710 0.60 52 10,541 Marketable fruit no/a 4,477 5,082 5,203 3,872 4,477 2,662 8,228 3,509 2,541 1,815 2,299 1,694 726 0.53 43 16,043 Cull weight lbs/a 839 4,544 2,593 2,476 4,824 1,745 1,829 866 1,134 1,770 1,573 4,524 1,259 0.80 17 2,953 Individual fruit weight lbs 5.56 4.83 4.55 5.71 4.40 7.08 2.14 4.74 5.72 6.35 5.00 3.35 7.87 Soluble solids (brix) 11.64 10.75 10.84 11.95 • • 12.38 10.41 9.84 11.24 11.38 10.14 12.14 0.40 11 1.81

SSX 1098 SSX 1268 SSX 1574 Eclipse SSX 1044 SSX 1243 SSX 1271 Orange Star Odyssey Aphrodite Athena Aurora Minerva r2 CV LSD * = not found

SPRING 2006 COMMERCIAL VEGETABLE VARIETY TRIALS

9

Tomato Varieties Resistant to Spotted Wilt Increase in Popularity
Joe Kemble, Edgar Vinson, and Arnold Caylor A spring tomato variety trial was conducted at the North Alabama Horticulture Research Center (NAHRC) in Cullman, Alabama (Tables 1 and 2). On May 14, six-weekold tomato transplants were set into 20-foot-long plots, at a within row spacing of 1.5 feet. Silver plastic mulch and drip irrigation were used. Soils were fertilized according to the recommendations of the Auburn University Soil Testing Laboratory. For current recommendations for pest and weed control in vegetable production in Alabama, consult your county Extension agent (see http://www.aces.edu/counties/). Preplant fertilization consisted of 80 pounds per acre of N as ammonium nitrate. Fertilization consisted of weekly injections of ammonium nitrate at a rate of 10 pounds of N per acre. Pesticides were applied weekly. Tomatoes were harvested, weighed, and graded six times between July 19 and August 23. Grades and corresponding fruit diameters (D) of fresh market tomato were adapted from the Tomato Grader’s Guide (Circular ANR 643 from the Alabama Cooperative Extension System) and were Jumbo (D greater than 3.5 inch), extra-large (D greater than 2.9 inch), large (D greater than 2.5 inch) and medium
Table 1. Ratings of the 2006 Tomato Variety Trial1
Location Weather Fertility Irrigation Pests Overall
1

NAHRC 5 5 5 5 5

See introduction for description of ratings scales

(D greater than 2.3 inch). Marketable yield was the sum of extra-large, large and medium grades (Table 3). Overall, total marketable yield of tomato varieties were not significantly different. However, ‘Amelia’ and ‘Crista’ tomato spotted wilt resistant varieties topped the list. Another tomato spotted wilt resistant variety BHN 640 ranked at the bottom this year. ‘Amelia, ‘Crista’, ‘Solar Fire’, and ‘Applause’ produced yields of extra large fruit similar to the standard variety Florida 47. Cull fruit weights were high this year. Several varieties produced almost as many cull fruit as marketable fruit. There were no significant differences found in large or medium yields.

Table 2. Seed Source, Fruit Characteristics, and Relative Earliness of Selected Tomato Varieties
Seed Plant Fruit Days Disease Years source habit2 color to harvest claims3 evaluated Variety Type1 Amelia F1/FM Harris Moran Det Red — **FW,TSWV,VW 03-06 Applause F1/FM Seminis Det Red 75 — 06 BHN 589 F1/FM BHN/Sieger Det Red 80 *FW,VW,TMV 06 BHN 640 F1/FM BHN/Sieger Det Red 75 **FW,TSWV,VW 03-06 Crista F1/FM Harris Moran Det Red — **FW, TSWV,VW 06 Florida 47 F1/FM Seminis Det Red 75 ASC,FW,St,VW 97-99,02-06 Phoenix F1/FM Seminis Det Red 80 ASC,*FW,St,VW 06 Quincy F1FM Seminis Det Red — — 06 Solar Fire F1/FM Harris Moran Det. Red — **FW,St,VW 06 Soraya F1/FM Rogers Det. Red — FCR,**FW, St 05-06 1 Type: F1 = Hybrid, FM = Fresh market; 2 Plant habit: Det. = Determinate; 3 Disease claims: FCR = Fusarium Crown Rot; FW = Fusarium Wilt; VW = Verticillium Wilt; ASC = Alternaria Stem Canker; St = Stemphylium (grey leaf spot), TSWV = Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus; * = Races 1 and 2; ** = Races 1, 2, and 3; — = not found, from seed catalog.

10

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 3. Total Yield of Selected Tomato Varieties, North Alabama Horticulture Research Center
Variety Marketable yield lbs/a 29,504 28,056 27,275 24,760 24,522 23,951 23,802 20,085 19,930 19,848 0.30 24 13,892 Extra large number no/a 4,666 3,364 1,628 1,085 3,038 760 326 380 434 488 0.13 24 3,630 Extra large yield lbs/a 4,809 3,737 1,834 1,159 3,265 697 412 355 435 518 0.53 97 4,073 Large number no/a 24,141 25,552 23,816 19,856 21,375 22,134 22,839 17,631 18,228 18,879 0.55 93 15,360 Large yield lbs/a 18,333 18,135 15,583 12,908 15,292 14,929 15,865 11,185 11,652 11,611 0.20 30 9,895 Medium number no/a 12,478 11,067 18,825 22,894 12,206 18,011 16,492 18,554 16,438 16,004 0.50 26 10,266 Medium yield lbs/a 6,362 6,183 9,858 10,692 5,965 8,326 7,524 8,545 7,842 7,720 0.50 23 4,386 Cull lbs/a 10,551 10,879 14,083 14,323 13,375 14,135 15,523 13,197 9,385 17,132 0.40 24 7,743 Individual fruit weight lb 0.72 0.70 0.61 0.56 0.68 0.59 0.60 0.55 0.57 0.56 0.62 9 0.08

Amelia Crista Florida 47 Solar Fire Applause Phoenix BHN 589 Quincy Soraya BHN 640 r2 CV LSD

