VEGETABLE CULTIVAR AND CULTURAL TRIALS

PREPARED BY: D. WATERER

S. BERTELSEN C. FAZEKAS

J. SCHAEFFER K. HUCl

T. L. PAULSON

FUNDED BY: AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND

Department of Plant Sciences University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, S7N 5A8

Telephone: (306) 966-5855 Fax: (306) 966-5015 E-mail: doug.waterer@usask.ca justin.schaeffer@usask.ca

Website: www.usask.ca/agriculture/plantsci/vegetable

2012

1

Vegetable cultivar evaluations and cultural trials are conducted annually by the Vegetable Program, Plant Sciences Department at the University of Saskatchewan as a service to the vegetable growers of Saskatchewan. The trials are made possible with financial support from the Agriculture Development Fund of Saskatchewan Agriculture, Food and Rural Revitalization, support from the Plant Sciences Department and with the support of grower co-operators and suppliers of horticultural products. Special thanks are extended to all personnel who helped with the planting, maintenance, harvest and analysis of vegetable cultivar evaluations and cultural trials. The data presented apply to specific growing conditions and production practices and may not be applicable under all conditions or practices. More detailed results on any trial may be obtained by contacting: Doug Waterer Department of Plant Sciences University of Saskatchewan 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N-5A8 Ph: 306-966-5860, Fax: 306-966-5015 E-mail: doug.waterer@usask.ca Website : http://www.usask.ca/agriculture/plantsci/vegetable

Table of Contents 2012 Cultivar Trials

Production Practices and 2012 Growing Season 1

2012 Cultivar Recommendations 5

Seed Suppliers 8

Recommended Vegetable Cultivars : 1989-2012 11

Asparagus 22

Butternut squash 24

Cabbage

Direct Seeded 25

Transplanted 27

Head Characteristics 29

Synergistic and Sugar Enhanced Corn 31

Slicing Cucumbers 33

Edamame Beans

34

Shallots and Snow Peas 35

Determinate Tomato 36

Fruit Quality 37

2012 Cultural Trials

Agronomy of New Potato Lines 39

Maleic Hydrazide for Sprout Control in Storage Onions

47

Fungicides to Prevent Onion Neck Rot 50

Demonstration of Herbicides for Use in Onions 53

Multispan High Tunnels 58

Green Manure Cover Crops Between Vegetable Crop Rows 60

Integrated Management of Root Maggots 65

1

Production Practices Crop production and pest control measures used in these trials generally followed locally recommended practices. Soil fertility levels were adjusted according to the recommendations outlined in the Horticulture Science Publication: "Vegetable Crop Fertility Schedules" (ERDA Publication No. 88-3). Most crops received a mid-season application of nitrogen either through the irrigation system or via side or top-dressing. Overhead or drip irrigation was to maintain adequate soil moisture levels throughout the growing season. The cabbage, snowpeas, shallots, edamame beans and corn crops tested in 2012 were direct seeded using a Planet Jr. type seeder in 6 or 8 m long rows. The garlic trial was planted in early October of 2011. The following products were used for weed control; Asparagus - Sencor applied prior to harvest. Lorox applied after harvests completed. Cabbage – Treflan applied prior to planting. Lontrel and Goal applied after transplanting. Corn - Lorox and Dual applied prior to crop emergence. Garlic – Chateau applied before crop emergence. Tomato, cucumbers and squash - Sencor and Lorox used to control weeds between mulched rows. Any weed escapes were controlled by hand weeding. All crops were evaluated based on local grading standards. 2012 Growing Season The winter of 2011/2012 was exceptionally warm with very limited snowfall. The garlic plots planted in the late fall of 2011 remained free of snow through until mid-January of 2012. The limited snow cover, coupled with the early onset of spring temperatures allowed early access to the fields in 2012. However, May and June of 2012 were exceptionally cool and wet. Saturated soil conditions delayed field preparation and planting and interfered with the tillage required for early weed control. Rain events following planting allowed excellent germination of most crops, but subsequent rain events submerged the seedlings – often for days at a time. Although pumps were used to move excess water from the plots there was significant loss of stand and early crop vigor due to flooding – with the cucumbers, squash and tomatoes being most severely damaged. Back to back days of heat and wind stressed or killed some of the newly transplanted seedlings in the tomato cultivar test. Growing conditions through July and August were generally favorable. A mild frost (-1oC) on September 15 killed off the foliage in the most sensitive crops (tomato, squash and cucumbers) but caused no damage to the fruit. The first hard frost (-5oC) occurred on October 5.

2

WEATHER DATA

May June July Aug.

Sept. Season

Growing Degree Days (base 5oC)

Saskatoon 2012 158 324 455 381 240 1558

Long-Term Average 225 349 440 406 223 1643

Mean Temperature (oC)

Saskatoon 2012 10.1 15.8 19.7 17.3 13.0 15.2

Long-Term Average 12.4 16.6 19.1 18.0

12.2 15.7

Frost Free Season

Saskatoon 2012 May 25 to Sept 17 = 115 days

Long-Term Average 117 days

Insects/Disease Insect problems were limited in 2012. Insecticides provided good control of root maggots in the direct seeded and transplanted cabbage trials but less effective control was obtained in the rutabaga trials. Regular sprays provided effective control of loopers in the direct seeded and transplanted cabbage trials. Levels of corn stem borer and corn earworm damage were higher than normal across Saskatchewan in 2012. The exceptionally mild winter of 2011/2012 also allowed overwinter survival of huge numbers of Colorado potato beetles. The 2012 potato crop required multiple applications of pesticide to deal with this pest. Cutworms necessitated repeated replanting of the cucumber and melon crops in the multi-span high tunnel complex – but were not a problem at any other trial site. Heavy rain events in the spring of 2012 on top of a pre-existing high water table resulted in several flooding events. The health and yield potential of crops growing in low spots within the test plots (cabbage, squash, tomatoes) were adversely affected by the excessive soil moisture. Powdery mildew struck the squash and cucumber trials beginning in early August. Many of the cucumber and squash lines had been completely killed off by mildew by early September when the first frost hit. Early defoliation caused by powdery mildew would have impacted yields of the most sensitive lines. No attempt was made to control the mildew using fungicides, as mildew resistance was one of the performance parameters being evaluated in the 2012 cucumber and squash trials. The voles that had caused major damage to newly seeds and mature crops in both the high tunnels and open field trials in previous years were not an issue in 2012.

3

Notes on Performance of Crops in 2012. Asparagus – this trial was established in 2005 using new lines of asparagus accessed from across North America, with the University of Guelph also providing a range of, as yet, unreleased lines. Stand counts revealed that most lines had experienced some loss of stand by the 3rd year after planting, with some additional losses in 2008/2009, but little in the way of additional losses through 2012. Yield performance has been tracked since 2008. The trial was harvested for 7 weeks in 2012. Spears were counted and weighted and graded for quality. Yields in 2012 were the highest yet recorded, suggesting that the plot is still healthy. Consistent cool and moist conditions through the spring of 2012 resulted in excellent crop quality but interfered with harvest operations. Cabbage - conditions were near-ideal for early establishment of both the direct seeded and transplanted cabbage crops. However subsequent rain events flooded out about 20% of both the direct seeded and transplanted trials and reduced the vigor of the plants that did survive. Post-emergent application of the herbicide Goal caused significant damage to the foliage of some cabbage cultivars – but all cultivars eventually grew through this damage. There was no real difference between the transplanted versus direct seeded crop in terms of ease of management. On average, the transplanted crop was ready to harvest almost 6 weeks earlier than when the crop was established by direct seeding. This maturity advantage is far greater than normal and likely reflects the adverse growing conditions encountered during germination and establishment of the direct seeded cabbage crop in 2012. In is interesting to note that despite the slow start the direct seeded cabbage crop produced greater yields than the transplanted crop – this reflects both a greater number of marketable heads/acre and a larger average head size than in the transplanted crop. All of the transplanted cabbage lines were completely harvested prior to the last harvest in mid-October, whereas about 10% of the direct seeded lines still had some immature heads in mid-October and in another 5% of the lines none of the heads had reached mature size prior to the end of the 2012 field season. The combination of early season flood and herbicide damage clearly slowed development of the 2012 cabbage crop. Corn - with the huge numbers of new sweet corn cultivars being released each year it has become difficult to conduct comprehensive tests of all available cultivars. In 2012 we conducted a third round of testing of sugar enhanced (se) and synergistic cultivars. Sugar enhanced and synergistic types of sweet corn are more tolerant of cold wet soil conditions than the supersweet types. This characteristic would have been useful given the cool wet conditions encountered in the spring of 2012. Some lines tested in 2012 produced a good stand, while others failed under repeated flooding. More favorable growing conditions through July and August helped produce a good crop. All cultivars tested in 2012 were completely mature and harvested by early September, well ahead of the first killing frost. Edamame Beans – while some cultivars produced a good stand of highly vigorous plants, others either failed to germinate or produced a very spotty stand. All of the cultivars tested were relatively late and many failed to produce any mature pods prior to fall frost. Garlic - the garlic crop was planted into extremely poor field conditions late in the fall of 2011. In the past, our fall-planted garlic trials have been protected from over-wintering damage by applying an insulating layer of straw soon after planting. However application of the straw in the fall and removal of the straw in the spring is labor intensive. Any delay in removing the straw in the spring also delays crop growth. The straw also tends to introduce volunteer grain seeds which represent a severe weed problem in the garlic crop. We had successfully overwinter garlic without mulch in 2011 and so we again opted to not mulch the garlic crop going into the winter of 2011/2012. Unfortunately, record low snowfall over the winter of 2011/2012 left the garlic plot completely exposed for most of the winter. While the winter

4

of 2011/2012 was relatively mild there were some cold stretches, particularly in early December. This combination of conditions resulted in 100% loss of most garlic cultivars over the winter of 2011/2012. None of the garlic lines tested showed any useful degree of cold/dehydration stress tolerance. The plants that did survive were weak and died early in the 2012 growing season. No useful yield data could be obtained from this trial. New planting material was accessed and the 2013 garlic cultivar trial was planted out on schedule in late September 2012. In mid-October as the ground began to freeze, the garlic planting was covered with a layer of Agryl-P17 crop cover and then 15cm of barley straw was added on top of this cover. We hoped that by covering the plot with field cover we would be able to use straw as a mulch without having to deal with volunteer grain as weeds in the subsequent year of garlic production. In the spring of 2013 we plan to remove the majority of the straw mulch and to then slide the cover off the plot – carrying the remaining straw and grain seeds out of the plot area. As snow cam early in the fall of 2012 and stayed through the winter of 2012/2013 a straw mulch was likely to have necessary. Shallots – were tested for the first time in 2012. The trial was established using either seed or sets. Emergence of many of the direct-seeded lines was poor. The fact that some direct-seeded lines produced almost a perfect stand suggests that the emergence problem was caused by the seed rather than the field or weather conditions. Using sets got the shallot crop off to a fast start, but the resulting plants developed problems with disease (botrytis) in mid-July. No corresponding disease problems were seen in the direct seeded crop. Any of the shallots grown from sets that survived this disease outbreak went on to bolt in late July – and consequently yielded no marketable bulbs. The direct-seeded shallot lines that had produced a decent stand had acceptable yields of mature bulbs by harvest time in early October. Slicing Cucumbers – 2012 was the first year of testing for slicing cucumbers. The crop was established from seed planted through black plastic mulch and then covered with Agryl P-17 crop cover. Repeated rain events after seeding kept the cucumber plot flooded for almost a month and may cultivars either failed to germinate or produced a poor stand despite being re-seeded twice. Using the field cover trapped in the moisture, making the flooding problem worse. More favorable conditions from July onwards allowed for valid evaluation of the cultivar performance. Powdery mildew arrived in early August and allowed for evaluation of the cultivars’ resistance to this important disease. By late August powdery mildew had effectively killed off the most sensitive cultivars, while more resistant cultivars continued to yield well. A killing frost in mid-September terminated the 2012 cucumber trial. Snow Peas – in both the 2011 and 2012 trials it proved difficult to get a good stand of snow peas established, despite near-ideal field conditions for germination. Several lines developed root rot following heavy rain events in mid-June. More favorable conditions through flowering and pod fill resulted in good yields in some lines. In 2012 a second planting (July 13) was used to evaluate the lines’ tolerance of heat stress. Squash - in 2012 butternut-type squash cultivars were tested. In late May the trial was direct seeded through plastic mulch and then covered with a floating row cover. While floating covers can assist crop growth by warming both the air and the soil, they also trap in moisture. Under the persistent cloudy, cool and wet conditions experienced from late May through late June of 2012, squash plants under the covers either failed to germinate or died of damping off soon after emergence. This trial was re-seeded twice in an attempt to rectify this problem – but despite this effort the stand of some of the squash cultivars was still spotty. The crop covers were left on until the crop started to bloom in early July. Once more favorable weather arrived, the squash plants began to thrive but both earliness and yield potential had been compromised. The first signs of powdery mildew were apparent in the squash trial by late July and the problem spread quickly. As resistance to powdery mildew was one of the performance parameters being evaluated in this trial, no effort was made to chemically control the powdery mildew. A mild frost

5

on September 17 killed off all the foliage remaining in the squash trial but did not damage the fruit. While most of the fruit had developed a hard rind by this time, relatively few had developed the brown skin color usually associated with mature butternut squash. Interior color of the fruit was also often pale. While pale flesh color may be a characteristic of the cultivar, it more likely indicates that the fruit was not fully mature when the frost hit. Fruit size and shape, number and degree of maturity varied greatly amongst the lines of butternut squash tested. Tomatoes – the 2012 trial represented the 3rd year of testing of determinant mid-season tomatoes. In early June six week old transplants were placed transplanted out into rows of black plastic mulch. The seedlings were not protected by any type of row cover after transplanting. Unfortunately, the newly transplanted seedlings were exposed to 30oC temperatures and persistent wind for several days – this stress killed some of the seedlings and severely checked the growth of others. The tomato plot was also flooded on several occasions. This combination of stress events slowed development of the 2012 tomato crop through mid-July. From that point onwards growing conditions were more favorable and the crop grew well. Mature red fruit were harvested twice weekly from mid-August through until the first hard frost in early October. There were no major issues with insects or disease in the tomato trial. Cultivar Recommendations for 2012

Asparagus - as this trial is only in its 5th year of yield assessment it is too early to make any definitive recommendations. However, the cumulative yields of Guelph Millennium, Guelph Thiessen, Arianne, Andreas and Selias over the past 5 years are clearly superior to the other lines, with Guelph Millennium pulling further into the lead each year. All of these lines also have excellent spear quality, although the spears of Andreas tend to be rather large. Butternut Squash – flooding of the test plot area delayed seeding and establishment of the 2012 butternut squash trial and consequently when fall frost killed off the trial many of the lines were still not fully mature. Earliness therefore became one of the most important quality components assessed in the 2012 butternut squash trial. Tiana was the earliest maturing line – it produced very good yields of small, uniform shaped fruit. Betternut produced exceptional numbers of small, relatively thin fruit, whereas Hannah produced large numbers of short wide fruit. Avalon was another early maturing cultivar that produced medium-sized fruit with attractive deep orange flesh. Maxim and Polaris were a bit later maturing. Maxim produced exceptional yields of large orange-fleshed fruit, whereas Polaris produced huge numbers of uniform size and shape fruit that had a very small seed cavity. Cabbage – in this trial the performance of each cultivar was evaluated using both direct seeded and transplanted crops. There were only a few cultivars that could be recommended based on their superior performance in both the direct seeded and transplanted trials. Benelli consistently produced good yields and its head quality was exceptional. Yields for cv. Superstar were superior in both the direct seeded and transplanted crops – in large part due to the exceptionally large, dense heads produced by this cultivar. Multikeeper which has been recommended in previous trials, consistently produced good yields of large, medium density, high quality heads. Benelli, Multikeeper and Superstar are all quite late maturing, making them somewhat risky to grow by direct seeding. In the transplanted cabbage trial, many of the cultivars recommended in previous cultivar trials – including Platinum Dynasty, Loughton, and Lennox continued to be amongst the top performers. Passat, Seradox and Storage #4 all produced excellent yields of large, dense heads when grown from transplants. Many of these recommended cultivars failed to fully mature when grown by direct seeding.

6

In the direct seeded trial, Pennant and Ramada were early maturing and produced good yields but relatively small heads. The cultivar Bronco (previously recommended) was exceptional in all performance parameters in the direct seeded trial – it produced a full stand despite adverse field conditions, and went on to provide exceptional yields of very uniform-sized high quality heads. The entire Bronco crop was ready at the same time which is very unusual in direct-seeded cabbage. Seradox and Superstor 112 produced good yields of very large, high quality heads but establishing these slow growing cultivars by direct seeding may be risky in some years. Edamame Beans – once again many of the cultivars of edamame tested in 2012 failed to mature prior to fall frost. Envy which had been recommended based on its performance in 2011 did well again in 2012 – although it was late and produced only moderate yields. Rene’s Edamame appears to have higher yield potential but it is very late. Slicing cucumbers – Darlington and Speedway (previously recommended) both produced an excellent stand, despite adverse field conditions, and went on to provide consistent yields from mid-July through mid-September of excellent quality, flavorful fruit. Marketmore 76 (previously recommended), Babylon, Diomedes and Emperator can also be recommended. Snow Peas – in both the early (May 21) and late (July 13) plantings of snow peas tested in 2012, poor stand establishment was a problem for many cultivars. Little Sweetie and Oregon Sugar Pod (both previously recommended) were again recommended in 2012 as they consistently produced a good stand that went on to provide superior yields of quality pods. The pods of Little Sweetie were very tender but Oregon Sugar Pod was rated as having better flavor. Sweetcorn – this is the 3rd year of testing sugar enhanced (SE) and synergistic (SY) types of sweetcorn. The overall field performance of the synergistic type corn was comparable to sugar enhanced types tested in 2012 – but the SY corn had better average flavor and cob quality. The best SY bicolor cultivars were Charisma, Primus and Polka (previously recommended). Charisma produced the highest yields, Polka was the earliest of the recommended bicolor SY cultivars and Primus had exceptional flavor. Of the SE Yellow cultivars tested, Colorow and Kandy King both combined superior yields and quality. Colorow was earlier than Kandy King but the Kandy King had superior flavor. In the bicolor SE category, Luscious (previously recommended), Profit, and Stellar provided the desired combination of yields and quality. Shallots – the cultivar Camelot was the only shallot tested in 2012 that had any real merit. It produced a good stand of vigorous plants that stayed healthy for the duration of the growing season. Camelot produces fairly large purple skinned bulbs that had a nice mild flavor. Determinate Tomatoes – cultivars that had more than 60% of their fruit red ripe prior to the first killing frost in late September were considered to be “early”. The earliest cultivars that still produced acceptable yields of quality fruit were Manitoba (previously recommended) and Early Girl. The plants of Manitoba are small with sparse leaves which can expose the fruit to sunscald. The fruit of cv Manitoba also have a very firm skin. Booty was a little later maturing but had greater yield potential and fruit quality than the other early lines. Bella Rosa (previously recommended) and Scotia are also recommended as early maturing high yielding lines – although the fruit of both of these cultivars is relatively small. Defiant (previously recommended) is another high yielding early maturing line – and it has the added advantage of being resistant to Late Blight. The later maturing lines (>40% fruit maturity prior to fall frost) had higher yield potential, and generally produced bigger sweeter fruit than the early maturing lines. BHN 961 which was recommended based on previous trials once again produced

7

exceptional yields of large, good-looking flavorful fruit. BHN 961 may benefit from staking as the plants are huge by harvest time. Sunstart is also recommended for its good yields of large flavorful fruit, while Tribute had a tremendous yield potential.

8

(ABN) Alberta Nursery & Seed Box 20 Bowden, AB T0M 0K0 PH: 403/224-3544 Fax: 403/224-2455 Website: www.gardenersweb.ca (AC) Abbott & Cobb, Inc. P.O. Box 307 Feasterville, PA 19053-0307 PH: 215/245-6666 Fax: 215/245-9043 Website: www.acseed.com (AH) AgroHaitai Ltd. P.O. Box 78051 Hamilton, ON L9C 7N5 PH/Fax: 519/647-2280 Website: www.agrohaitai.com (BG) Bountiful Gardens 18001 Shafer Ranch Road Willits, CA 95490-9626 PH: 707/459-6410 Fax: 707/459-1925 Website: www.bountifulgardens.org (BHN) BHN Seed P.O. Box 3267 Immokalee, FL 34142 PH: 239/352-1100 Fax: 239/352-1981 Website: www.bhnseed.com (BJ) Bejo Seeds Inc. 1088 Healey Rd. Geneva, NY 14456 PH: 315/789-4155 Fax: 315-789-1961 Website: www.bejoseeds.com (BR) Brotherton Seed Co. Inc. P.O. Box 1136 Moses Lake, WA 98837 PH: 509/765-1816 Fax: 509/765-1817 Website: www.brothertonseed.com

SEED SUPPLIERS (BUR) D.V.Burrell Seed Growers P.O. Box 150 Rocky Ford, CO 81067 PH: 719/254-3318 Fax: 719/254-3319 Website: www.burrellseeds.com (TH) Terralink Horticulture Inc. 464 Riverside Rd Abbotsford, BC V2S 7M1 Ph: 604/864-9044 Fax: 604/864-8418 Website: www.tlhort.com (CK) Crookham Co. P.O. Box 520 Caldwell, ID 83606-0520 PH: 208/459-7451 Fax: 208/454-2108 Website: www.crookham.com (CS) Clause Tézier (Clause Semences) 46, Boulevard Pierre Brossolette 91221 Bretigny sur Orge Cedex France PH: 33-1-69-88-4848 Fax: 33-1-69-88-9353 Website: www.clausetezier.com (DOM) Dominion Seedhouse Box 2500 Georgetown, ON L7G 5L6 PH: 800/784-3037 FAX: 800/282-5746 Website: www.dominion-seed-house.com (EFG) Early's Farm & Garden Ctr 2615 Lorne Avenue Saskatoon, SK S7J 0S5 PH: 306/931-1982 PH: 800/667-1159 FAX: 306/931-7110 Website: www.earlysgarden.com

(EG) Evergrow Seed Co., Ltd. 21, Hsin Chung Rd. P.O. Box 393 Tainan 702, Taiwan R.O.C. PH: 886-6-263 8587 FAX: 886-6-264 2088 Website: www.evergrowseed.com.tw (EH) Ed Hume Seeds Inc. P.O. Box 73160 Puyallup, WA 98373 PH: 253/435-4414 FAX: 253/435-5144 Website: www.edhumeseeds.com (EZ) Enza Zaden North America, Inc. Attn: Mr. B. Kortsen 7 Harris Place Salinas, CA 93901 PH: 831/751-0937 FAX: 831/751-6103 Website: www.enzazaden.com (FL) Fish Lake Garlic Man Research & Experimental Station RR 2 Demorestville, ON K0K 1W0 PH: 613/476-8030 (FM) Ferry-Morse Seed Co. P.O. Box 1620 Fulton, KY 42041 Website: www.ferry-morse.com (HAL) Halifax Seed Co. P.O. Box 8026 Halifax, Canada B3K 5L8 PH: 902/454-7456 Fax: 902/455-5271 Website: www.halifaxseed.ca (HA) Harris Seeds 355 Paul Rd. P.O. Box 24966 Rochester, NY 14624-0966 PH: 800/514-4441 FAX: 877/892-9197 Website: www.harrisseeds.com

9

(HAN) Dongbu Hannong Seeds Co. Dongbu Financial Center 19-21F, 891-10, Daechi-dong, Kangnam-gu Seoul 135-523, Korea PH: 82-2-3484-1500 FAX: 82-2-565-8531 Website: www.dongbuchemical.com (HM) Harris Moran Seed Co. P.O. Box 4938 Modesto, CA 95352 PH: 209/579-7333 FAX: 209/527-5312 Website: www.harrismoran.com (HOL) Hollar Seeds P.O. Box 106 Rocky Ford, CO 81067 PH: 719/254-7411 FAX: 719/254-3539 Website: www.hollarseeds.com (HZ) Hazera Seeds Inc. 6601 Lyons Road, Suite H-10 Coconut Creek, FL 33073 PH: 561/988-1315 FAX: 561/988-1319 Website: www.hazera.com (J) Johnny's Selected Seeds 955 Benton Ave. Winslow, ME 04901 PH: 207/861-3999 PH: 877/564-6697 FAX: 207/861-8363 Website: www.Johnnyseeds.com (JA) Jersey Asparagus Farms, Inc. 105 Porchtown Rd. Pittsgrove, NJ 08318 PH: 856/358-2548 FAX: 856/358-6127 Website: www.jerseyasparagus.com

(KY) Known-You Seed Co., Ltd. 26, Chung Cheng 2nd Road Kaohsiung, Taiwan (Formosa) R.O.C. PH: 886-7-224-1106 FAX: 886-7-222-7299 Website: www.knownyou.com (LIN) Lindenberg Seeds Ltd. 803 Princess Avenue Brandon, MB R7A 0P5 PH: 204/727-0575 FAX: 204/727-2832 Website: www.lindenbergseeds.mb.ca (ME) Meyer Seed International, Inc. 4321 Fitch Avenue Baltimore, MD 21236 PH: 888/503-7333 FAX: 410/665-9005 Website: www.meyerseedinternational.com (MF) McFayden Seed Co. Ltd. 30 - 9th St. Brandon, MB R7A 6N4 PH: 800-205-7111 FAX: 877/625-1888 Website: www.McFayden.com (NH) Sunseeds-Nunhems USA, Inc 1200 Anderson Corner Rd. Parma, ID 83660-6188 PH: 208/674-4000 Fax: 208/674-4003 Website: www.nunhemsusa.com (NOR) Norseco 2914, Curé Labelle Blvd Laval, Québec H7P 5R9 PH: 514/332-2275 PH: 800/561-9693 FAX: 450/682-4959

