Fruit and Vegetable

2013 RESEARCH REPORT

PR-673

RESEARCH

AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND ENVIRONMENT, LEXINGTON, KY, 40546

University of Kentucky • Lexington, Kentucky 40546

Acknowledgments

Grants from the Agricultural

Development Board through the

Kentucky Horticulture Council have

allowed an expansion of the eld

research and demonstration program to

meet the informational and educational

needs of our growing vegetable and fruit

industries.

Important note to readers:

The majority of research reports in this

volume do not include treatments with

experimental pesticides. It should be

understood that any experi-mental

pesticide must rst be labeled for the

crop in question before it can be used by

growers, regardless of how it might have

been used in research trials. The most

recent product label is the nal authority

concerning application rates, precautions,

harvest intervals, and other relevant

information. Contact your county’s

Cooperative Extension oce if you need

assistance in interpreting pesticide labels.

This is a progress report and may

not reect exactly the nal outcome

of ongoing projects. Please do not

reproduce project reports for distribution

without permission of the authors.

2013 Fruit and Vegetable Crops Research Report

Edited by Shubin K. Saha, John Snyder and Chris Smigell

CONTRIBUTORS

Horticulture

Chair

Robert L. Houtz

Faculty

Doug Archbold

Shubin K. Saha

John Snyder

John Strang

Patsy Wilson

Area Extension Associates

Ty Cato, Shelbyville, Louisville metro area

(vegetables)

Chris Smigell, Lexington, central Kentucky

(small fruits)

Dave Spalding, Lexington, central Kentucky

(vegetables)

Horticulture Farm Manager

Mark Williams (Interim)

Horticulture Organic Farming Research

and Education Unit and CSA Manager

Tiany Thompson

Horticulture Professional Sta assisting

with projects included in this report

Dave Lowry

Sean Lynch

Joseph Tucker

Je Wheeler

Neal Wilson

Dwight Wolfe

Lucas Hanks

Entomology

Faculty

Ric Bessin

Graduate Students

Amanda Skidmore

Rachelyn Dobson

Plant Pathology

Faculty

Kenny Seebold

Nicole Ward

Professional Sta

Julie Beale

Brenda Kennedy

Sara Long

Nutrition and Food Science

Faculty

Pam Sigler

Food Systems Innovation Center

Angela Anandappa

Extension Agents

Agriculture and Natural Resources and

Horticulture (county research sites)

Caldwell Co., Shane Bogle

Campbell Co., DJ Scully, David Koester,

Clark Co., David Davis

Fayette Co., Nick Carter, Jamie Dockery

Franklin Co., Keenan Bishop, Lora Bailey

Gallatin Co., David Hull

Garrard Co., Jay Hettmansperger

Jeerson Co., Wayne Long, Sarah Stolz

Madison Co., Brandon Sears, Amanda Sears

Oldham Co., Tracy M. Missun

Shelby Co., Corinne Kephart

Spencer Co., Bryce Roberts

Kentucky State University

College of Agriculture Food Science and

Sustainable Systems

Dean

Dr. Teferi Tsegaye

Faculty

George F. Antonious

John D. Sedlacek

Maifan Silitonga

Kirk Pomper

Professional Sta

Jon Cambron

Karen Friley

Sherry Crabtree

Irina Howard

Jeremiah Lowe

Joni Nelson

Anthony Silvernail

Berea College

Agriculture and Natural Resources Program

Faculty

Sean Clark

Assistant Farm Manager

Janet Meyer

Cover: Trellised seedless cucumbers grown in

a high tunnel.

Several of the research reports presented in

this document were partially funded by the

Kentucky Agricultural Development Board

through a grant to the Kentucky Horticulture

Council.

Mention or display of a trademark,

proprietary product, or rm in text or gures

does not constitute an endorsement and

does not imply approval to the exclusion of

other suitable products or rms.

Contents

e 2013 Fruit and Vegetable Crops Research Program ................................................................. 3

Demonstrations

On-Farm Commercial Vegetable Demonstrations ...........................................................................4

On-Farm Commercial Vegetable Demonstrations ...........................................................................6

Diagnostic Laboratory

Fruit and Vegetable Disease Observations

from the Plant Disease Diagnostic Laboratory—2013 ......................................................... 7

Tree Fruits

Rootstock Eﬀects on Apple and Peach Tree Growth and Yield ...................................................9

Feasibility Study of Organic Apple Production in Kentucky ...................................................... 11

Small Fruit and Grapes

e ‘Prime-Jan®’ and ‘Prime-Ark®45’ orny

Primocane-fruiting Blackberry Trial ...................................................................................... 13

Organic Grape Cultivar Evaluation Trial in Kentucky .................................................................. 14

Leafhoppers Associated with Newly Established

Primocane Blackberry and Raspberry Plantings in Central Kentucky ....................... 16

Wine and Seedles Table Grape Cultivar Evaluation Trial ........................................................... 18

Rabbiteye Blueberry Variety Evaluation, 2013 ................................................................................. 21

Advanced orny and ornless

Primocane-fruiting Blackberry Selection Trial ................................................................... 22

Vegetables

Bell Pepper Bacterial Spot Variety Trial, Central Kentucky ........................................................ 23

Spring Red and Savoy Cabbage Variety Evaluation ....................................................................... 25

Managing Brown Marmorated Stink Bug

using Selective Exclusion Screening Materials .................................................................... 29

Developing More Resilient Cantaloupe Production Systems .................................................... 30

Financial Comparison of Organic Potato Production Using

Diﬀerent Integrated Pest Management Systems ................................................................. 33

Eﬀect of Municipal Refuse Compost and Chicken Manure

Applications on Kale and Collard Green Yields and Quality.......................................... 37

Asparagus Variety Evaluation ................................................................................................................ 40

Appendix A: Sources of Vegetable Seeds .......................................................................................... 41

INTRODUCTION

1. C ampbell

2. Caldwell

9. Madison

10. Oldham

7. Gallatin

8. Jeerson

3. Clark

4. Fayette

11. Shelby

12. Spence

5. Franklin

6. Garrard

Fruit and vegetable research

sites in 2013.

The 2013 Fruit and Vegetable Crops Research Program

Shubin K. Saha, Department of Horticulture

Fruit and vegetable production in Kentucky continues to

grow. e 2013 Fruit and Vegetable crops research report in-

cludes results for more than 15 ﬁeld research plots and multiple

demonstration trials. is year fruit and vegetable research and

demonstration trials were conducted in more than 12 counties

in Kentucky (see map, right). Research was conducted by fac-

ulty and staﬀ from several departments within the University

of Kentucky College of Agriculture including: Horticulture,

Plant Pathology, and Entomology. is report also includes

collaborative research projects conducted with faculty and staﬀ

at Kentucky State University and Berea College.

Variety trials included in this year’s publication include:

cabbage, asparagus, bell peppers, blueberries, blackberries,

raspberries, apples, peaches, and grapes. Additional research

trials include organic management of cucumber beetles, ﬁnan-

cial comparison of organic potato integrated pest management

systems, and eﬀect of organic fertilizer materials for production

of kale. Variety trials provide us with much of the information

necessary to update our recommendations in our Vegetable

Production Guide for Commercial Growers (ID-36). However,

when making decisions about what varieties to include in ID-

36, we factor in performance of varieties at multiple locations

in Kentucky over multiple years. We may also collaborate with

researchers in surrounding states to discuss results of variety

trials they have conducted. Only then after much research and

analysis will we make variety recommendations for Kentucky.

e results presented in this publication often reﬂect a single

year of data at a limited number of locations. Although some

varieties perform well across Kentucky year after year, others

may not. Here are some helpful guidelines for interpreting the

results of fruit and vegetable variety trials:

Our Yields vs. Your Yields

Yields reported in variety trial results are extrapolated from

small plots. Depending on the crop, individual plots range from

8 to 200 plants. Our yields are calculated by multiplying the

yields in these small plots by correction factors to estimate per-

acre yield. For example, if you can plant 4,200 tomato plants per

acre (assuming 18” within row spacing) and our trials only have

10 plants per plot, we must multiply our average plot yields by a

factor of 420 to calculate per acre yields. us, small errors can

be greatly ampliﬁed. Furthermore, because we do not include

factors such as drive rows in our calculations, our per-acre yields

are typically much higher than what is found on an average farm.

Due to the availability of labor, research plots may be harvested

more often than would be economically possible. Keep this in

mind when reviewing the research papers in this publication.

Statistics

Often yield or quality data will be presented in tables

followed by a series of letters (a, ab, bc, etc.). ese letters

indicate if the yields of the varieties are statistically diﬀerent.

