of 35 /35
PAGE -1- Processing Tomato Cultivar Trials Research Report, 2007 Steve Loewen University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus 120 Main Street East Ridgetown, ON N0P 2C0 tel: 1-519-674-1629; fax: 1-519-674-1600 email: [email protected] web: www.ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca 1 November 2007 Introduction The following pages represent a summary of the results from the 2007 processing tomato cultivar evaluation trials. One of the main goals of this project has been to evaluate performance of cultivars over a range of soil types and microclimates. The results have been summarized to show average performance over both sites, as well as performance at each site separately. The reader will find results from both the field performance (ie. yield trials), fruit characteristics (including size, uniformity, firmness and others), processing performance (ie. peeling trials) and juice quality characteristics in order to provide a more complete picture of a cultivar's suitability for the industry. What’s new for 2007? The trial was conducted at 2 locations instead of 3. For the handling, peeling and lab quality trials, four samples were used (from rep 2 and rep 3 at each of two sites), instead of three samples (from rep 2 only at each of three sites).

PROCESSING TOMATO CULTIVAR TRIALS - Ridgetown · 2007-11-26 · Processing Tomato Cultivar Trials Research Report, 2007 Steve Loewen University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus ... One

  • Author
    others

  • View
    12

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of PROCESSING TOMATO CULTIVAR TRIALS - Ridgetown · 2007-11-26 · Processing Tomato Cultivar Trials...

  • PAGE -1-

    Processing Tomato Cultivar TrialsResearch Report, 2007

    Steve LoewenUniversity of Guelph Ridgetown Campus120 Main Street EastRidgetown, ON N0P 2C0 tel: 1-519-674-1629; fax: 1-519-674-1600email: [email protected]: www.ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca

    1 November 2007

    Introduction

    The following pages represent a summary of the results from the 2007 processing tomatocultivar evaluation trials. One of the main goals of this project has been to evaluate performanceof cultivars over a range of soil types and microclimates. The results have been summarized toshow average performance over both sites, as well as performance at each site separately.

    The reader will find results from both the field performance (ie. yield trials), fruit characteristics(including size, uniformity, firmness and others), processing performance (ie. peeling trials) andjuice quality characteristics in order to provide a more complete picture of a cultivar's suitabilityfor the industry.

    What’s new for 2007?

    The trial was conducted at 2 locations instead of 3.

    For the handling, peeling and lab quality trials, four samples were used (from rep 2 and rep 3 at each oftwo sites), instead of three samples (from rep 2 onlyat each of three sites).

  • PAGE -2-

    Plot Establishment

    Locations: 2Replications per location: 3Entries in trial: 36

    Plant populations! The Leamington site was planted at a population of 13,000 plants per acre! The Ridgetown site was planted at a population of 12,000 plants per acre

    Planting dates: ! Leamington 7 May! Ridgetown 24 May

    Who Had a Part in This Project?

    This research was made possible through monetary and in-kind support provided by the following agencies:

    ! Ontario Tomato Research Institute! H.J. Heinz Company of Canada, Leamington! CanGro Foods, Inc., Dresden! Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, Pest Management Research Centre, London ! HeinzSeed! Tomato Solutions Inc.! O.A.R.D.C. - O.S.U.! Gem Seeds! Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs! University of Guelph

    Field space and plot maintenance were generously provided by the H. J. Heinz Company of Canada.

    The diligent work and unflagging enthusiasm of Richard Wright, Technician; Jennifer Newport, and Beth Eagen,Technical Assistants; and many others is gratefully acknowledged.

  • PAGE -3-

    Processing Tomato Cultivar Trial Entries 2007

    CanGro Foods

    CC 337

    Heinz Seed

    H 2306H 3402H 3406H 7204H 7404H 8004H 9423H 9704H 9706

    OARDC - OSU

    FG01-158FG01-160FG01-163FG02-107FG04-472FG04-478O 7983O 8245OX 325

    Seminis

    Hypeel 696SVR 024 3 1190WALL

    Tomato Solutions

    PX 4694TSH 04TSH 08TSH 16TSH 18 TSH 20 TSH 24TSH 25TSH 26

    Gem Seed

    GEM 111GEM 169GEM 331GEM 611GEM 818

  • PAGE -4-

    Yield Evaluation Trials

    How Was Harvest Date Determined?

    Plots at each site were visited twice each week.

    A plot was harvested when 80% or more fruit werered ripe.

    To see how much actual difference in maturity thereis between varieties refer to Appendix 1.

    Many of the tables in this report have varieties rankedin order of maturity from earliest to latest - check thetitles to be sure.

    How Was the Yield Actually Measured?

    For each plot, 5 representative plants, with no adjacent plants missing, were cut off at the soil level. Fruit were then shaken from the vines into a wheel barrow and then sorted into 5 categories:

    red ripe fruit that had less than 5% visible yellowish exterior colour

    breakers more than 10% coloured and less than 10% green

    processing green less than 100% green showing some visible blush of colour (yellow, pink)

    grass green green or white green

    limited use/ rots any fruit with a rotten spot 2 cm in diameter or greater, other blemishes,includes MOT

    Weights were taken for each of these categories and converted to yield on a tons/acre basis.

    Cultivar or Variety - What’s thedifference?

    The term ‘cultivar’ is a shortened formof 2 words; ‘cultivated variety’.

    This term was chosen by plant scientiststo distinguish a variety which occurs incultivation, (as a result of humanactivity), from a botanical variety, whichcan sometimes be found in nature.

    Although cultivar is the correct term you will see both used interchangeablyin this report - mostly to avoid repetitionof the same word over and over.

  • PAGE -5-

    WHAT DOES THIS TABLE TELL ME?

    Table 1 Answers the question, “Which cultivar has the ability to produce the most tomatoes,regardless of the grade?”

    You can find the best ones very quickly by looking at the top of the table.

    “But, why do you bother to report ‘yield potential’? Tomatoes are paid for on the basisof grades.”

    We report yield potential because the management system and microclimate of eachgrower will be slightly different. In an actual production situation, growers would be ina better position to minimize rots/greens through the use of Ethrel, and thus achieveyields closer to the potential than we were able to in our plots.

    Will someone please tell me what all the littleletters behind the numbers mean?

    One of the challenges with field research onplants is that we have to cope with variations insoil, microclimate, and a whole host of otherfactors that affect plant growth.

    Although the numbers 45.4 and 44.6 arenumerically different, the question scientists try toanswer is,”Are they actually different given theamount of variation that we find from plot to plot?” “Is the difference between those numbers due tothe treatment (in this case genetics) or did we justget lucky and happen to pick the right plants tomeasure yield on?” “Is the difference real, or is itjust because of the plants we happened to pick?”

    Scientists use those letters, as part of somethingcalled a ‘means separation procedure’, to showwhich varieties are really different - or whichvarieties they are different from and similar to.

    Only those cultivars that perform better than thechecks are marked. If a check cultivar has the letter‘B’ after it, then the cultivar means followed by theletter B are better than check B. If there are no trialentries with the letter C after them, then there are noentries significantly better than check variety C. In a cultivar trial like this one, note the trends orrankings since these are probably as important asunderstanding the statistics.