SPRING 2006 COMMERCIAL VEGETABLE VARIETY TRIALS

11

Experimental Seedless Watermelon Show Promise in North Alabama
Joe Kemble, Edgar Vinson, and Arnold Caylor A seedless watermelon trial was conducted at the the North Alabama Horticulture Substation (NAHRC) in Cullman, Alabama (Tables 1 and 2). Four-week-old seedless watermelon transplants were set on May 1. Seedless watermelons should be transplanted rather than direct seeded because of the low germination rate of seedless watermelons. Seedless watermelons must be planted with a seeded variety to serve as a source of pollen. A seeded variety, ‘Companion,’ was planted for every two or three seedless transplants to insure proper pollenation. Drip irrigation and black plastic mulch were used. Soils were fertilized according to the recommendations of the Auburn University Soil Testing Laboratory. For current recommendations for pest and weed control in vegetable production in Alabama, consult your county Extension agent (see http://www.aces.edu/counties/). Fertilization consisted of a preplant application of 13-13-13 at a rate of 460 pounds per acre in late March. After planting, calcium nitrate was injected weekly at a rate of 40 pounds per acre from May 8 to July 3. Watermelons were harvested on July 3, were graded according to the Watermelon Grader’s Guide (Circular ANR-681 from the Alabama Cooperative Extension System), and marketable yield was determined (Table 3). Two melons from each plot were used to measure soluble solids
Table 1. Ratings of the 2006 Seedless Watermelon Variety Trial1
Location Weather Fertility Irrigation Pests Overall
1

NAHRC 5 5 5 5 5

See introduction for description of ratings scales

(sweetness), hollow heart, and rind thickness. A handheld refractometer was used to measure soluble solids. A standard variety, ‘Revolution’, was similar to several experimental lines. All lines were statistically similar to ‘Revolution’. At 40,290 pounds per acre, SSX 7619 produced yields that were similar to ‘Revolution’ and most other experimental lines. SSX 7619 produced yields that were statistically higher than SR 8026 WM and SSX 7609. On an individual fruit weight basis, fruit of ‘Revolution’ were statistically similar to all experimental lines. Watermelons with soluble solids (sugar) readings below 10 are not considered sweet. ‘Revolution’ and all of the experimental lines had soluble solids readings that indicated adequate sweetness. Overall, experimental lines produced yields and had qualities that are similar to the commercial Table 2. Seed Source, Fruit Characteristics, and Relative Earliness of Selected variety ‘Revolution’. This Seedless Watermelon Varieties year, the standard variety Flesh Days Disease Years Tri-X-313 could not be 1 Variety color to harvest claims evaluated used because of low gerPX 80335335 Red — — 06 mination. If these experiRevolution Red 83 FW* 02-04,06 SB 33354 WM Red — — 06 mental lines are included SSX 7619 Red — — 06 next year, they should be SSX 7401 Red — — 06 compared to Tri-X-313 W2-014 Red — — 06 to further confirm their SSX 7616 Red — — 06 SR 8026 WM Red — — 06 potential in commercial SSX 7609 Red — — 06 markets. 1
Disease claims: FW = Fusarium Wilt.; *Race 1 only; — = not available, from seed catalogs.

12

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 3. Yield and Quality of Selected Seedless Watermelon Varieties
Variety Marketable yield lbs/a 40,290 35,607 34,491 33,854 33,667 32,253 30,635 28,782 27,914 0.23 23 10,935 Marketable fruits no/a 2,523 2,132 2,219 2,349 2,262 2,262 1,914 2,349 2,132 0.10 24 791 Individual fruit weight lbs/a 16.22 16.72 15.61 14.69 14.88 14.24 16.53 12.41 13.24 0.40 14 2.94 Hollow heart in 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0.43 91 0.88 Soluble solids brix 11.58 10.93 11.40 10.75 10.58 . 11.40 10.95 10.93 0.14 47 0.80

SSX 7619 SB 33354 WM Revolution SSX 7401 W2-014 SSX 7616 SR 8026 WM PX 80335335 SSX 7609 r2 CV LSD

SPRING 2006 COMMERCIAL VEGETABLE VARIETY TRIALS

13

Conqueror III Summer Squash Produces Highest Yields For Another Year
Joe Kemble, Edgar Vinson, Jason Burkett, and Randy Akridge A summer squash variety trial was conducted at the E.V. Smith Research Center (EVSRC) in Shorter, Alabama, and the Brewton Agricultural Research Unit (BARU) in Brewton, Alabama (Tables 1 and 2). Soils were fertilized according to the recommendations of the Auburn University Soil Testing Laboratory. For current recommendations for pest and weed control in vegetable production in Alabama, consult your county Extension agent (see http://www.aces.edu/counties/). At both locations beds were formed and plastic mulch with drip irrigation was used. Squash varieties were direct seeded on black plastic mulch on May 8 at EVSRC and on silver plastic mulch on May 1 at BARU. Beds were 20 feet long on 5-foot centers at BARU and 20 feet long on 6-foot centers at EVSRC. Spacing within a row was 1.5 feet at both locations. Squash were harvested 13 times from June 19 through July 19 at EVSRC and from June 2 through July 11 at BARU. Squash were graded as marketable and non-marketable according to the United States Standards for Grades of Summer Squash (U.S. Dept. Agr. G.P.O 1987-180-916:40730 AMS) (Table 3).

Table 1. Ratings of the 2006 Summer Squash Variety Trial1
Location Weather Fertility Irrigation Pests Overall
1

BARU 5 5 5 5 5

EVSRC 5 5 5 5 5

See introduction for description of ratings scales

At EVSRC, Conqueror III produced significantly higher marketable yields than all other varieties at an early yield (Table 3). ‘Gentry’ and ‘XPT 1832 III ‘ were similar to the market standard Prelude II. At BARU, there were fewer differences. Yields of ‘Conqueror III’ were similar to all varieties with the exception of Destiny III. In total yield, Conqueror III remained the top producer with yields significantly higher than all others at EVSRC. At BARU there were few differences among varieties.

Table 2. Seed Source, Fruit Type, and Relative Earliness of Selected Squash Varieties
Seed Days Disease Years source to harvest claims2 evaluated Variety Type1 Conqueror III F1 Seminis 41 CMV,PRSV, WMV,ZYMV 05,06 Destiny III F1 Seminis 41 CMV,WMV,ZYMV 97-01,04-06 Fortune* F1 Novartis 39 — 99,04-06 Gentry F1 Novartis 43 – 95-99,02-06 Horn of Plenty F1 Hollar --98,02,04-06 Liberator III F1 Seminis – – 06 Lioness F1 Harris Moran -CMV,WMV,ZYMV 04-06 Prelude II F1 Seminis 40 PM,WMV,ZYMV 97-01,03-06 XPT 1832 III F1 Seminis 43 CMV,WMV,ZYMV 06 2 1 Type: F1 = Hybrid; Disease claims: CMV = Cucumber Mosaic Virus; PM = Powdery Mildew; PRSV = Papaya Ring Spot Virus; ZYMV = Zucchini Yellow Mosaic Virus ; WMV = Watermelon Mosaic Virus; * Precocious Variety; — = none, from seed catalogs.