(ORS) Orsetti Seed Company, Inc. 2301 Technology Parkway P.O. Box 2350 Hollister, CA 95024-2350 PH: 831/636-4822 FAX: 831/636-4814 Website: www.orsettiseeds.com (OS) Osborne International Seed Co. 2428 Old Hwy 99 South Road Mount Vernon, WA 98273 PH: 360/424-7333 FAX: 360/424-8900 Website: www.osborneseed.com (OT) Otis Twilley Seeds Co. Inc. P.O. Box 4000 121 Gary Road Hodges, SC 29653-4000 PH: 864/227-5150 FAX: 864/227-5108 Website: www.twilleyseed.com (PAL) D. Palmer Seed Co., Inc. 8269 S. Highway 95 Yuma, AZ 85365 PH: 928/341-8494 FAX: 928/341-8496 Website: www.dpalmerseed.com (PAR) Park Seed Wholesale 2 Parkton Ave. Greenwood, SC 29647-0002 PH: 800/845-3366 FAX: 800/209-0360 Website: www.parkwholesale.com (PL) Pure Line Seeds, Inc. Box 8866 Moscow, Idaho 83843 PH: 208/882-4422 FAX: 208/882-4236 Website: www.purelineseed.com (PY) Pybas Vegetable Seed Co., Inc. P.O. Box 868 Santa Maria, CA 93456 PH: 805/922-4624 FAX: 805/928-0293 E-mail: www.pybasseeds.com

10

(RD) Reeds Seeds 3334 N.Y.S. Rt. 215 Cortland, NY 13045-9433 PH: 607/753-9095 FAX: 607/753-9511 (RIC) Richters Herbs Goodwood, ON L0C 1A0 PH: 905/640-6677 FAX: 905/640-6641 Website: www.Richters.com (RIS) Rispens Seeds Inc. P.O. Box 310 Beecher, IL 60401-0310 PH: 708/946 6560 FAX: 708/946 6115 Website: www.rispensseeds.com (RO) Syngenta Seeds Inc. (Rogers Brand) P.O. Box 4188 Boise, ID 83711-4188 PH: 208/327-7297 FAX: 208/327-7298 Website: www.rogersadvantage.com (RUPP) Rupp Seeds, Inc. 135 Lancefield Place Chatham, ON N7L 2M5 PH: 519/354-0206 FAX: 519/354-0287 Website: www.ruppseeds.com (SAK) Sakata Seed America, Inc. 18095 Serene Dr. P.O. Box 880 Morgan Hill, CA 95038-0880 PH: 408/778-7758 FAX: 408/778-7751 Website: www.sakata.com (SBD) Seeds By Design, Inc. 4599 Mc Dermott Rd. P.P. Box 602 Maxwell, CA 95988 PH: 530/438-2126 Website: www.seedsbydesign.com

(SEM) Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc. 2700 Camino del Sol Oxnard, CA 93030-7967 PH: 866/334-1056 FAX: 805/918-2488 Website: www.seminis.com (SH) Peto Seed/Seneca Brand 5271 North Flat St., P.O. Box 128 Hall, NY 14463 PH: 716/525-6398 FAX: 716/526-5988 (SIE) Siegers Seed Co. 13031 Reflections Drive Holland, MI 49424 PH: 800/962-4999 FAX: 616/994-0333 Website: www.siegers.com (SN) Snow Seed Company 21885 Rosehart Way Salinas, CA 93908-9726 PH: 831/758-9869 FAX: 831/757-4550 Website: www.snowseedco.com (SSC) Shamrock Seed Co, Inc. 3 Harris Place Salinas, CA 93901-4586 PH: 831/771-1500 FAX: 831/771-1517 Website: www.shamrockseed.com (SSS) Salt Spring Seeds P.O. Box 444, Ganges Salt Spring Island, BC V8K 2W1 PH: 250/537-5269 Website: www.saltspringseeds.com (ST) Stokes Seed Ltd. Box 10 Thorold, ON L2V 5E9 PH: 800/396-9238 FAX: 888/834-3334 Website: www.stokeseeds.com

(STE) Stellar Seeds S6, C5, RR1 Sorrento, BC V0E 2W0 Website: www.stellarseeds.com (STO) Stover Seed Company PO Box 861715 Los Angeles, California 90086 Main: (213) 626-9668 Toll Free: (800) 621-0315 http://www.stoverseed.com (SUT) Suttons Woodview Road Paignton Devon, TQ4 7Ng PH: 01-087-022-02899 Fax: 01-087-022-02265 Website: www.suttons.co.uk (SW) Seedway Inc. 99 Industrial Road Elizabethtown, PA 17022 PH: 800/952-7333 FAX: 717/367-0387 Website: www.seedway.com (T) American Takii Inc. 301 Natividad Rd. Salinas, CA 93906 PH: 831/443-4901 FAX: 831/443-3976 Website: www.takii.com (TER) Prairie Garden Seeds Box 2758 Humboldt, SK SOK 2A0 PH: 306/682-1475 Website: www.prseeds.ca (T+M) Thompson & Morgan 220 Faraday Ave. Jackson, NJ 08527-5073 PH: 800/274-7333 FAX: 888/466-4769 Website: www.thompsonandmorgan.com

11

(T+T) T & T Seeds Box 1710 Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 3P6 PH: 204/895-9964 FAX: 204/895-9967 Website: www.ttseeds.com (TOK) Tokita Seed Co., Ltd. 1069, Nakagawa, Minuma-Ku Saitama-Shi, Saitama-Ken Japan 337-8532 PH: 81-48-686-7235 FAX: 81-48-688-1167 Website: http://www.tokitaseed.co.jp (UG) United Genetics Seeds Co. 8000 Fairview Rd. Hollister, CA 95023 PH: 831/636-4882 FAX: 831/636-4883 Website: www.unitedgenetics.com

(VE) Vesey's Seeds Ltd. Box 9000 Charlottetown, PEI C1A 8K6 PH: 800/363-7333 FAX: 800/686-0329 Website: www.veseys.com (VIL) Vilmorin Inc. #131 2551 N Dragoon St. Tucson, AZ 85745-1454 PH: 520/884-0011 FAX: 520/884-5102 Website: www.vilmorin.com (WCS) West Coast Seeds 3925-64th St., R.R. 1 Delta, BC V4K 3N2 PH: 604/952-8820 FAX: 877/482-8822 Website: www.westcoastseeds.com

(WDM) William Dam Seeds 279 Hwy 8 RR1 Dundas, ON L9H 5E1 PH: 905/628-6641 FAX: 905/627-1729 Website: www.damseeds.com (WG) Westgro Horticultural SuppliesInc. 1557 Hastings Cres. S.E. Calgary AB T2G 4C8 PH: 403/287-3988 FAX: 403/243-7470 Website: www.growercentral.com (WH) Willhite Seed Inc. P.O. Box 23 Poolville, TX 76487-0023 PH: 817/599-8656 FAX: 817/599-5843 Website: www.willhiteseed.com (ZW) Rijk Zwaan USA Inc. 19040 Portola Drive, Suite B Salinas, CA 93908 PH: 831/455-3000 FAX: 831/445-3003 Website: www.rijkzwaanusa.com

12

Recommended Vegetable Cultivars: 1989 - 2012

Based on the Cultivar Trials at the Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, 1989-2012

Numbers before cultivar name indicate the year(s) that cultivar was recommended. Letters in parenthesis after the cultivar name indicate the seed company from which the seed was obtained; see Seed Sources for full address. Seed may be available from other sources.

BEANS French Filet Broad Beans

95 Delinel (T+M,WDM) 08 Masai (RO) 05,06 Aquadulce (SIE,ST) 05,06 Broad Bean Express (NOR,T+M)

Green 06 Con Amore (VE) 00 Diamant (CS) 07 Provider (VE, WDM) 06 Masterpiece Green Longpod (SUT) 07 Fandango (NOR) 07 Renegade (RO) 05 Medes (T+M) 07 ForemOSt (J) 08 Royal Burgandy (EFG) 05 Witkeim (WDM) 08 Montano (WDM) 08 Stayton (RO, SIE) 07, 08 Nash (RO, SW) 07 Storm (ST) 08 OSU 5402 (PL) 96,07,08 Strike (ST) Yellow 08 PLS 87 (PL) 07 Tema (T+T) 00,01 Eureka (NOR) 08 True Blue (VE) 00 Gold Rush (VE) 00,01 Gold Mine (ST,NOR)

Edamame 11 Butterbean (J) 11,12 Envy (J)

BEETS 08 Alto (T&M) 08,09 Formanova (ABN) 08 Red Cloud (NOR) 09 Carillon (RZ) 08 Merlin (VE) 09 Ruby Queen (ABN) 09 Cylindra (OSC) 98,08 Moneta (WDM,J) 09 Zeppo (RZ) 98,99 Detroit Supreme (ST) 98,99,09 Pablo (VE)

BROCCOLI 91,94,01 Arcadia (SAK,NOR) 11 Elsinore (OS) 01,02 Lucky (NOR,SW) 10 Bravado (ORS) 10 Emerald Crown (SIE) 10 Major (SW) 11 Beaumont (BJ) 95,01,02 Eureka (ST) 10 Marathon (TW,SW) 02 Belstar (WDM,NOR) 10 Everest (SIE,SW) 11 Maverick (SAK) 01,02,10 Captain (ST) 10 Goliath (EFG) 11 Olympia (SIE) 02 Centura (RO) 10,11 Green Belt (SIE) 94,95,01,02,10 Patriot (TW,SAK) 01,02 Coronado (BJ,SW) 11 Green Gold (SAK) 10 Patron (VE) 10 Coronado Crown

(OT) 10 Green Magic

(SIE,SW) 10 Santa Antia 217 (SIE)

11 Diplomat (SAK) 10,11 Ironman (ST,OS) 11 SBC-7540 (SAK)

BRUSSELS SPROUTS 04 Diablo (J) 04 Icarus (T+M) 04 Sprouket (NOR)

13

CABBAGE Green

Early-season 92 Balbro (ST,WG) 06 Gazelle (SW) 06 Trigger (SW) 92,05 Copenhagen Market (LIN) 05 Gonzales (WG,J) 06 TSX 888 (TOK) 97,98,05 Dynamo (RD) 98 Parel (WG)

Mid-season 97,98,06 Almanac (SW) 98,05 Corsar (PAL) 06 Landini (VIL) 06 Blue Vantage (D) 12 Escazu (RO) 06,12 Platinum Dynasty (ST) 12 Benelli (BJ) 05,06 Geronimo (J) 12 Pennant 98,05,06 Bobcat (RD) 98,05,06 Gideon (OS,SW) 12 Superstar (OS) 91,97 Bravo (HM) 05 Grenadier (RD) 12 Superstore 112 (SAK) 97,06,12 Bronco (NOR,VE) 05,06 Invento (OS) 06 Tobia (ST) 12 Celebrate (SIE) 05,06 Invento (OS) 98,06 Vantage Point (RD) 98,06 Cecile (SW,OS)

Late-season 05,06 Candela (SW) 98,05,06 Minicole (NOR,VE) 97,98,06 Rio verde (RD) 05,06 Deuce (RD) 05,06 Missouri (ST) 12 Seradox (sak) 06 Green Crown (TOK) 97,98 Morris (BJ) 06 Silver Dynasty (NOR) 06 Huron (ST,SIE) 92,12 Multikeeper (ST) 06 Superdane (RD) 05 Krautman (WDM) 06 NIZ 17-764 (VIL) 12 Storage #4 (J) 97 Little Rock (SIE) 05 Princeton (ST) 06 Top Gun (NOR) 12 Lennox (VE) 06 Puccini (SIE) 05,06 Transam (SW) 06 Loughton (RD,ST) 05 Rinda (RD) 05,06 TSX 888 (TOK) 05,06 Megaton (WG) 12 Ramada (BJ)

Red 07 Azuro (OS, NOR) 07 Cairo (NOR,SW,WDM) 08 Royale (ST) 07 Buscaro (BJ,SW) 95 Red Jewel (SAK, SIE) 08 Sandoro (NOR) 08 Roxanna (OS) 08 Super Red 80 (RD)

CAULIFLOWER 04 Artica (OS,RD,WG) 03,04 Cumberland (ST) 03,04 Phoenix (ORS,RD,WG) 03 Baldo (NOR) 03,04 Freedom (ST) 04 Ravella (SIE) 03,04 Callisto (J) 04 Graffitti (ST) 03,04 Shasta (RO,WCS) 03,04 Casper RZ (ZW) 03,04 Guardian (NOR) 03 Symphony (RO,SIE) 03,04 Cassius F1 (BJ,SW) 03 Lateman (BJ,SW) 03 Wentworth (ST) 04 Concert (WCS, WG) 94,97,03 Minuteman (DOM,NOR,SEM)

CARROTS Nantes Danvers Imperator

08 Evora (ST) 09,10 Achieve (ST) 96,06 Apache (OS, SIE) 96,08 Forto Selection (WDM) 10 Big Sur (SIE) 06 Arrowhead (VE) 07 Magno RZ F1 (ZW) 09,10 Cordoba (SW) 06 Autumn King (BG,T+M) 07 Mokum (BJ,OS) 09 Fontana (SW) 05,06 Bremen (SW) 08 Nantes Coreless(EFG, T+T) 06 Ideal (KY) 06 Dynabites (ST) 97 Nantes Half Long (LIN) 96,97 Royal Chantenay (EFG) 05,06 Eagle (SS,ST) 07 Nantes Improved (DOM, NOR) 06 Kingdom (SW) 08 Nantes Strong Top (ABN) Imperator Nantes 06 Magnum (ST) 07,08 Navarino (SW) 06 Enterprise (OS,ST) 06 Nevada (BJ) 08 Nelson (SW, WDM) 05,06 Tendersnax (NH,OS) 05 Pronto (NOR) 07 Vitana (J,ST) 06 Sugarsnax (NH) 06,07 YaYa (BJ,OS) Coloured Root Types 06 Sunrise (CK) 06 Dragon (WCS) 05 Sweet Bites (WG) 06 Rainbow (NOR,OS) 06 Uppercut 25 (NH)

14

CELERY 00 Green Bay (RISP) 89,99 Starlet (OT) 99 Victoria (T+M) 00 Picador (ST) 99,00 Tango (BJ,SW)

CORN Standard (su)

94,00,04,05 Earlivee (CK,NOR,VE) 97,00,01 Early Sunglow (EH) 99,00,03,04 Seneca Horizon (BUR) Sugar Enhanced (se)

11 Bon Jour (MM) 11 Fleet (VE) 05,11 Navaho (ST) 11,12 Colorow (VE) 07 Fastlane (MM) 00,03,05 Sweet Chorus (HM) 10 Edelwiess (MM) 12 Kandy King 12 Profit (NOR) 04,05,07 Envoy (MM,NOR) 11,12 Luscious (VE) 12 Stellar (NOR)

Synergistic 02,05-07 Bojangles (DOM,SW) 04,06,10,11,12 Polka (CK,NOR) 05-07 Revelation (HM,OS) 07 Monomy (MM) 12 Primus (RUPP) 01,05 Sweet Symphony (HM) 11 Powwow (MM) 07 Valor (CK)

Shrunken (sh2) Supersweet 03,05,06 Candy Corner (HM) 05 GS 171A (ST) 08,09 MX 148Y (SIE) 00,02,05 Confection (HM) 09 GSS 0966 (SIE) 96,99,00 Northern Extra Sweet(EFG,T+T) 09 Garrison (SIE) 07,08 Mirai 421 (SIE) 08 Passion (NOR, VE) 09 Gourmet Sweet 2171 (ST) 08 Sheba (WG)

Augmented Supersweet 05,06 ACX 725Y (AC) 08 Mirai 002 (SIE) 07,08 Optimum (CK) 08 Awesome (SW) 08 Mirai 130Y (SIE) 09 Summer Sweet 810Y (AC) 06,08,09 Fantastic (SIE, SW) 06 Mirai 308BC (SIE,SW) 08 Xtra-Tender 2171 (SIE) 07 Holiday (CK) 03,05 Mirai 301BC (SIE,SW) 08 Xtra-Tender 3175 (SIE)

ORNAMENTAL CORN 06 Calico Popcorn (WCS) 95,96.06,07 Fiesta (SW,VE,WDM) 06,07 Seneca Mini Indian (OS) 07 Early Pink Popcorn (OS,

WCS) 07 GS Brand 95 (SIE) 07 Strawberry Popcorn (OS)

07 Painted Mountain (J,OS,ST) 95,07 Wampum (J,WDM) 07 Earth Tones Dent (ST) 06 Seneca Indian (VE)

CUCUMBER Pickling

10 Atomic (BJ) 10 Eclipse (ST) 99 Gherkin (T+M) 10 Ballerina (SW) 99 Eureka (OT,ST) 98,99 KFir (PAL) 98 Cool Breeze (DOM,MF,WDM) 09 Europick (UG) 93,98,99 Northern Dawn (EFG) 10 Cool Breeze Improved (SEM) 92,98,99,09 Fancipak (Park,SEM,SIE) 09 Zapata (SIE, NH) 98 Cross Country (VE,ST)

Slicing 12 Babylon (nor, SN) 01 Indio (ST) 00,01 Panther (RUPP) 00 Dasher II (EFG,UPP,WG) 01 Indy (SW) 00,01 Raider (VE) 12 Darlington (NOR,ST, SW) 92,93,00 Jazzer (ST) 93 Salad Bush (LIN) 12 Diomede (RO, ST) 00,01,12 Marketmore 76 (WDM) 92,00,01,12 Speedway (ST) 12 Emperator (EFG,LIN) 00,01 Natsuhikari (TOK) 93,00 Straight 9 (WH) 00,01 Fanfare (DOM,WDM) 01 Olympian (J, WH) 00,01 Ultra Pak (ST) 01 General Lee (HM,ST)

EGGPLANT 01 Aubergine (NOR) 02 Classic (HM) 02 Imperial Black Beauty (ST) 02 Black Beauty (WDM) 01 Dusky (WCS) 02 Night Shadow (ST) 02 Black Bell (J) 02 Ghostbuster (HM,SW) 02 Santana (NOR,SW) 02 Blacknite (ST)

15

GARLIC

Stiffneck Softneck 06 Atkin Russian (SSS) 10 FL F4 (FL) 11 Cedar (local) 06,07 CGP Centre Core (CGP) 08,10,11 Stiffneck (M&M) 11 Co-op (local) 06,09,10,11 Czech (SSS) 06,07 Music (SSS) 06 WCS Silverskin (WCS) 06,07,09 Vesseys(VE)

HERBS Basil

07,08 Blue Spice (RIC) 08 Lemon Basil (St) 98 Purple Ruffles (ST, J) 07 Fino VErde (J) 08 Martina 98 Spicy Globe (ST) 07 GenoVEse (WCS) 08 Mrs. Burns Lemon Basil (EFG) 07 Stella (RIC) 98 Green Ruffles (NOR) 07 Oriental Breeze (RIC) 08 Sweet Salad (RIC) 98,07 Italian Large Leaf (WDM)

Cilantro Mint Oregano 07 Caribe (SW) 07,08 Mint (T+T) 07,08 Oregano (BUR) 07 Cilantro (VE) 07,08 Mint (VE) 07 Oregano (RIC) 07,08 Coriander (EFG) 07 Mint (J) 07 Oregano (WDM) 07,08 Delfino (ST) 07 Peppermint (WDM) 08 Oregano (NOR) 07 Pokey Joe (EG,WG,OS) 07 Spearmint (ST) 07 Santo (OS) 08 Sunmaster (OS, ST)

HONEYDEW & CRENSHAW MELONS 92 Passport (NOR,WDM) 98 Superstar (HAN)

KALE 05 Blue Armor (OT) 06 Blue Knight (AC) 05 Starbor (SW) 05 Blue Ridge (EFG) 05 Blue Vates (WG) 05,06 Winterbor (VE) 06 Blue Curled Scotch (VE) 05 Squire (NOR)

KOHLRABI 01 Early White Vienna (EFG) 02 Kongo (DOM,BJ) 02 Winner (J,T,WG) 02 Express Forcer (T) 02 Korist F1 (BJ) 01 White Vienna (VE) 02 Kompliment (BJ) 02 Rapid Star (ST)

LETTUCE Bibb

09,10 Bennett (SW) 10 Esmeralda (OT) 10 Pybas Red Butter (PY) 93 Carmona (EZ) - red 09,10 Harmony (SIE) 92 Summer Bibb (AC,SIE)

Head 01 El Dorado (WG) 00 Great Lakes (KY) 00 Great Lakes 659 (WDM) 01 Gemini (SAK) 90 Great Lakes 118 (SEM)

Romaine 03 Baby Green (WCS) 97 Genecorp COS (SEM) 03,04 Paris Island COS (VE) 04 Beretta (SSC) 03,04 GreenForest (SIE) 04 Paris Island COS 318 (SW) 04 Big Country (SIE) 98 Grand Teton (SEM) 03 P.I.C. Select M.I. (NOR) 04 Big Green (SIE) 91,03 GreenTowers (HM,SW) 03,04 Remington (SSC,VE) 03,04 Blonde Maraichere(WDM) 97 Ideal COS MI (ST) 97 Riva (CS) 03,04 Claremont MTO (J) 04 Jerico (J) 91,98 Romulus (SEM,T+T) 04 Conquistador (WCS) 04 Little Gem (SN,WG) 03 Tiberius (ZW) 90,97 COS (EFG, EZ) 03 Little Gem Pearl (VE) 04 Valmaine (WCS)

16

LETTUCE continued 04 Freckles (T+M) 04 Olga (WDM) 03 Winter Density (J) 03 Fresh Heart (ORS)

Leaf 07 Amish Deer Tongue (WCS) 07,08 Krizet RZ (ZW) 07,08 Prizehead (EFG) 08 Green Bay MI PLT (ST) 07,08 Marin (OS, ORS) 08 Salad Bowl (EFG) 08 Green Span (SIE) 07,08 Pacifica (ORS) 07 Two Star (SW)

LEEKS 97 Autumn Giant (WDM) 96 Jersey (ST, SEM) 96 Startrack (EZ) 96,97 Giant Musselburgh (VE) 97 Primor (VIL) 97 Titan (EFG)

MESCLUN MIX (BABY GREENS) 05 Bon Vivant (WDM) 05,06 Franklin (SSC) 06 Mild Mesclun (VE) 05 Brigade (SSC) 05 Mesclun Mix Imp. (NOR) 06 Squadron (SSC)

MUSKMELONS 91,98 Alaska (SEM,EFG) 05,06 Goddess (SH) 05 Orange Sherbert (PAL) 06 Aphrodite (RO,WG) 06 Gourmet (HOLL) 98-9,05-6 Pulsar (OS,WDM) 97-8,05-6 Athena (J,NOR,OT,RO) 06 Halona (HOLL) 06 Strike (HOLL) 91,05 Burpee Hybrid (ST) 06 HSR 4225 (HOLL) 06 SV04H154 (SH) 98 Cesar (CS) 05,06 Jaipur (ST) 97 Sweet ‘n Early (RUPP) 06 Dove (HOLL) 06 Maverick (HOLL) 97 Superstar (OS,WG) 97,98, 05 Earliqueen (EFG,WDM) 05,06 Minerva (OT,RO) 97,98 VEnice (TOK) 97,99,06 Fastbreak (ST,VE,WDM) 05 Odyssey (SS,SW) 06 Vienna (SW)

ONIONS Spanish

08 Delgado (BJ) 96,08 Kelsae Giant (EFG) 07,08 Teton Hybrid (NOR) 08 Exhibition (OT) 98,07 Riverside Sweet Spanish (ST) 96,07,08 Vision (DOM,NOR,SEM)

Red 10 Grateful Red (ST) 93, 94,97 Mercury (RUPP) 10 Red Bull F1 (Bejo) 94,98,99,10 Mars (NOR,ST,SW) 99 Red Beauty (BJ,DOM,NOR) 97,98 Red Burgermaster (EFG)

White 99 Nevada (Card) 94 Sterling (SEM) 94 White Delite (CK) 93 New Mexico White (SS)

Yellow 05 Bighorn (SW) 99,06 Frontier (NOR,ST,T) 05 Sturon Organic (WDM) 06 Braddock (SW) 06 Infinity (NH) 06 Talon (BJ,OS,SW,VE) 06 Burgos (VIL) 05,06 Nebula (NH,SIE,ST) 05 Tamara (SW) 06 Calisto (SW) 06 Safrane (BJ,NOR) 98,99,07 Teton (NOR,SEM) 97,99 Copra (BJ,EFG,NOR) 06 Sedona (BJ,OS,SW) 06 Timberline (T) 92,05 Daytona (SEM,SW) 06 Shermane (NOR) 06 XP 5776 (NOR) 99,06 Festival (BJ,DOM,SW) 99 Spectrum (SS) 97,99 Yula (AS,NOR)

Bunching onions 07 Alpine 06,07 Ishikura Improved (T) 06 Red Spark (NOR) 06 Evergreen (BUR,VE) 06,07 Kincho (WCS) 07 Tokyo Long White (ST) 07 Fukagawa 06,07 Long White (SW,ST)

17

STORAGE ONIONS Spanish Red

08 Calibra (SW) 08,09 Sedona (NOR) 00 Mars (EFG,NOR,ST) 08,09 Crockett (BJ) 08 Teton (NOR) 98 Mercury (RUPP) 08 Harmony (TL) 97 Vision (NOR,SEM,ST) 00 Red Beauty (BJ,DOM) 09 Ovation (NOR) 09 White Sweet Spanish (ABN,EFG) 95,98-9 Red Burgermaster (EFG) 09 Ringmaster (BUR) White 95 PSX 91988 (SEM)

Yellow 98,99 Cannon (BJ) 06,07 Genesis (SIE) 06,07 Sturon Organic (WDM) 93,98,99 Copra (EFG,NOR) 00 Mustang (BJ,SW) 07 Tahoe (BJ) 07 Festival (BJ,SW) 06,07 Nebula (SS,ST) 07 Talon (BJ,OS,SW,VE) 06 Fortress (ST) 07 Nobility (CK) 07 Timberline (T) 00,07 Frontier (NOR,ST,T) 99,07 Prince (BJ,SW)