  • PAGE -6-

    Table 1. Processing Tomato Cultivar Trial, 2007. Yield Potential (tons/acre) over 2 locations.

    Name Yield Potential (tons/acre)

    O 8245 55.96 A

    GEM 169 53.07

    H 2306 51.47

    HYPEEL 696 (D) 50.98

    FG02-107 50.66

    H 9706 (C) 50.50

    FG01-158 50.07

    H 3402 49.86

    SVR 024 3 1190 49.21

    H 9704 (B) 48.69

    FG04-478 48.34

    TSH 24 48.32

    O 7983 47.87

    FG04-472 47.58

    TSH 04 (E) 47.55

    H 7204 47.00

    FG01-163 46.78

    WALL 46.20

    GEM 111 46.06

    TSH 16 45.40

    H 7404 45.33

    GEM 611 45.30

    GEM 331 45.28

    CC 337 (A) 44.84

    OX 325 44.62

    TSH 25 44.48

    TSH 20 43.85

    GEM 818 43.72

    H 3406 43.71

    FG01-160 43.12

    H 9423 42.53

    H 8004 41.99

    PX 4694 41.87

    TSH 18 38.80

    TSH 26 38.53

    TSH 08 36.71

    PROBABILITY 0.2148

    LSD 8.6719

    CV 19.60%

    Mean 46.283

    Means followed by the same letter are significantly better than the check cultivar with that same letter. Yields in this table are based on harvestedfruit from 6 plots;5 plants from each plot.

  • PAGE -7-

    35 40 45 50 55 60

    Yield (tons/acre)

    TSH 08TSH 26TSH 18

    PX 4694H 8004H 9423

    FG01-160H 3406

    GEM 818TSH 20TSH 25OX 325CC 337

    GEM 331GEM 611

    H 7404TSH 16

    GEM 111WALL

    FG01-163H 7204TSH 04

    FG04-472O 7983TSH 24

    FG04-478H 9704

    SVR 024 3 1190H 3402

    FG01-158H 9706

    FG02-107HYPEEL 696

    H 2306GEM 169

    O 8245

    Cul

    tivar

    36.7138.53

    38.8041.8741.99

    42.5343.12

    43.7143.7243.85

    44.4844.62

    44.8445.2845.3045.3345.40

    46.0646.20

    46.7847.00

    47.5547.58

    47.8748.3248.34

    48.6949.21

    49.8650.07

    50.5050.66

    50.9851.47

    53.0755.96

    Yield Potential over 2 Locations, 2007

  • PAGE -8-

    WHAT DO THESE TABLES TELL ME?

    Table 2 This table answers the question, “What were the best all ‘round varieties for yield?”. The table shows the results averaged over 2 different trial locations.

    The “Total” column shows the same numbers as in table 1 (ie. yield potential), but thecultivars are ranked according to maturity. This is probably a more fair way ofcomparing total yield since, at least historically, early maturing cultivars have tended tohave lower yields than later cultivars.

    The “Red” column shows the yield of red ripe fruit at harvest in tons per acre. Theother columns, “Breakers”, “Processing Green”, “Grass Green”, and “Limited Use& Rots”, show the yield, in tons per acre, of each grade category at harvest.

    Depending on the grade option that grow under/receive under, you may have interestin one of the last 3 columns.

    For example, the second last column, “Red, Breakers, Processing Green” is the totalof those 3 separate columns. This shows the yield results you might expect if thathappens to be the grading option you deal with.

    Table 3 Each of these tables follows the same format as Table 2. The important difference isTable 4 that these tables show the results for each trial location separately.

    If possible, it is valuable to look at the results from a trial location with a soil type and/or microclimate similar to the one you are working with.

  • PAGE -9-

    Table 2. Processing tomato yield trial, 2007. Yield (tons/acre) averaged over 2 locations.