14

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 3. Early and Total Yield of Selected Summer Squash Varieties
Variety Early Early Total Total Marketable Marketable Marketable Marketable yield number yield number lbs/a lbs/a lbs/a lbs Early Yield: E.V. Smith Research Center 6,668 20,933 5,236 22,990 5,183 16,335 4,730 18,634 4,624 17,787 4,342 12,342 4,265 10,769 4,230 11,979 3,551 13,431 0.64 0.80 16 16 595 4,515 Early Yield: Brewton Agiculture Research Unit 3,099 12,615 2,912 15,225 2,899 12,941 2,706 13,050 2,509 10,331 2,418 12,941 2,211 11,636 2,141 8,048 2,109 10,440 0.20 0.11 31 66 973 1,925 Total Yield: E.V. Smith Research Center 15,020 47,281 11,781 50,366 11,594 43,651 11,574 40,112 11,503 43,288 10,698 36,119 10,326 42,017 8,886 29,222 8,728 36,300 0.72 0.64 11 12 1,084 7,416 Total Yield: Brewton Agricultural Research Unit 6,602 28,819 6,219 25,121 5,719 22,076 5,467 30,124 5,382 26,318 5,346 20,554 4,749 23,599 4,566 23,273 4,482 17,291 0.20 0.30 30 29 1,977 8,478 Cull weight Individual fruit weight

Conqueror III Gentry XPT 1832 III Prelude II Destiny III Liberator III Lioness Fortune Horn of Plenty r2 CV LSD Conqueror III Prelude II XPT 1832 III Fortune Liberator III Gentry Horn of Plenty Lioness Destiny III r2 CV LSD Conqueror III Gentry XPT 1832 III Liberator III Destiny III Fortune Prelude II Lioness Horn of Plenty r2 CV LSD XPT 1832 III Fortune Conqueror III Prelude II Gentry Liberator III Horn of Plenty Destiny III Lioness r2 CV LSD

8,133 9,392 8,515 6,774 9,492 9,620 9,262 5,650 10,564 0.30 67 4,318 3,009 5,115 4,275 2,835 3,296 3,725 4,680 3,172 3,120 0.20 54 2,410

0.32 0.23 0.27 0.29 0.27 0.30 0.24 0.31 0.24 0.80 7 0.012 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.21 0.27 0.20 0.20 0.26 0.63 12 0.04

SPRING 2006 COMMERCIAL VEGETABLE VARIETY TRIALS

15

2006 Vidalia Onion Variety Trial
George Boyhan, Reid Torrance, Chris Hopkins, Mike Dollar, Cliff Riner, Randy Hill, and Thad Paulk

Onion variety trials have become an important program at the University of Georgia to assess a wide variety of onion characteristics. This has included yield, graded yield, disease resistance, maturity class, flavor characteristics, and taste. These trials have been used in part to select varieties for inclusion on the Georgia Department of Agriculture’s official list of approved varieties. The Department has relied primarily on flavor characteristics and maturity class. There were 42 entries in the variety trial in the 2005-06 season. Seed were sown on September 19, 2005 in high density plant beds with approximately 60 seed per linear foot. Transplants were grown following University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service recommendations. Onion transplants were pulled on November 30, 2005 and reset to their final spacing with an in-row spacing of 5.5 inches and between-row spacing of 12 inches. Four such rows were planted on beds or panels formed on 6-foot centers. Dry bulb onions were grown according to UGA Cooperative Extension Service recommendations. The experimental unit or plot size was 30 feet long with approximately 262 plants. There was a 5-foot between-plot, in-row alley between each experimental unit. The experimental design was a randomized complete block design with four replications. For seedstems, doubles, and disease incidence the entire 30-foot plot was evaluated. Twentyfive feet of each plot was harvested for yield data. Varieties were harvested as they matured on April 10, April 17, April 25, May 1, and May 4, 2006. Plants were harvested by hand pulling and field curing for two days. Total or field yield was recorded for each plot before transporting to the shed where they were heat cured at 95 degrees F for 24 hours. Onions were then graded into mediums (greater than 2 inches and less than 3 inches) and jumbos (greater than 3 inches). Onions were evaluated for doubles and seedstems on March 30, 2006 and a select number of varieties were evaluated for center rot on April 26, 2006. A 10-bulb sample from each experimental unit was tested for pyruvate and soluble solids. The height and width of five bulbs from each experimental unit were measured and averaged to determine the

Ratings of the 2006 Vidalia Onion Trial1
Location Vidalia Onion and Vegetable Research Center 5 5 5 3-4 4 Tifton loamy sand 0.06-0.15

Weather Fertility Irrigation Pests Overall Soil type Water holding capacity (in/in) 1 See introduction for description of ratings scales

height/width ratio. In addition, five bulbs from each plot were cut open perpendicular to the growing axis and the number of centers counted. These data were averaged before analysis. Count data for seedstems and doubles were transformed with square root plus 0.5 before analyses and means and least significant differences (LSD) were back transformed to their original units. The coefficient of variation (CV) and Fisher’s Protected LSD (p=0.05) with Bonferroni adjustment for five comparisons was computed for each dataset. The 42 entries in the trial represent 11 different onion seed companies. The number of doubles averaged from about 1 to 38 (Table 1). This contrasts to the 2004-05 season where doubles ranged from 0 to 118. The five varieties with the highest number of doubles were ‘Sapelo Sweet’, WI-129, WI-131, ‘Georgia Boy’, and ‘Granex Yellow PRR’. Twenty-seven of the entries averaged less than 10 doubles per plot. The average number of seedstems ranged from approximately 0 to 15 with only ‘Granex Yellow PRR’ having average number of seedstems in double digits. These entries can be separated into three maturity classes of early, mid-season, and late-season varieties. Early season entries were harvested on April 10 and 17, 2006, while mid-season varieties were harvested on April 25 and May 1, 2006. Finally, late season entries were harvested on May 4, 2006. Late season varieties have been plagued with bacterial diseases putatively identified as sour skin and slippery skin. This is reflected in the percent marketable onions with the early and mid-season