ORIENTAL GREENS Pak choi Michihili Greens

00,01 Brisk Green (KY) 96 Banko (BJ,DOM,NOR) 01 Edible Chrysanthemum (WCS) 00 Joi Choi (DOM,SIE,WG) 95 Jade Pagoda (ST) 00 Early Mizuna (T, WDM) 96 Pak Choi (EFG,RUPP) 96 Monument (NOR,ST) 00 Garland (WDM) 01 Garland Round Leaf (ST)

Mustard greens Napa 00,01 Komatsuna Oriental (WCS) 01 Jiangxi 00,01 Blues (SIE,T) 01 Kyoto Mizuna (WCS) 01 Santoh Round (T) 95, 96 Nerva (EZ) 01 Kyoto Mizuna Green (TOK) 96 Optiko (BJ,DOM,NOR) 01 Perilla Redleaf (ST) 95 Spring Flavor (SEM,SIE) 00,01 Yuki (ST)

PARSNIPS 11 Albion (OS,ST) 98, 08 Harris Model (BUR,RUPP) 98,11 Javelin (RUPP,WG) 97,11 Andover (LIN,ST) 08 Hollow Crown (EFG) 11 Picador (ST)

PEAS Snap

04,05 Bolero (EFG,WG) 04,05 Freezer 69 (EFG) 03,04 Novella Improved (WDM) 04,05 Dual (VE) 03,04 Galena (WCS) 93,05 Olympia (RUPP,ST) 03 Early Frosty (RUPP) 03 Maxigolt (J) 03,04 Straight Arrow (WDM) 04,05 Eclipse (ST) 04,05 Novella (EFG) 03,04 Wando (VE)

Snow 11,12 Little Sweetie (EFG) 00,01,11,12 Oregon Sugar Pod II (DOM,RUPP) 00,01 Sugar Ann (DOM) 11 Oregon Giant (ST,EFG) 12 Nori (WDS) 00 Sugar Lace (RO,T+T) 01 Super Sugar Snap (VE)

PEPPERS Bell

04 Defiance (NOR) 03 LDPE129 (SWOR) 03,04 Redstart (ST) 03 Double Up (SAK,SW,WG) 04 Olympus (SW) 04 Revolution (ST) 04 Early Sunsation (NOR,RUPP) 03 Orange Sun (VE) 03,04 Scarlet King (ST) 04 Fat n Sassy (EFG) 03 Oriole (ST) 03,04 Socrates X3R (NOR,ST) 03 Giant Marconi (DOM,NOR) 04 Orion (DOM) 04 Super Heavyweight (EFG) 04 Golden Belle (WCS) 04 Queen (SW) 03 Takii Ace (T) 04 Jumbo Sweet (T,T+M) 03 Red Dawn (ST) 95,03 Whopper Improved (PAR,VE) 03 King Arthur (ST,WDM) 04 Red Knight X3R (J,ST) 03,04 Wizard X3R (ST,SW) 04 Labrador (J)

18

PEPPER continued Banana Cubanelle

11 Ancho Real (ST) 95 Italian Gourmet (Park) 94,95 Banana Supreme (T+T) 10,11 Aruba Hybrid (WDS) 11 LSO 507 (L&S) 00 Hot Spot X3R (RUPP) 99,11 Crimson Hot (ST) 95 Northluck (EG) 04 Supersweet Banana(DOM,ST) 95 Elegant Red (EG) 11 Pageant (SW) 10 Sopron (SW) 00 Hot Portugal (ST) 99 Super Hungarian Hot (ST)

Hot 99,00 BN981708 (SEM) 00 Grande (SEM,WG) 00 Ring of Fire (ST) 95,99,00 Cherry Bomb (J,SEM,SW) 00 Hot King (HAN) 99,00 Super Jumbo Jalapeno (ST) 99 Chili Grande (ST) 00 HP 75 (HAN) 00 Thai Dragon (T+M) 00 CLX 1521 (CS) 99,00 Mucho Nacho (T+T) 00 Viking (HAN) 99 Delicias (J,SIE) 00 Nostalgia (HAN) 95 Volcano 00 First Prize (HAN) 00 Nour (CS) 00 VTR Hybrid #7 (WG) 99,00 Golden Cayenne (ST) 00 P853 F1 (CS) 00 Yellow Dagger (NOR)

PUMPKINS Carving

04 Appalachian (NOR,RUPP) 04 Jack O’Lantern(EFG,RUPP) 04 Reliable (AC) 03 Autumn Gold (BUR,EFG) 04 Jack Of All Trades (WCS) 04 Rocket (J,VE) 03,04 Autumn King (ST,SW) 04 King Midas (SIE) 03,04 Rouge VifD’Etampes (J,WCS) 03,04 Big Autumn (BUR) 03 Lumina (BUR,EFG,SIE) 04 RPX 03515 (RUPP) 04 Cotton Candy (RUPP) 04 Magic Lantern (OS,WG) 04 03RPX 764 (RUPP) 04 Funny Face (VE) 04 Mystic Plus (ST,WG) 04 Schooltime (DOM,NOR) 03 Gold Bullion (SW) 03,04 Neon (SIE,SW,WG) 04 Seneca Longface (WDM) 04 Gold Dust (RUPP) 04 New Rocket (J) 04 Sorcerer (ST) 03 Gold Gem (SW) 03,04 Orange Smoothie (DOM) 03,04 Spirit Hybrid (RUPP,SEM) 03 Gold Standard (RUPP,SIE) 03 Prizewinner (J,T+T) 04 Touch of Autumn (RUPP) 03 Howdy Doody (SW) 04 Racer (J) 04 Triple Treat (RUPP)

PIE 92,93 Baby bear (J, LIN) 93,03 RougeVif D’Etampes (J)

RADISHES 05 Brio (SW) 04 Galahad (ST) 04 Raxe (WDM) 97 Easter Egg (EFG,J,WDM) 04 Mister Red (ST) 97,04 Rebel (BJ,NOR,OS,SW) 97,04 Fireball (SAK,SW) 04 Monica (WG) 97 Sora (WDM) 04 French Breakfast (EFG,RUPP) 05 Poker (DOM) 96,97 SRA 4504 (SAK)

SHALLOTS 12 Camelot (J)

SPINACH 94 Avon (ACS,RUPP) 05 Grizzly (OS,WG) 95 Spokane (BJ) 04 Bloomsdale (EFG) 94,04 Skookum(WCS) 95 Springfield (BJ) 95 Bolero (SEM) 05 Spargo (WDM) 04,05 Tyee (EFG) 04 Cypress (ST) 95 Spinnaker (BJ) 04,05 Whale (J,ZW) 05 Green Magic (VE) 05 Spinner (J)

Baby spinach 06 Correnta (VE) 06 Polydane (ST) 06 Tyee (EFG) 06 Green Magic (VE) 06 Sardinia (NOR)

19

SWISS CHARD 06 BEC 209 (ACS) 05 Hyb S2548 (NOR) 06 Pink Passion (NOR) 05 Bright Lights (EFG) 05 Large White Ribbed (SW) 05 Silver Giant (NOR) 06 Burgundy (EFG) 06 Lucullus (EFG) 06 Silverado (ST) 06 Fordhook Giant (OS) 05 Pink 14648 (SBD) 05 White 13921 (SBD)

TOMATOES Early-season

95,00,02 Cabot (VE) 94,00 Oregon Spring (EFG,J) 02 Starfire (EFG,T+T) 95,00,02 Duchess (KY,VE) 12 Early Girl (WCS) 95 Springset (ABN)

Mid-season 12 Bella Rosa (SAK) 11,12 Manitoba (EFG) 02 Sunrise VF (ST) 11,12 BHN 961 (RUPP) 02 Matina Organic (WDM) 12 Sunstart (VE,ST) 12 Booty (T+T) 12 Scotia (VE) 95 Swift (EFG) 02 Celebrity (EFG,LIN) 02 Sunbeam (SW) 01,02 Taxi (J)-yellow 02 Sunchief (ST,SW,WG) 12 Tribute (SAK)

Late-season 02 BHN 399 02 Miracle Sweet (EFG,NOR) 02 Sunmaster (RO) 02 BHN 537 02 Mountain Fresh (WDM) 94 Sunpride (NOR,SEM) 02 Grace (KY) 02 Pilgrim (RUPP,WG) 02 Sunsation (SW) 02 Hy-Beef 9904 (ST) 01 Siletz (WCS) 01,02 Super Fantastic (WCS) 02 Jackpot (HM) 94,00 Sunbrite (SEM,SW) 02 Ultra Sonic (ST)

TOMATOES (continued)

Paste 99 BOS 8033 (SIE) 00 Early Cascade (J) 00 Golden Bell (EG) 00 BOS 22351 (ORS) 99 EG 106 (EG) 99 La Rossa (RO) 00 Classica (T+T) 00 02 EG 5 (EG) 99 Mama Mia (T+T) 00 Daiquiri (SIE, ST) 99 Elko (CS) 99,00 Monix (WCS)

Heirloom 07 Black Prince (J) 07 Mini Orange (OS) 06 Silvery Fir (OS) 06 Black Russian (TER) 06,07 Orange King (BG) 06 Oxheart (TER) 07 Early Annie (TF) 06 Red Currant (TER) 06 Yellow Currant (TER) 07 Fireworks (TF) 07 Sasha Altai (TF) 07 Yellow Plum (NOR) 06 Harbinger (BG) 07 Siberian Red (TF)

TURNIPS 94 Golden Ball (ABN) 02 Purple Top White Globe (EFG) 01,02 Royal Crown (NOR) 01,02 Royal Globe II (AC)

WATERMELON Red flesh

07 8203 RWT (SIE) 07 Diana (WCS) 99 Southern Crimson (KY) 06 Black Jade (EG) 06 Flower Dragon (KY) 06 Sugar Baby (BUR,VE) 07 Bo Wong (AH) 07 Formosa (EG) 06,07 Sweet Black (AH) 07 Compadre (PAL) 06,07 Lantha (HOLL,VE) 92,06,07 Sweet Favorite (DOM,WG) 99 Crimson Early (EG) 06 MK-W559 (VIL) 06 Vanguard (HOLL) 07 Crimson Sweet (BUR,J) 06 Promise (PAL) 07 Verona (WH) 06 Delta (NOR) 06,07 Redlicious (WH) 06 Vista (VE)

Yellow flesh 06 05W-606 (VIL) 06 Tiny Orchid (OS) 06 Yellow Baby (NOR) 99 Ace Phoenix (EG)

20

WINTER SQUASH Acorn Buttercup Butternut

04 Autumn Prince (SSC) 96,04 Ambercup (VE) 12 Avalon Hybrid (HA) 03 Celebration (SW,RUPP) 04 Autumn Cup (RUPP) 12 Betternut (SIE) 97,04 Cream Of The Crop (RO,ST) 04 Black Forest (J) 96 Burpee's Butterbush (WDM) 96 Early Acorn (SEM,ST) 03 Burgess Buttercup (WDM) 97 Butternut (ABN,CA) 04 Festival (WCS) 95,97 Buttercup (EFG,LIN) 04 Casius (RO,SIE) 04 Harlequin (RUPP) 95 Early Price (KY) 97,04 Early Butternut (LIN,WG) 97,03 Heart of Gold (NOR,WDM) 97 Eastern Rise (KY) 12 Maxim (SW) 97,04 Table Ace (HM,J,WDM) 97 Fairy (KY) 03 Plenty (RO) 04 Table Star (RUPP,SW) 04 Gold Nugget (WCS) 12 Polaris (SIE) 03 Table Queen (EFG,WDM) 95 Nutty Baby (ABN) 12 Tiana (EZ) 96,97 Taybelle (SEM,ST) 04 Orange Dawn (OS,RUPP) 95,97 Ultra Butternut (ST) 04 White Cloud (RUPP) 97 Phoenix (KY) 97 XPH 1755 (SEM) 04 Sunshine (J) Ornamental 04 Super Delight (ST) 95 Turk's Turban (BUR) Delicata 96,04 Sweet Mama (ST) 95 Delicata (DOM,J) 04 Sweet Meat (WCS) Scallop 97,03 Sugar Loaf (BUR,SW) 95,97 Pasta Spaghetti (LIN) 96 Sunburst (J,WDM) 97 Sweet Dumpling (J,SW) 03,04 Small Wonder (NOR,ST) 04 Sweet Lightning (RUPP) 95,97 Spaghetti (J) Hubbard Squash 97,04 Stripetti (ST) 11 Blue (SBD) 96,03 Vegetable Spaghetti (LIN) 11 Essex Red (SBD) 10 Heavenly Hubbard (RUPP) 11 Hubba Hubba (OS) 10 Mini Orange Hubbard (ST)

ZUCCHINI Green Yellow

97,98 Ambassador(SEM,WDM,WG) 07 Payroll (SIE) 04 Butterstick (SW) 07 Bobcat (ST) 07 SE 104 (SIE) 03 Gold Finger (ST) 98 Chongma (HAN) 97,04 Spineless Beauty (NOR) 03,04 Golden Rod (WDM) 97 Dividend (OS) 07 Striatod’Italie (NOR) 98 H.N. Zucchini (HN) 07 Sungreen (EFG) Specialty 98 Jemmy (KY) 91 Super Select (ST) 07 Alexandria (NOR) 97 Onyx (VE) 07 Basima (HOL) 07 Geode (J)

21

2012 Cultivar Trials

22

Asparagus Cultivar Trial In 2006 the Vegetable Research Program at the University of Saskatchewan initiated a cultivar testing program for asparagus. The trial was conducted at the Horticulture Field Research Facility in Saskatoon, SK. The site features a Sutherland Series clay soil (pH 7.9, E.C. <1 dS/m). Clay soils are not generally recommended for asparagus production as they can distort spear growth and promote root disease. Seed of the asparagus lines to be tested was obtained from various sources across N. America. Established varieties as well as breeding lines were included in the trial. Twelve week old greenhouse grown seedlings were transplanted into the field in mid-June. The seedlings were planted into 15 cm deep planting trenches. Each plot consisted of 25 plants, spaced 30 cm apart within the row. Rows were spaced 2 m apart. There were four replicates of each cultivar arranged in a randomized complete block design. Weeds were controlled by hand in the first year. The planting trenches were gradually filled in as part of the weeding process over the 1st growing season. In spring of each subsequent growing season about 50 kg/ha of N as 46-0-0 was lightly rotovated in prior to emergence of the first spears. Herbicides (linuron or metribuzin) applied prior to crop emergence provided good weed control through mid-summer. The plot was harvested for 2 weeks in the 3rd year, 6 weeks in the 4th year and for 6-8 weeks in all subsequent years. Harvesting was terminated as soon as emergence of new spears started to slow. The spears were counted, weighed and graded. Once harvest was completed, herbicides (linuron, metribuzin or flumioxazin) were applied between the rows using a shielded sprayer, along with an additional 30 kg/ha of N fertilizer. Once the harvest was completed, drip irrigation lines were installed for each row. This allowed the plot to be kept well watered without encouraging weed growth between the rows. Each fall, after several killing frosts, the trial area was flailed to a height of 30 cm - this flailing treatment reduced the trash load and encouraged breakdown of diseased crop residues while leaving enough crop residue behind to trap snow in the plot area. Results for 2012 Moderate and consistent temperatures and abundant rainfall resulted in near-ideal conditions for early growth of the 2012 asparagus crop – although muddy conditions did interfere with many harvests. The date of the first harvest in 2012 (May 14) was slightly earlier than in previous years. There were no damaging frost events once harvest commenced. Cullage rates were low in 2012 (average of 20%) as a function of favorable soil and temperature conditions. Harvest was terminated in late June after a total of 11 harvests covering a 6 week period. There were no obvious problems with disease or insect pests observed in the 2012 trial. The high water table levels created by the exceptionally wet growing season in 2010 and again in 2012 did not appear to cause any obvious problems. Weeds were well controlled by the tillage/herbicide program. Stand counts in 2012 showed little change from previous years, indicating that the plot was still in generally good health. M+arketable yields in 2012 were, on average, 30% higher than those achieved in 2011 - this could be attributed to both an increase in total yields and a lower cullage rate in 2012. The average weight of each marketable spear harvested in 2012 was also actually slightly lower than in 2011. Several of the lines which showed the highest yields in previous years (Arianne, Guelph Millennium, Geulph Thiessen, Selias and Mondero) were again outstanding in the 2012 trial. The highest yielding lines combined good stands with high yields/plant of marketable spears. Guelph Millennium was again the outstanding line in 2012, combining a good stand, early and consistent yields with a high % of

23

marketable spears. The cumulative yield of G. Millennium over the past 5 harvest seasons (2008-2012) is 50% greater than the average of the 25 cultivars included in this trial. Andreas and Arianne also show outstanding cumulative yields over the past 5 years of yield trials. As was seen in previous years, the lowest yielding lines in 2012 (Larac, UG 006 and UG 007) also had the most incomplete stands. When yields of these lines were expressed on a per plant basis in order to compensate for stand effects, Larac and UG 006 still performed relatively poorly. This suggests that there were vigor problems in addition to issues of survival. Viking continues to perform poorly - this is noteworthy as it is presently the most widely grown line in Saskatchewan. Table 2012-1. Yield, spear characteristics and stand counts for asparagus cultivar trial in 2012.

* plots were 8 m long, with 25 plants per plot at the time of trial establishment in 2006.

Andreas 8.5 10.8 79 23.0±2.1 76 467 26.3Argenteuil 5.3 6.1 86 14.7±0.9 76 288 16.8Arianne 9.9 11 88 18.0±0.3 92 443 26Connovers 6 8.1 74 13.7±0.5 84 295 17.2Filias 7.2 10.3 69 18.8±1.3 83 257 20.9G. Millennium 11.3 13.2 85 19.6±1.4 88 538 30.6G. Thiessen 9 10.4 88 17.2±1.8 88 430 24.9Hannibal 7.4 9.6 76 17.0±0.6 88 350 21.7J. Gem 6.6 7.7 85 19.0±0.2 74 372 16.8J. Giant 7.5 8.8 85 17.3±1.3 79 392 22.2J. King 7.6 9.6 79 18.9±2.1 87 368 19.9J. Knight 5.6 7 80 18.4±3.5 84 278 17.3J. Supreme 7.8 9 87 19.0±0.4 80 403 21.9Larac 4.4 6.3 69 18.0±3.7 61 297 13M. Washington 5.5 6.7 81 14.5±2.0 72 312 18.3Marte 6.6 7.4 90 19.5±2.3 79 346 20.9Mondero 9.4 12.9 72 15.8±1.9 90 438 25.3Selias 8.2 11.1 74 19.2±1.0 81 419 24.6UC 72 5.7 6.8 84 15.6±2.1 71 338 16.7UG 005 8.7 10.5 83 21.3±1.0 81 444 24.3UG 006 5.4 6.9 77 13.0±1.0 75 298 14.2UG 007 4 6.5 61 14.7±3.6 39 429 12.6UG 008 6.4 7.6 85 16.1±2.0 79 340 18.2UG 009 6.3 7.1 89 18.5±2.8 57 457 17Viking 4.4 5.5 78 13.3±2.5 74 245 13.7

AVG 6.9 8.7 80 17.4±1.8 77 374 20

Cultivar Mkt (%) Spear Wt (g±SD)

Cumulative Yield (2008-2012) (kg/plot)

Mkt Wt (kg/plot)*

Total (kg/plot) Stand (%) Mkt Yield

(g/plant)

24

000/ha

t/ha Exterior Interior

88.057 EZ 75 29 46.7 1.6 24.3 ± 1.2 9.0 ± 2.0 10.3 ± 0.6 5.0 ± 1.0 6.0 ± 0.0 T G/Y 19.5 2.8 Long skinny fruit with very little core 7513 AF Sie 70 39 65.1 1.7 23.7 ± 0.6 9.3 ± 0.6 11.3 ± 0.6 6.7 ± 0.6 6.3 ± 0.6 LG LY 12.8 3.0 Average size, shape and yield 7542 AF Sie 50 55 110.3 2.0 31.3 ± 4.0 9.3 ± 0.6 10.7 ± 0.6 6.7 ± 1.5 6.3 ± 1.5 LG LY/O 16.1 3.8 High yield. Large, long fruit with a small coreAtlas F1 Sie 0 20 46.7 2.3 25.7 ± 0.6 10.0 ± 1.0 14.0 ± 1.0 9.0 ± 0.0 8.7 ± 0.6 LG LG 7.0 1.2 Did not matureAvalon Hybrid HA 80 39 89.5 2.3 26.0 ± 5.3 12.7 ± 1.2 9.3 ± 0.6 7.0 ± 1.0 6.7 ± 0.6 T Y/O 13.8 4.0 Good yield. Large mature fruit. Dark orange flesh with few seedsBetternut Sie 80 51 94.5 1.9 21.7 ± 3.2 9.3 ± 0.6 12.3 ± 0.6 7.7 ± 1.2 7.0 ± 0.0 T LO 8.7 4.0 Good yield of long, thin mature fruit. Big core Big Chief F1 SBD 0 6 62.6 10.4 48.0 ± 3.5 14.3 ± 0.6 21.7 ± 2.1 14.3 ± 1.5 14.3 ± 3.2 G O 6.9 1.1 Very large. Appears immature outside but mature inside Butterfly F1 Os 70 22 37.7 1.7 20.3 ± 1.5 9.7 ± 0.6 11.7 ± 0.6 7.3 ± 0.6 6.0 ± 0.0 T G/Y 10.7 2.2 Poor yield. Fruit are short, thick, dumbell shaped Casius Sie 60 23 93.2 4.1 40.0 ± 5.6 9.7 ± 1.5 12.7 ± 0.6 8.3 ± 2.5 8.7 ± 2.1 T O/G 11.2 2.9 Good yield of long large fruitChieftain F1 PMT SBD 40 17 21.7 1.3 21.0 ± 1.7 7.7 ± 1.5 10.7 ± 0.6 6.7 ± 0.6 6.0 ± 0.0 W/T/G LG 9.4 1.5 Low % maturity and yield. Fruit have variable shape Early Butternut Hybrid DOM 75 35 61.4 1.8 23.7 ± 4.0 8.7 ± 1.2 13.0 ± 1.0 7.7 ± 1.2 6.0 ± 0.0 T G/Y/O 12.1 3.0 Short, thick fruitHannah EZ 80 43 85.5 2.0 18.7 ± 2.5 9.3 ± 0.6 12.7 ± 1.2 7.3 ± 0.6 6.0 ± 0.0 T W/LY 10.4 3.5 Good yield of mature fruit. Fruit are short and wide Harrier Sie 90 27 22.6 0.8 15.3 ± 2.5 5.7 ± 0.6 9.3 ± 0.6 6.0 ± 0.0 5.3 ± 0.6 T O 6.1 2.0 High % mature fruit but low yield. Small fruit with large core Hawk Sie 80 20 15.0 0.8 16.0 ± 1.7 6.3 ± 0.6 8.7 ± 0.6 5.3 ± 1.2 5.0 ± 1.0 T O 8.8 1.9 High % mature fruit but low yield. Fruit are small Hercules Sie 60 32 38.8 1.2 18.3 ± 0.6 9.0 ± 1.0 10.7 ± 0.6 6.3 ± 0.6 6.0 ± 0.0 T O/G 10.3 2.4 Low yield of short thick fruit Hunter F1 Os 80 23 17.5 0.8 17.0 ± 1.7 7.3 ± 0.6 8.0 ± 0.0 4.3 ± 0.6 4.7 ± 0.6 T Y/O 15.4 2.3 High % mature but low yield. Small fruit with very small core Indian Brave F1 SBD 80 43 78.1 1.8 24.7 ± 3.5 8.3 ± 0.6 12.0 ± 1.0 7.3 ± 1.5 5.7 ± 0.6 T LO 12.9 3.6 Good yield and % mature fruit. Long, skinny fruit Kikuza SBD 0 6 5.6 0.9 - ± - - ± - - ± - - ± - - ± - LG LO - -- Did not mature Long Island Cheese SBD 0 4 8.7 2.2 - ± - - ± - - ± - - ± - - ± - LG LG - -- Did not mature Maxim SW 75 51 140.6 2.8 30.7 ± 6.7 9.7 ± 0.6 13.3 ± 0.6 8.3 ± 0.6 8.7 ± 0.6 T O 8.9 4.1 Huge yield of large mature fruit Pacific Royale F1 Os 80 27 40.1 1.5 20.7 ± 1.2 9.3 ± 1.5 11.7 ± 0.6 7.0 ± 0.0 5.0 ± 0.0 T LY/O 14.8 2.6 High % mature fruit but only average yield. Small core Pilgrim F1 SBD 75 43 85.1 2.0 23.3 ± 1.2 9.0 ± 1.0 11.7 ± 0.6 7.3 ± 1.2 7.0 ± 1.0 T DO 9.2 3.2 Average yield. Long fruit that vary in shapePolaris Sie 60 69 133.4 1.9 21.7 ± 2.5 10.0 ± 0.0 11.0 ± 0.0 6.7 ± 0.6 5.3 ± 0.6 T LG/LY 15.6 4.6 Excellent yield, only average maturity. Fruit have a small core Quantum Sie 50 12 18.2 1.5 21.0 ± 1.0 9.3 ± 1.2 10.7 ± 0.6 7.3 ± 0.6 7.0 ± 0.0 T LO 7.6 1.2 Late maturing with low yield. Fruit are dumbell shapedTiana EZ 90 40 71.2 1.8 20.0 ± 1.0 10.3 ± 0.6 11.7 ± 0.6 7.0 ± 0.0 7.3 ± 0.6 T DO 8.9 4.1 High % mature and good yields. Very uniform size and shape Victory SW 80 25 49.0 2.0 18.7 ± 2.1 9.7 ± 1.5 12.3 ± 1.5 7.0 ± 1.0 6.0 ± 0.0 T DO 11.3 2.5 High % mature fruit but only average yield. Bell shaped fruit

61 31 59.2 2.11 23.8 ± 2.5 9.3 ± 0.9 11.7 ± 0.7 7.2 ± 0.8 6.7 ± 0.6 11.2 2.8

Date of Seeding : Spacing: In row - 0.5m Color: G - Green DO - Dark Orange Flesh to Core Ratio: Larger numbers indicate more flesh relative to seeds and coreDate of Harvest: 25-Sep Between row - 2m LG - Light Green W - White Rating: 1 - Poor

T - Tan Y - Yellow 5 - ExcellentO - Orange LY - Light Yellow

30-May

Flesh to Core Ratio

Average

Wide (cm ± S.D.)