    Name Total Red Breakers ProcessingGreenGrass Green

    LimitedUseRots

    Red &Breakers

    Red, Breakers, Processing Green

    Red, Breakers, Processing & Grass Green

    TSH 18 38.80 35.04 1.90 0.49 0.90 0.48 36.94 37.42 38.32

    TSH 04 (E) 47.55 42.78 2.36 0.30 1.17 0.93 45.14 45.45 46.62O 7983 47.87 41.53 3.20 0.57 0.86 1.71 44.73 45.30 46.16

    TSH 16 45.40 40.28 3.18 0.48 0.56 0.90 43.46 43.94 44.51

    GEM 818 43.72 36.41 3.43 0.52 0.82 2.54 39.84 40.36 41.18

    GEM 611 45.30 38.74 2.16 0.61 1.43 2.37 40.90 41.50 42.93

    TSH 25 44.48 37.72 2.15 0.54 2.06 2.01 39.87 40.41 42.47

    FG04-478 48.34 40.44 2.90 0.50 1.04 3.45 43.34 43.84 44.89

    CC 337 (A) 44.84 38.33 2.96 0.26 2.20 1.09 41.29 41.55 43.75

    TSH 08 36.71 32.17 1.85 0.27 1.10 1.31 34.03 34.30 35.40

    TSH 24 48.32 40.85 3.26 0.53 1.47 2.22 44.10 44.63 46.10

    H 9423 42.53 37.03 2.90 0.40 1.19 1.01 39.93 40.33 41.52

    H 7404 45.33 37.56 2.56 0.63 1.50 3.09 40.12 40.75 42.24

    H 2306 51.47 45.71 2.80 0.36 0.83 1.77 48.52 48.88 49.70

    H 7204 47.00 37.66 2.07 0.24 2.74 4.29 39.73 39.97 42.70

    PX 4694 41.87 34.88 2.89 0.42 1.49 2.19 37.77 38.19 39.67

    HYPEEL 696 (D) 50.98 43.55 3.34 0.35 1.51 2.24 46.89 47.23 48.74

    GEM 331 45.28 38.34 1.85 0.56 2.62 1.92 40.19 40.75 43.36

    WALL 46.20 34.85 3.06 1.18 3.09 4.03 37.91 39.09 42.17

    FG04-472 47.58 38.98 2.83 0.52 3.33 1.93 41.80 42.33 45.65

    FG01-163 46.78 38.76 4.12 0.72 1.51 1.67 42.88 43.60 45.11

    OX 325 44.62 37.97 3.74 0.42 0.98 1.51 41.71 42.12 43.10

    H 9704 (B) 48.69 40.66 4.52 0.59 1.20 1.71 45.18 45.78 46.98

    SVR 024 3 1190 49.21 39.44 3.16 0.72 2.97 2.91 42.61 43.33 46.30

    FG02-107 50.66 42.02 3.26 1.10 2.34 1.94 45.28 46.38 48.72

    TSH 26 38.53 30.83 1.98 0.58 3.12 2.04 32.80 33.38 36.50

    TSH 20 43.85 35.65 2.04 0.46 2.84 2.86 37.69 38.16 40.99

    GEM 111 46.06 40.54 1.80 0.42 1.35 1.95 42.34 42.76 44.10

    H 8004 41.99 34.14 2.75 0.34 2.25 2.52 36.89 37.22 39.47

    FG01-160 43.12 35.30 2.35 0.45 2.81 2.21 37.65 38.10 40.91

    O 8245 55.96 A 48.45 2.44 0.85 1.64 2.58 50.89 51.73 53.37

    FG01-158 50.07 41.01 2.78 0.64 2.09 3.56 43.78 44.42 46.51

    GEM 169 53.07 44.82 2.84 0.53 1.70 3.20 47.65 48.18 49.88

    H 3402 49.86 40.49 1.45 0.52 3.59 3.82 41.94 42.45 46.04

    H 9706 (C) 50.50 39.66 1.84 0.64 6.72 1.63 41.51 42.15 48.86H 3406 43.71 33.69 1.99 0.78 5.21 2.04 35.68 36.46 41.66

    Probability 0.2148 0.2232 0.6845 0.1250 0.0000 0.0034 0.2694 0.2697 0.3363

    LSD 8.6719 8.0164 1.7555 0.4166 1.4214 1.5188 8.6806 8.7436 8.6067

    CV 19.60% 21.62% 68.40% 80.67% 72.14% 71.83% 21.90% 21.77% 20.43%

    Mean 46.283 38.785 2.685 0.540 2.061 2.212 41.470 42.010 44.071

    Entries are ranked according to average maturity from 2 test sites. Means followed by the same letter are significantly better than the check cultivar denoted bythat same letter.

    Yields in this table are based on harvested fruit from 6 plots; 5 plants from each plot .

  • PAGE -10-

    35 40 45 50 55 60

    Yield (tons/acre)

    TSH 18TSH 04O 7983TSH 16

    GEM 818GEM 611

    TSH 25FG04-478

    CC 337TSH 08TSH 24H 9423H 7404H 2306H 7204

    PX 4694HYPEEL 696

    GEM 331WALL

    FG04-472FG01-163

    OX 325H 9704

    SVR 024 3 1190FG02-107

    TSH 26TSH 20

    GEM 111H 8004

    FG01-160O 8245

    FG01-158GEM 169

    H 3402H 9706H 3406

    Cul

    tivar

    (Ear

    ly to

    Lat

    e M

    atur

    ity)--

    ->

    38.8047.55

    47.8745.40

    43.7245.30

    44.4848.34

    44.8436.71

    48.3242.53

    45.3351.47

    47.0041.87

    50.9845.28

    46.2047.58

    46.7844.62

    48.6949.21

    50.6638.53

    43.8546.06

    41.9943.12

    55.9650.07

    53.0749.86

    50.5043.71

    Yield Potential ranked by maturity 2007

  • PAGE -11-

    30 35 40 45 50 55

    Combined Grades Yield (tons/acre)

    TSH 18TSH 04O 7983TSH 16

    GEM 818GEM 611

    TSH 25FG04-478

    CC 337TSH 08TSH 24H 9423H 7404H 2306H 7204

    PX 4694HYPEEL 696

    GEM 331WALL

    FG04-472FG01-163

    OX 325H 9704

    SVR 024 3 1190FG02-107

    TSH 26TSH 20

    GEM 111H 8004

    FG01-160O 8245

    FG01-158GEM 169

    H 3402H 9706H 3406

    Cul

    tivar

    (Ear

    ly to

    Lat

    e M

    atur

    ity)--

    ->

    37.4245.45

    45.3043.94

    40.3641.50

    40.4143.84

    41.5534.30

    44.6340.33

    40.7548.88

    39.9738.19

    47.2340.75

    39.0942.33

    43.6042.12

    45.7843.33

    46.3833.38

    38.1642.76

    37.2238.10

    51.7344.42

    48.1842.45

    42.1536.46

    Red, Breaker & Processing Green Yield 2007

  • PAGE -12-

    Table 3. Processing tomato yield trial, 2007. Yield (tons/acre) from the Leamington site (fox sand - loworganic matter).