16

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 1. Evaluation of Vidalia Onion Varieties for Doubles, Seedstems, Disease, and Yield
Variety Company Harvest date 04/10/06 04/17/06 04/25/06 05/01/06 05/01/06 05/01/06 05/04/06 04/25/06 05/04/06 05/04/06 05/01/06 05/01/06 05/01/06 05/01/06 04/25/06 05/01/06 04/25/06 05/04/06 04/25/06 05/04/06 05/04/06 05/01/06 05/01/06 04/25/06 04/25/06 04/17/06 04/17/06 04/17/06 04/10/06 04/17/06 04/17/06 04/10/06 04/25/06 04/25/06 05/04/06 05/01/06 04/25/06 05/04/06 05/04/06 05/04/06 05/01/06 05/04/06 Doubles no/plot 16.3 13.1 38.2 32.4 5.7 3.7 5.1 6.1 2.8 6.3 3.7 2.5 3.1 5.4 2.1 5.8 18.2 3.2 3.5 3.2 5.4 7.3 12.5 9.9 4.5 36.5 32.8 13.4 16.0 24.8 12.1 21.1 10.7 2.6 1.7 29.6 9.3 3.1 8.1 2.0 1.3 1.8 28% 2.0 Seed- Center rot stems (pantoea) no/plot no/plot 0.5 4.4 2.7 0.6 7.1 0.0 9.7 0.4 5.3 0.6 6.8 3.2 1.9 12.2 9.7 28.2 3.6 22.0 4.7 14.7 2.4 13.5 2.5 8.9 2.6 0.2 16.8 9.1 0.2 18.9 0.0 1.2 3.2 0.6 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.0 3.3 0.4 3.4 0.8 2.5 2.1 1.4 2.0 0.0 14.9 0.7 4.1 1.6 1.1 0.4 0.0 34% 0.4 Field yield Jumbos Mediums ———50-lb bag/a——— 976 744 28 1192 945 11 1004 741 22 1149 827 7 1000 665 9 1014 835 8 1090 625 6 1078 817 6 1090 837 4 1137 686 4 1073 922 4 1028 612 3 1141 955 4 1131 738 4 916 815 4 1051 792 6 1253 868 3 1215 353 1 1268 954 1228 1063 1208 1146 1046 1216 1163 1279 1051 918 814 1155 995 1104 1055 1037 976 1110 1147 1259 1162 536 11% 227 883 342 559 558 768 873 767 711 765 643 824 559 507 878 694 784 242 738 705 396 413 375 866 460 23% 299 1 7 1 3 3 1 3 6 17 2 18 17 42 7 1 1 1 12 5 1 1 3 2 26 90% 13

FS 2005 Solar Seed FS 2011 Solar Seed Sapelo Sweet D. Palmer Seed Georgia Boy D. Palmer Seed Ohoopee Sweet D. Palmer Seed Mr. Buck D. Palmer Seed Miss Megan (DPS 1290) D. Palmer Seed Yel. Granex 15082 Dessert Seed Yel. Granex 108101 Dessert Seed Yel. Granex 15094 Dessert Seed Yel. Granex 105101 Dessert Seed Yel. Granex 126101 Dessert Seed Yel. Granex 129101 Dessert Seed Yel. Granex 114101 Dessert Seed Yel. Granex 15085 Dessert Seed Caramelo (SRO 1000) Nunhems Sweet Vidalia Nunhems Sweet Caroline Nunhems (SXO 1001) Nirvana Nunhems HSX-61304 Hortag Seed Sweet Jasper Sakata Seed (XON-202Y) Ponderosa (XON 303Y) Sakata Seed XON-403Y Sakata Seed XON-203Y Sakata Seed XON-204Y Sakata Seed WI-129 Wannamaker WI-131 Wannamaker DY 606 Shaddy DY 72766 Shaddy SSC 1535 F1 Shamrock Honeycomb (SSC 6372) Shamrock Honeybee (SSC 33076) Shamrock Sugar Belle Shamrock J 3001 Bejo Seed J 3002 Bejo Seed Granex Yellow PRR Seminis XP 07542007 Seminis Pegasus Seminis Granex 33 Seminis Century Seminis Savannah Sweet Seminis XP Red Seminis Coefficient of Variation Fisher’s Protected LSD (p=0.05) w/Bonferroni adj.

22.0 18.8

19.4

30.5 29.3 30.4 23.2 23.1 30.3 26% 3.7

varieties averaging 69 and 73 percent, respectively, while the late season varieties averaged only 48 percent. Among the 21 varieties that were evaluated for centerrot, the incidence range averaged 5.3 to 30.5. The lowest incidence occurred with ‘Mr. Buck’, ‘Miss Megan’, ‘Georgia Boy’, and ‘Yel. Granex 114101’. Overall the incidence of center rot was much higher in 2006 compared to 2005. Overall yields were very good in 2006 with an overall total yield average of 1,082 50-pound bags per acre com-

pared to only 893 50-pound bags per acre in 2005. The total yield range was 536 to 1,279 50-pound bags per acre. On the low end was ‘XP-Red’, which for some reason had very poor stand in the plots resulting in very low yields. The highest yielding entry for total yield was DY 606 at 1,279 50-pound bags per acre , which was not statistically different from the next 25 entries in descending order for total yield. Jumbo yields ranged from 242 to 955 50-pound bags per acre with the highest yield from

