Muck Vegetable Cultivar Trial& Research Report

! 2000

M.R. McDonaldS.JanseK. Vander Kooi

UNNERSITYgrGUELPH

Department of

Plant Agriculture

Report No .sO

Muck Crops

Research Station

Kettleby, O ntario

RESEARCH AND CULTIVAR TRIAL REPORT FOR 2000

UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH, DEPARTMENT OF PLANT AGRICULTUREMUCK CROPS RESEARCH STATION

1125 WOODCHOPPERS LANER.R. #1, KETTLEBY, ONTARIO LOGlJO

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

INDEX

IndexStaffCo-operatorsSeed Sources - 2000Legend of Seed SourcesIntroduction and AcknowledgmentsWeather Data: Precipitation

Mean TemperaturesExtreme TemperaturesGrowing Degree Days

RESEARCH PROJECTS

- 1 -

Page1-4

56789

10-1112-1314-15

16

Cabbage1.

2.

3.

4.5.

Carrots6.

7.

8.

9.

Sinapic Acid and Monoterpene Combinations as OvipositionDeterrents against Cabbage Maggot on Cabbage, 2000.

Relative Efficacy of Three Application Methods forLorsban 4E or Lorsban 50W to Control Cabbage Maggot onCabbage, 2000.

Relative Efficacy of Four Application Methods for Guthionto Control Cabbage Maggot on Cabbage, 2000

Management of Clubroot of Cole Crops, 2000Evaluation of Control Agents for the Control of Imported

Cabbagewonn, Cabbage Looper and Diamondback Moth inCabbage,2000

Evaluation of Telone C-17 for the Control of NematodesAnd Pythium Root Die Back, 2000

Characterization of Fungi Colonizing Wooden Pallet Boxesused for Carrot Storage, 2000.

Assessment of Naturally Produced Sclerotia of Sclerotiniasclerotiorum within a Carrot Field, 2000.

Progress of Foliar Infection on Field Grown Carrots Causedby Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, and its Development on Stored CarrotRoots, 2000.

17-18

19-20

21-2223-27

28-29

30

31-33

34-35

36-37

- 2 -

RESEARCH REPORTS - continued

Carrots - continued

Celery

10.

11.12.

13.

Effect of Different Nitrogen Rates on Yield, Quality,Storability, and Disease Development in Carrots andAnalysis of Crop Nitrogen Status Through new Technology

Taste Test of Carrots grown in Soil Treated with Dads, 2000.Reduced Tillage Systems for Carrot Production, 1999 and 2000

Efficacy of Citation, an Insect Growth Regulator, andParathion for Control of Pea Leafminer on Celery, 2000

38-3940-4142-43

44-46

Chinese BroccolilKale

14.

Lettuce

15.

Onions

16.

17

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.24.

25.

Management of Clubroot of Asian Crucifer Crops, 2000.

Field Evaluation of Bremcast: A Forecasting System forDowny Mildew of Lettuce, 2000.

Evaluation ofInsecticide and Fungicide TreatmentCombinations for the Control of Onion Maggot, 2000.

Effect of Nitrogen and Plant Structure on ThripsPopulations and Yield in Yellow Cooking Onions andComparison of Crop Nitrogen Status Through NewTechnology.

Effect of Different Nitrogen Rates, Sources, and Timings onYield, Quality, Storability, and Onion Thrips Development inYellow Cooking Onions and Analysis of Crop NitrogenStatus Through New Technology

Evaluation of Film Coating for Control of Onion Smut andDamping-Off in Greenhouse Trials, 2000

Evaluation of Film Coating for Control of Onion Smut inGreenhouse Trials, 2000

Evaluation of Film Coating and Furrow FungicideTreatments for Control of Onion Smut in Combination withInsecticide Seed Treatments, 2000.

Evaluation of Allium Products as Germination Stimulantsfor Control of Onion Smut, Greenhouse Trials, in 2000.

A Bioassay to Determine Onion Smut Spore Density in SoilEvaluation of Commercial Yellow Onion Cultivars For

Resistance to Onion Smut, Greenhouse Trials, 1998-1999.Evaluation of Synthetic Germination Stimulants for

Control of Onion Smut, Greenhouse Trials, in 2000.

47-51

52-53

54-56

57-58

59-61

62-63

64-66

67-68

69-7172-73

74-75

76-77

RESEARCH PROJECTS - continued

Onions - continued

- 3 -

26.

27.

28

29.

30.

31.32.

33.34.

Spinach35.

Evaluation of Fungicide and Insecticide TreatmentCombinations for the Control of Onion Smut, 2000.

Evaluation of Onion Breeding Lines for Resistance to OnionSmut, Greenhouse Trial.

Evaluation of Sclerotia Germination Stimulants for theControl of White Rot Sclerotium cepivorum (Berk) on Onions. 2000.

Evaluation of Vesicular Arbuscular Mycorrhizae (vam) as aBiological Control of White Rot Sclerotium cepivorum (Berk) onOnions, 2000.

Field Evaluation of Botran 75W Drench for the Control ofOnion White Rot, 2000

Reduced Tillage Systems for Onion Production, 1999 and 2000.Evaluation of the Herbicides Prowl 400 EC, and Prowl 455 EC

For Weed Control in Onions, 2000Effect ofNortron SC for Weed Control in Onions, 2000Comparison of Goal and Goal 2 XL for Weed Control in

Onions, 2000

Efficacy of Citation, an Insect Growth Regulator, andParathion for Control of Pea Leafminer Damage on Spinach,2000

78-80

81-82

83-84

85-87

88-8990-91

92-9394-95

96-97

98-99

- 4 -

CULTIVAR TRIALS

CarrotCarrot - Packaging

Carrot - Processing Types

- Seasonal Summary- Management Procedures- Main- Evaluation Notes- Adaptation- Evaluation Notes-LTA- Storage Trial- LTA Storage- Management Procedures- Main Dicers- Evaluation Notes - Dicers- Main Slicers- Evaluation Notes Slicers- Adaptation - Slicers-LTA- Storage- LTA Storage

100-101102-104105-113I 14-I 15I 16- I 17

I 18119-120

121122-123124- I 26127-129

130131-133

134135136137138

Carrot - Cut and Peel Types - Storage 139

Onions - Yellow

Miscellaneous

Beets

Leeks

- Seasonal Summary- Management Procedures- Main- Evaluation Notes- Adaptation- Evaluation Notes-LTA- Storage

General RemarksManagement ProceduresMain - Processing and Packaging

General RemarksManagement ProceduresMain

141-142143-145146-151152-153154-155

156158-159160-163

164-165166-167168-169

170-171172-173

174

STAFF -1999 - 00

UNIVERSITY OF GUELPHDepartment of Plant Agriculture - Kettleby

Shawn Janse Research Station Manager

Mary Ruth McDonald, Ph.D. Ag. Research Scientist

Kevin Vander Kooi Agricultural Technician

Laura Byelveld FieldlLab Assistant

Lorie Roberts Research Associate

Bozena Kornatowska Research Associate

Patricia Flinn Office Administration

Marc Casas Field Assistant

Christine O'Malley Summer Assistant

Theresa Rivett Summer Assistant

Craig Gagne Summer Assistant

Nicole Reid Summer Assistant/Coop Student

Michael Roberts Summer Experience

GRADUATE STUDENTS

- 5 -

Maria De Los Angeles Jaime

Christy Hoepting

Cezarina Kora

Sean Westerveld

Department of Plant Agriculture

Department of Environmental Biology

Department of Environmental Biology

Department of Plant Agriculture

- 6 -

CO-OPERATING SEED COMPANIES

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

Stokes Seed LtdBejo/SeedwayFred Fuller SeedsPetoseed, USA

Jim RobinsonMark Upton and Matt ValkFred FullerRob Maxwell and Paul Lilley

CO-OPERATING RESEARCH STAFF - EDUCATIONIRESEARCHlGOVERNMENT

Allan TaylorRebecca HallettCathy BakkerAlan McKeownIrwin GoldmanMarilyn Hovius

Dept. Horticultural Science, Cornell University, New York, USAEnvironmental Biology, University of Guelph, Ontario CanadaPlant Agriculture, Simcoe, University of Guelph, Ontario, CanadaPlant Agriculture, Simcoe, University ofGuelph, Ontario, CanadaUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.

CO-OPERATING RESEARCH STAFF - INDUSTRYIPRIVATE SECTOR

Ron PeretScott HendricksLeo BlydropMark UptonRussell WallaceLarry RobinsonRachelle BylIrwin SchmidtWayne BartonGeorge MudryiPaul DavisHans Corver

Agrospray Limited, Tillsonburg, OntarioAsgrow Seed, Deforest, Wisconsin, U.S.A.Bayer Inc., Etobicoke, Ontario, CanadaBejo Seeds, Geneva, New York, U.S.A.Bio-Works Inc., Geneva, New York, U.S.A.Dow AgroSciences Canada, London, OntarioCargill Limited, Alliston, OntarioUnited Agri-Products, Dorchester, Ontario, CanadaBASF, London, Ontario, CanadaAEF Global Inc., Shebrooke, Quebec, CanadaGowan, Lititz Pennsylvania, U.SA.Perform Trading Inc., St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada

SEED SOURCES - 2000 - CULTIVAR TRIALS

Asg Asgrow Seed Co., 1081-A Harkin Rd., Salinas, California, 93901, U.S.A.Tel: (403) 422-1417

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

Car Cardinal Seed and Technology, P.O. Box 460 Ruthven, Ontario NOP 2GO CanadaTel: (519) 3260551

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

HM Harris Moran - Fred Fuller Seeds Canada, 250 South Canal Bank Rd., Kettleby, OntarioLOG 1JO CanadaTel: (905) 775-9696

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

Pal D. Palmer Seed Co. Inc., 8269 S. Highway 95 Yuma, Arizona, 85365 U.S.A.Tel: (520) 341-8494

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

Pol Polonica International, P.O. Box 3037, Salinas California, 93912-3037 U.S.A.Tel: (831) 751-3624

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

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

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

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

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

Tak American Takii Inc., 301 Natividad Rd., Salinas, California 93906 U.S.A.Tel: (408) 443-4901

Toz A.L. Tozer Ltd., Pyports, Downside Bridge Road, Colsham, Surrey KTll 3EH EnglandTel: 01932 862059

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

Wis University of Wisconsin, Dept of Horticulture, Iriwin Goldman, 1575 Linden Dr., MadisonWisconsin. 53706, U.S.A.

We would like to thank our seed suppliers for the variouscultivar trials submissions in 2000.

- 7 -

- 8 -

LEGEND OF SEED SOURCES

A&C Abbott & Cobb Inc. PETO Petoseed Co.

Aris Aristogenes Inc. Pol Polonica International

Asg Asgrow Seed Co. Rio Rio Colorado Seeds Inc.

BBI Bakker Brothers of Idaho, Inc. Rog Rogers Seed

BEJO BEJO lADEN RS Royal Sluis Inc.

BO Brinker-Orsetti Seed Co. Rl Rijk Zwaan Export B.V.

Car Cardinal Seed Co. Inc. Sak Sakata Seed America Inc.

Chr Chriseed Sham Shamrock Seed Co.

Cro Crookham Company Sieg Siegers Seed Co.

CS Campbell Soup Co. Sol Solar Seed Co.

CU Cornell University Sto Stokes Seeds Ltd.

EJ. Erie James Ltd. Sun Sun Seeds

FAIR Fairbanks Selected Seed Co. Swy Seedway Inc.

FM Ferry-Morse Seed Co. Tak American Takii Inc.

lIM Harris Moran Seeds Toz A. L. Tozer Ltd.

Nor Norseco Inc. Wis University of Wisconsin

NUN Nunheim Seed Corporation VDH Vanderhave,

Nl Nickerson-lwaan B.V. ViI Vilmorin Inc.

Pal D. Palmer Seed Co. Inc. lW lwaan Seeds, Inc.

Note: UW in the legend has been replaced byWis for University of Wisconsin

INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Muck Crops Research Station, as part of the Department of Plant Agriculture, University ofGuelph is responsible for conducting and co-ordinating research projects to solve problems in theproduction of vegetables grown in organic soils. The Ontario Muck Crops Research and ServicesCommittee (OMCRSC) representing researchers, industry, growers and crop advisors, makerecommendations for research on an annual basis.

In 2000, Muck Crops Research Station staff conducted, and/or co-operated on research projects withResearcher's from the Departments of Environmental Biology and Plant Agriculture at the Universityof Guelph; Researchers from University of Wisconsin and Cornell University; research departmentsof the Crop Production Chemical Industry, numerous Seed Companies and Growers.

This report consists of two sections, the first contains highlights of research projects which wereconducted in 2000 under the supervision of Research Scientist Dr. Mary Ruth McDonald. Thesecond section contains highlights of various Muck Crops cultivar evaluations in 2000 on both fieldand storage trials, under the supervision of Research Station Manager, Shawn Janse. The resultspublished in this report should be treated as a progress report. Some of the chemicals used in thetrials are not registered for use on the crops they were applied to. Additional trials may be necessarybefore firm conclusions and recommendations can be made.

The Muck Crops Research Station is an active participant in the training of new researchers on MuckVegetables through the Graduate Student Program of the University of Guelph. Presently the MuckCrops Research Station has four Master's Graduate Students and one Ph. D. student working onvarious research projects involving Muck Vegetables.

The Muck Crops Research Station is presently being certified for the Good Laboratory Practices(GLP) program which will allow us to continue in the participation offuture registration of chemicalsfor muck vegetables. GLP replaces the old Minor Use Program

Past participation has helped in the registration of such products as Dithane DG in furrow treatmentfor the control of onion smut; Select for annual bluegrass control in onions, Admire for Aphid controlon lettuce.

We would Iike to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation to the staff for their effortsin conducting these research projects; cultivar evaluation trials and producing this report. Manythanks also to all the co-operating researchers, technicians, industry personal, and growers for theircontinued support and interest in muck crops.

- 9 -

Mary-Ruth McDonald, Ph.DResearch ScientistDepartment of Plant Agriculture

Shawn JanseResearch Station ManagerDepartment of Plant Agriculture

PRECIPITATION

Month 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995Rain Snow Rain Snow Rain Snow Rain Snow Rain Snow Rain Snowmm em mm em mm em mm em mm em mm em

January 12 16 5 22 9 31 39 35 13 32 119 20

February 45 29 2 11 27 1 0 41 17 24 3 11

March 41 0 49 6 38 13 6 13 35 15 28 4

April 51 3 102 3 90 7 59 0 56 5 89 0

May 77 0 57 0 65 0 61 0 70 0 72 0

June 145 0 35 0 32 0 79 0 72 0 67 0

July 65 0 98 0 166 0 67 0 89 0 126 0

August 51 0 62 0 132 0 89 0 94 0 83 0

September 88 0 32 0 52 0 91 0 87 0 63 0

October 144 2 63 0 71 0 50 2 69 0 152 0

November 31 12 27 8 100 8 60 0 55 10 70 9

December 44 38 14 27 16 36 17 4 21 16 0 40

Annual 764 100 546 77 798 96 618 95 515 81 872 84Total Preeip.LTA = Long Term Average for U of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture - Kettleby

1125 Woodchoppers Lane, R.R. #1, Kettleby, ON, LOG IJO. 26 Years (1975-2000)

.....o

PRECIPITATION

Month 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 LTARain Snow Rain Snow Rain Snow Rain Snow Rain Snow Rain Snowmm em mm em mm em mm em mm em mm em

January 28 3 17 47 46 26 22 * 50 * 23 5 21 31

February 9 8 67 20 61 1 16 * 13* 10 42 22 20

March 0 27 27 25 35 36 1 * 23 * 26 1 30 17

April 81 0 10 2 24 0 22 * 0* 68 10 49 5

May 73 0 62 0 43 0 65 * 0* 160 0 70 0

June 124 0 66 0 78 0 69 0 173 0 78 0

July 80 0 49 0 50 0 71 0 86 0 82 0

August 44 0 48 0 75 0 79 0 56 0 84 0

September 109 0 119 0 19 0 138 0 90 0 84 0

October 76 0 32 5 26 0 68 0 28 0 64

November 20 6 21 16 50 0 73 9 58 1 52 10

December 25 48 28 4 32 17 35 2 11 62 21 26

Annual Precip 669 92 546 119 539 80 657 * 97 * 789 121 657 110

LTA = Long Term Average for U of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture - Kettleby * Data collected from Cookstown,ON~

1125 Woodchoppers Lane, R.R. #1, Kettleby, ON, LOG 110. 26 Years (1975-2000)~

....N

I

MEAN TEMPERATURE (oC)

Month 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min.

January 1.6 -4.2 -3.3 -11.3 -2.1 -9.5 -1.0 -8.4 -8.8 -18.9 -0.7 -6.7

February -1.0 -7.9 1.1 -7.1 -1.3 -9.4 -4.8 -15.2 -4.5 -13.4 -4.1 -12.5

March 4.9 -3.4 4.4 -3.1 1.9 -6.6 2.0 -7.4 2.7 -5.7 6.4 -4.3

April 13.4 3.4 13.1 4.1 9.5 1.0 11.4 1.9 12.3 2.0 7.3 -0.3

May 16.9 5.8 22.3 9.9 18.8 5.4 18.0 5.4 17.0 5.3 18.2 6.1

June 23.6 12.9 25.5 12.6 22.3 8.8 22.4 10.7 25.5 12.4 24.5 12.4

July 26.0 13.7 26.9 14.0 22.1 11.9 26.8 14.3 26.9 15.2 26.2 15.5

August 25.4 12.7 26.8 13.8 22.6 11.4 26.5 13.6 24.0 12.5 26.9 15.6

September 20.0 8.9 20.6 7.0 20.3 8.8 18.3 7.4 21.2 10.0 19.2 7.4

October 14.2 3.5 14.9 5.1 12.0 1.9 13.2 2.3 15.2 3.3 14.3 6.8

November 8.4 -0.8 5.0 -2.3 5.1 -0.5 6.2 -1.1 8.8 1.0 3.0 -2.6

December 1.3 -5.5 0.0 -6.7 1.0 -5.5 1.0 -6.6 2.9 -5.5 -2.8 -9.1

Mean 12.9 3.3 13.1 3.0 11.0 1.5 11.7 1.4 11.9 1.5 11.5 2.4

LTA = Long Term Average for U of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture - Kettleby1125 Woodchoppers Lane, RR #1, Kettleby, ON, LOG lJO. 26 Years (1975-2000)

--,

MEAN TEMPERATURE (oC)

Month 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 LTAMax. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min.

January -4.0 -11.6 -3.0 -11.3 -0.5 -5.9 -4.5 * -12.8 * -1.8 -12.6 -3.0 -11.4

February -2.4 -9.6 -0.4 -8.2 1.9 -4.7 0.6 * -8.1 * 0.9 -10.0 -1.6 -10.3

March 1.2 -7.3 1.0 -6.1 4.6 -2.2 2.5 * -6.9 * 8.8 -1.4 2.5 -5.3

April 7.7 0.5 9.5 0.2 13.0 2.0 12.2 * 0.8 * 10.4 0.6 11.0 1.2

May 16.7 5.4 13.5 4.0 22.1 10.4 21.8 * 6.4 * 19.0 7.2 18.8 7.0

June 22.5 13.9 25.2 12.8 23.3 12.6 25.4 12.7 23.2 11.4 23.6 11.3

July 23.9 13.5 25.0 13.7 25.5 14.2 28.4 15.7 24.2 12.6 26.4 14.1

August 25.4 13.4 22.4 11.6 25.7 14.2 24.1 12.2 24.8 11.8 25.0 13.0

September 20.4 10.6 19.4 9.7 22.6 10.6 22.8 9.1 20.4 8.0 20.2 9.0

October 12.7 5.1 13.5 3.5 14.8 5.0 13.6 2.6 15.8 3.3 13.2 3.6

November 3.3 -2.1 4.4 -0.6 6.8 1.1 9.0 0.4 6.5 -1.9 5.9 -1.0

December 1.3 -2.8 0.9 -3.8 2.8 -5.5 2.3 -6.2 -3.9 -14.0 -0.2 -7.2

Mean 10.7 2.4 11.0 2.1 13.6 4.3 10.5 * 3.9 * 12.4 1.3 12.6 2.0

LTA = Long Term Average for U of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture - Kettleby * Data collected from Cookstown, ON1125 Woodchoppers Lane, R.R. #1, Kettleby, ON, LOG 110. 26 Years (1975-2000) ....

LV

....~

I

EXTREME TEMPERATURE (oC)

Month 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996H L H L H L H L H L H L

January 3.0 -25.0 7.0 -26.0 11.0 -20.0 2.0 -29.0 13.0 -20.0 15.0 -28.5

February 10.0 -22.0 4.0 -23.5 4.0 -30.0 12.0 30.0 6.0 -24.5 7.0 -23.5

March 13.5 -11.5 11.5 -17.5 15.5 -22.0 14.0 16.0 21.0 -18.0 12.5 -18.5

April 26.5 -5.0 18.5 -7.0 20.5 -3.0 24.0 -7.0 14.0 -9.5 19.5 -5.0

May 30.5 0.0 29.0 -1.0 29.0 -3.0 30.0 -2.0 27.0 -2.0 29.0 -1.0

June 33.5 5.5 29.5 0.5 28.5 3.0 35.0 -2.0 35.0 5.0 29.5 4.0

July 33.0 8.0 27.0 5.0 33.5 7.0 32.0 7.0 35.5 6.0 28.5 6.0

August 33.5 7.5 31.0 5.0 33.0 5.0 28.0 5.0 32.0 5.5 31.0 8.5

September 31.0 -6.5 27.5 -2.0 29.0 -2.0 28.5 0.5 28.0 0.0 28.0 1.5

October 24.5 -5.5 24.5 -5.0 26.0 -5.5 24.5 -5.0 27.0 -0.5 23.0 -3.5

November 16.5 -13.0 12.5 -11.0 16.0 -13.0 18.0 -12.0 17.0 -15.0 18.0 -10.5

December 12.0 -21.0 8.0 -18.0 9.5 -23.5 10.5 -25.0 4.0 -19.5 11.5 -13.5

Annual 33.5 -25.0 31.0 -26.0 33.5 -30.0 35.0 -30.0 35.5 -24.5 29.5 -28.5High & LowExtreme Tempuatures for U of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture - Kettleby

1125 Woodchoppers Lane, R.R. #1, Kettleby, ON, LOG 110. 26 Years (1975-2000)

EXTREME TEMPERATURE (OC)

Month 1997 1998 1999 2000 EXTREME TEMPERATURESH L H L H L H L H Year L Year

January 9.0 -26.0 9.0 -19.0 8.0 * -28.0 * 12.1 -28.1 15.0 1996 -36.0 1977

February 9.0 -25.0 8.5 -14.0 10.5 * -19.0* 14.4 -25.0 14.5 1984 -33.0 1979

March 12.5 -21.0 23.0 -17.0 19.5 * -24.0 * 23.9 -8.4 24.0 1986 -29.0 1984

April 21.5 -10.0 22.0 -2.5 22.5 * -4.0 * 22.1 -6.6 30.0 1990 -14.0 1983

May 22.0 -1.0 30.0 2.5 34.0 * -0.5 * 30.0 -1.8 34.0 1999 -4.0 1983

June 29.5 4.0 31.5 2.5 33.1 3.9 31.7 5.0 35.5 1988 -2.0 1977

July 32.0 6.0 33.5 7.5 32.6 7.8 27.7 5.6 36.0 1988 2.5 1984

August 29.5 5.0 30.0 5.5 31.1 4.4 29.8 3.2 36.0 1975 0.5 1982

September 27.0 0.0 30.0 1.0 32.3 -0.9 30.8 -1.8 32.3 1999 -6.5 1991

October 25.5 -3.5 22.0 -2.5 22.9 -3.3 23.6 -5.1 30.0 1989 -9.0 1975

November 13.0 -9.0 17.5 -4.5 21.4 -8.7 19.4 -14.9 24.0 1990 -22.0 1977

December 9.5 -19.0 14.5 -21.5 13.5 -18.1 6.0 -25.1 20.0 1982 -31.5 1980

Annual 32.0 -26.0 33.5 -21.5 34.0 '* -28.0 '* 31.7 -28.1 36.0 -36.0High & LowExtreme Tempuatures for U of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture - Kettleby * Data collected from Cookstown, ON

1125 Woodchoppers Lane, R.R. #1, Kett1eby, ON, LOG 110. 26 Years (1975-2000) .....0'1

....C7l

I

GROWING DEGREE DAYS (5°C Base)

Month 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 LTA

January 0 0 0 3 0 5 2 0 4 0* 0

February 1 2 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0* 8

March 42 13 3 7 5 26 6 5 60 7* 31 14

April 139 126 67 76 90 17 39 63 82 60 * 57 74

May 189 344 223 214 192 221 190 117 350 284 * 251 238

June 397 453 317 346 420 427 397 420 394 421 369 375

July 460 480 372 478 498 488 424 440 459 528 417 467

August 435 474 372 465 414 501 455 366 463 412 413 431

September 284 269 286 236 318 246 314 287 348 329 276 286

October 134 164 101 101 135 223 127 133 153 103 147 122

November 53 17 17 18 61 13 14 14 22 55 30 29

December 3 2 0 1 3 0 4 0 13 11 0 3

..,

Annual 2137 2344 1758 1945 2142 2167 1972 1845 2348 1859 * 1999 2041

LTA =Long Term Average for U of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture - Kettleby * Data collected from Cookstown, ON1125 Woodchoppers Lane, R.R. #1, Kettleby, ON, LOG lJO. 26 Years (1975-2000)

•

CROP: Cabbage (Brassica oleracea L.), cv. BroncoRutabaga, cv. Laurentian

PEST: Cabbage maggot (CM), Delia radicum (Linnaeus)

AUTHORS: HALLETT RH, SOPHER CR and HEAL JDU of Guelph, Dept. of Environmental Biology

TITLE: SINAPIC ACID AND MONOTERPENE COMBINATIONS AS OVIPOSITIONDETERRENTS AGAINST CABBAGE MAGGOT ON CABBAGE, 2000

MATERIALS: Sinapic acid in ethanol; a plastic flexure strip containing a three-componentmonoterpene mix (3-carene, limonene andp-cymene); a plastic flexure strip containing a six-componentmonoterpene mix (3-carene, limonene, p-cymene, terpinolene, ~-phellandrene, and myrcene).

METHODS: Cabbage seedlings cv. Bronco were grown in plug trays and then hand-transplanted at theMuck Research Station, near Kettleby, ON, on 17 and 19 May in 4 row plots,S m in length, with a rowspacing of 90 cm and in-row plant spacing of 45 cm. Plots were separated by a 1.5 m spray lane (N-S)and a 1.5 m alley (E-W). Six treatments were replicated 5 times in a randomized complete block design.Treatments were applied on 31 May. Treatment 1 consisted of 0.05% sinapic acid sprayed at a rate of6.67 gil 00 m of row. Five grams of sinapic acid was dissolved in 200 ml ethanol, 9 L buffer and 2 mlTween 20. This mixture was applied with a backpack sprayer with a fan nozzle (#8006) at a pressure of250 kPa. Treatment 2 consisted of placing a 5 ern length of a 3-component monoterpene plastic flexurenext to each plant. Treatment 3 consisted of placing a 5 cm length of a 6-component monoterpene plasticflexure next to each plant. Treatment 4 consisted of placing a 5 cm length of a 3-componentmonoterpene plastic flexure next to each plant plus the sinapic acid mixture from Treatment 1.Treatment 5 consisted of placing a 5 cm length of a 6-component monoterpene plastic flexure next toeach plant plus the sinapic acid mixture from Treatment I. Treatment 6 consisted of non-treated controlplots. Treatments 2, 3 and 6 were also treated with the same mixuture from Treatment 1, not includingthe sinapic acid, to expose all plots to the ethanol/buffer/Tween 20 solvent mixture. Egg countscommenced on 1 Jun and continued for a total of fourteen consecutive days. Egg counts were performedrandomly on four plants per plot (middle two rows, two per row) around plant stems and surrounding soil(within 1 cm of stem). Destructive sampling of 4 cabbage plants per plot was performed at on 29 Jun and26 Jul. Cabbage maggot damage on cabbage was rated on a scale of 0 to 4 (0 represents < 10% of rootdamaged; 1 represents 10-25% of root damaged; 2 represents 26-50% of root damaged; 3 represents 51­75% of roots damaged; 4 represents> 76% of root damaged). Cabbage was harvested on 28 Jul andyield (t/ha) was determined. Differences in egg numbers, Cabbage maggot damage and yield amongtreatments were determined using analysis of variance and a Duncan's multiple range test.

RESULTS: The results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.

CONCLUSIONS: While the fewest mean number of eggs was deposited on cabbage plants treated withthe 6-component monoterpene + sinapic acid combination (Treatment 5), this difference was notstatistically different from other treatments or the control. Mean cabbage maggot damage on cabbagewas lowest in the 6-component monoterpene + sinapic acid combination treatment group on the firstsampling date. On the second sampling date there were no significant differences among treatments(P>0.05). Use of sinapic acid and/or monoterpenes does not seem a very promising method of reducingcabbage maggot damage. The different treatments had no significant impact on mean yield of cabbage(Table 1) (P>0.05).

- 17 -

- 18 -

Table 1. Mean number of cabbage maggot eggs per day, mean cabbage maggot damage and meanyield of cabbage plants treated with various sinapic acid and monoterpene combinations at Kettleby,ON, 2000.

Mean Cabbage Maggot Damage---------------------------------

TreatmentNo. Treatment

Mean numberof eggs'

29 Jun 26 Jul

Mean yield(tlha)

Sinapic acid 0.25 ± 0.93a 2 0.75 ± 0.25a 1.35 ± 0.22a 29.7 ± 4.0a

2 3-CM3 0.35 ± 1.32a 0.45 ± 0.17ab 0.60 ± 0.24a 32.9±3.la

3 6-CM4 0.29 ± 0.98a 0.75 ± 0.24a 1.00 ± 0.24a 33.5 ± 2.8a

4 3-CM + Sinapic acid 0.24 ± 0.84a 0.40 ± 0.17ab 1.2 ± 0.28a 33.7 ± 3.0a

5 6-CM + Sinapic acid 0.20 ± 0.71a Ob 0.65 ± 0.21a 33.9 ± 4.6a

6 Control 0.42 ± 1.95a 0.45 ± 0.20ab 0.65 ± 0.23a 32.6 ± 1.7a----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mean eggs per day over the fourteen day observation period.

2 Values followed by the same letter, in the same column, are not significantly different (P>0.05);Duncan's multiple range test.

Three-component monoterpene

Six-component monoterpene

CROP:PEST:

AUTHORS:

TITLE:

Cabbage (Brassica oleracea L.), cv. BroncoCabbage maggot (CM), Delia radicum (Linnaeus)

HALLETT RH, SOPHER CR AND HEAL JDU of Guelph, Dept. of Environmental Biology

RELATIVE EFFICACY OF THREE APPLICATION METHODS FORLORSBAN 4E OR LORSBAN SOWTO CONTROL CABBAGE MAGGOT ONCABBAGE,2000

- 19 -

•

MATERIALS: LORSBAN 4E (chlorpyrifos; 480 gIL), LORSBAN SOW(chlorpyrifos; 50% w/w)

METHODS: Cabbage seedlings cv. Bronco were grown in plug trays and then hand-transplanted nearthe Muck Research Station, near Kettleby, ON, on 26 May, 2000 in 4 row plots, 5 m in length, with a rowspacing of90 em and in-row plant spacing of 45 cm. Plots were separated by a 3 m spray lane (N-S) anda 1.5 m alley (E- W). Four treatments were replicated 5 times in a randomized complete block design.Treatment I consisted of LORSBAN 4E applied to plug trays three days prior to transplanting at a rateof2.7 ml in 475 ml water applied with a watering can (128 plants; = 10.1 mg ai per plant). Treatment 2consisted of LORSBAN SOW applied within an hour after transplanting at a rate of 4.9 gin 15L of waterwith 200 ml poured around the base of each plant (= 32.7 mg ai per plant). Treatment 3 consisted ofLORSBAN 4E applied 3 days after transplanting with a watering can at a rate of 8.4 ml in 5.2 L water (=20.2 g ail I00 m row) in an approximately 10 em band, applied to 20 m of row. Treatment 4 was thecontrol and consisted of the application to each plant of200 ml of water. Destructive sampling of 4plants per plot took place on 30 Jun and 26 Jul and harvest took place on 28 Jul. Cabbage maggot (CM)damage was determined and rated on a scale of 0 to 4 (0 represents < 10% of root damaged; I represents10-25% of root damaged; 2 represents 26-50% of root damaged; 3 represents 51-75% of roots damaged;4 represents> 76% of root damaged). Differences in ratings between treatments were determined usinganalysis of variance and a Duncan's multiple range test.

RESULTS: The results are summarized in Table 1.

CONCLUSIONS: On the first sampling date all three LORSBAN treatments reduced CM damagerelative to non-treated controls and were equally effective. On the second sampling date no LORSBANtreatment differed significantly from the control (P>0.05). Plots treated with LORSBAN at transplantinghad the greatest yield. LORSBAN did not provide adequate season-long protection against the cabbagemaggot.

- 20 -

Table 1. Mean damage rating and yield of cabbage treated with LORSBAN 4E or LORSBAN SOWusing different application methods, near Kettleby, ON, 2000.

Mean damage rating' forindicated date

Treatment TreatmentNo.

Rate Method'30 Jun 26 lui

Yield(tlha)

•

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LORSBAN 10 mg Plug tray 0.05 ± 0.05a3 0.95 ± 0.21a 35.0 ± 1.5ab4E ai per

plant

2 LORSBAN 32 mg Transplanting 0.05 ± 0.05a 0.85 ± 0.22a 39.0 ± 1.21bSOW ai per

plant

3 LORSBAN 20.2 g Three days 0.15 ± O.lla 0.55 ± 0.18a 32.6 ± 2.0a4E ai per after

100 m transplantingrow

4 Control 0.85 ± 0.28b 1.10 ± 0.24a 36.6 ± O.9ab------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plug tray =application to plug tray 3 days prior to transplanting; Transplanting = application tosoil immediately after transplanting; Three days after transplanting = application to soil 3 daysafter transplanting.

0= least, 4 = greatest degree of damage (± standard error).

Values followed by the same letter, within the same column, are not significantly different(P>0.05); Duncan's multiple range test.

•

CROP:PEST:

Cabbage (Brassica oleracea L.), cv. BroncoCabbage maggot (CM), Delia radicum (Linnaeus)

- 21 -

•

AUTHORS: HALLETT RH, HEAL JD AND SOPHER CRU of Guelph, Dept. of Environmental Biology

TITLE: RELATIVE EFFICACY OF FOUR APPLICATION METHODS FOR GUTmONTO CONTROL CABBAGE MAGGOT ON CABBAGE, 2000

•

•

MATERIALS: GUTIDON 50 WP (azinphos-rnethyl; 50% w/w ai)

METHODS: Cabbage seedlings cv. Bronco were grown in plug trays and then hand-transplanted at theMuck Research Station (Site I), near Kettleby, ON, on 5 Jun, 2000 in 4 row plots, 5 m in length, with arow spacing of90 em and in-row plant spacing of 45 em. Plots were separated by a 3 m spray lane (N-S)and a 1.5 m alley (E-W). Five treatments were replicated 5 times in a randomized complete block design.The same experiment was repeated at a nearby farm (Site 2) where cabbage was hand-transplanted on 26May. Treatment I consisted of GUTHION 50 WP applied to plug trays three days prior to transplanting.Treatment 2 consisted of GUTHION 50 WP applied to plug trays three days prior to transplanting andtwo weeks after transplanting. Treatment 3 consisted ofGUTHION 50 WP applied within an hour aftertransplanting and two weeks later. Treatment 4 consisted ofGUTHION 50 WP applied 3 days aftertransplanting and two weeks after transplanting. Treatment 5 was the control and consisted of theapplication of 200 ml of water to each plant. For plug tray treatments the rate used was 6.41 g productper 475 ml water per 128-plant plug tray (= 25 mg a.i. per plant). For transplanting and post­transplanting treatments the rate used was 5.75 g product per 10 L water per plot with 200 ml of solutionpoured around the base of each plant with a beaker ( =57.5 mg ai per plant for all field applications). AtSite I, destructive sampling of 4 plants per plot took place on 29 Jun and 26 Jul and harvest took place on8 Aug. At Site 2, destructive sampling of 4 plants per plot took place on 30 Jun and 26 Jul and harvesttook place on 28 Jul. Cabbage maggot (CM) damage was determined and rated on a scale of 0 to 4 (0represents < 10% of root damaged; I represents 10-25% of root damaged; 2 represents 26-50% of rootdamaged; 3 represents 51-75% of roots damaged; 4 represents> 76% of root damaged). Differences inratings between treatments were determined using analysis of variance and a Duncan's multiple rangetest.

RESULTS: The results are summarized in Table I.

CONCLUSIONS: All four GUTHION 50 WP treatments reduced CM damage relative to non-treatedcontrols at both sites. Reduction in CM damage among GUTIDON 50 WP treatments was similar andnot significantly different (P>0.05) from each other. At both sites the mean yield was greatest fromTreatment I (Plug Tray) plots, but differences among GUTHION 50 WP treatments were not significant(P>0.05). Results indicate that a single plug tray application of GUTIDON 50 WP provided season-longcontrol on muck soils. Use ofthis application method could reduce volume of insecticide applied by 90­95%.

- 22 -

Table 1. Mean damage rating and yield of cabbage treated with GUTHION 50 WP using differentapplication methods, near Kettleby (Sites I and 2), ON, 2000.

Mean damage rating' forindicated dateTreatment

No.

Rate ofGUTHION

50WP(g ai per

plant)

Method'

29 Jun 26 Jul

Site I

Yield(t/ha)

•

25 Plug tray 0.13 ± 0.09a3 0.0 ± O.Oa 14.8 ± 3.8a

2 25.0 + 57.5 Plug tray + 2 wks 0.0 ± O.Oa 0.25 ± 0.14a 10.5 ± 2.4a

3 57.5 + 57.5 Planting + 2 wks 0.0 ± O.Oa 0.13 ± O.13a 8.4 ± 2.2a

4 57.5 + 57.5 3 d after planting + 0.06 ± 0.06a 0.31 ± 0.18a 12.7 ± 4.7a2wks

5 0 0.13 ± 0.09a 1.19 ± 0.28b 12.3 ± 4.5a------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Site 2

25 Plug tray O.l9±0.14a4 0.25 ± 0.14a 37.4 ± 1.3a

2 25.0 + 57.5 Plug tray + 2 wks 0.38±0.15a 0.13 ± 0.09a 34.9 ± 0.8ab

3 57.5 + 57.5 Planting + 2 wks 0.13 ± 0.09a 0.31 ± 0.15a 36.6 ± 1.0ab

4 57.5 + 57.5 3 d after planting + 0.19±0.14a 0.0 ± O.Oa 36.4 ± l.4ab2wks

5 0 1.25 ± 0.27b 1.19 ± 0.23b 32.9 ± l.4b------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plug tray =application to plug tray 3 days prior to transplanting; Plug tray + 2 wks = applicationto plug tray 3 days prior to transplanting and to soil 2 weeks after transplanting; Planting + 2 wks= application to soil at transplanting and 2 weeks after transplanting; 3 d after planting + 2wks =application to soil 3 days after transplanting and 2 weeks after transplanting.

4

0= least, 4 = greatest degree of damage (± standard error).

Values followed by the same letter, within the same column for each site, are not significantlydifferent (P>0.05); Duncan's multiple range test.

First destructive sampling date for Site 2 was 30 Jun.

•

•

CROP: White cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata ) Saratoga, BroncoCauliflower (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis) Minuteman

PEST: Clubroot, Plasmodiophora brassicae (Woronin)

AUTHORS: MCDONALD, M.R., KORNATOWSKA, B.,VANDER KOOI, K. & Mc KEOWN A.U of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture, Muck Crops Research StationU of Guelph, Dept. ofPlant Agriculture, Simcoe Research Station

TITLE: MANAGEMENT OF CLUBROOT OF COLE CROPS, 2000

MATERIALS: PERLKA (50% calcium oxide, 20% nitrogen, 1.5% magnesium oxide), AGRAL 90(90% nonylphenoxypolyethoxy ethanol), Lime (calcitic, 22% calcium, 3% magnesium)

METHODS: Two sites were established in the Holland Marsh, Ontario (44° 5' N, 79° 35' W), (site 1,organic muck soil, pH 6.4) and one commercial field site (site 2, mineral soil, pH 7.4). One commercialfield site (site 3, mineral soil, pH 7.8) was established north ofthe Holland Marsh in the Township ofWestGwillimbury, Ontario. All sites were naturally infected with the clubroot pathogen. Sites 1,2 and 3consisted of 8, 5 and 4 treatments, respectively. A randomized complete block arrangement with 3 blocks(site 1) and 4 blocks (sites 2 & 3) per treatment was used. All replicates consisted of4 rows, 3 heads permeter, 86 em apart, 5 m in length. Sites 1 and 2 were transplanted (20 Jun and 31 May, respectively) withwhite cabbage. Site 3 was transplanted with cauliflower (19 Jun). At all sites PERLKA (calciumcyanamide) at 1000 kgJha (200 kg/ha N) and the high nitrogen check of200 kg/ha (N) was applied at 14days (12 days cauliflower) prior to transplanting. All other treatments (except drench) were applied 7 daysprior to transplanting. The other treatments were: PERLKA at 1000 kg/ha (site 1 & 2), 500 kg/ha (site1& 3) and 1000 kg/ha (in 20 em bands, site 1) and calcitic lime at 8 and 4.9 tonsJba (site 1& 2,respectively). A drench treatment ofAGRAL 90 at 0.5% (250 mlIplant) was applied by hand around thebase ofthe plants at transplanting (site 1& 2) and 14 days after transplanting (site 3). A recommendednitrogen check (100 kg/ha N, site 1) was applied 7 days prior to transplanting. All treatments (exceptdrench) were broadcast by hand onto measured areas to ensure uniformity ofapplication and incorporatedto a depth of 5-10 em. Soil samples were taken for pH analysis prior to fertilizer applications and bi­weekly during the crop growth. The air temperatures were above the long term (10-year) average for May(13.6·C), below average for June (I7.5"C), July (I8.7"C) and August (18.7"C) and average for September(14.5"C). Total rainfallwas above the Iongtenn (10-year) average May (160.3 rnm), June (173.4 mm),and August (75.7 mm), below average for September (79.8 mm) and average for July (86.4). Atharvest(5 Oct, 15 Aug & 24 Aug at site 1,2 & 3, respectively), a sample of 10 plants (sites 1&3) and 12 (site 2)plants from each replication were graded for clubroot incidence and disease severity. Disease severity wasassessed using a scale from zero to three: zero - no clubbing, one - < 25% of root system clubbed, two - 25to 50% of root system clubbed and three - > 50% root system clubbed (Hwnpherson-Jones, 1989. Tests.Agro. Cult. 10: 36-37) and disease index was calculated (Scott and Hollins, 1974. Ann. Appl. Biol. 78:269-279). Weed germination counts of 1 m2 were taken on 10 Jul (site 1) and 21 Jun (site 2). Headweights were recorded for site 1 and 2. At site 3, yield data was not recorded due to the commercialoperation. However, the timing oftying ofthe cauliflower heads at site 3 was recorded. Data wereanalyzed using the General Analysis ofVariance function ofthe Linear Models section ofStatistix V. 4.1.

RESULTS: As presented in Tables 1-3 and Figures 1-3.

CONCLUSIONS: Plants treated with PERLKA at 1000 kg/ha applied 7 days before transplanting hadsignificantly lower clubroot incidence and index than the lime treatments at sites 1 and 2. Cauliflower

- 23 -

- 24 -

treated with PERLKA at 500 kgIhahad lower disease incidence and index at site 3, however notsignificantly. Other PERLKA treatments did not seem to give as effective control of clubroot. Highnitrogen appeared to increase the disease incidence especially on cabbage grown in organic soil (site 1).AGRAL 90 applied at transplanting provided good control ofclubroot at sites 1 and 2, however, loweryields were observed in treated plants. AGRAL 90 applied 14 days after transplanting at site 3 resulted insignificantly lower percentage ofplants in the :first cut. AGRAL 90 appeared to be phytotoxic to thetreated plants. Although some herbicidal effects were observed in PERLKA treated plots, the differenceswere not statistically significant. Soil pH in all PERLKA treatments was considerably higher incomparison to other treatments. The effect appeared to last for at least 4 weeks from application andproves the liming ability ofPERLKA.