    Name Total Red Breakers ProcessingGreenGrass Green

    LimitedUseRots

    Red &Breakers

    Red, Breakers, Processing

    Red, Breakers, Processing & Grass Green

    TSH 18 35.61 31.16 2.78 0.52 0.76 0.39 33.94 34.46 35.21

    TSH 04 (E) 36.70 30.96 2.56 0.24 2.14 0.79 33.52 33.76 35.91O 7983 34.04 29.15 2.36 0.42 0.74 1.37 31.51 31.92 32.67

    TSH 16 37.37 34.00 1.94 0.34 0.65 0.44 35.94 36.28 36.93

    GEM 818 30.64 25.98 1.24 0.38 1.26 1.78 27.22 27.60 28.87

    GEM 611 32.61 26.22 1.19 0.58 2.14 2.49 27.41 27.99 30.12

    TSH 25 40.51 32.01 0.72 0.37 3.62 3.79 32.73 33.10 36.71

    FG04-478 36.14 31.89 0.95 0.50 1.28 1.51 32.84 33.35 34.63

    CC 337 (A) 33.20 28.17 0.96 0.16 2.65 1.25 29.14 29.30 31.95

    TSH 08 28.25 23.84 1.23 0.10 1.64 1.44 25.07 25.17 26.81

    TSH 24 42.93 33.63 3.38 0.72 2.50 2.70 37.01 37.73 40.23

    H 9423 32.81 28.61 0.44 0.25 2.10 1.40 29.06 29.31 31.41

    H 7404 37.48 27.38 1.57 0.54 2.79 5.19 28.95 29.49 32.28

    H 2306 49.46 44.05 1.98 0.41 1.50 1.52 46.04 46.45 47.95

    H 7204 37.93 24.80 1.90 0.26 5.47 5.48 26.70 26.97 32.44

    PX 4694 34.84 27.40 2.66 0.23 1.76 2.80 30.05 30.28 32.04

    HYPEEL 696 (D) 39.74 32.79 1.87 0.29 2.80 1.98 34.66 34.95 37.76

    GEM 331 32.47 24.70 0.74 0.56 4.49 1.97 25.45 26.00 30.49

    WALL 33.16 21.61 1.20 0.82 4.70 4.84 22.81 23.63 28.32

    FG04-472 37.86 27.68 1.68 0.60 5.69 2.22 29.35 29.95 35.64

    FG01-163 38.70 30.69 2.42 0.88 2.59 2.11 33.12 34.00 36.59

    OX 325 39.18 32.50 4.48 0.35 1.38 0.47 36.98 37.33 38.71

    H 9704 (B) 40.33 35.44 1.47 0.36 2.00 1.06 36.91 37.27 39.27

    SVR 024 3 1190 37.40 28.17 4.13 0.64 1.95 2.52 32.30 32.94 34.89

    FG02-107 39.84 32.49 1.51 0.43 3.21 2.20 34.00 34.44 37.65

    TSH 26 31.33 21.31 0.74 0.50 5.92 2.86 22.05 22.54 28.46

    TSH 20 36.28 26.30 1.36 0.44 4.24 3.94 27.66 28.11 32.34

    GEM 111 32.88 27.00 1.11 0.41 2.43 1.92 28.12 28.53 30.96

    H 8004 25.19 15.51 1.56 0.55 4.36 3.22 17.06 17.61 21.97

    FG01-160 24.29 14.85 2.02 0.61 5.06 1.75 16.88 17.48 22.55

    O 8245 47.43 36.12 3.56 1.45 2.99 3.31 39.67 41.13 44.12

    FG01-158 37.56 27.24 3.96 0.92 3.11 2.34 31.20 32.11 35.22

    GEM 169 37.82 28.96 2.21 0.52 2.87 3.26 31.17 31.69 34.57

    H 3402 46.98 32.41 2.02 0.68 6.49 5.37 34.43 35.12 41.61

    H 9706 (C) 38.32 20.85 1.31 0.99 13.22 1.86 22.16 23.15 36.37H 3406 38.64 23.51 2.06 0.91 8.93 3.24 25.57 26.47 35.40

    Probability 0.6749 0.3367 0.1122 0.2191 0.0000 0.0626 0.3869 0.3993 0.6995

    LSD 13.6504 12.6131 1.9847 0.5714 2.5584 2.5574 13.6724 13.7496 13.6117

    CV 27.44% 32.73% 75.80% 79.83% 55.72% 77.95% 33.22% 32.84% 29.29%

    Mean 36.551 28.316 1.924 0.526 3.373 2.411 30.240 30.766 34.140

    Entries are ranked according to average maturity from 2 test sites. Means followed by the same letter are significantly better than the check cultivar denoted by thatsame letter.

    Yields in this table are based on harvested fruit from 3 plots; 5 plants from each plot .

  • PAGE -13-

    Table 4. Processing tomato yield trial, 2007. Yield (tons/acre) from the Ridgetown site (berrian sandyloam).

    Name Total Red Breakers ProcessingGreenGrass Green

    LimitedUseRots

    Red &Breakers

    Red, Breakers, Processing

    Red, Breakers, Processing & Grass Green

    TSH 18 41.99 38.92 1.01 0.45 1.04 0.57 39.93 40.39 41.42

    TSH 04 (E) 58.39 54.60 2.17 0.37 0.20 1.06 56.77 57.13 57.33O 7983 61.69 53.91 4.04 0.72 0.99 2.04 57.96 58.67 59.66

    TSH 16 53.43 46.56 4.42 0.62 0.47 1.36 50.98 51.60 52.08

    GEM 818 56.79 46.85 5.61 0.66 0.38 3.30 52.45 53.11 53.49

    GEM 611 57.98 51.25 3.13 0.63 0.72 2.25 54.39 55.02 55.73

    TSH 25 48.45 43.43 3.58 0.71 0.50 0.23 47.01 47.72 48.22

    FG04-478 60.53 48.98 4.85 0.50 0.80 5.40 53.83 54.33 55.14

    CC 337 (A) 56.48 48.49 4.95 0.36 1.76 0.92 53.44 53.80 55.55

    TSH 08 45.17 40.50 2.48 0.44 0.57 1.18 42.99 43.42 43.99

    TSH 24 53.71 48.06 3.13 0.33 0.44 1.74 51.19 51.52 51.97

    H 9423 52.24 45.44 5.36 0.55 0.27 0.62 50.80 51.35 51.62

    H 7404 53.19 47.74 3.55 0.71 0.21 0.99 51.29 52.00 52.20

    H 2306 53.48 47.37 3.62 0.30 0.16 2.03 51.00 51.30 51.46

    H 7204 56.06 50.52 2.23 0.21 0.00 3.10 52.75 52.97 52.97

    PX 4694 48.90 42.37 3.11 0.62 1.21 1.59 45.48 46.10 47.31

    HYPEEL 696 (D) 62.22 54.31 4.81 0.40 0.21 2.49 59.12 59.52 59.73

    GEM 331 58.09 51.97 2.95 0.56 0.74 1.87 54.92 55.49 56.23

    WALL 59.23 48.10 4.92 1.54 1.47 3.21 53.01 54.55 56.02

    FG04-472 57.29 50.27 3.98 0.45 0.96 1.63 54.25 54.70 55.66

    FG01-163 54.85 46.82 5.82 0.55 0.44 1.22 52.64 53.19 53.63

    OX 325 50.05 43.45 2.99 0.48 0.58 2.55 46.44 46.92 47.50

    H 9704 (B) 57.05 45.88 7.57 0.83 0.40 2.36 53.45 54.28 54.68

    SVR 024 3 1190 61.02 50.71 2.20 0.81 4.00 3.30 52.91 53.72 57.71

    FG02-107 61.47 51.55 5.01 1.77 1.46 1.69 56.55 58.32 59.79

    TSH 26 45.74 40.35 3.21 0.65 0.31 1.21 43.56 44.21 44.53

    TSH 20 51.42 45.01 2.71 0.48 1.44 1.79 47.72 48.20 49.64

    GEM 111 59.23 54.08 2.48 0.42 0.26 1.99 56.56 56.98 57.24

    H 8004 58.80 52.76 3.94 0.12 0.14 1.82 56.71 56.83 56.98

    FG01-160 61.94 55.74 2.67 0.29 0.56 2.67 58.41 58.71 59.27

    O 8245 64.48 60.77 AB 1.32 0.24 0.28 1.86 62.10 62.34 62.62

    FG01-158 62.58 54.77 1.60 0.36 1.08 4.78 56.37 56.72 57.80

    GEM 169 68.32 AB 60.67 AB 3.47 0.53 0.52 3.14 64.14 64.67 65.18

    H 3402 52.74 48.56 0.87 0.35 0.68 2.28 49.44 49.78 50.46

    H 9706 (C) 62.76 58.48 B 2.37 0.29 0.21 1.40 60.86 61.14 61.35H 3406 48.77 43.88 1.91 0.66 1.48 0.85 45.78 46.45 47.93

    Probability 0.0389 0.0443 0.1106 0.0705 0.0229 0.0009 0.1211 0.1394 0.1127

    LSD 10.8869 10.0707 2.9248 0.6140 1.2827 1.6766 10.8872 10.9940 10.7243

    CV 14.28% 15.02% 62.36% 81.36% 125.9% 61.19% 15.18% 15.17% 14.59%

    Mean 56.015 49.254 3.446 0.555 0.749 2.013 52.699 53.254 54.003

    Entries are ranked according to average maturity from 2 test sites. Means followed by the same letter are significantly better than the check cultivar denoted by thatsame letter.

    Yields in this table are based on harvested fruit from 3 plots; 5 plants from each plot .

  • PAGE -14-

    Handling Evaluations

    After plot harvest, samples from the second and third replications at each site were retained for fruit handling evaluation trials.

    Step 1: Weigh out a 3 kg sample of fruit and dropthe sample onto a concrete floor from a height of4 feet.

    Only the fruit with cracks extending into the fleshare weighed.

    This test estimates resistance to cracking orfirmness. It answers the question, “Which cultivaris firmest?”

    This procedure also simulates mechanicalhandling on the tomatoes that will be peeled at alater step.

    Step 2: Count the number of fruit that havestems still attached.

    This will provide an answer to the questions,“Is the cultivar jointless?”, “Are there anystems attached after harvest?”.

    Depending on the end use, and methodsused, some processors are able to tolerate afew attached stems, while others are not.