SPRING 2006 COMMERCIAL VEGETABLE VARIETY TRIALS

17

The bulb height/width ratio ranged from 0.62 for ‘Granex Yellow PRR’ to 1.00 for ‘Yel. Granex 126101’. Varieties with height/width ratios closer to one are better for processing into onion rings. Although there were no entries with height/width ratios over one, such varieties would be considered unacceptable for the Vidalia onion industry. The number of centers was also evaluated in this trial and ranged from 1.0 to 2.1. Varieties that average one or near one for centers are also considered better candidates for processing into onion rings. Finally the CVs had relatively low percentages in most cases and are typical of a field experiment. In conclusion, Table 2. Yield, Graded Yield, and Harvest Date of Vidalia Onion Varieties Variety Company Pyruvate Sugar Height/Width Centers this year was very good for on50-lb bags/a umoles/gfw % ratio no/bulb ions with optimum conditions FS 2005 Solar Seed 2.9 8.6 0.84 1.3 for high yields, low disease, FS 2011 Solar Seed 3.3 7.8 0.80 1.6 and environmental conditions Sapelo Sweet D. Palmer Seed 4.9 9.7 0.74 1.2 ideal for onion production. Georgia Boy D. Palmer Seed 5.1 9.9 0.75 1.4 Yellow Granex 129101, which did not differ from the next 28 in descending order for jumbo yields. Medium yield was very low for all of the entries, which probably reflects the overall excellent yields. Pyruvate ranged from 2.8 to 6.3 um/gfw with an average of 4.5 um/gfw, which was higher than for 2005 where onions averaged 3.8 um/gfw (Table 2). The lowest entry this year was DY 72766 with 2.8 um/gfw, which did not differ from the next eight lowest entries for pyruvate. Sugar content ranged from 7.8 to 11.6 percent with ‘Ohoopee Sweet’ having the highest sugar content.
Ohoopee Sweet D. Palmer Seed Mr. Buck D. Palmer Seed Miss Megan (DPS 1290) D. Palmer Seed Yel. Granex 15082 Dessert Seed Yel. Granex 108101 Dessert Seed Yel. Granex 15094 Dessert Seed Yel. Granex 105101 Dessert Seed Yel. Granex 126101 Dessert Seed Yel. Granex 129101 Dessert Seed Yel. Granex 114101 Dessert Seed Yel. Granex 15085 Dessert Seed Caramelo (SRO 1000) Nunhems Sweet Vidalia Nunhems Sweet Caroline (SXO 1001) Nunhems Nirvana Nunhems HSX-61304 Hortag Seed Sweet Jasper (XON-202Y) Sakata Seed Ponderosa (XON 303Y) Sakata Seed XON-403Y Sakata Seed XON-203Y Sakata Seed XON-204Y Sakata Seed WI-129 Wannamaker WI-131 Wannamaker DY 606 Shaddy DY 72766 Shaddy SSC 1535 F1 Shamrock Honeycomb (SSC 6372) Shamrock Honeybee (SSC 33076) Shamrock Sugar Belle Shamrock J 3001 Bejo Seed J 3002 Bejo Seed Granex Yellow PRR Seminis XP 07542007 Seminis Pegasus Seminis Granex 33 Seminis Century Seminis Savannah Sweet Seminis XP Red Seminis Coefficient of Variation Fisher’s Protected LSD (p=0.05) w/Bonferroni adj. 6.3 5.2 4.9 5.7 5.0 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.4 5.0 4.2 4.4 4.9 4.3 4.6 5.4 4.0 6.0 4.8 4.2 4.9 3.0 3.2 3.0 2.8 3.5 3.5 3.8 5.4 4.9 4.7 5.1 4.6 4.6 5.2 3.8 4.9 5.2 15% 1.2 11.6 9.7 9.5 9.0 9.7 9.3 9.4 9.2 8.7 8.7 8.5 9.1 9.5 9.4 9.5 9.5 10.5 8.5 8.4 8.5 9.2 8.6 7.9 7.8 8.7 9.7 9.7 8.6 9.2 8.8 9.6 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.9 9.4 8.3 11.5 8% 1.4 0.84 0.73 0.74 0.67 0.70 0.68 0.65 1.00 0.69 0.77 0.71 0.66 0.66 0.63 0.77 0.66 0.69 0.79 0.77 0.72 0.77 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.79 0.64 0.72 0.76 0.67 0.72 0.66 0.62 0.73 0.65 0.69 0.68 0.73 0.78 6% 0.08 2.0 2.1 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.6 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.1 1.5 1.9 1.4 2.1 1.3 21% 0.5

18

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Evaluation of Non-Traditional Onion Varieties
George Boyhan, Bob Boland, Randy Hill, and Thad Paulk

Georgia is famous for mild sweet Vidalia onions, which are grown in a defined region of southeast Georgia. There is, however, interest from time to time to produce onions outside the Vidalia onion growing region. In addition, we are beginning a concerted effort to evaluate onions other than Granex yellow onion types for production in the Vidalia region. Both red and white onions with suitable shape and mildness may have a place in the Vidalia production region. The traditional Granex yellow onion type produced in southeast Georgia is a short-day overwintering onion that has a characteristic shape (slightly flattened) with a mild sweet flavor. Texas onions by contrast are short-day overwintering Grano type onions. These yellow onions are rounder in shape than Granex, but with many of the same characteristics. Other short-day onions are available that are both white and red in color. This study then was undertaken to evaluate non-traditional onions for production inside and outside the Vidalia region. Entries 1-14 were sown in high density plantbeds on September 21, 2005 and entries 15-17 were sown on September 26, 2005 (Table 1). These transplants were grown according to University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service recommendations. Beds were formed with 6-foot centers with four rows of onions transplanted with 12 inches between the rows and 5.5 inches in the row. Plantbed onions were transplanted to their final spacing on December 13, 2005. Each plot or experimental unit was 20 feet of planted bed. Each plot had a 5-foot in-row between plot unplanted alley. The experimental design was a randomized complete block design with three replications. Onions were grown following University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Recommendations. Onions were harvested when mature on April 19 or May 1, 2006. Onions were pulled and allowed to field cure for at least one day. Field or total yield was then recorded before transporting to the shed for heat curing for 24 hours at 95oF. Onions were then graded into jumbo (greater than 3 inches) or mediums (greater than 2 inches and less than 3 inches). Finally, red onions in this trial were analyzed for pyruvate.

Ratings of the 2006 Non-Traditional Onion Trial1
Location Vidalia Onion and Vegetable Research Center 5 5 5 3-4 4 Tifton loamy sand 0.06-0.15

Weather Fertility Irrigation Pests Overall Soil type Water holding capacity (in/in) 1 See introduction for description of ratings scales

Approximately 50 pounds of onions from each experimental unit were transported to the Vidalia Onion Research Laboratory in Tifton, Georgia, for storage. Onion entries 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 were stored under refrigerated storage beginning April 26, 2006 and entries 5, 9-17 beginning May 8, 2006. The storage conditions were 34oF and 70 percent relative humidity (RH). Onions were removed from storage on July 11, 2006 for evaluation. Data on weight loss in storage and percent marketable onions were collected. In addition, onions were held under ambient conditions (approximately 75oF) for two week and re-evaluated for weight loss based on post-storage weight as well as percent marketability based on pre-storage weight. The coefficient of variation (CV) and Fisher’s protected least significant difference (LSD) were calculated for each measured parameter. Seven of the 17 entries harvested on April 19, 2006 would be considered mid-season onions and included ‘Gobi’, ‘Don Victor’, ‘Safari’, ‘Serengeti’, ‘Kristal’, ‘Sweet Sunrise’, and ‘Kalahari’, which included no red onions. The remaining 10 entries would be considered late-season varieties. The greatest total yield was with Ebano with 1,079 50pound bags per acre. This did not differ from nine entries with yields above 872 50-pound bags per acre. Jumbo yields ranged from 222 to 804 50-pound bags per acre with XP 07597000 from Seminis having the highest yield, which did not differ from the 10 entries with yields above 580 50pound bags per acre. Overall, medium yields were very low with ‘Don Victor’ and ‘Kristal’ having the greatest amount of mediums with 25 and 27 50-pound bags per acre, respectively.