Butternut Squash 2012

Marketable Yields

Cultivar Source%

Mature Fruit

Length (cm ± SD)

Avg Wt (kg)

Fruit CharacteristicsWidth

Narrow (cm ± SD)

CoreHeight

(cm ± S.D.)Width

(cm ± S.D.)

ColorComments

Overall Rating

25

000/ha t/ha20555 Haji EG Fair Good 20-Sep 10 20.3 2.1 29 3.6 1.5 Poor yield. Almost all non-marketable due to cracked loose headsAdaptor ST Good Poor 4-Oct 33 75.3 2.3 100 3.6 3.8 Late. Loose headsBajonet BJ Fair Fair 4-Oct 31 75.3 2.5 100 3.6 3.8 Late. Large uniform-size headsBartolo NOR Fair Good 15-Oct 17 41.9 2.5 100 3.6 2.5 Late - 25% not mature. Large, uniform-size, dense heads BC-63 ST Good Fair 23-Aug 32 40.6 1.3 100 3.8 2.6 Early. Small headsBenelli BJ Good Good 15-Oct 36 91.0 2.5 100 4.0 4.4 Late. Very good yield. Large uniform-size heads Bloktor YR ST Good Good 15-Oct 15 39.2 2.6 100 3.2 2.4 Late - 10% of heads didn't mature. Large headsBlue Pak Sie Fair Good 20-Sep 42 47.4 1.1 100 2.8 2.7 Large number of small, nice looking heads Blue Vantage *** EFG Fair Good 20-Sep 17 29.7 1.8 100 3.6 2.1 Poor stand and yield Bronco BJ Excellent Good 4-Oct 50 126.8 2.5 100 3.4 4.5 Excellent stand. Late. Exceptional yield. Medium dense headsBrunswick SBD Fair Good 4-Oct 15 36.5 2.4 100 2.5 2.2 Late. Large flat heads Cambria NOR Excellent Fair 5-Sep 35 46.9 1.4 100 2.9 2.7 Excellent stand. Small variable sized heads Capture NOR Good Good 4-Oct 29 71.6 2.5 100 4.0 3.7 Late. Loose headCaraflex J Good Good 20-Sep 13 18.5 1.5 53 3.6 1.5 Low marketable yield due to splittingCelebrate Sie Poor Good 4-Oct 8 22.9 2.7 100 3.6 1.8 Late. Poor stand results in poor yield. Dense heads Charleston Wakefield SBD Poor Good 4-Oct 21 37.6 1.8 100 3.8 2.4 Late - 10% of heads didn't mature. Poor stand. Dense heads Checkmate BJ Excellent Poor 5-Sep 26 41.7 1.6 100 3.2 2.5 Excellent stand but only average yieldCheers EFG Poor Good 4-Oct 18 48.6 2.7 100 3.2 2.7 Poor stand but average yield. Large, loose heads Copenhagen Market EFG Poor, <10% Good 4-Oct 21 50.0 2.4 88 3.7 2.8 Very poor stand but average yield Danish Ballhead SBD Good Good 4-Sep 32 56.3 1.8 100 4.2 3.2 High quality, uniform headsDesert Vantage SAK Good Fair 23-Aug 36 49.7 1.4 100 3.0 2.8 Early. Small heads. Escazu RO Fair Fair 20-Sep 31 61.8 2.0 100 3.1 3.2 Good yield dispite poor stand Expat NOR Good Good 20-Aug 13 4.8 0.4 100 2.8 1.1 Early. Poor yield despite good stand. Heads small and variable Expresso Os Poor, <10% Good 5-Sep 10 20.7 2.1 100 3.6 1.7 Poor stand results in poor yieldsFlight Sie Fair Fair 5-Sep 40 67.4 1.7 97 3.8 3.6 Large number of small heads Gonzalez DOM Good Good 5-Sep 46 47.7 1.0 100 3.0 2.5 Large number of heads. Variable head sizeGrand Vantage NOR Good Good 4-Oct 11 6.8 0.6 100 3.4 0.9 Late. Poor yield despite good stand. Very small, dense heads.Green Cup Sie Fair Good 4-Oct 19 40.8 2.1 100 3.5 2.2 LateGregorian RO Fair Poor 4-Oct 28 55.9 2.0 100 3.7 2.8 Late. Very uniform sized headsJetma Os Poor, <10% Fair 20-Aug 21 30.9 1.5 100 3.4 1.8 Early. Very poor stand results in poor yieldJumbo Late Flat Dutch EFG Poor, <15% Good 15-Oct 10 20.4 2.1 100 3.0 1.3 Very late. Poor stand results in poor yieldHinova BJ Excellent Good 15-Oct 22 71.8 3.2 100 2.8 3.2 Excellent stand. Late. 10% didn't mature. Large, dense headsLittle Rock *** Sie Poor Good 15-Oct 33 54.8 1.6 100 3.6 2.8 Average yield despite poor stand. Very lateLucky Ball Sie Poor Fair 12-Sep 29 56.4 1.9 84 3.9 2.8 Average yield despite poor stand. Some splittingMultikeeper*** EFG Fair Good 15-Oct 29 79.4 2.7 93 3.3 3.6 Late. Good yields and large heads

Direct Seeded CabbageCultivar Source Stand

Harvest Uniformity

Date of 50% Harvest

Head Wt (kg)

% Mrktble

Quality Rating

Overall Rating

CommentsMarketable yield

26

000/ha t/haPadoc BJ Excellent Poor 28-Aug 42 74.8 1.8 100 3.2 3.5 Excellent stand. Early. Large number of marketable headsPennant RO Good Fair 20-Sep 42 74.8 1.8 100 3.7 4.0 Large number of small but marketable headsPlatinum Dynasty *** ST Good Poor 20-Sep 29 48.8 1.7 100 3.5 2.5 Loose headPixie REN Fair Fair 17-Aug 26 33.6 1.3 100 3.3 1.9 EarlyPrimo Vantage SAK Good Good 28-Aug 28 55.8 2.0 100 4.8 2.9 Early. Excellent head qualityQuisor RO Excellent Good 20-Sep 14 32.1 2.3 100 3.8 1.9 Poor yield despite excellent stand. Heads are denseRamada BJ Excellent Fair 20-Sep 42 79.6 1.9 100 3.9 3.7 Excellent stand. Good yields. Loose heads Royal Vantage SAK Excellent Poor 20-Sep 21 45.1 2.2 91 3.5 2.3 Poor yield despite excellent stand. Some splittingSCB633 YR SAK Good Poor 20-Sep 28 68.0 2.4 94 3.9 3.2 Tight dense heads. Seradox BJ Excellent Good 15-Oct 25 73.3 2.9 100 3.6 4.0 Excellent stand. Very late. Large headsScorpio SAK Excellent Fair 20-Sep 36 59.0 1.6 83 3.7 2.9 Excellent stand. Uniform sized, dense headsSuper Elite SAK Excellent Fair 15-Oct 25 65.7 2.6 100 2.8 3.0 Excellent stand. Very late. Large but variable size headsStorage #4 J Good Good 15-Oct 17 37.7 2.3 100 3.6 2.1 Poor yield despite excellent stand. Late - 10% did not matureStonehead EFG Excellent Good 20-Aug 28 29.1 1.0 100 3.5 1.8 Poor yield despite excellent stand. Early. Heads small and variable Superstar Os Excellent Fair 4-Oct 33 107.5 3.2 100 3.5 4.3 Excellent stand. Very good yield. Late. Large headsSuperstor 112 SAK Fair Fair 15-Oct 28 97.1 3.5 100 3.6 4.2 Good yield. Late. 10% did not mature. Large heads, some splitTiara NOR Good Fair 17-Aug 38 43.9 1.2 96 3.0 2.3 Small heads Toughma Os Poor Good 28-Aug 25 31.5 1.3 96 4.1 1.9 Poor stand results in poor yield. Early. Small, very dense headsTyphoon BJ Poor Good 15-Oct 13 49.3 3.9 100 3.6 2.4 Poor stand but average yield. Very late - 20% did not matureVantage Point *** SAK Fair Poor 4-Oct 29 60.2 2.1 74 3.6 2.9 Late

Average Good Good 4-Oct 26 51.9 2.0 96 3.5 2.9

Bold recommended in 2012 Date seeded : 21 May Spacing: In row : 33cm Rating: 1- PoorData not available -- Date of first harvest : 14-Aug Between row : 1.2m 5- ExcellentPreviously recommended *** Date of final harvest : 15-Oct

Direct Seeded Cabbage

Cultivar Source StandHarvest

Uniformity Date of 50%

HarvestMarketable Yield Head Wt

(kg)%

Marketable

Quality Rating

Overall Rating

Comments

Continued

27

000/ha t/ha20555 Haji EG 68.4 Fair 10-Aug 18.1 36.2 2.0 100 2.5 3.4 Loose flat flat heads are prone to splittingAdaptor ST 57.9 Good 28-Aug 15.3 36.0 2.4 100 2.8 3.6 Poor stand reduces yield. Large loose headsBartolo NOR 84.2 Good 10-Aug 22.2 33.9 1.5 100 2.6 3.6 Very dense headsBenelli BJ 94.7 Good 17-Aug 25.0 53.2 2.1 94 3.1 4.4 Good yield and head qualityBloktor YR ST 36.8 Good 20-Sep 9.7 26.5 2.7 100 2.7 3.2 Very late. Poor stand reduces yield. Large, dense heads Blue Pak SIE 26.3 Good 28-Aug 6.9 12.2 1.8 100 2.8 2.6 Poor stand reduces yieldBlue Vantage *** EFG 94.7 Fair 10-Aug 25.0 42.0 1.7 100 2.8 3.8 Early, with good stand and yieldsBronco *** BJ 73.7 Fair 14-Aug 19.4 29.4 1.5 93 2.9 3.2 Some splitting Brunswick SBD 47.4 Fair 12-Sep 12.5 27.8 2.2 100 2.7 3.0 Late. Poor stand reduces yields. Large flat heads heads Cambria NOR 26.3 Good 7-Aug 6.9 9.4 1.4 100 3.1 2.6 Early. Poor stand reduces yieldCapture NOR 78.9 Fair 4-Sep 20.8 48.1 2.3 100 3.5 4.1 Good yields of large loose heads Caraflex J 63.2 Fair 17-Aug 16.7 22.3 1.3 62 3.0 2.6 Small cone shaped heads with high % splittingCelebrate SIE 89.5 Good 17-Aug 23.6 47.4 2.0 94 3.0 4.0 Good stand and uniform maturity. Large, dense headsDanish Ballhead SBD 52.6 Good 4-Aug 13.9 23.0 1.7 60 3.6 2.9 Flooding reduces stand. Very earlyEscazu RO 100.0 Good 14-Aug 27.8 47.8 1.7 100 2.6 4.2 Good stand and uniform maturity. Medium-sized loose headsExpat BJ 78.9 Good 14-Aug 20.8 30.2 1.4 100 3.1 3.6 Small, loose headsExpect BJ 94.7 Fair 20-Sep 25.0 44.5 1.8 100 3.0 3.9 Late. Frilled leaves. Large yield of very dense, light-green heads Expresso Os 100.0 Good 4-Aug 26.4 34.4 1.3 83 2.6 3.6 Early. Good stand and uniform maturity. Small, light-green loose heads Farao J 89.5 Poor 4-Aug 23.6 38.1 1.6 78 2.6 3.1 Early. Good standFast Vantage OS 52.6 Good 27-Jul 13.9 17.6 1.3 100 2.5 2.9 Very early. Poor stand reduces yields. Small headsFlight Sie 100.0 Fair 4-Aug 26.4 32.5 1.2 74 2.9 3.2 Early. Good stand but small headsGonzalez DOM 100.0 Fair 7-Aug 26.4 24.0 0.9 100 3.1 3.2 Early. Good stand but very small headsGrand Vantage NOR 89.5 Good 14-Aug 23.6 41.0 1.7 100 3.0 4.0 Good yieldsGreen Cup Sie 84.2 Good 7-Aug 22.2 39.1 1.8 100 2.7 3.9 EarlyGregorian RO 100.0 Fair 7-Aug 31.9 39.2 1.2 100 2.6 3.7 Early. Good stand. Semi-flat headsJetma Os 100.0 Good 27-Jul 26.4 17.8 0.7 100 2.5 3.1 Very early. Good stand. Small head size reduces yieldsJubilee EFG 26.3 Good 4-Sep 6.9 22.2 3.2 100 3.2 3.1 Late. Poor stand reduces yields. Large dense heads. Jumbo Late Flat Dutch BJ 26.3 Good 20-Aug 6.9 11.7 1.7 100 2.7 2.6 Poor stand reduces yieldKanenko -- 100.0 Fair 7-Aug 26.4 39.5 1.5 100 3.6 3.9 Early. Good stand and yields. Very loose heads Kilagreg OS 89.5 Fair 10-Aug 23.6 40.5 1.7 91 2.5 3.5 Some splitting Lennox *** VE 68.4 Good 28-Aug 19.4 53.3 2.7 100 3.0 4.3 Good yield. Large heads with pale interiorLittle Rock *** SIE 73.7 Good 17-Aug 18.1 44.2 2.4 86 3.0 3.9 Large oval-shaped, dense heads with some splittingLoughton *** ST 68.4 Good 20-Sep 18.1 58.6 3.2 100 3.0 4.5 Late. High yields of large dense headsLucky Ball (W) SIE 0.0 Poor -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -- -- Transplants didn't survive floodingMultikeeper*** EFG 84.2 Good 20-Aug 22.2 57.5 2.6 92 2.3 4.3 Good yield. Large, dense headsPadoc BJ 94.7 Good 7-Aug 25.0 35.7 1.4 100 3.0 3.8 Early. Small loose heads Passat BJ 84.2 Fair 28-Aug 22.2 69.1 3.1 100 3.1 4.7 Good yield. Large, very dense, semi-flathead headsPennant RO 100.0 Fair 14-Aug 26.4 45.2 1.7 100 3.2 4.0 Loose light green head.Pixie REN 89.5 Good 4-Aug 20.8 26.1 1.3 94 2.6 3.3 Early. Small heads with some splittingPlatinum Dynasty *** REN 78.9 Good 7-Aug 23.6 45.9 1.9 100 3.3 4.0 Early. Dense, compact, bluish green heads

Overall Rating

CommentsTransplant

Survival (%)Quality Rating

Transplanted Cabbage 2012Average Head

Wt (kg)Harvest

Uniformity % Mrktble Cultivar Source

Date of 50% Harvest

Marketable Yield

28

000/ha t/haPrimo Vantage SAK 78.9 Good 7-Aug 20.8 31.3 1.5 89 5.0 3.9 Early. Small high quality headsQuisor RO 68.4 Good 14-Aug 18.1 32.5 1.8 100 2.7 3.5 Oval, light green, medium density heads. Some sclerotinia damageRamada BJ 94.7 Good 14-Aug 25.0 46.4 1.9 100 3.0 4.2 Very dense headsRoyal Vantage SAK 52.6 Good 10-Aug 13.9 29.9 2.2 100 2.7 3.4 Poor stand SCB633 YR (W) SAK 0.0 -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -- -- Transplants didn't survive floodingScorpio BJ 100.0 Fair 7-Aug 18.1 28.6 1.6 100 2.7 3.5 Early. 100% stand. Good yield. Very dense.Seradox SAK 0.0 Good 4-Sep 26.4 64.5 2.4 100 2.7 4.8 Late. Exceptional yield of large, extremely dense headsSircon SAK 100.0 Good 28-Aug 6.9 22.9 3.3 100 2.7 3.1 Poor stand reduces yields. Large heads Stonehead EFG 100.0 Good 7-Aug 23.6 22.2 0.9 100 3.2 3.2 Early. Very small, dense headsStorage #4 J 89.5 Fair 20-Sep 27.8 69.4 2.5 100 2.5 4.9 Late. Exceptional yields of large, very dense headsSuper Elite BJ 105.3 Fair 23-Aug 26.4 54.2 2.1 62 2.8 3.6 Good stand and yield Superstar SAK 100.0 Poor 23-Aug 26.4 70.6 2.7 100 2.8 4.9 Good stand. Exceptional yield of large dense headsSuperstor 112 Os 26.3 Good 20-Aug 26.4 66.8 2.5 100 3.0 4.6 Good stand. Uniform maturity and high yields. Large, dense heads Tiara NOR 26.3 Good 30-Jul 6.9 9.3 1.3 100 3.5 2.7 Early. Poor stand reduces yields. Loose headsToughma (W) OS 0.0 Poor -- 8.3 0.0 0.0 0 -- -- Transplants didn't survive floodingTransam*** (W) NOR,BJ 10.5 Good -- 2.8 8.3 3.0 100 3.6 2.0 Most transplants didn't survive floodingTyphoon (W) BJ 0 Poor -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -- -- Transplants didn't survive floodingVantage Point *(W) SAK 0.0 Poor -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -- -- Transplants didn't survive flooding

Average: Good 7-Aug 18.4 33.8 1.8 87 2.9 3.4

Bold recommended in 2012 Date seeded: April 27 Date of first harvest: July 27 Spacing: In row: 33 cm Rating: 1- poorData not available -- Date transplanted: May 30 Date of final harvest: Sept 20 Between row: 1.2m 5-excellentPreviously recommended ***Damaged due to flooding (W)

Transplanted Cabbage 2012Cultivar Source Transplant

Survival (%)Harvest

Uniformity Date of 50%

Harvest

Marketable Yield Average Head Wt (kg)

% MrktbleQuality rating

Overall Rating

Comments

Continued

29

20555 Haji EG 2.1 ± 0.5 23.6 ± 2.3 14.4 ± 1.5 8.8 ± 1.9 71 3.1Adaptor ST 2.3 ± 0.3 20.0 ± 0.7 16.7 ± 1.1 9.2 ± 1.1 0 3.6Bajonet BJ 2.5 ± 0.2 19.0 ± 1.5 18.4 ± 0.7 11.0 ± 0.4 0 3.6Bartolo NOR 2.5 ± 0.2 16.8 ± 1.1 16.8 ± 0.4 10.2 ± 0.4 0 3.6BC 63 ST 1.3 ± 0.3 16.8 ± 0.8 17.6 ± 1.7 7.1 ± 1.0 0 3.8Benelli BJ 2.5 ± 0.1 21.7 ± 0.8 14.8 ± 1.0 7.3 ± 0.9 0 4.0Bloktor ST 2.6 ± 0.7 19.4 ± 1.5 19.2 ± 1.3 11.0 ± 0.7 0 3.2Blue Pak Sie 1.1 ± 0.1 16.4 ± 1.6 14.9 ± 1.5 8.3 ± 1.9 0 3.7Blue Vantage*** EFG 1.8 ± 0.2 19.8 ± 0.8 15.4 ± 0.9 8.4 ± 0.5 0 3.6Bronco*** BJ 2.5 ± 0.5 16.8 ± 0.8 15.8 ± 1.2 8.5 ± 1.2 0 3.4Brunswick SBD 2.4 ± 0.3 23.4 ± 3.1 14.9 ± 0.9 8.5 ± 1.3 0 3.6Cambria NOR 1.4 ± 0.6 17.6 ± 1.5 13.6 ± 1.1 6.8 ± 0.4 0 2.9Capture NOR 2.5 ± 0.3 18.7 ± 1.6 16.8 ± 1.3 7.3 ± 0.7 0 4.0Caraflex J 1.5 ± 0.3 15.5 ± 1.6 23.5 ± 1.9 11.9 ± 1.2 47 3.6Celebrate Sie 2.7 ± 0.4 20.3 ± 1.1 15.4 ± 0.7 7.9 ± 0.7 0 3.6Charleston Wakefield SBD 1.8 ± 0.3 17.8 ± 3.0 23.2 ± 1.6 10.2 ± 3.6 0 3.8Checkmate BJ 1.6 ± 0.5 18.1 ± 1.3 16.5 ± 0.4 8.4 ± 1.0 0 3.2Danish Ballhead SBD 1.8 ± 0.1 16.9 ± 0.7 17.6 ± 0.9 7.5 ± 0.7 0 4.2Escazu RO 2.0 ± 0.5 19.8 ± 1.3 16.1 ± 1.3 9.7 ± 0.8 0 3.1Expat NOR 0.4 ± 0.2 16.5 ± 0.9 13.6 ± 0.7 6.7 ± 0.3 0 2.8Expect BJ 2.4 ± 0.6 17.6 ± 1.1 17.0 ± 0.7 8.6 ± 0.9 0 3.4Expresso Os 2.1 ± 0.1 16.6 ± 1.6 15.1 ± 1.4 9.1 ± 1.5 0 3.6Farao J 1.6 ± 0.2 16.8 ± 0.8 15.1 ± 1.4 9.1 ± 1.5 0 3.5Fast Vantage Os 1.6 ± 0.1 14.6 ± 1.1 13.9 ± 0.8 8.4 ± 0.4 0 3.5Flight Sie 1.7 ± 0.1 17.0 ± 1.2 15.9 ± 1.3 8.5 ± 0.9 3 3.8Gonzalez DOM 1.0 ± 0.4 13.2 ± 1.2 11.9 ± 1.0 6.0 ± 1.1 0 3.0Grand Vantage NOR 0.6 ± 0.2 17.1 ± 1.2 15.7 ± 1.1 8.1 ± 0.5 0 3.4Green Cup Sie 2.1 ± 0.3 17.8 ± 1.2 14.0 ± 0.4 7.9 ± 0.2 0 3.5Gregorian RO 2.0 ± 0.1 18.0 ± 0.9 16.4 ± 1.3 9.7 ± 0.8 0 3.7Jetma Os 1.5 ± 0.2 13.8 ± 0.8 14.4 ± 0.5 8.8 ± 0.4 0 3.4

Average 2.1 ± 0.4 18.2 ± 1.2 16.6 ± 0.9 8.7 ± 1.0 3 2.0

Bold= recommended in 2012 S.D. = Standard Deviation Quality Rating: 1=Poor Recommended previously *** 5=Excellent

Quality Rating

Cabbage Head Characteristics

Cultivar Source % SplitWidth

(cm ± S.D.)Height

(cm ± S.D.)Core Height (cm ± S.D.)

Average Wt (kg ± S.D.)

30

Jubilee BJ 3.2 ± 1.1 19.4 ± 1.1 18.4 ± 0.9 10.5 ± 0.3 0 3.0Jumbo Late Flat Dutch EFG 2.1 ± 0.3 19.4 ± 1.1 18.4 ± 0.9 8.9 ± 1.6 0 3.7Kanenko KA 1.5 ± 0.3 16.2 ± 0.8 16.6 ± 0.5 7.0 ± 0.4 0 3.9Kilagreg Os 1.7 ± 0.2 17.8 ± 0.3 14.9 ± 0.7 9.0 ± 0.9 0 3.5Little Rock*** Sie 1.6 ± 0.3 19.9 ± 1.2 16.9 ± 1.3 8.8 ± 0.4 0 3.6Loughton*** St 3.2 ± 0.2 18.8 ± 1.5 18.8 ± 1.3 9.5 ± 0.8 0 3.9Lucky Ball Sie 1.9 ± 0.3 19.6 ± 0.9 17.4 ± 0.5 7.4 ± 0.9 16 3.9Multikeeper*** EFG 2.7 ± 0.4 21.1 ± 1.1 19.4 ± 1.0 13.0 ± 4.3 7 3.3Padoc BJ 1.8 ± 0.6 20.8 ± 1.8 17.0 ± 0.7 8.8 ± 1.5 0 3.2Passat BJ 3.1 ± 0.8 22 ± 1.4 19.4 ± 1.1 9.5 ± 0.8 0 3.4Pennant RO 1.8 ± 0.3 20.0 ± 1.2 15.6 ± 0.5 7.4 ± 0.9 0 3.7Pixie REN 1.3 ± 0.4 17.4 ± 0.5 15.8 ± 0.8 7.4 ± 0.5 0 3.3Platinum Dynasty*** ST 1.7 ± 0.2 17.2 ± 0.4 18.4 ± 0.5 11.0 ± 1.0 0 3.5Primo Vantage SAK 2.0 ± 0.1 15.8 ± 0.8 15.6 ± 1.1 4.8 ± 0.8 0 4.8Quisor RO 2.3 ± 0.0 16.9 ± 1.2 16.6 ± 1.4 9.5 ± 1.2 0 3.8Ramada BJ 1.9 ± 0.1 17.9 ± 0.5 15.0 ± 0.9 7.8 ± 1.0 0 3.9Royal Vantage SAK 2.2 ± 0.3 20.0 ± 2.3 17.0 ± 0.7 9.8 ± 0.8 9 3.5SCB633 YR SAK 2.4 ± 0.3 17.0 ± 1.9 15.8 ± 1.9 7.2 ± 1.3 6 3.9Scorpio SAK 1.6 ± 0.1 18.3 ± 0.7 18.2 ± 0.3 10.2 ± 0.4 17 3.7Seradox BJ 2.9 ± 0.3 17.0 ± 0.7 17.8 ± 0.8 10.2 ± 0.8 0 3.6Sircon BJ 1.6 ± 1.2 19.2 ± 1.4 20.2 ± 0.8 9.8 ± 0.4 0 2.2Stonehead EFG 1.0 ± 0.9 17.3 ± 0.8 15.3 ± 1.5 9.6 ± 1.1 0 1.5Storage #4 J 2.3 ± 0.3 18.2 ± 0.4 17.4 ± 0.5 9.4 ± 0.5 0 3.6Super Elite SAK 2.6 ± 1.2 14.2 ± 0.8 12.4 ± 0.5 6.8 ± 0.4 0 2.8Superstar Os 3.2 ± 0.6 19.9 ± 1.5 14.6 ± 0.8 7.5 ± 0.7 0 3.5Superstor 112 SAK 3.5 ± 1.0 19.5 ± 1.6 17.3 ± 1.2 7.6 ± 1.6 0 3.6Tiara NOR 1.2 ± 0.3 16.5 ± 0.5 17.0 ± 0.7 8.7 ± 0.7 4 3.4Toughma Os 1.3 ± 0.1 16.2 ± 0.8 14.2 ± 1.0 6.0 ± 0.7 4 4.1Transam NOR, BJ 3.0 ± 0.0 19.3 ± 1.1 19.4 ± 0.0 9.5 ± 0.8 0 4.1Typhoon BJ 3.9 ± 0.5 19.3 ± 1.1 17.5 ± 0.0 9.5 ± 0.7 0 3.6Vantage Point*** SAK 3.1 ± 0.4 20.8 ± 1.5 18.2 ± 0.4 10.0 ± 1.0 23 3.6

Average 2.1 ± 0.4 18.2 ± 1.2 16.6 ± 0.9 8.7 ± 1.0 3 2.0

Bold= recommended in 2012 S.D. = Standard Deviation Quality Rating: 1=Poor Recommended previously *** 5=Excellent

Cabbage Head Characteristics

Cultivar SourceAverage Wt (kg ± S.D.)