Two varieties may have average yields that appear to be quite

diﬀerent. For example if tomato variety 1 has an average yield

of 2000 boxes per acre and variety 2 yields 2300 boxes per acre

one would as-sume that variety 2 had a greater yield. However,

just because the two varieties had diﬀerent average yields, does

not mean that they are statistically or signiﬁcantly diﬀerent. In

the tomato example, variety 1 may have consisted of four plots

with yields of 1800, 1900, 2200, and 2100 boxes per acre. e

average yield would then be 2000 boxes per acre. Tomato variety

2 may have had four plots with yields of 1700, 2500, 2800, and

2200 boxes per acre. e four plots together would average

2300 boxes per acre. e tomato varieties have plots with yield

averages that overlap, and therefore would not be considered

statistically dif-ferent, even though the average per acre yields

for the two varieties appear to be quite diﬀerent. is example

also demonstrates variability. Good varieties are those that not

only yield well, but have little variation. Tomato variety 2 may

have had similar yields as variety 1, but also had much greater

variation. erefore, all other things being equal, tomato variety

1 may be a better choice, due to less variation in the ﬁeld.

Statistical signiﬁcance is shown in tables by the letters that

follow a given number. For example, when two varieties have

yields followed by completely diﬀerent letters than they are

signiﬁcantly diﬀerent; however, if they share even one letter

then statistically they are no diﬀerent. us a variety with a yield

that is followed by the letters ‘bcd’ would be no diﬀerent than

a variety followed by the letters ‘cdef,’ because the letters ‘c’ and

‘d’ are shared by the two varieties. Yield data for followed by the

letters ‘abc’ would be diﬀerent yield data followed by ‘efg.’

Lastly when determining statistical signiﬁcance we typically

use a ‘P’ value of 0.05. In this case, P stands for probability and the

0.05 means that we have a 5% chance that our results are real and

not simply due to chance or error. Put another way, if two variet-

ies are said to be diﬀerent at P<0.05, then at least 95% of the time

those varieties will be diﬀerent. If the P value is 0.01, then 99% of

the time those varieties will be diﬀerent. Diﬀerent P values can

be used, but typically P < 0.05 is considered standard practice.

is may be confusing, but without statistics our results

wouldn’t be useful. Using statistics ensures that we can make

more accurate recommendations for farmers in Kentucky.

DEMONSTRATIONS

On-Farm Commercial Vegetable Demonstrations

Ty Cato, Department of Horticulture

Introduction

Five on-farm commercial vegetable production demonstra-

tions were conducted in the north central part of the state, in

Oldham, Jeﬀerson, and Spencer Counties. ese locations were

chosen due to the recent surge in commercial vegetable pro-

duction to supply the Louisville area demand for locally grown

food. ree growers in Jeﬀerson County, one grower in Spencer

County, and one grower in Oldham County were chosen for

this demonstration. e Oldham County grower produced

mixed vegetables on 0.62 acres for local farmers markets and

a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture.) e growers in

Jeﬀerson County grew 1.53 acres, 1.54 acres, and 0.87 acres of

mixed vegetables, respectively. e ﬁrst grower operated a CSA

and sold to farmers markets. e second grower provided his

Louisville-based restaurant with produce from the plot. e

third grower sold at an on-farm store and farmer’s markets, as

well as producing value added products for sale, such as salsas

and sauces. e Spencer County grower grew 0.43 acres of

mixed vegetables and sold at a farmers market.

Materials and Methods

e growers were provided with plastic mulch and drip tape

for up to one acre of production. e University of Kentucky

Horticulture Department also provided a bed-shaper/plastic

layer, a water-wheel transplanter, and a plastic mulch lifter to

remove the mulch at the end of the growing season. All other

inputs including fertilizer, pesticides, irrigation pumps, and

labor (both manual and mechanical) were provided by the

grower. e grower recorded basic information such as yield

data, input costs, etc. An extension associate from the Depart-

ment of Horticulture made weekly visits to provide assistance

with disease management, harvesting practices, and any other

production issue needing attention. e extension associate was

also involved in setting up demonstration ﬁeld days to display

commercial vegetable production techniques to other growers

interested in producing vegetables.

Conventional, certiﬁed organic, and all natural growing

practices were used in the demonstration plots. ree plots

were conventional, relying on synthetic fertilizer, herbicides,

insecticides, and fungicides. One plot was certiﬁed organic and

the last plot was maintained using organic practices, without

organic certiﬁcation. e ﬁve demonstrations used raised beds

with plastic mulch sealed on top of the beds. e height of the

beds ranged from six to eight inches and the plastic used was

either black 1 mil for early season crops or white on black 1 mil

for late season crops. e black plastic provides transplants with

the heat that they need early in the growing season, whereas the

white on black plastic reﬂects the heat of the sun away from the

bed, reducing heat stress on transplants set in the heat of the

summer.

Results and Discussion

e 2013 growing season presented some problems for com-

mercial producers in north central Kentucky. e ﬁrst problem

was very cool spring temperatures that delayed the transplant-

ing date of early spring crops. While not a huge problem, it did

delay yields on certain crops by one to two weeks.

Second, a period of heavy rain, lasting approximately ﬁve

to seven days in early June promoted the development of

Septoria leaf blight on tomatoes. e disease did not become

Table 1: Costs and prots for mixed vegetable plots, Jeerson, Oldham, Spencer Counties, 2013

Jeerson

Conventional 1 Oldham All Natural

Spencer

Conventional

Jeerson

Conventional 2 Jeerson Organic

Plot Acreage 0.9 0.6 0.4 1.5 1.5

Inputs

Plants and Seeds $1013.00 $280.00 $112.26 $2534.42 $700.00

Fertilizer 487.00 82.76 43.75 120.00 1100.00

Plastic Mulch 189.00 86.40 69.30 204.00 180.00

Drip Lines 126.00 57.60 46.20 136.00 119.00

Fertilizer Injector and Irrigation Fittings 728.00 N/A 841.14 175.00 N/A

Herbicide N/A N/A N/A 100.00 N/A

Insecticide 110.00 8.00 N/A 100.00 110.00

Fungicide N/A 20.00 N/A N/A N/A

Water 900.00 154.80 Pond 200.00 900.00

Manual Labor 1450.00 2024.29 1240.00 1218.10 8000.00

Machine Labor (Fuel cost) 125.00 38.25 74.25 1488.55 1400.00

Marketing N/A 166.50 109.75 2086.39 N/A

Total Expenses 5128.00 2918.60 2536.65 8362.46 12509.00

Yield * * * * *

Revenue 4744.00 10140.75 483.50 14540.00 8600.00

Prot -$384.00 $7222.15 -$2053.15 $6177.54 -$3458.00

Yields for mixed vegetable production varybased on crops

DEMONSTRATIONS

a signiﬁcant problem until another soaking rain about a week

later, in which the disease spread rapidly, as the Septoria fungus

spreads by splashing rain. Combined with early blight, Septoria

severely damaged tomato plants, thus limiting yields. Organic

growers tried to prevent the spread by removing infected foliage

from the ﬁeld and applying preventative ﬁxed copper sprays.

Conventional growers tried to slow disease development and

dispersal of inoculum using fungicides such as azoxystrobin,

within a rotational schedule including chlorothalonil.

Powdery mildew became a problem later, aﬀecting pump-

kins, summer squash, and cucumbers primarily. is disease

could be managed with a myclobutanil fungicide, in a rotation

of other preventative sprays. Most heavily damaged summer

squash plantings were removed and replanted, because of rapid

plant growth and quick fruit set.

One of the biggest problems for the cooperating growers this

season was deer feeding damage. One Jeﬀerson County grower’s

entire tomato crop was devastated by deer. e Spencer County

grower lost all of his sweet potatoes and most of his bush beans

to deer damage. is onslaught of deer was limited by installing

various types of fencing around the plots. Some of the fencing

was far more eﬀective than others. Eight foot tall mesh fencing

seemed more eﬀective than various heights of stranded ﬁshing

line spaced four to ﬁve feet apart. e organic grower installed a

twelve foot tall barbed wire fence around his entire farm. While

this was by far the most eﬀective, it was also cost prohibitive for

most growers.

Weed pressure was only a major problem with one grower,

due to a miscommunication regarding what herbicides can be

applied between the beds. is issue was rectiﬁed mid-summer

and the weeds were no longer at an unacceptable level for the

remainder of the season.