Partial funding for this project was made available by Perform Trading Inc.

Tablel, Incidence of clubroot (%) and disease index at site 1, 2 and 3, 2000.

Clubroot Incidence Disease index

Treatments Rate Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3(days before kgIhatransplanting)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Check (7) 100 (N) 66.7 abc* 44.4 bed

High Nitrogen 200 (N) 100.0 c 41.7 ab 75NS** 68.9d 31.9 ab 60.8NSCheck (14)

PERLKA(14) 1000 86.7 be 43.8 ab 85 42.2 be 23.6 a 70.8

PERLKA(7) 1000 40.0 a 14.6a 14.4 a 4.9 a

PERLKA(7) 500 83.3 be 67.5 43.8 bed 51.7

PERLKA band(7) 1000 63.3 ab 30.2 ab

Calcitic Lime (7) 4.9 or 8 tIha 93.3 be 66.7b 60.0 ed 57.6 b

AGRAL 90 (0 or 0.5% 36.7 a 12.5 a 82.5 15.5 a 6.3 a 65.814 after) solution-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Numbers in the columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P< 0.05,Fisher's Protected LSD test.

** NS - no significant treatment effects were observed

•

Table 2. Yield of cabbage at sites 1 and 2 and timing of cauliflower harvest at site 3,2000.

Treatments Rate Yield (kg) % in 151 Cut(days before transplanting) kg/ha Site 1 Site 2 Site 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------Check (7) 100 (N) 2.8 NS·

High Nitrogen Check (14) 200 (N) 2.9 0.11 NS 62.1 b **

PERLKA(14) 1000 2.1 0.88 78.6 a

PERLKA (7) 1000 2.9 0.56

PERLKA (7) 500 2.9 87.0 a

PERLKA band (7) 1000 2.4

Calcitic Lime (7) 4.9 or 8 tJha 2.8 0.87

AGRAL 90 (0 or 14 -after) 0.5% solution 2.6 0.13 52.5 b------------------------------------------------------------------------------* NS - no significant treatment effects were observed.

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

Table 3. Total number of weeds in muck and mineral soils (sites 1 and 2).

- 25 -

Treatment Ratekg/ha site 1 (m~* site 2 (m~*

Check (7) 100 (N) 127.0 NS**

High Nitrogen Check (14) 200 (N) 121.1

PERLKA (14) 1000 116.1

PERLKA (7) 1000 100.8

PERLKA(7) 500 82.5

PERLKA band (7) 1000 55.4

Calcitic Lime (7) 4.9 or 8 tJha 67.4

AGRAL90(O) 0.5% solution 148.8

41.5 NS

51.8

23.5

64.3

80.5

•• * Weeds present in total number are: chickweed, common groundsel, oak-leaved goosefoot, portulaca,

maple-leaved goosefoot, redroot pigweed, prostrate pigweed, biennial wormwood and hairy galinsoga

**NS - no significant treatment effects were observed.

- 26 -

Figure 1. Effect of clubroot treatments on soil pH at cabbage site(muck soil, site 1)

- .- Agral90 (0) "

7.9

7.6

7.3

:2:7Q.

6.7

6.4

6.1

0 p1CWlting 2

time[weeks]

4

---.--- 2 x recommended N(14)

_ •• - -imem

- - ·0· - - recommended N (7)

~p 500 kglha (7)

• P 1000 kg (14)

---0-- P 1000 kg (7)

harvest (16) ~ P 1000 kglha band(7)

* the numbers in brackets indicate application time (days) prior to transplanting

Figure 2. Effect of clubroot treatments on soil pH at cabbage site(mineral soil, site 2)

- .. - Agral90(O)"

7.9 +------r-~---------------••••••• nlCommended N

(14)

7.3 +--------------=---------i

%:Q. 7+-------------------------;

6.7 +-------------------------;6.4 +-----------------------i

-.- -ima(7)

• P 1000 kg (14)

6.1 +------.----.-----r------.----.------lo plCWlting 2 4

time[weeks]

6 harvest(12)

~P 1000 kg (7)

•

* the numbers in brackets indicate application time (days) prior to transplanting

Figure 3. Effect of clubroot treatments on soil pH at cauliftowlower site(mineral soil, site 3)

- 27 -

~

-1"\'W"_"<, <,'.

~'.__ -~ J'\.I"'- ...r·-···-"-~ III!

Ii

I

7.90

7.60

7.30

:J:~ 7.00

6.70

6.40

6.10

o p1antilg 4

time[weeks]

6 harvest (10)

- ... - Agral90(14aft1lrtransplanting)·

••••••• recommendedN(12)

• P 1000 kg (12)

--O--P SOOkg(12)

* the numbers in brackets indicate application time (days) prior to transplanting

- 28 -

CROP:PEST:

AUTHORS:

TITLE:

White Cabbage cv. BroncoImported Cabbagewonn (lCW) tArtogeia (=Pieris) rapae), Cabbage Looper (CL)(Tnchoplustani), Diamondback Moth (DBM) (Plutella rylostella)

MCDONALD M R & VANDER KOOI KU ofGuelph, Dept. of Plant Agricuhure, Muck Crops Research Station

EVALUATION OF CONTROL AGENTS FOR THE CONTROL OF IMPORTEDCABBAGEWORM, CABBAGE LOOPER AND DIAMONDBACK MOm INCABBAGE, 2000

MATERIALS: BIOPROTEC (Bacillus thuringiensis), DIPEL 2XDF (Bacillus thuringiensis),AGRAL 90 (90% nonphenoxy polyethoxy ethanol)

METHODS: The cabbage was grown :from transplants which were seeded into 128 plug trays on 23 May.The trial wastransplanted into the field on 29 JUD, 2000 at the Muck Crops Research Station where ICW,CL and DBM naturally occur. A randomized complete block arrangement with 4 blocks per treatment wasused. Each replicate consisted offour rows (86 em apart), 5 meters in length. Scouting ofthe trialconunenced 8 days after transplanting. Each treatment was scouted separately and the number and speciesof caterpillars was recorded. A spray threshold was determined using the Caterpillar Looper Equivalent(CLE) method found in the Integrated Pest Management for Crucifers in Ontario Handbook. Once theentire trial reached the threshold of 0.3 the trial was sprayed. All treatments were applied using a pull typeplot sprayer with D-2 hollow cone nozzles in 500 LIha ofwater at 690 kPa (boom). Four days after thetreatments were applied the entire trial was scouted and the number and species of insects was recorded.After the initial scouting after spraying, only the BIOPROTEC treatments with AGRAL 90 were scoutedto determinethe next spray threshold. A total oftwo sprays were applied on 25 Jul and 3 Aug. Samplesfor yield and final insect damage were taken on 19 Sep. The air temperatures were above the longtenn (10year) average for May (13.6 °C), below average for June (17.5 "C), July (18.7 "C) and August (18.7 °C)and average for September. (14.5 °C). Total rainfall was above the long term (10 year) average for May(160.3 nun), June (173.4 nun), and'August (75.7 nun), below average for September (79.8 nun) andaverage for July (86.4). Data were analyzed using the General Analysis ofVariance function ofthe LinearModels section ofStatistix V.4.1.

RESULTS: As presented in Table 1.

CONCLUSIONS: On 3 Aug, 8 days after the first treatment, CLE's were significantly lower in the plotstreated with BIOPROTEC at 2.8 LIha and BIOPROTEC at 2.8 LIha + AGRAL 90 at 1.0 LIha than inthe untreated plots or in plots treated with the conunercial standard, DIPEL 2XDF. The low rate ofBIOPROTEC also had low CLE's at the final assessment, however not significantly. No significantdifferences were observed in yield.

Funding for this project was made possible by Global.

Table 1: Impact of control agents on Lepidoptera pests of cabbage, 2000.

Treatment Rate CLE for Indicated Date % YieldLlha 25 lui 3 Aug 19 Sep Marketable (kg)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Check 1.30 a * 1.03 c 3.43 a 62.5 a 43.7 a

BIOPROTEC 1.4 0.38 a 0.15 ab 0.73 a 87.5 a 41.8 a

BIOPROTEC 2.8 1.13 a 0.05 a 1.35 a 62.5 a 40.3 a

BIOPROTEC+ 1.4 + 1.43 a 0.20 ab 2.63 a 75.0 a 39.2 aAGRAL90 1.0

BIOPROTEC+ 2.8 + 1.95 a 0.00 a 2.05 a 72.5 a 40.1 aAGRAL90 1.0

DIPEL2XDF 250 gIha 0.53 a 0.75 be 3.08 a 85.0 a 40.6 a--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*Numbers in a colunmfollowed by the same letter are not significantly differentat P = 0.05, Fisher's

protected LSD Test.

- 29 -

- 30 -

CROP:PEST:

AUTHORS:

TITLE:

Carrot (Daucus carota), cv. CellobunchLesion Nematode (Pratylenchus penetrans)Pythium Root Die Back (Pythium spp.)

MCDONALD M R & VANDER KOOI KU of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture, Muck Crops Research Station

EVALUATION OF TELONE C-17 FOR THE CONTROL OF NEMATODESAND PYTHIUM ROOT DIE BAC~2000

MATERIALS: TELONE C-17 (dichloropropene and chloropicrin)

MEmODS: The trial was established on a commercial farm in Bradford, Ontario. Severe stuntingcaused by pythium root die back was noted in the fields in previous years during commercial production.Carrots were seeded on hills (86 em apart) in organic peat soil ( organic matter 50%, pH 6.0) on 30 May2000 using a tractor-mounted seeder. Treatments were four hills wide, 10 meters in length with sixreplications per treatment. Each treatment was applied under the center ofeach hill at a depth of20 em,using a John-Blue fumigator shank. TELONE C-17 was applied at a rate of 57 LIha ofproduct. A checkwas included adjacent to each ofthe fumigated areas. Soil samples were taken on 11 Jul to determine ifnematode populations were present in the field. Samples of2.33 meters of row were harvested on 30 Oct.Carrots were graded for marketability, nematode damage and Pythium. The 0-5 scale rating from Bellarand Boivin 1988 was used to assess pythium damage. The air temperatures were above the long term (10year) average for May (13.6 "C), below average for June (17.5 "C), July (18.7 "C) and August (18.7 "C)and average for September (14.5 "C). Total rainfallwas above the long term (10 year) average for May(160.3 mm.), June (173.4 mm), and August (75.7 mm), below average for September (79.8 nun) andaverage for July (86.4). Data were analyzed using the Gosset Paired T Test ofthe One, Two and Multi­sample Tests of Statistix, V. 4.1.

RESULTS: As outlined in Table 1.

CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were observed among the treatments. Heavy rainfall in lateMay and early June could be responsible for the high levels ofpythium in the TELONE C-17 treatment.No phytotoxicity was observed in the initial stand or the final yield.

Partial funding for this project was made available by OMAFRA Food Systems 2002, AgroSprayLtd, and Dow AgriSciences.

Table 1. Comparison of TELONE C-17 at 34 Llha and 57 Llha for the control of root knot and lesionnematodes and Pythium root die back. 2000.

Treatment .

TELONEC-17

TELONEC-17

RateL/ha

o

34

%Marketable

73.1

73.8

% Lesionnematode

4.41

6.95

LesionRating

3.0

3.3

%Pythiumroot die back

19.5

18.1

PythiumRating

3.3

3.3

P = 0.05 NS * NS NS NS NS---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* No significant differences were observed among treatments (P = 0.05), Gosset Paired T Test.

CROP:PEST:

AUTHORS:

TITLE:

Carrot (Daucus carota subsp. sativus (Hoffm.) Arkang.), cv. CellobunchSclerotinia rot, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) De Bary and other potential post­harvest/storage pathogens

KORA C 1, MCDONALD MR2 & BOLAND GJ 1

•

I U of Guelph, Dept. of Environmental Biology2 U of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture, Muck Crops Research Station

CHARACTERIZATION OF FUNGI COLONIZING WOODEN PALLET BOXESUSED FOR CARROT STORAGE, 2000

- 31 -

MATERIALS: Potato Dextrose Agar (PDA) Media (39 gIL liter of water); storage wooden pallets.

METHODS: This study was conducted in the storage facilities of a commercial carrot production farmin the Bradford Holland Marsh, Ontario, during summer 2000. Infested pallets were scraped with ascalpel on the inner and outer surfaces where white patches of mycelial growth were observed. A total of43 samples were collected from pallets of two rotation cycles: pallets that were used to store carrotsduring 1998-1999 and onions during 1999-2000; and pallets that stored onions during 1998-1999 andcarrots during 1999-2000. Samples were col1ected in 23 Jun, directly plated on PDA medium andincubated in a growth chamber at 20 ± 1°C. Detailed macroscopic and microscopic examination oftheresulting pure cultures were conducted for the identification of colonizing fungi. A frequency distributionanalysis was performed to determine the prevalence of each of the recovered fungi in both rotationcycles. Data were analysed using Proc Univariate procedure of SAS System for Windows ver. 6.12.

Pathogenicity test: A pathogenicity test was conducted to determine the pathogenicity of the recoveredfungi to carrot. Eight healthy carrot tap roots of cv. Cellobunch were washed, surface sterilized andartificial1y inoculated with a 7 mm mycelial agar disk from 3-day-old cultures of each of the recoveredisolates. Inoculated carrots were placed in aluminum trays with a moistened paper towel and incubated at20±I oC in the dark. Disease symptoms were observed and longitudinal diameter of the lesions wasrecorded at 7 and 14 days after inoculation.

Wood survival test: A wood survival test was conducted to determine the ability of the recovered fungi tosurvive and grow on wood. Wood blocks of 5x10 ern were cut from pallets, autoclaved and artificial1yinoculated with two 7 mm mycelial agar discs of3-day-old cultures of the recovered isolates (total of 8inoculations per isolate). The inoculated wood pieces were placed in plastic crispers with a moistenedpaper towel and incubated in the dark at 20 ± 1°C. Colony size was recorded at 7 and 14 days afterinoculation by measuring the diameter of each colony under a stereo-microscope.

RESULTS: As presented in Table I and 2.

CONCLUSIONS:

Eight genera of fungi were isolated and characterized from 43 samples collected from wooden palletsused for carrot and onion cold storage, including Alternaria spp., Aspergillus spp., Botrytis spp.,Fusarium spp., Penicillium spp., Rhizopus stolonifer, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and Trichoderma spp. Thefrequency distribution analysis indicated that Trichoderma spp. (23.5%), followed by Rhizopus spp.(22.1 %) were the most prevalent in the carrot-onion rotation pallets and none of the samples testedpositive for S. sclerotiorum. In onion - carrot pal1ets, Rhizopus stolonifer (45.0%) followed by

- 32 -

Trichoderma spp. (30.0%) had the highest prevalence and only two samples tested positive for S.sclerotiorum (3.3%) (Table I).

The pathogenicity test indicated that only two -of eight tested isolates were non pathogenic to carrots,including Trichoderma spp. and Penicillium spp. Whereas Alternaria spp., Aspergillus spp., Botrytisspp., Fusarium spp., R stolonifer and S. sclerotiorum caused various degrees of rots and decays on carrotroots. However the most severe and rapid damage after 7 and 14 days of inoculation was caused by R..stolonifer with a lesion diameter of 184.6 mm and total root disintegration respectively, followed by S.sclerotiorum (85.9 mm and 215.3 mm respectively).

The wood survival test indicated that all tested fungi survived on wood and produced profuse mycelialgrowth and sporulation at 7 and 14 days after inoculation. However, R stolonifer grew most rapidly byreaching a colony diameter of 76.4 mm, followed by Aspergillus spp. (75.1 mm) 14 days afterinoculation.

Recycling untreated wooden pallets may pose multiple threats to long-term carrot storage and adesinfestation process might be considered to avoid losses due to pathogenic inocula carried in them.However, additional trials need to be conducted to determine the actual risk that the recovered fungi poseto carrot roots under cold storage conditions. Potential carry-over ofS. sclerotiorum inoculum on thewooden pallets to subsequent storage seasons appeared unlikely.

Partial funding for this project is made available by Ontario Research Enhancement Programthrough, Bradford & District Vegetable Growers Association, Research and Development SafetyNet Fund through Ontario Fruit & Vegetable Growers Association and Natural Sciences andEngineering Research Council of Canada.

Table 1. Relative occurrence frequency of fungi recovered from infested carrot - onion and onion - carrotrecycled storage wooden pallets in a commercial storage facility in the Bradford Holland Marsh, 2000.

•

Recovered fungi Carrot - Onion Onion - Carrot--- -----------------

Occurrence (#) Relative Frequency (%) Occurrence (#) Relative Frequency(%)

Alternaria spp.Aspergillus spp.Botrytis spp.Fusarium spp.Penicillium spp.Rhizopus spp.Sclerotinia spp.Trichoderma spp.

Total

152I6

1315o

16

68

22.062.941.478.82

19.1222.06

0.0023.53

100.00

3oo28

272

18

60

5.000.000.003.33

13.3345.003.3330.00

100.00

Table 2. Lesion rating on carrots and colony rating on wood 7 and 14 days after inoculation with thetested fungi in laboratory trials, 2000.

- 33 -

Isolate tested Mean lesion diameter* on carrot (mm) Mean colony diameter on wood (mm)

7 d.a.i** 14d.a.i. 7 d.a.i. 14 d.a.i.

Alternaria spp. 10.5 NA*** 26.0 NAAspergillus spp. 10.5 24.2 26.6 75.1Botrytis spp. 53.7 NA 17.8 29,8Fusarium spp. 25.0 80.4 37.5 57.0Penicillium spp. 0.0 0.0 28.7 73.3Rhizopus spp. 184.6 NA 50.9 76.4Sclerotinia spp. 85.9 215.3 26.1 47.4Trichoderma spp. 0.0 0.0 32.2 59.8

*

**

***

Longitudinal diameter;

Days after inoculation;

Data not available;

- 34 -

CROP:PEST:

AUTHORS:

TITLE:"

Carrot (Daucus carola subsp. sativus (Hoffm.)Arkang.), cv. CellobunchSclerotinia rot, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) DeBary

Kora CI, MCDONALD MR2 & BOLANDGJI•

I U ofGuelph, Dept. of Environmental Biology2 U of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture, Muck Crops Research Station

ASSESSMENT OF NATURALLY PRODUCED SCLEROTIA OF Sclerotiniasclerotiorum WITHIN A CARROT FIELD, 2000.

MATERIALS: 2% Sodium Hypochlorite (NaOCI) solution. sieves (l.4, 2.0 and 3.35 mm pore size).

METHODS: Carrots were direct seededwith a precision seeder (90-100 seeds/m) in organic soil (pH 6.4,organic matter 60%) naturally infested with Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, at the Muck Crop Research Station(MCRS) on 31 May. The carrots were planted on raised beds, 86 em apart. Recommended applications forweed and insect control were followed accordingto OMAFRA Publication363, VegetableProductionRecommendations 2000-2001 and no fungicide treatments were applied. The air temperatures were abovethe long-term (l0 Year) average for May, below average for June, July and August, and average forSeptember. Total rainfall was above the long-term (l0 year) for May (160.3 mm), June (173.4 mm) andAugust (75.7 mm), below average for September(79.8 mm)and average for July (86.4mm).

To quantify the population size ofsclerotia ofS. sclerotiorum producednaturally withinthe field, and toestimate the potential of inoculumbuild-up, soil sampleswere collectedfrom six randomlyselectedsites ofthe experimental plot at the end ofthe growingseason. prior to harvest, on 24 Nov. The sampleswerecollected by scraping into a plastic bag the 0.5 em top layer of soil fromthe surface of one side ofcarrothill underthe canopy measuring 0.44 m2 (l m longx 0.44 m wide). The soil samples were oven-dried atabout 70DC for 24 hrs and then dry-sievedthrough a sievewith 1.4 nun pore size. The soil residue retainedon the sievewas washed under runningtap water to remove the remaining soil particles under 1.4 mID anddrainedthoroughly. The remaining soil mass was bleachedwith 2% sodiumhypochlorite solution untilsatisfactory discolouration of soil particles was observed(about 10 min) so that black sclerotiawere moreeasily identified. The samples werethen rinsed,drainedthoroughly and air-dried for 12 hrs. Sclerotia wereremoved from the bleachedsoil samples using fine forceps, enumerated and the number of sclerotia per unitsurface was estimatedfor each sample site.

A set ofthree different pore size sieves, ranging from 1.4 mm, 2.0 mmto 3.35 mm, were usedto ratesclerotia and determinetheir size ranges.

RESULTS: As presented in Table 1.

CONCLUSIONS

An average of 69 sclerotia/rrr' were recovered fromthe soil surface ofthe sampledcarrot field. The leveloffoliar infection in the field (maximum 28.9%) and the numerous sclerotiaobservedon and in the proximityof infected leaves, suggests that most of recovered sclerotia may have originatedand releasedon the soilsurface by the precedingcarrot crop. Likely, relativelydry weather conditions that characterizedthe secondhalfofpast summer, may have been favourable and induciveto the productionof considerable amounts ofsclerotia on the infectedfoliar tissues. The incorporationof infectedleaf residues left in the field after themechanical harvest, may also contributeto newlyformed sclerotia in soil. Althoughthe viability of soil

over-wintered sclerotia may drastically decrease, newly produced sclerotia may exceed the naturaldegradation rate (especially during prolonged periods of favorable weather conditions) and thus contributeto the overall increase of inoculum in soil which may eventually become a threat to the next carrot crop.Recovered sclerotia had irregular shape and variable sizes ranging from> 1.4 to :s:3.35 rnm.

Partial funding for this project is made available by Ontario Research Enhancement Programthrough, Bradford & District Vegetable Growers Association, Research and Development Safety NetFund through Ontario Fruit & Vegetable Growers Association and Natural Sciences andEngineering Research Council of Canada.

Table 1. Quantity and size ofnaturally produced sclerotia ofSclerotinia sclerotiorum recovered from soilsurface layer ofan experimental carrot field, at Muck Crop Research Station, Ontario, 2000.

Estimate Sclerotia size rating* (%)Sample ofsite Sclerotia/nr' >1.4 mm to :s:2.0 mm >2.0 mm to :s:3.35 mm

1 36 31 692 140 58 423 70 35 654 27 33 675 06 140 48 52

Average 69 41% 59%

* Based on the original number of recovered sclerotia.

- 35 -

- 36 -

CROP:PEST:

AUTHORS:

TITLE:

Carrot (Daucus carota subsp. sativus (Hoffm.) Arkang.), cv. CellobunchSclerotinia rot, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) De Bary

KORA C1, MCDONALD MR 2 & BOLAND GJ I

•

I U of Guelph, Dept. of Environmental Biology2 U of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture, Muck Crops Research Station

PROGRESS OF FOLIAR INFECTION ON FIELD GROWN CARROTS CAUSEDBY Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, AND ITS DEVELOPMENT ON STORED CARROTROOTS, 2000.

MATERIALS: Sclerotinia Selective Media (SSM) consisting of39 g Potato Dextrose Agar (PDA), 25 gPentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB), 150 g Penicillin, 150 g Streptomycin sulphate and 50 g Bromophenolblue per 1 liter of distilled water.

METHODS: Carrots were direct seeded with a precision seeder (90-100 seeds/m) in organic soil (pH6.4, organic matter 60%) naturally infested with Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, at the Muck Crop ResearchStation (MCRS) on 31 May. The carrots were planted on raised beds, 86 cm apart. A diamond shapedpattern was used to set up 8 sample sites for conducting disease monitoring. Each sample site was a 2 mlong and 86 em wide section of carrot row. Weather factors, such as air temperature and relativehumidity, soil temperature and water content, leaf wetness and rainfall, were continuously monitored bya series of sensors attached to a micrologger (CR 21X, Campbell Scientific, Inc.). Recommendedapplications for weed and insect control were followed according to OMAFRA Publication 363,Vegetable Production Recommendations 2000-2001 and no fungicide treatments were applied.

To monitor foliar infection in the field, two full carrots were randomly collected from each sampling sitestarting 04 Aug. Four random leaflet (2-3 em ) and four random petiole (4-5 cm ) sub-samples were cutrespectively from young and healthy leaves in upright position and from senescent leaves in contact withthe ground, still attached to the plant. The sub-samples were surface sterilized (30 seconds in 70%ethanol, 1 minute in 10% Javex, 3 minutes in sterile water), blot-dried and plated in SSM plates (fourpieces/each). The plated sub-samples were incubated for 7-14 days at 20-21"C. The presence ofS.sclerotiorum was identified with the change of the media colour from blue to yellow and was confirmedby sclerotia formation. The units that tested positive were enumerated and percent infection wascalculated based on the total number of observed units. Samples were collected on 4, 11, 18 Aug, 6, 15,26, Sep, 3 and 10 Oct. The air temperatures were above the long-term (10 year) average for May, belowaverage for June, July and August, and average for September. Total rainfall was above the long-term(10 year) for May (160.3 mm), June (173.4 mm) and August (75.7 mm), below average for September(79.8 mm) and average for July (86.4 mm).

To monitor disease incidence and severity over time in storage conditions, a sample of 180 carrots washarvested from each sample site on 24 Nov. After the tops were removed, the unwashed carrots rootsfrom each sample site were randomly divided into 6 polyethylene net bags (30 roots in each bag) andstored in a cold temperature controlled Filacell storage at 1.0 ± 1.0 °C and 90 ± 5% relative humidity.The carrots will be assessed for sclerotinia rot incidence and severity at one month intervals for a periodof 6 months from harvest, by assigning one carrot bag from each sample site to every assessment date.The disease incidence will be determined as the percent of infected carrot roots. To estimate diseaseseverity, a disease index will be calculated based on a 5 classes severity scale which accounts for thelesion coverage of each infected root, as follows: class 1: healthy; class 2: 1-25% infected; class 3: 26­50% infected; class 4: 51-75% infected; class 5: 76-100% infected). A regression analysis will be

performed on the data using the Linear Regression procedure of the Linear Model section of Statistixfor Windows ver. 4.1.

RESULTS: As presented in Table 1.The storage component of the experiment is still in progress.However, over the first three months evaluation period, no disease was observed on stored carrots.

CONCLUSIONS: The symptoms of sclerotinia rot appeared about one month earlier than the previousseason in a nearby commercial field. First symptoms in the field were observed on 18 Aug (3.9%). Afteronset, the disease progressed rapidly. Infection reached a peak of 22.6% on 6 Sep and a maximum of28.9% on 10 Oct. Early start of the disease may be related to long periods of cool weather and frequentheavy rainfalls that characterized spring months and the beginning of summer. Symptoms were readilyobserved on senescent leaves in contact with soil and the infection rapidly spread from plant to plantthrough physical contact of leaves. The infection was observed to rapidly progress from the leaves,through the petiole, toward the crown, however, at harvest, only a few carrot roots had symptoms ofsclerotinia rot.

Partial funding for this project was made available by Ontario Research Enhancement Programthrough Bradford & District Vegetable Growers Association, Research and Development SafetyNet Fund through Ontario Fruit & Vegetable Growers Association and Natural Sciences andEngineering Research Council of Canada.

Table 1. Progress of foliar infection on carrot leaves caused by Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, on anexperimental plot during summer 2000, at the Muck Crop Research Station, Ontario.

--------------- ------Sample Infected foliar sub-samples" (%)site ------------------------

11 Aug 18 Aug 6 Sep 15 Sep 26 Sep 3 Oct 10 Oct------- --------

1 0 0 0 0 0 43.7 37.52 0 0 25.0 0 31.2 6.2 43.73 0 0 37.5 37.5 43.7 12.5 12.54 0 18.7 0 25.0 6.2 50.0 25.05 0 12.5 0 0 0 31.2 37.56 0 0 37.5 6.2 43.7 0 07 0 0 25.0 6.2 31.2 12.5 43.78 0 0 56.3 0 31.2 56.2 31.2

------------Plotaverage** 0 3.9 22.6 9.4 23.4 26.6 28.9

* Surface sterilized leaflet and petiole sub-samples from eachsamplesite.

** Mean infected sub-samples for the plot over the growing season.

- 37 -

- 38 -

CROP:PEST:

AUTHORS:

TITLE:

Carrot (Daucus carota subsp. sativus (Hoffm.) Arkang.) cvs. Indiana and IdahoAlternaria (Alternaria dauci) and Cercospora (Cercospora carotae) leaf blight andcavity spot (Pythium intermedium de Bary, Pythium irregulare Buisman and Pythiumsulcatum Pratt and Mitchell)

WESTERVELD SI, McKEOWN AI, SCOIT-DUPREE C2& McDONALD MR 1

IU of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture,2Uof Guelph, Dept. of Environmental Biology

EFFECT OF DIFFERENT NITROGEN RATES ON YIELD, QUALITY,STORABILITY, AND DISEASE DEVELOPMENT IN CARROTS ANDANALYSIS OF CROP NITROGEN STATUS THROUGH NEW TECHNOLOGY

MATERIALS: CALCIUM AMMONIUM NITRATE (nitrogen 27.5%), MINOLTA SPAD-502chlorophyll meter, HORIBA 'CARDY' MODEL C-141 nitrate meter

METHODS: Carrots were seeded (90-100 seeds/m) into muck soil (pH 6.4, organic matter 60%) at theMuck Crops Research Station on 28 Jul 2000. A randomized complete block arrangement with fourblocks per treatment was used. Each replicate consisted of2 rows Indiana and 2 rows Idaho on raisedbeds (86 em apart), 5 m in length. Nitrogen rates were based on the OMAFRA recommendation for mucksoil of 60 kg N/ha. CALCIUM AMMONIUM NITRATE was the N source for all treatments. Rates of0%, 50%, 100%, 150%, and 200% of the recommended N rate were applied. In a final treatment, 50%recommended N was applied preplant, and sidedresses were to be based on chlorophyll meter results. Inthis treatment, no sidedresses were indicated by chlorophyll meter results. At two times during thegrowing season (6 Oct and 27 Oct) soil samples, tissue samples, and chlorophyll and nitrate meterreadings were taken from Idaho plants for comparison of results. Chlorophyll readings were taken from afully mature leaf and nitrate meter readings were taken from petiole sap and a soil extract. Soil and tissuesamples were sent for lab analysis. Meter readings are being compared to lab results to identify themethod that is most accurate in identifying nitrogen deficiencies as they occur. All treatments were ratedbi-weekly for both Alternaria and Cercospora combined. Yield samples were taken from 2.33 m of rowon 17 Nov. Carrots were graded into cut and peel categories for total yield, marketable yield, and size inOctober. Cavity spot was rated on 20 carrots of each cultivar and treatment and the rating was based onthe size of the lesions and the % infection. The air temperatures were above the long term (10 year)average for July, August and October, average for September, and below average for November. Totalrainfall was above the long term (10 year) average for August (75.7 mm) and November (58.0 mm),below average for September (79.8 mm) and October (28.0 mm) and average for July (86.4 mm). Datawere analyzed using the General Analysis of Variance function of the Linear Models section of StatistixVA. I.

RESULTS: Yield and cavity spot data are presented in Table I. Nitrogen rates had no significant effecton yield, quality, or cavity spot development in carrots. However, late planting after spring floodingsignificantly reduced yields. Chlorophyll and nitrate data for the two sample days are shown in Table 2.Meter results did not reflect differences in yield for this season. Results of the lab analysis of soil andtissue samples have not been completed and consequently this data and the comparison of meter readingsto these results cannot be reported. Leaf blight symptoms never developed in this plot.

CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that carrots on muck soil do not respond to fertilizer nitrogenapplication. Meter readings confirmed that nitrogen levels were sufficient in all treatments. Differences inmeter readings were not likely due to deficiencies but to luxury nitrogen uptake by the high nitrogentreatments. Cavity spot was unaffected by treatment, however the short season reduced the disease levels

Treatments

in all treatments. While more results are needed before conclusions can be made, these early resultsindicate that OMAFRA nitrogen recommendations may need to be revised.

Funding for this project was provided by the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Grower'sAssociation and the Agricultural Adaptation Council Research and Development Safety Net Fund.

Table 1. Effect of nitrogen rates on total yield, percent ofyield in the desirable range, and cavity spot fortwo carrot cultivars in 2000

_________________lQ~9 1D9j~~ _

Total yield % carrots Cavity Total yield % carrots Cavity. i~~l J)~l)_DlQl §~Qt:! i-tQl~ J)~l)_DlQL §~Qt*_* _

okgNlha 26.55 a" 71.2 a 18.75 a 16.51 a 71.6 a 27.50 a

30 kg Nlha 23.33 a 77.9 a 8.75 a 14.88 a 72.8 a 32.50 a

60 kg Nlha 23.36 a 74.0 a 6.25 a 14.35 a 74.6 a 5.00 a

90kgNlha 20.65 a 79.8 a 17.50a 13.29 a 78.7 a 22.50 a

120kgNlha 19.63 a 78.1a 7.50a 13.99 a 78.4 a 41.25 a

30 kg Nlha +chloro h II meter 24.13a 73.7a 2I.25 a 16.26a 73.9 a 33.75 a

._-----p-~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at

P=0.05, Fisher's Protected LSD Test

- 39 -

** Level of carrot infection (%) multiplied by degree of infection (O=none I =very light2=light 3=medium 4=heavy 5=very heavy)

Table 2. Effect of nitrogen rates on chlorophyll, sap nitrate, and soil nitrate concentrations in Idahocarrots at sampling dates in 2000.

Sampling Data 6 Oct, 2000 Sampling Data 27 Oct, 2000-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treatments Chlorophyll Sap S '1 Nitr t Chlorophyll Sap S '1 Nitr t. 01 I a e . 01 I a e(SPAD NItrate () (SPAD NItrate ( )

. ~lli!S) ~~) ~~_~ ~~~~ lQP~ ~~~ _

No nitrogen 30.1c* 295.00c 22.50c 33.8a 110.3b 19.25c

30 kg Nlha

60 kg Nlha

90 kg Nlha

34.2 ab

32.4 be

35.4 a

380.00 be 24.25 bc

485.00 ab 28.00 abc

486.25 ab 30.00 ab

35.1 a

36.3 a

36.9 a

127.1 b

177.3 ab

174.0 ab

23.75 bc

26.50 ab

28.75 ab

120 kg Nlha 31.8 bc 626.25 a 33.00 a 35.8 a 232.5 a 30.50 a

30 kgNlha +chloro h II meter 33.3 ab 422.50 be 25.75 be 37.2 a 106.5 b 24.75 b

._-----~~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P=0.05, Fisher's

Protected LSD Test.

- 40 -

CROP:PEST:

AUTHORS:

TITLE:

Carrot (Daucus carota) cv. CandystickDADS residue on Carrots

MCDONALD MR & VANDER KOOI KU ofGuelph, Dept. of Plant Agricuhure, Muck Crops Research Station

TASTE TEST OF CARROTS GROWN IN SOIL TREATED WITH DADS, 2000

MATERIALS: DADS (diallyl disulphide 78%, related compounds 12%)

METHODS: Carrots were direct seeded (96 seeds/m) into soil whichhad been treated with DADS prior toseedingon 15 100 using a StanHay precision seeder. Carrots were grown to maturity and harvested on 28Oct. Carrots were then stored in a Filacell storage at 1°Cand 90% humidity until 7 Mar when the tastetesting took place. The carrot samples includedwere: untreated: Cellobunch a standard packaging carrotcuhivar, a Nantes type carrot which are known for there sweet flavour, Fontana a standard processingcuhivar, a tmtreated check from the plot, and treated: carrots grown in the DADS treated soil. Theevaluation panel consisted offive people. Before sampling took place five carrots ofeach cultivar werewashed and cut into 0.5-0.8 em discs. For each sample the middlearea ofthe carrot was used. Eachcarrot sample was evaluated for harsh biting flavour, sweetness, overall carrot flavour and generalpreference. Carrots were also tested for sugar content using a hand held Refractometer. Data wereanalyzed using the General Analysisof Variance function ofthe Linear Models section of Statistix V.4.1.

RESULTS: As presented in Table 1.

CONCLUSIONS: Two separate taste test took place on consecutive days. No significant differences werefound betweentest, therefore the data was pooled for analysis. Significant differenceswere observedamong cuhivars in sweetness, overall carrot flavour, preference and sugar content. Both the DADS andcheck treatment of Candystick scored significantlybetter for sweetness, overall carrot flavour andpreference then the other cuhivars in the taste test. There were significant differences found in the sugarcontent, but not betweenthe DADS and check treatment of Candystick. It is clear that growing carrots insoil treated with DADS has no affect on taste or sugar content.

Table1. Summary of Carrot Taste Test on Carrots grown in DADS treated soil.

- 41 -

Treatment Harsh, BitingFlavour - A

Sweetness - B Overall Carrot Preference - DFlavour - C

SugarContent *

*

Check 2.75 a ** 4.00 ab 4.75 a 4.58 ab 9.83 b

DADS 2.75 a 5.00 a 4.33 ab 5.67 a 10.17 b

Nantes 4.00 a 3.08 be 3.00 e 2.58 e 8.83 e

Fontana 3.67 a 2.75 e 3.08 e 2.91 e 8.83 e

Cellobunch 3.50 a 3.83 be 3.33 be 3.58 be 11.33 a._-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flavour Scale = A-I = lacking in harshness or biting flavour7 =strong burning flavour, harsh., turpentine, or carrot top - like

B-1 = imperceptible7 =extremely sweet

C - 1 = weak carrot flavour7 = strong carrot flavour

D - 1 =dislike extremely7 =like extremely

* Sugar content measured in Brix.

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

- 42 -

CROP: Carrot (Daucus carota L.), cv. Six Pak - 1999, Cellobunch - 2000

AUTHORS: SWANTON CJ , lANSE S &_ CHANDLER KU of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture, Muck Crops Research Station.

TITLE: REDUCED Tll..LAGE SYSTEMS FOR CARROT PRODUCTION, 1999 and 2000

RATIONALE: Wind erosion is a major problem in muck soils and it threatens the sustainability of cropproduction. Vegetables such as onion and carrot are the major crops grown in such soils. These cropsare grown in rotation and their production relies on tillage systems that increase the susceptibility ofthesoil to erosion and oxidation. Soil erosion on such soils can be lessened by development of tillage andcropping systems that decrease the area of exposure of the soil to erosive forces.

METHODS: Trials were conducted in 1999 and 2000 to compare conventional and reduced tillagesystems for carrot production on muck soils. Trials were conducted on high organic soils (organic matter78%, pH 6.9) at the Muck Crop Research Station. A randomized complete block design arrangement withthree and four replications was used in 1999 and 2000, respectively. Treatments were imposed on singlebed width (1.72 m wide) plots in 1999 and double bed width plots in 2000. Plots were 5 m and 10mlong in 1999 and 2000, respectively. Treatments consisted of conventional tillage on flat beds,conventional tillage on raised beds, zone-till on flat beds, and zone-till on raised beds. Conventionaltillage was conducted in the spring and consisted of one pass with a disk followed by two passes with acultivator. Zone-tillage consisted of one pass before seeding with "Trans-till" units centered at theposition of each carrot row to a depth of25 ern. Carrots, cv. Six Pak and Cellobunch were seeded (87seed 1m) in rows 85 em apart on 15 May and 6 Jun, in 1999 and 2000, respectively. Recommendedmanagement practices for soil fertility and pest control were followed. Carrots were harvested from2.32 m of row on 13 Oct and 8 Nov, in 1999 and 2000, respectively and graded for size and yield. Datafor 1999 and 2000 were combined and analyzed by ANOVA. Year by treatment interactions onmarketable yield were not significant (P>0.05) therefore treatment effects averaged across years arepresented and means separated using Fisher's Protected LSD test.

RESULTS: As presented in Table 1.

CONCLUSIONS: Zone-till and conventional tillage produced similar carrot yields in all gradecategories. Similarly, yields did not differ when carrots were grown on hilled or flat beds. These resultssuggest significant reductions in tillage can be achieved which may improve the sustainability ofvegetable production on muck soils without compromising productivity. Further studies will beconducted to evaluate the effect of a reduced tillage carrot-onion rotation on crop yield and pestmanagement.

Table 1. Effect of ti lIage and bed type on carrot yield (1999 and 2000 combined).

- 43 -

Total Size (diameter)

Treatment Total Marketable" >1.75" 0.75 - 1.75"

---------tlha ------------------------------

Tillage

Conventional 58.19 40.98 5.65 35.34

Zone-till 53.58 37.06 4.79 32.27

LSD (0.05) NS NS NS NS

Bed

Hill 54.97 38.61 6.51 32.10

Flat 56.80 39.43 3.93 35.50

LSD (0.05) NS NS NS NS

Tillage x Bed

Conv. Hill 57.11 40.12 5.54 34.58

Conv. Flat 59.27 41.84 5.75 36.09

ZT Hill 52.82 37.10 7.48 29.62

ZT Flat 54.33 37.01 2.10 34.91

LSD (0.05) NS NS NS NS-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Total of all sizes

NS No significant differences (P =0.05, Fisher's Protected LSD test) between treatments.

- 44 -

CROP:PEST:

AUTHORS:

TITLE:

Celery (Apium graveolens L.), cv. Florida 683Pea Leafminer (PLM), Liriomyza huidobrensis (Blanchard)

HALLETT RH, MARTIN A, HEAL JD, AND SOPHER CRU of Guelph, Dept. of Environmental Biology

EFFICACY OF CITATION, AN INSECT GROWTH REGULATOR, ANDPARATHION FOR CONTROL OF PEA LEAFMINER ON CELERY, 2000

MATERIALS: CITATION 75WP (cyromazine 75%) and PARATmON 960 EC (parathion 96%)

METHODS: Celery seedlings cv. Florida 683 were grown in plug trays and then hand-transplanted atthe Muck Research Station near Kettleby, ON, on 13 Jul, 2000 in 6 row plots, 5 m in length, with a rowspacing of 55 em. Plots were separated by a 3 m spray lane (N-S) and a 1.5 m alley (E-W). Fourtreatments were replicated 5 times in a randomized complete block design. Treatment 1 was the control.Treatment 2 consisted of PARATmON 960 EC applied at a rate of288 g ai/ha on 26 Jul and 31 Aug.Treatment 3 consisted of CITATION 75 WP applied at a rate of70 g ai/ha on 26 Jul and 3, 17 and 31Aug. Treatment 4 consisted of CITATION 75 WP applied at a rate of 140 g ai/ha on 26 Jul and 3, 17,21, and 31 Aug. All treatments were applied with a pull type plot sprayer with TeeJet 0-2 hollow conenozzles at 690 kPa (boom) in 500 Llha water. Plots were monitored for leaf mining (caused by larvae)and stippling (caused by ovipositing adults) twice per week. Both sides of two leaves per plant on fiverandomly chosen plants per plot were examined. PLM mining damage was rated on a scale of 0 to 4 (0 =no mines; 1 =small mines (early instars); 2 =more extensive mines with mines coalescing into patches; 3= mines extend down petiole of leaf towards stalk; 4 = mines present on stalk). PLM stippling damagewas determined and rated on a scale of 0 to 2 (0 =no stipples; 1 = 1-10 stipples; 2 =>10 stipples perleaf). Season mean damage was calculated from all damage data collected after the first spraying (after26 July). Celery was harvested on 31 September. Ten plants from each plot were weighed and gradedaccording to damage. The total weight of all 10 plants was recorded before and after trimming. Thetrimmed weight of each plant was determined and rated on a scale of 0 to 2 (0 = < 0.80 kg; 1 = 0.80-0.99kg; 2 = ~ 1.0 kg). Mining damage was determined before and after trimming and rated on a scale of 0 to 4(0 =all stalks undamaged; 1 = 1-25% of stalks damaged; 2 =26-50% of stalks damaged; 3 =51-75% ofstalks damaged; 4 = 75-100% of stalks damaged). Differences in ratings and weights among treatmentswere determined using analysis of variance and a Duncan's multiple range test.