Width (cm ± S.D.)

Height (cm ± S.D.)

Core Height (cm. ± S.D.)

% SplitQuality Rating

Continued

31

000/ha t/ha

Charisma OS 4-Sep 139.2 43.4 19.0 ± 1.2 4.4 ± 0.3 17.6 ± 1.8 3.5 2.0 3.0 4.4 Very high yield. Juicy but not overly flavorfulExpresso VE 28-Aug 72.5 23.4 18.7 ± 0.8 4.4 ± 0.3 17.0 ± 1.4 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.6 Early. Good yield. Unique flavour, not sweetFrisky *** CK 23-Aug 40.0 11.2 19.2 ± 1.1 4.5 ± 0.4 14.4 ± 1.6 3.5 1.5 3.0 2.1 Early. Earworm susceptible. Starchy. Some row spiralingJackie VE 1-Sep 70.8 21.1 19.1 ± 0.7 4.1 ± 0.3 14.8 ± 1.4 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Good yield. Some rows of kernels spiral Kristine SW,ST 17-Sep 18.3 5.4 19.4 ± 1.8 4.5 ± 0.4 16.2 ± 1.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 1.6 Late and poor yieldMantauk SW,VE 4-Sep 25.8 11.5 22.8 ± 0.9 4.9 ± 0.3 19.0 ± 2.2 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.1 Large cobs. Extensive earworm damageMattapoisett ST -- 0.0 0.0 -- ± -- -- ± -- -- ± -- -- -- -- -- Did not matureNantasket ST,VE 4-Sep 66.7 28.0 18.5 ± 1.7 5.1 ± 0.3 16.4 ± 0.8 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.8 Large, good looking cobs but 20% earworm damageNauset MM 4-Sep 17.5 5.9 18.9 ± 5.9 4.4 ± 0.3 14.4 ± 1.6 3.0 4.0 3.5 1.7 Poor yield. Easy to shuck, with lots of secondary cobsPolka *** CK 17-Aug 74.2 19.8 19.0 ± 1.2 4.0 ± 0.2 14.2 ± 1.8 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 Early. Sweet, very juicy, with some row spiralingPrimus RUPP 4-Sep 74.2 27.6 20.5 ± 0.7 4.3 ± 0.3 16.0 ± 1.6 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.2 Good yields. Very juicy with excellent flavorProvidence SW 4-Sep 49.2 16.8 19.3 ± 1.3 4.3 ± 0.3 16.6 ± 1.6 3.5 1.0 3.5 2.6 Extensive earworm damage. Poor tip fillSparkler SW 4-Sep 70.0 25.1 18.0 ± 0.7 4.2 ± 0.3 16.8 ± 1.0 4.0 4.0 2.5 3.7 Juicy but poor flavorVitality SW 23-Aug 18.3 5.5 17.8 ± 1.3 4.4 ± 0.2 14.4 ± 1.8 1.5 4.0 3.0 1.5 Early. Poor yield and kernel uniformity

Average 4-Sep 52.6 17.47 19.2 ± 1.5 4.4 ± 0.3 16.0 ± 1.6 3.3 3.3 3.3 2.9Bold recommended in 2012 Date seeded: 17-May Row uniformity 1- crooked rows Rating 1-poorRecommended in previous trials *** Date of first harvest: 17-Aug 5- straight rows 5-excellentSpacing in row: 10 cm Date of final harvest: 4-Sept Tip fill 1- poorSpacing between row: 1m 5-excellent

Synergistic (SY): Bi-color

Sugar Enhanced & Synergystic Corn 2012

Cultivar SourceDate of

50% Harvest

Marketable Yield

Cob CharacteristicsTaste

Overall Rating

CommentsLength (cm) ± SD

Width (cm) ± SD

Kernel Rows ± SD

Tip Fill

Row Uniformity

32

000/ha t/ha

Big Jim *** OS 4-Sep 32.5 11.9 21.4 ± 1.2 4.9 ± 0.2 17.6 ± 0.8 4.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 Late and poor yieldsColorow VE 23-Aug 56.7 21.5 18.4 ± 3.0 4.9 ± 0.3 17.2 ± 1.4 3.0 4.5 3.0 4.1 Early. Good yields of wide cobs.Good tip fill. Husked easilyHeadstart OS 28-Aug 30.8 7.0 16.0 ± 1.1 3.7 ± 0.3 14.0 ± 1.8 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.2 Poor yield. Tough to husk Honey Select VE 4-Sep 46.7 16.6 21.5 ± 0.6 4.6 ± 0.4 16.2 ± 2.0 3.5 1.0 4.0 3.2 Very poor tip fillKandy King WCS 28-Aug 54.2 19.8 20.9 ± 0.9 4.4 ± 0.3 16.2 ± 1.5 3.0 2.5 4.5 4.0 Good yields and exceptional flavorKandy Korn WDM 4-Sep 55.0 15.5 21.8 ± 0.7 4.2 ± 0.3 15.2 ± 1.7 2.5 2.0 2.5 3.1 Uneven kernel development. Purple tips on unfilled cobsKernel Sweet OSC 4-Sep 30.8 11.2 20.2 ± 1.0 4.6 ± 0.5 17.6 ± 1.6 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.4 Late. Poor yieldMiracle VE 28-Aug 7.5 2.8 20.2 ± 1.1 4.7 ± 0.4 18.0 ± 1.7 2.0 3.0 2.5 1.1 Poor yield and problems with row uniformity and tip fillSpring Treat VE 28-Aug 60.8 17.3 18.5 ± 1.2 4.3 ± 0.3 14.0 ± 1.3 3.5 3.0 2.5 3.6 Juicy, creamy but starchy. Extensive earworm damage

Average 28-Aug 41.7 13.7 19.9 ± 1.2 4.4 ± 0.4 16.2 ± 1.5 3.1 2.7 3.1 2.9

Arrowhead VE 28-Aug 49.2 13.0 16.0 ± 1.2 4.6 ± 0.4 16.4 ± 2.3 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.6 Very starchy. Large husks compared to ear sizeEnvoy *** MM 28-Aug 52.5 12.3 19.4 ± 0.8 4.1 ± 0.2 14.4 ± 1.6 3.5 3.5 3.0 2.6 Average yield. Long cobs Fastlane *** MM 23-Aug 65.8 16.5 18.8 ± 0.9 4.0 ± 0.0 14.6 ± 1.3 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.2 Early with nice uniform cobsGeronimo ST 23-Aug 16.7 5.9 18.1 ± 1.3 4.7 ± 0.3 14.8 ± 1.9 2.5 4.5 2.5 1.6 Early. Poor yield. Juicy but not very sweetJackpot WDM -- -- -- -- ± -- -- ± -- -- ± -- -- -- -- -- Did not matureKa-Ching NOR 4-Sep 55.0 20.9 21.1 ± 1.3 4.5 ± 0.2 13.7 ± 1.9 3.5 2.0 3.0 3.0 Late but good yields. Poor tip fill. Some earworm damageLuscious VE 28-Aug 80.0 24.7 17.8 ± 1.3 4.7 ± 0.3 18.2 ± 2.7 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.1 Excellent yields of small but high quality cobsManitou MM 4-Sep 24.2 10.3 19.1 ± 1.1 4.8 ± 0.3 17.0 ± 2.9 2.5 2.5 3.0 1.8 Poor yield. Mediocre cob appearance and flavorNavajo *** ST 23-Aug 54.2 19.5 17.2 ± 0.9 4.3 ± 0.3 14.4 ± 1.6 2.5 4.0 4.0 3.1 Early. Good tip fill and flavorPeaches & Cream MF 4-Sep 50.0 12.2 16.8 ± 1.6 4.7 ± 0.3 13.6 ± 1.6 3.5 3.5 1.0 2.4 Short wide cobs. Poor flavorProfit NOR 28-Aug 84.2 26.3 18.2 ± 1.0 4.3 ± 0.4 16.0 ± 1.3 2.0 5.0 3.5 4.1 High yield. Excellent tip fillSerendipity WDS 4-Sep 60.8 23.5 19.4 ± 5.3 4.6 ± 0.4 17.0 ± 1.7 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 Late. Good yields but variable cob sizeStellar NOR 4-Sep 76.7 23.4 16.8 ± 0.9 4.6 ± 0.3 18.4 ± 1.3 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.9 Good yield. Nice looking cobs with good flavor

Average 4-Sep 55.8 17.4 18.2 ± 1.5 4.5 ± 0.3 15.7 ± 1.8 3.1 3.7 3.0 3.0Bold recommended in 2012 Date seeded: 17-May Row uniformity 1- crooked rows Rating 1-poorRecommended in previous trials *** Date of first harvest: 17-Aug 5- straight rows 5-excellentSpacing in row: 10 cm Date of final harvest: 4-Sept Tip fill 1- poorSpacing between row: 1m 5-excellent

Comments

Continued

Tip Fill

Sugar Enhanced (SE): Bi-color

Sugar Enhanced (SE): Yellow

Sugar Enhanced & Synergystic Corn 2012

Cultivar SourceDate of

50% Harvest

Marketable Yield

Cob CharacteristicsTaste

Overall Rating

Length (cm ± SD)

Width (cm ± SD)

Kernel Rows (± SD)

Row Uniformity

33

000/ha t/ha 000/ha t/ha

Ashley EFG, CL 35.7 27-Aug 82 22.3 42 10.1 2.0 2.4 Late. Poor stand resulted in poor yield Babylon NOR, Sn 71.4 23-Aug 229 57.6 90 17.3 1.5 4.0 Good yield with high % marketable but poor flavorConstable RO 71.4 23-Aug 145 46.2 70 13.1 3.5 3.5 Cortez Os 78.6 23-Aug 194 55.2 114 23.0 1.5 3.6 Good stand and yield, but poor flavorDarlington NOR, ST, SW 100.0 23-Aug 238 63.9 92 20.2 4.0 4.7 Excellent stand and yield with high % marketable. Exceptional flavor Diomede RO, ST 85.7 23-Aug 202 62.6 133 27.9 3.0 4.2 Good stand and yield. Straight fruit. Good mildew resistanceDominator Sie 71.4 27-Aug 162 48.3 81 16.4 3.0 3.8 LateEmperator EFG, LIN 71.4 20-Aug 201 53.5 92 17.7 3.0 4.0 Good stand, yield and flavorFanfare*** ST 57.1 23-Aug 114 34.5 53 8.9 -- -- Poor stand resulting in poor yieldGarden Sweet Burpless EH 71.4 23-Aug 103 26.7 72 19.2 3.5 3.2 Decent stand but poor yieldGreen Fingers REN 50.0 23-Aug 150 40.6 113 22.8 2.5 3.3 Good yield despite poor stand and high % grade outImpact Sie 14.3 4-Sep 38 12.6 40 3.8 -- -- Poor stand and yield. Very lateIndy*** NOR 35.7 23-Aug 125 38.6 60 15.9 4.0 3.6 Poor stand limits yields. Exceptional flavorMarketmore 70 WDM 78.6 23-Aug 127 38.1 74 19.7 3.0 3.3 Good stand, but only average yields with high % grade out Marketmore 76*** WDM 78.6 27-Aug 214 57.0 75 15.2 3.0 4.4 Good stand. Late but good yield and mildew resistance Midas SSC 57.1 23-Aug 104 34.2 55 12.9 3.0 3.0 Poor stand Ministro SAK 78.6 23-Aug 48 14.0 27 5.2 3.0 2.2 Good stand but very poor yieldOlympian*** EH 78.6 23-Aug 161 48.1 77 13.7 2.0 3.5 Good stand and yield but only fair flavorRockingham NOR, Sie, ST 42.9 27-Aug 121 40.4 75 16.8 2.5 3.1 Poor stand but still achieved an average yield Saber Os, WCS 64.3 27-Aug 113 31.7 69 15.5 3.0 3.0 Late and below average yieldSalad Bush*** VE 64.3 17-Aug 63 17.9 41 8.7 2.5 2.2 Very early but poor yield. Prone to mildewSpeedway*** NOR, ST, SW 92.9 27-Aug 249 68.4 84 16.2 3.5 4.7 Excellent stand. Steady yields through season. Good disease resistanceSultan Lebanese NOR, SW 78.6 23-Aug 172 46.2 81 15.2 3.0 3.9 Good stand and yield Summer Dance Os 50.0 31-Aug 41 12.8 59 10.2 -- -- Poor stand and yields. Late with high % grade outSummer Top Os 57.1 23-Aug 104 33.3 74 16.4 3.0 2.8 Poor stand. Very long fruit.Sweeter Yet EFG, LIN, MF 64.3 23-Aug 120 36.1 94 23.1 4.0 3.3 Average yields of long fruit. Very good flavorAverage 65.4 23-Aug 139 40.0 75 15.6 2.9 3.5

Bold: Recommended in 2012 Date seeded: 30-May Spacing : In row: 30 Ratings: 1-poorpreviously recommended *** Date re-seeded: 13-Jun Between row: 2m 5-excellent

Cultivar Source%

Stand

Date of 50 %

Harvest

Slicing Cucumber 2012Unmarketable

YieldMarketable

YieldOverall Rating Comments

Taste Rating

34

Average 59 21-Sep 2.2 2.2516-May23-Aug

*** Previously recommended 21-Sep

-

2

Did not mature

Did not mature

Good stand. Early maturing. Nice light green pods

Did not mature

No stand

No stand

Excellent stand but late

Good yields despite poor stand

Did not mature

Early maturing. Poor yields

-

-

-

2

3

Overall Rating

Comments

-

-

3

Spacing: In row - 2.5 cm Rating: 1 - poorBetween row - 50 cm 5 - excellent

Bold = Recommended in 2012 --- Data not available

Date of Planting:First Harvest:Last Harvest:

-

6-Sep

0.0

0.0

2.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.6

3.9

0.0

1.4

-

-

-

21-Sep

21-Sep

Edamame Bean 2012

J

Rene's Ren

Lucky Lion Os

Karikichi Nor

Green Butterbean*** J

Envy***

100

30

-

-

Tohya J

Midori Giant J

90

60

Sunrise Sie

75

80

5

6-Sep

0

BeSweet 2001

RUPPBeSweet 292

RUPP

Marketable Yield (t/ha)

Cultivar Source Stand %Date of

50% Harvest

90

60

35

000/ha t/haAmbition J 10% 11 1.7 1 Poor stand. Light pink skin. Nice tasteCamelot BJ 90% 78 10.4 4 Good stand and yields. Dark purple skin. FlavorfulConservor BJ 0% -- -- -- No standPicador BJ 0% -- -- -- No standSaffron J 70% 47 3.9 2 Good stand. Small, light white bulbs. Mild tasteEFG Sets EFG 100% -- -- -- Emerged well but developed disease and then bolted and died

Bold recommended in 2012 Seeding Date: 21-May Spacing in row : 10 cm Rating 1 -poor --Data not available Harvest date: 10-Oct Between row : 0.5m 5 - excellent

Shallots 2012Marketable Yields

Cultivar SourceOverall Rating Comments% Stand

Cultivar Source Planting Stand % Marketable Yield (t/ha)

Date of 50 % Harvest

Overall Rating

P1 20% 3.2 7-AugP2 0 3.0 29-AugP1 20% 5.7 -P2 - - -P1 60% 9.3 1-AugP2 40% 2.0 29-AugP1 50% 14.6 27-JulP2 80% 2.1 29-AugP1 80% 2.7 1-AugP2 100% 2.7 23-AugP1 10% 1.4 1-AugP2 20% 4.5 23-AugP1 70% 8.9 1-AugP2 80% 1.5 23-AugP1 90% 9.3 27-JulP2 80% 5.3 29-AugP1 10% 2.6 -P2 10% 4.9 23-AugP1 65% 2.5 27-JulP2 80% 0.6 29-AugP1 100% 9.8 27-JulP2 40% 3.5 29-Aug

Bold = Recommended in 2012 Date P1 seeded:May 21 Date P2 seeded : July 13 Rating 1 Poor * = Previously recommended Date of first harvest of P1 : July 24 Date of first harvest of P2 : Aug 15 5 Excellent

Date of final harvest of P1 : Aug 14 Date of final harvest of P2 : Aug 29

3.8

Snow Peas 2012

J 1.0

Taiwan Sugar T+T

J 2.8

RUPP

1.8

WDS

4.5

2.7

Good stand and yields for both P1 and P2. Pods were stringy but tasted good.

Good stand for both P1 and P2, but poor yields for P2. Mildew resistant

Sugar Sprint

Sweet Horizon

WCS,

T+M

Mammoth Melting Sugar

Norli

Oregon Giant***

Oregon Sugar Pod II***

WCS+, EFG

ST,EFG

3.0

EG,ST,WCS 4.2

2.3

WCS,

Poor stand limits yields

Poor yields for both plantings despite good stand

Good stand and yield for P1. Pods are thin and not sweet

Comments

Avalanche

Dwarf Grey Sugar

Kennedy

Little Sweetie***

2.1

1.0

Poor stand for both P1 and P2 . Pods are not very sweet, but stingless

Poor stand but good yields for P1. Pods have tough strings and are bitter.

Pods have thick walls. Overmature peas are starchyExceptional yield for P1, but poor for P2 despite good stand. Pods were tender with mild taste

Good stand and vigorous plants but low yields.

Poor stand for both P1 and P2. Poor plant vigor. Pods stringy but peas tasty

36

000/ha t/haBella Rosa*** SAK 10-Sep 40 104 87.3 3.9Best Boy Bush SBD 17-Sep 43 64 58.0 2.9BHN 1021 RUPP,BHN 17-Sep 39 94 85.7 3.7BHN 589 RUPP, BHN 17-Sep 54 91 64.0 3.7BHN 961*** RUPP, BHN 17-Sep 45 114 103.5 4.3BHN 962 BHN, SIE 17-Sep 45 61 60.0 2.7Big Beef Ve 17-Sep 42 30 37.3 2.5Bobcat Ve,Sn 24-Sep 24 36 86.6 3.2Booty T+T 17-Sep 63 98 75.5 4.2BSS 832 ST,Ve 17-Sep 20 14 53.5 2.6Canadian Beefsteak Ve 17-Sep 18 31 97.1 3.3Celebrity ST,T+T 24-Sep 30 35 73.0 3.1Champion EFG 17-Sep 35 136 100.7 3.8Charger ST,SAK 24-Sep 40 74 90.3 3.7Containers Choice Red SBD 17-Sep 32 50 50.8 2.7Defiant*** J 17-Sep 77 231 64.9 4.0Early Girl WCS 10-Sep 62 206 97.9 4.6Fantastic ST,WCS 10-Sep 59 65 34.5 2.7Fletcher BJ 10-Sep 38 34 41.1 2.5Hooty DP 17-Sep 60 88 45.2 3.0Jetsetter Ve 17-Sep 42 108 79.9 3.7Manitoba*** EFG 17-Sep 54 220 85.0 3.9Mountain Fresh HM 17-Sep 26 49 111.8 3.7Mountain Pride SBD 10-Sep 36 40 46.1 2.5Mr. Ugly 17-Sep 26 35 95.8 3.4Patio ST 27-Aug 53 124 59.4 2.9Polbig J 10-Sep 67 99 56.3 3.1Prairie Pride EFG 10-Sep 75 181 58.4 3.4Primo Red HJ 17-Sep 54 101 71.0 3.7Red BLT DP 17-Sep 30 56 85.1 3.2Red Hero DP,ST 10-Sep 51 75 74.5 3.6Scotia Ve 17-Sep 43 248 95.1 4.1Sunstart Ve, ST 17-Sep 56 134 99.8 4.8Tasti-lee BSS 922 BJ 10-Sep 69 81 35.5 2.4Tribeca 17-Sep 26 50 81.5 3.3Tribute SAK 17-Sep 40 120 105.5 4.1Ultra Boy ST 17-Sep 33 66 90.9 3.7Ultra Girl ST 17-Sep 22 81 105.3 3.3Valley Girl J 17-Sep 49 111 96.1 3.9Wonder Boy J 17-Sep 22 54 98.3 3.6

17-Sep 44 83 63.0 3.3

Bold = recommended in 2012 Date Seeded: 25-Apr Date of 1st harvest: 13-Aug Overall rating : 1 - poorPreviously recommended *** Date Transplanted 5-Jun Date of final harvest: 24-Sep 5 - excellent

Very late. Above average yield. Big fleshy fruit with seams

Overall Rating

% RedCultivar SourceDate of

50% Harvest

Total Yield

Low yields. Fruit have seams

Comments

Early, with good yields of small, sweet fruitLate. Below average yield. Some bacterial speck. Good tasteEarly and good yields. Some scarring, seams and cracking of fruit. Good flavor and high brixAverage yield. Juicy, tasty fruit with high brixLate. Very high yield. Large fruit with high brixAverage yields. Fruit have seams. Low brix and not very sweet

Good yield. Nice looking fruit are slightly mealy but have good taste and brix.

Early. Low yield and some shape abnormalities. High brixLow yield. Some shape abnormalities but high brix and good taste

High yields. Plants need to be staked. Juicy fruitLate. Good yields of large fruitPoor yields. Fruit have unique flavorEarly. Small fruit with some bacterial speck. High brix. Late blight resistant

Late. Average yield. Shoulder cracking and cat facing on fruit

Very early. Good yield. High % red.