    Step 3: Count the total number of fruit inthe 3 kg sample.

    This provides an answer to the question,“What is the average fruit size?”

    Step 4: The uniformity of fruit size is estimated, on aweight basis by grading the fruit into 4 categories.

    (a) 1" or less - fruit in this category are smaller thatmost users will want to deal with

    (b) greater than 1" and less than or equal to 1 1/2" -this is a fairly typical size for wholepeel tomatoes

    (c) greater than 1 1/2"and less than or equal to 1 3/4" - this is also a fairly typical size for whole, cannedtomatoes

    (d) greater than 1 3/4" - these fruit tend to be a bit toolarge, depending on the size of can

    Wholepeel tomatoes need to have “cosmetic appeal” -in other words, they need to look good. A can of veryuniformly sized, shaped, and coloured tomatoes willbe more attractive to look at than a can of tomatoesthat contains a mixture of sizes, shapes and colours(degrees of redness).

    Consumers tend to equate attractive food with goodquality food. The more uniform the tomatoes, themore likely the repeat sale.

  • PAGE -15-

    Table 5. Average fruit size and uniformity of fruit size, 2007.

    NameAverage FruitSize (g)

    Size (1)%

  • PAGE -16-

    Table 6. Percent fruit with stems still attached after shaking from plant, 2007.

    Name Stems %

    H 7404 10.32

    H 7204 10.26

    H 9423 10.21

    H 2306 9.73

    H 9706 (C) 8.36

    H 9704 (B) 8.31

    H 8004 7.68

    CC 337 (A) 7.30

    GEM 331 7.05

    TSH 18 6.32

    TSH 16 6.08

    FG01-160 5.51

    H 3406 5.00

    FG01-163 4.95

    GEM 111 4.57

    H 3402 4.24

    TSH 04 (E) 4.08

    O 8245 4.06

    TSH 25 3.53

    FG02-107 3.19

    GEM 611 2.93

    PX 4694 2.93

    HYPEEL 696 (D) 2.24

    OX 325 2.23

    WALL 2.20

    O 7983 2.00

    GEM 169 1.77

    TSH 24 1.74

    FG01-158 1.37

    FG04-472 1.24

    GEM 818 1.07

    TSH 26 0.98

    TSH 08 0.78

    FG04-478 0.57

    TSH 20 0.35

    SVR 024 3 1190 0.00Probability 0.0000

    LSD 3.7506

    CV 73.86%

    Mean 4.308

    Means are based on 4 samples. Each sample consists of 3 kg of fruit.

  • PAGE -17-

    Table 7. Percent fruit (by weight) with cracks extending into the flesh after dropping on concrete from a four foot height, 2007. Thistest estimates firmness.

    Name Cracked Fruit (%)

    FG04-478 52.36

    FG04-472 42.61

    O 7983 34.99

    GEM 818 32.81

    H 3402 32.22

    FG01-158 30.11

    O 8245 29.00

    H 8004 28.83

    FG01-163 28.83

    GEM 331 27.70

    GEM 611 26.60

    TSH 18 26.57

    FG02-107 26.09

    TSH 16 25.67

    HYPEEL 696 (D) 25.19

    FG01-160 25.11

    TSH 04 (E) 25.02

    SVR 024 3 1190 24.73

    H 9423 23.73

    H 3406 23.67

    H 7204 23.42

    H 7404 23.12

    H 9706 (C) 22.36

    H 2306 22.32

    CC 337 (A) 20.94

    GEM 111 20.39

    OX 325 17.75

    TSH 25 14.20

    H 9704 (B) 13.76

    GEM 169 12.78

    TSH 26 12.27

    TSH 24 12.04

    WALL 11.09

    TSH 08 10.96

    TSH 20 6.74

    PX 4694 6.02

    Probability 0.0000

    LSD 10.1375

    CV 36.77 %

    Mean 23.388

    Means followed by the same letter are significantly better than the check cultivar denoted by that same letter. Means are based on 4 samples. Each sample consisted of 3 kg of fruit.

  • PAGE -18-

    5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

    % Cracked Fruit

    FG04-478FG04-472

    O 7983GEM 818

    H 3402FG01-158

    O 8245H 8004

    FG01-163GEM 331GEM 611

    TSH 18FG02-107

    TSH 16HYPEEL 696

    FG01-160TSH 04

    SVR 024 3 1190H 9423H 3406H 7204H 7404H 9706H 2306CC 337

    GEM 111OX 325TSH 25H 9704

    GEM 169TSH 26TSH 24WALL

    TSH 08TSH 20

    PX 4694

    Cul

    tivar

    52.3642.61

    34.9932.81

    32.2230.11

    29.0028.8328.83

    27.7026.6026.57

    26.0925.67

    25.1925.1125.02

    24.7323.7323.67

    23.4223.12

    22.3622.32

    20.9420.39

    17.7514.20

    13.7612.78

    12.2712.04

    11.0910.96

    6.746.02

    Percent Cracked Tomato Fruit, 2007

  • PAGE -19-

    Peeling Evaluations

    After going through the handling evaluations (Steps 1 through 4) described above, the 3 kg fruit sampleswere peeled.

    Step 5: The tomatoes were submerged in caustic potash (30% solution by weight)with Turgitol surfactant (0.3% by volume), at 102 +/- 1EC for 40 seconds.

    The sample was rinsed twice in water and the peels were removed mechanically.

    The peeled tomatoes were rinsed in a citric acid solution (pH 3.5) to neutralizeany remaining caustic solution.

    The tomatoes were drained and weighed.

    The weight measured here (in kg) was divided by the initial weight (3 kg) todetermine what percent of the weight was lost in the chemical action of the causticand the aggressive action of the peeling equipment.

    What does this tell me?

    These results, shown in Table 9, answer the questions, “What is the peelingrecovery?”, “How much is lost in the peeling process?”, or conversely, “How muchremains after the peels are taken off?”.

    There is some evidence that peeling recovery is also a good indicator of firmness.

  • PAGE -20-

    Table 8. Percent (by weight) of fruit recovered after peeling but before sorting, 2007. Demonstrates how much remains afterexposure to caustic and peeler.

    Name Peeling Recovery (%)

    TSH 08 84.76 A D

    TSH 26 84.29 A

    H 9704 (B) 83.82 A

    H 9423 83.51 A

    PX 4694 82.80

    H 9706 (C) 82.50

    H 8004 82.44

    TSH 18 82.32

    TSH 25 81.71

    H 3406 81.64

    GEM 111 81.61

    OX 325 81.52

    TSH 04 (E) 81.41

    H 7404 81.15

    TSH 16 80.79

    HYPEEL 696 (D) 80.53

    O 7983 80.30

    GEM 818 80.03

    GEM 611 79.76

    WALL 79.74

    TSH 24 76.69

    GEM 169 79.01

    H 3402 78.76

    CC 337 (A) 78.69

    FG01-163 78.64

    FG04-478 78.21

    FG02-107 77.81

    FG01-160 77.76

    GEM 331 77.72

    TSH 20 77.39

    SVR 024 3 1190 77.01

    O 8245 76.70

    H 2306 76.47

    H 7204 76.30

    FG01-158 75.47

    FG04-472 74.35

    Probability 0.0025

    LSD 4.1377

    CV 4.39%

    Mean 79.906

    Means followed by the same letter are significantly better than the check cultivar denoted by that same letter. Means are based on 4 samples. Each sample consisted of 3kg of fruit.