SPRING 2006 COMMERCIAL VEGETABLE VARIETY TRIALS

19

Table 1. Source, Harvest Date, Bulb Color, Yield, and Pungency of Non-Traditional Short-Day Onions
No. Variety 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Company Harvest date 4/19/06 4/19/06 4/19/06 4/19/06 5/1/06 4/19/06 4/19/06 4/19/06 5/1/06 5/1/06 5/1/06 5/1/06 5/1/06 5/1/06 5/1/06 5/1/06 5/1/06 Bulb color Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Red White Yellow Yellow Red Red Red Red Red Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Total Marketyield Jumbos Mediums able Pungency ———50-lb.bag/acre——— % um/ml 812 369 5 46 636 222 25 39 972 654 8 68 708 314 7 45 847 618 14 75 6.1 855 605 27 74 812 405 10 51 835 442 10 54 879 682 14 79 4.5 1038 714 4 69 6.6 1059 676 4 64 6.7 1057 552 4 53 7.8 1044 804 6 78 5.5 947 687 4 73 1079 527 1 49 1045 643 5 62 1004 697 1 69 14% 24% 73% 7% 207 224 11 0.8

Gobi Nunhems Don Victor Nunhems Safari Nunhems Serengeti (1202) Nunhems Mata Hari Nunhems Kristal Nunhems Sweet Sunrise Nunhems Kalahari (1200) Nunhems NUN 3005ON Nunhems NUN 3006ON Nunhems NUN 3004ON Nunhems NUN 3001ON Nunhems XP 07597000 Seminis Mercedes Seminis Ebano Seminis Linda Vista Seminis Cougar Seminis CV Fisher’s Protected LSD (p=0.05)

Table 2. Treatment Effect on Refrigerated Storage of Non-Traditional Short-Day Onions 1
No. Variety Company 1 Gobi Nunhems 2 Don Victor Nunhems 3 Safari Nunhems 4 Serengeti (1202) Nunhems 5 Mata Hari Nunhems 6 Kristal Nunhems 7 Sweet Sunrise Nunhems 8 Kalahari (1200) Nunhems 9 NUN 3005ON Nunhems 10 NUN 3006ON Nunhems 11 NUN 3004ON Nunhems 12 NUN 3001ON Nunhems 13 XP 07597000 Seminis 14 Mercedes Seminis 15 Ebano Seminis 16 Linda Vista Seminis 17 Cougar Seminis CV Fisher’s Protected LSD (p=0.05) Harvest date 4/19/06 4/19/06 4/19/06 4/19/06 5/1/06 4/19/06 4/19/06 4/19/06 5/1/06 5/1/06 5/1/06 5/1/06 5/1/06 5/1/06 5/1/06 5/1/06 5/1/06 Bulb color Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Red White Yellow Yellow Red Red Red Red Red Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow After 2.5 months of refrigerated storage Wt. loss Marketable 3.8 76.0 4.8 78.7 3.2 83.4 3.2 88.0 3.5 84.4 3.5 85.5 3.5 72.7 3.6 81.3 3.1 90.2 2.3 89.7 3.7 88.0 3.6 90.6 3.1 73.2 3.1 84.0 3.6 84.6 2.7 82.6 2.0 90.7 19% 10% 1.0 NS Two weeks after removal from storage Wt. loss Marketable 1.8 74.6 2.7 76.7 2.1 81.6 1.8 86.4 2.7 82.2 3.0 82.9 3.2 70.3 3.1 78.8 1.3 89.0 1.7 88.2 1.5 86.5 1.1 89.6 2.1 71.7 3.0 81.5 3.4 81.7 1.8 81.2 2.2 88.7 33% 10% 1.2 NS

The percent marketable yields ranged from 39 percent to 79 percent. The highest percent marketable yields was with NUN 3005ON. There were a total of five entries with better than 70 percent marketable onions and along with NUN 3005ON there was XP 07597000, ‘Mata Hari’, ‘Kristal’, and ‘Mercedes’. Overall, the percent marketable onions was not very good in this trial. Generally poor marketability has been associated with late season bacterial diseases often because of less than optimum harvest time or because the specific variety matures late.

The red onions in this trial were analyzed for pyruvate, which ranged from 4.5 to 7.8 um/gfw with an average of 6.2 um/gfw. This was decidedly higher than in the Vidalia onion trial (see elsewhere in this publication), which ranged from 2.8 to 6.3 um/gfw with an average of 4.5 um/gfw. We have tested red onions in the past that had a suitable mild sweet flavor, but were often misshapen (torpedo shaped). After 2.5 months of refrigerated storage there were differences in weight loss, but not for percent market-

20

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

able onions (Table 2). The lowest percent weight loss after 2.5 months of storage was ‘Cougar ‘with only 2 percent loss. This was significantly lower than any other variety. The lowest weight loss after two weeks was with NUN 3001ON, which had only 1.1 percent loss, which was significantly lower than ‘Don Victor’, ‘Mata Hari’,

‘Kristal’, ‘Sweet Sunrise’, ‘Kalahari’, ‘Mercedes’, and ‘Ebano’. In general the red onions appeared to have less weight loss after two weeks compared to the others. Finally there was no difference in percent marketable onions after two weeks. We hope to continue testing red onions for their suitability as Vidalia onions.

SPRING 2006 COMMERCIAL VEGETABLE VARIETY TRIALS

21

Georgia Cantaloupe Variety Trial, First Time on Plastic
George Boyhan, Reid Torrance, Chris Hopkins, Cliff Riner, and Randy Hill

As in the past a small cantaloupe trial was conducted at the Vidalia Onion and Vegetable Research Center. Cantaloupes are an important crop in Georgia with more than 5,000 acres of production valued at approximately $35 million. The industry continues to be dominated by Eastern type melons, which tend to be slightly larger than their Western counterparts with less netting and usually more pronounced sutures. Six varieties were entered in the trial. This was the first year plastic was laid for cantaloupe variety testing. Land was prepared according to University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service recommendations with preplant incorporation of 600 pounds per acre of 10-10-10 fertilizer. Beds were formed with 6-foot between row spacing. The beds were covered with black plastic with a single drip line resulting in a bed with approximately 30 inches across the top. Approximately three-week-old transplants were set on May 22, 2006 to an in-row spacing of 3 feet. The experiment was a randomized complete block design with four replications. Each experimental unit or plot consisted of 10 plants. The experiment was sprayed twice with Bravo fungicide and irrigated through a drip irrigation system as needed. No additional fertilizer was used Cantaloupes were harvested on July 5, July 10, July 13, July 18, July 21, and July 25, 2006. The total count and weight from each plot was recorded. In addition, two fruit from each plot were cut longitudinally and measured for length, width, and rind thickness. Finally each cut fruit was measured for soluble solids or percent sugars.