Determinate Tomatoes 2012

Late. Good yield. Fruit were bland, mealy and cracked

Very good yield. Fruit was unique tasting and juicy but had some bacterial speckGood yield. Fruit is acidic, thick skinned and had some cat facing

Early, with good yields. Fruit are watery, bland and mealy

Very early yield with high % red fruit. Fruit are small with tough skin Early. Big fruit but some scarred at blossom end. Also prone to cat-facing. Good flavor. Good yields of small, sweet fruit. Many fruit have seamsHigh % red fruit. Small, good looking fruit with nice taste

Early with high % red. Low yields of very mealy fruit

High % red but low yield due to poor stand Above average yield. Medium size, good tasting, juicy, nice looking fruitEarly with good yields. Fruit are small with firm skin but taste goodLate. Huge yields of large, nice looking fruit

High % red fruit and above average yields. Nice looking but some bacterial speckLate. Poor yield. Some cracking and bacterial speck on fruit

Average

Above average yield. Very thick flesh, with little juice or seeds. Acidic

Poor yields but good taste and appearance

Early with very good yields. Nice taste but acidic

High % red but low yield. Firm fruit with nice taste but had B.E.R. and bacterial speckHigh % red. Good yield of large, good-looking, tasty fruitEarly with good yields. Small, juicy fruit with some shoulder cracking

Huge plants are difficult to harvest. Fruit splitCompact plant. Early but low yields of small fruit

37

Bella Rosa*** SAK 184.0 R R 5.8 4 3.5 3.9Best Boy Bush SBD 162.5 R R 5.0 3 3.5 3.3BHN 1021 RUPP,BHN 156.5 R-Pt R-O 6.0 3.5 3 3.6BHN 589 RUPP, BHN 188.0 R R 7.0 4 4 4.3BHN 961*** RUPP, BHN 204.5 R R-O 6.5 3 3 3.5BHN962 BHN, SIE 164.9 R R-P 4.8 2 2 2.5Big Beef Ve 173.9 R R 6.2 3 3.5 3.6Bobcat Ve,Sn 189.1 R R 5.0 3 3.5 3.3Booty T+T 173.5 R R-O 5.8 4 4 4.0Canadian Beefsteak ST,Ve 160.5 R R 5.5 3 4 3.6Celebrity Ve 146.0 R R 5.2 3 3 3.2Champion ST,T+T 141.0 R R 5.0 3 4 3.5Charger EFG 206.3 R R-O 4.0 3 3.5 3.1Containers Choice Red ST,SAK 138.5 R R 6.0 2.5 3 3.2Defiant** SBD 86.9 F R 6.2 3 3.5 3.6Early Girl J 181.3 R R 5.0 3.5 4 3.7El Dorado WCS 52.7 Ob Y 5.0 4 2.5 3.3Fantastic ST,WCS 116.9 R R 5.0 4 4 3.8Fletcher BJ 187.0 R-Pt R-O 6.0 3.5 4 3.9Hooty DP 159.0 R R 5.5 3 3 3.3Jetsetter Ve 137.5 R R-O 4.8 3 3.5 3.3Manitoba*** EFG 91.1 R R-O 4.0 2.5 3.5 2.9Mountain Fresh HM 193.8 R R-O 5.2 3 3 3.2Mountain Pride SBD 158.5 R-Pt R 5.8 4 4 4.0Mr. Ugly 181.4 R-f R 5.0 3 3 3.2Patio ST 94.2 R R-O 5.0 2.5 2 2.7Polbig SW 134.5 R R-O 4.2 2 3 2.7Prairie Pride EFG 118.5 R R 4.5 2 3 2.7Primo Red ST 212.7 R-Pt R-O 4.4 2.5 3 2.9Red BLT DP 172.0 R R 5.0 4 4 3.8Red Head DP 59.6 Ob-Pt R 4.8 3 3 3.1Red Hero DP 193.1 R R 5.2 3 4 3.6Scotia HS 111.8 R R-O 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.2Sub Arctic Maxi EFG 48.2 R-f R-O 6.2 4 3 3.8Sunstart Ve, ST 156.9 R R-O 4.8 4 3.5 3.6Tasti-lee BJ 140.6 R R-P 5.2 4.5 4 4.1Tribeca 177.7 R-Pt R-O 4.4 2 3 2.7Tribute BJ 164.5 R R-O 5.8 4 3 3.7Ultra Boy ST 121.9 R-Pt R-O 4.5 3.5 3 3.2Ultra Girl ST 143.7 R R-O 5.0 4 3.5 3.7Valley Girl J 146.6 R R-O 5.0 2 2.5 2.7Wonderboy J 197.7 R R-P 5.7 2 2.5 2.8Average 150.7 5.2 3.2 3.3 3.4

Shape: O - Oval Color: R - Red Sweetness: 1 - BlandOB - Oblong P - Pink 5 - Very SweetR - Round O - Orange 1 - PoorPt - Pointed tip Y - Yellow 5 - Excellent

Bold = Recommended in 2012*** = Previously Recommended

Overall Flavour/Rating:

Sweetness

Tomato Fruit Characteristics

Cultivar SourceMature Marketable Fruit Characteristics

FlavorOverall Quality Rating

Avg. Wt. (g)

Shape Color O Brix

38

2012 Cultural Trials

39

Agronomy of New Potato Lines

The objective of this on-going project is to evaluate the performance of promising new potato cultivars under Saskatchewan growing conditions. Yields and quality response to N-fertility, crop maturity, irrigation, and in-row spacing have been evaluated in trials conducted on the Plant Sciences Department Potato Research plots in Saskatoon. This test site features a sandy loam, pH 7.8, EC < l dS, with 4% O.M. In all trials, each treatment plot consisted of a single, 8-m long section of row. Unless otherwise specified, the row spacing was 1 m between rows, with 25 cm between plants within a row. Weed control was achieved by applying eptam + metribuzin prior to planting, followed by linuron applied at ground crack. The crop was hilled prior to ground crack and again just prior to row closure. In the irrigated treatments, an overhead system was used whenever soil water potentials averaged over the effective root zone (0-30 cm) fell below -50 kPa. Unless otherwise specified, the trials were top-killed using diquat in mid-September (ca. 120 DAP) and machine harvested by early October using a Grimme harvester. Tubers were cured for 10 days at 15oC, then cooled to 4oC for longterm storage. The tubers were mechanically graded into size categories; small < 44 mm diam., medium 44 - 88 mm., and oversize > 88 mm diam. The boiling, baking, chipping and frying quality of the various lines were evaluated using standard methodologies. Detailed results from trials conducted from 2005-2012 are available at : www.usask.ca/agriculture/plantsci/vegetable/potato/pagronomy.htm Cultivars are selected for testing each year of the basis of suggestions made by local buyers and producers of seed potatoes. The new cultivars tested in 2012 were; Yellow fleshed Milva – SSPGA members as local production/marketing agents Yukon Gem – SSPGA members as local production/marketing agents Tosca – SSPGA members as local production/marketing agents Russet type AC Pacific Russet – SSPGA/PGA exclusive line Alpine Russet – SSPGA member as local production/marketing agent Classic Russet – SSPGA members as local production/marketing agents Blazer – SSPGA members as local production/marketing agents Clearwater - SSPGA members as local production/marketing agents Red skinned Modoc – SSPGA member as exclusive agent AC Peregrine Red – Exclusive to the SSPGA Most trials evaluated the new lines against established industry standard lines (Russet Norkotah, Russet Burbank, Yukon Gold, Norland and Sangre).

40

2012 Growing Season Temperatures were near normal throughout the 2012 growing season, but a record 40 cm of rain was received from May through July. Although the trial site featured a sandy loam soil there was standing water between the rows for 2 or more days on four occasions. No irrigation was required until the 2nd week of July. The field was subsequently irrigated on 6 occasions with ca 2.0 cm of water applied on each occasion. Total moisture (rain + irrigation) over the course of the 2012 growing season for the potato crop (Jun 10-Sept 10) was ca. 40 cm.

Dryland Trial Record rainfall levels minimized drought stress on the dryland potatoes through until late July of 2012. In August the combination of minimal rain and a large healthy crop canopy resulted in a quick drawdown of soil moisture reserves. By the time the crop was ready for top killing in early September the soil in the dryland trial was very dry and the plants had started to drop their lower leaves. Sangre was the highest yielding red-skinned potato in the dryland trial (Table 2012-1). This was surprising – as in the irrigated trial yields of Sangre consistently lagged behind all other red-skinned lines. Dryland yields of Sangre were >90% of the irrigated crop, whereas for the other red-skinned cultivars, the irrigated crop was at least 30% larger than under dryland conditions. As Sangre is not typically considered to be a highly drought resistant cultivar, these results are unusual. Blazer and Russet Norkotah were the highest yielding Russet–type potatoes under

dryland conditions. Russet Norkotah is an early maturing table type potato – and early maturity is helpful in situations where soil moisture reserves become limited as the growing season progresses. The exceptional performance of the processing cultivar Blazer under dryland conditions is interesting as this line appeared to be quite susceptible to Late Blight – a disease that thrives under irrigated conditions. Milva was more productive than any of the other yellow fleshed cultivars in the dryland trial. The soil at the dryland test site was heavily infested with Common Scab (Streptomyces scabies). As common scab also tends to thrive under the dry warm soil conditions that prevail in non-irrigated fields, this trial offered an opportunity to evaluate the relative sensitivity of the various potato lines to scab (Table 2012-1). None of the russet types showed any scab, even with the heavy degree of infestation present at this test site. Of the red-skinned cultivars Norland had the greatest scab tolerance, followed by the new cv. Modoc. Of the yellow fleshed cultivars tested, Milva and Tosca were far more scab tolerant than the standard Yukon Gold.

Soil water potentials, rainfall and potato field irrigation in 2012

Saskatoon Potato Fields - 2012

020406080

100120140160180

Jun-1

1

Jun-

24

Jul-1

1

Jul-2

5

Aug-11

Aug-25

Soil

Wat

er P

ote

ntia

l (-k

Pa)

Dryland

Irrigated

Saskatoon - 2012

0123456

Jun-

11

Jun-

24

Jul-1

1

Jul-2

5

Aug-

11

Aug-

25

Moi

stur

e (c

m)

Rainfall

Irrigation

41

Table 2012-1. Yields under dryland conditions, dryland yields as a % of irrigated yields and scab intensity levels under dryland conditions in 2012.

Yield

(t/ha) Dryland Yield

(% of Irrigated) % Grade Out due to Scab

Reds Modoc 35.3 b 70 b 92b Norland 37.6 ab 71 b 77c

Peregrine 36.8 ab 63 b 100a Sangre 39.0 a 91 a 100a

Russets Alpine 32.9 bc 67 b 0 Blazer 38.1 a 71 b 0 Classic 27.3 d 58 c 0

Clearwater 28.6 d 68 b 0 Russet Burbank 30.0 b 61 c 0 Russet Norkotah 34.9 ab 84 a 0

Yellows

Milva 45.6 a 75 a 0b Yukon Gem 35.6 b 63 bc 82a Yukon Gold 33.3 b 68 ab 100a

Tosca 37.0 b 59 c 4b For each skin colour type, values within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05) Tubers considered to be unmarketable if >5% of the surface area is affected by scab Time of Planting and Harvest Trials This trial examined the impact on time of planting and harvest on yields and quality. The trials were planted in mid-May or early June and harvested in late August or mid-September. This combination of planting and harvest dates resulted in plots harvested at 80, 90, 105 and 120 days after planting. Each treatment was replicated four times. Results Red skinned cultivars - In trials conducted in 2010, 2011 and again in 2012 Norland appeared to have a slight yield advantage at the early harvests (80 and 90 DAP), while Peregrine produced higher yields at the later harvests (Fig. 2012-1). Modoc showed promise in the all three years, with exceptional yields at the latest harvest. Modoc produces a large number of tubers/plant, which can result in very high yields if the crop is provided with an adequate growing period. The old standard line Sangre performed poorly at all harvest dates in this trial. A high proportion of the tubers in the Sangre crop showed growth cracks and other abnormalities which would have caused them to be graded out in a commercial operation.

42

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

80 90 105 120

Yiel

d (t

/ha)

Days after Planting

Irrigated Russets (2011)Premiere Norkotah

Burbank Shepody

Alpine Blazer

Pacific

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Yiel

d (t

/ha)

80 90 105 120Days after Planting

Irrigated Reds (2011)

Norland Peregrine

Modoc

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Yiel

d (t

/ha)

80 90 105 120Days after Planting

Irrigated Reds (2012)

Norland Peregrine

Modoc Sangre

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Yiel

d (t

/ha)

80 90 105 120Days after Planting

Irrigated Russets (2012)

Alpine BlazerClassic ClearwaterBurbank Norkotah

Fig. 2012-1. Yields for various red-skinned potatoes under irrigation for 2010, 2011 and 2012. Russets – the russet processing type potatoes tend to be slow growing and late maturing – as is reflected by their yield profile over time. The yield difference between the 105 and 120 day harvests for the russet lines is much greater than is typically seen for the earlier maturing red-skinned table potato cultivars. The only russet that showed any significant early yields was Russet Norkotah – and it is an early maturing table-type potato. While the standard processing variety Russet Burbank performed poorly in 2010 and 2011, it was one of the highest yielding cultivars in the 2012 trial, especially at the later harvest dates (Fig. 2012-2). The new processing cultivars Alpine, Blazer and Classic all produced excellent yields at the later harvest dates. Classic produces exceptionally larger tubers which makes it popular with processors, but will be problematic for seed growers. Yields of the new late maturing cultivar Clearwater lagged behind all the other russets at all harvest dates.

Fig. 2012-2. Yields of russet-type potato cultivars under irrigation in 2010, 2011 and 2012. Yellow fleshed cultivars – in 2010, 2011 and again in 2012, yields of Milva were superior to all the other yellow fleshed lines tested at all harvest dates (Fig. 2012-3). Yukon Gold and Yukon Gem are very similar in appearance and yields. The average tuber size for Yukon Gold is much larger – and this can be problematic if the crop is provided with an extended bulking period. The new cultivar Tosca was late maturing, but could produce exceptional yields of bright colored tubers if provided with a sufficiently long growing season.

43

0

20

40

60

80

100

50 100 150 200 250

Yiel

d (t

/ha)

Total Soil N (#/a)

Blazer- 2011

Medium Small

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

50 100 150 200 250

Yiel

d (t

/ha)

Total Soil N (#/a)

Blazer - 2012

Medium Small

Fig. 2012-3. Yields for irrigated yellow-fleshed potatoes in 2010, 2011 and 2012. Summary of Time of Planting and Harvest Trials The time of planting and harvest date studies indicate the importance of maximizing the duration of the effective growing season for growers in Saskatchewan. Yields of most new and industry standard cultivars tested increased progressively with duration in the field through to 120 days. A 120 day season represents the effective maximum available to potato growers in Saskatchewan - as earlier plantings or later harvests run into excessive risk of frost damage. By contrast, some growers opt for a very short duration growing season - in the seed industry this is used to minimize the risk of virus infection, whereas in the table sector, growers may opt for an early harvest to catch a high value market opportunity or to keep the size of their tubers within the optimum range desired in the marketplace. The results clearly illustrate the magnitude of yield sacrifice associated with an early harvest. The relative amount of yield loss associated with an early harvest was greater for late maturing cultivars like Modoc, Tosca and Russet Burbank than for earlier cultivars like Russet Norkotah or Norland. This suggests that growers should use caution when growing these slower maturing cultivars, as a slow start to the season, an unusually cool summer or an early fall could severely depress yields. In all cases the increase in yields with time in the field was strictly a function on an increase in average tuber size, rather than any increase in tubers produced. N-Fertility Trials At present, N fertility recommendations for potatoes in Saskatchewan range from 150 # N/a (dryland) to 190 # N/a (irrigated). The objective of this trial was to determine optimum N-fertility rates under irrigation for a range of new cultivars. The soil-N treatments (total of 50, 100, 150, 200 or 250 # N/a) were achieved by pre-plant broadcasting sufficient 46-0-0 to supplement the residual soil N (ca. 50 # N/a). The N-treatments were laid out in an incremental design with two replicates. Results Yields of the new russet cultivar Blazer were low in the 2010 trial and were not influenced by the N fertility treatment. By contrast, yields for Blazer in 2011 were exceptionally high – but again it showed little yield response to N fertility. In 2012, yields of Blazer were more intermediate – and showed a slight tendency to decrease as soil N levels increased. We suspect that both the low yields and apparent negative response to N fertility may be related to problems with Late Blight. Blazer appears to be very sensitive to this disease which can reduce total yields and increase tuber grade out to rots. A large plant canopy, such as is produced when a crop is supplied with abundant N, is particularly prone to this disease.

010203040506070

Yiel

d (t

/ha)

80 90 105 120Days after Planting

Irrigated Yellows (2012)Milva Yukon Gem

Yukon Gold Tosca

0102030405060

Yiel

d (t

/ha)

80 90 105 120Days after Planting

Irrigated Yellows (2011)Milva Opearle

Yukon Gold Yukon Gem

44

Yields of the new russet cultivar Alpine were consistent across the 3 years of testing. Yields peaked around 150 #/a of total N in 2010, at 100 #/a N in 2011 and showed very little N response in 2012.

The yellow fleshed table cultivar Milva showed a slight negative yield response to increasing soil N availability in 2010, no response to soil N in 2011 and in 2012 yields plateaued at 100 3/a total N. Milva consistently produces exceptionally high yields with relatively little N, suggesting that it has very high N-use efficiency.

Conclusion - The N fertility responses;

a) varied from cultivar to cultivar, b) were not consistent from year to year and c) quite limited - in that the lowest rate of total N (50 #/a) typically produced yields that were within 10% of the highest yielding treatments.

The inconsistency of the N fertility responses from year to year is likely driven by differences in the relative suitability of the growing season for potato growth. In poor growing seasons, yield responses to fertility treatments may be small, as the availability of N is not limiting growth. While supra-optimal rates of applied N seldom had any significant negative impact on yields they may have had a negative impact on crop quality. The heavy canopy resulting from the application of surplus N may promote development of Late blight and interferes with top-killing and harvest. The observation that yields within 10% of the site maximum were consistently obtained without adding any N fertilizer – but instead relying solely on the residual soil N supply of ca. 50 #/a - was unexpected. Potatoes are regarded as having a high N requirement, with vegetative growth showing a strong response

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

50 100 150 200 250

Yiel

d (t

/ha)

Total Soil N (#/a)

Milva - 2011

Medium Small

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

50 100 150 200 250Yi

eld

(t/h

a)

Total Soil N (#/a)

Alpine -2011

Medium Small

0102030405060

50 100 150 200 250

Yiel

d (t

/ha)

Total Soil N (#/a)

Alpine - 2012

Medium Small

0102030405060

50 100 150 200 250

Yiel

d (t

/ha)

Total Soil N (#/a)

Milva - 2012

Medium Small

45

Fig. 2012-6. Impact of in-row spacing on yields of new potato cultivars in 2010, 2011 and 2012.

to N fertilizer applications. At present, the economics of potato production dictate that growers should strive to maximize yields, even if it involves the application of very high rates of N fertilizer. As the cost of N increases and/or concerns increase regarding the environmental impact of over-application of fertilizers, the data generated in this study suggest growers of potatoes in SK can cut their N applications substantially without a significant yield penalty - and this management decision may actually increase crop quality. Spacing trial The effect of in-row spacing was fairly consistent across the cultivars tested in 2010, 2011 and 2012. As seen in previous years, the closer the in-row spacing, the higher the total yields - with less obvious differences between yields at the 10 and 14” in-row spacings (Fig. 2012-4). In all years there was a small but consistent tendency for the average tuber size to decrease along with the in-row spacing – but the effect was not significant in most cases.

01020304050607080

Alpine Blazer GemStar Milva Opearle

Yiel

d (t

/ha)

6" 10" 14"

0

20

40

60

80

Yiel

d (t

/ha)

Alpine Blazer Premiere Milva Yukon Gem

6" 10" 14"

0

20

40

60

80

Yiel

d (t

/ha)

Alpine Blazer Milva Modoc

6" 10" 14"

2010

2011

2012

46

Conclusion - The results illustrate the responsiveness of potato to manipulation of plant populations. If the objective is to maximize yields, a close in row spacing is desirable as long as reaching a certain minimum tuber size is not a significant issue. In seed production, close in-row spacing would produce high yields and a highly desirable small average tuber size distribution. The table and processing sectors are looking for a larger size profile - and therefore slightly wider in-row spacing might be desirable. The data suggests that this larger sizing can usually be achieved without an excessive compromise in yield potential.

Consumer Panel Results Yellow fleshed potatoes are becoming increasingly popular in Canada – as a function of their “novelty” value, but also because of their higher Vitamin A content and their perceived superior flavor. For many years Yukon Gold has been the standard yellow fleshed table potato across North America. However Yukon Gold has some significant production limitations – especially its tendency to go oversize and its sensitivity to common scab. Other aspects of this project have shown that the new yellow fleshed cultivars Milva and Tosca had agronomic characteristics that were superior to Yukon Gold. The objective of this aspect of the project was to assess consumer reaction to these new yellow-fleshed cultivars. The potatoes used in the consumer panels were all grown, harvested, and graded as previously described. The potatoes were evaluated after 3 months of cold storage (7oC and 50% R.H.). In 2011 and 2012, a sample of 20 marketable sized tubers of cv. Yukon Gold, Yukon Gem, and Milva were randomly selected for each cultivar. In 2012 Tosca was also included in the trial. Eight of these tubers were used to assess “visual appeal” – with 4 tubers left intact and 4 tubers cut in half to allow the panelists to assess interior color. In 2011 the remaining 12 tubers were pealed then boiled in unsalted water for 20 minutes until cooked, then cooled and cubed prior to the taste assessment. In 2012 the tubers were baked for 45 minutes at 220oC – then allowed to cool before being cut up into cubes for taste assessments. A total of 13 panelists were asked to rank each cultivar from 1 (best) to 4 (worst) for the visual appeal of the intact and cut tubers and for the flavor of the boiled or baked tubers. Panelists were not informed as to the identity of the cultivars they were evaluating. Results Color

mean rank and (range) Flavor

mean rank and (range) 2011 2012 2011 2012 Milva 1.3 (1-3) 2.5 (1-4) 1.6 (1-3) 1.6 (1-2) Tosca 2.2 (1-4) 2.8 (1-4) Yukon Gem 2.1 (1-3) 2.9 (1-4) 2.4 (1-3) 2.5 (1-4) Yukon Gold 2.6 (1.3) 2.4 (1-4) 2.0 (1.3) 3.1 (1-4) Ranking of 1=best and 4=worst The results clearly demonstrate the subjectivity of panel results. For both appearance and flavor each cultivar was rated the best by at least one panellist and the worst by another. The color assessments were complicated by the fact that some panelists did not “like” yellow color in potatoes. While the panelists did not show a distinct preference for any cultivar based on its color, Milva was clearly ranked as superior for its flavor.

47

Demonstration of Maleic Hydrazide as a Method to Control Sprouting of Onions during Long-term Cold Storage

Sprout management is critical for successful long-term cold storage of onions. Sprouting increases moisture loss from the bulbs, while also rendering the onions unattractive and unmarketable. While onions are initially dormant for a period after harvest, they will inevitably begin to sprout once sufficient time has passed in cold storage. The fast maturing onion cultivars preferred by growers in Saskatchewan tend to have a short dormancy period once harvested. Storage at very low temperatures (ca. 0oC) will delay the development of sprouts but consistently generating low storage temperatures may be difficult and costly. Maleic Hydrazide (Royal MH) is a herbicide with plant growth regulator activity. When applied to the foliage of a mature healthy onion plant the MH is absorbed and stops cell division but not cell expansion. By interfering with cell division, the MH controls the sprouting that would otherwise occur during long-term storage of the onion crop. Maleic hydrazide is registered in Canada for use as a sprout inhibitor in onions and potatoes. The efficacy of MH as a sprout inhibitor is known to vary depending on weather conditions and crop growth rate at the time of treatment and the onion cultivar being treated. For these reasons, the efficacy of MH can be somewhat variable. This project demonstrated the efficacy of foliar-applied maleic hydrazide as a means to control sprouting during cold storage in several widely grown onion cultivars. Procedures The project was conducted at the University of Saskatchewan Horticulture Field Research Facility in Saskatoon using four cultivars of yellow onion (Alpine, Norstar, Copra and Fortress) selected for their superior yield and storage potential in trials conducted in Saskatchewan. They were also selected to represent a range in inherent dormancy/sprouting characteristics – with Alpine and Fortress showing fairly long dormancy with minimal sprouting and Copra and Norstar having a shorter dormancy and more tendency to sprout during storage. The plots were established and maintained using standard cropping practices. Timing of application is very important when using maleic hydrazide. The label recommends application 10-14 days prior to harvest. Ideally the product is applied to “mature” yet healthy plants. Application of MH tends to slow bulb development - therefore if it is applied too early both bulb yields and quality can be compromised. If it is applied too late it is ineffective. The MH (Royal MG-60) was applied on Sept. 10 - at which time cv. Copra was still growing vigorously, cv. Norstar and cv. Fortress had begun to dieback and cv. Alpine was at 100% “tops down” stage of development (Fig. 2). The MH was applied at the label recommended rate of 3.5 L product/acre in the equivalent of 120 L/acre of water. The MH was applied with a CO2-powered small plot sprayer equipped with 110-02 nozzles operating at 270 KPa pressure. This spray set-up allowed for excellent coverage of the foliage. The untreated control treatments were sprayed with an equivalent amount of water.

Figure 1: Sprouting Onion

Figure 2. Mature onions with “tops down”.

48

A -5oC frost occurred on Sept. 13, otherwise September 2011 was warm and frost free. The MH treatments caused no obvious changes in the appearance of the crop. On September 22 the crop was lifted and topped. The bulbs were allowed to field cure for 2 weeks and then the number and weight of bulbs in each row was determined. A sample of bulbs was collected from each treatment, weighed and evaluated for sprouting. These onions were then transferred to a cold storage (3oC and 50% RH). Weight loss and sprouting were evaluated after 60 and 200 days of cold storage. Results Application of the MH-60 sprout inhibitor had no obvious impact on yields or appearance of the harvested crop.

Cultivar Sprout Weight loss Sprouting (%) 60 days 200 days 60 days 200 days

Alpine + 7 11 1 1 - 6 13 3 6

Copra + 8 14 3 3 - 13 26 12 13

Fortress + 5 7 3 6 - 4 7 1 13

Norstar + 5 8 9 12 - 6 10 11 23

Average + 8 10 4 6 - 8 16 7 14

The onions kept exceptionally well over an extended storage period – irrespective of the sprout inhibition treatments applied. This reflects the fact that;

a) the onion cultivars selected for use in this trial had shown exception yield and storage potential in previous trials.

b) The refrigerated storages used in the trial consistently produced near-ideal conditions for onion storage. Very few commercial growers can afford refrigerated storages. Storage under less optimal temperature conditions would likely have triggered more or earlier sprouting.

c) The record hot, dry conditions that prevailed through the fall of 2011 were near-ideal for enhancing maturity and dormancy of onions. Crops maturing under less ideal conditions would be expected to show more or earlier sprouting.

As expected sprouting increased with time in storage – but not at a consistent rate. Some onions had actually begun to sprout even prior to harvest. These onions were not included in the trial. There was substantial sprouting in some cultivars by 60 days after harvest – but relatively little additional sprouting occurred through to 200 days after harvest. Immature onions are prone to early sprouting – even under ideal storage conditions. Having a small proportion of immature bulbs is almost inevitable in onion crops grown in short season production locations such as Saskatchewan. The maleic hydrazide treatments reduced the % of onions sprouting by more than 50% on average at both 60 and 200 days after harvest. The maleic hydrazide appeared to be equally effective across the range of cultivars tested. This was an interesting observation – as the cultivars used in this trial had been purposely selected to differ in their degree of maturity at the time of application of the MH-60. These results suggest that the MH-60 can provide effective sprout control over a wide window of crop maturity.

49

Use of the sprout inhibitor also reduced moisture loss over the 200 day storage period – this would be expected as sprouts are a major source of moisture loss from stored onions. As onions are market by weight, this treatment effect would be of obvious benefit to growers. In conclusion – foliar application of MH represented an easy to apply, affordable and effective means of controlling sprouting and moisture loss during longterm cold storage of a range of popular onion cultivars. Support for this project was provided by the ADOPT program of Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food. Additional support from the Saskatchewan Vegetable Growers Association is gratefully acknowledged.