  • PAGE -21-

    Step 6: After peeling, the tomatoes were sorted for colour, peels still attached, andblemishes.

    The Colourmet spectrophotometer was used as a standard for acceptable colour.

    After sorting the fruit that were good enough to be canned were weighed.

    This weight was divided by the weight of peeled tomatoes. The resulting number,the Percent Cannable (Table 10), shows the percent of fruit that have no significantcolour defects, and that peeled relatively easily.

    What does this tell me?

    This answers the following questions, “How much sorting will be required in thefactory?”, “What percent of tomatoes will have to be put into the juice/sauce line afterpeeling?”, “How good do the tomatoes look after they’ve been peeled?”.

    NOTE ON STEP 6:

    The peeling process in this study was kept the same for all cultivars and it should be notedthat the caustic concentration was 30% by weight for 2007.

    In actual practice, processors will adjust the time, temperature and concentration ofcaustic, in the peeling procedure in order to efficiently remove the peels from mostcultivars.

  • PAGE -22-

    Table 9. Percent (by weight) of cannable tomatoes when sorted after peeling, 2007. Shows how little or how much sorting isrequired after peeling.

    Name %Cannable

    H 3402 95.31 B D E

    GEM 331 91.26 B

    TSH 26 90.70 B

    PX 4694 90.50 B

    CC 337 (A) 90.40 B

    TSH 08 90.30 B

    H 3406 89.73 B

    TSH 18 89.55 B

    H 7404 89.53 B

    TSH 20 89.20

    WALL 88.72

    TSH 24 87.81

    H 9706 (C) 87.56

    FG01-158 87.36

    H 9423 87.28

    TSH 04 (E) 87.07

    GEM 111 87.01

    HYPEEL 696 (D) 86.88

    H 8004 86.08

    TSH 16 85.93

    H 2306 85.14

    TSH 25 84.95

    O 7983 84.25

    GEM 611 84.05

    FG04-472 83.90

    FG02-107 82.61

    GEM 818 82.51

    H 9704 (B) 81.65

    SVR 024 3 1190 80.66

    OX 325 78.17

    O 8245 78.13

    FG04-478 78.11

    H 7204 77.48

    GEM 169 76.92

    FG01-160 76.18

    FG01-163 75.41

    Probability 0.0018

    LSD 7.8199

    CV 7.78%

    Mean 85.229

    Means followed by the same letter are significantly better than the check cultivar denoted by that same letter. Means are based on4samples. Each samples consisted of 3 kg of fruit.

  • PAGE -23-

    Step 7: This step consists of making a calculation of % Canning Recovery withdata already gathered.

    In step 6 above, we looked at % Cannable by comparing the weight of thetomatoes after peeling, with the weight after sorting.

    In this step the % Canning Recovery is calculated by comparing the weight oftomatoes before peeling with the weight after sorting.

    What does this tell me?

    These results answer the questions, “Of the initial weight of tomatoes received atthe factory, what % will actually end up in the can?”, “If 100 tons of tomatoes areput in the flume, how many tons will end up in a can?”

    The actual % canning recovery that processors get will probably be very differentthan what we report here.

    In this case it’s more important to look at the ranking of cultivars, rather than theactual numbers.

  • PAGE -24-

    Table 10. Percent (by weight) canning recovery, 2007. Shows the percent fruit suitable for canning based on the initial weight sentthrough the peeling line.

    Name % Canning Recovery

    TSH 08 76.67 B

    TSH 26 76.59 B

    H 3402 75.13

    PX 4694 75.05

    TSH 18 73.74

    H 3406 73.60

    H 9423 72.90

    H 7404 72.75

    H 9706 (C) 72.74

    CC 337 (A) 71.31

    GEM 111 71.20

    GEM 331 71.19

    H 8004 71.06

    TSH 04 (E) 70.95

    WALL 70.67

    HYPEEL 696 (D) 70.38

    TSH 24 69.98

    TSH 25 69.96

    TSH 16 69.75

    TSH 20 68.87

    H 9704 (B) 68.51

    O 7983 68.27

    GEM 611 66.98

    GEM 818 66.32

    FG01-158 66.02

    H 2306 65.29

    FG02-107 64.22

    OX 325 63.69

    SVR 024 3 1190 62.44

    FG04-472 62.24

    FG04-478 61.46

    GEM 169 61.25

    O 8245 60.07

    FG01-163 59.37

    H 7204 59.33

    FG01-160 59.01

    Probability 0.0000

    LSD 7.0611

    CV 8.77%

    Mean 68.304

    Means are based on 4 samples. Each sample consisted of 3 kg of fruit.

  • PAGE -25-

    55 60 65 70 75 80

    % Canning Recovery

    TSH 08TSH 26H 3402

    PX 4694TSH 18H 3406H 9423H 7404H 9706CC 337

    GEM 111GEM 331

    H 8004TSH 04WALL

    HYPEEL 696TSH 24TSH 25TSH 16

    TSH 20H 9704O 7983

    GEM 611GEM 818

    FG01-158H 2306

    FG02-107OX 325

    SVR 024 3 1190FG04-472FG04-478GEM 169

    O 8245FG01-163

    H 7204FG01-160

    Cul

    tivar

    76.6776.59

    75.1375.05

    73.7473.60

    72.9072.7572.74

    71.3171.2071.19

    71.0670.95

    70.6770.38

    69.9869.96

    69.7568.87

    68.5168.27

    66.9866.32

    66.0265.29

    64.2263.69

    62.4462.24

    61.4661.25

    60.0759.3759.33

    59.01

    Percent Canning Recovery, 2007

  • PAGE -26-

    Quality Evaluations

    When yield was evaluated in the field, a sample of tomatoes were taken to the pilot plant for handling andpeeling evaluations. Part of this same sample was used for juice quality evaluations.

    Step 8: The tomatoes for quality evaluations were washed and dried and cutin half from end to end.

    One half of each tomato was blended, under vacuum, for 40 seconds.

    The other half of each tomato went into a covered Pyrex® dish for microwaveheating (to 95 EC for 15 sec) in order to deactivate the pectinase enzyme.

    Step 9: Juice from the blended sample wascollected through a screen to remove seeds.

    Agtron colour, pH , and Soluble Solids (EBrix)were measured.

    What does this tell me?

    The lower the number for Agtron colour, thebetter the red colour in the juice.

    A pH value of 4.3 is considered the threshold forfood safety. If the pH is higher than this, theremay be concerns about can spoilage unless moreacid is added to the can.

    Natural tomato soluble solids (NTSS) weremeasured on a Palette PR101 digitalrefractometer. Soluble solids are important in themanufacture of paste since paste is bought andsold on the basis of the solids content. If thesoluble solids content is low, then it is moreexpensive to evaporate more water to get therequired solids content.

    Step 10: Microwaved tomato halves were runthrough a finisher (0.033 mesh) and the juice wascooled to 20 +/- 2 EC.