Other issues reduced the proﬁtability of the demonstra-

tion plots. Whether it was not having access to a market soon

enough, delayed and/or greatly diminished yields due to abiotic

and biotic factors, or post-harvest loss due to bacterial soft rot,

all of these contributed to low proﬁts by some of the growers

(Table 1). Labor issues aﬀected growers as well. Not having

enough help for harvest caused some crops to be lost with no

proﬁt seen. Initial start-up costs for conventional growers greatly

reduced proﬁtability as well. ese initial costs were for one time

investments (e.g. equipment) that could be amortized over the

useable life of the product, thus leading to increased proﬁts in

the years to come.

DEMONSTRATIONS

On-Farm Commercial Vegetable Demonstrations

Dave Spalding, Department of Horticulture

Introduction

Four on-farm commercial demonstra-

tions were conducted in central and northern

Kentucky in 2013. Grower/cooperators were

from Campbell, Clark, Gallatin, and Garrard

counties. e grower/cooperator in Campbell

County grew 0.50 acre of mixed cut flowers

and fall vegetables (including squash, gourds

and pumpkins) for local farmers markets. e

grower/cooperator in Clark County grew ap-

proximately 1.0 acre of mixed vegetables for the

local farmers market. e grower/cooperator in

Gallatin County grew 3.0 acre of tomatoes, 1.0

acre of cantaloupe, 1.0 acre of watermelon, 1.0

acre of pumpkins and 3.0 acres of sweet corn

for the local wholesale and retail markets. e

Garrard County grower/cooperator grew about

0.50 acre of mixed vegetables for a local CSA

market. Two demonstration plots, one in Clark

and one in Madison County were abandoned in

mid-summer due primarily to a lack of available

labor.

Materials and Methods

Grower/cooperators were provided with black plastic

mulch and drip lines for up to 1 acre and the use of the University

of Kentucky horticulture department’s equipment for raised–

bed preparation and transplanting. e cooperators supplied

all other inputs, including labor and management of the crop.

In addition to identifying and working closely with cooperators,

county extension agents took soil samples from each plot and

scheduled, promoted, and coordinated ﬁeld days at each site.

An extension associate made regular weekly visits to each plot

to scout the crop and make appropriate recommendations.

e plots were planted into raised beds covered with black

plastic mulch and drip tape under the plastic in the center of the

beds. e mixed vegetable plots were planted at the appropri-

ate spacing for the vegetable being grown (i.e. tomatoes were

planted in a single row 18 inches apart; beans were planted in

double rows 12 inches apart, etc.). e bell pepper only plot

was planted into raised beds with the bell peppers planted in

double rows 18 inches apart in the row. Except for the organic

plots, the others were sprayed with the appropriate fungicides

and insecticides as needed, and cooperators were asked to fol-

low the fertigation schedule provided.

Results and Discussion

Weather conditions in 2013 were less than ideal for veg-

etable production. An abnormally wet and cool spring gave way

to a wet and mostly cool summer for much of Central Kentucky.

Despite the wet conditions, most crops were planted at typical

times. After most crops were planted and growing, the weather

stayed relatively cool and wet for most of the summer. e cool

and wet conditions that persisted for most of the growing season

were conducive to increased disease and fertility problems.

However the biggest problem for most growers, particularly

the organic growers, was weeds.

e grower/cooperator in Gallatin County used a white

plastic mulch for part of his production. White plastic use in

early season production did not appear to perform as well as

the traditional black plastic. is is likely a result of the black

plastic warming the soil for good early season establishment of

transplants. However, when used in later plantings the results

were better with most of the improvement coming from a higher

survival rate of transplants, as a result of maintaining cooler

soil temperatures. ese ﬁndings were essentially the same as

observed the previous year.

Table 1. Costs and returns of grower/cooperators, Central Kentucky, 2013.

Inputs

Campbell

(0.50 acre)

Clark

(1.0 acre)

Gallatin

(3.0 acre)

Garrard

(0.50 acre)

Plants and Seeds $210.00 $400.00 $3,300.00 $110.00

Fertilizer 300.00 431.00 1,800.00 240.00

Black Plastic 86.00 186.00 558.00 86.00

Drip Lines 81.00 162.00 486.00 81.00

Fertilizer Injector 0 60.00* 60.00* 0

Herbicide 0 31.98 120.00 0

Insecticide 0 56.22 475.00 0

Fungicide 0 179.08 581.00 85.00

Water 105.00

( 80,00 gal )

419.11

(186,000 gal)

3,200.00**

(550,000 gal)

125.00

(70,000 gal)

Labor 0 0 18,210.00 0

(300 hrs)**** (327 hrs )**** (29,450 hrs)*** (240 hrs )****

Machine 230.40

(24 hrs)

128.20

(13 hrs)

4,500.00

(420 hrs)

87.12

(9.50 hrs)

Marketing 250.00 977.10 3,350.00 25.00

Total Expenses 1,262.40 3,030.69 36,640.00 839.12

Income 1,950.00 11,942.00 72,279.45 900.00

Net Income 687.60 8,911.31 35,639.45 60.88

Net Income/Acre 1,375.20 8,911.31 11,879.82 121.76

Dollar Return /Dollar Input 1.54 3.94 1.97 1.07

Costs amortized over three years.

Cost of electric usage and 5 year amortized cost of pump.

***

Includes unpaid volunteer or family labor.

****

All unpaid family labor.

DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY

Fruit and Vegetable Disease Observations

from the Plant Disease Diagnostic Laboratory—2013

Julie Beale, Paul Bachi, Brenda Kennedy, Sara Long, Kenny Seebold, and Nicole Ward, Department of Plant Pathology

Introduction

Plant disease diagnosis and formulation of disease man-

agement recommendations are the result of U.K. College of

Agriculture Research (Agricultural Experiment Station) and

Cooperative Extension Service activities through the Depart-

ment of Plant Pathology. We maintain two branches of the

Plant Disease Diagnostic Laboratory (PDDL), one on the U.K.

campus in Lexington, and one at the U.K. Research and Educa-

tion Center in Princeton. Two full-time diagnosticians and a

full-time diagnostic assistant are employed in the PDDL; exten-

sion specialists Drs. Kenny Seebold and Nicole Ward provide

diagnostic and disease management expertise in vegetable and

fruit crops, respectively.

Most plant samples are submitted to the PDDL by county

extension agents on behalf of their local growers and home

gardeners. Fruit and vegetable samples comprised roughly one-

third of the approximately 3,500 plant specimens examined in

2013. One-half of fruit and vegetable samples were from com-

mercial growers (1).

Materials and Methods

Fruit and vegetable disease diagnosis involves a great deal

of investigation into the possible causes of disease symptoms.

Most visual diagnoses include microscopy to determine plant

parts that are aﬀected and to identify the pathogen(s) involved.

In addition, many specimens require speciﬁc tests such as moist

chamber incubation, isolation onto culture media, enzyme-

linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), polymerase chain reac-

tion (PCR) assay, nematode extraction, or soil pH and soluble

salts tests. Fruits and vegetables are high value crops for which

a high proportion of diagnostic samples require specialized

testing and/or consultation with U.K. faculty plant pathologists

and horticulturists. Computer-based laboratory records are

maintained to provide information used in conducting plant

disease surveys, identifying new disease outbreaks, and formu-

lating educational programs. All diagnoses of plant diseases are

reported to a national repository.

Results and Discussion

Abundant rain throughout much of the 2013 growing

season and generally cool temperatures favored development

of many plant diseases, particularly those caused by fungi and

oomycetes. e following summary includes the predominant

diseases submitted as diagnostic samples, as well as a description

of several unusual or signiﬁcant diseases of fruit and vegetable

crops.

New, Emerging, and Problematic Fruit and

Vegetable Diseases in Kentucky

Phytophthora root rot on blueberry (Phytophthora

cinnamomi) has been seen more and more frequently in

Kentucky in recent years and was a serious problem for blue-

berry producers in 2013. Wet soils favor disease development

and spread, and the pathogen can survive in soil for extended

periods. Extension programs to educate growers on disease

prevention and management were initiated in response to this

increasing problem.

Strawberry viruses were a source of concern for some

growers in Kentucky and elsewhere in the eastern U.S. this

spring. Plants with dual infections of strawberry mottle virus

(SMoV) and strawberry mild yellow edge virus (SMYEV) were

released from a Nova Scotia nursery. Symptomatic plants from

this source that had been planted on a Kentucky farm were

sent to the USDA-ARS Horticulture Crops Research Unit in

Corvallis, OR, for testing, and presence of the two viruses was

conﬁrmed. Infected plants exhibited symptoms of stunting,

slight leaf distortion and mild yellowing, particularly at leaf

margins. General recommendations for management were

removal of infected plants in order to reduce the risk of spread

to nearby healthy plants, implementation of an insect-control

program to reduce the aphid vector and weed management to

minimize risk of virus carryover in weed hosts.

Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) was not observed

as commonly as in 2012 but was still an important disease in

tomato. Incidence was typically low in a given ﬁeld, but when

the virus was detected in tomatoes in greenhouse/high tun-

nel structures, incidence tended to be quite high. A range of

symptoms was observed.

Late blight (Phytophthora infestans) was not widespread

in Kentucky but was diagnosed in tomato in four counties and

did cause signiﬁcant plant loss where it occurred. Kentucky

isolates of P. infestans were submitted for strain identiﬁcation

as part of a regional project at Cornell University and were

determined to belong to clonal lineage US-23.

Cucurbit downy mildew (Pseudoperonospora cubensis)

developed earlier than usual this year (ﬁrst conﬁrmation in

Kentucky on July 25) and resulted in severe canopy loss in some

areas.

Tree Fruit Diseases

Pome fruits. Cedar-apple rust (Gymnosporangium

juniperi-virginianae) occurred at high levels on susceptible

apple varieties; frequent rains in spring favored infection.

Levels of scab (Venturia inaequalis) and frogeye leaf spot

DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY

(Botryosphaeria obtusa) were moderate. Although ﬁre blight

(Erwinia amylovora) was seen, cooler temperatures during

bloom reduced incidence of infections. Fruit rots—especially

bitter rot (Glomerella cingulata)—were common in late sum-

mer. read blight (Corticium stevensii) was diagnosed on pear.

is disease is rarely seen except in wet years and in humid/

shaded locations.

Stone fruits. Brown rot (Monilinia fructicola) was the

most commonly observed stone fruit disease and affected

peach, nectarine and cherry. Limited incidence and severity of

bacterial leaf spot (Xanthomonas campestris pv. pruni) and

scab (Venturia carpophila) were recorded on peach.

Small Fruit Diseases

Grapes. Anthracnose (Elsinoe ampelina) and black rot

(Guignardia bidwellii) were common. Bitter rot (Melanco-

nium fuligineum) was also diagnosed several times in western

Kentucky on ‘Cabernet Franc’ from commercial vineyards and

‘Concord’ from home fruit plantings. Superﬁcial symptoms of

this fruit rot are similar to those of black rot or Phomopsis fruit

rot. Downy mildew (Plasmopara viticola) was ﬁrst diagnosed

in July, which is fairly typical in our area, and was a full month

later than in 2012. Several cases of leaf blight (Isariopsis clav-

ispora) were diagnosed as a late-season foliar disease.

Brambles. Cane and leaf rust (Kuehneola uredinis) was

diagnosed on multiple blackberry samples, as well as a few cases

of cane blight (Leptosphaeria coniothyrium) and spur blight

(Didymella applanata). Raspberry ringspot virus (RpRSV)

was conﬁrmed via ELISA on both black raspberry and black-

berry.

Blueberries. Root and collar rot (Phytophthora cinna-

momi) was extremely common on blueberry. Various fungal

stem canker/blight diseases were also seen (Botyrosphaeria

sp., Phoma sp., Phomopsis sp.)

Strawberries. Leaf blight (Phomopsis obscurans) was

seen frequently on strawberry. Strawberry mottle virus (SMoV)

and strawberry mild yellow edge virus (SMYEV) were con-

ﬁrmed in Kentucky (see above).

Vegetable diseases

Beans and peas. Foliar/pod diseases, including angular leaf

spot (Phaeoisariopsis griseola) and anthracnose (Glomerella

lindemuthiana), were common due to frequent rains. Com-

mon bacterial blight (Xanothomonas campestris pv. phaseoli)

on bean and bacterial blight (Pseudomonas syringae pv. pisi)

on pea were both diagnosed on home garden samples.

Cole crops. Few diseases were observed on cole crops.

White leaf spot (Mycosphaerella capesllae) was diagnosed

on turnip and Chinese cabbage in autumn.

Cucurbits. Bacterial wilt (Erwinia tracheiphila) was a

problem on cantaloupe early in the season in areas where striped

cucumber beetle pressure was high. Angular leaf spot (Pseudo-

monas syringae pv. lachrymans) also developed on melon and

squash in early summer. Downy mildew (Pseudoperonospora

cubensis—see above) and powdery mildew (Sphaerotheca

fuliginea) became a problem later in the season on cucumber

and pumpkin. Gummy stem blight (Didymella bryoniae) was

diagnosed frequently, particularly on watermelon. A few cases

of Phytophthora blight (Phytophthora capsici) were diagnosed

on pumpkin and winter squash.

Peppers. Bacterial spot (Xanthomonas campestris pv.

vesicatoria) was common on pepper. Few other pepper diseases

were observed.

Tomatoes. e foliar diseases early blight (Alternaria

solani) and Septoria leaf spot (Septoria lycopersici) were com-

mon in ﬁeld production and home gardens. ese diseases plus

leaf mold (Fulvia fulva) were prevalent in greenhouse/high

tunnel systems. Timber rot (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum) and

tobacco mosaic virus and tomato spotted wilt virus (see above)

were also common in structures. Late blight (Phytophthora

infestans) aﬀected tomato plantings in certain areas (see above).

Other vegetables. Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne

incognita) was seen frequently on potato, and severe scurf

(Monilochaetes infuscans) was diagnosed on sweet potato

from several locations.

Fruits and vegetables are high value crops. Because many

of them are new or expanding crops in Kentucky and involve

production systems unfamiliar to Kentucky growers, disease

diagnosis and management are even more critical. e PDDL

is an important resource for extension agents and the growers

they assist. e PDDL encourages county extension agents to

include in their programming the importance of accurate dis-

ease diagnosis and timely sample submission. e information

gained from diagnostic analyses will help improve production

practices and reduce disease occurrences and epidemics.

e PDDL relies on funds from the National Plant Diagnostic

Network and IPM grants to help defray some of the laboratory

operating costs.

Literature Cited

Bachi, P., J. Beale, D. Hershman, B. Kennedy, S. Long, K. Seebold,

P. Vincelli and N. Ward. 2014. Plant Diseases in Kentucky -

Plant Disease Diagnostic Laboratory Summary, 2013. U.K.

Department of Plant Pathology (in press).

TREE FRUITS

Rootstock Eects on Apple and Peach Tree Growth and Yield

Dwight Wolfe, Doug Archbold, June Johnston, and Ginny Travis, Department of Horticulture

Introduction

Although apple and peach are the principal tree fruits grown

in Kentucky, the hot and humid summers and heavy clay soils

make their production more diﬃcult here than in some neigh-

boring tree fruit producing regions. e hot, humid summers

lead to high disease and insect pressure in Kentucky orchards.

Despite these challenges, orchards can oﬀer high per-acre in-

come and are suitable for rolling hills and upland soils.

Identification of improved rootstocks and cultivars is

fundamental for advancing the Kentucky tree fruit industry.

For this reason, Kentucky cooperates with 39 other states and

three Canadian provinces in the Cooperative Regional NC-140

Project entitled “Improving Economic and Environmental Sus-

tainability in Tree Fruit Production through Changes in Root-

stock Use.” e NC-140 trials are critical to Kentucky growers,

allowing access to and testing of new rootstocks from around

the world. e detailed and objective evaluations allow growers

to select the most appropriate rootstocks for Kentucky.

e NC-140 orchards are research trials that also serve as

demonstration plots for visiting fruit growers, extension person-

nel, and researchers. e data collected from these trials helps

establish baseline production and economic records for the

various orchard system/rootstock combinations that can be

used by Kentucky fruit growers.

Materials and Methods

Grafts of known cultivars on the various rootstocks were

produced by nurseries on the West Coast and distributed to

cooperators. Kentucky’s NC-140 rootstock plantings are lo-

cated at the UK Research and Education Center (UKREC) at

Princeton. ey are:

1. e 2009 peach rootstock trial compares fourteen root-

stocks with ‘Redhaven’ as the scion cultivar. Eight trees of

each rootstock were planted in a randomized complete

block design with eight replications (blocks). Trees were

planted in March 2009 on a 16 ft x 20 ft spacing.

2. e 2010 apple rootstock trial is a planting of ‘Aztec Fuji’

apple on thirty-one diﬀerent rootstocks with four blocks

per rootstock and up to three trees per rootstock per block.

It was planted in March 2010. e experimental design was

a randomized complete block design, and trickle irrigation

was installed a month after planting. Heavy spring rains

resulted in many of the graft unions sinking below ground

level. Many of the trees were dug up, reset, and allowed to

resettle through the summer. e heights of the graft unions

above the soil line now average ﬁve inches with a range of

from three to seven inches.