2006 Canteloupe Variety Trial Conditions1
Location Vidalia Onion and Vegetable Research Center 5 2 5 3-4 4 Tifton loamy sand 0.06-0.15

Weather Fertility Irrigation Pests Overall Soil type Water holding capacity (in/in) 1 See introduction for description of ratings scales

There were no differences among the varieties either for yield or fruit count (see table). Nor was there any differences among the varieties for sugar content. These results are not unusual since most cantaloupes grown in south Georgia are large Eastern types, Athena being the most popular. This was the first year plastic mulch was used in the cantaloupe variety trial. This is a tremendous help; in past years as soon as cantaloupes ripened they would begin to rot. In fact, we have tried to compensate for this by harvesting fruit and early as possible and allowing it to ripen postharvest. This proved not to work very well as fruit were often taken too early so that they never ripened. The plastic mulch gave us some leeway in harvest since fruit on the plastic was less likely to rot. We were quite pleased with the results.

Georgia Canteloupe Variety Trial, 2006
Variety Athena Aphrodite Yuma Grande F1 Strike F1 HSR 4236 Sherbert CV LSD (P0.05) Type Eastern Eastern Western Eastern Western Specialty Company Rogers Rogers Hollar Hollar Hollar D. Palmer Seed Yield lb/ac 40,335 39,422 44,915 27,612 36,215 50,784 25% NS Count no/ac 7,805 6,171 7,079 4,901 6,050 6,837 23% NS Sugar content % 8.5 8.5 7.8 7.1 7.4 7.3 19% NS Length 8.8 8.3 8.7 8.0 8.2 9.4 Width in 7.9 6.8 6.2 5.3 7.1 8.7 Flesh Depth 2.0 2.1 2.3 1.8 2.3 2.0

22

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Georgia Notes to Researchers

2006 Watermelon Variety Trial Yields Poor Results Yields Poor Results
George Boyhan As in past years, watermelon variety trials were undertaken at the Vidalia Onion and Vegetable Research Center just outside of Lyons, Georgia. These trials usually encompass some 20 to 30 currently available varieties and/or advanced lines from the seed companies. Unlike many other vegetables, watermelons have a wide assortment of fruit types and varieties that are grown for various markets. Some markets prefer large oblong fruit, which are usually sold around the 4th of July or may be used in the minimally processed cut fruit industry. Triploid or seedless watermelons have become an important part of the market, requiring special production practices involving the use of normal watermelon plants as a source of pollen. In addition to this, recently very small mini watermelons have been introduced in the 3- to 5-pound size class. These melons are usually seedless with very thin rinds so that when cut the edible flesh encompasses almost the entire interior of the fruit. Because of this great variability in fruit type, we have endeavored to collect variety information every year to share with growers, county agents, seed companies, and other interested parties. The object of this study was to collect such data on varieties submitted by cooperating seed companies. Twenty-one varieties were entered in the trial. This was the first year plastic was laid for watermelon variety testing. Land was prepared according to University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service recommendations with preplant incorporation of 600 pounds per acre of 10-10-10 fertilizer. Beds were formed with 6 feet between rows. The beds were covered with black plastic with a single drip line resulting in a bed with approximately 30 inches across the top. Approximately three-week-old transplants were set on May 22 and 23, 2006 to an in-row spacing of 5 feet. The experiment was a randomized complete block design with four replications. Each experimental unit or plot consisted of 10 plants. The experiment was sprayed twice with Bravo fungicide and irrigated through a drip irrigation system as needed. No additional fertilizer was used Watermelons were harvested on July 21 and 24, 2006. The total count and weight from each plot was recorded.
2006 Watermelon Variety Trial Conditions1
Location Vidalia Onion and Vegetable Research Center 5 2 5 3-4 4 Tifton loamy sand 0.06-0.15

Weather Fertility Irrigation Pests Overall Soil type Water holding capacity (in/in) 1 See introduction for description of ratings scales

In addition, two fruit from each plot were cut longitudinally and measured for length, width, and rind thickness. Finally each cut fruit was measured for soluble solids or percent sugars. The data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the coefficient of variation (CV) as well as Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Difference (LSD) was calculated (see introduction). Two additional statistics were calculated on the yield data: Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance and Shapiro-Wilk W test of sample normality. The analyses of the data revealed a problem. The CVs were extremely high and there were no differences between the means. A more careful look at the data indicated serious problems. Variety trials are routinely subjected to a statistical evaluation called an ANOVA. The underlying mathematics are quite complex, but the basic calculations and interpretation of results is fairly straight forward. In many of the cases where there is a violation of the underlying assumptions for an ANOVA, there are methods of transforming data so they adhere to these assumptions; however, this study is not one of those instances. Listed in the table are two additional statistics: one is Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance and the other is the Shapiro-Wilk W test. Levene’s test is a test to see if the variances are the same. If the probability is less than 0.05 then they are not the same. The ShapiroWilk W test checks for normality; that is are we dealing with a normally distributed population? And in this case

SPRING 2006 COMMERCIAL VEGETABLE VARIETY TRIALS

23

Watermelon Variety Trial, Georgia, 2006
Variety Type Company thickness Wrigley Triploid Seminis Cooperstown Triploid Seminis Majestic Triploid Seminis Fenway Triploid Seminis Tri-X 313 Triploid Rogers Tri-X Palomar Triploid Rogers Tri-X Triple Threat Triploid Rogers Matrix Triploid Rogers Sweet Delight Triploid Rogers Jamboree Hybrid Rogers Topgun Hybrid Rogers ACR 5534T Triploid Abbott & Cobb ACR 4674T Triploid Abbott & Cobb ACR 5624T Triploid Abbott & Cobb Intruder Triploid Southwestern Tomcat Triploid Southwestern Lamar F1 Triploid Hollar Ruby F1 Triploid Hollar Olé Hybrid Willhite Precious Petite Triploid Rogers Little Deuce Coupe Triploid Rogers (RWT 8149) CV LSD (P≤0.05) Levene’s test for equal variances Probability 0.004 Shapiro-Wilk W test Probability 0.000 Fruit per acre 2,396 4,138 2,069 1,888 3,666 2,033 3,122 980 2,614 2,759 1,888 2,807 1,634 1,851 1,343 1,815 2,033 2,686 2,541 3,340 5,518 79% NS Yield per acre no. 29,483 47,764 24,938 24,452 54,051 29,904 31,429 13,772 37,251 58,399 36,198 37,616 21,381 24,081 14,687 25,838 17,504 38,834 35,821 26,405 36,511 91% NS 2.43 0.890 Yield variance per plot lb. 33,316 91,823 32,745 25,740 12,340 69,267 11,227 4,705 35,613 82,338 28,851 7,267 15,904 17,252 2,258 10,793 16,081 58,322 29,531 3,867 660 Soluble solids s2 10.5 8.8 10.8 8.3 13.3 10.3 9.8 9.6 10.8 10.6 10.8 11.9 11.2 11.2 11.1 10.9 9.5 11.1 11.0 11.1 12.5 20% NS Rind Length % 11.1 8.6 11.3 8.8 13.9 10.1 8.8 11.3 11.0 17.9 11.9 8.7 10.7 12.3 9.3 10.5 7.9 10.6 14.0 8.9 8.2 Width in 8.5 6.9 8.1 6.5 10.7 8.4 7.9 8.1 8.5 8.8 9.6 7.0 8.0 9.3 8.3 8.9 7.2 8.6 8.2 7.6 7.3 in in 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5