    Consistency was estimated using this juice (50 mlfor 30 sec) on a Bostwick consistometer. A trueBostwick consistency measurement is normallydone on tomato paste. This is a modifiedBostwick because juice was used instead ofpaste.

    What does this tell me?

    A low modified Bostwick reading is important. Itindicates that when this juice is concentrated intopaste it will be relatively “thick”. In some tomatoproducts sugar can be added but, by definition,no starch or other thickeners may be added. Allof the “thickness” of the end product must comefrom the tomato.

  • PAGE -27-

    Table 11. Results of quality evaluations on juice samples, 2007.

    Name Agtron Soluble Solids pH Modified Boswick (cm)

    CC 337 (A) 21.25 B 4.95 4.33 B DE 7.20 B

    FG01-158 18.25 5.05 4.37 B DE 7.73 BCD

    FG01-160 19.00 5.03 4.30 E 7.73 BCD

    FG01-163 18.75 5.15 4.30 E 7.63 B D

    FG02-107 19.50 5.50 B 4.26 7.53 B D

    FG04-472 18.25 5.30 B 4.38 B DE 8.13 ABCDE

    FG04-478 19.75 5.13 4.31 E 7.68 BCD

    GEM 111 17.75 5.38 B 4.28 7.40 B

    GEM 169 20.50 B 5.18 B 4.35 B DE 6.25

    GEM 331 20.75 B 5.33 B 4.28 7.05

    GEM 611 18.50 4.83 4.26 7.30 B

    GEM 818 20.75 B 4.93 4.22 6.83

    H 2306 22.00 B 4.58 4.19 7.63 B D

    H 3402 18.00 5.38 B 4.34 B DE 6.53

    H 3406 18.75 5.30 B 4.38 B DE 6.73

    H 7204 20.50 B 5.00 4.16 7.40 B

    H 7404 19.75 5.43 B 4.24 6.45

    H 8004 20.25 5.43 B 4.30 E 7.05

    H 9423 17.75 5.13 4.20 6.98

    H 9704 (B) 17.75 4.38 4.24 6.35

    H 9706 (C) 21.00 B 5.20 B 4.36 B DE 6.95

    HYPEEL 696 (D) 21.00 B 4.78 4.23 6.80

    O 7983 25.25 ABCDE 4.98 4.19 7.70 BCD

    0 8245 22.75 B 4.75 4.28 8.00 ABCD

    OX 325 21.50 B 4.40 4.26 7.90 BCD

    PX 4694 21.50 B 5.53 B 4.30 E 5.98

    SVR 024 3 1190 18.75 5.10 4.23 7.55 B D

    TSH 04 (E) 22.00 B 4.83 4.21 7.38 B

    TSH 08 20.75 B 5.25 B 4.29 E 6.58

    TSH 16 17.25 4.78 4.29 6.63

    TSH 18 18.50 5.23 B 4.22 6.83

    TSH 20 17.00 5.38 B 4.39 B DE 6.98

    TSH 24 19.75 4.68 4.28 7.50 B

    TSH 25 19.75 5.38 B 4.24 7.13 B

    TSH 26 20.50 B 5.60 B D 4.30 E 6.78

    WALL 19.75 5.20 B 4.30 E 6.33

    Probability 0.0007 0.6649 0.0000 0.0000

    LSD 2.6173 0.7800 0.0757 0.7097

    CV 11.18% 12.99% 1.50% 8.45%

    Mean 19.854 5.093 4.279 7.125

    Means followed by the same letter are significantly better than the check cultivar denoted by that same letter for Soluble solids only. Theopposite of this is true for Agtron, pH, and Modified Bostwick since lower numbers are better for these measurements. Please see text forexplanation of the modified bostwick measurement. Means are based on 4 samples.

  • PAGE -28-

    Summary

    These summary statements are presented in thisformat with the understanding that end users ofcultivars may have preferences for a particularcultivar source based on general characteristics ofmaterial released.

    Processors and growers are encouraged to evaluatematerial, on a relatively small scale, from a variety ofprograms in order to find the cultivars that best meettheir particular management methods and ultimateneeds.

    It should be noted that these conclusions are basedprimarily on the results from the 2007 season. Havingacknowledged this limitation, the following summarycomments are provided.

    (For each source, the entries are listed in order ofobserved maturity in 2007.)

    Heinz Seed: H9423, H7404, H2306, H7204, H9704, H8004, H3402, H9706, H3406

    H9423 - matured earlier than expected in 2007, good peeling recover, reliable performerH7404 - uniform fruit size, good firmness, good peeled colour, very good SSH2306 - good yield, uniform fruit size, good firmnessH8004 - good yield, large fruit, very good peeling traits, good SS, similar to last yearH3402 - good yield, very good peeled colour, excellent SS for the last 4 years, good consistencyH3406 - large fruit, good peeled colour, good canning recovery, good SS

    CanGro Foods: CC337

    CC337 - check variety, good firmness and reliably good peeled colour over years

    GEM Seeds: GEM818, GEM611, GEM331, GEM111, GEM169

    GEM331 - very good peeled colourGEM111 - good yield, good firmness, good SSGEM169 - good yield, large fruit, good firmness, good consistency

    OSU: O7983, FG04-478, FG04-472, FG01-163, OX325, FG02-107, FG01-160, O8245, FG01-158

    O7983 - old, early season check for comparisonFG04-478 - good yield, large fruitFG04-472 - good yield, very good SSFG02-107 - very good yield, very good SSO8245 - old, late season check for comparison, good yield and solids this year

    Seminis: Hypeel 696, Wall, SVR 02431190

    Hypeel 696 - mid/late season check, consistent performer for good yield over many yearsWall - good firmness, good peeled colour, good consistencySVR02431190 - good yield

    Tomato Solutions: TSH18, TSH04, TSH16, TSH25, TSH08, TSH24, PX4694, TSH26, TSH20

    TSH18 - consistently very early maturity for last 3 years, good peeled colourTSH04 - early season check, reliable performer for many yearsTSH16 - very uniform fruit sizeTSH08 - reliably good firmness and peeling traits for last 6 yearsTSH24 - reliable firmness for last 2 years, good yieldPX4694 - good firmness, good peeling characteristics, good SS, good consistencyTSH26 - good firmness, good peeling characteristics, good SSTSH20 - reliably good firmness, good SS

  • PAGE -29-

    The Final Word . . .

    So What Should I Evaluate Next Year?

    With 36 entries in the trial and many traits that influence success with a cultivar, this can be a difficult question.

    The best way to answer this question is to run your own, larger scale, trials. There are several ways, however, to decidewhich varieties you should include in your trials. Here is a very simple method:

    First, decide which traits are your highest priorities. Second, go to the relevant tables in this report and assign a score of 1 toevery variety that is equal to, or better than the average for that trait. Third, tally the results and choose those with top scores.