RESULTS: The results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.

CONCLUSIONS: Mining damage was most reduced for the higher CITATION 75 WP rate(Treatment 4) and this was significantly different from damage on PARATmON 960 EC plots but notsignificantly different from the other two treatments (Table 1). Stippling damage was most reduced forthe higher CITATION 75 WP rate and this was significantly different from the other treatments. Meanweight per plant was greatest in the higher CITATION 75 WP rate but these differences were notsignificant (Table 2). At harvest, mining damage was the least in the two CITATION 75 WP treatmentgroups and these differences were significant. No phytotoxic effects were observed in any of thetreatments.

Table 1. Season mean pea leafrniner mining and stippling damage on celery treated with CITATION75WP and PARATHION 960 EC, near Kettleby, ON, 2000

- 45 -

TreatmentNo.

Insecticide RateRating for Indicated Damage

stippling/

none 1.46 ± 0.OSab3 1.86 ± 0.02a

2 PARATHION 288 g ai per ha 1.48 ± O.OSa 1.92 ± 0.02b960EC

3 CITATION 70 g ai per ha 1.39 ± O.OSab 1.86 ± 0.02a75WP

4 CITATION 140 ai per ha 1.33 ± O.OSb 1.80 ± 0.02c75WP

0= least, 4 = greatest degree of damage (± standard error).

0= least, 2 = greatest degree of damage (± standard error).

Values followed by the same letter, within the same column, are not significantly different(P>O.OS); Duncan's multiple range test.

- 46 -

Table 2. Mean weight per plant and pea leafminer damage of celery treated with CITATION 75 WPand PARATIDON 960 EC, near Kettleby, ON, 2000.

Damagewt. Class'

Post-trimmingPre-trimmingInsecticideand Rate

TreatNo. Wt/plant Damage I Wt/plant

(kg) (kg)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

none 0.85 ± 0.06a3 2.48 ± 0.09a 0.55 ± 0.03a 0.02 ± 0.02a 2.46 ± 0.08a

2 PARATIDON 0.82 ± 0.06a 2.58 ± 0.08a 0.56 ± 0.04a 0.14 ± 0.06a 2.50 ± 0.09a960EC

288 g ai per ha

3 CITATION 0.93 ± 0.06a 2.10±O.lOb 0.61 ± 0.03a 0.10±0.04a 1.88 ± O.IOb75WP

70 g ai per ha

4 CITATION 0.95 ± 0.09a 2.04 ± O.llb 0.62 ± 0.05a 0.16 ± 0.05a 1.76±0.IOb75WP

140 ai per ha._----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rated on a scale of 0 to 4 (0 =all stalks undamaged; I = 1-25% of stalks damaged; 2 =26-50%of stalks damaged; 3 =51-75% of stalks damaged; 4 =75-100% of stalks damaged).

Rated on a scale of 0 to 2 (0 =< 0.80 kg; 1 = 0.80-0.99 kg; 2 = ~ 1.0 kg).

Values followed by the same letter, within the same column, are not significantly different(P>0.05); Duncan's multiple range test.

CROP: Chinese broccolilkale (Gai Ian Brassica alboglabra),Big leaf mustard (Dai lai choy Brassicajuncea var.foliosa),Shanghai pak choy (Shanghai choy sum, Brassica campestris Chinensis var. utilisy;Flowering leaf cabbage (Nai Yow choy Brassica campestris Chinensis group var. utilis),Chinese broccoli (Guy Lon), Pak choy (Mei Qing Choi)

PEST: Clubroot, Plasmodiophora brassicae (Woronin)

AumoRS: MCDONALD, M.R., KORNATOWSKA, B., VANDER KOOI, K. & Mc KEOWN A.U of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture, Muck Crops Research Station

TITLE: MANAGEMENT OF CLUBROOT OF ASIAN CRUCIFER CROPS, 2000

MATERIALS: PERLKA (50% calcium oxide, 20% nitrogen, 1.5% magnesium oxide), AGRAL 90(90% nonylphenoxypolyet:hoxy ethanol), Lime (calcitic, 22% calcium, 3% magnesium) SOLUBOR(20.5% boron)

MEmODS: Two trials (sites I & 2) in organic muck soil ( pH 6.4) were established in the HollandMarsh, Ontario (44° 5' N, 79° 35' W). Both sites were naturally infectedwith the clubroot pathogen. Thetrials consisted of 8 treatments with a randomized complete block arrangement (4 blocks per treatment).Each replicate consisted of eight rows (42 em apart), 5 m in length. Each site was direct seeded (site 1:12Jun, site 2: 24 Aug) with 4 cu1tivars of Asian crucifers (obtained from local grower) with a StanHayprecision seeder. The recommended nitrogen check (100 kg/ha N) was seeded with two additional cultivarsobtained from a commercial seed source (site I). PERLKA (calcium cyanamide) at 1000 kg/ha (200kg/ha N) and a high nitrogen check at 200 kgJha (N) were applied at 14 days prior to seeding. All othertreatments (except drench) were applied 7 days prior to seeding. At site I, the treatments were: PERLKAat a rate of 1000 kg/ha, 500 kgIhaand 1000 kgIha (in 20 em bands) and calcitic lime at 8 tons/ha. A drenchtreatment ofAGRAL 90 at 0.5% ( 50 ml/plant) was applied by hand around the base ofthe plants 21days after seeding. At site 2, the lime and AGRAL 90 treatments were replaced with - a: PERLKA at 500kg/ha + 1% AGRAL 90 sprayed over PERLKA and b: PERLKA at 500 kgIha + SOLUBOR at 14.6kg/ha. All treatments (except drench) were broadcast by hand onto measured areas to ensure uniformity ofapplication and incorporated to a depth of 5-10 em. Soil samples were taken for pH analysis prior tofertilizer applications and bi-weekly during the crop growth. The air temperatures were above the longterm (10 year) average for May (13.6°C), below average for June (17.5°C), July (18.7°C) and August

(l8.TC). Total rainfall was above the long term average for May (160.3 nun), June (173.4 nun), andAugust (75.7 nun) and average for July (86.4 nun). Weed germination counts of I m2 were taken on 3 Juland 24 Jul (site I). A yield sample of30 plants from each replication and each variety were was taken atharvest on 24 JuI (site I) and 4 Oct (site 2). The roots were graded for clubroot incidence and severity.Disease severity was assessed using a scale from zero to three: (zero - no clubbing, one - < 25% of rootsystem clubbed, two - 25 to 50% of root system clubbed and three - > 50% root system clubbed)(Humpherson-Jones, 1989. Tests. Agro. Cult. 10: 36-37) and disease index was calculated (Scott andHollins, 1974. Ann. Appl. BioI. 78: 269-279). Data were analyzed using the General Analysis of Variancefunction ofthe Linear Models section ofStatistix V.4.1.

RESULTS: As presented in Tables 1-5 and Figure I.

CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were found among the effects oftreatments and between thesusceptibility of cultivars to clubroot. Significantly lower total clubroot incidence and index wereobserved in plants which were treated with PERLKA at 1000 kg/ha applied 7 days before seeding. This

- 47 -

- 48 -

treatment also significantly reduced total disease incidence and index in comparison to the recommendedrates of lime and the AGRAL 90 treatment. Shanghai pak choy had significantly higher clubroot incidenceand index than other cultivars at site 1. No differences in clubroot incidence and index were found betweengrower and commercial cultivars. The high nitrogen treatment (200 kgIha)had significantly higher yieldsof Chinese broccoli and Leafmustard. PERLKA at 1000 kgIha appeared to increase the yield of Chinesebroccoli. All PERLKA treatments except the PERLKA band application significantly reduced the totalnumber ofweeds at both assessments compared to most treatments. Soil pH in all PERLKA treatmentswas considerably higher in comparison to other treatments. The effect appeared to last for at least 4weeks from application and proves the liming ability ofPERLKA.

Partial funding (or this project was made available by Perform Trading Inc.

Table 1. Clubroot incidence (%) and total disease index in Asian crucifers at harvest at site 1.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------Treatments Rate Chinese Flowering Shanghai Leaf Total Total(days before kgIha broccoli cabbage pakchoy mustard Clubroot Diseaseseeding) Incidence Index-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Check (7) 100 (N) 16.7NS 1 22.5 r? 46.7NS 18.3 a 26.0 cd 14.6 c

High Nitrogen 200 (N) 20.8 23.3 c 44.2 45.8 b 33.5 d 20.1 cCheck (14)

PERLKA (14) 1000 12.5 5.0 ab 17.5 11.7 a 11.7 ab 7.8 a

PERLKA (7) 1000 11.7 1.7 a 18.3 6.7 a 9.6 a 5.4 a

PERLKA(7) 500 17.5 17.5 be 27.5 11.7 a 18.5 abc 12.0 be

PERLKAband 1000 16.7 5.0 ab 30.0 6.7 a 14.6 abc 9.0 ab(7)

Calcitic Lime (7) 8tJba 13.3 12.5 abc 41.7 20.8 a 22.1 bed 13.1bc

AGRAL90 . 0.5 % 13.3 20.8 c 40.8 23.3 a 24.6 cd 15.8 c(21 - after) solution------------------------------------------------------------Main effect of cultivar*** 15.3 a 18.1 a 33.3 b 13.5 a-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 NS - no significant treatment effects were observed

2 Numbers in the colunm followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P< 0.05,Fisher's Protected LSD test.

3 Total mean clubroot incidence in each cultivar

Table 2. Comparison of club root incidence (%) in Asian cu1tivars obtained from grower and acommercially available seed source, site 1.

- 49 -

Treatments(days before seeding)

Check (7)

Ratekg/ha

100 (N)

Chinesebroccoli(grower)

16.7 NS*

Chinesebroccoli(Stokes)

15.0NS

Shanghaipak choy(grower)

46.7 NS

Shanghaipakchoy(Stokes)

35.0NS

* NS - no significant effect was observed

Table 3. Clubroot incidence (%) and disease index in Asian crucifers at harvest at site 2.

Treatments Rate Chinese Flowering Shanghai Leaf Total Total(days before kg/ha broccoli cabbage pakchoy mustard Clubroot Diseaseseeding) Incidence Index---------------------------------------------------------------------------Check (7) 100 (N) 0.8 NS* O.ONS 5.0NS O.ONS 1.5 NS 0.6NS

HigbNitrogen 200 (N) 9.2 2.5 5.8 3.3 5.2 2.6Check (14)

PERLKA (14) 1000 2.5 2.5 0.8 3.3 2.3 1.1

PERLKA(7) 1000 2.5 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3

PERLKA (7) 500 4.2 1.7 3.3 0.0 2.3 1.0

PERLKA band 1000 1.7 0.8 5.0 0.0 1.9 0.9(7)

PERLKA+ 500+ 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.1AGRAL90(7) 1%

PERLKA+ 500+ 2.5 0.0 4.2 0.0 1.7 0.6SOLUBOR(7) 14.6

----------------------------------------------------------Main effect of cultivar** 2.9 1.1 3.1 0.8---------------------------------------------------------------------------

*' NS - no significant treatment effects were observed

** Total mean clubroot incidence in each cu1tivar

- 50 -

Table 4. Total numberof weeds in Asiancrucifers (site 1).

Treatment Rate kg/ha 3 lul (m~* 24 lul (m~*

*

Check(7) 100 73.3 d** 28.8 d

High Nitrogen Check(14) 200 53.6 bcd 19.3 be

PERLKA(l4) 1000 22.8 a 8.8 a

PERLKA(7) 1000 17.8 a 12.6 ab

PERLKA(7) 500 32.5 ab 13.6 ab

PERLKA band (7) 1000 46.4 be 16.4 b

Calcitic Lime (7) 8 tlha 57.9 cd 19.3 bc

AGRAL 90 (21 - after) 0.5% solution 65.3 cd 24.8 cd

* Weedspresent in total number are: chickweed, common groundsel, oak-leaved goosefoot,maple-leaved goosefoot, portulaca, redrootpigweed, prostrate pigweed and biennialwormwood.

**Numbers in the colunm followed by the same letter are not significantly differentat P< 0.05,Fisher's ProtectedLSD test.

Table 5. Yield (g) per plant of Asian crucifers in site 1.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------Treatments Rate kg/ha Chinese Flowering Shanghai Leaf(days before seeding) broccoli cabbage pakchoy mustard-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Check(7) 100 (N) 54.9 c* 206.4 NS** 307.0 NS 103.5 b

High Nitrogen Check(14) 200 (N) 119.1 a 221.1 285.1 150.8 a

PERLKA(l4) 1000 96.3 ab 229.5 281.3 92.8 be

PERLKA(7) 1000 95.3 ab 213.5 305.7 99.8 be

PERLKA(7) 500 83.4 be 194.9 275.5 89.1 be

PERLKA band (7) 1000 70.4 be 153.1 247.6 73.8 c

Calcitic Lime (7) 8 tIha 78.0 be 199.0 317.3 104.4 b

AGRAL 90 (21 - after) 0.5% solution 70.9 be 167.8 256.1 79.6 be------------------------------------------------------------------------------* Numbers in the colwnnfollowed by the same letter are not significantly differentat P< 0.05,

Fisher's ProtectedLSD

**NS - no significanttreatment effectswere observed

Figure 1. Effect of clubroot treatme nts on soil pH at Asian vegetablesite (muck soil, site 1)

- .- Agllll90 (21afterseeding) •

- 51 -

.-----------~ -'

7

6.8

6.6

6.4:cc.

6.2

6

5.8

5.6o

""-~":::~:-

seeding 4

time[weeks]

6 harvest (8)

---.--- 2 x recommended N(14)

_ ••• -lime (7)

- - -0- - - recommended N (7)

--<>--P 500 kgIha (7)

• P1oookg(14)

--<>-- P 1000 kg (7)

---<>-- P 1000 kgIha band(7)

* the numbers in brackets indicate application time (days) prior to seeding

- 52 -

CROP:PEST:

AvmoRS:

TITLE:

Iceberg Head Lettuce iLactuca sativa L.) cv. IthacaDowny mildew, Bremia lactucae (Regal)

-MCDONALD M R., VANDER KOOI K. & ROBERTS L.U of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture, Muck Crops Research Station,

FIELD EVALVAnON OF BREMCAST: A FORECASTING SYSTEM FORDOWNY MILDEW OF LElTUCE, 2000.

MATERIALS: RIDOMIL GOLD MZ (metalaxyl- 3.9%, mancozeb 64%), RIDOMIL 240 EC(metalaxyl 240 gil) and ALIETIE (fosetyl 80%).

MEmODS: Lettuce was seeded on 7 Apr, 2000 into 128 cell plug trays at the Muck Crop ResearchStation (MCRS). The trial was transplanted (3 plants/meter, 4 rowslbed spaced 42 em apart) on 12 Mayinto organic muck soil pH 6.4, organic matter 60%). Assessments for downy mildew began aftertransplanting (12 May). Several times per week, between 8 and 11 am, 15 plants per replication wereassessed for downy mildew incidence until harvest. Each plot consisted of 4 treatments with 4 replicationsin a randomized complete block design. Fungicide treatments, were initiated following transplanting. Thefungicides were applied using a pull type plot sprayer with Tee jet D-2 hollow cone nozzles at 100 psi.(boom). The Conventional treatments (sprayed as recommended in the Ontario Ministry ofAgriculture,Food and Rural Affairs Vegetable Production Recommendations, Pub 363. 2000) were sprayed on a 7 to10 day (protection period) schedule with ALIEITE or a 14 to 21 day (protection period) schedule withRIDOMIL GOLD MZ. A RIDOMIL 240 EC drench before transplanting treatment was included,where subsequent fungicide applications began 29 days after transplanting using the BremCast ForecastingSystem (explained below).

BremCast (BREMia foreCAST) is software developed by Kushalappa (Kushalappa, 1999.PMRR. 218-219). BremCast forecasts/calculates daily infection values (INFV), sporulation values(SPOV), disease severity values (DSV)and cumulative disease severity values (CDSV) from planting untilharvest ofvarious host, pathogen/disease and environmental parameters influencing the development ofdowny mildew in the field. Also, the DSVs and CDSVs indicate predicted disease risk, and thus indicateappropriate timing for fungicide applications.

Leafwetness was assessed visually at assessments and also recorded at 1 min intervals using anelectronic grid leafwetness sensor and placed in the leafcanopy. Temperature was recorded using aHMP35C temperature and relative humidity probe. All sensors were connected to a CR21X CampbellScientific Data logger and datawas stored at 15 min averages. Incoming solar radiation was recorded usingaLi-Cor Pyranmeter, measuring KJ/m2

. No fungicides were applied to the control plots. Recommendedcontrol procedures for fungal and bacterial pathogens, weeds and insects were followed. The airtemperatures were above the long term (10 year) average for May (13.6 "C), below average for June (17.5"C), July (18.7 "C) and August (18.7 "C) and average for September (14.5 "C). Total rainfall was abovethe long term (10 year) average for May (160.3 mm), June (173.4 mm), and August (75.7 mm), belowaverage for September (79.8 mm) and average for July (86.4). At harvest a sample of 25 heads from eachrepetition were graded for downy mildew incidence and disease severity. Disease severity was assessedusing a scale from zero to five: zero =DO lesions, one = 1 lesion, two =2-5 lesions, three =6-10 lesions,four = 11-15 lesions and five> 16 lesions. The total head number/scale was then multiplied by a factor(zero x 0, one x 1, two x 2 three x four, four x 8, and five x 16) and then all numbers were summed fordisease severity. Head weight, of25 heads, was also recorded. Data was analyzed using the GeneralAnalysis ofVariance function ofthe Linear Models section ofStatistix, V. 4.1. Means separation wasobtained using Fisher's Protected LSD test at P= 0.05 level of significance.

RESULTS: As presented in Table 1.

CONCLUSIONS: All treatments significantly reduced downy mildew severity compared to the control(Table 1). The BremCast Forecasting treatment and the RIDOMIL 240 EC drench treatment,significantly reduced downy mildew incidence compared to the control. Both treatments also reduced thenumber of fungicide applications from 3 to 1 or 2. The RIDOMIL 240 EC drench treatment, hadsignificantly smaller heads than the other treatments. Due to the extremely wet spring, sections oftheresearch plot were flooded on two separate occasions. This may have caused stunting which may explainthe differences in harvest weights. Possible phytotoxicity ofthe RIDOMIL 240 EC drench has to beinvestigated further. The extremely wet conditions also delayed harvest. This resulted in higher diseaseincidence since the heads were unprotected and conditions were optimum for infection.

Funding for this project was made possible by R&D Safety Net Fund of the Agriculture AdaptationCouncil, through the support of the OF&VGA, the Ontario Muck Crops Committee and theB&DVGA.

Table 1. Downy mildew incidence (%), disease severity and yield in lettuce, 2000.

Treatment D.M. D.M. Wgt. # SprayIncidence (%) Severity glhead Applications

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Control 99.0 b * 353.5 c 628 a 0

Conventional- ALIETTE and 85.0 ab 215.5 b 648 a 3RIDOMIL GOLD MZ

BremCast Forecasting System 55.6 a 69.5 a 632 a 2ALIETIE and RIDOMIL GOLD MZ

RIDOMIL 240 EC drench + BremCast 47.3 a 30.8 a 468 b 1Forecasting System

* Numbers in the column followed by the same letter are not significantly differentat P=O.OS, Fisher'sProtected LSD test.

- 53 -

- 54 -

CROP:PEST:

AUTHORS:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.), CY. CortlandOnion maggot, Delia antiqua (Meigen)

HOEPTING C At, SCOTT-DUPREE C D1 and MCDONALD M R2

I U of Guelph, Dept. ofEnvironmental Biology2 U of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture, Muck Crops Research Station

EVALUATION OF INSECTICIDE AND FUNGICIDE TREATMENTCOMBINATIONS FOR THE CONTROL OF ONION MAGGOT, 2000.

MATERIALS: LORSBAN 15G (chlorpyrifos 15%), GOVERNOR 75 WP (cyromazine 75%),AZTEC 2/0.1G (tebupirimfos 2.0% + cyfluthrin 0.1%), REGENT 80 WG (fipronil80%), PRO GRO30/50D (carbathiin 30% + thiram 50%), DITHANE DG (mancozeb 75%)

METHODS: The trial was conducted at the University of Guelph Muck Crops Research Station locatedin the Holland Marsh, ON with natural populations of onion maggot (OM). It was arranged in arandomized complete block design with a total of20 treatments and four replications. GOVERNOR75WP, REGENT 80WG and PRO GRO 30/50D seed treatments were film-coated at rates of 50,25 and20 g ailkg of seed respectively by Alan Taylor in Cornell, NY. LORSBAN 15G (4.8 kg ailha), AZTEC2/0.1G (0.5 kg ailha) and DITHANE DG (6.6 kg ailha) were applied in-furrow with the seed. The trialwas seeded at a rate of 40 seeds/m ofrow on 5 May, using a push V-belt seeder. Each treatment plotconsisted of 4x6 m rows of onions spaced 40 ern apart. Four separate 2 m sections were randomlyselected in each plot for each of three OM damage assessments and final yield. To determine initialstand, emergence counts were taken on 17,24,26, 30 May and 8 Jun in each 2 m section. OM damagewas assessed at the end of each the first- (13 Jul), second- (19 Aug) and third- (21 Sep) generations asdetermined by monitoring OM fly trap catches and degree days. All onions in the 2 m sections of rowwere pulled and visually examined for OM damage. Twice weekly from 20 Jun to 8 Aug, dying onionswere pulled and cause of death (OM, onion smut or other) was recorded. For yield assessment (21 Sep),weight and bulb size were taken from the remaining 2 m section ofonions. Data was analyzed using theGeneral Analysis of Variance function of the Linear Models section of Statistix, V.4.1. Interactionbetween insecticides (none, LORSBAN 15G, GOVERNOR 75 WP, AZTEC 2/0.1 G, REGENT 80WG) and fungicides (none, PRO GRO 30/50D, DITHANE DG, PRO GR030/50D+DITHANE DG)was analyzed using a 5 x 4 factorial design.

RESULTS: No significant interaction between insecticides and fungicides was found at any assessment(Table 1). Significant main effects showed that treatments with REGENT 80 WG had the least OMdamage, followed in order by those with GOVERNOR 75 WP, AZTEC 2/0.1G and then LORSBAN15G. Significant differences were found among treatments for OM damage at all assessments (Table 2),but not for final yield (data not shown). All treatments with REGENT 80 WG significantly reduced OMdamage in comparison to the untreated check in all assessments, except when it was used by itself in thethird assessment. Otherwise, there were no consistent significant differences or trends amonginsecticides across assessments or with fungicide combinations. Although not significant, best control ofOM was achieved when insecticides were used in combination with PRO GRO 30/50D+ DITHANEDG. DITHANE DG + REGENT 80 WG proved the most effective of all 20 treatments in allassessments. The air temperatures were above the long term (l0 year) average for May, below averagefor June, July and August and average for September. Total rainfall was above the long term average forMay (160.3 mm), June (173.4 mm), and August (75.7 mm), below average for September (79.8 mm) andaverage for July (86.4mm).

CONCLUSIONS: REGENT 80 WG, as a film-coat, was the only insecticide that consistently providedeffective season-long control of OM. It was most effective in combination with DITHANE DG (92.5­100% control), followed by PRO GRO 30/50D+ DITHANE DG (90.8-93% control) and then PROGRO 30/50D (58.9-100% control). When itwas used alone control ranged from 91.5% for the firstgeneration to 18.3% by the end of the third generation.

Funding for this project was made available by Food Systems 2002 and the AgriculturalAdaptation R&D Safety Net Fund with the support of the B&DVGA and the OV&FGA.

Table I. Main effects and interactions of fungicides and insecticides for the control of onion smut.

Onion Maggot Damage (%)------------------------------------------------------------------

151 gen 1st & 2ndgen 1st, 2nd& 3'd gen_J~~~1!~~~~ tl~J_l!J2 (}~~~gl t~!_~~l _

untreated 23.3 a 26.30 a 36.3 aLORSBAN 15G 13.2 b 18.70 ab 26.3 abGOVERNOR 75 WP 5.4 be 16.10 b 23.9 beAZTEC 2/0.1G 11.0 b 20.70 ab 33.9 abREGENT 80 WG 1.2 c 5.14 c 14.5 c

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_l:~~1~~_Ql Q~QQQ1 2~QQ2} Q~QQ1~ _

_JE~~Jti~!~~ _untreated 13.3 21.80 40.6 aPRO GRO 30/50D 8.9 19.30 28.9 bDITHANE DG 13.4 16.30 20.3 bePRO GRO 30/50D+ 7.7 12.20 18.2 c_~!I~~~ _

P value (F) 0.3298 0.0997 0.0001_~~~1~~_Q~f) Q~2~Q~ Q~~~12 Q~~~~~ _

- 55 -

- 56 -

Table 2. Effectiveness of insecticide/fungicide combinations for OM control, 2000.

3.1 h

11.7 e-h

48.1 a

27.5 a-f

11.5 d-h

34.0 a-c

24.3 c-f11.6 f-h

19.8 b-f34.2 a-c

38.4 a-c

43.3 ab

17.1 c-g

9.9 c-e

5.4 de

1.4 e

18.7a-e

23.7 a-c

11.2 b-e

12.0 b-e17.6 a-e

22.5 a-d

11.7 b-e

16.6 a-e

9.6 c-e

33.9 a

5.6 d-f

1.8 e

2.9 e4.6 ef

8.1 b-f

0.0 e

2.2 e

0.0 e

12.1 a-f

24.6 ab

15.5 a-f5.7 c-f

14.7 a-f

----t-----d-------------------------------2-6--.1--ai---------------3--0-.0--a----------------4--1-.6--a-b--------un reate .L (4.8 kg ailha)........... 21.8 a-e 20.2 a-d 34.1 a-cG (50 g ai/kg" 22.2 a-d 27.1 a-c 39.6 a-c

A (0.5 kg ailha)................ 23.0 a-c 28.1 ab 29.8 a-eR (25 g ai/kg)............... 11.4 a-f 21.0 a-d 35.7 a-c

P (20 g ai/kg).............. 11.4a-f 25.0 a-c 30.5 a-d

P (20 g ai/kg) +L (4.8 kgailha) .P (20 g ai/kg) +G (50 gai/kg)......P (20 g ai/kg) +A (0.5 kgailha) ..P (20 g ai/kg) +R (25 gailha) .

D (6.6 kg ailha)....

D (6.6 kg ailha) +L (4.8 kgailha)........

D (6.6 kg ailha) +G (50 gai/kg)......

D (6.6 kg ailha) +A (0.5 kgailha) ..

D (6.6 kg ailha) +R (25 gailha) ..

P (20 g ai.kg) +D (6.6 kg ailha).P (20 g ai/kg) +D (6.6 kg ai/ha)+L (4.8 kg ailha)........P (20 g ai/kg) +D (6.6 kg ailha)+G (50 g ai/kg)......P (20 g ai/kg) + D (6.6 kg ailha)+ A (0.5 kg ailha) ..P (20 g ai/kg) +D (6.6 kg ailha)

__~~_(~~~~i~J0~~~~~~~~ ~~4~ ~~L~ J~~~ _

I L: LORSBAN 15 G, G: GOVERNOR 75 WP, A: AZTEC 2/0.1G, R: REGENT 80 WG,PRO GRO 30/50D, D: DITHANE DG

2 Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at p=0.05, Fisher'sProtected LSD test.

3 Seed treatment: g ai/kg of seed for GOVERNOR 75 WP, REGENT 80 WP and PRO GRO 30/50D

CROP:PEST:

AUTHORS:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.), cvs. Norstar and BastilleOnion Thrips (Thrips tabaci L.)

WESTERVELD s', McKEOWN AI, SCOTI-DUPREE C2& McDONALD MR 1

IU of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture,2Uof Guelph, Dept. of Environmental Biology

EFFECT OF NITROGEN AND PLANT STRUCTURE ON THRIPSPOPULAnONS AND YIELD IN YELLOW COOKING ONIONS ANDCOMPARISON OF CROP NITROGEN STATUS THROUGH NEWTECHNOLOGY

- 57 -

MATERIALS: CALCIUM AMMONIUM NITRATE (nitrogen 27.5%), POTASSIUM NITRATE(nitrogen 14%), HORIBA 'CARDY' MODEL C-141 nitrate meter, MINOLTA SPAD-502 chlorophyllmeter.

METHODS: Onions were seeded (36 seeds/m) into muck soil (pH 6.4, organic matter 60%) at the MuckCrops Research Station on 4 May, 2000. A randomized complete block arrangement with 4 blocks pertreatment was used. Each replicate consisted of 4 rows Tribute and 4 rows Bastille (42cm apart), 5 m inlength. Bastille was believed to have a more upright growth pattern, while Norstar was believed to have amore pendulous growth pattern with numerous folded leaves. Folds in onion leaves have been shown tobe a protective area for thrips from both harsh weather conditions and pesticide application. The twotreatments were replicated 4 times within each block. In the first treatment nitrogen was applied in theform of CALCIUM AMMONIUM NITRATE at the recommended rate of 90 kg Nlha. In the secondtreatment, nitrogen was applied as CALCIUM AMMONIUM NITRATE preplant at the recommendedrate, and at 2, 5 and 7 true leaf stages a sidedress of 30 kg Nzha was applied in the form of POTASSIUMNITRATE. Thrips populations were counted biweekly on 5 plants of each cultivar in each treatment.This included a count of thrips in leaffolds. The percentage of leaves that were folded for each cultivarwas evaluated on 10 Aug. At two times during the growing season (17 JuI, 1 Aug) chlorophyll and nitratemeter readings were taken to quantify the nitrogen status of the plants. Chlorophyll readings were takenfrom a fully mature leaf and nitrate meter readings were taken from root sap and a soil extract. Yieldsamples were taken from two 2.33 m sections ofrow on 21 Sep. Onions were graded for total yield,marketable yield, and size in October. The air temperatures were above the long term (10 year) averagefor May, below average for June, July and August and average for September. Total rainfall was abovethe long term (10 year) average for May (160.3 mm), June (173.4 mm), and August (75.7 mm), belowaverage for September (79.8 mm) and average for July (86.4 mm). Data were analyzed using the GeneralAnalysis of Variance function of the Linear Models section of Statistix V.4.1.

RESULTS: Thrips and yield data are presented in Table 1. Chlorophyll and nitrate data are presented inTable 2. Thrips populations were not significantly different by treatment or cultivar. However the 2000season had very low thrips populations due to cool and wet weather. The amount of folded leaves did notdiffer as expected between cultivars (Norstar 12.1%, Bastille 15.0%). Consequently, differences in thripspopulations due to plant structure could not be identified.

CONCLUSIONS: Differences in thrips populations due to nitrogen application, cultivar, or plantstructure were not evident. Thrips populations were much lower than normal due to cool wet weather,which may have contributed to the lack of differences. The addition of 3 sidedresses of nitrogen did notalter yields, even though nitrate levels in plant sap differed significantly between treatments. Results ofthe plant analysis show that chlorophyll and soil nitrate are better indicators of yield than sap nitrate.However, more information is required before conclusions can be made.

- 58 -

Funding for this project was provided by the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Grower's Associationand the Agricultural Adaptation Council Research and Development Safety Net Fund.

Table I. Effect of nitrogen rates and cultivar on average thrips populations, total yield, and percent ofyield in the desirable range on yellow cooking onions in 2000.

85.6 a67.1 a1.25 aNorstar

Average thrips 0/ f . 44 76. . ,00 omons -Cultivar Treatment over season Total yield (t/ha)

. i~h!jQ~J'J~ll ~~ _

90 kg Nlha 0.84 a 65.2 a 85.9 a

90 kgNlha + 330 kgsidedresses

Bastille90 kg Nlha 1.27 a 69.4 a 84.3 a

90 kg Nlha + 3 30 kg 1.23 a 68.3a 81.2 a_________________~L~~~~~~~~ _

* Numbers in a column and within the same cultivar followed by the same letter are notsignificantly different at P=0.05, Fisher's Protected LSD Test.

Table 2. Effect of nitrogen rates on chlorophyll, sap nitrate, and soil nitrate at two sample dates on yellowcooking onions in 2000 (cultivars pooled).

Sample Day I (17 lui) Sample Day 2 (1 Aug)-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Cultivar Treatment Chlorophyll Sap Soil Chlorophyll Sap Soil(SPAD Nitrate Nitrate (SPAD Nitrate Nitrate

________________________.!.IJ!.i!ll (p.Q.J!lJ (p.P..J!lJ l!Q~~L fQp!Jl~ (p..QJ1l.t _

90 kg Nlha 52.8 a 453.4 a 30.3 a 60.1 a 421.6 a 31.0 a

Norstar 90 kg Nlha+ 330 kg 54.4 b 948.1 b 30.0 a 60.2 a 743.4 b 35.8 asidedresses

Bastille

90 kg Nlha

90 kg Nlha+ 330 kgsidedresses

51.1 a

51.8b

482.8 a 30.3 a

766.3 b 30.0 a

57.5 a

58.0 a

311.3 a

532.8 b

31.0 a

35.8 a

* Numbers in a column and within the same cultivar followed by the same letter are notsignificantly different at P=0.05, Fisher's Protected LSD Test.

CROP:PEST:

AUTHORS:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.), cvs. Tribute, Norstar, Hamlet, and PrinceOnion Thrips (Thrips tabaci L.j

WESTERVELD S', McKEOWN A!, SCOIT-DVPREE C2 & McDONALD MR I

IV of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture,2V of Guelph, Dept. of Environmental Biology

EFFECT OF DIFFERENT NITROGEN RATES, SOURCES, AND TIMINGS ONYIELD, QUALITY, STORABILITY, AND ONION THRIPS DEVELOPMENT INYELLOW COOKING ONIONS AND ANALYSIS OF CROP NITROGENST AT US THROUGH NEW TECHNOLOGY

- 59 -

MATERIALS: CALCIUM AMMONIUM NITRATE (nitrogen 27.5%), AMMONIUM NITRATE(nitrogen 27.5%), POTASSIUM NITRATE (nitrogen 14%), UREA (nitrogen 46%), PERLKA (50%calcium oxide, 14% cyanamide, 2% nitrate equivalent to 19.8% nitrogen) MINOLTA SPAD-S02Chlorophyll Meter, HORIBA 'CARDY' MODEL C-141 Nitrate Meter

METHODS: Onions were seeded (36 seeds/m) into muck soil (pH 6.4, organic matter 60%) at the MuckCrops Research Station on 5 May, 2000. A randomized complete block arrangement with four blocks pertreatment was used. Each replicate consisted of2 rows Tribute, Norstar, Hamlet, and Prince (42 emapart), 5 m in length. Nitrogen source treatments were applied at 90 kg/ha of nitrogen. A control of 0kg/ha and a high rate of 180 kg/ha of CALCIUM AMMONIUM NITRATE were applied to show theeffect of altered rates of nitrogen. Timing of nitrogen was altered in 3 treatments; in the first 90 kg N/hawas applied prep1ant and 30 kg Nlha was applied at 2, 5, and 7 true leaf stages, in the second 45 kg/ha ofnitrogen was applied preplant and 45 kg/ha was applied at 2 true leaf stage, and in the third, 45 kg Nlhawas applied preplant and sidedress applications were based on chlorophyll meter results which were takenon a weekly basis. For the timing treatments, preplant nitrogen was in the form of CALCIUMAMMONIUM NITRATE, and sidedress applications were in the form of POTASSIUM NITRATE. Inthe third timing treatment no sidedress was indicated by chlorophyll meter results. All other fertilizerswere applied as indicated by soil tests. Onion thrips were counted on 5 Norstar plants for the control (nonitrogen), the 180 kg Nlha as CALCIUM AMMONIUM NITRATE treatment, and the treatment inwhich side dressings were applied based on chlorophyll meter results. At three times during the growingseason (11 Jul, 31 Jul, 15 Aug) soil samples (All cultivars), tissue samples (Hamlet), and chlorophyll (allcultivars) and nitrate meter readings (Norstar and Hamlet) were taken for comparison of results.Chlorophyll readings were taken from a fully mature leaf and nitrate meter readings were taken from rootsap. Nitrate meter readings were also taken from a soil extract. Soil and tissue samples were sent for labanalysis. Meter readings are being compared to lab results to identify the method that is most accurate inidentifying nitrogen deficiencies as they occur. Yield samples were taken from 2.33 m of row on 8 Sep.Onions were graded for total yield, marketable yield, and size in October. Marketable onions were placedinto cold storage to be re-graded for marketability after 6 months. The air temperatures were above thelong term (10 year) average for May, below average for June, July and August and average forSeptember. Total rainfall was above the long term (10 year) average for May (160.3 mm), June (17304mm), and August (75.7 mm), below average for September (79.8 mm) and average for July (86.4 mm).Data were analyzed using the General Analysis of Variance function of the Linear Models section ofStatistix V04.1 or the Proc GLM function of SAS version 6.12.

RESULTS: Yield data is presented in Table 1. The percentage of onions 44-76 mm was unaffected bytreatment in Norstar, Hamlet and Prince, but differences were observed in Tribute and these results areshown in Table 1. Sampling data from the first and third sample days are shown in Table 2. The secondsample day was very similar to the first and is not reported. Results ofthe lab analysis of soil and tissuesamples have not been completed and consequently this data and the comparison of meter readings to

- 60 -

these results cannot be reported. A comparison of the chlorophyll meter to the nitrate meter showed apoor correlation between the two. The storage trial has also not been completed. A severe infestation ofdowny mildew mid-season resulted in reduced yields. Wet conditions caused thrips populations to beextremely low in this trial, and no results have been reported.

CONCLUSIONS: While differences in sap nitrate were evident throughout the season, total yield wasunaffected by treatment. Cultivar differences were only evident in some of the grading categories, andthese differences are likely caused by the downy mildew outbreak and not due to treatment differences.The chlorophyll and nitrate meter data suggests that chlorophyll or soil nitrate might be better indicatorsofyield than sap nitrate. Differences in sap nitrate are not likely due to N deficiencies but to luxury Nuptake by the high N treatments. Thrips populations were too low to show any differences betweentreatments. While more work is needed before conclusions can be made, the data suggests OMAFRAnitrogen recommendations may need to be revised.

Funding for this project was provided by the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Grower'sAssociation and the Agricultural Adaptation Council Research and Development Safety Net Fund.

Table 1. Effect of nitrogen on total yield in four onion cultivars and percentage of onions 44-76mm forTribute in 2000

Treatments

% onionsTotal Yield (tlha). ~~~I~~~ _

Tribute Norstar Hamlet Prince Tribute

No nitrogen

90 kg Nlha CALCIUMAMMONIUM NITRATE

180 kg Nlha " "

90 + 3x30 kg Nlha

45 + 45 kg Nlha

45 kg Nlha + chlorophyllmeter90 kg Nlha AMMONIUMNITRATE90 kg Nlha POTASSIUMNITRATE

90 kg Nlha UREA

90 kg Nlha PERLKA

38.8 a*

35.9 a

42.1 a

42.0 a

48.3 a

36.0 a

37.1 a

42.5 a

42.7 a

35.2 a

43.4 a

44.9 a

48.3 a

45.1 a

46.0 a

48.3 a

43.8 a

49.1 a

39.8 a

42.7 a

43.3 a

44.2 a

43.9 a

45.2 a

43.2 a

33.4 a

43.4 a

41.3 a

45.7 a

42.0 a

38.4 a

38.5 a

42.4 a

42.4 a

40.1 a

37.4 a

34.3 a

37.6 a

37.9 a

34.5 a

41.1 e

48.5 cde

59.2 bed

61.9 abc

75.8 a

48.3 cde

73.3 ab

65.0 ab

45.6 de

71.3 ab

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

Table 2. Effect of nitrogen rate, timing and source on chlorophyll, soil nitrate, and sap nitrate on yellowcooking onions in 2000 (cultivars pooled)

- 61 -

Sampling Data 11 lui 2000 Sampling Data 15 Aug 2000

Treatments

•Chlorophyll Sap Soil Nitrate Chlorophyll Sap Nitrate Soil Nitrate(SPAD Nitrate (SPAD

. ~_~!~ L~e~) ~~~~~ ~~i~2 ~~_~~ ~~~~~ _No nitrogen 46.8 a* 148.2 d 31.5 a 54.6 a 308.8 c 36.50 a

90 kg N/haCALCIUMAMMONIUMNITRATE180 kg N/ha ""90 + 3x30 kgN/ha45 + 45 kg Nlha45 kg N/ha +chlorophyllmeter90 kgN/haAMMONIUMNITRATE90 kgN/haPOTASSIUMNITRATE90 kg N/haUREA90 kgN/haPERLKA

50.4 a

50.9 a

50.5 a

49.0 a

48.6 a

49.2 a

49.3 a

50.2 a

50.4 a

274.3 bed

372.5 ab

451.3 a

390.0 ab

156.0 d

201.8 d

214.8 cd

396.3 ab

329.8 abc

37.5 a

48.25 a

38.50 a

30.75 a

38.75 a

37.50 a

28.75 a

46.00 a

35.25 a

55.0 a

57.7 a

56.1 a

55.4 a

56.7 a

56.1 a

56.2 a

57.2 a

56.7 a

472.5 be

636.9 b

1047.5 a

395.6 be

599.4 b

473.1 be

485.0 be

511.9 be

520.6 be

45.25 a

43.50 a

45.75 a

46.50 a

46.50 a

41.25 a

44.00 a

49.25 a

39.25 a

•

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

- 62 -

CROP:PEST:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.), cv. GazetteOnion Smut, Urocystis cepulae (Frost)Damping-Off: Pythium spp.

AUTHORS: MCDONALD M R & VANDER KOOI KU ofGuelph, Dept. ofPlant Agriculture, Muck Crops Research Station

TITLE: EVALUAnON OF FILM COATING FOR CONTROL OF ONION SMUT ANDDAMPING-OFF IN GREENHOUSE TRIALS, 2000

MATERIALS: ALLEGIANCE (metalayI28A%), CHARTER (triticonazole 2.4%), PRO GRO(carbathiin 30%, thiram 50%), RAXIL (tebuconazole 28.3%), THIRAM (thiram 75%)

MEmODS: A trial was conducted under controlled conditions in the greenhouse using naturally infectedmuck soil to evaluate several fungicides in combination for the control ofonion smut and damping off.Onions cv. Gazette was seeded into 200 cell plug trays with organic soil (pH 6.4, organic matter 60%)collected in the fall of 1999 from the Muck Crops Research Station farm. The trial was planted on 7 Apr,2000. Treatments were: CHARTER at 100 mg ail 100 g of seed, RAXR. at 100 mg ail 100 g of seed,ALLEGIANCE at 31 mg aillOO g ofseed + THIRAM at 1.25 g ail 100 g of seed, a combination ofCHARTER, ALLEGIANCE and THIRAM and a combination ofRAXIL, ALLEGIANCE andTHIRAM. A standard application ofPRO GRO at 2 g ail 100 g of seed was used. An untreated checkwas also included. A randomized complete block arrangement with 4 blocks per treatment was used.Trays were placed on a stacking cart in a temperature controlled dark room at 13°C to provide uniformgermination and avoid temperature fluctuations. Once most ofthe onions emerged the trays were moved tothe greenhouse and placed on ebb-flow benches. Temperatures were set at 15°C. Gemination counts weretaken to determine stand and record plants which damped off. One hundred plants were assessed for theincidence ofsmut at five (first true leaf) and seven weeks (three true leaf) after planting. Data wereanalyzed using the General Analysis ofVariance function ofthe Linear Models section ofStatistix VA. I.Means separation was obtained using Fisher's Protected LSD test at P= 0.05 level of significance.

RESULTS: As outlined in Tables 1 and 2.

CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were observed among the treatments on both assessment dates.The treatment ofALLEGIANCE + THIRAM + CHARTER had significantly higher emergence than thecheck and CHARTER alone. ALLEGIANCE + THIRAM + RAXIL had significantly lower damping­off in the second assessment than the check. ALLEGIANCE + THIRAM + RAXIL also hadsignificantly lower percent ofonion smut on both assessments than the check. PRO GRO however, hadthe lowest percent onion smut ofall the treatments. ALLEGIANCE + THIRAM + CHARTERsignificantly reduced onion smut compared to the check on both assessments dates. This treatment alsosignificantly reduced damping-offin the second assessment. In the second assessment, the treatmentsALLEGIANCE + THIRAM and ALLEGIANCE + THIRAM + CHARTER had similar numbers forpercent damping-off (1.6 and 1.9 respectively), and were significantly better than CHARTER alone. Itappears that ALLEGIANCE and THIRAM are providing some control ofdamping-off More workneeds to be done on these fungicides, to find new combinations ofcontrolling onion smut and damping-off.

Partial funding for this project was made available by New York State Onion Research andDevelopment Program.

•

..

..

•

Table 1. Evaluation of film coating on the incidence ofonion smut and damping-offon onions grown inthe greenhouse - 1st assessment, 2000.

Rate g ail 100g 1st assessment .1 II assessment 1II assessmentTreatments ofSeed % emerged % Damping-off % Smut

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

- 63 -

89.0 b* 8.4 a 67.2 d

95.3 a 1.9 a 4.4 a

82.8 c 7.5 a 59.8 d

92.0 ab 2.2 a 18.0 ab

95.0 a 6.0 a 36.6 e

95.8 a 2.7 a 31.8 be

Check

PROGRO 2.0

CHARTER 1.0

RAXIL 1.0

ALLEGIANCE + 3.1 +THIRAM 1.25

ALLEGIANCE + 3.1 +THIRAM+ 1.25 +CHARTER 1.0

ALLEGIANCE + 3.1 +THIRAM+ 1.25 +RAXIL 1.0

93.5 ab 1.4 a 16.3 a

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

Table 2. Evaluation of film coating on the incidence of onion smut and damping-offon onions grown inthe greenhouse - 2nd assessment, 2000.

TreatmentsRate g ail 100gof Seed

2nd assessment% emerged

2nd assessment% Damping-off

2nd assessment% Smut

Check 90.3 b* 16.3 c 51.8e

PROGRO 2.0 94.0 ab 2.4 ab 8.5 a

CHARTER 1.0 81.8c 10.12be 51.2 c

RAXIL 1.0 94.3 ab 3.3 ab 31.9 b

ALLEGIANCE + 3.1 + 96.5 a 1.6 a 38.3 bTIflRAM 1.25

ALLEGIANCE + 3.1 + 97.0a 1.9 a 36.9bTHIRAM+ 1.25 +CHARTER 1.0

ALLEGIANCE + 3.1 + 95.8 ab 1.6 a 33.7bTHIRAM+ 1.25 +RAXIL 1.0

._-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* Numbers in a colwrm followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05, Fisher's

Protected LSD Test.

- 64 -

CROP:PEST:

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

AUTHORS: MCDONALD M R & VANDER KOOI KU of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture, Muck Crops Research Station ..

TITLE: EVALUATION OF FILM COATING FOR CONTROL OF ONION SMUT INGREENHOUSE TRIALS, 2000

MATERIALS: CHARTER (triticonazole 2.4%), PRO GRO (carbathiin 30%, thiram 50%), RAXIL(tebuconazole 28.3%)

MEmODS: Two trials were conducted under controlled conditions in the greenhouse using naturallyinfected muck soil to evaluate CHARTER and RAXIL for the control of onion smut. Onions (cv.Gazette) were seeded into 200 cell plug trays with organic soil (pH 6.4, organic matter 60%) collected inthe fall of 1999 from the Muck Crops Research Station farm. Trials were planted on 8 Feb (Trial 1) and14 Mar (Trial 2). Treatments were: CHARTER at 5, 10,25,50, 100 mg ail 100 g of seed and RAXIL at5, 10,25,50, 100 mg ail 100 g of seed. A standard application of PRO GRO at 2 g ail 100 g of seed wasused. A 0.75%:film coat ofOpadry AG was used as an untreated check. A randomized complete blockarrangement with 4 blocks per treatment was used. Trays were placed on a stacking cart in a temperaturecontrolled dark room at 13°C to provide uniform germination and avoid temperature fluctuations. Oncemost ofthe onions emerged the trays were moved to the greenhouse and placed on ebb-flow benches.Temperatures were set at 15°C. Gemination counts were taken to determine stand and record plants whichdamped off. One hundred plants were assessed for the incidence ofsmut at five (first true leaf) and tenweeks (three true leaf) after planting. Data were analyzed using the General Analysis of Variance fimctionofthe Linear Models section of Statistix V.4 .1. Means separation was obtained using Fisher's ProtectedLSD test at P= 0.05 level of significance. A regression analysis was obtained using the Linear Regressiontest in Linear Models.

RESUL1'8: As outlined in Tables 1 and 2.

CONCLUSIONS: RAXIL at 100 g ail100 g seedwas not significantly different in the percent emergenceor the percentage of onion smut on any assessments in both trials, compared to the standard PRO GROtreatment. However, the PRO GRO treatment was numerically higher thanthe RAXIL. RAXIL at 50 gail1OOg seed also was not significantly different fromthe standard on the first assessment in bothtrials. Amoist paper test before seeding showed no differences in emergence. Damping-offwas the main reason forthe reduced emergence in some CHARTER and RAXIL treatments. PRO GRO contains tbiram whichcontrols damping-off. CHARTER did not seem to control smut at any ofthe rates used. More studies areneeded to look at higher rates ofRAXIL since they seem to give some control. The combination offimgicides to control damping-off also need to be evaluated.

Partial funding for this project was made available by New York State Onion Research andDevelopment Program.

Table 1. Evaluation of film coating on the incidence of onion smut on onions grown in the greenhouseTrial 1, 2000.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rate g ail 1st assessment 1st assessment 2nd assessment 2nd assessment

Treatments 100g of Seed % emerged Incidence of % emerged Incidence ofSmut % Smut %

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Film Coating 0.75% 80.0 bc* 49.4 d 54.3 de 49.0 ede

PROGRO 2.0 91.0 a 2.5 a 89.5 a 24.6 a

CHARTER 5.0 83.0 be 48.5 d 68.5 be 56.5 e

CHARTER 10.0 81.8 be 36.3 c 56.8 c-e 55.3 e

CHARTER 25.0 81.8 be 46.8 d 63.8 bed 55.3 e

CHARTER 50.0 80.5 be 35.1 c 70.5 b 45.1 ed

CHARTER 100.0 79.5 c 22.8 b 60.3 b~ 43.1 bed

RAXIL 5.0 78.5 c 37.6 c 60.0 b-e 52.0 de

RAXIL 10.0 81.0 be 23.5 b 66.8 be 47.6 ede

RAXIL 25.0 78.0 c 16.9 b 58.8 b~ 41.6 be

RAXIL 50.0 81.5 be 4.6a 51.0 e 44.9 ed

RAXIL 100.0 86.8 ab 3.2 a 66.3 be 33.3 ab--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

1st Assessment Charter - Significant differences (P = 0.0001), R2 =0.5202% Incidence of smut = 47.490 - 0.2424 * Rate

I" Assessment Raxil - Significant differences (P =0.000), R2 =0.5962% Incidence of smut = 35.180 - 0.3992 * Rate

2nd Assessment Charter - Significant differences (P =0.0117), R2 =0.2557% Incidence of smut = 54.444 - 0.1183 * Rate

2nd Assessment Raxil - Significant differences (P = 0.0034), R2 =0.3286% Incidence of smut =49.780 - 0.1589 * Rate

- 65 -

- 66 -

Table 2. Evaluation of film coating on the incidence of onion smut on onions grown in the greenhouseTria12 ,2000.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rate g ail 1st assessment 151 assessment 2"" assessment 2""assessment

Treatments 100g of Seed % emerged Incidence of % emerged Incidence ofSmut % Smut %

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Film Coating 0.75% 80.3 d* 62.5 e 70.3 ef 35.6 d

PROGRO 2.0 96.0 a 1.6 a 95.0a 17.7 a

CHARTER. 5.0 77.8 de 52.3 de 73.3 de 34.0 cd

CHARTER 10.0 73.5 e 42.7 cd 68.8 ef 21.9 ab

CHARTER 25.0 79.0 de 54.9 de 69.8 ef 32.6 cd

CHARTER 50.0 81.5 cd 50.5 de 70.5 ef 31.2 cd

CHARTER 100.0 80.8 d 37.7 c 71.0 ef 35.4 d

RAXIL 5.0 83.0 cd 58.7 e 66.3 f 31.6 cd

RAXIL 10.0 82.0 cd 32.6 c 79.3 cd 32.0 cd

RAXIL 25.0 87.0 be 16.8 b 79.3 cd 26.9 bed

RAXIL 50.0 90.3 ab 7.6ab 84.3 be 26.6 be

RAXIL 100.0 93.0 a 6.4 ab 89.8 ab 19.3 ab--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* Numbers in a colunm followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05, Fisher'sProtected LSD Test.

l" Assessment Charter - Significant differences (P = 0.0228), R2 =0.2141% Incidence of smut = 55.201- 0.1609 * Rate

I" Assessment Raxil- Significant differences (P = 0.00), R2 =0.5775% Incidence of smut = 46.949 - 0.5169 * Rate

2nd Assessment Charter - Not significant

2nd Assessment Raxil - Significant differences (P = 0.0050), R2 =0.3067% Incidence of smut =33.219 - 0.1436 * Rate

CROP:PEST:

AUTHORS:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.), cv. GazetteOnion Smut, Urocystis cepuJae (Frost)

MCDONALD M R & VANDER KOOI KU ofGuelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture, Muck Crops Research Station

EVALUATION OF FILM COATING AND FURROW FUNGICIDETREATMENTS FOR CONTROL OF ONION SMUT IN COMBINATION WImINSECTICIDE SEED TREATMENTS, 2000

- 67 -

MATERIALS: ALLEGIANCE (metalayI28.4%), CHARTER (triticonazole 2.4%), DITBANE DG(mancozeb 75%), REGENT (fipronil 80%), LORSBAN 15G (chlorpyrifos 15%), GOVERNOR(cyromazine 75%), PRO GRO (carbathiin 30%, thiram 50%), RAXIL (tebuconazole 28.4%), THIRAM(thiram 75%), methyl cellulose

MEmODS: Possible interactions between ftmgicides and insecticides were investigated in the field toidentify alterative controls for onion smut. Onions (cv. Gazette) were seeded (46 seeds/m) in organic soil(pH 6.4, organic matter 60%) naturally infestedwith onion smut at the Muck Crops Research Station on 3May, 2000. Treatments were: REGENT at 30 g ail kg of seed, REGENT + PRO GRO at 20 g ai/kg ofseed, REGENT + THIRAM at 12.5 g ail100 g of seed + ALLEGIANCE at 310 mg ail 100 g of seed,REGENT + THIRAM at 12.5 g ail kg of seed + ALLEGIANCE at 310 mg ail kg of seed +CHARTER at 1 g ail kg of seed, REGENT + THIRAM at 12.5 g ail kg of seed + ALLEGIANCE at310 mg ail kg of seed + RAXIL at 1 g ail kg of seed. All above treatments were repeated usingGOVERNOR at 50 g ail kg ofseed in the place of REGENT. Two standard treatments were alsoincluded. GOVERNOR and PRO GRO treated pelleted seed + DITBANE DG at 8.8 kg/ha andLORSBAN 15G at 32 kg/ha product + PRO GRO treated pelleted seed + DITHANE DG at 8.8 kg/ha.A randomized complete block arrangement with 4 blocks per treatment was used. Each replicate consistedof2 rows (42 em apart), 5 m in length. All treatments were seeded using a push cone seeder. AllDITHANE DG and LORSBAN 15G treatments were applied using a push V-beh seeder along with theseed. Three random 2 m sections were marked off, and germination counts were recorded (15, 17,23, and29 May) to determine initial stands. At one (9 Jun) and three (29 Jun) true leaves, one ofthe 2 m sectionswere harvested and evaluated by looking at the bulb and leaves for evidence of smut. The remaining 2 msection was evaluated on 25 Sep. A yield sample of2.33 m was taken on 25 Sep. The air temperatureswere above the long term (10 year) average for May (13.6 "C), below average for June (17.5 "C), July(18.7 "C) and August (18.7 "C) and average for September (14.5 "C); Total rainfall was above the longterm (10 year) average for May (160.3 rom), June (173.4 mm), and August (75.7 mm), below average forSeptember (79.8 rom) and average for July (86.4). Data were analyzed using the General Analysis ofVariance ftmction ofthe Linear Models section of Statistix V.4.1. Means separation was obtained usingFisher's Protected LSD test at P= 0.05 level of significance.

RESULTS: As outlined in Table 1.

CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were found among treatments. Both CHARTER and RAXILwith both insecticides had significantly lower onion smut than the REGENT and GOVERNOR checks onthe first assessment. The standard treatments of GOVERNOR + PRO GRO + DITBANE DG andLORSBAN 15G + PRO GRO + DITHANE DG had the lowest incidence ofonion smut on all threeassessment dates. The REGENT + PRO GRO alsohad low incidence ofonion smut on the second andthird assessments. Significant differences were found among treatments in yield. REGENT + THIRAM

- 68 -

+ ALLEGIANCE + RAXIL had the highest yield ofall the treatments.

Partial funding for this project was made available by New York State Onion Research andDevelopment Program.

Table 1. Evaluation offilm coating and furrow fungicides for the control ofonion smut, 2000.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rate Product Incidence of Smut% Yield

Treatments g ai/kg seed 9 Jun 29Jun 25 Sep tlha1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REGENT check 30 51.0 c2 32.3 c 9.1 abc 32.9 ef

REGENT + PRO GRO 30+20 27.2 ab 7.8 a 5.5 a 65.1 a-d

REGENT + THIRAM + 30 + 12.5 36.2 be 14.4 ab 5.2 a 65.5 a-dALLEGIANCE +0.31

REGENT + TBIRAM + 30 +12.5 23.2 ab 12.3 a 2.4 a 81.3 abALLEGIANCE+ +0.31 + 1.0CHARTER

REGENT + THIRAM + 30 +12.5 17.6 a 15.4 ab 5.9 a 86.2 aALLEGIANCE + RAXIL +0.31 + 1.0

GOVERNOR check 50 51.1c 28.9 be 19.7 be 35.2 ef

GOVERNOR+ 50+20 21.8 ab 8.8 a 12.7 abc 24.0fPROGRO

GOVERNOR +THIRAM 50 + 12.5 48.3 c 7.1 a 22.2 c 58.5 b-e+ ALLEGIANCE +0.31

GOVERNOR +THIRAM 50 + 12.5 19.7 ab 12.5 a 8.6 a 50.1 de+ALLEGIANCE +0.31 + 1.0+CHARTER

GOVERNOR +THIRAM 50 +12.5 17.9 a 7.0 a 5.9 a 63.6 a-d+ ALLEGIANCE +0.31 + 1.0+RAXIL

GOVERNOR + 10.0 a 1.3 a O.Oa 54.8 cdePRO GRO pellet +DITHANEDG 8.8 kg/ha

LORSBAN+ 32 kg/ha 11.8a 8.5 a 1.8 a 79.5 abcPRO GRO pellet +DITHANEDG 8.8 kg/ha

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 Bushels per Acre = tJha x 17.82 Numbers in a colunm followedby the same letter are not significantlydifferent at P =0.05, Fisher'sProtected LSD Test.

CROP:PEST:

AUTHORS:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.), cv. Quantum, GazzeteOnion Smut, Urocystis cepulae (Frost)

HOEPTING C AI, SCOTT-DUPREE C D\ MCDONALD M R2 and G DUNNS3

I U of Guelph, Dept. of Environmental Biology,2 U of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agricuhure, Muck Crops Research Station3 U ofGuelph, Laboratory Services

EVALUAnON OF ALLIUM PRODUCTS AS GERMINAnON STIMULANTSFOR CONTROL OF ONION SMUT, GREENHOUSE TRIALS, IN 2000.

- 69 -

MATERIALS: DPDS (n-propyl disulphide 88%, related compounds 2%), GARLIC OIL (compositionunknown,0.5 ± 0.1 ppm diallyl disulphide), GARLIC SKAPE JUICE (composition unknown, 0.26 ±0.03 ppm diallyl disulphide), GARLIC POWDER (composition unknown, 0.9 ± 0.4 ppm diallyldisulphide), HOMEMADE ONION JUICE (composition unknown).

METHODS: Two trials were conducted under semi-controlled conditions in the greenhouse to determine ifthe application of various Allium products to soil would stimulate onion smut (OS) spore germination andreduce OS incidence. Naturally infested muck soil (pH 6.4, organic matter 60%, 190% moisture) wascollected from the field at the Muck Crops Research Station, sieved through 2 mm mesh and thoroughlymixed by hand with 2.5 rnIAllium product or 15 ml DPDS in solution per 10 L of soil. The rates appliedwere equivalent to LJha product in 500 L water in the top 20 em of soil in a field. The treatments were 2%DPDS (United AgriProducts) at 60 Llha, 1 and 2% GARLIC on, (Gibbson Foods) at 5 and 10 LIha, 2%GARLIC SKAPE JUICE (perth Garlic Growers) at 10 LJha, 0.2g1mL GARLIC POWDER (EmpireFoods) at 280 kgIha in 1500 L water, and 2% HOMEMADE ONION JUICE at 10 LJha. Tap water wasused as an untreated check. Treated soil was stored at room temperature (23.1 ± 2°C, max: 26.9°C, min:17.8°C) in closed black polyethylene bags. After 15 weeks, the single application trial was seeded. After13 weeks, the soil was treated again and stored for another 17 weeks (21.0 ± 1.4°C, max: 23.6°C, min:17.8°C) before seeding the double application trial. All trials were seeded in 200 plug trays and arrangedin a randomized complete block design with two cultivars, seven treatments and four replications. To delayemergence and to increase the infection window, trials were started in a cool dark room for the first twoweeks (single: 16.7 ± 2.~C, max: 21.9°C, min.: 12.0°C; double: 14.0 ± 1.0°C, max: 15.5°C, min: 12.0°C)before they were moved onto the greenhouse benches (single: 8.5 ± 1°C, max: 20°C, min: 7°C; double:14.5 ± 2.0°C, max: 37.4°C, min: 7.0°C). One hundred randomly selected plants were pulled and visuallyexamined for incidence of OS when the flag leaves were fully developed and again after the majority of flagleaves had died. Data was analyzed using the General Analysis ofVariance function ofthe Linear Modelssection ofStatistix, V.4.1.

RESULTS: Significant differences among cultivars were found at all assessments in both trials except inthe first assessment ofthe double application trial (Table 1). In general, Gazettehad higher incidence ofOS than Quantum. Significant differences among treatments were found at all assessments in both trialsexcept in the Quantum cultivar ofthe second assessment in the double application trial. In all cases,incidence of OS was less in the second assessment after the flag leafhad died (15.4 - 57.1%) in comparisonto the initial infection (35.7 -81.9%). Best control of OS was achieved consistently withthe syntheticgermination stimulant, DPDS in all assessments (9 - 59% reduction compared to the untreated). GARLICSKAPE JUICE and GARLIC POWDER significantly reduced OS compared to the untreated in thesingle application trial by 17.1 and 21.6% respectively at the first assessment in the Gazette cultivar and by18.8 and 18.0% (NS) at the second assessment in the Quantum cultivar. The two rates of GARLIC OIL

- 70 -

and HOMEMADE ONION JUICE were never significantly different than the untreated except at thesecond assessmentofthe singleapplication trial whereHOMEMADE ONION JUICE reduced incidenceof OS by 16.0% in the Quantum cultivar. Although not significant, the Allium product treatments hadhigher incidence of OS compared to the untreated in 18 out ofthe 42 cases. Applyinga secondtreatment tothe soil did not enhancethe efficacyofany of the Allium product treatments. The double soil application ofDPDS providedan additional60 and 50.3% reduction in OS Quantum and Gazettecultivars respectively,at the secondassessment, comparedto the singlesoil applications.

CONCLUSIONS: At the rates tested, none of the Allium products applied as soil treatments wereadequate at reducingincidence of OS. SinceDPDS applied at 60 Llha in 500 L ofwater providedmoderate control of OS, this suggests thatthe Allium products need to beapplied at higher rates. TheAllium products have not been analyzed for BPDS content, but knowing this would beuseful for furtherinvestigation oftheir potential for controllingOS.

Funding for this project was made available by Food Systems 2002 and the Agricultural AdaptationR&D Safety Net Fund with the support of the B&DVGA and the OV&FGA.

- 71 -

Table 1. Effectiveness of single and double applications of Allium products as gennination stimulants tonaturally infested muck soil for OS control, greenhouse trials, in 2000.

42.5 be

50.7 ab

55.6 a

37.9b

38.3 b

39.2 b

64.2 cd

74.0 ab

67.9 be

67.4 ab

65.5 be

61.4e~

10

10

280 kg/ha in1500L/ha water

Treatment

--~~~-~~~?_~~~-~~!)-----------~------~-------~-------~----untreated 63.9 bel 81.9 a 46.7 a 51.4 ab

DPDS 60 53.3 d 57.7 d 35.7 a 37.8 e

GARLIC OIL 5 65.5 be 74.8 ab 47.5 a 53.3 ab

GARLIC OIL 10 75.5 a 80.4 a 46.8 a 57.1 a

GARLICSKAPEJUICEGARLICPOWDERHOMEMADEONION JUICE

._~~~~e_~~~_~~e~~~~~_~!~~~!~:!~:~~lP]~~~!:~~~~ _Incidence of Onion Smut (%)

._---------------------------------------------------------mature flag leaf flag leaf dead

30 Nov - 3 Dec-99 1-4 Jan-OO

23.6 a-c

29.9 ab

31.0 ab

23.7

24.4

23.9

57.1 a

49.0 ab

44.1 be10

60

5

10

10

280 kg/ha in1500Llha water

untreated

DPDS

GARLIC OIL

GARLIC OIL

GARLICSKAPEJUICE

GARLICPOWDER

HOMEMADEONION JUICE

__~~~_~I~_~~~_~.P.P_~~!~I!_~~~~~:!l!L2..2..-.2~~.?2.£.1~_~~:~~~:~~ _Quantum & Gazette' Quantum Gazette

_________]2:~~_~~~ l~:!~_~~~~ _38.3 cd 16.8 NS3 33.0 a

28.2 e 15.8 15.4 e

41.7 be 19.6 23.5 a-c

41.6 be 19.3 26.0 a-c

I Columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different at p=O.05, Fisher's Protected LSD test.

2 No significant differences were found between cultivars, results are pooled.

3No significant difference was found among treatments at p=O.05, Fisher's Protected LSD test.

- 72 -

CROP:PEST:

AUTHORS:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.), cv. Quantum, GazzeteOnion Smut, Urocystis cepu/ae (Frost)

HOEPTING C AI and MCDONALD M R2

I U of Guelph, Dept. of Environmental Biology2 U of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture, Muck Crops Research Station

A BIOASSAY TO DETERMINE ONION SMUT SPORE DENSITY IN SOIL

MATERIALS: NON-INFESTED MUCK SOIL (collected from Smith Farms, Keswick Marsh), ONIONSMUT TELlOSPORES

MEmODS: Several trails on the control of onion smut (OS) have been conducted at the Muck CropsResearch Station both in the field and in the greenhouse where naturally infested muck soil is used. OSincidence in untreated checks is typically high (40-90%), but the OS spore density that incites such levelsof disease is unknown. The development of a bioassay to determine soil teliospore density has beeninitiated. The results ofthe first trail are reported. Natural non-infested muck soil was collected from anarea of unclaimed land in the Keswick marsh and sieved through 2 mm mesh. Smut-infested onions werecollected from the field at the Muck Crops Research Station and dried for 1-2 weeks in the greenhouse (25­35°C). In:fected dried scales and leaves were sieved through 28 and 100 mesh sieves and the teliosporesthat were collected were stored in a glass vial at 4°C. Five drops ofTween and 0.1000 g ofteliosporeswere added to 100 mIof distilled water. After mixing thoroughly, this solution was diluted IDO-fold andthe number of spores per mIdetermined by using a heamocytometer (counting chamber) under amicroscope. A stock solutions of 1 x 105/spores/mi was then prepared and stored at 4°C). This solutionwas used to inoculate air-dried non-infested soil (with rates equivalent to 0, 125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000,4000 and 8000 spores per g oven- dried soil. Soil and spores were mixed thoroughly by hand. A fieldsample and 1110 dilution ofthis sample were also included. Inoculated soil was left at room temperature(21°C) for one week before onions were seeded (cv Gazette) in 200 plug trays (28 Nov 99). The trial wasarranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. To delay emergence and toincrease the infection window, the trial was placed in a storage room (avg: 16.8 ± 1.6°C; max: 20.3°C;min: 12.6°C) for two weeks and then moved into the greenhouse (avg: 9.0 ± 1.0°C; max: 20.0°C; min:7.5°C) for the remainder ofthe trial. Just before the flag leaves began to die (1-2 leaf stage), 100 plantswere pulled and visually examined for incidence of OS (14 Jan, 2000).

RESULTS: As presented in Table 1. No OS was found in the non-infested soil. OS incidence rangedfrom 0.39 to 2.23% and was not: significantly different among the OS spore soil densities. By comparison,the field sample had 78.2% OS incidence, and the diluted field sample had 90.0% OS when multiplied bythe dilution factor. The variance, as measured by the standard deviation ofthe mean was very high in allcases except in the field sample.

CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to our results (i.e. 1000 spores/g soil = 1.93% OS), Steinstra and Lacy(1972) obtained 53% OS when greenhouse soil (1: I: Iratio ofloam:sand:peat) was inoculated with 1000spores/g ODB. They added OS spores to oven-dried soil and used a cement mixer to mix the spores intothe soil. In this experiment. the air-dried non-infested muck soil was very difficult to re-wet. This mayhave affected the germination ofthe teliospores or the onions. Results ofthis first trial indicate that OSspore density in muck soil in the Holland marsh is very high, which may be one ofthe reasons why thisdisease is so difficult to control.

Funding for this project was made available by Food Systems 2002 and the AgriculturalAdaptation R&D Safety Net Fund with the support of the B&DVGA and the OV&FGA.

Table 1. Preliminary bioassay results: effect of soil inoculum density on OS incidence.

------------------------------------]------------------------------------No. of OS spores/g soil (ODB)* Incidence of OS (%) ± std dev

------------------------------------ ------------------------------------o 0.0 ± 0.0 aU

125 1.75 ± 1.04 a

250 1.67 ± 2.64 a

500 0.39 ± 0.68 a

1000 1.93 ± 0.54 a

2000 2.23 ± 1.56 a

4000 1.48 ± 1.50 a

8000 2.23 ± 1.80 a-------------------------------------------------------------------------

field sample 78.2 ± 3.97 c

field sample diluted 1110 9.09 ± 7.34 b

- 73 -

* ODB: oven dried (l02°C for 2 days) basis

** Numbers in a column followed by the same number are not significantly differentat P=0.05, Fisher's Protected LSD test

- 74 -

CROP:PEST:

AumoRS:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.)Onion Smut, Urocystis cepulae (Frost)

HOEPTING C Al and MCDONALD M R2

I U ofGuelph. Dept. of Environmental Biology,2 U ofGuelph, Dept. ofPlant Agricuhure, Muck Crops Research Station

EVALVATION OF COMMERCIAL YELLOW ONION CULTIVARS FORRESISTANCE TO ONION SMUT, GREENHOUSE TRIALS, 1998-1999.

MATERIALS: Raw seed of 13 commercial yellow cookingonion cultivars

MEmODS: Two trials were conductedunder controlled conditions in the greenhouse using naturallyinfestedmuck soil to evaluate 13 commercialcultivars for resistance to onion smut (OS). Raw seedwasprovided by Bejo SeedsLtd., Stokes SeedsLtd. and Petoseed Ltd. Soil (pH 6.4, organic matter 60%,) wascollected on 29 Sep, 1998 (trial #1) and 17 Oct, 1999 (trial #2) from a field at the Muck Crops ResearchStationpreviously croppedto onions and sievedthrough 2 mm mesh. Trials were seeded(trial #1: 1 Dec,1998; trial #2: 12, 14 Nov, 1999) in 200 plug trays and arranged in a randomized completeblock designwith four replications. To delay emergence and to increase the infectionwindow, trial #1 was placedunderneaththe benchesin the greenhouse for the first two weeks until emergence (13 ± 2°C withoccasionalpeaks of20 - 25°C) and then movedonto the benches (14 ± 2°C, max: 27.0°C, min: 12.5°C).Similarly,trial #2 was placed in a cool dark room on stacking shelves (16.5 ± 2.0°C, max: 21.3°C, min:11.0°C) for two weeks before it was moved into the greenhouse (9 ± 2°C, max: 20.0°C, min: 7.5°C).Twenty-five(trial #1) and 100 (trial #2) randomlyselectedplants were pulled and visually examinedforOS incidencewhenthe flag leaves were mature (trial #1: 6 Jan, 1999; trial #2: 19-20 Dec, 1999) and whenthey were dead (trial #1: 11 Feb, 1999; trial #2: 12 Jan, 1999). Emergence counts were taken everythreetimes beforethe first OS assessment. Data was analyzed using the General Analysis ofVariance functionofthe Linear Models section of Statistix, V.4.1. Pearson correlations were used to determinerelationshipsbetween emergence and OS incidence.

RESULTS: Significantdifferences in emergence were found among cultivars in both trials, but none werefound in susceptibilityto OS at any assessment in either trial (Table 1). No significant correlation wasfound betweenemergence and OS incidence. Levels of OS at the first assessment were slightlyhigher intrial #1 than they were in trial #2, but more importantly, OS incidence decreased after the flag leaves diedin trial #2, whereas it remainedhigh in trial #1. This is an indicationthat the initial infectionn was moresevere in trial #1. Copra, Corona and 456894 had relatively low emergence and high incidence of OS,while Fleetwoodhad high emergenceand low OS incidence. Ahematively, Gazette had relativelyhighemergence and high incidence of OS. Quantum had the least OS incidence ofall cultivars in 3 out ofthe 4cases.

CONCLUSIONS: Although none ofthe commercial cultivars evaluated are resistant to OS infection, thedifferent relationshipsobserved between emergence and OS incidence are noteworthy.

Funding for this project was made available by Food Systems 2002 and the Agricultural AdaptationR&D Safety Net Fund with the support of the B&DVGA and the OV&FGA.

Table 1. Emergence and OS incidence of commercial onion cultivars grown in naturally infested mucksoil in the greenhouse.

- 75 -

Trial # lCplanted 1 Dec, 1998) Trial #2 (planted 12,14 Nov, 1999)

% OS % OS % OS % OS% (flag leaf mature) (flag leaf dead) % (flag leaf mature) (flag leaf dead)

Cultivar emergence 6 Jan, 1999 II Feb, 1999 emergence 19-20 Dec, 1999 12Jan, 1999------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------456894 (P) 79.5 d' 90.1 NS2 86.4 NS 56.7 f 84.3 NS 70.5 NS456994 (P) 91.5 a 86.3 86.7 89.0 ab 86.3 73.3Corona (B) 79.5 c 90.2 91.5 81.3 cd 86.6 68.6Copra (B) 80.5 be 96.2 87.6 71.9 e 90.5 70.7Festival (B) 94.0 a 94.6 87.4 87.4 ab 89.6 67.1Fleetwood (B) 95.0 a 86.1 82.7 88.5 ab 79.1 67.9Prince (B) 59.0 d 88.7 89.8 60.5 f 84.0 66.3Salem (B) 91.5 a 81.6 92.1 84.3 be 87.7 66.7Santana (B) 93.5 a 88.2 82.8 88.0 ab 84.0 65.1Tamara (B) 87.5 ab 92.0 89.8 76.4 de 87.3 65.4Cortland (B) 84.8 be 89.1 66.4Gazette (5) 95.0 a 94.6 85.4 89.9 a 87.2 71.452~~~~~1§2 ~1~Q_~~ ~9~~ I~~ ~~~1_~-5 ~~·§ ~~J _

I Numbers in a column followed by the same number are not significantly different at P=0.05, Fisher'sProtected LSD test.

2 No significant difference

B = Bejo Seeds Ltd. P = Petoseed Ltd. S = Stokes Seeds Ltd.

- 76 -

CROP:PEST:

AUTHORS:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.), cv. Quantum, GazzeteOnion Smut, Urocystis cepulae (Frost)

HOEPTING C A!, SCOTI-DUPREE CD!, G DUNNS3 and MCDONALD M R2

1 U of Guelph, Dept. of Environmental Biology2 U of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture, Muck Crops Research Station3 U ofGuelph, Laboratory Services

EVALUATION OF SYNTHETIC GERMINATION STIMULANTS FORCONTROL OF ONION SMUT, GREENHOUSE TRIALS, IN 2000.

MATERIALS: DADS (diallyl disulphide 78%, related compounds 12%), DPDS (a-propyl disulphide88%, related compounds 2%).

MEmODS: Two trials were conducted under semi-controlled conditions in the greenhouse to determine ifthe application of synthetic germination stimulants to soil would reduce incidence ofonion smut (OS).Naturally infested muck soil (pH 6.4, organic matter 60%, 190% moisture) was collected from the field atthe Muck Crops Research Station, sieved through 2 rom mesh and thoroughly mixed by hand with 2.5 (forlow rates 5,10,20) or 15 ml (for high rates 60, 120) of synthetic germination stimulant (United Agri­Products) in solution per 10 L of soil. The rates applied were equivalent to L/ha product in 500 LAta ofwater in the top 20 em offield soil. Treatments were DADS 78% at 5, 10 and 60 LAta and DPDS 88% at10,20, 60 and 120 LAta in 500L ofwater. Tap water was used as an untreated check. Treated soil wasstored at room temperature (23.1 ± 2°C, max: 26.9°C, min: 17.8°C) in closed black polyethylene bags.After 15 weeks, the single application trial was seeded. After 13 weeks, the soil was treated again andstored for another 17 weeks (21.0 ± 1.4°C, max: 23.6°C, min: 17.8°C) before seeding the doubleapplication trial. All trials were seeded in 200 plug trays and arranged in a randomized complete blockdesign with two cultivars, eight treatments and four replications. To delay emergence and to increase theinfection window, trials were started in a cool dark room for the first two weeks (single: 16.7 ± 2.2°C, max:21.9°C, min: 12.0°C; double: 14.0 ± 1.0°C, max: 15.5°C, min: 12.0°C) before they were moved onto thegreenhouse benches (single: 8.5 ± 1°C, max: 20°C, min: 7°C; double: 14.5 ± 2.0°C, max: 37.4°C, min:7.0°C). One hundred randomly selected plants were pulled and visually examined for incidence of OSwhen the flag leaves were fully developed and again after the majority of flag leaves had died. Data wasanalyzed using the General Analysis ofVariance function ofthe Linear Models section of Statistix, V.4.1.

RESULTS: Significant differences among treatments were found at all assessments in both trials (Table1). In all cases, incidence of OS was less in the second assessment after the flag leafhad died (16.8­52.6%) in comparison to the initial infection (29.2 -72.9%). Best control ofOS was achieved consistentlywith DPDS applied at 60 LAta in all assessments (22.7 - 38% control). DPDS applied at 120 LAta wasnever significantly different thanthe 60 LAta treatment. Both the 60 and 120 LAta rates of DPDS alwaysreduced OS significantly more thanthe DADS treatments. DPDS applied at 20 LAta was the minimumrate required to significantly reduce OS in comparison to the untreated check. In the second assessment,the double soil application of DPDS provided an additional 50 and 62% control at the 60 and 120 L/harates, respectively, in comparison to the single soil applications. None ofthe DADS treatments reducedOS in comparison to the untreated check.

CONCLUSIONS: Best control of OS (38%) was achieved when DPDS was applied twice to soil at a rateof 60 LAta in 500 L water. Since control of OS with DPDS was better in the double application trialcompared to the single application trial, this implied that the application ofthis synthetic germination

stimulant to soil was effective at reducing the soil density ofthe OS fungus. The application of DPDSalone to control OS would not beeconomical, but it definitely has potential to bedeveloped into an IPMprogram.

Funding for this project was made available by Food Systems 2002 and the Agricultural AdaptationR&D Safety Net Fund with the support of the B&DVGA and the OV&FGA.

Table 1. Effectiveness of single and double applications of synthetic germination stimulants to naturallyinfested muck soil for OS control, greenhouse trials, in 2000.

Incidence of Onion Smut (%)1._-----------------------------------------------------------

Single Soil Application? Double Soil Applicationtreated: 16-Jul-99 treated: 23-Jul, 22-0ct-99planted: 31-0ct-99 planted: 26-Feb-00

Rate mature flag leaf flag leafdead mature flag leaf flag leafdeadTreatment (L/ha in 500L water) 30 Nov - 3 Dec-99 1-4 Jan-OO 19-22 Mar-OO 14-16 Apr-OO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------untreated 72.9 a3 49.1 a 38.3 b-d 25.0 ab

DADS 5 66.5 ab 48.0 ab 42.6 ab 20.5 a-c

DADS 10 71.5 a 46.1 ab 42.5 ab 20.8 a-c

DADS 60 70.8 a 52.6 a 48.2 a 28.3 a

DPDS 10 63.7 b 46.6 ab 39.8 a-c 21.6 a-c

DPDS 20 59.6 be 37.4 e 36.3 b-d 18.6 be

DPDS 60 55.5 c 36.7 c 29.6 d 15.5 e

DPDS 120 55.1 c 40.7 be 31.2 cd 16.8 c

1 Results shown are pooled from cvs. Quantum and Gazette.

2 Significant differences were found between cu1tivars, Gazette had higher levels of OS.

3 Columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different at p=0.05, Fisher's Protected LSD test.

- 77 -

- 78 -

CROP:PEST:

AUTHORS:

TITLE:

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

HOEPTING C AI, SCOTT-DUPREE C D1 and MCDONALD M R2

I U of Guelph, Dept. of Environmental Biology2 U of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture, Muck Crops Research Station

EVALUATION OF FUNGICIDE AND INSECTICIDE TREATMENTCOMBINATIONS FOR THE CONTROL OF ONION SMUT, 2000.

MATERIALS: PRO GRO 30/S0D (carbathiin 30% + thiram 50%), DITHANE DG (mancozeb 75%),LORSBAN lSG (chlorpyrifos 15%), GOVERNOR 7S WP (cyromazine 75%), AZTEC 2/0.1G(phosetbupirin 2.0% + cyfluthrin 0.1%), REGENT 80 WG (fipronil 80%).

MEmODS: The trial was conducted in naturally infested muck soil (pH 6.4, organic matter 60%) at theUniversity of Guelph Muck Crops Research Station located in the Holland Marsh, Ontario. Plots werearranged in a randomized complete block design with a total of 20 treatments and four replications. PROGRO 30/S0D, GOVERNOR 75WP and REGENT 80WG seed treatments were film-coated at rates of20,50 and 25 g ai/kg of seed (cv. Cortland), respectfully, by Dr. Alan Taylor in Cornell NY. Granularformulations ofDITHANE DG (6.6 kg ai/ha), LORSBAN lSG (4.8 kg ailha) and AZTEC 2/0.1G (0.5kg ailha) were applied in-furrow with the seed. The trial was seeded at a rate of 40 seeds/rn ofrow on 5May, using a push V-belt seeder. Each treatment plot consisted of four 6 m rows of onions spaced 40 cmapart. Six separate 2 m sections were randomly selected for each offive onion smut (OS) assessmentsand final yield. To determine initial stand, emergence counts were taken on 17, 24, 26, 30 May and 8 Junin each 2 m section. At the l" leaf (9 Jun), 4-5th leaf(3 Jul), s-r: leaf (12 Jul) and bulbing (19 Aug)growth stages, and at final harvest (21 Sep) all the onions in the 2 m sections of row were pulled andvisually examined for symptoms of OS. Twice weekly from 20 Jun to 8 Aug, dying onions were pulledand their cause of death (OS, onion maggot or other) was recorded. At final harvest (21 Sep), weight andbulb size were taken from the remaining 2 m section of onions. Data was analyzed using the GeneralAnalysis of Variance function of the Linear Models section of Statistix, V.4.1. Interaction betweenfungicides (none, PRO GRO 30/S0D, DITHANE DG, PRO GRO 30/S0D+DITHANE DG) andinsecticides (none, LORSBAN lSG, GOVERNOR7S WP, AZTEC 2/0.1G, REGENT 80 WG) wasanalyzed using a 4 x 5 factorial design. When data was not normal, statistics were performed onarcsin.x transformed data.

RESULTS: A significant interaction between fungicides and insecticides was found only at the fourthassessment (Table 1). Significant main effects at all assessments showed that treatment combinationswith PRO GRO 30/S0D + DITHANE DG had the least OS, followed by those with DITHANE DG andthen PRO GRO 30/S0D. Similarly, treatments with LORSBAN 15Ghad the least OS, followed by thosewith AZTEC 2/0.1G, GOVERNOR 75 WPand then REGENT 80 WG. Significant differences werefound among treatments for incidence of OS at all assessments (Table 2). LORSBAN lSG and AZTEC2/0.1G significantly reduced incidence of smut in comparison to the untreated check in three (52.5-72%OS reduction) and two (both 35% reduction) of the five assessments, respectively. Onions treated withGOVERNOR 75 WP had significantly more OS than those treated with LORSBAN lSGin four out ofthe five assessments. Treatments with GOVERNOR 75WP and REGENT 80 WG were notsignificantly different than the untreated check. PRO GRO 30/50D + LORSBAN 15G and AZTEC2/0.1G significantly reduced OS in comparison to PRO GRO 30/50D alone in two of the fiveassessments respectively. PRO GRO 30/50D + GOVERNOR 75 WP and REGENT 80 WG hadsimilar or slightly higher OS than PRO GRO 30/S0D alone at all assessments. PRO GRO 30/50D +

LORSBAN 15G had significantly less as than PRO GRO 30/50D + GOVERNOR 75 WP in allassessments. The DITHANE DG + insecticide treatments followed the same trend as the PRO GRO30/50D + insecticide treatments, except that DITHANE DG + AZTEC 210.1G had similar or higher asthan DITHANE DG alone. PRO GRO 30/50D + DITHANE DG reduced as the best out of all 20treatments in all assessments except for the first; the addition of insecticide did not affect control ofas.No significant differences were found among the insecticides when they were used in combination withPRO GRO 30/50D + DITHANE DG in three out of the five assessments. The air temperatures wereabove the long term (10 year) average for May, below average for June, July and August and average forSeptember. Total rainfall was above the long term average for May (160.3 mm), June (173.4 mm), andAugust (75.7 mm), below average for September (79.8 mm) and average for July (86.4mm).

CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy of fungicide treatments for control ofas varied depending on the selectionof in-furrow insecticide. Similarly, the effect that an insecticide has on as varied according to thefungicide treatment that it is used with. The most common trend observed was that treatments withLORSBAN 15G and AZTEC 210.1G had less as than treatments with fungicide only; GOVERNOR 75WP and REGENT 80 WG had the same or slightly higher incidence ofas. The best control ofas wasachieved with PRO GRO 30/50D + DITHANE DG and when LORSBAN 15G was used in thetreatment combination.

Funding for this project was made available by Food Systems 2002 and the Agricultural AdaptationR&D Safety Net Fund with the support of the B&DVGA and the OV&FGA.

Table. 1 Main effects and interactions of fungicides and insecticides for the control of onion smut.

Incidence of Onion Smut (%)._----------------------------------------------------------------1Sl true leaf 4-5 true leaf 5-7true leaf bulbing harvest

._~~E_gJ~~~~ ~----2-~~~--------~-~~~ ~~!~~ ~2_~~_~ ~~~~p _untreated 72.1 a 43.8 a 43.9 a 38.7 a 32.2 aPRO GRO 30/50D 56.4b 16.8b 17.4b 19.3b 15.0bDITHANEDG 51.4b 7.lb 8.8c 5.9c 4.7cPRO GRO 30/50D + 40.1 c 3.3 c 4.0 d 4.2 c 1.3 cDITHANEDG

._----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------._p_Y~L~~1£2 Q Q Q Q Q _

Insecticide._----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------untreated 53.3 ab 20.0 ab 23.6 a 17.2 a 11.9 abLORSBAN 15G 44.2 b 11.6 b 9.2 c 8.2 b 6.4 bGOVERNOR75WP 61.3 a 18.3a 21.1ab 2l.5a 17.laAZTEC 2/0.1G 53.0 ab 17.3 a 16.2 b 16.7 a 18.1 a._~~~~_~9_~~ ~l)_~ ~~~~ ~~J_~ ~l~6_~ Ll~_~p _

P value (I) 0.0159 0.0126 0.000 I 0.0005 0.0079._~~£~y_aJ~~ 2~2§]J 2~Jj ~·]J_~~ 2~Q9J) 2~Jj2J _

- 79 -

- 80 -

Table 2. Effectiveness of fungicide/insecticide combinations for as control, 2000.