Orchard floor management for these trials consists of

6.5 ft bare ground, herbicide-treated strips with mowed sod

alleyways. Trees are fertilized and sprayed with pesticides

according to local recommendations (1, 2). Yield and trunk

circumference measurements are recorded for both trials and

trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA) is calculated from the trunk

circumference measurements taken 12 inches above the graft

union for apple, and six inches above for peach. Cumulative

yield eﬃciency is the cumulative yield (total of all the annual

yields) divided by the current year’s trunk cross-sectional area

of the tree. e TCSA is an indicator of the proportion of nutri-

ent resources a tree is putting into fruit production relative to

vegetative growth. Tree height and canopy spread (the average

of the within-row and across-row tree widths) are recorded at

the end of the ﬁfth and the ﬁnal (usually the tenth) seasons of

each trial. Fruit size is calculated as the average weight (oz) per

fruit. All data is statistically analyzed using SAS v.9.3

Results and Discussion

e 2013 growing season in Kentucky started late with be-

low normal temperatures and above normal rainfall. Monthly

temperature averages were 6

F and 5°F above normal for

December and January, respectively. Temperatures were 6°F

below normal for March and 2°F below normal for July and

August. Princeton had 16 days at or above 90°F compared to

54 in 2012. Monthly precipitation averages across the state for

2013 were above normal for all but February and May. June and

July monthly averages were 1.6 and 1.8 inches above normal,

respectively. In Princeton, temperatures dipped to 29

F on the

mornings of April 2, 3, and 5, and just below freezing on April

20 and 25. Peaches bloomed and matured about 25 days later

than in 2012.

1. 2009 Peach Rootstock Trial

e ﬁrst year yield data was collected from this trial was

in 2011 (4). e yield in that year was poor due to weather

conditions (hail damage, etc.) and the emergence of the cicada

brood XIX. Most of the peaches harvested would not have

been considered commercial quality even though they met

the commercial size requirements for this trial. In 2012, a crop

that was of commercial size and quality was harvested, in spite

of the early season and season-long drought. In 2013, the third

crop of peaches from this trial was harvested.

Mortality, Julian date of 90% bloom and 10% fruit maturity,

cumulative yield (2011-2013), yield (2013), size, number of

root suckers, trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA), and cumula-

tive yield eﬃciency varied signiﬁcantly among the fourteen

rootstocks in this trial (Table 1). Trees on Bright’s Hybrid and

Viking have had the highest mortality rates, 50% and 25%, re-

spectively. e date of 90% bloom averaged less than two days

from ﬁrst to last with scions on Bright’s Hybrid and Krymsk

86 being the earliest and those on P. americana and Controller

5 being the latest to reach 90% bloom. Fruit maturity was the

latest for scions on Lovell, and earliest by about six days for

scions on Krymsk1 and P. americana. Scions on P. americana

and Krymsk1 averaged the greatest number of root suckers, as

TREE FRUITS

Table 1. 2013 results for the 2009 NC-140 peach rootstock planting, Princeton, KY.

Rootstock

Tree

Mortality

(% lost)

Julian Date

of 90%

Bloom

Julian Date

of 10%

Maturity

Cumulative

Yield

(2011-2013)

(lbs/tree)

2013

Yield

(lbs/tree)

Fruit

Weight

(oz/fruit)

Number

of Root

Suckers

TCSA

(sq. in)

Cumulative Yield

Eciency

(2011-2013)

(lbs/ sq in TCSA)

Microbac 0 99.6 192.6 113 55.7 6.7 9.6 17.9 6.39

Guardian 0 99.6 191.9 121 72.8 6.5 0.5 16.8 7.24

Krymsk 86 0 99.5 192.0 111 59.8 7.1 0.1 16.5 6.81

Viking 25 100.2 193.2 118 65.6 6.7 0.2 16.2 7.24

Bright’s Hybrid 50 99.5 191.3 77 27.5 6.6 0.5 15.9 4.83

Lovell 0 99.9 196.1 131 76.1 6.9 0.3 15.7 8.37

KV010-127 0 99.9 194.5 118 68.0 6.5 1.0 14.9 7.95

Atlas 0 100.0 190.8 144 89.3 7.1 0.0 14.8 9.37

KV010-123 12.5 100.3 192.6 126 77.4 7.0 0.4 14.4 8.80

HBOK 32 12.5 100.1 194.7 103 62.0 6.5 0.0 12.6 8.23

HBOK 10 0 100.0 192.6 104 65.8 7.0 0.0 11.4 8.94

Controller 5 0 100.9 190.6 87 46.0 6.3 0.0 10.5 8.52

P. americana 12.5 100.9 190.2 71 32.8 6.1 14.0 9.2 7.66

Krymsk 1 12.5 100.3 190.1 38 13.0 6.4 12.7 5.8 6.81

Mean 8.9 100.0 192.4 105 58.1 6.7 2.8 13.7 7.66

LSD (5%) 26.5 0.8 1.66 33 26.0 NS 4.5 2.3 2.13

Arranged in descending order of trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA) for each rootstock.

Table 2. 2013 results for the 2010 NC-140 apple rootstock trial, Princeton, KY.

Rootstock

Initial

Number

of Trees

Tree

Mortality

(% lost)

Cumulative Yield

(2012-2013)

(lbs/tree)

2013

Yield

(lbs/tree)

Fruit

Weight

(oz/fruit)

Number of

Root Suckers

TCSA

(sq. in.)

Cumulative Yield

Eciency

(lbs/sq in TCSA)

PiAu 9-90 4 0 15.0 7.7 5.1 2.9 9.5 2.04

B.70-20-20 12 0 16.7 10.6 5.1 3.8 9.4 1.80

PiAu 51-11 11 0 22.9 11.0 5.4 0.6 7.2 3.18

B.70-6-8 12 0 22.4 9.0 5.4 0.0 6.8 3.21

B.7-3-150 12 0 26.4 14.7 5.1 0.2 6.6 4.07

B.67-5-32 12 0 20.0 13.2 4.7 1.3 6.5 2.87

G.202 N 8 0 37.4 20.2 6.0 1.0 6.0 6.32

B.64-194 7 0 18.0 9.0 5.1 1.0 5.4 3.29

M.26 EMLA 11 0 27.9 15.2 6.0 0.1 5.3 5.21

G.5222 8 0 39.5 19.8 5.2 3.0 5.3 7.76

G.935 N 10 0 39.6 20.5 6.0 0.3 5.1 7.81

G.4814 4 0 31.0 16.3 5.2 6.5 5.0 6.05

G.3001 3 0 24.2 11.2 5.9 0.1 4.6 4.73

G.4004 4 0 27.5 20.7 5.2 1.3 4.5 6.12

M.9 Pajam2 9 11 24.0 15.2 5.8 8.7 4.4 5.17

G.935 TC 4 0 20.9 12.1 6.0 0.9 4.3 4.93

G.11 8 13 31.7 17.4 6.7 0.4 4.2 7.57

G.202 TC 12 0 26.8 13.2 5.7 0.7 4.2 6.56

Supp.3 5 0 30.4 18.3 7.8 0.5 4.0 7.74

M.9 NAKBT337 12 17 27.1 13.0 6.1 1.6 4.0 6.56

B.10 1 0 16.9 8.4 5.8 0.0 3.6 4.85

G.4013 2 0 6.1 4.4 4.3 0.0 3.2 1.89

G.4214 2 0 13.0 8.6 5.4 0.6 3.1 4.66

G.5087 4 0 20.2 12.1 4.9 0.2 3.0 6.07

G.41 TC 12 0 12.8 12.8 6.0 0.3 2.8 4.44

G.4003 7 0 18.7 9.9 5.7 0.2 2.3 8.19

G.41 N 3 0 9.0 5.9 5.0 0.4 2.1 4.30

B.9 12 8 6.2 3.1 5.9 2.1 1.5 3.87

G.2034 2 0 10.6 7.0 6.1 0.1 1.5 5.32

B.7-20-21 12 0 1.8 1.1 4.9 0.2 1.3 1.28

B.71-7-22 10 20 0.7 0.2 5.2 0.7 0.8 0.33

Means NA 3 20.7 11.7 5.6 1.3 4.4 4.78

LSD (0.05) NS NS 13.9 9.0 NS 3.3 1.7 2.77

Arranged in descending order of the fall trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA) for each rootstock.