50

Demonstration of Fungicides for the Control of Neck Rot in Stored Onions

Botrytis neck rot is a common problem in stored onions in Saskatchewan. Sweet and white onions are most susceptible to neck rot, followed by the reds, with the yellow storage types showing the greatest resistance to the disease. There is no genetic resistance to botrytis neck rot, but for reasons of growth habit cultivars do show differing degrees of sensitivity to neck rot. The initial inoculum for neck rot arises from infected crop residues left in the soil or from cull piles. During cool, moist weather these disease sources produce air-borne spores which blow onto the foliage of onion crops developing in adjacent fields. If field conditions are suitable some species of botrytis (ie; B. squamosa) may produce lesions on the onion leaves but in dry environments like Saskatchewan the resulting damage to the foliage is rarely sufficient to jeopardize yields. The real damage is done when the fungus invades the bulb via the wound created when the onion top is removed at harvest. Several Botrytis species are capable of invading the neck and causing rot during subsequent storage – but B. allii tends to be the most prevalent and aggressive. Following harvest the botrytis grows into the bulb, starting at the neck and moving towards the base of the bulb. Infected tissues turn soft and brown. The disease is typically well advanced before any symptoms become apparent on the outside of the bulb. Occasionally the botrytis will produce small hard black sclerotia between the layers of the infected onion bulb. These sclerotia serve as a long lasting resting body of the disease. While botrytis infected tissues typically do not smell they are prone to invasion by soft rot bacteria which results in a foul smelling decay. Management

Fields should be planted to onions or related species no more than once every 3 years Clean up cull piles and equipment that may have come into contact with diseased onions Select cultivars that mature within the available growing season. Use production practices that promote early maturity of the crop. Avoid excessive applications of

nitrogen fertilizers and cut back on irrigation well ahead of harvest Lift and top onions at least 10 days prior to harvest to promote dry down of the necks. Hot dry

weather during this curing period speeds dehydration of the neck tissues, effectively sealing out the disease.

Avoid damage to the bulbs during harvest Cure the bulbs by pushing warm, dry air (25-35oC and 50% RH) air through the onion piles for

about 10 days after harvest Drop the storage temperature by 2oC/day to a final holding temperature of 0oC with 50% RH.

In Saskatchewan the growing season is often too short to allow onions to fully mature prior to harvest. Conditions at harvest are often too cool and wet to allow for good curing of the necks, either in the field or in storage. For these reasons neck rot is a common problem in stored onions in Saskatchewan. This ADOPT funded project demonstrated the potential to use fungicides as part of an integrated management program for neck rot in onions.

51

Procedures The project was conducted at the University of Saskatchewan Horticulture Field Research Facility in Saskatoon. This site has a long history of onion production and problems with neck rot are common – suggesting that there is sufficient inoculum present at the site to reliably create a disease problem. The field was prepared in the spring of 2011 by fertilizing to recommended levels and then rotovating. In mid-May four cultivars of yellow onions (Norstar, Copra, Alpine and Fortress) were seeded. These cultivars were selected as they performed well in yield and storage trials conducted by the UofS. They were also selected to represent a range in growth habit, times to maturity and potential susceptibility to neck rot. The plots were seeded with a small plot seeder in rows that were 5 m long with 0.5 m between rows and 20 rows/plot. Weather conditions after seeding were favourable for germination of the crop. Weeds were controlled using herbicides and hand weeding. The plot was irrigated as required. In the last week of July the trial was damaged by a heavy rain/hail event. There were some indications of botrytis invading the leaves and bulbs damaged by this weather event. This development represented the trigger for the onset of the fungicide program. The fungicides demonstrated in this trial were; Pristine (pyraclostrobin + boscalid) – this BASF product is reported to provide exceptional control of a range of foliar diseases of onion – including the botrytis species responsible for onion leaf blotch (B. squamosa). Evidence for its efficacy as a tool for management of neck rot is lacking. Pristine is approved for multiple applications over the course of the growing season – with the final application to occur not later than 7 days prior to harvest. Dithane (mancozeb) – is an older product with broad spectrum activity against a range of plant diseases, including botrytis. Dithane is approved for multiple applications over the course of a single growing season and has a 3 day pre-harvest interval. The fungicides were applied three times at 14 day intervals, beginning in early August, with the final application occurring 3 days prior to the crop being topped. The products were applied at the label recommended rates (1 kg/ha for Pristine and 2 kg/ha for Dithane). The sprays were applied using a CO2-powered small plot sprayer equipped with 80-02 nozzles operating at 270 KPa pressure. The spray was applied in the label recommended equivalent of 100 L water/ha which resulted in excellent coverage of the foliage. The untreated control treatments were sprayed with an equivalent amount of water. At the time of the 1st fungicide application all cultivars were growing vigorously. At the 2nd and 3rd application cv. Copra was still growing vigorously but cv. Norstar, Fortress and Alpine had begun to dieback indicating they were beginning to mature. None of the fungicide treatments had any obvious impact on the appearance or apparent health of the foliage. In mid-September the crop was lifted and topped. The bulbs were allowed to field cure for a further 2 weeks during which time record high temperatures and no rainfall occurred. These conditions were very favourable for curing the necks of harvested onions. The number and weight of bulbs in each row was determined after the 2 week curing period. A sample of visually sound bulbs from each treatment was then gathered into mesh onion bags and the bags were weighed prior to being transferred into a cold storage (3oC and 50% RH). After 60 and 200 days in cold storage a sample of 20 bulbs was randomly selected from each treatment. The bulbs were cut in half longitudinally to allow visual examination for the presence of any neck rot (see Figure 1). No attempt was made to rate the severity of the infection within a damaged bulb.

52

Results The fungicide treatments had no impact on the number, size or weights of the onions harvested. The onions stored very well. This was not surprising as the study involved holding mature, well-cured bulbs of locally adapted onion cultivars under near-ideal cold storage conditions. After 60 days of cold storage there were no indications of neck rot on any of the bulbs sampled. Neck rot takes time to develop – especially under recommended cold storage temperatures. The crop was evaluated again after 200 days of cold storage. This represents about the maximum duration of cold storage for onions in Saskatchewan, as losses to dehydration, disease and sprouting typically become excessive beyond this storage period. In cv. Copra all the treatments, including the control, remained in excellent disease-free condition through the full 200 day storage period. All the other cultivars showed more substantial losses to neck rot after 200 days of cold storage – with the cv. Norstar appearing to be most susceptible. Copra was also the most vigorous and highest yielding cultivar tested in this trial, while Norstar had produced the lowest yields. This suggests a potential linkage between vigor in the field and losses to neck rot during subsequent cold storage. If the plants had been invaded by the Botrytis relatively early in the growing season this may explain the low yields as well as the substantial losses to neck rot during storage. Treatment of the foliage of the onion crop with fungicides prior to harvest appeared to provide a significant degree of protection against neck rot during subsequent cold storage. While Pristine fungicide appeared to be marginally more effective at preventing neck rot, Dithane was less costly. The cost of both products would be minimal relative to the potential losses to neck rot seen over an extended storage period (avg. 15% grade out after 200 days in control treatments). Growers should consider rotating between these chemicals in order to minimize the risk of selecting for resistant strains of the Botrytis. Conclusion – this study demonstrated that;

a) neck rot is potentially serious issue during longterm storage of onions b) onion cultivars differ substantially in their susceptibility to neck rot c) a high level of protection against neck rot of onions can be obtained by foliar applications of

Dithane and/or Pristine fungicides. Support for this project was provided by the ADOPT Program of Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food. The project was managed in part by the Saskatchewan Vegetable Growers Association.

Cultivar Fungicide Grade out to Neck Rot (%)

Alpine Control 9 Dithane 6 Pristine 5 Avg 7 Copra Control 1 Dithane 1 Pristine 0 Avg 1 Fortress Control 15 Dithane 2 Pristine 1 Avg 6 Norstar Control 37 Dithane 12 Pristine 2 Avg 17 Overall avg. Control 15 Dithane 5 Pristine 3

53

Demonstration of Herbicides for Weed Control in Onions Thorough, consistent weed control is essential for successful onion production. Onions remain sensitive to weed competition for the entire growing season. Presently weed control in onions is achieved through mechanical tillage and/or application of herbicides. Herbicides have several potential advantages over tillage for controlling weeds in onions. Well timed application of an appropriate herbicide can provide long lasting weed control - including the weeds growing within the row. Chemical weed control may also be achieved at a lower overall cost than repeated tillage operations – especially if hand weeding is required to deal with weeds within the rows that are typically missed by standard between-row tillage. This project demonstrated the efficacy and crop safety of a range of herbicides for use in yellow onion production. Trials were conducted in 2011 and 2012 at the University of Saskatchewan Horticulture Field Research Facility in Saskatoon. This site has been in long term production of horticultural crops and has a “typical” spectrum of broadleaf weeds seen in vegetable fields. Grassy weeds are uncommon. Both fields used in the trials were in summer fallow the previous year. Summer fallowing is a common practice in land designated for onion production – as it reduces the weed pressure. In early May of each year the fields were prepared by fertilizing to recommended levels and then rotovating. About 10 days later, two popular, locally-adapted cultivars of yellow onions (Norstar and Copra) were seeded using a small plot seeder. The onions were seeded in 5 m long rows spaced 0.5 m apart. Just prior to emergence of the onion crop a 1% solution of the non-selective herbicide glyphosate was applied over the entire plot. This treatment burned off all the weeds that had emerged prior to emergence of the onion crop. This “stale seedbed” approach provided the onion crop with a crucial 2-3 weeks window to develop without any significant weed pressure. In both years the first application of the test herbicides occurred when the crop was at 2 true leaf stage (June 12 in 2011 and June 30 in 2012). This is the recommended stage of crop development for safe application of the weed control products utilized in this project. The second flush of weeds was just beginning to emerge at this time. The sprays were applied with a CO2-powered small plot sprayer equipped with 80-01 nozzles operating at 270 kPa pressure using the equivalent of 80L H2O/ha. Two adjacent rows were treated with each herbicide – with an unsprayed check row separating each treatment. The products tested, the rates applied and the recommended crop stage for treatment were;

Trmt 1- Chateau (51 WDG) (flumioxazin) @ 28-56 g/a. Apply at 4-6 leaf stage Trmt 2 - Goal (4SC) (oxyfluorfen) @ 230 ml/a. Apply after 2 leaf stage Trmt 3 - Buctril (bromoxynil) @ 94-236 ml/a. Apply at 2-5 leaf stage Trmt 4 - Dual Magnum (7.6E) (metolachlor) @ 330-615 ml/a. Apply after 2 leaf stage Trmt 5 - Prowl (3.8 ACS) (pendimethalin) @ 340-950 ml/a. Apply after 2 leaf stage

Where a range of product concentrations were recommended on the label, the first application used the lowest concentration recommended, while the 2nd application used the highest concentration recommended. Herbicide tolerance tends to increase as the crop matures, so low dosages are preferred when treating young plants. Similarly weeds’ tolerance of herbicides tends to increase as the plants increase in size and maturity – so higher herbicides dosages are required to achieve effective control of more mature weeds.

54

In both years there appeared to be some loss of crop vigor associated with this first application of the herbicides. Crop growth slowed, some leaves yellowed and others died back from the tips. The % ground cover by weeds was evaluated two weeks after the first application of the herbicides (Fig. 1). All of the herbicides provided at least some degree of control at this time, with the Chateau and Goal providing almost complete weed control.

Figure 1. Percent ground cover by weeds 2 weeks after application of various onion herbicides in 2011 and 2012. The efficacy of the treatments was evaluated again at 4 weeks after spraying – this time by harvesting all the weeds growing within the rows, separating the weeds into species, and then weighing each type of weed (Fig. 2)

0

10

20

30

40

% G

roun

d C

over

by

Wee

ds

Onion Herbicides - 2012

0

10

20

30

40

% G

roun

d C

over

by

Wee

ds

Onion Herbicides - 2011

55

Figure 2. Weed growth in onions at 4 weeks after application of various herbicides in 2011 and 2012.

In 2011 stinkweed represented the dominant weed in the non-sprayed controls at this point in the growing season. Chateau and Goal provided almost complete weed control through 4 weeks after application. Buctril provided excellent control of the stinkweed but was ineffective against red-root pigweed and roundleaf mallow. Purslane (aka. portulaca) was the dominant weed in 2012. Goal and Chateau provided excellent control of this weed, but were less effective against common groundsel. Buctril provided effective control of groundsel and portulaca. Dual and Prowl provided limited control of the weed species present at this stage in the 2012 growing season The herbicides were applied for a second time once the crop reached the 4-6 leaf stage (July 4 in 2011 and July 14 in 2012). As all weeds were removed for assessment just a few days ahead of this second application, the herbicides were applied to largely

“weed free” ground. The non-sprayed control treatments would also have been rendered “weed free” at this time. In both years, the weed control achieved using the 2nd herbicide application was not as thorough as with 1st application – this could reflect the rapid development of weeds missed in 1st round of spraying and hand weeding. One month after the 2nd herbicide treatments were applied the weeds in each plot were again harvested and weighed (Fig. 3). Dandelion and curled dock were dominant in all plots in 2011, whereas portulaca and groundsel were predominant at this stage of the 2012 growing season.

0100200300400500600

Wee

ds (g

/m o

f row

)

Onion Herbicides - 2012

OtherPortulacaGroundsel

050

100150200250

Wee

ds (g

/m o

f row

)

Onion Herbicides - 2011

Other

Groundsel

Stink Weed

RRPW

56

Figure 3. Weed growth in onions treated with various herbicides - 1 month after 2nd application in 2011 and 2012. In 2011 the Chateau treatment provided superior weed control relative to all other products at the 2nd application. In 2012 both the Goal and Chateau treatments rendered the plots effectively weed-free through to one month after the 2nd herbicide treatment. All the other herbicides also reduced weed growth to some degree relative to the non-treated controls. In late September of each year the onions were lifted and topped, then the number and weight of bulbs in each herbicide treatment row was determined (Fig 4). Crop quality in 2011 was excellent but the average bulb size was relatively small. Overall yields in 2011 were around 20t/a - which is below average. Yields were higher in the 2012 trial.

Figure 4. Yields obtained from onions treated with various herbicides. In both years the herbicide treatment effects on yields did not correspond to expectations. While all of the herbicides had provided at least some weed control, yields in the unsprayed control treatments were often similar to the herbicide treated plots (Fig. 4). Also the herbicide treatments that had provided the most effective weed control (Chateau and Goal) often did not produce the highest crop yields. This suggests that either; a) the weed pressure encountered by the unsprayed control treatments was not sufficient to cause any yield reduction or b) while the herbicides may have been providing effective weed control they

0

100

200

300

400

500

Wee

ds (g

/m o

f row

)

Onion Herbicides - 2012

0100200300400500600

Wee

ds (g

/m o

f row

)Onion Herbicides - 2011

00.5

11.5

22.5

3

Yiel

d (k

g/m

of r

ow)

Onion Herbicides - 2012

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

Yiel

d (k

g/m

of r

ow)

Onion Herbicides - 2011

57

were also causing some crop toxicity – resulting in a yield loss. Option a) seems unlikely as a large numbers of weeds were recovered from the unsprayed control plots and onions are renowned for their sensitivity to weed competition from seedling stage through to crop maturity. The impact of the weed competition on the unsprayed check treatment may have been reduced by the fact that the crops were maintained under near-ideal conditions, competition between the onion crop and the weeds for fertility or water would have been minimal. Also all weeds were removed from the unsprayed check plots on two occasions in each growing season, which would have reduced completion with the crop. However, crop toxicity effects seems the more likely explanation for the observed results, especially as symptoms of crop damage were observed in both years in the Chateau treatments. Goal and Buctril are also known to cause some damage to the foliage of onions, especially if applied under unfavorable growing conditions. Conclusions and Recommendations This project demonstrated the potential to achieve a high degree of control of broadleaf weeds in onions using herbicides. Goal and Chateau both provided long lasting control of a wide spectrum of weeds commonly found in vegetable fields. Goal herbicide has been widely used by growers for many years, whereas Chateau has only recently been registered for use in vegetable crops in Canada. The results suggest that, while Chateau is highly effective, it may be toxic to the crop, even at label recommended dosages. Greater crop safely might be expected if lower rates of Chateau were used – however the potential impact on efficacy of weed control would need to be considered. Further investigation of Chateau may also be warranted as it is more readily available than Goal and also costs less to apply. While Prowl was less effective as a herbicide than Goal or Chateau it had the advantage of being very crop safe. The apparent yield loss observed for the herbicide treatments is a concern, as all products were applied using recommended methods and recommended product concentrations to relatively healthy vigorous crops. While the results suggest that using herbicides to control weeds in onions may cause some unavoidable reduction in the onion crops yield potential – using alternative means of weed control such as mechanical tillage between the rows supplemented with hand weeding within the rows may also cause a yield loss due to physical damage to the crop. Hand weeding is also prohibitively costly.

58

Multi-Span High Tunnels High tunnels produce a warm, sheltered production environment, leading to earlier and higher yields, especially for warm season vegetable crops. High tunnels can enhance profitability if growers use suitable production practices to grow high value crops. A major limitation of the first generation of high tunnels was that they were relatively small – typically only 10-15’ wide, 8’ tall and 100’ long. The small size of the high tunnels limited the range of crops which could be grown and made it difficult to use full size field equipment within the tunnels. Temperatures within the high tunnels also tended to fluctuate rapidly. In 2011 and 2012 we evaluated the performance of an 8 bay gutter-connected high tunnel complex - with each unit being 28’ wide, 18’ tall and 200’ long. Crop performance within the larger multi-span high tunnel (MSHT) was compared to crops grown in the open and/or to crops grown in a small single span high tunnel (SHT). Observations on the Performance of the Multi-Span High Tunnels

A) The multi-span high tunnels cost 50-70% less per unit area than the standard single span high tunnels.

B) Installation of the aluminum pipe framework for the high tunnel complex was relatively straightforward. However, installation of the covers was difficult. The sheets of polyethylene were large (40’ wide* 240” long), heavy, and difficult to install even in light winds. Under ideal conditions it took two hoist trucks and a crew of 10-15 people 1.5 hours to install each section of cover.

C) Standard field equipment such as 8’ wide rotovators, field sprayers, mulch layers and manure spreaders easily fit within the high tunnels. This facilitated crop management.

D) Temperatures in the high tunnel complex ran about 5oC warmer than outside conditions. The high tunnels also provided about 4oC of frost protection. Temperatures within the MSHT complex were consistently cooler than in the smaller single span high tunnels.

E) The 6 mil polyethylene used to cover both types of high tunnel screened out a significant portion of the incoming light. This would have slowed crop growth unless the tunnels were providing some counter-balancing benefit such as like enhancing temperatures around the crop.

F) The multi-span tunnels came through the first growing season (2011) in relatively good conditions. There were a few tears in the plastic but these were easily mended.

G) The recommended practice is to remove the polyethylene covers on the MSHT for the winter – as this reduces wear on the covers and the snow load on the structure. However as installation of the covers was slow and costly, we have opted to leave the covers in place over the winter, just opening the roof panels enough to allow the snow to slide off. The structure came through the winter of 2011/2012 in relatively good condition – although it is noteworthy that the winter was mild with limited snowfall.

H) On June 27, 2012 a rain storm with wind gusts to 94 km/h tore the covers off 5 of the 8 tunnels and caused significant damage to the structural components in 3 of the tunnels. This wind event also tore the cover off nearby single span high tunnels – but did not cause any damage to the structural elements.

Watermelon growing in a multispan high tunnel.

59

I) By the fall of 2012 only one of eight spans in the tunnel complex still had an intact cover – as small holes in the cover caused by previous wind events expanded with each subsequent event.

J) The last tunnel with an intact cover collapsed following an early wet snow event.

Observations of Crop Performance in the Multi-Span High Tunnels a) There were few consistent differences in pest problems or disease pressure inside the high tunnels

versus crops growing in the open – except for mice which appeared to thrive in the sheltered food-rich environment of the high tunnels.

b) Most crops grew more slowly in the multispan high tunnel than in the smaller single span high tunnel. This likely reflects the reduced light levels and more moderate temperatures in the multispan tunnels.

c) Fruit set was generally superior in the multi-span high tunnels relative to the standard single span units. Pollen development and release may have been favored by the moderate temperatures of the multispan high tunnels. The more open and moderate environment in the MSHT may also have been more conducive to pollination by insects (melons) and by wind (tomato and pepper).

d) Tomato plants in the multi-span high tunnels were smaller than in the standard high tunnels – but set fruit earlier and produced superior yields.

e) Watermelons matured earlier and produced more fruit/plant in the multispan high tunnels than for the smaller single high tunnel unit.

f) Lettuce, broccoli and cabbage grew well in both types of tunnel. g) Getting day neutral strawberry plants established was difficult in both types of high tunnel. Once

established, the day-neutral strawberries did well in the high tunnels – although no major advantage in terms of fruit yield or quality was observed relative to growing the crop under open field conditions. Spider mites were more of a problem in the dry warm high tunnels than in the field.

h) Raspberry plants grew more quickly and yielded fruit earlier in the high tunnel than in the open. Conclusions and Recommendations Multi-span high tunnels (MSHT) have some clear-cut management advantages over the standard single span high tunnels. The larger size of the MSHT allows for a wider range of crops to be grown and makes it easier to mechanize production. The more moderate temperatures in the multispan high tunnels resulted in higher fruit yields in crops such tomato, pepper, watermelon and muskmelon relative to crops in standard single span high tunnels. Excellent quality crops of cool season vegetables such as lettuce, broccoli, cabbage and spinach could be grown in the multispan high tunnels. Keeping newly planted crowns of day-neutral strawberries supplied with adequate water was challenging within all types of high tunnels. The greater size of the multispan high tunnels made it difficult to install and remove the covers. The high tunnels were not structurally strong enough to withstand the winds associated with even moderately severe storm events. They also could not bear a significant snow load. While the multi-span high tunnels may have a low purchase price, this cost must be balanced against higher construction and maintenance costs as well as concerns about durability and failure risk of these structures.

60

Green Manure Cover Crops Between Rows of Widely Spaced Vegetable Crops

Squash and pumpkin are grown with wide spaces between the rows. Tillage is commonly used to control the weeds between the rows but tillage is time consuming and damages the soil structure. Using herbicides to control weeds growing between the rows depends on identifying herbcides and application methods that are effective and crop safe. By planting low growing cover crops in the space beween the rows it may be possible to suppress weeds while also contributing to the soil organic matter reserves. This project evaluated the potential to grow green manure cover crops between the rows of a widely spaced, locally popular vegetable crop – pumpkins. Spring planted winter wheat was used as the cover crop as it; a) is well adapted to Saskatchewan growing conditions b) produces a thick, short stature ground cover if planted in the spring. Spring planted winter wheat does not produce a seed head which prevents it from becoming a weed problem in subsequent crops. c) can be easily and safely controlled by a range of herbicides d) is readily available and inexpensive.

Materials and Methods The project was conducted at the University of Saskatchewan Horticulture Research Station (UofS) and at Roberston Valley Farms (RVF) in Saskatoon. Both sites feature clay soils which would benefit from improved soil health. The pumpkins were transplanted into rows covered with plastic soil mulch. Four cultivars of Jack-O’-Lantern pumpkins were used at the UofS site and a smaller pie type pumpkin was grown at RVF. The rows were spaced 3 m apart at the UofS site and 2 m apart at RVF. The between row treatments used at both sites were

Green Manure Crop - Winter wheat (cv. Accipeter) was seeded between the rows (June 5 at U of S, and on July 3 at RVF) using a small plot vegetable seeder. The wheat rows were 30 cm apart – with the outside rows planted as close as possible to the edge of the plastic mulch. Abundant rain resulted in excellent germination and growth of the winter wheat cover crop at both sites. The green manure crop was allowed to grow until it reached about 30 cm height – at which time a string type mower was used to trim the plants back to about 15cm (July 20 at the U of S site and Aug 9 at RVF). Mowing was designed to remove the seed heads from any weeds that had developed within the green manure planting. Mowing also checked the growth of the green manure crop. Tillage – rotovators (hand or tractor mounted) were used whenever weed growth between the rows warranted the effort. The last tillage operation occurred just as the pumpkin crop was ready to vine out and fill the space between the rows. Hand weeding was used to catch the weeds that were too close to the plastic mulch to be removed by mechanical tillage. Herbicides – the area between the pumpkin rows was treated with Chateau (flumioxazine by Valent mfg) at 200 g/ha + 1% glyphosate. A previous ADOPT project had shown that Chateau applied at this rate provided long lasting control of a wide spectrum of broadleaf weeds. The

61

glyphosate was added to kill any weeds that had already emerged prior to the herbicide treatment – as Chateau is only effective when applied prior weed emergence. The herbicides were applied using a shielded sprayer (Rogers mfg) which allowed for between row application of herbicides without spray drift onto nearby rows of sensitive crops. The herbicide treatment was timed so that many weeds had germinated before spraying but the crop had not yet reached beyond the edge of the mulch – as at that point the vines could potentially come into contact with the spray. To insure that the area between the rows is effectively covered by this type of herbicide treatment, the between row spacing must closely correspond with the width of the shielded sprayer.

The row middle management techniques (tillage, herbicide or green manure) were replicated twice at each site in a randomized complete block design. Each treatment was employed on the full length of a crop row (40 m at UofS and 80 m at RVF).