0.44 e

1.90 e

4.40 de

20.90 be25.10 a-c16.90 cd6.20 de2.90 e6.50 de7.00 de0.77 e

0.00 e

1.9 i

4.5 g-i

9.3 f-h

22.1 c-e12.5 e-g25.7 c-e

2.7 hi5.2 g-i6.8 f-h8.7 fg6.3 f-h0.53 i

2.9 g

2.9 g

4.0 fg

23.0 c16.3 c-f21.9 cd15.5 c-g4.2 fg8.6 d-g6.1 fg9.3 d-g2.5 g

1.8 hi

1.4 hi

8.3 f-h

18.8 c-e14.8 d-f21.4 cd10.7 e-g4.4 g-i7.3 fg4.4 g-i8.5 fg0.3 i

64.6 a-e57.7 b-f67.1 a-d51.1 c-g46.1 d-g49.5 d-g51.7 c-g58.6 b-f41.7 e-g

48.6 d-g

32.3 g

29.0 h

Treatment and rate

·--------------------------------------------------lncfdence-of()Tlion-Srnut(~)-------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------1II true leaf 4-5 true leaf 5-7 true leaf bulbing harvest9Jun 3Jul 13Jul 19 Aug' 21Sep

~~tr~~t~d~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----68~i~:d2-----48~3~b-------58~6~--------56~1~-------36~20-;----

L(4.8kgai/ha)........... 57.9b-f 32.4bc 21.5 cd 15.7d-f 17.20cdG (50 g ailkg3)········ 82.5 a 38.8 ab 49.8 ab 35.2 be 36.30 aA (0.5 kg ailha)................ 73.5 a-c 48.8 ab 38.4 b 36.4 be 38.10 aR(25gai/kg)............... 78.1ab 50.9 a 51.1ab 50.0ab 33.20abP (20 g ai/kg).............. 52.2 c-g 20.9 c-e 17.7 c-e 26.6 cd 6.60 deP (20 g ai/kg) +L (4.8 kg ailha)... 40.2 f-g 7.9 fg 8.0 e-g 9.8 fg 5.20 deP (20 g ai/kg) +G (50 gai/kg) .P (20 g ailkg) +A (0.5 kg ailha)..P (20 g ai/kg) +R (25 g ailha) .....D (6.6 kg ailha) ....D (6.6 kg ailha) +L (4.8 kg ailha)D (6.6 kg ai/ha) +G (50 g ai/kg)D (6.6 kg ailha) +A (0.5 kg ailha)D (6.6 kg ailha) +R (25 g ailha) ...P (20 g ai.kg) +D (6.6 kg ailha)P (20 g ai/kg) +D (6.6 kg ailha)+L (4.8 kg ailha) .P (20 g ailkg)+D (6.6 kg ai/ha)+G (50 g ailkg) .P (20 g ai/kg) + D (6.6 kg ai/ha)+ A (0.5 kg ailha) .P (20 g ailkg) +D (6.6 kg ailha)~~_(f2~~i~~~~~~~~ 42~~g~g. 1~IgD Z~~S:g 1~~lti l~fQ_~ _

2

Statistics performed on arcsin..fx transformed data

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

Seed treatment: g ai/kg of seed for GOVERNOR 75 WP, REGENT 80 WG and PRO GRO30/50D

L =LORSBAN 15G G =GOVERNOR 75 WPP =PRO GRO 30/50D

A = AZTEC 2/0.1G R = REGENT 80 W P

CROP:PEST:

AumoRS:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.)Onion Smut, Urocystis cepu/ae (Frost)

HOEPTING C AI and MCDONALD M R2

I University of Guelph, Dept. of Environmental Biology2 University of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture, Muck Crops Research Station

EVALUATION OF ONION BREEDING LINES FOR RESISTANCE TO ONIONSMUT, GREENHOUSE TRIAL.

- 81 -

MATERIALS: Onion seed from breeding lines developed by Dr. Michael 1.Havey, USDA ResearchGeneticist and Associate professor of Horticulture, University ofWisconsin

MEmODS: A trial was conducted under semi-eontrolled conditions in the greenhouse to screen 10 onionbreeding lines, provided by Dr. MJ. Havey for resistance to onion smut (OS). Commercial cuhivarsQuantum (Stokes Seed Ltd.), Gazette (Stokes seed Ltd.) and Cortland (Bejo Seed Ltd.) were also included.The trial was seeded (9-10 Nov, 1999) into 200 plug trays filled with naturally infested muck soil (pH 6.4,o.m. 60%) that was collected from the field at the Muck Crops Research Station and sieved through 2 mmmesh. The trial was arranged in a randomized complete block design with 13 treatments and fourreplications. To delay emergence and to increase the infection window, seeded trays were started in a cooldark room for the first two weeks (16.4 ± 1.8°C, max: 21.3 °C, min: 10.8°C) before they were moved ontothe greenhouse benches (9.0 ± 1.0°C, max: 20°C, min: 7.5°C). One hundred randomly selected plantswere pulled and visually examined for incidence of OS when the flag leaves were fully developed (17-18Dec, 1999) and again after the majority of flag leaves had died (8 Jan, 2000). Data was analyzed using theGeneral Analysis ofVariance function ofthe Linear Models section of Statistix, V.4.I.

RESULTS: As presented in Table 1. Emergence was very poor in MSU611-IB, MSU8155B, B237ICand B2923B and these lines could not effectively be screened for OS resistance. In general, emergence wassignificantly less in the breeding lines than in the commercial cuhivars, with the exception of2399x94009and 2399x9401O. MSU2935B had significantly less OS incidence than the commercial cultivars at thefirst assessment. However, only eight plants were assessed; a larger sample size is needed to accuratelydetermine resistance to OS. AC43 had less OS than 2399x940IO, which had the highest incidence, butagain, emergence was less than the commercial cultivars. Despite the A. fistu/osum pedigree in the maleparent of 2399x94009 and 2399x940IO, both of these breeding lines were as susceptible to OS as thecommercial cuhivars. This was unexpected because A. fistulosum is a Japanese bunching onion withknown resistance to OS. There was a positive correlation between emergence and incidence of OS(r=0.4273).

CONCLUSIONS: The commercial onion cultivars and crosses with A. fistu/osum were very susceptibleto onion smut. The relative resistance ofthe breeding lines was difficult to assess because ofthe lowemergence. Lines MSU2935B and AC43 warrant further investigation.

- 82 -

Table 1. Emergence and as incidence of onion cultivars and breeding lines.

mature flag leaves (17-18 Dec, 1999) flag leaves dead (8 Jan, 2000)

Onion Seed % emerge % as % emerge % as._--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quantum 84.5 a* 82.6 ab 81.5 b 64.5 NS**

Gazette 88.5 a 88.3 ab 88.0 a 75.2

Cortland 89.0 a 83.1 ab 83.3 ab 60.9

AC43 30.3c 72.0 be 37.5e 51.9

BYG15·23 54.5 b 82.7 ab 51.8 d 67.1

MSU2935B 8.0 d 58.8 c 8.5 f 70.0

GCA synthetic 58.8 b 88.1 ab 60.5 c 73.7

2399x94009 83.3 a 86.5 ab 80.8 b 68.2

2399x94010 87.0 a 92.1 a 87.0 a 73.8._--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MSU611-1B*** 1.25 50.0 0.0 NA

MSU8155B*** 0.25 100.0 0.0 NA

B2371C*** 4.0 41.7 3.8 18.3

B2923B*** 0.0 NA 0.0 NA

•

**

***

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

NS: no significant differences, P=0.05, Fisher's Protected LSD test

Emergence too poor to perform statistics on these treatments

CROP:PEST:

AUTHORS:

TITLE:

Onion (Allium cepa) Yellow cv. STX 9329A and Red cv. MarsAllium White Rot Sclerotium cepivorum (Berk)

JAIME MDLA I., HSIANG T2

• & MCDONALD MR'.I U of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture,2 U of Guelph, Dept. of Environmental Biology.

EVALVATION OF SCLEROTIA GERMINATION STIMULANTS FOR THECONTROL OF WHITE ROT Sclerotium cepivorum (Berk) ON ONIONS, 2000.

- 83 -

MATERIALS: DADS (diallyl disulphide 78%, related compounds 12%), NATURAL GARLIC OIL(composition unknown), GARLIC POWDER (diallyl disulphide 0.092%).

METHODS: Two commercial onions fields (organic muck soil) with history of white rot treated withsclerotia germination stimulants (SGS) since 1998, in the Holland Marsh, Ontario were used for assessonions for white rot incidence. A randomized complete design with six replications per treatmentswas used (Table 1) and untreated control was included. Each plot in the trial consisted onapproximately 5 m x 50 m. All replications were separated by a minimum of 0.3 m in all trials.

Applications were made after harvest of previous crop when the maximum soil temperature at 10 emdeep, remained below 21°C for several days, in order to avoid the possibility of soil temperaturesexceeding 24°C at any time in the fall after treatment.The SGS treatments (Tablet) were applied, on 2Oct, 1998 and 17 May, 1999 (sites 1) and 2 Oct, 1998 and 30 Jun, 1999 (site 2). A modified Vorlex soilfumigation apparatus with eleven injection hoses spaced 20 em apart was used to inject each treatmentson depths of 10 and 20 cm, at the specific rate in 500 L of waterlha. A mechanical roller were used toseal the treated areas and the soil remained undisturbed until spring.

In the spring of 2000, growers seeded the sites and managed the crop for the full season. Red onions cv.Mars were seeded at site 1 whereas yellow cooking onions cv. STX 9329A were seeded at site 2.Recommended control procedures for fungal and bacterial pathogens, weeds and insects were followed.Air temperatures during the trial were above the long-term (10 year) average for May, below average forJune, July and August and average for September. Total rainfall was above the long-term (l0 year)average for May (160.3 mm), June (173.4 mm), and August (75.7 mm), average for July (86.4 mm), andbelow average for September (79.8 mm). Four subplots in each replication were sampled at harvest forincidence of white rot on 30-31 Aug and 1 Sep (site 1) and 11-12 Sep, 2000 (site 2). Statistical analysiswere performed using the PROC GLM, PROC PLOT AND PROC UNIVARIATE procedures of SASver. 6.12 (SAS Institute, Cary NC.)

RESULTS: Favourable weather conditions for the development of white rot, other fungal and bacterialdiseases were found during the growing season (wet and cold). The first symptoms apparition was foundon 6 Jul, 2000. Disease incidence at the site 1, was approximately 34% whereas site 2 was almost 10%.No site by treatment interaction was found and results were pooled.

Compared to the control, two applications of DADS 5 and 10 Llha, GARLIC POWDER 280 kglha andNATURAL GARLIC OIL 5 Llha reduced white rot incidence at harvest by 40 to 67%. Similar resultswere found with DADS in field trials in 1996 and 1997, at the Muck Crops Research Station.

The DADS 5 and 10 Llha, GARLIC POWDER 280 kglha and NATURAL GARLIC OIL 5 Llhasignificantly reduce white rot incidence at harvest. No significantly difference in white rot was found

- 84 -

with the use ofNATURAL GARLIC OIL 10 Llha related with the untreated control. Untreated controlpresented a incidence of27.71% where as NATURAL GARLIC OIL 10 Llha had 26.84% of incidenceof white rot and those treatments that significantly reduce white rot had between 9.03% and 16.59%(Table 1).

CONCLUSIONS: Significant reduction of the disease (P = 0.0009) was found with two applications ofDADS 5 and 10 Llha, GARLIC POWDER 280 kg/ha and NATURAL GARLIC OIL 5 Llha.

Results demonstrates that GARLIC POWDER and NATURAL GARLIC OIL are potential controlsfor white rot on onions. For DADS treatment these results are similar to those found in previous resultsof the last three years.

Funding provided by NSERC, Ontario Research Enhancement Program, by OF&VGA andB&DVGA. Materials tested provided by United Agri Products Canada Ltd. and Empire Research.

Table 1. Mean percentage of white rot incidence on onions ofcultivars Mars and STX 9329A at harvest,in muck soil treated with sclerotia germination stimulants (SOS) for the control of white rot (Sclerotiumcepivorum Berk), Bradford Marsh, Ontario, Canada, 2000.

Treatments

CONTROL (untreated)

DADS

DADS

GARLIC POWDER

NATURAL GARLIC OIL

NATURAL GARLIC OIL

P-value (ANOV A)- Treatment

Rate

5 Llha

10 Llha

280 kglha

5 Llha

10 Llha

0.0009

White rot incidence (%) Sites 1 & 2

27.71 c'

11.00 a

9.03 a

16.59 ab

16.44 ab

26.84 be

I Numbers in a column followed by a different letter are significantly different at P=0.05, Fisher'sProtected LOS test.

CROP:PEST:

AUTHORS:

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L) cv. Fortress and susceptible commercial cultivar.Allium White Rot, Sclerotium cepivorum (Berk)

JAIME MDLA1., HSIANG 1"2. & MCDONALD MR J•

I U of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture,2 U of Guelph, Dept. of Environmental Biology.

EVALUATION OF VESICULAR ARBUSCULAR MYCORRHIZAE (VAM ) AS ABIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF WHITE ROT Sclerotium cepivorum (Berk) ONONIONS, 2000.

- 85 -

MATERIALS: MIKRO-VAM® (VAM inoculum Glomus intraradices, contains at least 900 spores pergram of inoculum, by Mikro-Tek), PRO MIX PGX® with MYCORISE ® 1000 (VAM inoculum,Glomus intraradices, contains at least 1000 spores per liter of medium, by Premier Tech) and PROMIXPGX® with MYCORISE® 255 (VAM inoculum, Glomus intraradices, contains at least 255 spores perliter of medium, by Premier Tech), T-22 PLANT SHIELD DRENCH WP® (Trichoderma harzianumRifai strain KRL-AG2 1.15%, contains at least 1 x 107 colony forming unitslg dry weight, by Bioworks),T-22 ROOT SHIELD GRANULES® (Trichoderma harzianum Rifai strain KRL-AG2 1.15%, containsat least 1 x 107 colony forming unitslg dry weight, by Bioworks) and FOLICUR 3.6F (Tebuconazole38.7%, by Bayer)

METHODS: Onions, cultivars Fortress (relatively resistant mid-maturing) and susceptible commercialcultivar were seeded in 288 plastic plug trays on 18-19 Apr, 2000. VAM inoculum Glomus intraradices(MIKRO-VAM® , PRO MIX PGX® with MYCORISE ® 1000 and PROMIX PGX® withMYCORISE® 255) and Trichoderma harzianum inoculum (T-22 PLANT SIllELD DRENCH WP®and T-22 ROOT SHIELD GRANULES®) were used as seeding treatments. PRO MIX PGX ® wasused as the growing medium for all treatments.

The fertilizer regime for all treatments was potassium nitrate 13.5-0-46 (greenhouse grade 50 ppm firsttime and 100 ppm the rest of application), once a week, starting 2.5 wk after seeding, No phosphoruswas used because it has been shown to influence mycorrhizal root colonization and affect thedevelopment of external mycelium during the early stages of root colonization by VAM fungi in the soil.The plants remained in the greenhouse for 5 weeks. The tops were clipped at 4,5,6 wk to get largeronions. The plants were placed outside for one week to harden before transplanting. LORSBAN 4E foronion maggot control was applied (1.6 ml in 500 ml of water per tray) before hand-transplanting.

The trials were located in three naturally infested commercial fields (muck soil, pH 6.4, organic matter60%) in the Bradford Marsh, Ontario, Canada (44° 5' N - 79°35' W). The onion plants werehand transplanted on 29-30 May (site 1),5-6 Jun (site 2) and 7 Jun, 2000 (site 3). The seven treatmentstested (Table 1) were replicated six times for each cultivar in a randomized complete block design. Eachplot in the trial consisted of one bed of 4 rows of onions (2 m) with a row spacing of 0.42 m (1.7 mwide). Onions were planted at 25 plants 1m, giving 200 onions per plot. Recommended controlprocedures for fungal and bacterial pathogens, weeds and insects were followed. Onions were managedfor the full season by the growers. FOLICUR 3.6F (Tebuconazole, I Llha) was applied in band twice, 5and 10 weeks after hand-transplanting.

Assessment before transplanting and mid-season (8 weeks) was done to measure percent of colonizationof roots by VAM, and weight (fresh and dry) and size ofthe plants. Periodic subsamples at 6, 9, 12 and15 weeks were collected to monitor the development of the crop. Onion bulbs were assessed for white

- 86 -

rot incidence and severity at maturity (15 wk) as well as weight (fresh and dry). White rot incidence wasclassified as low (1- 10%), medium (II-50) and high (51-100%).

The air temperatures during the trial were above the long-term (10 year) average for May, below averagefor June, July and August and average for September. Total rainfall was above the long-term (10 year)average for May (160.3 mm), June (173.4 mm), and August (75.7 mm), average for July(86.4 mm), and below average for September (79.8 mm). Statistical tested were performed using thePROC GLM, PROC PLOT AND PROC UNIVARIATE procedures of SAS ver. 6.12 (SAS Institute,Cary NC.)

RESULTS: Weather conditions during the growing season were wet and cold which is favorable for thedevelopment of white rot and other fungal and bacterial diseases. The first onion infected with white rotwas found on 6 Jul, 2000.

In two of the three fields the disease incidence was greater than 20%( site I & site 3). At site 2, theincidence of the disease was less than 2%; no significant differences were found among treatments in site2. Data are shown from site I and 3. Disease incidence at the two sites was 22.3% (site I) and 36.4%(site 3). In this area, the average disease incidence in commercial production was approximately 35%. Insome commercial fields white rot incidence was 75% for the 2000 season.

Disease incidence was higher in the susceptible commercial cultivar (30.01 % site I ,37.42 % site 3)than in cv. Fortress(5.76% site I, 12.64% site 3). These data confirm the partial resistance of Fortress towhite rot. There was no treatment by cultivar interaction.

The two applications of FOLICUR 3.6F reduced white rot incidence at harvest compared to the controlby more than 45% (Table I). Similar results was found with FOLICUR 3.6F in field trials in 1999, atthe Muck Crops Research Station. Beneficial effects were observed in onion plants inoculated with VAMGlomus intraradices (MIKRO-VAM® and PROMIX PGX® with MYCORISE® 1000) in terms ofreduced incidence of the disease. White rot incidence at harvest was significantly reduced by more than45% (Table I). These two treatments did not differ significantly from the fungicide in terms of diseaseincidence. These data suggest that VAM fungi (Glomus intraradices) can protect onions from white rotwhen the plants are inoculated before coming into contact with the pathogen.

The incidence of white rot was not significantly different among onions treated with T-22 PLANTSHIELD DRENCH WP®, T-22 ROOT SHIELD GRANULES®, PROMIX PGX® withMYCORISE® 255 and the untreated control (Table I).

CONCLUSIONS: VAM (Glomus intraradices MIKRO-VAM® and PROMIX PGX® withMYCORISE® 1000) can substantially reduce onion white rot caused by Sclerotium cepivorum,comparable to the fungicide FOLICUR 3.6F applied as a banded spray 5 and 10 wk after transplanting.

This work demonstrates that biological control of Allium white rot with VAM has potential as aneffective disease management strategy for onions grown from transplants.

Funding provided by NSERC, by the R&D safety Net Fund through the supports of theOF&VGA and the B&DVGA. Materials tested provided by Premier Tech, Mikro-Tek, Bayer andBio-Works,

This report is modified from the report for the proceedings of Alliums 2000.

Table 1. Mean percentage of white rot incidence on onions cv. Fortress and susceptiblecommercial cultivar at harvest, colonized by VAM or Trichoderma harzianum beforetransplanting or treated with tebuconazole for the control of White rot (Sclerotium cepivorumBerk), Bradford Marsh, Ontario, Canada, 2000. By site.

Site 1 Site 3

- 87 -

Treatment' Rate % Disease % Disease

Control (untreated) 22.30 c2 26.76 c

Folicur 3.6F2 1 Llha 11.58 a 15.61 ab

MIKRO-VAM® 1 gr/plug 13.26 ab 13.61 a

MYCORISE ® 1000 1000 spore/L 14.94 ab 18.54 ab

MYCORISE® 255 255 spore/L 16.43 abc 36.40 d

T-22 Plant Shield Drench WP® 10 kglha 16.72 abc 25.35 be

_~:~~_~~~!_~~l~!~_~~~~~~e~~ ~9_~~~ ~?:~~_~~ ?J~~J_E5 _

I Except for the fungicide Folicur which was band sprayed 5 and 10 wk after transplant, othertreatments were at seeding.

2 Numbers in a column followed by a different letter are significantly different at P=0.05,Fisher's Protected LDS test.

- 88 -

CROP:PEST:

AUTHORS:

TITLE:

Yellowcooking onions (Allium cepa L.), cv. FortressWhite Rot, Sclerotium cepivorum (Berk)

MCDONALD M R, VANDER KOOI KU of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agricuhure, Muck Crops Research Station

FIELD EVALUAnON OF BOTRAN 75 W DRENCH FOR THE CONTROL OFONION WBITE ROT, 2000

MATERIALS: BOTRAN 75 W (dicloran 75%), FOLICUR (tebuconazole38.7%)

METHODS: Two fieldtrials were conducted in organic soil naturally infestedwith white rot incommercial onion fields in the Bradford marsh in 2000. At both sites, plots were designedwithin areas thegrowers had experienceda problem with white rot the previous time onions were grown in that field. Arandomized complete block arrangement with 4 blocks per treatment was used. Each replicate consisted of4 rows spaced (site 1) and 5 rows spaced (site 2),3 m in length. Both sites were seededwith 33seeds/meter. BOTRAN 75 W was applied as a plant-based drench. BOTRAN 75 W was applied at threedifferent timings. The treatments were a) 4 and 7 true leaf stage, b) 4, 7 and 10 true leaf stage and c) 7 trueleaf stage. All treatments were applied at 3.67 kgIha in 2000 LJha ofwater at each application.FOLICUR (1.0 kglha in 2000 LJha ofwater) was applied at the 7 true leaf stage and used as the standardtreatment. All treatments were applied using a Solo back pack sprayer with a Tee-jet 8010 nozzle. Anuntreated check was also included. Incidence and severity ofwhite rot was rated at harvest on 28 Aug(site 1) and 30 Aug (site 2). A scale of 1 to 10 was used to assess severity: 1 =mycelium covering 1-2 emof onion bulb, 5 = 4-5 em of bulb covered, 10 = covers basal half of bulb with mycelium. The airtemperatures were above the long term (10 year) average for May (13.6 "C), below average for June (17.5"C), July (18.7 "C) and August (18.7 "C)and average for September (14.5 "C), Total rainfall was abovethe long term (10 year) average for May (160.3 mm), June (173.4 mm), and August (75.7 mm), belowaverage for September (79.8 mm) and average for July (86.4). Data were analyzed using the GeneralAnalysis of Variance function ofthe Linear Models section ofStatistix V.4.1. Means separation wasobtained using Fisher's Protected LSD test at P= 0.05 level of significance.

RESULTS: As outlined in Tables 1 & 2.

CONCLUSIONS: Significant differenceswere observed among the treatments in site 1. All BOTRAN75 W treatments significantly reducedthe incidenceofonion white rot at site 1. compared to the check.The full rate ofBOTRAN 75 W (11.0 kgIha) had significantly lower white rot than the FOLICUR. Thefull rate also had the lowest severity rating at site 1. At site 2 the BOTRAN 75 W applied at one-thirdthefull rate had the lowest incidenceof onion white rot although, overall, there was no significant difference inthe incidenceor severity ofthe disease among treatments. Althoughsufficient rain fell throughout theseason for white rot development, due it the timing ofthe last application (8-10 true leaves) the BOTRAN75 W may not have all penetrated into the soil. Rainfall after application may have benefitted thetreatments .

Funding for this project was made possible by Gowan Company

Table 1. Field evaluation ofBOTRAN 75 W for white rot control as a band application, 2000 (Site 1).

Treatment Number of Incidence ofWhite Severity Rating'Applications Rot %

._-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Check 0 48.3 a2 4.4 NS 3

FOLICUR @ 1.0 kgIha 1 43.0 be 4.8

BOTRAN 75 W @ 3.67 kglha 1 36.8 ab 3.6

BOTRAN 75 W @ 3.67 kglha 2 38.3 ab 3.2

BOTRAN 75 W @ 3.67 kgIha 3 34.0 a 3.2---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1 =mycelium covering 1-2 em of onion bulb, 5 =4-5 em ofbulb covered, 10 =covers basal half ofbulb

with mycelium

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

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

Table 2. Field evaluation ofBOTRAN 75 W for white rot control as a band application, 2000 (Site 2).

- 89 -

Treatment Number ofApplications

Incidence ofWhiteRot %

Severity Rating 1

Check 0 10.4 NS 2 4.6NS

FOLICUR @ 1.0 kglha 1 8.6 4.2

BOTRAN 75 W @ 3.67 kglha 1 8.0 4.2

BOTRAN 75 W @ 3.67 kglha 2 9.2 4.8

BOTRAN 75 W @3.67 kglha 3 8.8 6.0

1 1 =mycelium covering 1-2 em of onion bulb, 5 =4-5 em ofbulb covered, 10 =covers basal halfof bulbwith mycelium

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

- 90 -

CROP: Onion (Allium cepa L.), cv. Hamlet - 1999, BasteIle - 2000

AUTHORS: SWANTON cr , lANSE S & CHANDLER KU of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture, Muck Crops Research Station.

TITLE: REDUCED TILLAGE SYSTEMS FOR ONION PRODUCTION, 1999 and 2000

RATIONALE: Wind erosion is a major problem in muck soils and it threatens the sustainability of cropproduction. Vegetables such as onion and carrot are the major crops grown in such soils. These cropsare grown in rotation and their production relies on tilIage systems that increase the susceptibility of thesoil to erosion and oxidation. Soil erosion on such soils can be lessened by development of tillage andcropping systems that decrease the area of exposure of the soil to erosive forces.

MEmODS: Trials were conducted in 1999 and 2000 to compare conventional and reduced tillagesystems for onion production on muck soils. Trials were conducted on high organic soils (organic matter78%, pH 6.9) at the Muck Crop Research Station. A randomized complete block design arrangement withthree and four replications was used in 1999 and 2000, respectively. Treatments were imposed on singlebed width (1.72 m wide) plots in 1999 and double bed width plots in 2000. Plots were 5 m and 10mlong in 1999 and 2000, respectively. Treatments consisted of conventional tiIlage and zone-tillage.Conventional tilIage was conducted in the spring and consisted of one pass with a disk followed by twopasses with a cultivator. Zone-tillage consisted of one pass before seeding with a tool-bar mounted setof wavy coulters. Two coulters were spaced 5 em apart centered at the position of each onion row andoperated at a depth of 5 to 10 ern deep. Onions, cv. Hamlet and BasteIle were seeded (34 seed 1m) on15 and 17 May, in rows 85 ern and 40 em apart in 1999 and 2000, respectively. Recommendedmanagement practices for soil fertility and pest control were folIowed. Onions were harvested from 4.66m of row on 13 and 29 Sept in 1999 and 2000, respectively and graded for size and yield. Data for 1999and 2000 were combined and analyzed by ANOVA. Year by tillage treatment effects were notsignificant (P>O.05) therefore tillage effects averaged across years are presented and means separatedusing Fisher's Protected LSD test.

RESULTS: As presented in Table 1.

CONCLUSIONS: Zone-till and conventional tiIlage produced similar onion yields in all gradecategories. These results suggest significant reductions in tillage can be achieved which may improve thesustainability of vegetable production on muck soils without compromising productivity. Further studieswill be conducted to evaluate the effect of a reduced tillage carrot-onion rotation on crop yield and pestmanagement.

Table 1. Effect of tillage on onion yield (1999 and 2000 combined).

Total Size (diameter)

- 91 -

Tillage Total Marketable* >3" 3 - 1.75" 1.75 - 1.25"

---------------------------------------------tfha ---------------------------------------------

Conventional

Zone-till

LSD (0.05)

47.45

51.15

NS

45.15

49.88

NS

9.77

6.86

NS

35

42.26

NS

0.38

0.75

NS

* Total of all sizes

NS No significant differences (P =0.05, Fisher's Protected LSD test) between treatments.

- 92 -

CROP:PEST:

AUTHORS:

TITLE:

Yellowcooking onions (Allium cepa L.), cv. Hamlet:Weeds

-MCDONALD M R & VANDER KOOI KU of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture, Muck Crops Research Station

EVALUAnON OF THE HERBICIDES PROWL 400 EC, AND PROWL 455 ECFOR WEED CONTROL IN ONIONS, 2000

MATERIALS: PROWL 400 EC (pendimethalin 40%), PROWL 455 EC (pendimethalin45.5%)

METHODS: Onions were direct seeded (33 seeds/m) using a Stan Hay Precision seeder into organic soil(organic matter 60%, pH 6.4) naturally infested with weed seeds at the Muck Crops Research Station on 2May. A randomizedcompleteblock arrangement with 4 blocks per treatment was used. Each replicateconsisted of 8 rows (40 em apart), 5 m in length. Treatments were: PROWL 400 EC at 7.5 LIha,PROWL 455 EC at 6.6 LIha and PROWL 455 EC at 13.2 LIha. An untreated check was also included.All treatments were applied using a C02 back pack sprayer with a 1.8 meter boom. All treatments wereapplied post-emergence. Treatments were applied at the loop stage ofgrowth (27 May) and the two trueleaf stage (20 Jun). Weed counts of 1 m2 were taken 28 and 56 days after each spray. All treatments werehand weeded after the weed counts were taken. Ratings for phytotoxicity were taken 14 and 28 days aftereach spray application. Rating were: 5.0 =healthy, 4.0 =yellowingofleaves, 3.0 =some stunting ofplant,plant yellowing, 2.0 = growth stunted, plant yellow, 1.0 = severe stunting, plant dying. Weeds were notremoved from the 2.33 meter yield sectionto allow competition betweenthe weeds and onions. A 2.33meter yield sample was taken on 3 Oct. The air temperatures were above the long term (10 year) averagefor May (13.6), below average for June (17.5), July (18.7) and August (18.7) and average for September(14.5). Total rainfall was above the long term (10 year) average May (160.3 mm), June (173.4 mm), andAugust (75.7 mm), below average for September (79.8 mm) and average for July (86.4) Data wereanalyzed using the General Analysis ofVariance function ofthe Linear Models section of Statistix V.4.1.

RESULTS: Aspresented in Tables 1,2 and 3.

CONCLUSIONS: Significantdifferences among treatments were observed in weed populations 28 and 56days after the first application. The total number ofweeds and number of red root pigweed weresignificantly lower in the PROWL treatments comparedto the untreated check. Significant differenceswere observed in total weed population on both assessment dates after the secondapplication. PROWL455 EC at 13.2 L/ha had the lowest total number ofweeds on both assessment dates and both applicationdates. No significant differences in phytotoxicity was observed among any treatments on all assessmentdates. No significant differences in yield were observed. However, the check had the lowest yieldof anytreatment.

Table 1. Evaluation of PROWL 400 EC and PROWL 455 EC after the first application, 2000.

Treatment Rate Redroot Pigweed Oak-leaved Goosefoot Total weeds *Llha 28 d 56 d 28 d 56 d 28 d 56 d

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Check 11.5 b** 10.7 b ONS 13.5 b 36.3 b 56.5 b

PROWL 400 EC 7.5 1.5 a 3.5 a 0 0.3 a 16.3 a 11.5 a

PROWL4SSEC 6.6 2.8 a 3.3 a 0 1.3 a 18.5 a 15.3 a

PROWL4SSEC 13.2 2.3 a 0.8 a 0 0.5 a 13.3 a 6.0 a

Table 2. Evaluation of PROWL 400 EC and PROWL 455 EC after the second application, 2000.

Treatment Rate Redroot Pigweed Oak-leaved Goosefoot Total weeds *Llha 28 d 56 d 28 d 56 d 28 d 56 d

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Check 10.8 b ** 6.5NS 13.5b 7.8 b 56.5 b 40.0NS

PROWL 400 EC 7.5 3.5 a 6.8 0.3 a 0.0 a 11.5 a 27.0

PROWL4SSEC 6.6 3.3 a 3.3 1.3 a 0.0 a 15.3 a 21.5

PROWL4SSEC 13.2 0.8 a 0.8 0.5 a 0.0 a 6.0 a 18.0---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* Both tables, weeds present in total number are those of chickweed, common groundsel, oak-leaved­goosefoot, maple-leaved goosefoot, biannual wormwood, portulaca and redroot pigweed.

** Both tables, numbers in a columnfollowed by the same letter are not significantly different atP = 0.05, Fisher's protected LSD Test

Table 3. Effect of PROWL 400 EC and PROWL 455 EC on onions after application.

- 93 -

Treatment RateLlha

Phytotoxicity Ratings *1st application 2nd application

14 d 28 d 14 d 28 dYieldtJha

Check

PROWL 400 EC

PROWL4SSEC

PROWL 455 EC

7.5

6.6

13.2

5.0NS

4.8

4.8

5.0

5.0NS

4.8

4.8

4.5

4.8NS

4.8

5.0

4.8

4.8NS

4.5

4.8

4.8

5.20 NS

6.28

6.97

6.63

* 5.0 == healthy, 4.0 = yellowing of leaves, 3.0::::: some stunting ofplant, plant yellowing, 2.0 = growthstunted, plant yellow, 1.0 == severe stunting, plant dyingNS All tables, no significant treatment effects were observed.

- 94 -

CROP:PEST:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.), cv. HamletWeeds

AUTHORS: MCDONALD M R & VANDER KOOI KU ofGuelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture, Muck Crops Research Station

TITLE: EFFECT OF NORTRON SC FOR WEED CONTROL IN ONIONS, 2000

MATERIALS: NORTRON SC (ethofumesate48%)

METHODS: Onionswere direct seeded (33 seeds/m)using a Stan Hay Precision seeder into organic soil(organic matter 60%, pH 6.4) naturally infestedwith weed seeds at the Muck Crops Research Station on18 May. A randomized completeblock arrangementwith 4 blocks per treatment was used. Each replicateconsisted of8 rows (40 emapart), 5 m in length. NORTRON SC treatments were applied on 23 May, ­NORTRON SC @ 2.33 Llha and 4.66 LIha applied pre-emergence, 23 Jun - NORTRON SC @ 1.17Llha and 4.66 Llha and 25 Jul - NORTRON SC @ 1.17 Llha. All treatments were applied using a pulltype plot sprayer with Tee jet 8004 flat fan nozzles at 40 psi. (boom). Weed counts of I m2 were taken on19 Jun, 7 Jul and 2 Aug. All treatments were hand weeded after the weedcounts were taken. A 2.33meter yield sample was taken on 6 Oct. The air temperatures were abovethe long term (10 year) averagefor May (13.6), below average for June (17.5), July (18.7) and August (18.7) and average for September(14.5). Total rainfall was above the long term (10 year) average May (160.3 mm), June (173.4 mm), andAugust (75.7 mm), below average for September (79.8 mm) and average for July (86.4). Data wereanalyzed using the General Analysis ofVariance function ofthe Linear Models section of Statistix V.4.1.

RESULTS: As presented in Table 1.

CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were observed among treatments in the total number ofweeds. NORTRON SC treatments had weed counts that were numerically reduced on the 19Jun assessment compared to the untreated check. Both NORTRON SC treatments significantlyreduced the total number of weeds on 7 JuI compared to the check. NORTRON SC applied at4.66 Llha on 2 Aug, significantly reduced the number of weeds compared to the untreated check.No significant differences were observed in yield.

Table 1. Effect of NORTRON SC for weed control in onions, 2000.

Treatment Rate # oftimes Total Weed Population m2 YieldApplied 19Jun 7Jul 2 Aug t/ha 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Check 0 117 NS 3 60 b 4 120 b 6.43 NS 3

NORTRONSC 2.33 Llha 1 80 26 a 102 ab 7.201.17 Llha 2

NORTRONSC 4.66 Llha 2 77 12 a 52 a 6.34

I Weeds present in total number are those ofcommon groundsel, biannual wormwood, yellow marsh cressand redroot pigweed.

2 Bushels per Acre = t/ha x 17.8

3 No significant treatment effects were observed.

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

- 95 -

- 96 -

CROP:PEST:

Auraoss.

TITLE:

Yellow cooking onions (Allium cepa L.), cv. HamletWeeds

MCDONALD M R & VANDER KOOI KU of Guelph, Dept. of Plant Agriculture, Muck Crops Research Station

COMPARISON OF GOAL AND GOAL 2 XL FOR WEED CONTROL INONIONS, 2000

MATERIALS: GOAL (oxyfluofen 19.2%), GOAL 2XL (oxyfluofen 23%)

MEmODS: Onions were direct seeded (33 seeds/m) using a Stan Hay Precision seeder into organic soil(organic matter 60%, pH 6.4) naturally infested with weed seeds at the Muck Crops Research Station on 2May. A randomized complete block arrangement with 4 blocks per treatment was used. Each replicateconsisted of8 rows (40 em apart), 5 m in length. Both GOAL treatments were applied on 8 Jul and 10Aug. Both treatments were applied using a pull type plot sprayer with Tee jet 8004 flat fan nozzles at 40psi. (boom). Weed counts of 1 m2 were taken on 17 Jul, and 2 and 25 Aug. All treatments were handweeded after the weed counts were taken. Ratings for phytotoxicity were taken 18 Jul and 17 Aug. Ratingwere: 5.0 =leaves healthy, no damage, 4.0 = 1-2 leaves damaged, some curling ofleaves, 3.0 =3-4 leavesdamaged, leaves curled, 2.0 =4-6 leaves damages, stunted growth, curled leaves, 1.0 =all leaves damagedand curled. A 2.33 meter yield sample was taken on 13 Oct. The air temperatures were above the longterm (10 year) average for May (13.6), below average for June (17.5), July (18.7) and August (18.7) andaverage for September (14.5). Total rainfall was above the long term (10 year) average May (160.3 nun),June (173.4 mm), and August (75.7 mm), below average for September (79.8 nun) and average for July(86.4). Data were analyzed using the General Analysis ofVariance function ofthe Linear Models sectionof Statistix V.4.1.

RESULTS: As presented in Table 1.

CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were observed in the total yield and the phytotoxicity ratings ofthe treatments. Both GOAL treatments significantly increased yields compared to the untreated check.Both GOAL treatments also were phytotoxic and caused some damage to the onion plants. Although bothGOAL treatments had lower total numbers ofweeds than the check it was not significant. On all threedates the check had the highest numbers ofweeds. Variability in weed populations throughout the plotresulted in a large standard diviation and no statistical difference in weed control.

- 97 -

Table 1. Comparison of GOAL and GOAL 2 XL for weed control in onions, 2000.

Treatment and Rate Total Weed Population m'17 luI 2 Aug 25 Aug

Phytotoxicity Rating 2

18 luI 17 AugYield tJha 3

Check 24.5 4 123.5 4 5.0 a 5 5.0 a 57.2 b

65.7 a3.8 b3.5 b0.053.85.8GOAL 2 XL@500mllha

GOAL 9.5 62.3 0.8 3.8 b 4.0 b 65.3 a@ 500 mlIha

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I Weeds present in total number are those of conunon groundsel, biannual wormwood, yellow marsh cressand redroot pigweed.

25.0 =leaves healthy, no damage 4.0 = 1-2 leaves damaged, some curling ofleaves3.0 =3-4 leaves damaged, leaves curled, 2.0 =4-6 leaves damages, stuntedgrowth, curled leaves, 1.0 =allleaves damaged and curled

3 Bushels per Acre = tJha x 17.8

4 No significant treatment effects were observed.

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

- 98 -

CROP:PEST:

AUTHORS:

TITLE:

Spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.), cv. Unipack 151Pea Leafminer (PLM), Liriomyza huidobrensis (Blanchard)

HALLETT RH, MARTIN A, SOPHER CR, AND HEAL JDU of Guelph, Dept. of Environmental Biology

EFFICACY OF CITATION, AN INSECT GROWTH REGULATOR, ANDPARATHION FOR CONTROL OF PEA LEAFMINER DAMAGE ON SPINACH,2000

MATERIALS: CITATION 75WP (cyromazine 75%), PARATHION 960 EC (parathion 96%)

METHODS: Spinach cv. Unipack 151 was machine-seeded at the Muck Research Station nearKettleby, ON, on 21 Jul, 2000 in 8 row plots,S m in length, with a row spacing of 40 cm. Plots wereseparated by a 3 m spray lane (N-S) and a 1.5 m alley (E-W). Four treatments were replicated 5 times ina randomized complete block design. Spray treatments were applied on 17 Aug, 2000. All treatmentswere applied with a pull type plot sprayer with Teelet D-2 hollow cone nozzles at 690 kPa (boom) in 500L/ha water. Spinach was harvested on 28 and 30 Aug (2 or 3 reps per treatment were harvested on eachdate). Twenty plants from each plot were rated (7 leaves per plant) according to mining damage on ascale of 0- 2 (0 =no mines, 1 = 1 - 5 mines and 2 =>5 mines). One hundred harvested plants from eachplot were weighed. Differences in damage ratings and weights among treatments were determined usinganalysis of variance and a Duncan's multiple range test.

RESULTS: The results are summarized in Table 1. Significantly less mining damage was recorded inplots treated with either rate of CITATION 75 WP (Tmt. 2,3) than in plots treated with PARATHION960 EC (Tmt. 4). Application of PARATHION 960 EC did not significantly reduce the amount ofmining below levels recorded in control plots (Tmt. 1). Although the highest 100 plant-weight wasrecorded for spinach harvested from plots treated with the lower rate of CITATION 75 WP, theobserved weight differences among treatments were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this trial, application of the growth regulator CITATION 75WP is a promising method for control ofPLM-mining in spinach. No phytotoxic effects were observedin any of the treatments.

Table 1. Effect of CITATION 75WP and PARATHION 960 EC on pea leafminer-mining damage andweight per 100 spinach plants, near Kettleby, ON, 2000.

- 99 -

TreatmentNo.

TreatmentApplied

Rate(ailha)

Mean mining damage)(mines per leaf)

Mean weight per 100plants (kg)

•

3

Controf 1.69 ± 0.03 ab' 6.55 ± 0.85 a

2 CITATION 70.0 g 1.60 ± 0.03 c 6.82 ± 1.14 a75WP

3 CITATION 140.0 g 1.61 ± 0.03 bc 4.91 ± 0.90 a75WP

4 PARATHION 288.0 g 1.71 ± 0.02 a 5.15 ± 0.84 a960EC

Rated on a scale of 0 - 2 (0 =no mines, 1 = 1 - 5 mines and 2 =>5 mines).

No insecticide.

Values followed by the same letter, within the same column, are not significantly different(P>0.05); Duncan's multiple range test.

CARROT CULTIVAR TRIAL SEASONAL SUMMARY - 2000

The weather again played a key role in the Carrot Cultivar Trials in 2000, as it did in 1998 and 1999. One word could be used to sum up the 2000

season - WET! Air temperatures were above the long term (10 year) average for May and October, not different from the long term average for

June, August and September and below the long term average for July. Total rainfall was below the long term (10 year) average for August

(55.8 mm) and October (27.8 mm), not different from the long term average for September (83.0 mm) and above the long term average for May

(160.3 mm), June (167.8 mm) and July (86.4 mm). The Holland Marsh again experienced an earlier spring (planting 4 to 7 days earlier on

average), but the carrot trials were seeded approximately at the same time as previous years. The beginning of May brought heavy rains. There

was a great concern that soil moisture conditions would delay the seeding of the carrot cultivar trials. Soil conditions at seeding were much

improved. The soil had a high moisture content but suitable for seeding.