TREE FRUITS

they did in 2012. Microbac continues to be the most vigorous

rootstock and Krymsk 1 the least vigorous in this trial. Yield

per-tree was highest for scions on Atlas and lowest for scions on

Krymsk 1. Cumulative yield was highest for Atlas, but was not

signiﬁcantly diﬀerent from that of Lovell, KV010-123, Viking,

Guardian, KV010-127, Microbac, or Krymsk86. Scions on Atlas

also had the highest cumulative yield eﬃciency. Fruit size did

not diﬀer signiﬁcantly among rootstocks.

2. 2010 Apple Rootstock Trial

In 2013, no signiﬁcant diﬀerences were observed for mor-

tality or average weight per fruit, but cumulative yield per tree

(2012-2013), yield per tree (2013), number of root suckers,

TCSA, and yield eﬃciency varied signiﬁcantly among the 31

rootstocks (Table 2). Trees with PiAu 9-90 and B70-20-20 root-

stocks are the largest, and trees with B.7-20-21 and B.71.7-22

are the smallest. is was the second year that these trees were

harvested, and yield was greatest for scions on G.4004, G.935N,

and G.202N and lowest for B.7-20-21 and B.71-7-22. Root sucker

growth was highest for M.9 Pajam 2, followed by G.4814 and

B.70-20-20. G.4003, followed by G935N, G.5222, Supp.3, and

G.11 had the highest cumulative yield eﬃciency.

Literature Cited

1. Bessin, R.T., J.G. Strang, S. Wright, and N. Ward. 2013 Mid-

west Tree Fruit Spray Guide. University of Kentucky College

of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service, Publication

ID-92.

2. Midwest Tree Fruit Pest Management Handbook. Uni-

versity of Kentucky College of Agriculture Cooperative

Extension Service, Publication ID-93.

3. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.

Feasibility Study of Organic Apple Production in Kentucky

Doug Archbold, Mark Williams, John Strang, Department of Horticulture; and Ric Bessin, Department of Entomology

Introduction

Nationally, there is a growing market for organically grown

apples. However, there are no research studies from the mid-

South that extension specialists can refer to that have identiﬁed

the challenges that organic apple growers in Kentucky might

face, or that have assessed currently recommended techniques

to address those challenges. Organic apple production tech-

niques (Hinman and Ames, 2011) have never been assessed

under Kentucky growing conditions. e challenges to organic

apple production in Kentucky and the mid-South need to be

clearly identiﬁed, so that solutions can be studied, developed,

and recommended. Existing and especially newly emerging

technologies may make organic apple production increasingly

possible.

To determine the feasibility of, and identify the challenges to

organic apple production in Kentucky, a high-density, certiﬁed

organic apple orchard was established in 2007 on the University

of Kentucky Horticultural Research Farm in Lexington. is

orchard was managed using organically certiﬁed techniques

and materials for disease and insect control since its inception.

is report summarizes the performance of the maturing trees

from 2011 through 2013.

Materials and Methods

Trees of the apple scab resistant cultivars ‘Redfree’, ‘Crimson

Crisp’ and ‘Enterprise’ on B9 rootstocks were planted in April

2007 in three rows. Each row contained four blocks of three

trees of each cultivar per block with border trees at both ends

of each row and a guard row of trees on both sides of the group

of three research rows. Trees were set at a 6 ft by 18.5 ft spacing

within and between rows, respectively. ere are a total of 215

trees on about a half acre. Trickle irrigation was installed soon

after planting. A grass groundcover was established between

rows, and the ground beneath the rows was periodically tilled

with a Weed Badger 4000-NST (Weed Badger Division, Marion,

ND 58466).

Each tree was staked to a metal pole in year 1. Trees were

pruned to a slender spindle until year 6 (2012). However, lower

branches were often pulled downwards due to their fruit load,

impeding weed tillage. us, in 2012 a low wire at 3 ft above the

ground was attached to the poles, and the lower branches and

trickle irrigation line were tied to it. In 2013, an upper wire was

attached at 5.5 ft above the ground and upper branches were

tied to it.

Trees were fertilized with Nature Safe fertilizer at 100 lb

N/A each spring and were sprayed with organically-approved

compounds which were reported and/or recommended for

controlling the major apple diseases and insect pests (Table 1).

Fruit were thinned by spraying a mixture of lime-sulfur plus

Organocide (ﬁsh oil/sesame oil), each at 2.5% v/v, at petal fall

across cultivars, followed by hand thinning.

Table 1. Organically approved compounds used for disease and insect

control, 2011-2013.

Problems

Diseases Compounds

reblight xed copper, streptomycin

apple scab, rusts, fruit rots,

sooty blotch, yspeck, leaf

spots, powdery mildew

Microthiol sulfur, lime sulfur, xed

copper, Regalia, Kaligreen

Insects Compounds

scale dormant oil

plum curculio, codling

moth, oriental fruit moth

Entrust, Surround, Carpovirusine, Neem

oil, codling moth pheromone mating

disruption lures

aphids, tarnished plant

bugs, leafrollers, stink bug

pyrethrum

dogwood borers nematodes (Heterohabditis

bacteriophora)

TREE FRUITS

e total and marketable yield and fruit count were recorded

for each tree. Fruit were considered marketable if they had no

signiﬁcant disease or insect injury and were of acceptable size.

A spring freeze during bloom in 2012 reduced the expected

crop.

Results and Discussion

Total yield. e total yields included all fruit on the tree,

whether marketable or not. e total 2013 yields were higher

than those in 2011 and 2012. However, the lighter crop in 2012

due to the spring freeze likely contributed to a greater bloom

intensity in 2013 and thus a higher yield than in the previous

years. Enterprise had the greatest yield each year. Redfree yield

increased appreciably in 2013, while that of Crimson Crisp

did not.

Marketable yield. A portion of the crop was not market-

able each year, due to both insect and disease damage. Redfree

yielded the highest marketable percent of the total crop, around

70%. Crimson Crisp and Enterprise ranged from 40-55% and

42-48% over the three-year period, respectively. It is worth not-

ing that Redfree was the ﬁrst cultivar harvested each season, in

early August, with the shortest time for exposure to diseases and

insects, and had the highest marketable yield each year. e data

suggest that disease resistant cultivars with earlier harvest dates

like Redfree may be more appropriate for organic production.

e marketable yields of Crimson Crisp and Enterprise must be

appreciably increased to make organic production with them

economically sustainable.

Fruit size. Fruit size was comparable within each cultivar in

2011 and 2013. However, the thinning eﬀect of the spring freeze

led to a light crop with larger fruit for Redfree and Enterprise in

2012. Generally, Enterprise was the largest, followed by Crimson

Crisp, then Redfree.

It is clear that economically signiﬁcant marketable organic

apple yields will not be easy to achieve, but critical limiting fac-

tors have been identiﬁed. As expected, the major limitations are

diseases and insects. Brown marmorated stink bug movement

into the area is expected to present problems as currently there

are no organically certiﬁed pesticides that eﬀectively control

this insect. Fruit thinning with lime sulfur/ﬁsh+sesame oil plus

hand-thinning was successful. Weed management under the

trees with periodic, shallow tillage was successful once the lower

limbs were pulled up and away from the path of the equipment.

However, vole damage has continued to be a problem despite

cultivation to remove habitat. Fertility was suﬃcient. e proj-

ect will continue for a few more years to determine if total and

marketable yields can be increased as the trees age and with

modiﬁed and/or new insect and disease control strategies.

References

Hinman, T. and G. Ames. 2011. Apples: Organic Production

Guide. National Sustainable Agriculture Information Ser-

vice, National Center for Appropriate Technology, 40 pp.

Acknowledgments

e authors would like to thank Delia Scott, Neil Wilson,

and Nicole Ward for their hard work and assistance in this

project.

Funding for this project was provided by a Kentucky Department of

Agriculture Specialty Crop Block Grant.

Table 2. Yield per tree and fruit size (mean ± SE) of organically-grown

apples at the Horticultural Research Farm, Lexington, Kentucky, 2011-

2013.