the probability is also below 0.05 indicating that it is not a normal population. The problems with these data are mine. I was not able to supervise the harvest on the dates the melons were collected; consequently, it was handled incorrectly. Many vegetables can be evaluated in a variety trial without there being much chance of plot-to-plot mix-ups with the harvested fruit. Staked tomatoes, sweet corn, bush green beans can all be planted at a standard spacing and the harvest from each plot can be easily kept separate. Watermelon, however, is a vining crop and so plants tend to overlap. The solution might be to space the plots so widely that there is no chance of overlap, but then the results are somewhat artificial. There is no plot-to-plot competition as would occur among all the plants in a commercially planted field. Others have suggested that the vines be turned as they grow to insure they don’t overlap, but again you are creating an artificial environment. I’ve even had a farm superintendent ask me to make sure none of the same looking melons were next to each other in the experiment. This, of course, is impossible for at least two reasons: first, there usually aren’t that many

different fruit types, and second, the placement of varieties within a replication must be random. Normally, I would impress upon the workers the importance of tracing each vine to its source before the fruit are harvested. This is particularly important when varieties with similar fruit are next to each other. I suspect the job was rushed and supervision was slack. In addition to the high CVs and lack of differences, which were the first clues there was a problem, the fruit characteristics appeared incorrect based on what I know about some of these varieties. For example Precious Petite is a very small mini-melon usually in the 5- to 7-pound size class. In this case it averaged almost 8 pounds. Tri-X 313, which is small seedless Crimson Sweet type melon, has length and width characteristics indicating it has a blocky to oblong shape. In conclusion, the data listed in this study is of no use other than as a lesson of what not to do. Greater supervision of farm staff will be required in the future.

24

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Seed Sources for Alabama Trials
Seeds were donated by the following companies: Nunhems/Sunseeds Richard Wojciak 12214 Lacewood Lane Wellington, Florida 33414-4983 Phone : (561) 791 9061 Fax: (561) 798 4915 Mobile: (561) 371 2023 richard.wojciak@sunseeds.com

Palmer Seed Co.
P.O. Box 1866 Palmer City, FL 34991 (772) 221-0653

Sakata Seed America, Inc.
Tech Rep: Jay Jones P.O. Box 880 Morgan Hill, CA 95038-0880 Phone: (239) 289-2130

Other sources included the following companies: Abbot and Cobb, Inc. Tech Rep: Russ Beckham 146 Old US Highway 84 West Boston, GA 31626 Phone: (229) 498-2366 E-mail: rbeckham@rose.net BHN 1310 McGee Avenue Berkeley, CA 94703 Phone: (510) 526-4704 E-mail: mail@berkeleyhort.com Harris Moran P.O. Box 4938 Modesto, CA 95352 Phone: (209) 579-7333 (209) 527-8684 Harris Seeds To order: (800) 544-7938 P.O. Box 22960 60 Saginow Dr. Rochester, NY 14692-2960 Hollar To order: (719) 254-7411 P.O. Box 106 Rocky Ford, CO 81067-0106 Phone: (719) 254-7411 Fax: (719) 254-3539 Website: www.hollarseeds.com Johnny’s Select Seeds To order: (207) 437-4395 Tech. Rep: Steve Woodward+ 955 Benton Ave Winslow, ME 04901 Phone: (207) 861-3900 E-mail: info@johnnyseeds.com Rupp Seeds To order: (800) 700-1199 17919 County Raoad B Waseon, OH 43567 Sandoz Rogers/Novartis To order: (912) 560-1863 Seedway To order: (800) 952-7333 Tech Rep: James J. Pullins 1225 Zeager Road Elizabethtown, PA 17022 Ph: (717) 367-1075 Fax: (717) 367-0387 E-mail: info@seedway.com Siegers Seed Company 13031 Reflections Drive Holland, MI 49424 Fax: (616) 994-0333 Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc Tech Rep: Rusty Autry 2221 North Park Ave. Tifton GA 31796 Phone: (229) 386-0750 Tifton Seed Distribution Center Tech Rep: Van Lindsey Phone: (912) 382-1815 Willhite To order: (800) 828-1840 Tech Rep: Don Dobbs P.O. Box 23 Poolville, TX 76487 Fax: (817) 599-5843

Guidelines for Contributions to the Vegetable Variety Regional Bulletin Vegetable variety evaluation and selection is an essential part of production horticulture. The vegetable variety regional bulletin is intended to report results of variety trials conducted by research institutions in the Southeast in a timely manner. Its intended audience includes growers, research/extension personnel, and members of the seed industry. Timeliness and rapid turnaround are essential to better serve our audience. Hence, two bulletins are printed each year: one in November with results from spring crops, and another one in April or May with results from summer and fall crops. It is essential that trial results are available before variety decisions for the next growing season are made. Here are a few useful guidelines to speed up the publications process for the next regional bulletin (fall 2006). When: April 20, 2007 Deadline for fall 2007 variety trial report submissions. What: Results pertaining to variety evaluation in a broad sense. This includes field performance, quality evaluation, and disease resistance. Here are a few tips: • Follow the format used in the other regional bulletins. • Include each author’s complete mailing address, e-mail address, and phone number. • Follow your own unit’s internal review process. Contributions will be edited, but not formally reviewed. How: Send a disk and hard copy to Edgar Vinson or Joe Kemble Department of Horticulture 101 Funchess Hall Auburn University, AL 36849-5408 Or send e-mail to vinsoed@auburn.edu kembljm@auburn.edu