Germination was quick and very even on most cultivars, due largely to good soil moisture conditions and temperatures in the low 20 °C. High

rainfall amounts in early June brought 41% of the months total rainfall over 4 days. The carrots were at the first true leaf stage and seem to with

stand the conditions even though the plants were slightly knocked down. More heavy rainfall occurred on June 25 with another 28% of the

months total rainfall. The above average rainfall for June was a great concern on how the carrot roots were handling the high moisture

conditions. Top leaf growth was slow but appeared to be healthy. There was very little thinning of stand from the high moisture and high

temperatures as in 1999 where not a factor. For the months of July, August and September growth of tops and roots appeared to be normal.

Temperatures and moisture conditions were favourable for carrot growth with no extremes occurring.

The benefits of the pre-emergence herbicide application was decreased due to the wet weather conditions. Groundsel, our problem weed,

continues to be so. Several low rate applications of LOROX DF plus ASSIST OIL close together helped to control the groundsel. Weed

populations were not a concern for the rest of the season.

Disease and insect levels were manageable during the summer months for the carrot trials. When samples were pulled for "Open House" in early

September, the Main Packaging carrots appeared to have higher levels of Aster Yellow infestation then in pervious years. The earlier wet

weather conditions of spring were evident in carrot roots. Of the 36 cultivars in the Main Packaging Trial approximately 1/3 of the cultivars

were of high quality, another 1/3 were of average quality and the last 1/3 were of poor quality. There were high levels of forked or split carrots in

the trails. Most carrots pulled for Open House had very noticeable whitish lenticels and a rough exterior surface. The size (yield) appeared to

be normal as in previous years. Alternaria Leaf Blight was at normal levels with infection appearing in early August, regular fungicide sprays

where applied for control. Sprays for control of Alternaria Leaf Blight were stopped in early September to allow a rating on each cultivars

." / continued

•

....oo

•

CARROT CULTIVAR TRIAL SEASONAL SUMMARY - 2000 - continued

tolerance. In October at harvest blight was present at normal levels. At harvest the quality and size (packaging) had not changed since Open

House. On some cultivars there were high levels of forked and split carrots. Sclerotinia Rot was well established this season due to the higher

moisture conditions of the season. When the tops were brushed aside for hand harvesting there was noticeable Sclerotinia white mold infection.

In some locations the tops of the carrot beds were covered with mycelium and sclertra. Weather conditions at harvest were dry with average

temperatures. The carrots were placed in the Filacell storage following harvest.

At evaluation in December, the Main Packaging carrots had slightly lower percent "Jumbos" carrots then in 1999. Cavity spot percentages were

higher than previous years with the majority in the 50 to 70% range and Degree at moderate ( 2 mm to 5 mm) lesion size. Stand counts were

good considering the high moisture conditions of the spring. Yields and Percent Marketable were both at near normal levels. On most cultivars

the rough external surface of September was a little better, however smoothness was poorer than in pervious years. A lot of the cultivars had a

"ringy" surface as noted in the Main Packaging Carrot Cultivar Trial Evaluation Notes. External colour was a little uneven and a red ring was

noticeable around the internal core on some cultivars.

In conclusion, the Packaging Carrots Trial as a whole was poorer than in pervious years. There were exceptions to this statement, approximately

113 of the cultivars did perform well considering the hard start to the season.

....a....

CARROT CULTIVAR TRIALS - 2000 - PACKAGING TYPES

MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES

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

Seeded:All trials were seeded 29 & 30 May using a V-Belt seeder equipped with a 5 em wide scatter shoe. Germination of 95 to 100%, a target of 28 seedsper foot was desired. All trials were seeded on beds 86 cm apart. The seeding rate was according to germination. RIDOMIL 2G was applied at 25kg/ha in the seed furrow. Main Trial was replicated three times. Adaptation Trial was not replicated.

....oN

Weed Control:Pre-emergence:Post-emergence:

1 application: GESAGARD 480 sc at 7.08 Llha on 3 Jun.1 application: LOROX DF at 500 g/ha + ASSIST OIL at 1.0 Llha on 28 Jun.1 application: LOROX DF at 1.0 kg/ha on 7 Jul.

Minor Elements:Three foliar sprays of Awaken at 2.0 LlhaTwo foliar sprays of Amaken at 4.0 LlhaFour foliar sprays of Epsom Salts (magnesium) at 1.0 kg/haOne foliar spray of Calimax at 1.0 Llha

Insect and Disease Control:According to IPM recommendations.

Harvest:The Main Trial and Adaptation Trial were harvested 23, 24, and 25 Oct. All trials were immediately placed in a temperature and humidity controlledstorage (O°C, 95 % RH) respectively.

EVALUA TION PROCEDURESThe eultivars were evaluated on 15, 17,20,21 and 22 Nov after 3 weeks in storage.

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

... / continued

• •

..

CARROT CULTIVAR TRIALS - 2000 - PACKAGING TYPES - continued

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

Marketable Yield t/ha + BA:Marketable yield includes the packaging size, 2.0cm to 4.4 ern (%" to I%") as well as the oversize 4.4 ern (> 1%").

% Oversize:The percentage of carrots> 4.4 ern (> 1% ") and greater.

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

Majority of Culls:SP = Splits F = Forked SM = Small < 2.0 cm R= Rot

Shape: GP = Gold Pak N = Nante Imp = Imperator Cyl = Cylindrical 0= Danver

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

External Colour:DO = Dark Orange 0= Orange BO = Bright Orange LO = Light Orange PG = Pink Grapefruit C = Cream

Internal Colour:WO = White Orange 0= Orange BO = Bright Orange LO = Light Orange PW = Pink White Y = Yellow

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

Score:The average of the 8 marks from Uniformity of Shape to Blight Rating.

... / continued .....ow

CARROT CULTIVAR TRIALS - 2000 - PACKAGING TYPES - continued

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

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

% Aster Yellows:Percent of carrot roots infected with Aster Yellows found in the 2.32 m harvest sample.

# Seeders:Number of seeders in 18 meters of row at harvest.

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

....o

"'"

~ , ~

CARROT CULTIVAR MAIN TRIAL - 2000 - PACKAGING TYPES

'""' '""'tlO tlO..l<: ..l<:'-" '-"...E '""'"0 § en

(lJ u ..l<:... '~.".

'-"VI

~ E .!!l(lJ -.:i "5~

uti 0 (lJ u- "": :0 ..::r: (lJ ....~

0 .". s (lJ (lJ

N N - 0fl A Q) 'Vi (lJ

1;)(lJ 0 ::r: - - ~

..~

0;>

~ § § (lJ 't::u"Ei

;>.;:: .. :::E 0

"5 ;:3 u '~ '~ '" ~ 0 ~ 'i;j'0 0

~ ~ 'Su C/) 'It: f-o CO ~ ~ C/) :::E0 0

VITA TREAT PETO 170 19.45 15.03 2.53 87.8 1413 a-e* 90 a 13 a-f 73 a-d SPORANGEPAK Nor 158 20.92 11.83 6.91 93.7 1509 ab 90 ab 331m 68 a-h SMFONTANA BElO 131 22.52 8.25 11.96 101.0 1627 a 89 abc 54 0 56 e-i R55 - 84 RZ RZ 128 19.76 9.88 7.65 87.7 1411 a-e 88 a-d 38 mn 55 ghi SP

ENTERPRISE PETO 168 18.63 13.32 2.99 81.5 1313 a-g 88 a-e 16 d-i 72 a-g FHM03 HM 170 18.65 14.37 1.99 81.8 1318 a-g 88 a-e 11 a-f 73 a-e SMSUNRISE ero 170 18.72 12.71 3.67 81.9 1319 a-g 87 a-f 20 f-k 73 a-e FNANTINDO HM 162 21.25 9.22 9.24 92.3 1486 abc 87 a-f 44 n 70 a-h R

ORANGETTE Sto 138 17.22 11.52 3.35 74.4 1197 b-h 86 a-f 20 f-k 59 c-i FSIX PAK HM 188 20.54 14.15 3.35 87.5 1408 a-f 85 a-g 16 e-i 81 a FHM02 HM 140 19.87 13.53 3.00 82.7 1331 a-g 82 a-h 15 c-g 60 b-i SPEx 18023 Asg 163 16.23 11.24 2.12 66.8 1075 e-j 82 a-h 13 a-f 70 a-h SP

Listed in order of% Marketable.

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

­oU1

CARROT CULTIVAR MAIN TRIAL - 2000 - PACKAGING TYPES - continued

,-... ,-...01) 01)~'-' ~

'-"- E,-...

"0 ~01)

o ~Q) 'iii '-'- "": .!!!'" ~ EQ) '<:t ;;~

o- 0 '<:tQ)

U'" - :D ...::r: Q) -.i- Q) Q) .....~

~ ~ N - 0~ N 1\ Q) 'j?! Q)

iii 0 ::r:~ - ~

~a

Q)

~ ~ iii Q) 'C;> u ;>'P 3 "3 ~

0;; u 'Q) '0 '" ~ 0 fl '(;j'

0 0~ ~ 'Su (/) 'It: I- eo '$. ~ (/) ~0

CELLOBUNCH Asg 169 19.77 11.36 4.80 80.8 1301 a-g * 82 a-h 24 g-l 73 a-f FORANGE EXPRESS Sol 152 19.01 9.38 6.13 77.5 1248 b-g 82 a-h 321m 66 a-h SPSIX PAK II HM 140 18.22 11.35 3.42 73.9 1189 b-i 82 a-h 19 f-j 60 b-i FPIPELINE Asg 139 19.58 10.31 5.56 79.4 1278 b-g 81 a-h 28 kl 60 b-i F

IDAHO BEJO 133 20.92 10.39 6.73 85.6 1378 a-f 81 a-h 321m 57 d-i FEXCELLENCE Sto 161 17.64 12.22 2.10 71.6 1152 c-j 81 a-h 12 a-f 69 a-h SPDIAMOND CUT Asg 161 18.04 12.06 2.51 72.9 1173 b-i 81 a-h 14 b-f 69 a-h SPBIG SHOT Sto 129 19.90 9.84 6.20 80.2 1291 a-g 80 a-h 311m 55 f-i SP

ANNAPOLIS Sto 162 18.07 11.48 2.81 71.4 1150 c-j 79 a-i 16 d-h 70 a-h SPSWEET CUTS Pol 173 18.39 13.80 0.86 73.3 1180 b-i 79 a-i 4 a 75 abc FSWEET BITES HM 138 18.64 11.71 3.01 73.6 1185 b-i 79 b-j 16 d-i 59 c-i SPPRONTO Nor 166 22.31 13.19 4.43 88.1 1419 a-d 78 b-j '19 f-k 72 a-h SP

Listed in order of % Marketable.

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

...o0\

CARROT CULTIVAR MAIN TRIAL - 2000 - PACKAGING TYPES - continued

'""' '""'bJ) bJ)..10: ..10:"---' "---'- E '""'

"0 "Eb bJ)u ..10:CI.l .iii "---'... o::tVI

~ E ..!!lCI.l ~ :;~

u... 0 o::t CI.l UVI ... :0 ....::r: CI.l~ CI.l CI.l ....

~0 s N ... 0

:!l N 1\ CI.l '6 CI.l

~ Q) 0 ::r: - ...~ ~

0~ ~ ~

Cl) 'C> u >'c 3 S ~0

:; U.iii .iii '" ~ 0 § '<;'

0 0~ ~ '§ ~ ~ - ~u f/) 'II: f-< III f/)

ITHACA BElO 141 21.21 10.49 6.13 83.1 1338 a-g ... 78 c-j 28 jkl 61 b-i SPDAWN DEE Sol 127 14.25 8.36 2.80 55.8 898 hij 78 d-j 19 f-j 55 hi SPREX 240 Sak 135 17.75 9.25 4.41 68.3 1100 d-j 77 e-j 25 h-I 58 c-i SPPS 44994 PETO 152 19.62 11.37 3.60 74.9 1205 b-h 76 f-j 18 f-i 66 a-h SP

GROWERS CHOICE Pol 107 17.79 8.80 4.48 66.4 1069 f-j 75 g-j 24 h-I 46 i FSCR 1312 Sak 170 20.34 13.93 1.28 76.0 1224 b-h 75 g-j 6 abc 73 a-e SPINDIANA BElO 150 18.46 11.32 2.22 67.7 1090 d-j 73 hij 12 a-f 65 a-h SPGROWERS CHOICE Sol 141 16.99 10.03 2.65 63.4 1020 g-j 72 hij 16 d-h 61 b-i F

CRISPY PETO 153 21.83 9.51 5.48 74.9 1206 b-h 69 ijk 25 i-I 66 a-h FPACIFIC GOLD Sak 178 18.73 11.39 1.40 64.0 1030 g-j 67 jk 7 a-e 77 ab SPMORECUTS Pol 137 16.92 9.18 1.15 51.6 831 j 61 k 7 a-d 59 c-i SPPSI40395 PETO 169 17.95 9.77 0.86 53.2 856 ij 60 k 5 abc 73 a-e SP

Listed in order of % Marketable.

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

....o"'oJ

CARROT CULTIVAR MAIN TRIAL - 2000 - PACKAGING TYPES - continued

en 00 eneu -E ~

.5 .5 .5s:: ....g. CIS

~"0 s:: eu~

~ ~eu eu... ...V) ...:l C) ~ 3 3 3..... ..... ..... 0 0

0 0 0 g "0 "0 0 0eu "0 "0.q G- o u eu U U"§ '§ ~

u U ola E ~ ca C; ca C;eu E E.~ o eu c.9 c.9 c.9 eu '" E E..::: 3 g. Co .iii eu B'2 '2 '2 .... eu B~ 0 ~ Co

~ >< >< ....U V) V) ~ ~ ~ -< W LLl s:: s::- -VITA TREAT PETO Imp 4.2 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.3 d-g * 0 4.0 b-e BO 3.8 b-eORANGEPAK Nor GP 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.9 4.4 d-g 0 4.1 bed 0 3.6 deFONTANA BElO GP 3.9 4.2 4.0 3.8 4.1 fg BO 4.2 abc 0 3.8 b-e55 - 84 RZ RZ GP 4.4 4.2 3.8 3.5 4.2 efg DO 4.2 abc DO 3.9 a-d

ENTERPRISE PETO Imp 3.9 3.6 3.9 3.8 4.7 a-d 0 4.0 b-e 0 4.2 aHM03 HM Imp 4.1 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.4 c-f 0 3.9 cde 0 3.9 a-dSUNRISE ero GP 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.7 4.1 fg 0 4.2 abc 0 4.0 abcNANTINDO HM GPIN 4.1 4.3 3.7 4.0 3.7 h BO 4.1 bed LO 3.9 a-d

ORANGETTE Sto Imp 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.9 4.2 efg BO 4.0 b-e 0 3.8 b-eSIX PAK HM Imp 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.9 4.3 d-g 0 4.0 b-e 0 4.0 abcHM02 HM Imp 4.2 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.3 d-g BO 4.0 b-e BO 4.1 abEx 18023 Asg Imp 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.7 4.5 c-f 0 3.7 e BO 4.0 abc

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

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

....oCO

CARROT CULTIV AR MAIN TRIAL - 2000 - PACKAGING TYPES - continued

01) 00 01)

i I:: I::u .s 'c .~

I::C.

~l'l "U I:: u~..c ~

u ~CIl .....:l 0 3 3 3 3.... .... .... 0 00 0 0 0 "0 "0 0 0

u .... "0 "0.f' .f' .f' 0 u U U

~0 u u

:a u E E E ~(;j (;j (;j (;j

> 0 u t2 <8 <8 E E E E.- 3 c. u .~.... c. u u"3 l'l 'c 'c 'c '" .... .... u u

0 ..c c. u >< >< .... ....u CIl CIl :> :> :> 0« ~ LLl LLl .s .s

CELLOBUNCH Asg Imp/Cyl 4.4 4.0 3.8 3.7 4.0 gh * 0 3.9 cde 0 3.8 b-eORANGE EXPRESS Sol GP 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.8 4.2 efg 0 4.2 abc 0 4.1 abSIX PAK II HM Imp 4.0 4.2 4.0 3.8 4.3 d-g 0 3.7 e BO 3.8 b-ePIPELINE Asg Imp 4.2 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.1 fg 0 3.9 cde BO 3.8 b-e

IDAHO BElO GP 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.7 4.3 d-g BO 4.3 ab 0 4.2 aEXCELLENCE Sto Imp 4.2 4.0 4.0 3.7 4.6 b-e BO 3.9 cde 0 4.0 abcDIAMOND CUT Asg GP 4.0 3.7 3.7 3.4 4.6 b-e DO 3.9 cde 0 3.7 cdeBIG SHOT Sto Imp 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 c-f 0 3.9 cde 0 3.5 e

ANNAPOLIS Sto Imp/Cyl 4.1 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.3 d-g 0 4.3 ab BO 4.0 abcSWEET CUTS Pol Imp/Cyl 4.4 4.0 4.0 3.8 4.6 b-e DO 4.1 bcd DO 4.1 abSWEET BITES HM Imp 4.3 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.7 a-d 0 4.3 ab 0 3.8 b-ePRONTO Nor GP 4.2 4.2 4.2 3.7 4.7 a-d BO 4.2 abc 0 4.2 a

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

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

...oID

CARROT CULTIVAR MAIN TRIAL - 2000 - PACKAGING TYPES - continued

01) 01)01)

~c .5tU oS '2 c... 'pc.. CII

CII "0 C tU~ ~..c ~

tU tU..V) ....l 0 3 3 3 3..... ..... ..... 0 00 0 0 0 "0 "0 0 0

tU .... "0 "00 0 0 U tU U U.~ .~ .~ ~

u U oa tU ~ iii iii iii iii.~ tU E E

~ ~<£ <£ <£ tU II) E E.... c.. .iii tU tU

"3 '2 '2 '2 ><.... tU tU

0 ..c c.. tU x .... ....o V) V) :::> :::> :::> « a: UJ UJ ..5 c

>-<

ITHACA BElO GPIN 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.7 4.3 d-g * BO 4.0 b-e 0 4.2 aDAWN DEE Sol Imp 4.0 3.9 4.1 3.6 5.0 a DO 4.6 a DO 4.2 aREX 240 Sak GP/Imp 4.0 4.2 4.1 3.1 4.9 ab DO 4.3 ab 0 3.8 b-ePS 44994 PETO Imp 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.9 4.7 a-d 0 4.1 b-e BO 3.8 b-e

GROWERS CHOICE Pol Imp/Cy1 4.0 4.1 3.8 3.4 4.2 efg DO 3.7 e 0 3.9 a-dSCR 1312 Sak Imp/Cyl 3.9 3.9 3.6 3.6 4.4 c-f DO 4.2 abc BO 4.0 abcINDIANA BElO Imp 4.3 4.0 3.9 3.4 4.8 abc 0 4.2 abc DO 4.0 abcGROWERS CHOICE Sol Imp/Cy1 3.9 4.0 3.8 3.7 4.5 c-f DO 3.8 de 0 3.9 a-d

CRISPY PETO GP 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.7 4.3 d-g 0 4.0 b-e 0 3.8 b-ePACIFIC GOLD Sak Imp 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.5 c-f 0 4.1 bed BO 4.0 abcMORECUTS Pol Imp 4.6 3.8 3.9 3.7 4.7 a-d DO 4.3 ab BO 4.0 abcPS140395 PETO Imp 4.2 3.7 3.5 3.8 4.3 d-g BO 4.0 bed 0 4.0 abc

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

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

......o

CARROT CULTIVAR MAIN TRIAL - 2000 - PACKAGING TYPES - continued

eu-5

euth:g eu

,...... ~ oE

,......cid VI

u E ] .... ~'-" u ..9'-" 0 00 0

~o -5 I-< .5 0- "0..... .... (J)

>-l: "0 0 '" .e III

a eu ~ 0:::: .... ....e eueu ...l .... ;> eu "0;>

~........ .... 0 :§ eu '" VI eu.... 0 0 u .... u « eu

"3 0 0 0 (J)0~ iii u

~ ~u (J) 0:::: 0:::: 0 (J) 0 :tl:

VITA TREAT PETO 24.5 a-f '" 3.4 36.7 4.6 ab 4.04 a-f 65 M e-i 1.6 a 0.0ORANGEPAK Nor 23.2 e-h 3.6 38.8 4.1 cde 3.96 c-f 55 M a-e 2.4 a 2.0FONTANA BEJO 17.4 k 3.7 46.8 3.2 g 4.00 b-f 40M abc 4.4 a 0.355 - 84 RZ RZ 18.2 k 3.7 43.8 4.0 de 4.03 b-f 63 LIM d-h 4.1 a 0.0

ENTERPRISE PETO 23.9 b-f 3.4 36.6 4.3 a-d 4.01 a-f 53 M a-e 3.0 a 0.0HM03 HM 24.3 a-f 3.4 40.3 4.2 b-e 4.10 a-e 33 M a 1.0 a 0.7SUNRISE ero 23.5 d-g 3.4 41.4 3.9 ef 3.93 def 63 LIM d-h 1.7 a 0.0NANTINDO HM 16.7 k 3.7 46.8 4.3 a-e 3.97 c-f 43 LIM a-d 4.8 a 1.3

ORANGETTE Sto 23.3 d-g 3.6 41.6 4.1 cde 3.93 def 42 L abc 3.9 a 0.3SIX PAK HM 23.5 d-g 3.6 39.6 4.2 b-e 4.01 b-f 35 LIM ab 0.9 a 0.3HM02 HM 25.6 ab 3.5 41.3 4.2 b-e 4.08 a-d 53 M a-e 2.2 a 0.0Ex 18023 Asg 24.2 a-f 3.4 38.8 4.5 abc 3.87 f 73 M e-j 4.1 a 0.0

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

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

...............

CARROT CULTIVAR MAIN TRIAL - 2000 - PACKAGING TYPES - continued

II)

-5II)

th"0 II)

~ 0,-... ,-... a(jE '"u E -; ... :t'-' u ... .Q'-' 0 en 0

"fa -5 I- .5 c, 1)....~

(J) >-c: "0 0 .£ e1iI II)

~ II).. II)

II) ....l .. ... > II) "0> u II) ...... 0~ '" '" II)

.::: 3 0 o .. o -c II)0 0 (J)::3 0 0 0'$. iii u '$. '$.o (J) ~ ~ (J) '*"

CELLOBUNCH Asg 22.7 f-j * 3.5 44.3 4.0 de 3.95 def 58M c-g 2.2 a 0.3 aORANGE EXPRESS Sol 23.0 e-i 3.6 39.1 4.1 cde 4.03 a-f 43 LIM a-d 2.3 a 0.0 aSIX PAK II HM 22.8 f-j 3.6 40.8 3.6 fg 3.98 b-f 33 LIM a 1.9 a 0.0 aPIPELINE Asg 23.9 b-f 3.5 32.4 4.3 a-d 3.99 b-f 72M e-j 3.2 a 0.7 a

IDAHO BElO 21.1 j 3.7 44.1 4.3 a-d 4.03 a-f 58M c-g 3.0 a 0.3 aEXCELLENCE Sto 24.6 a-e 3.3 40.5 4.2 b-e 4.05 a-e 58M c-g 2.5 a 0.3 aDIAMOND CUT Asg 22.8 e-j 3.5 42.4 4.1 cde 3.85 f 80M h-k 3.1 a 1.0 aBIG SHOT Sto 23.7 c-g 3.6 39.6 4.4 abc 4.01 b-f 72M e-j 2.0 a 0.3 a

ANNAPOLIS Sto 22.8 f-j 3.4 36.4 4.3 a-d 4.10 a-d 65M e-i 1.7 a 1.0 aSWEET CUTS Pol 25.9 a 3.1 39.9 4.2 b-e 4.14 ab 73 M/H e-j 1.8 a 0.3 aSWEET BITES HM 24.2 a-f 3.5 40.9 4.4 abc 4.20 ab 43M a-d 1.9 a 0.3 aPRONTO Nor 21.9 g-j 3.6 37.9 4.6 ab 4.20 ab 78 M/H g-k 2.9 a 0.3 a

.-..-.N

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

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

CARROT CULTIVAR MAIN TRIAL - 2000 - PACKAGING TYPES - continued

v£ ~"0

~V

,-... 0S ,-... o(l <Il

U s 3 .... ~......." U ..2......." 0 bJ) 0

~ -s f- .5 c:l. v'- til

"0.... >-r::: 0 «l 0 <Il

~V

~ ~ ... ....v .;; vv .....:l ... .... V "0

.~....u

(5 (5 0 2v «l <Il V

3 u ... U < v:3 0

0 ~ ~ ~u

~ ;:Rtil

U til 0 a:l til 0 'It:

ITHACA BElO 21.4 ij* 3.5 36.4 4.6 ab 4.05 a-f 57M c-f 2.2 a 0.7 aDAWN DEE Sol 21.9 g-j 3.5 49.6 4.7 a 4.20 a 73 M e-j 2.9 a 0.0 aREX 240 Sak 21.9 g-j 3.7 41.4 4.6 ab 4.06 a-e 53 M a-e 2.3 a 0.3 aPS 44994 PETO 23.8 b-f 3.4 41.0 4.5 abc 4.06 a-e 73M e-j 2.8 a 1.7 a

GROWERS CHOICE Pol 23.5 d-g 3.5 38.1 4.6 ab 3.88 ef 73 M/H e-j 2.2 a 0.3 aSCR 1312 Sak 23.5 d-g 3.5 43.3 4.6 ab 3.94 def 87M jk 3.1 a 0.3 aINDIANA BElO 25.0 a-d 3.4 42.9 4.4 abc 4.10 a-e 95M k 2.9 a 0.7 aGROWERS CHOICE Sol 22.9 e-i 3.5 40.8 4.6 ab 3.93 ef 73M e-j 1.7 a 0.3 a

CRISPY PETO 21.4 hij 3.4 38.0 4.7 a 4.01 b-f 72M e-J 1.7 a 0.3 aPACIFIC GOLD Sak 24.3 a-f 3.4 41.5 4.5 abc 4.04 a-e 77M f-k 3.2 a 0.0 aMORECUTS Pol 25.5 abc 3.2 39.5 4.3 a-d 4.14 abc 85M ijk 2.8 a 0.0 aPS140395 PETO 22.0 g-j 3.2 42.4 4.6 ab 3.94 c-f 88M jk 1.6 a 0.3 a

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

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

........w

Cellobunch:Diamond Cut:Pipeline:Ex 18023:

Fontana:Idaho:Indiana:Ithaca:

Sunrise:HM02:HM03:Six Pak:

Six Pak II:

Sweet Bites:Pronto:Orange Pak:

Crispy:Enterprise:Vita Treat:Ps 44994:

MAIN PACKAGING CARROT CULTIVAR TRIAL EVALUATION NOTES

A bit ringy, some uneven external colour, good length, a little yellowish core, average packaging carrot.Ringy, some uneven external colour, full tips, red ring around core.A little ringy, some uneven external colour, good length, good width, a little white/yellowish cores, average packaging carrot.A little ringy, larger carrots are nice packaging carrots, a little red ring in core.

Ringy, jumbo potential, some whitish cores, more processing carrot than packaging.A little ringy, red ring around core, short carrots, chunky.A little ringy, narrow width, a little rough surface, some uneven external colour, cut and peel type carrot.A little ringy, good weight, slicer and jumbo potential, nice packaging carrot,

A little ringy, uneven length and width, average packaging carrot.A little ringy, long length, cut and peel type carrot, nice packaging carrot.A little ringy, fairly full tips, nice packaging carrot.Ringy, uneven external colour, greening on crowns, long lengths, average packaging carrot.

A little ringy, uneven external colour, good weight, red ring around core, some yellowish colour in core, averagepackaging.

Nice appearance, a little red ring around core, good lengths, average packaging.A little ringy, jumbo potential, chunky, medium size carrots, nice packaging carrots.A little ringy, greening on crowns, red ring around core, medium length, average packaging carrots.

Very ringy, rough exterior, chunky, red ring around core.Some a little ringy, long length, cut and peel type carrot, average packaging carrot.Fairly ringy, a little rough, good width, good length, average packaging carrot.A little ringy, cores are a little whitish, good length, full tips, nice packaging carrot.

... / continued

........~

MAIN PACKAGING CARROT CULTIVAR TRIAL EVALUATION NOTES - continued

Ps 140395: Ringy, noticeable cavity spots, red ring around core, uneven lengths.Growers Choice: A little ringy, uneven external colour, slicer potential, red ring around core.Morecuts: A little ringy, small stand counts, long and narrow carrots, cut and peel type, noticeable cavity spot, red ring around core.Sweetcuts: Some a little ringy, good length, cut and peel type, red ring around core, some unevenness of external colour.

55-84 RZ:Pacific Gold:Rex 240:SCR 1312:

Very ringy, short, thick, processing type carrot, red ring around core.Fairly smooth, noticeable cavity spot, heavy shoulders, average packaging carrot.Very ringy, rough appearance, red ring around core.A little ringy, full tips, good length, a little rough appearance, average packaging carrot.

Dawn Dee: Ringy, rough appearance, large core, heavy shoulders, red ring around core.Growers Choice: Fairly full tips, red ring around core.Annapolis: A little ringy, slicer potential, red ring around core, nice packaging carrot.Big Shot: A little ringy, a little thick, red ring around core.

Excellence: Ringy, long lengths, cut and peel type.Orangette: A little ringy, uneven core colour, full tips, nice packaging carrot.Orange Express: A little ringy, chunky, nice interior colour, average packaging carrot.Namtindo: A little ringy, short, chunky, processing type carrot.

........U'l

CARROT CULTIVAR ADAPTATION TRIAL - 2000 - PACKAGING TYPES - continued

---. ---.00 00~ ~'-' '-'-~ e ---. ---.

"0 /)0 e ---.Q) 0 ~ e- Q) "': '-' 0

.!!!<II~ E '-' 0 ...Q) "t 0

'-' "3~

Q)- 0 Q) (5 -<II 0::0 0 Q) u... "t 0:x:: Q) Q) lX: ~ ....

~C! ~ ~ .!::l .... lX: 0

~ N 1\ Q) 0 .... ...til ~ e 0 Q) 00 :x:: ...

~ til Q) 'tio0.. 'C> Q)

~ "Eh > Q) £ "0.;:; 0 '3 ~ 0.. 0

"3 ;:l u 'u 'u ..s -< 0 ..s c "0~ 'i;'

0 0~ ~ .g '<,

'$. '$. ..c Q)

~ ~u C/l ~ !-< o:l C/l .....:l C/l

RECO LETA Sto 169 24.40 11.23 11.46 113 1827 93 47 GPIN 17.8 3.6 73 SMSRC 3317 Sun 212 16.82 12.22 2.69 75 1200 89 16 GP 20.2 3.4 91 SM

HMX 7323 HM 132 23.00 8.68 11.69 102 1640 89 51 Imp 23,3 3.5 57 FTRIPLEPLAY Sun 150 21.96 12.43 6.66 95 1537 87 30 Imp 23.6 3.6 65 F

XPH 97H87 Cro 174 26.72 15.22 7.83 115 1856 86 29 N 21.7 3.5 75 FHMX 5315 HM 157 19.33 12.09 4.55 83 1340 86 24 Imp/Cyl 22.9 3.5 68 F

KCPC 044 Pol 196 20.36 13.43 3.14 83 1334 81 15 GPN 18.2 3.5 84 R800195 PS 157 15.44 6.08 6.01 60 973 78 39 D 9.4 3.5 68 SP

NUTRIRED Gar 118 14.62 4.25 5.13 47 755 64 35 Imp 20.8 .3.4 51 FNUTRIRED PS 134 16.65 5.87 3.53 47 757 56 21 GP/Imp 20.3 3.5 58 SP

........O'l

Listed in Order of % Marketable. ... I continued

CARROT CULTIVAR ADAPTATION TRIAL - 2000 - PACKAGING TYPES - continued

CI)

01) 01) CI)oJ:01)

~oJ: C C C -CI) oS bh 'c ~ .~CI) "'0

ij- "'0 C CI) 0 ~oJ: ~

CI) CI) et: 0(:1 en..Cfl -l 0

.. .. .. .. ~ ]..... ..... ..... ::s ::I ::l ::l - 00 0 0 00 0 0 B "0 "0 0 0 0- U I-CI) "0 "00 .~ C- o CI) .u o Cfl ;>< .....~ .~ ; 0 o o C- o

:a E ~<; (;j <; <; ..

CI)

E E.;; - 2 ..

.~ CI) tB tB tB CI) en E E CI) '" oJ: VI 0z:: 0 0. 'Uj CI) eu ..

U 01) < U::l 'c 'c - ><CI) CI) 0::s 0 c 0. CI) >( - .$ 0o Cfl ::J ::J ::J < et: lJ.l lJ.l .5 Cfl ~ CQ ~ ~0

RECO LETA Sto 4.3 4.0 3.3 4.0 4.3 80 4.7 80 4.0 4.51 35 LIM 4.7 1.8 42.3SRC 3317 Sun 4.3 3.7 3.0 3.7 4.7 0 4.3 0 3.7 4.27 60M 4.7 1.4 39.7

HMX 7323 HM 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.7 4.0 0 3.7 80 4.3 4.07 40 LIM 4.3 5.3 36.2TRIPLEPLAY Sun 4.0 4.3 3.7 4.0 5.0 80 4.3 80 4.3 4.60 30 LIM 4.3 5.3 42.0

XPH 97H87 Cro 4.0 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.7 80 4.3 80 3.7 4.43 50 LIM 4.7 2.9 44.3HMX 5315 HM 4.3 4.0 4.3 3.7 4.7 0 4.0 0 4.7 4.26 70 LIM 4.3 1.9 38.0

KCPC 044 Pol 4.3 3.7 3.7 4.0 4.0 DO 4.7 0 4.7 4.14 25 M 4.7 5.6 37.7800195 PS 3.7 4.0 3.3 3.7 2.0 C 3.7 Y 3.0 4.27 80M 3.7 0.6 47.1

NUTRl RED Gar 4.3 3.7 3.7 3.7 4.7 PG 3.3 PW 3.0 4.16 75 LIM 3.7 2.5 37.9NUTRl RED PS 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.3 3.7 PG 4.0 PW 3.3 3.71 45 M 3.7 3.0 32.3

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

........"-J

XPH 97887:HMX 5315:

HMX 7323:KCPC-044:

Tripleplay:SCR 3317:

Nutri Red:

800195:

Reco Leta:

ADAPTATION PACKAGING CARROT CULTIVAR TRIAL EVALUATION NOTES

A little ringy, a little greening of crowns, yellow ring around core, good length, processing type carrot.Very ringy, nice internal colour, average packaging carrot.

A little ringy, jumbo potential, full tips, good length, uneven external colour, average packaging carrot.A little ringy, small amount of greening on crowns, internal colour blends well, nice packaging carrot.

Some ringy, good width and length, full tips, large cores, some red rings around core, nice packaging carrot.Ringy, small and short carrots, chunky, red ring around core, uneven internal colour.

Uneven exterior colour, lenticels white and noticeable, pink exterior colour, fairly smooth, internal colourdoesn't blend well.White external, noticeable cavity spot, heavy greening of crowns, short, okay size, average appearance.

Some ringy, short and chunky, processor type, jumbo potential, large cores, some cores yellowish, low cavityspots.

........ee

Note: Cultivars HMX 7323 and Nutri Red had Iand 2 seeders respectively in 6 m of row. No seeders present in the other cultivars.

LONG TERM AVERAGE OF CARROT CULTIVARS - PACKAGING TYPES

MARKETABLE# YEARS LENGTH YIELD %

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

STYLUS PETO 2 26.70 10.51 83.20 1341 84 4.10HM02 HM 3 25.40 10.00 83.30 1341 86 4.12INDIANA BElO 3 25.00 9.84 74.00 1192 86 4.10EXCELLENCE Asg 3 24.50 9.65 74.00 1192 87 4.05HM03 HM 3 24.20 9.53 72.00 1170 86 4.14

ORANGEPAK Nor 7 23.70 9.33 85.10 1369 87 3.89CARO-CHIEF Asg 4 23.65 9.31 76.10 1359 82 4.09ORANGETTE Sto 5 23.40 9.21 96.20 1368 87 3.95GROWERS CHOICE Pol 2 23.40 9.21 68.00 1095 78 3.93CANADA SUPER X Sol 14 23.30 9.17 80.80 1376 83 3.94

SUNRISE Cra 11 22.90 9.02 85.30 1431 85 3.92SIX PAK HM 16 22.70 8.94 77.10 1315 81 3.98STX 3110 Sto 2 22.70 8.94 91.40 1473 93 4.08ORLANDO GOLD Sto 7 22.63 8.91 69.18 1235 86 4.18ORANGE EXPRESS Sol 2 22.50 8.86 77.80 1253 85 4.01

LEGEND PETO 4 22.45 8.84 62.68 1119 75 3.90CELLOBUNCH Asg 11 22.20 8.74 92.10 1542 85 3.96SIX PAK II HM 15 22.10 8.70 78.00 1328 84 3.9024 KARAT FM 3 21.73 8.56 90.09 1609 88 3.71IMPERATOR 58 Cra 9 21.69 8.54 50.34 899 78 3.64

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

... / continued ........\0

LONG TERM AVERAGE OF CARROT CULTIVARS - PACKAGING TYPES - continued

MARKETABLE# YEARS LENGTH YIELD %

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

FIRST CLASS Asg 3 21.60 8.50 74.30 1197 70 3.90TEMPTATION PETO 2 21.60 8.50 78.50 1267 80 4.13AVENGER PETO 7 21.50 8.46 81.00 1369 80 3.94MOTHERLODE Sham 2 21.50 8.46 92.75 1656 85 3.80DAWN DEE Sol 4 21.40 8.43 58.00 928 69 4.07

ITHACA BElO 3 21.40 8.43 78.00 1256 81 4.12ORANGE SHERBET Sto 10 21.17 8.33 73.36 1310 84 3.81CAROPAK Asg 8 20.93 8.24 74.11 1323 85 3.88CHANCELLOR Asg 7 20.92 8.24 76.79 1371 83 3.86FLAME Rog 4 20.83 8.20 73.50 1313 79 3.72

GOLDPAK28 FM 12 20.76 8.17 55.91 998 85 3.84PAKMOR HM 5 20.74 8.17 62.40 1114 81 3.79PARAMOUNT Asg 7 20.55 8.09 82.14 1467 85 3.89PLATO Chr 2 20.55 8.09 101.00 1804 82 3.80PROSPECTOR PETO 5 20.23 7.96 94.99 1696 83 4.02

DISCOVERY Sieg 3 20.01 7.88 70.60 1261 78 3.92DOMINATOR Sun 13 19.74 7.77 63.88 1141 85 3.85KLONDIKE NANTES Sto 10 19.59 7.71 72.10 1287 85 3.87SIX PENCE HM 4 19.56 7.70 79.48 1419 80 3.80DELPHI RZ 3 19.53 7.69 93.97 1678 83 3.88

.-.No

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

CARROT CULTIVAR STORAGE TRIAL - PACKAGING - 1999-2000

% % % DEGREE SPROUTS ***CULTIVAR SOURCE MARKETABLE WEIGHT LOSS DECAY OF ROT ** ROOT TOP

ORANGEPAK Nor 88.3 a * 10.3 a 1.1 ab 4.6 a L LSTX 1310 Sto 88.2 a 8.4 a 3.0 ab 4.6 a L LCELLOBUNCH Asg 86.9 ab 10.2 a 3.1 ab 4.5 a L MINDIANA BElO 86.5 ab 9.2 a 3.8 ab 4.6 a M MSIX PAK HM 86.0 abc 10.5 a 3.3 ab 3.9 a Nil LORANGE EXPRESS Sol 85.6 abc 12.4 a 1.7 ab 4.7 a L MGROWERS CHOICE Pol 85.3 abc 13.1 a 1.8 ab 4.8 a L LORANGETTE Sto 85.0 abc 10.6 a 4.0 ab 4.3 a L MPIPELINE Asg 84.6 abc 14.4 a 0.8 ab 4.6 a L LCANADA SUPER X Sol 83.9 abc 14.5 a 1.4 ab 4.8 a L L

DIAMOND CUT Asg 83.9 abc 14.5 a 1.4 ab 4.4 a L LEX 18023 Asg 82.3 a-d 13.5 a 4.2 ab 4.3 a L LPRONTO PETO 81.9 a-d 18.4 a 1.1 ab 4.7 a L LSUNRISE Cro 80.5 a-d 15.1 a 4.1 ab 4.4 a Nil LSIX PAK II HM 78.7 a-e 17.6 a 3.4 ab 4.6 a L MTRIGGER PETO 76.5 b-e 15.6 a 7.4 b 4.0 a M MGROWERS CHOICE Sol 75.6 cde 20.6 a 3.7 ab 4.4 a Nil LITHACA BElO 71.5 de 13.3 a 15.1 c 4.1 a M MEXCELLENCE Asg 71.4 de 19.3 a 0.8 a 4.7 a Nil LPX 44994 PETO 67.7 e 14.9 a 17.0 c 3.9 a M M

Listed in order of % Marketable. Storage period was approximately 39 weeks.

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

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

*** Nil = no growth, L = Light growth 0 em to 1 em long, M = Moderate growth 1 em to 2.5 em long.

....N....

LONG TERM AVERAGES - CARROT CULTIVAR STORAGE TRIAL - PACKAGING TYPES

% WEIGHT DEGREE·# YEARS % LOSS % OF

CULTIVAR SOURCE TESTED MARKETABLE IN STORAGE DECAY DECAY

SPARTAN CLASSIC 80 Sto 4 90.8 6.8 2.4 3.5LEGEND PETO 3 85.9 8.4 5.3 3.3KLONDIKE NANTES Sto 4 85.6 8.1 6.3 3.7BLAZE Rog 4 84.4 10.0 4.8 3.2DELPHI RZ 3 83.9 12.4 3.5 4.0PAY DIRT Sham 2 83.8 9.3 9.7 3.8

ORANGE SHERBET Sto 6 82.9 9.0 8.1 2.8,PAK MOR HM 6 82.7 11.5 6.5 2.6CELLOBUNCH Asg 8 80.1 13.0 7.4 3.8PROSPECTOR PETO 4 80.0 6.3 13.3 2.7AVENGER PETO 7 79.5 11.5 8.7 4.0STX 1310 Sto 2 78.9 16.3 4.6 4.5

CANADA SUPER X Sol 14 78.6 11.9 9.2 3.5CARO-CHIEF Asg 5 78.5 10.1 11.0 3.3DISCOVERY Rog 3 77.8 8.5 13.2 2.7SIX PAK HM 15 77.6 12.0 10.1 3.4HM02 HM 2 76.9 17.9 5.8 4.7NEPTUNE Chr 2 76.8 19.1 2.7 4.2

....NN

I

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

·5.0 = No Disease, 3.7 = Moderate, 1.0 = Severe (liquified) ... I continued

LONG TERM AVERAGES - CARROT CULTIVAR STORAGE TRIAL - PACKAGING TYPES - continued

% WEIGHT DEGREE *# YEARS % LOSS % OF

CULTIVAR SOURCE TESTED MARKETABLE IN STORAGE DECAY DECAY

SIX PAK II HM 14 75.4 12.5 11.9 3.5SUNRISE Cro 10 75.4 14.7 9.7 3.8CHANCELLOR Asg 7 75.3 11.3 13.3 2.2ORLANDO GOLD Sto 6 75.2 12.7 12.1 2.2ORANGEPAK Nor 6 74.9 15.1 9.8 3.9ORANGETTE Sto 4 74.2 18.2 7.6 4.0

HM03 HM 2 74.1 19.2 6.0 4.2SIX PENCE HM 4 72.7 8.4 18.4 2.0FIRST CLASS Asg 3 72.0 13.6 12.4 4.0FLAME Rog 4 70.8 11.4 17.4 2.9INDIANA BElO 2 69.8 24.7 10.0 4.5TEMPTATION PETO 2 69.3 16.3 13.8 4.4

CAROPAK Asg 4 67.0 10.7 22.3 2.2EXCELLENCE Asg 2 66.5 23.7 5.5 4.5STYLUS PETO 2 60.4 19.5 20.0 4.2ITHACA BElO 2 58.4 21.8 19.6 4.2DAWN DEE Sol 3 49.2 21.8 28.8 3.7

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

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

.....NW

CARROT CULTIVAR TRIALS - 2000 - PROCESSING TYPES

MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES

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

Seeded:All trials were seeded 26 May using a V-Belt seeder equipped with a 5 cm wide scatter shoe. All trials were seeded on beds 86 cm apart. Germinationof95 to 100%, a target of 14 seeds per foot was desired for Dicers and 25 seeds per foot for Slicers. The seeding rate was according to germination.Ridomil 2G was applied at 25 kg/ha in the seed furrow. Main Trial was replicated three times. Adaptation Trial was not replicated.