Cultivar Year

Yield (lbs/tree)

All MarketableTotal

Marketable

(% of total)

Redfree 2011 4.9 ± 1.1 3.6 ± 0.7 (73) 4.1 ± 0.1 4.3 ± 0.1

2012 3.0 ± 0.5 2.0 ± 0.4 (67) 6.6 ± 0.3 7.0 ± 0.4

2013 13.4 ± 1.5 9.9 ± 1.2 (74) 4.1 ± 0.1 4.2 ± 0.1

Crimson

Crisp

2011 4.7 ± 0.9 1.9 ± 0.5 (40) 5.2 ± 0.2 5.7 ± 0.2

2012 7.1 ± 1.0 3.3 ± 0.5 (46) 4.8 ± 0.2 5.4 ± 0.2

2013 8.0 ± 0.7 4.4 ± 0.4 (55) 5.2 ± 0.1 5.4 ± 0.1

Enterprise 2011 9.1 ± 0.9 4.4 ± 0.7 (48) 6.8 ± 0.2 7.3 ± 0.2

2012 8.1 ± 1.1 3.5 ± 0.6 (43) 9.0 ± 0.4 9.4 ± 0.4

2013 18.4 ± 1.4 7.8 ± 0.8 (42) 7.7 ± 0.3 7.8 ± 0.2

SMALL FRUIT AND GRAPES

The ‘Prime-Jan®’ and ‘Prime-Ark®45’ Thorny

Primocane-Fruiting Blackberry Trial

Kirk W. Pomper, Jeremiah D. Lowe, and Sheri B. Crabtree, College of Agriculture, Food Science, and Sustainable Systems, Kentucky State University;

John R. Clark, Department of Horticulture, University of Arkansas; and John G. Strang, Department of Horticulture, University of Kentucky

Introduction

e climate of Kentucky is well-suited for blackberry pro-

duction Blackberry plants are unusual among fruit crops in

having perennial root systems but having biennial canes. ere

are two cane types: primocanes, or ﬁrst year canes, which are

usually vegetative, and ﬂoricanes, which are the same canes and

ﬂower and produce fruit the next growing season. Floricanes

then die after fruiting and need to be removed. Primocane-

fruiting blackberries can produce two crops per year, with a

normal summer crop (ﬂoricane) and a later crop on the current

season primocanes. Primocane-fruiting blackberries ﬂower and

fruit from mid-summer until frost, depending on temperatures,

plant health, and location. Growers can reduce pruning costs by

mowing canes in late winter to obtain a primocane crop only.

is also provides anthracnose, cane blight and red-necked cane

borer control without pesticides. Relying only on a primocane

crop also avoids potential winter injury of ﬂoricanes.

e thorny primocane-fruiting blackberry varieties, ‘Prime-

Jim®’ and ‘Prime-Jan®,’ were released by the University of Arkan-

sas in 2004 (Clark et al., 2005; Clark, 2008). In Kentucky trials,

‘Prime-Jan®’ has higher yields and larger fruit than ‘Prime-Jim®’.

‘Prime-Ark®45’ was recently released for commercial produc-

tion, but has not been tested in Kentucky (Clark and Perkins-

Veazie, 2011). Fruit size and quality of primocane-fruiting

blackberries can be aﬀected by the environment. Summer

temperatures above 85°F can greatly reduce fruit set, size and

quality on primocanes. is results in substantial reductions

in yield and fruit quality in areas with this temperature range

in summer and fall (Clark et al., 2005; Stanton et al., 2007). e

objective of this study is to compare yields and fruit quality of

‘Prime-Ark®45’and ‘Prime-Jan® under Kentucky growing condi-

tions. Here we report the results of the trial in its third year after

establishment.

Materials and Methods

In April 2010, plants of the commercially available, thorny,

primocane-fruiting cultivars ‘Prime-Jan®’ and ‘Prime- Ark®45,’

were planted at the KSU Research and Demonstration Farm,

in Frankfort, Kentucky. Plants were arranged in a randomized

complete block design, with four blocks, including ﬁve plants

of each cultivar per block (total of 20 plants of each cultivar) in

a 10 foot plot. Spacing was two feet between each plant, and

ﬁve feet between groups of ﬁve plants, with each row 125 feet

long. Rows were spaced 14 feet apart. is trial was planted on

certiﬁed organic land and managed with organic practices fol-

lowing the National Organic Program standards. Weeds were

controlled by placing a six- to eight-inch-deep layer of straw

around plants, adding straw when necessary, and hand weed-

ing. Plants were irrigated weekly with t-tape laid in the rows.

In 2013, dormant canes were mowed in mid-March. erefore,

only primocane fruit were harvested in 2013. Primocanes began

producing fruit in late July. ey were harvested each Monday

and ursday until a killing frost of 26°F on October 25.

Results and Discussion

Primocane fruit were harvested from late July until frost

in late October (Table 1). Primocane production of ‘Prime-

Ark®45’ out yielded ‘Prime-Jan®’ by almost a threefold margin,

and berry size was also larger for ‘Prime-Ark®45.’ Growing

conditions in 2013 were mild compared to 2012; there were

40 out of 122 days with a high temperature above 85°F from

June through September. e average high in July was 81.9°F.

In June 2012 there were three days that the temperature was

over 100°F and only ﬁve days with high temperatures below

85°F. e lower temperatures in 2013 led to a higher yield for

both varieties compared to 2012. e University of Arkansas

Blackberry Breeding Program already recommends that pro-

ducers plant ‘Prime-Ark®45’ instead of ‘Prime-Jan®,’ due to the

superior shipping quality of the ﬁrmer fruit of ‘Prime-Ark®45.’

Year-to-year yield characteristics will need to be further evalu-

ated; however, the 2013 data suggests that in Kentucky ‘Prime-

Ark®45’ yields should be higher than ‘Prime-Jan®’ and similar to

some ﬂoricane varieties. ‘Prime-Ark®45’ should be considered

by commercial growers interested in producing primocane

fruiting blackberries.

Table 1. Yields and berry weights for

‘Prime-Jan®’

and

‘Prime-

Ark®45’

from the University of Arkansas Blackberry Breeding

Program at the Kentucky State University Research Farm, 2013.

Selection

Fruit Weight

(g)

Yield

(lb/acre)

Harvest

Dates

‘Prime-Jan®’ 3.50 b

3305 b 7/18-10/22

‘Prime-Ark®45’ 4.69 a 8812 a 8/1-10/22

Numbers followed by the same letter are not signicantly dierent

(Least Signicant Dierence P ≤ 0.05)

Literature Cited

Clark, J.R., J. N. Moore, J. Lopez-Medina, C. Finn, P. Perkins-

Veazie. 2005. ‘Prime-Jan’ (‘APF-8’) and ‘Prime-Jim’ (‘APF-12’)

Primocane-fruiting Blackberries. HortScience, 40:852-855.

Clark, J.R. 2008. Primocane-fruiting Blackberry Breeding.

HortScience, 43:1637-1639.

Clark, J.R. and P. Perkins-Veazie. 2011. ‘APF-45’ Primocane-

fruiting Blackberry. HortScience April 2011 46:670-673.

Stanton, M.A., J.C. Scheerens, R.C. Funt, and J.R. Clark. 2007.

Floral Competence of Primocane-fruiting Blackberries

Prime-Jan and Prime-Jim Grown at ree Temperature

Regimens. HortScience, 42: 508-513.

SMALL FRUIT AND GRAPES

Organic Grape Cultivar Evaluation Trial in Kentucky

Jeﬀ Wheeler, Sean Lynch, Kristi Durbin, and Patsy Wilson, Department of Horticulture

Introduction

Little if any grape acreage is dedicated to organic produc-

tion in Kentucky largely due to climatic conditions conducive

to recurring pest problems during the growing season. Grape

growers have expressed interest in organic production; however,

there are limited resources and recommendations for this type

of production system. Although organic grape production

methods have been developed in other regions, they have not

yet been tested under the climatic conditions of Kentucky. is

project has been initiated to study the challenges and limita-

tions to organic grape production in Kentucky and attempts

to identify crop protection strategies to maximize vineyard

outputs and vine health.

Materials and Methods

Two identical 0.5-acre experimental blocks were planted in

a randomized complete block design in the spring of 2011. One

block was treated with only OMRI-certiﬁed products (organic

block), while the other block (conventional block) received

a spray program consisting of non-OMRI-certiﬁed products

currently used to control vineyard pests in most commercial

Kentucky vineyards. Cultivars used in this experiment were

chosen due to their reduced susceptibility to black rot and tol-

erance to sulfur-based fungicides traditionally used to control

powdery mildew in organic production systems. Initial vineyard

site preparation consisted of spading a 4-foot-wide area directly

under each vine row, while allowing natural vegetation to serve

as a ground cover in the row middles. Immediately following

spading in the spring of 2011 vines were established at a vine-

row spacing of 10 feet between rows and 8 feet within each row.

Vines were trained to a 6-foot-high bilateral cordon training

system during the 2011 and 2012 seasons. All but the strongest

cane developed during the 2011 season was removed during

dormant pruning in March 2012 with this cane serving as the

newly established vine trunk. e two strongest shoots arising

from this newly established trunk were trained to the fruiting

wire in 2012.