Data collected Labor requirements – the time it took to establish and maintain the various row middle management methods was recorded. Weed control and organic matter production by the green manure crops – at two times in the growing season (U of S site - July 17 and Aug 15, RVF site – July 26 and Sept 16) all of the plant material was harvested in three 0.25m2 sample areas selected at random within each between-row management treatment. The plant material was sorted as to whether it was the green manure crop (winter wheat) or weeds and then weighed. Yields - the fruit were harvested at the first killing frost (Sept. 15). The number of fruit in the various between-row treatments was counted and their quality assessed. Results Weed Control At the UofS site, the tillage and herbicide treatments both provided effective control of weeds for the duration of the cropping season. At the first sampling date at the UofS site (July 17) about 1/3 of the total biomass in the green manure treatments was broadleaf weeds (Table 1), but by the second sampling date (Aug. 15) over 80% of the biomass in the green manure treatments was the winter wheat living mulch. At the RVF site the chemical treatments again provided a high degree of weed control at both sampling dates (Table 1). However, the first tillage operation did not provide effective control of barnyard grass – likely as the field was very wet at the time of tillage. Barnyard grass also invaded the green manure treatment at the RVF site, representing about 50% of the total biomass in the green manure treatments at both sampling dates. Organic matter production by the green manure treatments was estimated at about 2300 kg/ha (dry weight) at the UofS site and 1450 kg/ha at RVF. Less organic matter was produced at the RVF site due to the later seeding date for the green manure crop and

62

Table 1. Influence of management practices on above ground fresh weight (kg/m2) of plant material growing between the rows of pumpkins at two sites U of S Robertsons Management Plant type July 17 Aug 15 July 26 Sept 16 Tilled Broadleaf 0 0 0.03 0.10 Grass 0 0 0.26 0.16 Herbicides Broadleaf 0 0 0 0 Grass 0 0 0.07 0.22 Green Broadleaf 0.51 0.39 0.06 0.34 Manure Grass 1.04 1.92 0.46 1.11 the narrower between row space at RVF. These estimates did not include any organic matter contributed by the pumpkin crop or the material added when the green manure crops were pruned back at mid-season. The organic matter produced by the green manure crops would represent a useful contribution to overall soil health. However, it does not nearly cover the estimated 60,000 #/a of organic matter lost/year in heavily tilled, irrigated and fertilized vegetable fields. Table 2. Labor Required for Management of Row Middle Treatments

Green Manure Herbicides Tillage U of S Site

10 min. to seed 2 min. to spray 2 tillage operations @ 5 min = 10 min.

10 min. to top GM crop

10 min. hand weeding

10 min. hand weeding 10 min. hand weeding

Total – 30 min/row Total – 12 min/row Total – 20 min/row

Robertson Valley Farms 10 min to seed 2 spray operations @ 2 min. = 4

min. 2 tillage operations @10 min = 20 min.

10 min to top GM crop

60 min. hand weeding

30 min. hand weeding 60 min. hand weeding

Total - 80 min/row Total - 34 min/row 80 min/row At both sites hand removal of weeds that escaped the various row-middle management techniques represented the single greatest labor cost (Table 2). Using herbicides to control weeds involved the lowest labor cost/row at both sites, while also providing the most effective weed control. Total labor costs in the green manure and tilled treatments were comparable. However, the level of weed control achieved in the green manure treatments was much poorer than in the other treatments – as it was impossible to completely hoe or pick out the weeds without also damaging the green manure crop. Treating the green manure crop with selective herbicides would address this problem. Compared to labor, other costs such as fuel for rototilling, the seed for the green manure treatments and the chemicals used in the herbicide treatments would have been minimal. Chateau herbicide costs about $ 22/ha while glyphosate is about $8/ha.

63

Crop Health and Fruit Yield - by late July the vines had completely covered the 2m wide space between rows in the tilled and herbicide treatments at the UofS site. The smaller vines of the pie pumpkin variety planted at RVF were slower to develop into the 1m space between rows – but by the end of the season they too were well established in the area between rows managed by tillage or using herbicides. By contrast, at both sites, having a green manure crop established in the row middles suppressed the pumpkin crops’ ability to vine out into this area. The apparent restriction of vine growth by the green manure treatments appeared to reduce fruit yields (Fig. 8). By preventing the vines from growing into the space between the rows the green manure crops may have reduced the overall photosynthetic capacity of the canopy – leading to the observed yield loss.

Fruit yields when the between-row areas were managed through tillage or herbicides were comparable at both sites (Fig. 1). Fruit number per row was higher at the RVF site than at the U of S site as the rows were longer at the RVF and the fruit of the pie pumpkin variety grown at RVF are much smaller than the Jack-O’-Lantern types tested at the UofS site. The row-middle management techniques had no impact on fruit size, maturity at harvest or quality. There were few problems with fruit rot at either site – likely due to relatively dry conditions through the last few weeks of the 2012 growing season. In a wet fall having the pumpkins supported off the soil by a green manure crop may be reduce fruit rot. Conclusions

a) spring planted winter wheat represented an excellent green manure crop to plant between rows in a widely spaced pumpkin crop. It quickly produced a thick canopy that choked out most weeds. It tolerated mowing which allowed additional control of weeds. As spring planted winter wheat does not set seed it will also not represent a potential weed in the next growing season. It also produced a large yield of organic matter which would benefit soil health.

050

100150200250300350

GreenManure

Herbicides Tillage

Frui

t/row

U of SRVF

Figure 1. Influence of row middle management technique on fruit yields of pumpkin grown at two sites in 2012.

64

b) winter wheat as a between-row green manure crop appeared to interfere with the pumpkin crop vining out into the row middles – and this resulted in a yield loss. Even though the wheat had been trimmed back it appeared to represent a physical barrier that the pumpkin vines tended to avoid. This was surprising as pumpkin vines are large and fast growing, especially in the Jack-O’-Lantern cultivars tested at the U of S site. This apparent physical barrier issue could be alleviated by;

a. planting the winter wheat later, in more widely spaced rows, with greater space between plants within the row

b. the winter wheat crop could be trimmed back more severely or killed out using herbicides or by crimping just as the pumpkin crop begins to vine out

c. planting a less aggressive cover crop species

However, all of these solutions would reduce the ability of the winter wheat cover crop to suppress weeds and to contribute to soil organic matter reserves.

This project was supported by; the ADOPT Program of Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food.

Special thanks to Robertson Valley Farms for hosting this project

65

ROOT MAGGOT CONTROL TRIAL Root maggots (Delia radicum) represent a major problem for growers of vegetable cole crops in Saskatchewan. Maggots damage to the roots renders them less capable of delivering the water and nutrients required for optimal growth. In crops grown for their roots (rutabaga and radish), the scars left by the feeding maggots will render the roots unmarketable. Presently the standard approach to controlling maggots is to apply the insecticide chlorpyrifos (Lorsban) as a root drench on several occasions through the growing season. The timing of chlorpyrifos application(s) is targeted to correspond to the development of the maggot population. Application of chlorpyrifos must cease 30 days prior to harvest for rutabaga. Organophosphates like chlorpyrifos have been targeted for phase out as soon as effective reduced-risk alternatives are identified. The objectives of this project were to;

a) test new reduced-risk insecticides for potential use in root maggot management b) look for alternatives to insecticides as means to control root maggots

Insecticide Testing

An insecticide testing project was conducted in 2009-2012 at the U of S Vegetable Crops Research Station in Saskatoon. Because of heavy root maggot pressure at this site, production of vegetable cole crops is difficult – even with repeated applications of pesticides. Each insecticide treatment consisted of two adjacent rows of rutabaga (cv. Laurentian) spaced 60 cm apart, with each treatment replicated four times in a randomized complete block design. The rutabaga seedlings were hand thinned to 10 cm apart soon after emergence. The plot was kept weed free using herbicides and hand weeding. Overhead irrigation was used to maintain optimum soil moisture levels throughout the growing season. No problems with crop development or health were observed, beyond the expected problems with root maggots. Growing conditions in all four years were favorable for rutabagas. The insecticide treatments tested are outlined in Table 1. Except for Trmt 1, the control products were applied three times over the season, starting at the first true leaf stage and then repeated at two week intervals (late June, mid-July and late July). In all cases the control products were applied using 80-08 flood nozzles to deliver the product in the equivalent of 1000 L/ha of water over a 15cm wide spray band. Trmt 7 involved application of just water and served as the control. Only Trmt 6 (chlorpyrifos) is presently registered for root maggot control on rutabaga in Canada. The efficacy of the insecticides was evaluated at several points over the growing season (data not shown) and again at the final harvest. Roots requiring 2 or fewer cuts to remove the maggot damaged tissues were considered marketable. Results Root maggot damage was less severe in 2010 and 2012 than in 2009 or 2011. In 2009 and 2011 none of the roots in the untreated controls were marketable by the end of the growing season (Table 1). In all years maggot damage to the roots increased as the season progressed. The chlorpyrifos treatment provided effective maggot control in all years, resulting in a relatively high proportion of the crop meeting grade standards at the final harvest. The presently unregistered product CCCCC also provided a fairly consistent degree of root maggot control. Access to effective alternatives to chlorpyrifos (Lorsban) is highly desirable – especially as repeated applications of a single product exert significant selection pressure for pesticide resistance.

66

Table 1. Influence of pesticides on % marketable rutabaga. Treatment Application 2009) 2010 2011 2012 Average

1. AAAAA 1 X Root drench 0 75 4 51 32 2. AAAAA 3 X Root drench 0 95 50 81 57 3. BBBBB 3 X Root drench 0 75 26 83 46 4. CCCCC (rate 1) 3 X Root drench 10 78 52 88 65 5. CCCCC (rate 2) 3 X Root drench 20 98 86 96 75 6. Chlorpyrifos 3 X Root drench 75 93 48 98 79 7. Water (control) 3 X Root drench 0 38 4 66 27

Roots considered marketable if maggot damage can be removed with a maximum of 2 cuts Root Maggot Interference Trials While there are chemical control products that provide at least some degree of protection against root maggots, alternative methods of management are clearly desirable – especially as the only chemical control product that provides effective root maggot control (chlorpyrifos or Lorsban) is under regulatory review. One possible alternative approach to maggot control is to physically restrict the pest’s access to the crop. Potential options for interfering with access to the crop include;

a) covering the crop. Transparent field covers are already extensively used in production of high value vegetable crops, primarily because the covers produce a warm, sheltered growing environment conducive to faster growth and enhanced yields. However, field covers may also be used to protect crops against insect pests. b) fencing. The adult root maggot fly tends to stay less than a meter above the ground when seeking its preferred egg laying sites at the base of the host plant. It is therefore possible to use relatively short fences to protect the crop – assuming that the fence is designed from material that is too finely woven to allow the fly access to the crop.

In 2010, 2011 and 2012 we assessed field covers and fencing as a means of protecting a rutabaga crop from root maggot damage. The trials were conducted at the University of Saskatchewan Vegetable Research plots in Saskatoon. All production practices were as previously outlined. Each treatment consisted of 15 rows (8 m long) of rutabaga (cv. Laurentian) spaced 0.6 m apart, with a single plot for each treatment. As soon as the crop was seeded the “interference” treatments were put into place. In 2010 Agryl P-17 (1.7 oz/m2) was used as a field cover. This material is thin and light weight, allowing about 80% of sunlight to pass. The mesh for the woven polyester is far too small to allow passage by root maggot flies, but is hopefully sufficiently airy to prevent overheating of the crop. The entire plot was covered with a single sheet of the cover, with the edges sealed with soil. The covers were only removed briefly to allow for thinning, weeding, and crop evaluation. In the 2011 and 2012 trials, P-17 was tested again, along with a specifically designed insect cover. This insect material has a more open mesh – (20/inch) although the holes are still too small to allow passage of the root maggot fly. In the 2010 trial a “maggot fence” was constructed by tacking a sheet of finely woven row cover (Agryl P-17) to a standard plastic snow fence. The fence stood about 1.3 m in high. In 2011 and 2012 we tested a custom manufactured “maggot fencing” system designed by scientists at AAFC Agassiz, B.C. The unique aspect of this custom fence is that the mesh material forms a crook at the top of the fence – this feature is designed to deflect downward any flies encountering the fence. While the field covers and fences may be effective at preventing access to the crop by passing maggot flies, they cannot protect the crop against any flies that may emerge from pupae that have overwintered within the protected crop area. For that reason half of each plot was treated at regular

67

intervals with the insecticide chlorpyrifos (Lorsban), as this product has provided effective root maggot control in other trials. Standard crop maintenance procedures were employed in all years. The plot was harvested once the crop matured at which time the weight and degree of root maggot damage was evaluated for 20 randomly selected roots from each treatment. Roots were considered marketable if all maggot damage could be removed with two or less cuts. A standard non-protected plot was included in all comparisons. Results

Crop growth – in all years, the field cover and fencing treatments enhanced early growth relative to the non-covered treatments. While it was not possible to determine the exact cause of this beneficial effect, it seems likely that the crop covers and fences were protecting the emerging seedlings from wind damage. The crop covers may also have been increasing air temperatures in the crop canopy – which may have been beneficial early in the season. By mid-summer the crop covered with the P-17 material began to take on an abnormally “leggy” appearance – the tops were taller and thinner than normal. At the same time development (swelling) of the tap root appeared to stall. This growth effect was not observed when the crop was covered with the better ventilated insect cover.

Treatment management – the field covers were relatively easy to install and maintain. They stayed in place through several severe storm events and were easily repositioned if they did blow loose. Late in the growing season the growing crop began to push upwards against the covers and this tended to dislodge the covers more frequently. The maggot fence systems required more effort to install and maintain. The fences interfered with all forms of machinery used in crop maintenance – by contrast the field covers were easily removed and replaced once tillage or spraying was completed.

Yields – in all three years root weights were increased by the chlorpyrifos treatments (Tables 2, 3 and 4). This would be expected if the chlorpyrifos treatments had protected the feeder roots from damage by the maggots. The cover treatments increased total root yields relative to the control treatments in 2010 and 2011 but not in 2012. The fencing treatments did not enhance yields in any year. In all three years the Lorsban treatments substantially reduced the amount of root maggot damage seen in all treatments at the final harvest. This resulted in a substantial increase in the proportion of the crop that would have met grade standards for freedom from excessive maggot damage. If no insecticide was used, keeping the crop covered with the P-17 field cover increased the proportion of the 2010 crop that made grade tolerances for maggot damage. In 2011, the fencing treatment and the insect cover increased the marketable % for the crop in the absence of protectant insecticides. Fencing and both types of cover increased the marketable % in the 2012 trial. Conclusion/Recommendations – three years of testing suggest that crop covers and fences do have the potential to provide at least some degree of crop protection against maggot damage. However both the crop covers and fences were expensive to install and required considerable maintenance. They also interfered with other aspects of normal crop maintenance. By comparison, application of the standard insecticide chlorpyrifos provided more effective crop protect than either the covers or fences, and at a fraction of the cost.

68

Table 2. Root weights, root damage ratings and % marketable roots as influenced by various protection systems, with or without supplemental application of the insecticide Lorsban – 2010 trial. Root weight

(kg) Z Damage rating Y % marketable Marketable Weight

(kg) Lorsban Lorsban Lorsban Lorsban + - + - + - + - No cover 5.2 3.8 1.7±0.26 2.9±0.26 83 29 4.3 1.1 P-17 5.6 3.8 1.6±0.31 1.9±0.40 83 62 4.6 2.4 Fenced 5.7 6.4 1.0±0.31 2.6±0.40 83 33 4.7 2.1

Avg 5.5 4.7 1.4 2.5 83 41 4.5 1.9 Z Weight of 20 randomly selected roots. Y Damage rating based on number of cuts required to remove maggot damage (0 to maximum of 4). Mean±SE. Roots considered marketable if maggot damage can be removed with a maximum of 2 cuts Table 3. Root weights, root damage ratings and % marketable roots as influenced by various protection systems, with or without supplemental application of the insecticide Lorsban – 2011 trial. Root weight

(kg/plot) Damage rating Z %

marketable Marketable

Weight Lorsban Lorsban Lorsban Lorsban + - + - + - + - No cover 20.8 17.4 2.4±0.15 3.6±0.31 45 20 9.4 3.5 P-17 cover 28.3 22.1 1.0±0.22 3.3±0.27 100 15 28.3 3.3 Anti-insect cover 28.2 15.2 0.8±0.31 1.7±0.45 95 65 26.7 9.9 Fenced 17.4 17.5 2.2±0.22 2.6±0.36 60 50 10.5 8.7

Avg 23.7 18.0 1.6 2.8 75 38 18.8 6.4 Z Damage rating based on number of cuts required to remove maggot damage (0 to maximum of 4). Mean±SE. Roots considered marketable if maggot damage can be removed with a maximum of 2 cuts Table 4. Root weights, root damage ratings and % marketable roots as influenced by various protection systems, with or without supplemental application of the insecticide Lorsban – 2012 trial. Root weight

(kg/plot) Damage rating Z % marketable Marketable

Weight Lorsban Lorsban Lorsban Lorsban + - + - + - + - No cover 12.4 9.8 0.2±0.10 1.6±0.22 100 64 12.4 6.3 P-17 cover 6.9 7.7 0 0.2±0.11 100 100 6.9 7.7 Anti-insect cover 11.5 9.0 0 0.6±0.24 100 92 11.5 8.3 Fenced 10.8 11.0 0 0.2±0.12 100 100 10.8 11.0

Avg 10.4 9.4 0.1 0.6 100 89 10.4 8.3 Z Damage rating based on number of cuts required to remove maggot damage (0 to maximum of 4). Mean±SE. Roots considered marketable if maggot damage can be removed with a maximum of 2 cuts

69

Companion Cropping Trial Companion cropping involves mixing two or more crop species within a field in an effort to enhance productivity – with the companion crops “helping” the other crop by repelling insect pests or by providing nutrients. Root maggot flies identify suitable hosts for egg laying by a combination of visual cues and odor. The presence of non-host plants in the immediate vicinity of the potential host tends to “confuse” the flies, reducing egg laying. The flies are attracted by the volatile sulphur-based compounds that give members of the Brassicacea their characteristic odor. This study sought to determine whether root maggot damage to a high value vegetable crop (rutabaga) could be mitigated by inter-planting the rutabagas with either a non-host “companion” crop like wheat that would physically interfere with egg laying or a faster growing and stronger smelling (more attractive) brassica crop like oilseed mustard. The trial was conducted at the University of Saskatchewan Vegetable Crops Research site in Saskatoon during 2010, 2011 and 2012 (see previous for site details). The rutabagas (cv. Laurentian) were planted in rows alternating with rows of; a) rutabaga (standard) b) oilseed mustard c) wheat d) no crop (2011 and 2012)

The wheat and oilseed mustard companion crops were planted 1 week ahead of the rutabaga so that these companion plants would be larger than the rutabaga. It was anticipated that the efficacy of these treatments in either or confusing or diverting the maggot flies would be enhanced by increasing plant size. To reduce competition with the rutabaga crop, both companion crops were “topped” to the height of the adjacent rutabaga plants in mid-July and again in mid-August. Each plot row was 8 m long and each treatment was replicated four times in a randomized complete block design. One half of each treatment row of rutabaga (4m) was treated at regular intervals with chlorpyrifos (see above for description of treatment method). This allowed for comparison of the companion treatments with and without supplemental control via insecticides. The trials was harvested once the crop matured, at which time the weight and degree of root maggot damage was evaluated for 20 randomly selected roots from each treatment replicate. At the final harvest the degree of root maggot damage was evaluated based on the number of cuts required to remove visible maggot damage from the roots. Roots requiring 2 or less cuts were considered to be marketable. Results

Crop growth - both the oilseed mustard and wheat established quickly and, as designed, were well advanced prior to the emergence of the rutabaga. Both of the “companion” crops grew more quickly than the rutabaga – this resulted in considerable shading of the rutabaga crop – especially by the sprawling oilseed mustard plants. This competition occurred despite the companion crops being topped twice over the course of the growing season. Yields and Maggot Control – in the 2010 trial the companion crops reduced yields of the adjacent rutabaga plants relative to when the adjacent plant was a rutabaga (Table 5). By contrast in the 2011 and 2012 trials, yields from the plots where the rutabaga crop was interplanted between rows of wheat or mustard were actually higher than when the adjacent row was also planted to rutabaga (Tables 6 and 7). In 2011 yields of all three interplanted rutabaga crops were less than 50% of the yields observed when the rutabaga test rows were flanked by blank, unplanted rows. In 2012 yields of the crop interplanted with mustard were equivalent to the yields obtained when the adjacent rows were not planted. It is noteworthy that in the 2012 trial, the mustard struggled to get established under the extremely wet conditions that prevailed through early summer. These results suggest that the rutabaga crop is experiencing competition pressure from adjacent rows of companion plants. This competition was greatest when the adjacent rows contained vigorous plants (untrimmed rutabaga) but was still significant when the companion plants (wheat or mustard) were pruned back to the height of the adjacent rutabagas

70

on two occasions over the course of the growing season. Competition is one of the major limitations of using companion planting to limit pests in relatively non-competitive horticultural crops. In the 2010 trial having mustard as a companion plant significantly reduced root maggot damage to the adjacent rows of rutabaga (Table 5). The degree of root maggot protection achieved by interplanting with mustard was equivalent to the degree of benefit achieved with multiple applications of Lorsban. When considering the proportion of the crop that would have been considered to be marketable based on freedom from excess root maggot damage (damage rating <2.0), the combination of Lorsban+mustard as a companion crop was clearly superior (78% marketable), while rutabaga grown without either insecticide or a companion crop had the highest rate of grade-out due to excessive maggot damage (23% marketable). The enhancement in marketable % achieved by interplanting the rutabaga crop with mustard was not sufficient to overcome the negative effect exerted on yields by competition from the mustard crop. As a consequence, the highest marketable yields in the 2010 trial were obtained when a less competitive rutabaga crop was grown in the adjacent rows. Averaged across interplanting treatments, application of the insecticide Lorsban to the 2010 crop increased the marketable % by 19% and marketable yields by 68%. Table 5. Root weights, % marketable roots and marketable root weights as influenced by various companion crops with or without supplemental application of Lorsban – 2010 trial. Yield

(kg/plot) % Marketable Marketable

(kg/plot) Lorsban Lorsban Lorsban Companion Crop + - Avg + - Avg + - Avg Mustard 4.1 5.1 4.9 78 50 64 3.2 2.6 2.9 Wheat 5.5 4.8 5.1 45 52 48 2.5 2.5 2.5 Rutabaga 9.2 6.4 7.8 58 23 40 5.3 1.5 3.4

Avg 6.2 5.4 60 41 3.7 2.2 2 Root damage rating based on number of cuts required to remove maggot damage (0 to maximum of 4) 3 Roots considered marketable if maggot damage can be removed with a maximum of 2 cuts Having mustard as the companion crop increased the proportion of roots that were sufficiently free of maggot damage to be considered “marketable” (damage rating <2.0) by 10% relative to the next best treatment – this was comparable to the average benefit achieved using multiple applications of Lorsban (11% increase in marketable roots)(Table 6). While having no companion crop had resulted in a high % grade out to maggot damage, the lack of competition from adjacent crop rows resulted in the few remaining marketable roots growing to exceptional size. As a consequence, the highest marketable yields in the 2011 trial were obtained when the rutabaga tests rows were flanked by blank rows (Table 6). Table 6. Root weights, % marketable roots and marketable root yields as influenced by various companion crops with or without supplemental application of Lorsban – 2011 trial Yield

(kg/plot) % Marketable Marketable

(kg/plot) Lorsban Lorsban Lorsban Companion Crop + - Avg + - Avg + - Avg Mustard 6.6 4.3 5.3 82 65 74 5.4 2.8 4.1 Wheat 4.3 5.8 5.0 40 43 41 1.7 2.5 2.1 Rutabaga 4.0 3.5 3.7 78 50 64 3.1 1.8 2.5 No Crop 16.8 10.3 10.9 48 45 46 8.1 4.6 6.3

Avg 8.0 6.0 62 51 4.6 2.9 2 Root damage rating based on number of cuts required to remove maggot damage (0 to maximum of 4) 3 Roots considered marketable if maggot damage can be removed with a maximum of 2 cuts

71

In the 2012 trial root maggot damage ratings had been relatively low throughout the growing season. The 2012 crop was also harvested relatively early (Sept. 12). Both of these factors would have contributed to the relatively minor root maggot damage observed at the final harvest in 2012 (Table 7). None of the companion plants treatment had any significant impact on the degree of grade-out due to maggot damage at the final harvest in 2012. Once again, having mustard as the companion crops exerted the least drag on total yields, while having rutabagas growing in the adjacent rows appeared to exert the greatest competition effect. Although root maggot pressure was relatively light in 2012, it is noteworthy that treating with the insecticide Lorsban increased both the total yields and the yields of roots that met grade standards for freedom from excess maggot damage. A similar positive effect of the Lorsban treatments on total yields was also observed in the 2010 and 2011 trials. This suggests that by protecting the roots from maggot damage the Lorsban treatments were increasing total productivity – perhaps because the root maggots were damaging the feeder roots required for nutrient and moisture uptake. Table 7. Root weights, % marketable roots and marketable root yields as influenced by various companion crops with or without supplemental application of Lorsban – 2012 trial Yield

(kg/plot) % Marketable Marketable

(kg/plot) Lorsban Lorsban Lorsban Companion Crop + - Avg + - Avg + - Avg Mustard 9.0 9.6 9.3 100 87 93 9.0 6.3 7.7 Wheat 8.2 5.4 6.8 100 90 95 8.2 4.9 6.6 Rutabaga 4.1 3.4 3.7 100 83 91 4.1 2.8 3.5 No Crop 11.3 7.5 9.4 100 87 93 11.3 6.3 8.8

Avg 8.1 6.5 100 87 8.1 5.6 2 Root damage rating based on number of cuts required to remove maggot damage (0 to maximum of 4) 3 Roots considered marketable if maggot damage can be removed with a maximum of 2 cuts Conclusion/Recommendations – establishing and maintaining the companion crops required some additional effort. The yield data suggests that the companion plants needed to be managed in a manner that more effectively limited their ability to compete with the rutabaga crop (ie; wider row spacings, thinner planting density or more frequent/aggressive pruning). This management would need to be achieved without compromising the value of these crops as means of protecting the target crop from insect damage. Another possibility would be to select companion plants with a less aggressive growth habit – for example kale is very attractive to root maggots and has a less aggressive growth habit than mustard. However it is thought that larger plants are more effective as an attractant/distraction – and therefore a less vigorous companion crop may be undesirable.

THIS RESEARCH WAS SUPPORTED BY THE AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND OF SASKATCHEWAN AGRICULTURE