....N~

Weed Control:Pre-emergence:Post-emergence:

I application: GESAGARD 480 sc at 7.08 Llha on 27 May.1 application: LOROX DF at 500 g/ha + ASSIST OIL 500 ml/ha on 23 Jun.2 applications: LOROX DF at 1.0 kg/ha + ASSIST OIL at 1.0 Llha on 28 Jun and 7 Jul.

Minor Elements:Four foliar sprays of Epson Salt (magnesium) at 1.0 kg/haTwo foliar sprays of Awaken at 2.0 LlhaOne foliar spray of Awaken at 1.0 LlhaOne foliar spray of20-20-20 at 1.0 kg/ha

Insect and Disease Control:According to IPM recommendations.

Harvest:The Main and Adaptation Trials were harvested on 18 and 19 Oct. Both trials were immediately placed in a temperature and humidity controlledstorage (O°C, 95% RH) respectively.

EVALUATION PROCEDURESThe cultivars were evaluated on 4, 5 and 6 Dec after 7 weeks in storage.

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

...1 continued

CARROT CULTIVAR TRIALS - 2000 - PROCESSING TYPES - continued

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

Marketable Yield tlha + B/A:Marketable Yield for Slicers includes the processing sizes> 4.4 cm (I 3/4") +4.4 cm to 3.2 cm (I 3/4" to I 1/4") and 3.2 cm to 1.9em (I 1/4" to 3/4")in diameter.

Marketable yield for Dicers includes the processing sizes> 6.7 em (2 YzII) + 6.7 em to 3.6 em (2 Yz" to I YzII)

56 t/ha = 1,000 bushels per acre.

Majority of Culls:SP = Splits F = Forked SM = Small

Weight Root (g):The total harvest weight divided by number carrots harvested equals average root weight.

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

External Colour:0= Orange

Internal Colour:0= Orange

BO = Bright Orange LO = Light Orange DO = Dark Orange.

BO = Bright Orange LO = Light Orange DO = Dark Orange

Shape:GP = Gold PakGPN = Gold Pak Nante

Shape of Crown:Rated on degree of indentation.

Dav = DanverImpCyl = Imperator Cylindrical

CX = Convex

N = NanteCyl = Cylindrical.

CV = Concave.

Imp = Imperator

... 1continued

....NOl

CARROT CULTIVAR TRIALS - 2000 - PROCESSING TYPES - continued

Score:The average of the II marks from Smoothness to Slicer or Dicer.

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

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

% Aster Yellows:Precent of carrot roots infected with Aster Yellows found in the 2.32 m harvest sample.

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

.....Nen

PROCESSING INDUSTRY CARROT CULTIVAR TRIAL - 2000 - DICERS

"""' """'00 00C .:.:... '-'

t1 """' s"0 00B '0 .:.: o

'-' ~ ---II>

~.!!! --- e ---Q) a E

~f"l "3 ~ ~ ---... u Q) u EII> r- 8 ::0 u ...

~o'-'

::r:: Q) '- 0 oSu

~..0 e- g 0 0 '-'

~ 1\ ..0 G)

~t::: "0 G)

.€' ~N

lil~

::r::~

... .:.: G)[/)Q) t1 lil t1 ....l.~ ~

..."3 ::E 0 ... ... G)... '0 '0 '0 0

"3 ;:J U til .~ 0 ...0 0

~ ~ "cf. <§ ::E ~0 0 0

u V) 'It: I-- ~ ~ u

BRADFORD BEJO 90 23.53 2.77 15.90 70 a * 81 ab F 265.7 a 21.7 5.0 2.7CARSON BEJO 96 20.49 5.72 11.75 70 a 62 b-e SM 223.4 abc 16.1 5.2 3.1

FONTANA BEJO 105 24.96 2.24 16.78 66 ab 85 a SM 240.4 ab 22.0 4.9 2.5MAGNO Sol 99 23.05 2.95 15.05 62 abc 77 abc F 233.5 ab 21.3 5.0 2.5

EARLY GOLD PETO 122 21.98 3.39 12.94 61 abc 66 a-d SM 182.8 bed 16.5 4.9 2.7PYS 737 Sol 100 22.64 2.59 14.48 61 abc 74 abc F 225.0 abc 21.7 4.9 2.5

CANADA BEJO 84 16.23 2.62 9.08 52 bed 47 de SM 196.3 bed 18.1 4.9 3.0B1836 BEJO 104 15.33 0.00 10.19 45 cd 51 de F 152.0 d 22.4 4.8 2.6

HERITAGE Asg 103 20.71 1.32 11.06 42 d 56 cde SM 204.3 bed 22.7 4.5 2.1GIANT 114 Sol 97 15.89 0.23 9.05 39 d 45 e SM 165.1 cd 22.3 4.5 2.5

Listed in order of % Marketable.

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

....N.....

PROCESSING INDUSTRY CARROT CULTIVAR TRIAL - 2000 - DICERS - continued

00 ClO 00I:: I:: .5'2 'J::lI:l

~V~V... 3 30 v 3 30 0 I::

0 "0 '0 0 0 0VI - N "0 '0VI v U Uv 0 § u o

:a v .§ s (; (; Iii (;E E >< :0.2:

~0 VI V v E E- 0 ';;j v v t: ij- - ... v v"3 0 E v >< >< 0 0 - -U rFI rFI ~ LLl LLl U U o .5 .s

BRADFORD BElO 2.7 2.3 e * 0 3.3 be 3.3 3.0 2.7 BO 2.7 aCARSON BElO 3.0 3.3 abc 0 4.0 ab 4.0 3.7 3.3 0 4.0 a

FONTANA BElO 3.3 2.7 be BO 4.3 a 3.0 2.3 2.3 0 2.3 aMAGNO Sol 2.7 3.0 be 0 3.3 be 3.7 3.0 3.3 LO 3.3 a

EARLY GOLD PETO 3.0 3.0 be BO 3.3 be 3.3 2.3 2.7 0 3.3 aPYS 737 Sol 2.7 3.0 be 0 3.3 be 2.7 2.7 2.0 0 2.7 a

CANADA BElO 3.0 3.0 be 0 3.0 c 4.0 4.0 3.0 0 4.0 aB1836 BElO 2.3 4.3 a DO 4.3 a 4.3 3.3 4.3 DO 4.0 a

HERITAGE Asg 3.7 3.7 ab BO 4.0 ab 3.7 3.3 3.7 BO 4.0 aGIANT 114 Sol 2.0 2.7 be 0 2.7 c 3.3 2.7 3.3 BO 3.0 a

...N00

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

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

PROCESSING INDUSTRY CARROT CULTIVAR TRIAL - 2000 - DICERS - continued

00

~151>

0 -S 00. 0.2 l:: "l:l

0~ tid til

Vl ....l ~ ~.... ..... ..... .... 00 0 0 0 0... 0.

00 0 0 u (/)

>-.~ .~ .~ .... 0:a 0 ...0 .s; 0> u 0 <B @ <2 0 ... 0 '" Vi.z: 3 g- c, 0 ... U -e-a l:: l:: '2 '" u 00 ..r:: ..r:: is u

~U Vl Vl ::::> ::::> ::::> Vl Vl ~

BRADFORD BEJO GPN 4.0 3.3 3.3 CV 3.3 a * 3.07 be 50 LIM a 5.1 aCARSON BEJO Dav 3.7 3.3 3.0 CC 3.3 a 3.53 ab 38 LIM a 8.1 a

FONTANA BEJO GP 3.3 3.0 2.7 CC 3.7 a 2.93 c 45 LIM a 3.3 aMAGNO Sol GPN 3.0 3.0 3.0 CC 4.0 a 3.13 be 53 M a 6.4 a

EARLY GOLD PETO Dav 3.3 2.7 2.7 CC 2.7 a 2.97 c 48M a 3.6 aPYS 737 Sol GP 2.7 3.0 3.3 CC 3.3 a 2.80 c 50M a 6.1 a

CANADA BEJO GP/Cyl 3.0 4.0 2.0 CV 3.0 a 3.30 abc 55 M a 4.0 aB1836 BEJO GP 4.0 3.7 3.0 CV 3.0 a 3.77 abc 57M a 1.5 a

HERITAGE Asg GP 3.0 3.0 3.0 CC 3.0 a 3.50 ab 60M a· 1.7 aGIANT 114 Sol N 2.7 4.0 2.7 CV 2.7 a 2.90 c 40M a 2.7 a

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

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

.....N\0

Heritage:

Bradford:

Canada:

Fontana:

Kathmanbu:

Giant 114:

Magno:

PYS 737:

Early Gold:

MAIN PROCESSING CARROT CULTIVAR TRIAL EVALUATION - DICERS - NOTES

Fairly full tips, more like ajumbo packaging carrot, nice uniformity of internal colour.

A little ringy, large cores, white colour in cores, good size for Dicer carrots, red ring around core.

Large core, a little short, uneven shape and length.

Ringy, very short, thick width, large cores, white/yellow colour in cores.

A little short, tapered tips, rough appearance, large cores, thick width, red ring around core.

Large cores, poor uniformity of colour in core, rough appearance, uneven external colour.

Good length and width, white/yellow colour in cores, rough appearance, red ring around core.

Slicer potential, white colour in cores, short, lenticels rough.

Short, thin width, large cores, white colour in cores.

....to.)o

PROCESSING INDUSTRY CARROT CULTIVAR TRIAL - 2000 - SLICERS

,-... ,-...OJ)0Jl

,-...~

~ Ji"--' "--'

~"--',-... E E"U JiQJ 'u 0 0.... "--' N .!!!

,-...VI

~ ~ ,-... E ,-...QJ E ,...; E~ - '":3 0Jl 0.... 0 0 B QJ U

"--' "--' 0VI

""': .... ::0 (5 t"--'

::t QJ .... -5~ """

""': C'! ~ 0 0~ /\

"""r... 0 ~ c :9

lil 0 ::t ....~ ~ ~

QJ

~.~

QJ

~ ~.;::

"Eh .....l0.... 3 g :::s 0 .... ....'":3 u 'u 'u 'u lU 'iU' 'u 0 0

0 0~ ~ ~ '::f!.. 'S ::E ~

0 0u CI) 'l:t: I- 0 ~ ~

NEPAL BEJO 134 21.53 7.78 9.13 1.46 86 a " 16 e F 162.1 a 19.0 3.8BRISTOL BEJO 193 23.22 4.01 11.28 4.50 83 ab 30 ab F 121.3 bed 19.3 3.7BERGEN BEJO 146 23.17 8.00 10.15 1.58 82 ab 17 e F 161.4 a 19.9 3.8NEVIS BEJO 183 23.93 5.09 11.47 3.41 82 ab 25 bcd F 131.6 a-d 18.4 3.7

STYLUS Sto 157 20.01 3.56 7.54 5.73 82 ab 34 a F 127.4 a-d 26.0 3.6BOLERO Vii 138 16.05 2.80 7.02 3.55 79 abc 23 b-e F 120.2 bed 22.0 3.6ORANGETTE Sto 135 18.46 3.77 8.45 2.59 78 abc 19 de F 140.0 abc 24.0 3.8PIPELINE Sto 109 16.16 4.16 6.64 1.99 77 abc 15 e F 149.5 ab 26.5 3.7

HM03 Sto 173 16.92 0.20 6.62 6.18 76 abc 34 a F 99.9 d 25.5 3.5VITA TREAT Sto 161 19.23 2.98 8.07 4.44 74 a-d 28 abc F 121.7 bed 24.3 3.7ANNAPOLIS Sto 139 16.25 1.97 6.79 3.36 71 bcd 21 cde F 116.8 bed 23.1 3.9PYS 65 Sol 160 17.92 2.11 7.16 3.59 68 cd 23 b-e SP 113.3 bed 23.8 3.8BI833 BEJO 176 19.00 4.76 7.68 1.92 63 d 16 e SP 108.1 cd 17.1 3.8

Listed in order of% Marketable.

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

....w....

PROCESSING INDUSTRY CARROT CULTIVAR TRIAL - 2000 - SLICERS - continued

tl1} en en.5 cc

~.5

u ~e ~

0 3 3 u 3 3 ---0 0 c E0 "0 "0 0 0 0III ~ N "0 "0 uIII U U U

......,u u § U U u

Ii! .g .§ (;j ca (;j (;jN

.~u E E >< :..0 Viu 8 III U E E.=: 3 .- s u t: ~ ~ u

E III X U U ..::l 0

~ >< 0 0 ... ... 0U ell ell CJ.l CJ.l U U u .5 ..s u

NEPAL BElO 3.0 4.0 abc '" 0 4.0 a 3.7 3.0 3.0 0 3.7 a 1.8BRISTOL BElO 3.3 4.3 ab BO 3.7 a 3.3 2.7 3.0 0 3.3 a 2.0BERGEN BElO 2.7 3.0 c BO 3.7 a 3.7 3.7 2.7 0 3.7 a 2.3NEVIS BElO 3.0 4.3 ab 0 4.0 a 4.0 3.3 3.7 0 4.0 a 1.6

STYLUS Sto 2.0 4.7 a 0 3.3 a 3.3 2.3 3.3 0 3.0 a 1.4BOLERO ViI 2.3 4.0 abc 0 4.0 a 3.7 2.7 3.7 0 3.7 a 1.6ORANGETTE Sto 2.3 4.3 ab 0 4.0 a 3.0 2.3 3.0 BO 3.0 a 1.7PIPELINE Sto 3.3 4.7 a 0 3.3 a 3.7 2.7 3.7 0 3.0 a 1.7

HM03 Sto 3.0 5.0 a 0 3.3 a 3.0 2.0 2.3 0 3.0 a 1.6VITA TREAT Sto 2.3 4.3 ab 0 3.0 a 3.3 2.3 3.0 BO 3.3 a 1.5ANNAPOLIS Sto 2.7 4.0 abc 0 3.7 a 3.3 2.3 2.7 BO 2.7 a 1.4PYS 65 Sol 2.7 4.3 ab 0 3.3 a 3.0 2.3 2.3 0 2.7 a 1.6BI833 BElO 3.3 3.3 be BO 3.7 a 3.0 3.0 2.0 0 3.0 a 1.9

....WN

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

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

PROCESSING INDUSTRY CARROT CULTIVAR TRIAL - 2000 - SLICERS - continued

ClJClJ...

-S enII) ...l:: II)Q., OJ) 45 aC':l l:

.J:: ClJ ~ ~0(1 lI)

VJ ....:l .... ~..... ..... ..... 0 00 0 0 0 Q., di...0 c c o VJ ><'§ '§ '§ ..... 0

~ 0 ...II) .;; II)

;> u ClJ <2 <2 <B ClJ ...~

....3 Q., Q., ClJ C':l lI)

.::: C':l '2 '2 '2 C':l .~ 0 U <t:::s 0 .J:: ...l:: UU VJ VJ ::J ::J ::J r./) en r./) ;:R "if.0

NEPAL BElO N 4.0 3.7 3.0 CC 4.0 a* 3.50 a-d 43 M a 3.2 aBRISTOL BElO N 4.3 3.7 3.0 CC 4.3 a 3.47 a-d 42 LM a 3.0 aBERGEN BElO GPN 3.7 3.7 3.0 CV 3.0 a 3.33 bed 42 LM a 3.3 aNEVIS BElO N 4.0 4.0 3.3 CC 4.0 a 3.77 a 47LM a 2.0 a

STYLUS Sto Imp 3.7 3.7 3.7 CV 3.7 a 3.30 bed 37 M a 0.9 aBOLERO ViI GP/Cyl 4.3 4.0 3.3 CV 4.3 a 3.57 abc 40 M a 2.0 aORANGETTE Sto ImpCyl 3.3 3.0 3.0 CV 3.7 a 3.13 d 52 LM a 1.4 aPIPELINE Sto Imp 4.3 4.3 4.0 CV 3.3 a 3.70 ab 48 M a 1.3 a

HM03 Sto Imp 3.7 4.3 3.3 CV 3.3 a 3.30 bed 38 LM a 0.9 aVrTA TREAT Sto ImpCyl 4.7 4.3 3.7 CV 4.3 a 3.43 a-d 68 M a 2.5 aANNAPOLIS Sto ImpCyl 3.0 4.0 3.0 CV 3.7 a 3.13 d 50M a 1.7 aPYS 65 Sol ImpCyl 3.7 4.0 3.0 CC 3.3 a 3.13 d 58 M a 1.9 aBI833 BElO N 3.7 4.3 2.3 CV 3.3 a 3.17 cd 58 M a 2.1 a

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

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

....ww

Bergen:

Bristol:

Nepal:

Nevis:

B1833:

PYS 65:

Annapolis:

Orangette:

Pipeline:

HM03:

Vita Treat:

Stylus:

Bolero:

MAIN PROCESSING CARROT CULTIVAR TRIAL EVALUATION - SLICERS - NOTES

Short, large cores, a little yellow/white colour in cores, uneven external colour.

Short - Medium length, good width, green/yellow colour in cores.

A little short, tubular shape, uneven length, a little rough appearance, a little yellow in core.

A little ringy, a little short and small, white colour in cores.

Ringy, good width, a little short, large cores, unfinished white tips, yellow/white colour in cores.

Small stand count, medium length, medium width, uneven external colour, rough appearance, red ring in core.

Small stand count, full tips, red ring around core, average slicer.

Ringy, good length, red ring around core.

Small size sample, long length, tapered end, red ring around core.

Cut and peel type, long length, thin width, white colour in cores, noticeable ring around core.

Ringy, good length, good width, red ring around core.

A little ringy, good length, fairly full tips, cut and peel type, red ring around core.

A little ringy, uneven length, red/yellow ring around core, nice slicer carrot.

....w~

PROCESSING ADAPTATION CARROT CULTIVAR TRIAL - 2000 - SLICERS

,-..bllC~

,-.. ,-..II) -S ~'0 bll bll

tl 'Q) C ..I<: 0.. "0... '-' ..!!l,-.. ,-.. '" ~

cVl

~,-.. e ..c II)

tl e e "3 en a t/) ...l

~u... u U tl U

'-' '-' u .... .... ....Vl 00 ~ ::c ...

t'-' 0 0 0

:I: tl .... 0 -S~

M M g 0 0 0 ,£ 0:!I 1\ V tl 0 !5 c "0 '§ '§lil 0 :I: ... ... ..I<: tl

~ Etl

~ ~ :§ lil 'I:~

...l> u g 0tl <2 ~ <2'::: 3 :::E 0.. '0 '0

"3 u 'Q) tl '" '~ '" 'Q) '2 '20 0~ ~ ';f. 'S :::E ..c

~ ~ ~c

U t/) 'ft: l- t/) ::> ::> ::>

VAC30 Vii 157 18.587 8.15 8.45 91 46 F Imp/Cyl 118.4 19.6 6.6 4.3 4.0. 3.7

TEMPO Vii 116 11.56 0.48 8.84 83 44 R N 99.7 17.2 3.2 4.7 4.0 4.0

tlen en tl

bll ~.5 ,5'Sc ~

tltl

~ ~Cl

~ Vl o(j~ 0 3 3 II) 3 3 ~

0 0 c ..9 0e 2 "0 "0 0 0 0"Q) 0..Vl N "0 "0Vl u t/)

tl tl U U § U U >-.§ .... u 0lil 0 ! -a -a -a -a ...

tl E E x :Etl ';;> u 0 tl tl E E II)... ...Vl Vl '"'::: 3 0 0.. 'iii ~

II) 1:: ~tl ... <t: II) u"3 e '" ... ... tl tl 0 U

0 ..c~

x x 0 0 ... ... u ';f.c .s c;; '$.u t/) t/) t/) w (.Ll u u u - t/)

VAC30 Vii 4.0 CC 4.3 0 4.3 4,0 4.7 4.3 0 4.3 4.19 1.3 4.7 30 L

TEMPO Vii 3.7 CC 3.3 LO 4.0 4.3 4.0 4.3 LO 4.3 4.06 1.7 4.0 35 M

Listed in order of % Marketable. 5.0 = Most Desirable, 4,0 = Good, 3.0 = Average

....wU1

LONG TERM AVERAGE OF CARROT CULTIVAR - PROCESSING TYPES

MARKETABLE# YEARS YIELD

CULTIVAR SOURCE TESTED t/ha t/A COLOUR SCORE

DESS DAN Sto 14 81.0 36.1 4.12* 3.96IDAHO BElO 2 71.0 31.6 4.08 4.10SPARTAN BONUS Sto 11 75.0 33.4 4.08 3.94SPARTAN BONUS 80 Asg 9 73.5 32.7 4.07 3.93HERITAGE Asg 6 88.4 39.4 4.02 3.98BERLANDA Nor 3 107.3 47.8 3.99 3.84LUCKY'S GOLD A.Ch. 4 52.9 23.6 3.99 4.20MAGNO RZ 3 79.0 35.2 3.95 3.95GOLIATH PETO 4 94.1 41.9 3.93 3.99XPH 87W341 Cro 3 73.0 32.5 3.93 3.98EARLY GOLD PETO 3 79.4 35.4 3.92 3.98

FONTANA BElO 8 105.2 46.9 3.92 3.90PROCESSOR II Sto 12 91.6 40.8 3.91 3.91CH. RED CORED A.Ch. 6 71.5 31.8 3.88 3.70ORANZA BElO 5 79.6 35.4 3.85 3.70CUMBERLAND Asg 2 90.2 40.2 3.84 3.92SPARTAN PREMIUM Cro 8 73.4 32.7 3.83 3.78DANVERS 126 Asg 12 67.1 29.9 3.77 3.66ECLIPSE Asg 2 91.6 40.8 3.68 3.75GIANT 114 Sol 6 89.3 39.8 3.68 3.72RED CORE CHANTENAY Asg 9 72.8 32.4 3.66 3.55EXP 660 Sol 5 81.4 36.3 3.54 3.64

Listed in Order of Colour * 5.0 = Most Desirable, 4.0 = Good, 3.7 = Average

....W0\

CARROT CULTIVAR STORAGE TRIAL - PROCESSING -1999 - 2000

% % % DEGREE SPROUTS "'''''''CULTIVAR SOURCE MARKETABLE WEIGHT LOSS DECAY OF ROT """ ROOT TOP

BRADFORD BEJO 88.9 a " 7.1 a 3.5 a 4.4 a Nil LBOLERO Vil 85.1 a 12.8 a 1.7 a 4.3 a Nil LEARLY GOLD PETO 84.9 a 13.8 a 2.0 a 4.7 a Nil LRECOLETA PETO 84.8 a 11.9 a 2.6 a 4.7 a Nil LHERITAGE Asg 82.8 a 14.3 a 2.5 a 4.7 a L L55-82-R2 RZ 82.0 a 11.5 a 6.6 a 3.8 a Nil LPROCESSOR 2 Sto 81.8 a 12.3 a 5.5 a 4.2 a L MIDAHO BEJO 81.5 a 14.3 a 4.1 a 4.5 a L L

302295 PETO 80.5 a 15.3 a 3.5 a 3.4 a Nil LFONTANA BEJO 80.3 a 13.6 a 5.8 a 4.2 a Nil LCARSON BEJO 76.6 a 11.8 a 11.4 a 2.9 a L LMAGNO RZ 75.9 a 11.6 a 4.0 a 4.2 a Nil LSTYLUS PETO 75.7 a 15.3 a 8.4 a 3.7 a Nil LENTERPRISE PETO 74.7 a 18.7 a 6.5 a 3.5 a Nil LCANADA BEJO 73.9 a 16.2 a 11.0 a 3.5 a L L

Listed in order of % Marketable. Storage period was approximately 39 weeks.

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

1.0 = Severe (liquified)""" 5.0 = No Disease,

"""'" Nil = no growth,

3.7 = Moderate,

L = Light growth 0 em to 1 ern long, M = Moderate growth 1 em to 2.5 em long.

....W'oJ

LONG TERM AVERAGES - CARROT CULTIVAR STORAGE TRIAL - PROCESSING TYPES

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

XPH 87W341 Cro 2 93.8 5.4 0.2 4.6CHANTENAY SUPREME HM 3 88.1 3.6 9.1 4.0DESS DAN Sun 10 84.9 8.5 6.6 3.5SPARTAN WINNER Sto 3 84.1 9.3 6.6 3.1SPARTAN BONUS 80 Asg 8 82.1 8.7 9.1 3.3

RED CR. CHANTENAY Asg 5 81.3 7.1 11.6 3.1CAMDEN Sto 6 79.4 8.0 12.6 3.4PROCESSOR II Sto 10 77.9 10.5 13.1 3.7BRADFORD BElO 2 77.1 14.8 7.6 4.5MAGNO RZ 3 75.8 14.7 6.4 4.2

CASEY Asg 4 75.2 9.0 15.5 3.5EARLY GOLD PETO 3 75.1 16.1 9.4 4.2FONTANA BElO 7 75.1 10.9 13.8 3.1HERITAGE Asg 5 75.0 14.9 9.6 4.2ORANZA BElO 4 74.5 6.6 18.1 2.8

GIANT 114 Sol 6 71.3 8.2 20.5 3.3DANVERS 126 Asg 6 69.0 7.2 23.8 2.7CHANTENAY RED CR. A.Ch. 3 67.7 11.3 21.0 3.3CANADA BElO 2 66.2 20.5 13.5 4.1GOLIATH PETO 2 64.5 20.4 15.3 4.1

.-~

Listed in Order of % Marketable Storage Period approximately 8 months

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

CARROT CULTIVAR STORAGE TRIAL - CUT AND PEEL - 1999 - 2000

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

REX 190 Sak 64.2 a* 22.1 a 13.1 a 3.9 aHM02 HM 64.1 a 20.4 a 15.0 ab 3.7 a

HM03 HM 59.8 ab 21.8 a 17.7 abc 4.0 aVITA TREAT PETO 55.8 abc 20.6 a 23.0 a-d 3.7 a

DIAMOND CUT Asg 50.6 bcd 24.0 a 24.7 bed 3.2 aMORE CUTS Sol 50.2 bed 22.6 a 26.6 cd 3.4 a

TRIPLE PLAY Sun 47.5 cd 21.7 a 30.0 de 3.6 aINDIANA BElO 46.4 cd 22.0a 30.5 de 3.8 a

PRIME CUT Sun 46.4 cd 20.6a 32.4 de 3.2 aNEWPORT BElO 45.5 cd 21.5 a 23.6 de 3.0 a

MORE CUTS Pol 43.4 de 25.1 a 31.2 de 3.3 aSWEET CUTS Pol 42.9 de 25.1 a 37.0e 4.1 a

SWEET CUTS Sol 41.4 de 24.7 a 33.4 de 3.4 aCANDY STICK PETO 33.3 e 28.4 a 38.0 e 2.9 a

Listed in order of% Marketable. Storage period was approximately 28 weeks.

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

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

....W\0

- 140 -

~ro"Wll~

ONION CULTIVAR TRIAL SEASONAL SUMMARY - 2000

The weather played a key role in the Onion Cultivar Trial in 2000, as it did in 1998 and 1999. One word could be used to sum up the 2000 season

- WET! Air temperatures were above the long term (10 year) average for May; not different from the long term average for June, August, and

September and below the long term average for July. Total rainfall was below the long term (10 year) average for August (55.8 mm); not

different from the long term average for September (83.0 mm) and above the long term average for May (160.3 mm); June (167.8 mm) and July

(86.4 mm). The winter/early spring of 2000, was similar to 1999 with no large amounts of water from snow melt or rainfall that had to be

pumped from the field tile drainage system. Considering this fact, the field moisture conditions were good at seeding, which was approximately 5

to 7 days earlier than normal.

In 1999, DITHANE DG at 8.8 kg/ha was applied to the seed furrow at seeding to help control the level of smut infection. The treatment was a

large success in 1999. The data results showed reduced levels of visible smut infection. Lower percent onion maggot damage was also noted at

harvest, then seen in previous years when DITHANE DG was not applied to control onion smut. There appears to be some correlation between

onion smut control and percent maggot damage. In 2000, DITHANE DG at 8.8 kg/ha was applied to the seed furrow. A sample of onions from a

one metre section of row was taken in June at the third true leaf stage and evaluated for percent smut infection (results in following cultivar

tables). Once again the level of onion smut infection appears to be reduced with the addition of DITHANE DG applied in the seed furrow

compared to pervious years when PRO GRO was applied alone. The above average temperatures of May encouraged rapid onion emergence

and by 10 May the first true leaf was half developed. Heavy rains from 10-13 May amounted to 55% of the months total rainfall. May 18

brought even more rain with a additional 30% of the months total rainfall. These heavy rainfalls caused some localized flooding in fields and the

ground became totally saturated with water. The field tile drainage system was in use more in May then in past year and half. The heavy rainfalls

certainly put the onions into a slow state of growth even with the above average May temperatures. June was not much better with high rainfall

amounts. Heavy down pours were recorded on 11-14 Jun with 41% and 25 Jun with 28% of the months total rainfall. The months of May and

June averaged 125% more rainfall then the 10 year averages. All this moisture had a detrimental effect on the onion cultivar trial growth. By the

end of June the onions were small in size and good yields looked doubtful.

Surprisingly the weed pressure was near normal with only one problem weed (groundsel) which took a little effort to clean up. Onion maggot

population was low during the entire season and field loss was low. Thrips never became a large problem but were present during July and early

August. Aster Yellows infection by Aster Leafhoppers was a unexpected disease that appeared this season. Most onion cultivars had some level

of infection but percent infection was low in the range of I% to 2%. Botrytis Leaf Blight began to appear in early to mid June, mainly from the

moist conditions but was manageable through out the season. When the somewhat dryer weather of July came the onions really began to grow.

... / continued....~....

ONION CULTIVAR TRIAL SEASONAL SUMMARY - 2000 - continued

The onions seemed to double in size each week. Bulbing began in late July and quickly increased as each week past. The end of July and early

August brought a serious problem of Downy Mildew infestation. Temperature and leaf wetness (dew) conditions were just right to stimulate a

out break. Fortunately the cultivar trial had limited infection. Several spray applications kept the disease in check. This was not the case in

several area fields where Downy Mildew hit very hard.

Irrigation water was never used in 2000. When it appeared that irrigation water would be needed an adequate rainfall would occur. Size of yields

were still questionable by mid August. Bulb sizing had begun very strong but slowed in August. The early maturing onion cultivars began to

lodge by early August with Peto Seed's Px 456994 being the first to begin lodging on 1 Aug. By mid August most cultivars had begun to lodge.

Tip burn was slightly above the normal levels with one exception Bejo Seed's Mustang which had no tip burn at all. A rainfall in late August

and early September seemed to give the boost the onions needed to finish off. The weather conditions also appeared to encourage some onion

cultivars to produce some seeder stalks (results in following cultivar tables).

When the onions were windrowed on II Sep, a good stand, medium size and extended thick necks were noted on some or all cultivars. The

onions took longer than normal to dry down due to the thicker necks and weather conditions. The onions were artificially cured for a couple of

days to help the necks seal up and take out any field moisture. During the evaluation procedures in late November most of the onion cultivars

were in the 3" to I 3/4" size range. There were only a few onion cultivars with some onions greater then 3" in diameter. The culls were low in

percentage and consisted of mostly doubles and some neck rot. External colour this season seemed to be very uneven with light to dark coloured

onions in the same cultivar. Some of the early maturing cultivars had greening of the scales under the dried skins. Skin thickness and attachment

was average this year. Onion maggot damage ranged from 1.9% to 15.6% with the majority of the onion cultivars between 5% to 7% damage.

Neck finish was good on some cultivars, average on most and poor on a few. In conclusion the onion cultivar trial performed very well

considering the weather. By late June yields did not look promising due to the wet June with the wet weather but surprisingly most onion

cultivars were tough and pulled through, producing average yields with good quality when harvested in September.

•

....~N

•

MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES

ONION CULTIVAR TRIAL - 2000

-

Fertilizer:90 kg/ha Nitrogen + 20 kg/ha Phosphorous + 170 kg/ha Potassium + 5 kg/ha copper (99% Cu) was worked into the soil. A side dressing ofAmmoniumNitrate was applied at 25 kg/ha on 29, Jun. A side dressing of Potassium was applied at 30 kg/ha on the 31 Jul.

Seeded:All trials were seeded 27 Apr. Pelletized onion seed was seeded with a Stan-Hay precision seeder. Raw onion seed was seeded with a V-Belt seederequipped with a 5 em wide scatter shoe. Row spacing was 43 em. The raw seed was coated with PRO GRO at 60 gl2.3 kg seed plus methyl celluloseat 100 m1/2.3 kg seed. LORSBAN 15G was applied at 18.5 kg/ha plus DITHANE DG at 8.8 kg/ha in the seed furrow. Main Trial was replicatedthree times. Adaptation Trial was not replicated.

Weed Control:Pre-emergence:Post emergence:

I application: PARDNER at 600 ml/ha on 8 May2 applications: PROWL 400 at 6.0 Llha on 24 May, and 23 Jun.I application: POAST at 1.6 Llha and MERGE, 1.0 Llha on 26 May.

DUAL and PARDNER are not registered for use on onions in Ontario, but were applied at the Muck Crops Research Station for the purpose of thistrial.

I application: DUAL at 1.0 Llha on 17 Jun.3 applications: PARDNER at 50 ml/ha, GOAL at 50 ml/ha and Manganese at 2 kg/ha on 15 May and 7 and 28 Jun.

Minor Elements:Six foliar sprays: Tecmangam at 2.0 kglha.Four foliar sprays: 20-20-20 fertilizer at 1.0 kg/haTwo foliar sprays: Calimax at 4.0 LlhaOne foliar spray: Epsom Salt (magnesium) at 1.0 kg/haOne foliar spray This Copper at 2.0 Llha

Insect and Disease Control:According to IPM recommendations.

Sprout Inhibition:Royal MH 60SG at 3.75 kg/ha in 550 Llha water on 19 Aug.

... I continued ....."'"w

ONION CULTIVAR TRIAL - 2000 - continued

Harvest:The Main and Adaptation Trials were pulled 11 and 12 Sep and topped 25 Sep. Both trials were placed in a forced air and temperaturecontrolled storage 13 Oct. Both trials were cured for 48 hours (25°C, minimum 65% RH). After curing the temperature was lowered 5°C perweek until O°C was attained.

EVALUATION PROCEDURESThe cultivars were evaluated 27, 28, 29 and 30 Nov. and I Dec after 7 weeks in storage.

# Bulbs Harvested:Total number of onions harvested from 4.66 m of row.

.....,...,..

Harvest Weiehts:Weights from the harvested 4.66 m of row.

Marketable Yield tlha and BIA:Number of onions> 76 mrn (> 3"), 76 mm to 44 mm (3 II to 1%"), 44 mm to 32 mm (I W' to 1114").

;

Majority of Culls:DBL= Double

Shape: H' h GlobeHG = ig

PW = Pee Wee

FG = Flatten Globe

R= Rot

G = Globe TF = Teardrop Flat TDG = Teardrop Globe

Colour:LG = Light Golden G = Golden DG = Dark Golden LC = Light Copper C = Copper DC = Dark Copper.

Skin Thickness:5.0 = Most Desirable 4.0 = Good 3.7 = Average

Overall Score:Based on quality and general appearance.

Score:The average of nine marks at evaluation from Uniformity of Size to Firmness.

• • •

••• 1continued

•

ONION CULTIVAR TRIAL - 2000 - continued

Averaee WeiehtlBulb (e):The total weight in grams of all bulbs divided by the total number of bulbs. A bulb 51 mm (2") in diameter weighs approximately 70 g. A bulb57 mm (2W') in diameter weighs approximately 100 g. A bulb 64 mm (2W') in diameter weighs approximately 135 g.

Stand/Meter:Stand/Meter divided by 3.28 = onions per foot.

Days to Harvest:Number of days from seeding until 85% of the tops were down.

#1 Seeders:Number of seeders in 24 m of row at harvest.

Percent Onion Maeeot Damaee:Ranges from pin hole damage to completely unmarketable.

.....~171

0-0.,..O'l

I

ONION CULTIVAR MAIN TRIAL - 2000

,...... ,...... ,......,...... eo eo eobll .:.: ~ ~c '-' '-' '-'...

~ ~ ~"Eh"0 'u '<t NII) \0 ...!!.!Vi ~ r- "'t M

I ;:;II) ... A \0 '<t II)

~<II

0r- '<t ::c U

II)II) .....

~.D ~:r: § eo t<i 0

:a til S II)

0<II :r: .:.:.~ II) .D .... ..J CIl til '1:.±:: ~ ;:; "3 b'n b'n b'n ~

0CO t':I s .~

:::3 0 0~ ~ ~ oSo CIl :n: E- CO '$. ~

FRONTIER Tak 146 16.85 0.41 16.29 0.10 84 1495 c-f* 99.7 a RHAMLET Asg 131 16.91 1.09 15.53 0.23 84 1501 cde 99.7 a PWSTX 9329 A Sto 136 17.78 2.20 15.42 0.07 88 1574 be 99.5 ab PWFLAGSHIP Sto 143 16.17 0.00 15.90 0.14 80 1428 d-g 99.2 abc PW

PRINCE BElO 132 17.73 2.74 14.67 0.18 88 1565 be 99.2 abc DBLCAVALIER Sto 133 16.97 1.19 15.40 0.24 84 1498 cde 99.2 a-d PWARSENAL Sun 136 16.56 1.27 14.87 0.24 82 1458 c-g 98.9 a-d PWMILLENIUM Sun 122 17.08 3.12 13.65 0.11 84 1501 b-e 98.8 a-d R

Ex 77008 Asg 129 16.70 1.89 14.38 0.18 82 1464 c-g 98.5 a-e PWBGS 156 BElO 120 17.54 3.61 13.60 0.08 86 1539 bed 98.5 a-e RXp 15055 Asg 134 15.77 0.85 14.48 0.19 78 1381 e-i 98.4 a-e RBASTILLE Asg 129 16.93 2.52 13.91 0.22 83 1482 c-f 98.4 a-e R

WOLF Tak 146 18.66 2.52 15.65 0.19 92 1634 ab 98.3 a-e PWMADISON BElO 136 16.58 1.42 14.55 0.32 81 1450 c-g 98.3 a-e PWLIVINGSTON Sol 149 13.78 1.13 11.93 0.45 68 1203 jk 98.1 a-e PWT - 418 Tak 130 18.08 3.18 14.47 0.02 88 1573 be 97.8 a-f R

Listed in order of % Marketable.

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

.. ~

ONION CULTIVAR MAIN TRIAL - 2000 - continued

'""" '"""'""" '""" 00 00OIl 00 C ~

C~ '-''-'

~ ~i ~ ~ N"0 'ij .rou

~'0

13 0 ..!!!til t- - "'3u 1\ '0 U

~ ii ~ u0 r-

~ ....~

..D U 0X § OIl "iU u~.

.~III X j E ~u ..D .., iii 'I:

~Vl

"'3 "3 lih :::t 0.t:: CQ bO bO '" c( 'iQ'::l 0 0~ ~ ~ .g -...u Vl 'It: .... CQ

'*'::E

SPECTRUM Sun 124 16.06 3.95 11.56 0.15 78 1394 e-h " 97.5 a-f RPx 456994 PETO 131 13.33 0.49 12.24 0.28 65 1157 k 97.5 a-f PWBARRAG~ Sto 128 20.13 7.35 12.11 0.15 98 1745 a 97.4 a-f RMUSTANG BEJO 133 15.45 0.92 13.76 0.35 75 1337 ghi 97.3 a-f PW

UNIGLOBE PETO 128 16.15 1.54 13.96 0.18 78 1396 e-h 97.1 a-f PWPx 456894 PETO 124 15.61 2.81 12.13 0.21 76 1348 ghi '. 97.0 a-f RSALEM BEJO 125 15.02 2,01 12.25 0.26 73 1292 hij 96.7 a-f PWQUANTUM PETO 106 16.60 7.17 8.76 0.09 80 1426 d-g 96.5 a-g R

NORSTAR Tak 136 16.35 0.99 14.63 0.16 79 1404 e-h 96.5 a-g RCORONA BEJO 140 20.11 3.92 15.24 0.16 97 1719 a 96.0 bog PWTAMARA BEJO 137 16.29 1.18 14.22 0.16 78 1385 e-i 95.7 c-g RCORTLAND BEJO 135 16.03 1.28 13.80 0.26 77 1364 f-i 95.6 dog DOL

BGS 142 BEJO 141 17.60 1.93 14.56 0.23 84 1488 c-f 95.0 efg DOLSTANLEY Sol 118 15.01 2.50 11.51 0.13 71 1259 ijk 94.4 fg DBLHUSKEY Nor 150 14.31 1.25 11.45 0.60 67 1184 jk 92,9 gh DBLHUSKEY Pal 128 14.50 1.07 11.86 0.13 65 I 161 jk 90.6 h DOL

Listed in order of % Marketable.

• Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05, fisher's Protected LSi) Test.

. . , conI i nUN!

~

~......

ONION CULTIVAR MAIN TRIAL - 2000 - continued

uu c..t1 '"..<:VI VI '".... .... co '" u0 0 .5 u ..

J2 ..<:0 C ...

'"0

~u

.~ .~u 00 :5 VI

l'iI u 3 3 ~ .5 LL."2>

~ g. .B .B ] u.:;: 0 0 .8...:.( ..