    To find varieties with good, all-round performance choose a combination of field, handling, processing and quality traits, forexample: ‘rot’ (a lower number is better), ‘yield potential’, ‘red ripe yield’, ‘cracking’ (a low number indicates firm fruit),‘size2+3‘, ‘% peeling recovery’, ‘% cannable’, ‘% canning recovery’, ‘Agtron colour’, and ‘soluble solids’, then the followingcultivars (in order of maturity) tend to be very high scoring (7 or more points out of 10):

    TSH18 TSH04 TSH16 TSH08 TSH24H7404 PX4694 H9704 TSH26 GEM111H9706 H3402 H3406

    You can try this method yourself by picking and choosing which traits are most important to you and finding which entrieswill get a perfect score, or at least the highest score.

    Please note that this simple method provides only a guide for picking cultivars for trial.

    This method is not a substitute for proper, on-site trials and evaluations of varieties under your specific management system,soils and microclimate.

  • PAGE -30-

    Appendix 1. Maturity ranking 2007, based on results from two sites ( Leamington and Ridgetown).

    Name Average Calendar Days from Planting to Harvest

    TSH 18 97.3TSH 04 98.7O 7983 99.0

    TSH 16 100.0

    GEM 818 103.8

    GEM 611 104.5

    TSH 25 105.5

    FG04-478 105.7

    CC 337 106.0

    TSH 08 106.2

    TSH 24 106.7

    H 9423 106.8

    H 7404 106.8

    H 2306 107.2

    H 7204 107.2

    PX 4694 107.2

    HYPEEL 696 107.5

    GEM 331 107.7

    WALL 107.8

    FG04-472 108.3

    FG01-163 108.3

    OX 325 108.7

    H 9704 108.8

    SVR 024 3 1190 109.2

    FG02-107 109.3

    TSH 26 109.3

    TSH 20 109.8

    GEM 111 109.8

    H 8004 111.0

    FG01-160 111.0

    O 8245 111.3

    FG01-158 111.5

    GEM 169 113.3

    H 3402 114.2

    H 9706 114.2H 3406 114.8

  • PAGE -31-

    95 100 105 110 115

    Days

    TSH 18TSH 04O 7983TSH 16

    GEM 818GEM 611

    TSH 25FG04-478

    CC 337TSH 08TSH 24H 9423H 7404H 2306H 7204

    PX 4694HYPEEL 696

    GEM 331WALL

    FG04-472FG01-163

    OX 325H 9704

    SVR 024 3 1190FG02-107

    TSH 26TSH 20

    GEM 111H 8004

    FG01-160O 8245

    FG01-158GEM 169

    H 3402H 9706H 3406

    Cul

    tivar

    (Ear

    ly to

    Lat

    e M

    atur

    ity)-

    -->

    97.398.7

    99.0100.0

    103.8104.5

    105.5105.7

    106.0106.2

    106.7106.8106.8

    107.2107.2107.2

    107.5107.7107.8

    108.3108.3

    108.7108.8

    109.2109.3109.3

    109.8109.8

    111.0111.0

    111.3111.5

    113.3114.2114.2

    114.8

    Maturity Index 2007

  • PAGE -32-

    Appendix 2 - Visual Ratings on Peeled Tomatoes

    The table on the next page shows the average visual ratinggiven to the peeled tomato samples.

    This rating is based on a general impression of peeledcolour, wholeness, uniformity of colour and freedom frompeels, defects, disease and the overall appeal of the sample.

    The scale ranged from 1 (bad) to 5 (excellent).

    This is another case where the ranking is more importantthan the actual score received.

    Rating in this way provides a means to communicate theoverall impression of a cultivar that is very difficult or timeconsuming to measure or describe in any other way.

  • PAGE -33-

    Appendix 2. Visual appearance rating on peeled fruit, 2007. Rating scale of 1 (poor) to 5 ( excellent). See text for explanation.

    Name Rating

    TSH 20 4.50

    H 7404 4.38

    H 9423 4.38

    PX 4694 4.25

    TSH 26 4.25

    H 3406 4.25

    H 3402 4.13

    H 8004 4.13

    FG01-158 4.00

    TSH 25 4.00

    GEM 611 4.00

    GEM 818 3.88

    H 9704 3.88

    TSH 24 3.88

    TSH 18 3.75

    TSH 08 3.75

    FG04-472 3.75

    FG01-160 3.63

    WALL 3.63

    OX 325 3.63

    GEM 331 3.63

    O 7983 3.50

    TSH 16 3.50

    TSH 04 3.50

    H 2306 3.38

    H 7204 3.38

    GEM 111 3.25

    CC 337 3.25

    SVR 024 3 1190 3.13

    HYPEEL 696 3.13

    FG02-107 3.00

    O 8245 3.00

    FG04-478 2.88

    H 9706 2.88

    FG01-163 2.75

    GEM 169 2.63

    Mean rating 3.632

    Means are based on 4 samples.

  • PAGE -34-

    Appendix 3. Estimate of Blossom End Rot (tons/acre) over 2 locations, 2007. Number of fruit with blossom end rot were used in this calculation.

    Name Estimated Blossom End Rot (tons/acre)

    TSH 20 4.30

    H 8004 3.60

    H 7204 2.86

    H 3402 2.55

    PX 4694 2.44

    WALL 2.34

    H 7404 2.11

    TSH 24 2.04

    TSH 25 1.27

    TSH 26 1.19

    H 3406 1.15

    GEM 331 0.97

    GEM 169 0.68

    FG01-160 0.63

    GEM 611 0.56

    O 7983 0.55

    TSH 08 0.54

    FG01-158 0.51

    CC 337 0.46

    HYPEEL 696 0.46

    TSH 16 0.45

    TSH 04 0.45

    H 9706 0.45

    SVR 024 3 1190 0.44

    H 9423 0.43

    H 2306 0.43

    GEM 818 0.42

    TSH 18 0.38

    FG04-472 0.35

    FG02-107 0.33

    H 9704 0.28

    FG01-163 0.26

    FG04-478 0.26

    GEM 111 0.26

    O 8245 0.20

    OX 325 0.04

    Mean rating 1.016

    Means are based on 6 samples.

  • PAGE -35-

    Appendix 4. Sugar yield (tons/acre) over 2 locations, 2007. Red ripe fruit were used in this calculation.

    Name Rating

    O 8245 2.20

    FG02-107 2.16

    H 3402 2.12

    GEM 169 2.10

    H 2306 2.08

    HYPEEL 696 1.99

    GEM 111 1.98

    H 7404 1.96

    TSH 25 1.95

    O 7983 1.95

    TSH 04 1.94

    FG04-478 1.92

    FG04-472 1.91

    GEM 331 1.91

    SVR 024 3 1190 1.90

    FG01-158 1.90

    TSH 16 1.89

    FG01-163 1.89

    PX 4694 1.87

    TSH 24 1.86

    TSH 20 1.83

    TSH 18 1.81

    H 9423 1.80

    CC 337 1.78

    GEM 611 1.74

    H 9706 1.73

    H 7204 1.73

    H 9704 1.72

    H 3406 1.70

    WALL 1.69

    GEM 818 1.66

    H 8004 1.62

    OX 325 1.62

    TSH 26 1.62

    TSH 08 1.60

    FG01-160 1.46

    Mean sugar yield 1.848

    Means are based on 6 samples. This table was created simply by multiplying the red ripe yield by the percent soluble solids for each entry.