:; 'c 'c "0 "0 u u 00 ..<: ...:.( u > uU VI VI ;:J ::l U U VI VI Z 0 VI

FRONTIER Tak G 4.4 4.3 G 4.0 4.0 4.8 abc * 4.6 ab 4.3 4.33 abcHAMLET Asg lIG 4.0 4.2 DG 4.7 4.1 4.9 ab 4.2 cde 4.3 4.39 aSTX 9329 A Sto FG 4.3 4.5 G 4.2 4.2 4.7 a-d 4.4 abc 4.1 4.34 abFLAGSHIP Sto G 4.2 4.1 DG 4.3 4.2 5.0 a 4.1 de 4.0 4.29 a-d

PRINCE BEJO FG 4.1 3.9 DO 4.2 4.0 4.7 a-d 4.1 de 4.0 4.20 c-fCAVALIER Sto I1G 4.1 4.0 G 3.9 3.8 4.8 abc 4.3 hed 3.9 4.13 e-iARSENAL Sun G 4.0 4.0 G 3.9 3.8 4.3 e-h 4.3 b-e " 3.9 4.05 f-jMILLENIUM Sun G 4.0 3.8 DG 4.0 3.8 4.7 a-d 4.2 cde 3.7 4.07 f-j

Ex 77008 Asg HG 4.0 3.7 G 3.9 4.0 4.2 e-h 4.0 e 3.9 3.99 ijBOS 156 BEJO G 4.0 3.9 G 3.8 3.6 4.6 b-e 4.4 abc 3.9 4.03 g-jXp 15055 Asg G 3.9 3.9 G 4.2 4.1 4.8 abc 4.1 de 4.1 4.19 c-fBASTILLE Asg HG 4.0 4.3 DG 3.9 3.8 4.7 a-d 4.2 cde 3.9 4.13 e-i

WOLF Tak TF 4.1 3.9 LG 3.9 3.8 4.1 gh 4.7 a 3.9 4.04 g-jMADISON BEJO HG 4.1 3.9 G 4.0 4.0 4.8 abc 4.1 de 3.7 4.13 e-iLIVINGSTON Sol HG 3.7 3.8 LC 3.7 4.0 4.7 a-d 4.3 b-e 3.7 4.04 g-jT - 418 Tak FG 4.2 4.2 LG 4.1 3.9 4.6 b-e 4.7 a 4.0 4.22 b-e

....it

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

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

ONION CULTIVAR MAIN TRIAL - 2000 - continued

Q)

Q) 0-N nl

Vi ..c{/) til.... .... OIl til Q)

0 0 .5 Q) ...12 ..c 0

0 0 ~ til U

'§ '§ p::; uOIl :5 {/)

la Q) 3 3.a .5 (.L, ->

~Q) <2 <2 f-

.§ ~] Q).- ~ 0 0 s:: ....:=: '2 '2 0 0 u Q) 0

::l 0 ..c :Q ~Q) > u

U {/) {/) ~ ~ U U {/) {/) Z 0 {/)

SPECTRUM Sun G 3.9 3.8 DG 4.0 3.9 4.8 abe * 4.3 bed 3.8 4.04 g-jPx 456994 PETO FG 4.1 4.3 G 3.9 3.3 4.2 fgh 4.3 b-e 3.8 3.99 ijBARRAGE Sto HG 4.0 4.1 G 3.8 4.0 4.1 gh 4.1 de 3.7 3.98 jMUSTANG BEJO G 4.1 4.2 G 4.1 3.7 5.0 a 4.0 e 3.9 4.18 d-g

UNIGLOBE PETO HG 4.0 3.8 DG 4.2 4.0 4.7 a-d 4.3 b-e 3.9 4.15 d-hPx 456894 PETO G 3.8 4.2 LG 4.1 3.9 4.4 d-g 4.6 ab 3.9 4.14 e-hSALEM BEJO FG 4.0 4.0 LC 3.8 4.0 4.9 ab 4.2 ede 3.7 4.13 e-iQUANTUM PETO FG 4.0 3.8 G 3.9 4.1 4.3 e-h 4.3 bed 3.7 4.02 hij

NORSTAR Tak TOG 4.1 3.9 LG 4.1 3.5 4.1 gh 4.7 a 3.8 4.02 hijCORONA BEJO HG 4.1 4.1 LG 4.0 3.9 4.0 h 4.4 abe 3.7 4.03 g-jTAMARA BEJO G 3.7 4.0 C 3.7 3.9 4.6 b-e 4.2 ede 3.8 4.05 f-jCORTLAND BEJO G 4.0 3.9 G 4.2 3.7 4.6 b-e 4.4 abe. 4.1 4.15 d-h

BGS 142 BEJO FG 4.1 3.8 G 4.1 3.7 4.8 a-d 4.2 ede 4.0 4.13 e-iSTANLEY Sol FG 3.8 4.0 G 3.9 3.9 4.5 c-f 4.0 e 4.0 4.05 g-jHUSKEY Nor FG 3.8 3.7 G 4.0 4.0 4.0 h 4.6 ab 3.3 3.93 jHUSKEY Pal TF 3.9 4.0 GO 4.0 4.1 4.1 gh 4.4 abe 3.6 4.01 hij

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

... I continued ....~\D

...U10

I

ONION CULTIVAR MAIN TRIAL - 2000 - continued

--- Q)

OIl OIl'-' <IS.D ~.... :;en

~0Q)

~ 'iii(5

:I: ~ Q) gg'Q) ... ~

<IS«i ~

Q)~

en en V :I: end:a en en Q)

~...

Q) Q) Q) OIl s Q) :i 0'0

.~ 0

~ ~e en Q) E '0

3 Q)

~c-, Q) rJ) 0:; 0 :> <IS rJ)

U rJ) ii: ii: ...: rJ) 0 ~ ~ ~0 0

FRONTIER Tak 5.0 4.2 c-f * 115.4 ghi 31 105 0.0 a 0.0 a 11.6 e-hHAMLET Asg 5.0 4.7 a 129.6 c-g 28 121 0.0 a 4.5 a 7.4 a-gSTX 9329 A Sto 5.0 4.3 b-e 130.9 b-f 29 105 0.0 a 1.1 a 5.8 a-fFLAGSHIP Sto 4.9 4.4 abc 113.0 hi 31 III 0.7 ab 0.0 a 2.5 ab

PRINCE BEla 5.0 4.6 ab 133.9 b-e 28 118 2.0 be 2.7 a 6.3 a-gCAVALIER Sto 5.0 4.2 c-f 127.3 d-h 29 III 0.7 ab 0.0 a 4.5 a-eARSENAL Sun 5.0 4.2 c-f 122.3 e-h 29 108 0.7 ab 1.1 a 6.5 a-gMILLENIUM Sun 5.0 4.3 bed 139.9 bed 26 115 0.7 ab 0.9 a 8.9 a-h

Ex 77008 Asg 4.9 4.2 c-f 129.2 c-g 28 115 0.0 a 1.1 a 6.4 a-gBGS 156 BEla 4.8 4.1 d-g 146.1 ab 26 III 0.0 a 0.0 a 4.8 a-eXp 15055 Asg 5.0 4.4 abc 117.7 fgh 29 115 1.3 abc 3.3 a 4.5 a-eBASTILLE Asg 4.9 4.2 c-f 131.9 b-f 28 III 0.0 a 2.8 a 11.4 d-h

WOLF Tak 4.7 3.9 fg 127.8 d-h 31 109 0.0 a 1.1 a 7.5 a-gMADISON BEla 5.0 4.4 abc 121.6 e-h 29 117 0.0 a 4.0 a 1.7 aLIVINGSTON Sol 5.0 4.4 abc 92.5 j 32 115 0.3 ab 6.0 a 15.6 hT - 418 Tak 4.9 4.1 d-g 139.5 bed 28 104 0.0 a 1.0 a 11.3 d-h

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

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

ONION CULTIVAR MAIN TRIAL - 2000 - continued

----II)

OJ) OJ)....., co.D ~.... "3 0VI

~II)

0~ .....J:: VI 1)0

::I:OJ) II) 1)0'0 .... ~

co1;:j ~

II) ::E....::I:VI VI

II) VIl:::II)

~....

~VI VI 9 II) '5 0II) II) II) OJ) "0:>

~ .~co E '1::

~ .... VI II)... II)

~ ~II) f/) 0"3 0 :> f/)

U f/) iL: tL. « f/) 0 :u: ~ ~0 0

SPECTRUM Sun 4.8 3.8 g * 130.2 c-g 26.7 112 4.7 d 0.0 a 10.9 c-hPx 456994 PETO 5.0 4.0 efg 101.7 ij 28.1 101 0.0 a 3.4 a 4.6 a-eBARRAGE Sto 4.8 4.0 efg 158.1 a 27.4 III 1.7 abc 0.0 a 9.3 b-hMUSTANG BElO 5.0 4.4 abc 116.8 f-i 28.5 115 0.7 ab 4.9 a 2.8 ab

UNIGLOBE PETO 5.0 4.3 b-e 126.9 d-h 27.4 III 0.7 ab 3.4 a 6.6 a-gPx 456894 PETO 4.9 4.2 c-f 125.6 d-h 26.7 110 0.0 a 1.3 a 4.9 a-eSALEM BElO 5.0 4.4 abc 120.3 e-h 26.8 118 0.0 a 2.7 a 7.5 a-gQUANTUM PETO 4.8 4.0 efg 157.1 a 22.7 110 0.0 a 1.0 a 9.3 b-h

NORSTAR Tak 4.8 3.9 fg 120.2 e-h 29.2 107 0.0 a 2.7 a 4.2 a-dCORONA BElO 4.9 4.0 efg 144.0 abc 30.0 109 0.0 a 1.3 a 12.4 fghTAMARA BElO 5.0 4.6 ab 119.1 e-h 29.4 III 0.0 a 0.0 a 6.0 a-fCORTLAND BElO 5.0 4.3 bed 118.6 fgh 29.0 115 1.3 abc 1.1 a 1.9 a

BGS 142 BElO 5.0 4.5 abc 125.5 d-h 30.2 III 1.7 abc 2.2 a 3.7 abcSTANLEY Sol 5.0 4.3 b-e 127.2 d-h 25.3 114 0.3 ab 1.S a 8.4 a-hHUSKEY Nor 4.9 4.1 d-g 97.5 j 32.3 107 2.7 c 10.2 a 13.3 ghHUSKEY Pal 4.9 4.0 efg 113.1 hi 27.5 112 0.7 ab 2.0 a 13.6 gh

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

* Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05, Fisher's Protected LSD Test. ....U1....

Frontier:Norstar:Wolf:T-418:Hamlet:

Bastille:Ex 77008:Xp 15055:Corona:

Cortland:Madison:Mustang:

Prince:

Salem:Tarama:BGS 142:Sharon:

Huskey:Huskey:Quantum:Uniglobe 100:

MAIN ONION CULTIVAR TRIAL EVALUATION NOTES

Small to medium size, good skins, good neck finish, a little greening of scales, mid season onion.Small to medium size, a little greening of scales, good neck finish, skins a little poor, early season onion.Good size, a little greening of scales, skin attachment a little poor, great neck finish, nice, early season onion.Medium size, a little greening of scales, skins a little thin, nice neck finish, early season onion.Good size, good thickness and attachment of skins, neck finish a little poor, firm onion, nice, full season onion.

Size a little uneven, average skins, average onion, mid season onion.Medium to large size, finn onion, loose and rough neck finish, average onion, mid to full season onion.Good skins, neck finish a little loose and rough, nice onion, finn onion, mid to full season onion.Large size, a little greening of scales, poor skin attachment, average onion, early to mid season onion.

Medium size, good skins, nice onion, mid season onion.Medium size, good skins, a little greening of scales, neck finish a little loose and rough, mid season onion.Small to medium size, thick skins, firm onion, average onion, loose and rough neck finish, mid to full seasononion.Medium size, good skins, rough neck finish, nice onion, mid to full season onion.

Medium size, good skins, average onion, mid to full season onion.Medium size, good skins, some uneven external colour, neck finish a little loose, mid to full season onion.Medium size, good skins, a little uneven in shape, nice onion, mid season onion.Medium to large size, a little greening of scales, some uneven exterior colour, good neck finish, mid seasonoruon.

Uneven & small size, poor skin attachment, rough appearance, early to mid season onion.Small size, poor skin attachment, rough appearance, uneven shape, early season onion.Large size, small stand count, a little greening of scales, weak skins, early to mid season onion.Medium size, good skins, neck finish a little rough, mid season onion.

... I continued

....UlN

Px 456894:Px 456994:Livingston:Stanley:

Arsenal:Barrage:

Cavalier:Flagship:

STX 9329 A:Millennium:Spectrum:

MAIN ONION CULTIVAR TRIAL EVALUATION NOTES - continued

Medium size, poor skin attachment, good neck finish, some greening of scales, early to mid season onion.Medium size, soft onion, average onion, early season onion.Small size, uneven in size, neck finish a little rough, average onion, early to mid season onion.Small to medium size, neck finish a little loose & rough, nice skins, good exterior colour, mid to full seasonomon.

Medium to large size, good skins, average onion, mid to full season onion.Large but uneven size, a little greening of scales, poor skin attachment, neck finish a little loose, early seasonomon.Medium to large size, good skins, a little greening of scales, nice onion, mid to full season onion.Medium size, thick skins, firm onion, nice onion, full season onion.

Medium size, a little greening of scales, good colour, nice onion, skin a little weak, mid to full season onion.Medium to large size, neck finish a little rough, uneven shape, average onion, full season onion.Medium size, good skins, neck finish a little rough, average onion, early season onion.

....U1W

....Ul..,.I

ONION ADAPTATION TRIAL - 2000

'bO ,-...en,-... .:.: C

~ 'bO '-' ,-...

~ ~0/)

.:.: '-'

~'-' ,D

~ ~N -;

"0 '4) M

~CI)

~ \0 0 0 .!!!- - -<II t-- -; ~CI) - /\ \0~

CI) u~

<II t-- :is .. '4)CI) 0 ....~

,D CI)

i<i ~ 0CI)

~::r: en -§ j e CI)

0CI)

lil <II ::r: ~ ~CI)

CI) ::e .... (/) '1: Ill);> U Q) ~- 3 ::l "3 bb ~ bb ::E 0

~..

-; ~ ~ ~ 'iU' ~CI)

0 0~ ~ 'S ~ ::E ...c: ;>

U (/) 'It: f- ~ (/) (/) <

RAMPART Asg 137 17.00 0.62 16.08 0.26 85 1509 99.8 PW HG 29.4 124.1T-804 Tak 89 11.24 2.9 8.24 0.04 56 995 99.5 R FG 19.1 126.3

T-851 Tak 110 11.91 0.44 11.14 0.24 59 1052 99.2 R G 23.6 108.377003 Asg 134 18.68 3.26 15.23 0.04 93 1649 99.2 R G 28.8 139.4

77007 Asg 129 14.91 0.00 14.61 0.15 74 1314 99.0 R G· 27.7 115.671505 Asg 119 14.87 0.69 13.63 0.24 73 1296 97.9 DBL HG 25.5 125.0

T-802 Tak 137 18.28 4.08 13.44 0.20 89 1577 96.9 DBL G 29.4 133.4T-801 Tak 123 13.13 0.79 11.58 0.19 63 1118 95.7 R G 26.4 106.7

XPH 97H4 Cra 140 16.98 1.78 13.74 0.26 79 1404 92.9 R HG 30.0 121.3XPH 97H12 Cra 117 17.90 9.02 6.55 0.20 79 1404 88.1 R HG 25.1 153.0

Listed in order of% Marketable. ... / continued

ONION ADAPTATION TRIAL - 2000 - continued

001)~

Q) f;jQ, 0 Cl10

.~ ......c:C/) C/) .... 0

<II <II 01).... .... 01) <II 0 0 OIl0 0 c 0 ...~

10

C C.;:; .2 ..c: 0

~10 <II U<II .~ .~ 0:: u

OIl '2 C/) ::r::.a cl<i <II C iL: 0 00 Q) 3 3> u

.~<2 <2 I-

:~] 0

.... '2';:; ... 0 0 .5 ~ ... <II0"3 ::l '2 '2 <5 <5 u 0 0 ~0 ~ ~ 0 > u

U C/) u, ::> ::> u u C/) C/) Z 0 C/) Cl '#.

RAMPART Asg 4.7 4.0 3.7 DG 4.3 4.3 5.0 4.0 4.3 4.29 109 8.0T-804 Tak 4.7 4.0 4.3 C 4.0 5.0 4.7 4.3 4.3 4.43 114 41.6

T-851 Tak 4.0 4.0 4.3 G 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.0 4.21 11 1 33.677003 Asg 4.3 4.3 4.0 DG 4.0 4.3 4.7 4.3 4.3 4.27 109 8.2

77007 Asg 4.3 4.3 4.0 G 3.7 4.0 4.7 4.3 4.0 4.19 109 1.671505 Asg 4.7 4.0 4.0 G 4.0 4.7 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.34 121 8.4

T-802 Tak 3.7 4.3 4.3 LG 4.3 3.7 3.0 4.7 4.0 4.00 104 16.1T-801 Tak 4.0 4.0 4.0 LG 4.0 3.7 2.7 4.7 3.7 3.85 104 28.5

XPH 97H4 Cro 4.7 4.7 4.0 DG 4.0 4.7 4.7 3.7 3.7 4.36 116 25.7XPH 97H12 Cro 4.3 4.0 4.0 DG 4.3 4.7 5.0 3.3 3.7 4.23 121 24.8

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

.....U'1U'1

T 801:

T 802:

T 804:

T 851:

XPH 97H4:

XPH97HI2:

77003:

77007:

Rampart:

715056:

ADAPTATION ONION CULTIVAR TRIAL EVALUATION NOTES

Medium size, great neck finish, a little greening of scales, poor skin attachment, high maggot damage, early season onion.

Medium to large size, poor skin attachment, nice yield, early season onion.

Large size, thick skins, high maggot damage, smaller size sample, average onion, mid season onion.

Medium size, size a little uneven, a little greening of scales, firm onion, mid season onion.

Large size, a little rough appearance, good skins, open neck finish, uneven shape, high maggot damage, mid season onion.

Medium size, open neck finish, thick skins, uneven shape, seeders, moderate onion maggot damage, full season onion.

Good size, solid heavy onion, nice onion, neck finish a little poor, good skin, full season onion.

Medium size, firm onion, good skins, good neck finish, nice onion, low maggot damage, mid season onion.

Medium size, solid hard onions, good skins, nice onion, neck finish a little open, full season onion.

Medium size, solid hard onions, thick skins, uneven external colour, neck finish a little open, full season onion.

...U1O'l

- 157 -

LONG TERM AVERAGES OF ONION CULTIVARS

# YEARS MARKETABLE YIELD DAYS TO FIRMNESS·CULTIVAR SOURCE TESTED t/ha BfA MATURITY A B

HUSTLER HM 11 46.7 832 96 4.37 3.37WOLF Tak 5 74.5 1325 102 4.56 3.56ADVANCER HM 11 60.5 1078 104 4.54 3.71ARSENAL Asg 4 74.6 1328 105 4.88 4.25ESKIMO Tak 7 54.5 970 105 4.21 3.69NORSTAR Tak 13 65.0 1158 105 4.21 3.53

TRAPPS #7 Cro 5 65.5 1166 105 4.90 4.20FRONTIER Tak 7 71.7 1274 106 4.90 4.24IMPACT HM 3 50.3 894 106 4.70 3.83CORONA Swy 7 77.8 1384 107 4.80 3.90PRECEDENT Sun 3 56.5 1006 107 4.73 3.73QUANTUM PETO 5 77.3 1376 107 4.70 3.94

FLAGSHIP Asg 4 73.7 1311 108 5.00 4.53HOOPLA Sol 3 69.9 1245 108 4.57 3.80TARMAGON Sto 7 64.8 1157 108 4.43 3.62ROCKET Asg 13 54.6 972 109 - 3.82CORTLAND BElO 4 78.5 1397 110 5.00 4.30SPECTRUM Sun 5 75.5 1344 110 4.70 3.90

EARLY PAK Cro 10 54.3 967 11 1 3.99 3.93STANLEY Sol 4 74.4 1324 11 1 4.95 4.40TAURUS Asg 12 54.0 961 III - 3.79UNIGLOBE 108 PETO 3 73.3 1305 11 1 4.85 4.23PRINCE Swy 9 71.8 1277 112 4.94 4.48SALEM BElO 4 71.7 1277 112 4.98 4.45

.... I continued

.....<.n<Xl

LONG TERM AVERAGES OF ONION CULTIVARS - continued

# YEARS MARKETABLE YIELD DAYS TO FIRMNESS*CULTIVAR SOURCE TESTED t/ha BfA MATURITY A B

CAPABLE Sun 7 55.3 979 112 4.38 3.83HEADLINER PETO 4 55.9 993 112 4.98 4.50PARAGON Sun 8 62.5 1110 112 4.62 4.14TOPNOTCH Cro 5 60.0 1067 112 4.96 4.42TORQUE Cro 4 63.4 1126 112 4.93 4.18

TRAPP #8 E.l. 12 57.7 1027 112 4.40 4.19GAZETTE PETO 4 62.9 1119 113 4.88 4.43BARRAGE Asg 3 87.2 1551 114 4.8 4.03CAVALIER Asg 3 81.1 1443 114 4.97 4.33LIVINGSTON Sol 4 69.0 1228 114 4.95 4.48

UNIGLOBE 100 PETO 4 68.8 1225 114 4.90 4.43BENCHMARK Asg 5 60.2 1068 115 4.93 4.42HAMLET Asg 7 75.2 1339 115 4.90 4.41MILLENNIUM Sun 4 75.8 1350 115 4.95 4.40TAMARA BElO 7 68.2 1213 115 4.94 4.54

TURBO Cro 3 64.8 1151 115 4.93 4.30CANADA MAPLE Sto 17 57.2 1018 116 - 4.18FORTRESS Asg 5 57.8 1025 116 4.57 4.08AUTUMN KEEPER lHK 8 53.7 956 117 - 4.09SWEET SANDWICH PETO 7 69.0 1228 117 3.80 3.86

Listed in order of Days to Maturity. 5.0 = Most Desirable, 4.0 = Good, 3.7 = Average

* Firmness: A = Evaluated at time of HarvestB = Evaluated in December ....

U><0

ONION CULTIVAR STORAGE TRIAL - 1999 - 2000

% WEIGHT % % % % FIRMNESS"CULTIVAR SOURCE LOSS SPROUTS ROT SOFT MARKETABLE IN OUT

HAMLET Asg 7.2 a * 1.9 a 0.4 abc 0.5 a-d 89.4 a 4.9 ab 3.7 c-fTAMARA Asg 8.0 a-e 1.4 a 0.1 a 1.0 a-e 88.6 a 4.9 ab 4.1 abMUSTANG BEJO 8.0 a-e 2.2 ab 0.3 ab 0.0 a 87.6 a 5.0 ab 4.0 abcCAVALIER Asg 8.0 a-e 5.1 abc 0.2 a 0.2 ab 86.3 ab 5.0 ab 3.9 a-dPX 456994 PETO 8.9 a-f 3.7 ab 0.8 a-d 0.9 a-e 85.7 ab 4.8 ab 3.3 ghi

PSR 456894 PETO 9.3 a-g 4.7 ab 0.4 abc 0.0 a 85.6 ab 4.9 ab 3.7 c-gPRINCE BEJO 9.0 a-g 3.9 ab 0.4 abc 1.1 a-f 85.5 ab 5.0 ab 4.2 a-dCORTLAND BEJO 8.0 a-d 4.4 ab 0.6 a-d 1.7 a-g 85.1 ab 5.0 ab 3.9 a-dBGS 156 BEJO 7.8 abc 3.5 ab 0.4 abc 3.5 g-j 84.9 ab 5.0 ab 3.6 d-hLIVINGSTON Sol 9.5 a-h 5.7 abc 0.2 a 0.6 a-d 83.8 abc 4.8 ab 3.6 d-h

SALEM BEJO 8.7 a-g 7.1 abc 0.0 a 0.0 a 83.8 abc 4.9 ab 3.7 c-fSTANLEY Sol 8.2 a-f 6.8 abc 0.4 abc 0.9 a-e 83.5 a-d 4.9 ab . 3.9 a-dMILLENIUM Sun 8.3 a-f 7.3 abc 0.5 abc 1.1 a-f 82.9 a-e 4.8 ab 3.8 b-eARSENAL Asg 7.8 abc 9.0 a-d 0.6 a-d 1.9 a-g 81.4 a-f 4.9 ab 3.2 hijTRAPP'S # 9 Cro 9.7 b-i 9.3 a-d 0.2 a 0.8 a-d 80.3 a-g 4.9 ab 3.8 b-e

TRAPP'S # 7 Cro 8.5 a-f 8.5 a-d 0.3 a 0.6 a-d 79.6 a-g 4.9 ab 4.1 abDESTINY Car 11.0 ghi 7.7 abc 2.5 ef 0.5 a-d 78.9 a-g 5.0 ab 4.1 abFLAGSHIP Asg 8.5 a-f 13.0 a-e 0.3 a 0.0 a 78.8 a-g 5.0 ab 3.9 a-dYUKON Pal 9.7 b-i 3.7 ab 2.5 f 9.8 k 75.4 b-h 4.7 b 2.9 jkSPECTRUM Sun 9.8 b-i 13.9 b-f 2.0 def 1.5 a-g 74.0 c-i 4.7 b 3.2 hij

... / continued

....s

ONION CULTIVAR STORAGE TRIAL -1999 - 2000 - continued

% WEIGHT % % % % FIRMNESS**CULTIVAR SOURCE LOSS SPROUTS ROT SOFT MARKETABLE IN OUT

STX 9329A Sto 8.2 a-f * 17.5 c-g 1.1 a-f 0.3 abc 73.4 c-i 4.9 ab 3.8 b-eQUANTUM PETO 12.0 ij 12.5 a-d 1.8 b-f 2.6 d-i 72.6 d-j 4.7 b 3.3 f-iBGS 142 BElO 9.1 a-g 17.1 c-g 1.2 a-f 1.6 a-g 72.2 e-j 4.9 ab 3.8 b-eCORONA BElO 10.4 f-i 13.6 b-f 0.7 a-d 4.3 hij 72.2 f-j 4.9 ab 3.3 f-iHUSKEY Nor 7.9 abc 20.4 d-h 1.2 a-f 1.3 a-g 70.2 g-k 4.8 ab 3.8 b-e

GOLD DENS Car 14.1 jk 8.2 abc 8.2 g 1.7 a-g 70.0 g-k 4.8 ab 3.8 b-eT - 418 Tak 8.3 a-f 25.9 f-i 0.2 a 1.3 a-f 66.3 h-k 4.7 b 3.3 ghiFRONTIER Tak 8.9 a-g 28.8 g-j 0.5 abc 0.2 ab 63.6 i-I 4.8 ab 3.7 c-fEXPRESS PAK Nor 8.8 a-g 28.7 g-j 0.5 abc 1.5 a-g 62.7 jkl 4.7 b 3.2 hijUNIGLOBE 108 PETO 10.5 f-i 26.5 g-j 1.0 a-e 2.8 e-j 61.9 jkl 4.8 ab 3.5 e-h

UNIGLOBE 100 PETO 7.7 ab 31.4 h-k 0.4 abc 0.5 a-d 61.9 jkl 4.9 ab 3.8 b-eNORSTAR Tak 10.1 c-i 24.8 e-i 2.0 def 4.4 ij 61.7 jkl 4.4 c 2.9 jkHUSKEY Pal 10.6 d-i 30.1 g-j 1.0 a 2.0 b-h 59.0 kl 4.9 ab 4.0 abcWOLF Tak 9.8 e-i 34.2 ijk 0.5 abc 2.4 f-j 56.3 1m 4.7 b 2.8 kHOOPLA Sol 11.8 hij 38.6 jk 1.8 c-f 5.0 j 47.9 1m 4.7 b 3.0 ijk

LOBO Pal 12.0 ij 41.4 k 1.4 a-f 2.5 c-i 47.9 1m 4.7 b 3.8 b-ePRECEDENT Sun 14.3 k 43.7 ijk 1.1 a-d 8.9 k 39.0 m 4.7 b 3.0 jk

Listed in order of % Marketable. Storage period approximately 47 weeks.

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

** 5.0 = Most Desirable, 4.0 = Good, 3.7 = Average

I

......0-......

...O'lN

I

LONG TERM AVERAGES OF ONION STORAGE TRIALS

0/0 WT LOSS 0/0 ROT,# YEARS % IN SOFT & FIRMNESS *

CULTIVAR SOURCE TESTED MARKETABLE STORAGE SPROUT IN OUT

CAVALIER Asg 2 90.3 8.6 4.8 4.90 4.30COPRA BEJO 5 86.2 8.6 5.7 4.30 4.08MILLENIUM Sun 2 83.7 9.3 7.7 4.90 3.80CANADA MAPLE Sto 9 83.3 8.3 8.3 - 4.13TAURUS Asg 9 82.9 7.3 9.8 - 3.64

STANLEY Sol 2 81.2 9.7 9.6 4.90 3.90TRAPP #8 EJ. 9 79.9 8.9 11.3 - 3.~1

SALEM BEJO 3 79.5 10.0 13.0 4.90 3.80HAMLET Asg 8 74.2 11.2 17.5 4.70 3.60TRAPP'S # 7 Cro 4 74.2 9.7 18.5 3.60 4.10

PARAGON Sun 10 73.5 11.2 17.1 4.70 3.95ESKIMO Tak 5 70.9 11.9 17.5 4.30 3.26TARMAGON Sto 6 70.5 10.1 19.1 4.36 3.35BENCHMARK Asg 5 70.5 12.8 21.3 4.82 3.94FORTRESS Asg 7 70.5 11.6 20.1 4.60 3.70

CAPABLE Sun 9 70.1 11.1 18.8 4.23 3.40TAMARA BEJO 5 70.0 12.2 23.7 4.90 3.90PRINCE Swy 8 69.4 12.3 21.1 4.20 3.90GUARDIAN HM 6 68.4 12.1 20.3 4.50 3.75HEADLINER PETO 4 67.9 13.3 25.6 5.00 4.20

... / continued

•

LONG TERM AVERAGES OF ONION STORAGE TRIALS - continued

% WTLOSS % ROT,# YEARS % IN SOFT & FIRMNESS *

CULTIVAR SOURCE TESTED MARKETABLE STORAGE SPROUT IN OUT

SPECTRUM Sun 3 67.5 13.9 25.3 4.70 3.70ARSENAL Asg 3 67.1 10.9 25.2 4.80 3.30ADVANCER HM 11 65.5 11.0 26.6 4.40 2.67TOPNOTCH Cro 4 64.3 14.5 29.0 5.00 3.80HUSTLER HM 11 64.1 9.9 27.8 4.30 3.40

TURBO Cro 6 63.3 11.3 28.9 4.70 3.60SWEET SANDWICH Sol 8 62.3 11.3 29.6 4.09 3.16TORQUE Cro 3 61.4 13.5 34.7 4.90 3.90AUTUMN KEEPER Cro 5 61.1 12.6 26.4 4.16 3.56UNIGLOBE 100 PETO 4 60.2 13.0 34.0 4.90 3.50

WOLF Tak 4 59.3 12.0 34.1 4.60 2.90FRONTIER Tak 5 58.8 11.1 35.8 4.90 3.90GAZETTE PETO 4 58.4 15.0 35.7 4.90 3.90QUANTUM PETO 4 58.1 15.4 36.4 4.70 3.20UNIGLOBE 108 PETO 4 57.8 14.3 35.6 4.80 3.60

DJANGO VDH 5 55.8 12.8 32.4 4.10 3.14NORSTAR Tak 12 51.7 12.8 39.9 3.90 2.60CORONA Swy 6 49.1 15.7 43.6 4.80 3.30NEW YORK EARLY Sun 3 46.7 13.7 39.6 3.86 2.70

Listed in order of % Marketable. Storage period approximately 11 months.

5.0 = Most Desirable, 4.0 = Good, 3.7 = Average....O'lW

BEET CULTIVAR TRIAL - GENERAL REMARKS - 2000

In 2000, the Muck Crops Research Station (MCRS) continued the work begun in 1999 to conduct some minor crop cultivar trials. Red beetswere one of the minor crops evaluated. In early January, a request was sent out to various seed companies for submissions. We received a totalof 8 submissions from five seed companies. Our thanks to those seed companies. Due to wet weather in late June, the trial conducted at theMCRS was not seeded until 7 Jul. The beets performed well during the summer months but the late seeding date decreased the quality and yieldpotential of the trail. On 19 Oct, a harvest sample was taken. The cultivars were evaluated on 14 Nov. Additional comments are providedbelow.

....0­~

Scarlet Supreme:

Pablo:

Red Cloud:

Big Red:

- top third of beet root external surface rough- rough crowns- uneven external colour with some blotchy sections- rough appearance

- top fourth of beet root external surface rough- internal colour poor, dark red rings- nice appearance

- top third of beet external surface rough- some discolourization of internal colour- rough crown- average beet

- top third of beet external surface rough- nice internal colour- externalr colour a little blotchy- rough crowns

•

... I continued

Pronto:

Moneta:

Detroit Supreme:

Red Ace:

BEET CULTIVAR TRIAL - GENERAL REMARKS - 2000 - continued

- top third of beet external surface rough- crown a little rough- noticeable dark red internal rings with light red between rings

- top third of beet external surface rough- a little rough crowns- external colour a little uneven

- top fourth of beet exterior surface rough- external colour uneven- average appearance

- top fourth of beet external surface rough- crown rough and ugly

....0'\01

BEET CULTIVAR TRIAL - 2000

MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES

Fertilizer:40 kg/ha Nitrogen + 20 kg/ha Phosphorous + 40 kg/ha Potassium was worked into the soil.

Seeded:The trial was seeded on 7 JuL using a V-Belt seeder equipped with a 5 cm wide scatter shoe. Germination of95 to 100%, a target of 10seeds per foot was desired. Row spacing was 43 em apart. The trial was replicated three times.

Insect and Disease Control:According to IPM recommendations.

Harvest:The trial was harvested on 19 Oct. The trial was immediately placed in a temperature and humidity controlled storage(O°C, 95 % RH) respectively.

EVALUATION PROCEDURESThe cultivars were evaluated on 14 Nov after 4 weeks in storage.

E;)_.

# Beets Harvested:Total number of beets harvested fr' 4.66 m of row.

Harvest Weights:Weights from the harvested 4.66 m of row.

Marketable Yield Processing t/ha:Marketable yield includes the processing size, > 6.5 cm (>2 W').

Marketable Yield Packaging t/ha:Marketable yield includes the packaging size, 3.5 cm to 6.5 cm ( 1 1/4" - 2 W').

... 1continued

....O'lO'l

BEET CULTIVAR TRIAL - 2000 - continued

Shape: G = Globe HG = High Globe Top = TOP MIX = Combination

Processine Weieht/Root (e) :The total weight in grams of all roots> 6.5 em (2 Y2") divided by the total number of roots> 6.5 em (2 W').

Packaeine Weieht/Root (e) :The total weight in grams of all roots 3.5 em to 6.5 em ( I 1/4" - 2 \12") divided by the total number of roots 3.5 em to 6.5 em( I 1/4" - 2 Y2").

Crown Rating:5.0 = small and smooth. 3.7 = moderate and rough 1.0 = large and very rough

Size of Crown:S = small M = medium L = large

Root Attachment:5.0 = blunt, rat tail, not fibrous1.0 = tapered, fibrous

External Colour:R=Red

Internal Colour:R= Red

DR= Dark Red

DR = Dark Red

PR = Purple Red

LR = Light Red

DP = Dark Purple

Zonine:5.0 = no noticeable internal rings3.7 = internal rings but blends in well1.0 = noticeable internal rings

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

­01-...l

BEET CULTIVAR TRIAL - 2000 - PACKAGING & PROCESSING TYPES

.-... .-....-... ~ OIlOIl .-... '-'~ OIl - -'-" C-

o 0- 0 0th .-...

~ ~~ s"1:1 .~ u th th~

~ e V)ti ..0 '" '".~ .~

~ - u 'S 'S eu~

~ell

V) I ::0 ~

~ ..0 V) OIl OIl g OIl OIl= 1\ rri .5 .5 ~ .5 .5:a l!l = ~ - ell

~ell

~~ th ell :a ell> U eu] eu eu ~.;:: 3 eu

.~ .~u ~ ~

Q.. u ~

:; m J: u '" 0 u0 0

~ ~ '" ?f!. .c .. '"U til ::u: f- ~ til ~ ~

MONETA BEJO 105 9.44 4.20 4.95 21.0 24.8 83 a * Mix 127.8 74.9

PABLO BEJO 136 9.93 3.07 6.49 15.3 32.5 80 ab Top 114.4 69.2

RED CLOUD BEJO 138 8.70 2.31 5.96 11.5 29.8 75 abc HG 105.5 66.2

RED ACE Sto 148 9.76 3.23 6.07 16.2 30.4 74 bc G 109.2 65.0

PRONTO BEJO 176 8.05 1.06 6.32 5.3 31.6 70 c HG 88.0 54.2

DETROIT SUPREME Nor 166 6.96 0.52 5.71 2.6 28.5 67 cd HG 106.8 51.9

SCARLET SUPREME PETO 164 8.02 1.74 5.57 8.7 27.9 67 cd G 100.1 56.0

BIG RED Wisc. 182 6.52 0.37 5.28 1.9 26.4 60 d G 80.7 48.9

Listed in order of % Marketable.

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

....m

'" / continued

........

• ,

BEET CULTIVAR TRIAL - 2000 - PACKAGING & PROCESSING TYPES - continued

co coQ)

.5 c...~

c.. Q) lUlU

.~ ... 0::.ar./) r./) c 3 3 3 3Q)I+- .... co ~ ] 0 00 0 .5 "0 "0 0 0

0 .f'<II

0 "0 "0<II ... g u uQ)

~... u u

:a '§ E .g U t:: (;j (;jQ)

~.... « E E

(;j (;j co>~ <2 .g 0 0 E E .5 Q).;:: 0

~ 0 Q) Q) ..."3 'c 'c e 0 ... ... Q) B c 0

0 ...~ >< >< ... 0 o

U r./) ::> ::> r./) u Vi lJ..l lJ..l ..5 ..5 N r./)

MONETA BElO 3.1 3.4 4.0 4.0 S 4.0 3.9 PR 3.9 R 3.9 3.78 b'"

PABLO BElO 3.4 3.9 4.2 4.2 S 4.1 4.0 PR 4.1 R 4.3 4.03 a

RED CLOUD BElO 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.4 L 3.7 3.9 PR 3.9 R 4.2 3.77 b

RED ACE Sto 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.2 L 3.8 3.7 DR 4.1 R 4.0 3.74 b

PRONTO BElO 2.9 3.7 4.0 3.8 M 4.3 4.0 DP 3.8 R 3.6 3.76 b

DETROIT SUPREME Nor 3.6 3.6 3.8 4.0 M 3.8 3.8 PR 4.2 DR 4.1 3.85 ab

SCARLET SUPREME PETO 3.7 3.9 3.4 3.1 L 2.9 3.3 PR 3.8 R 3.9 3.50 c

BIG RED Wisc. 4.1 3.7 3.4 3.4 L 3.8 3.3 R 4.4 DR 4.3 3.82 b

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

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

....O'l\D

LEEK CULTIVAR TRIAL - GENERAL REMARKS - 2000

In 2000, the Muck Crops Research Station (MCRS) continued the work begun in 1999 to conduct some minor crop cultivar trials. Leeks wereone of the minor crops evaluated. In early January, a request was sent out to various seed companies for submissions. We received a total of 13submissions from four seed companies. Our thanks to these companies. The trial was conducted at the Muck Crops Research Station and seededin the greenhouse on 10 May in 288 plug trays. Due to wet weather in late June, the leeks were transplanted out on 6 Jul. The trial was handweeded. On 6, 7 and 8 Nova harvest sample was taken. A visual rating of tip burn and thrip damage on the leaves was also taken. Additionalcomments taken at evaluation on each cultivar are listed below.

Note: The Leek Cultivar Trial was never hilled, so the length of white stalk may not reflect the cultivars true potential.

...."o

Lancelot:

Jolant:

Romona:

E 15506:

Arena:

Forrest:

- nice length- light - moderate thrip damage- approx. 20% bulbing at base

- moderate thrip damage- green veins on stalks- a lot of dead leaves

- tight top- moderate thrip damage- a little tip burn

- moderate thrip damage- approx. 40% bulbing at base- moderate open tops

- short - medium length stalks- moderate open leaves- moderate thrip damage

- light/moderate thrip damage- very open top- approx. 70% bulbing at base

•. .

- moderate open tops- "nice" leek- a little tip burn

- tight tops- long stalks- slight tip burn

- good lengths stalks .- approx. 50% bulbing at base- a few dead leaves

- moderate tip burn- short - medium length stalks

- approx. 50% bulbing at base- a little tip burn- dark veins

- a bit of tip burn- short stalks- good width stalks

... / continued

•

LEEK CULTIVAR TRIAL - GENERAL REMARKS - 2000 - continued

•

Pinola: - moderate thrip damage - approx. 50% bulbing at base- open tops - short stalks- some tip burn - a few dead leaves

Ventua: - light thrip damage - a bit of tip burn- uneven length stalks - fat stalks- approx. 30% bulbing at base - noticeable green leaves

Leefall: - moderate tip burn - moderate thrip damage- fanning tops - approx. 50 % bulbing at base- short stalks

Tadorna: - light thrip damage - moderate tip burn- short stalk - fanning top- approx. 30% bulbing at base

Prenora: - short white stalks - medium length stalks- fanning tops - light thrip damage- approx. 20% bulbing at base - heavy tip burn damage- a lot of dead leaves

Winora: - very open tops - light thrip damage- short stalks - approx. 20% bulbing at base- light tip burn - some dead leaves

Albana: - tight tops - medium length stalks- light thrip damage - light tip burn- some dead leaves

....-...a....

LEEK CULTIVAR TRIAL - 2000

MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES

Fertilizer:

Greenhouse:20-20-20 at a rate of 50 ppm for the first two weeks, then 100 ppm (Ebb and Flow Bench) prior to transplant. One application of10-52-10 at a rate 00.1 kg/IOOO L water just prior to transplant.

Field:90 kg/ha Nitrogen + 20 kg/ha Phosphorous + 170 kg/ha Potassium + 5 kg/ha Copper (99% Cu) was worked into the soil.

Seeded:The leeks were seeded on 10 May in seedling trays, 288 plugs/tray, filled with ASB soilless mixture and seeded approximately two seedsper cell. The plants were thinned to one plant per cell approximately four weeks after emergence.

Transplanted:Three replications were planted in the field on 7 Jul. Row spacing of 40 cm apart and plant spacing of 15 em apart with two rows perreplicate. A tray drench of LORSBAN 4E was applied at 1.6 ml product per 475 ml water per tray four days before transplanting.

Insect and Disease Control:According to IPM recommendations.

Harvest:The trial was harvested on 6, 7 and 8 Nov.

. .. / continued

. ...' .

....'JN

• ..

LEEK CULTIVAR TRIAL - 2000 - continued

# ..

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The cultivars were evaluated on 6, 7 and 8 Nov.

II Leeks Harvested: -:'...._ .. ... >Tolal number of leeks harvested~

lIarvest Weiehts:Weights from the harvested 4.66 m of row.

Leaf Colour:LG = Light GreenBG = Blue Green

DBG = Dark Blue GreenG = Green

Root Growth:L = Light, small amount of roots, thinM = Moderate amount of roots, thickerH = Heavy amount of roots, thick, hard to pull.

Score:5.0 = Strong, healthy, great appearance, no disease, long, white stalks3.7 = Average appearance, healthy, some disease marks1.0 = Poor appearance, weak, poor colour, diseased.

.......,w

..."..I

LEEK CULTIVAR TRIAL - 2000

]' .......'-' ~.......~

.......-a e ....... e -u e u au '-' :! '-'

ii .......'till

U (/) ...~~

'-' u

~ ~u ...

C

~u

~- u u :! ~::c~ ~ 9 ..J

~... 'u.... (/) 0 u

~l.! 0 .... .... ...u u '" e u

t;I u~ ~ '0 u 0 0 u •

~u

u u t;I U ..J i ~ ~ 0 • G.~~

..J "3 ::E .... "3 ... u.!:: .... C r:l u 0

...3'" 0::I 0 0 0

;f!. u 0 u .s > 0 0 >u (/) 'R I- ..J I- ..J -e 0:: (/) (/) -e

LEEFALL Sto 30 6.69 77 a • DG 77.9 11.4 4.1 3.7 M 3.70 cd 6.4 224.7TADORNA Sto 30 7.50 73 ab DBG 79.3 10.8 4.3 3.9 M/H 3.80 bed 6.4 249.8PINOLA BEJO 30 7.55 71 ab nG 72.5 10.9 3.9 3.9 M 3.57 d 6.4 252.6ARENA Enza 31 7.55 71 ab DBO 78.9 11.1 3.9 3.9 MIll 3.70 cd 6.6 246.6

EI5506 Enza 31 8.28 67 ab BO 89.1 10.8 3.7 4.1 UM 3.80 bed 6.6 270.2LANCELOT BEJO 32 8.90 63 abe BG 82.1 15.1 4.6 4.2 UM 4.10 a 6.9 278.1ROMONA BEJO 32 7.48 62 abc BG 79.4 13.9 4.2 4.1 M 3.90 abc 6.8 236.0FORREST BEJO 32 7.26 61 bed DBO 73.0 9.3 4.3 4.1 M 3.20 e 6.8 229.9

ALBANA Nor 30 8.94 52 cd BO 80.2 15.3 4.3 4.1 M 4.00 ab 6.4 299.3VENTURA BEJO 31 10.54 46 d 0 80.7 14.9 4.4 4.4 M 3.80 bed 6.6 343.9JOLANT BEJO 30 7.27 27 e BO 76.5 15.3 3.7 4.3 M 3.90 abc 6.5 241.3PRENORA Nor 29 6.85 22 e BO 78.7 15.8 4.1 3.8 L 3.70 cd 6.2 236.7WINORA Nor 40 6.27 4 f BO 68.1 11.4 3.8 3.4 M 3.70 cd 8.6 158.8

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

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

, .•• •