Herbicides were used to control weeds in the conventional

block; mechanical tillage was used to control weeds in the or-

ganic block using a Weed Badger. Two applications of glyphosate

were applied as an in-row banded spray to the conventional

block in both May and July to prevent the herbicide spray from

contacting the vine foliage; grow tubes were applied around

each vine immediately before spraying and were then removed

the following day. Five tillage passes per year were required to

adequately control weeds directly under each vine row of the

organic block. Although more passes were required to control

weeds in the organic block, this block did not require the appli-

cation or removal of grow tubes used in the conventional block,

thus resulting in a signiﬁcant savings in both labor and materi-

als required to control in-row weeds. Weed control through

mechanical cultivation generally resulted in a more uniform

and pleasing appearance; the herbicide application appeared

scorched and less uniform. Fertilization was not necessary in

either the conventional or organic grape planting.

In order to reduce vine stress during initial vineyard es-

tablishment, all ﬂower clusters were removed as soon as they

appeared in both 2011 and 2012. Cluster thinning was done

shortly after fruit set in 2013. Vines showing suﬃcient vigor

were allowed to carry one cluster per shoot on shoots derived

from canes tied to fruiting wire.

Results and Discussion

Between treatment blocks there were few diﬀerences in

vine vegetative vigor when considering either average shoot

length or average number of nodes per shoot in 2011. After the

ﬁrst vintage, the average length of the newly established trunk

measured 43 inches at dormant pruning in both the organic

and conventional blocks. Diﬀerences in vine vigor were more

apparent during the 2012 growing season with organically

treated vines appearing to have signiﬁcantly higher vigor than

the vines in the conventional block. is increase in vine vigor

allowed for nearly full establishment of the fruiting wire, while

many vines in the conventional block failed to completely ﬁll

the same space. Diﬀerences in vine vigor during the 2012 season

can likely be attributed to the eﬀectiveness of the mechanical

weed control as compared to the herbicide control used in the

conventional block.

Improved vine vigor and vine size expressed by vines in the

organic block during the 2012 season should have resulted in a

larger yield in 2013, the third growing season. However, due to

above average spring and summer rainfall, fruit yield was sub-

stantially limited by black rot infections that occurred on fruit

in the organic block during the 2013 growing season (Tables 1

and 2). Although harvested fruit from the conventional block

expressed marked reductions in cluster rot incidence and sever-

ity, vines were less vigorous than vines in the organic block and

required higher level of cluster thinning which reduced the total

number of clusters and total yield per vine (Tables 1 and 2).

Fungicides were applied prophylactically to the Conven-

tional vines during the 2011-2013 seasons, according to the

protocols established in the Midwest Commercial Small Fruit

and Spray Guide (ID-94). No fungicides were applied to vines

located in the organic block in 2011-2012; copper and sulfur-

based fungicides were used to control powdery and downy

mildew in 2013. ere were no visual signs of fruit or foliar

diseases on vines planted in the conventional block during the

2011-2013 seasons (Table 3). Likewise, there were no signiﬁcant

signs of foliar disease observed in the organic block during the

relatively dry seasons of 2011 and 2012 (Table 3). During the

2013 season frequent early rains resulted in commercially unac-

ceptable levels of black rot infections on fruit of several cultivars

planted in the organic block including Traminette, Villard blanc,

Mars, Noiret, Corot Noir, and Valvin Muscat (Table 2). Less

SMALL FRUIT AND GRAPES

black rot was observed on cultivars: Brianna, Cayuga White,

Edelweiss, Vanessa, and Villard Noir; however, fruit damage

caused by June beetles on these cultivars was substantial (Table

2).

is study has shown the potential advantages of using

organic production practices during establishment of disease

resistant cultivars adapted to the climate of Kentucky. Although

there was a limited need for fungicide application to treat com-

mon foliar diseases during the relatively dry 2011-2012 seasons,

control of foliar and fruit diseases was less than ideal on some

vines receiving organic fungicide treatments in the wet 2013

vintage. Of the cultivars used during this experiment, Brianna,

Cayuga White, Edelweiss, Vanessa, and Villard Noir appear to

be the most promising cultivars for organic grape production in

Kentucky. Further investigation will need to be done to monitor

the long-term performance of such cultivars to determine the

economic potential these may have for Kentucky vineyards.

Table 1. Yield components for the 2013 organic winegrape cultivar

trial, UK Horticulture Research Farm.

Cultivar/

Rootstock

Harvest

Date

Yield per

Shoots

Per

Foot of

Cordon

Culled

Clusters

Cluster

Weight

(lb)

Acre

(tons)

Foot

(lb)

Organic

Brianna

08/07 0.2 0.1 3.7 - 0.12

Cayuga

08/26 2.8 1.3 3.4 69 0.32

Corot Noir 09/06 1.3 0.7 3.6 85 0.22

Edelweiss

08/07 0.3 0.1 3.6 - 0.14

Mars 08/16 0.0 0.0 4.1 100 -

Noiret 08/19 0.0 0.0 3.7 100 -

Traminette/101-14 09/25 0.0 0.0 3.9 100 -

Valvin Muscat/5C

09/25 0.0 0.0 4.3 100 -

Vanessa 08/16 0.0 0.0 3.3 100 -

Villard Blanc 09/25 0.0 0.0 4.2 100 -

Villard Noir

09/07 0.7 0.5 3.7 73 0.28

Conventional

Brianna

08/07 0.5 0.3 3.7 - 0.17

Cayuga

08/15 1.2 0.8 3.5 17 0.67

Corot Noir 09/06 1.4 0.8 3.7 5 0.62

Edelweiss

08/06 0.7 0.5 3.9 - 0.38

Mars 08/13 1.0 0.9 4.1 45 0.48

Noiret 09/16 0.8 0.5 4.2 2 0.48

Traminette/101-14 09/06 0.4 0.5 5.0 38 0.40

Valvin Muscat/5C

- - - 4.3 - -

Vanessa 08/16 0.0 0.0 3.2 100 -

Villard Blanc 09/17 1.5 1.1 4.7 0 0.73

Villard Noir

09/20 1.0 0.7 4.0 16 0.49

Yield per acre calculated using 8ft x 10ft vine/row spacing, with 545 vines

per acre.

Total yield divided by the total length of cordon = yield per linear foot of

cordon.

Total number of shoots divided by the total length of cordon = shoots

per linear foot of cordon.

Percentage of harvested clusters having ≥ 30% damage

Guard row varieties

Table 2. Fruit damage rating August 21st, 2013, organic cultivar

trial, UK Horticulture Research Farm.

Cultivar

Black Rot June Beetle

Instance

Severity

Instance

Severity

Cayuga 10 20 18 58

Corot Noir 93 38 30 36

Traminette/101-14 100 98 2 8

Valvin Muscat/5C 98 98 0 0

Villard Blanc 100 88 2 9

Villard Noir 11 9 20 27

Instance: Percentage of all clusters with any amount of damage

Severity: Percentage of damage on individual clusters

Table 3. Foliar disease rating September

28th, 2013, organic cultivar trial, UK

Horticulture Research Farm.

Cultivar Severity

Percentage

Organic

Corot Noir 1.8 2.0

Mars 2.4 3.9

Noiret 1.7 1.5

Traminette 1.1 1.4

Vanessa 2.4 3.7

Villard Blanc 1.0 1.0

Conventional

Corot Noir 1.0 1.0

Mars 1.5 1.0

Noiret 1.0 1.0

Traminette 0.5 0.5

Vanessa 1.5 1.5

Villard Blanc 1.0 1.0

Severity: 0 to 5 (O = No Damage à 5 =

Leaves Completely Damaged (chlorotic/

necrotic))

Percentage: 0 = 0%, 1 = 1-25%, 2 = 26-

50%, 3 = 51-75%, 4 = 76-99%, 5= 100%

SMALL FRUIT AND GRAPES

Leafhoppers Associated with Newly Established

Primocane Blackberry and Raspberry Plantings in Central Kentucky

John D. Sedlacek, Jeannie M. Haak, Karen L. Friley, Kirk W. Pomper, Jeremiah D. Lowe and Sheri B. Crabtree, College of Agriculture, Food Science, and

Sustainable Systems, Kentucky State University

Introduction

Growing blackberries and raspberries can be proﬁtable in

Kentucky due to the long summers, warm temperatures and

the demand for locally produced fruit. One of the limiting

factors for high yields is insect pest damage. Some insects and

mites that damage foliage include leafhoppers, spider mites,

raspberry aphids, leaf rollers, climbing cutworms, blackberry

psyllid, western winter moth, raspberry sawﬂy, stink bugs, scale

insects, white ﬂies, and thrips (Pritts 1991).

Leafhoppers (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) damage the plants

by feeding on their leaves, causing shoot tip distortion, leaf

margin curling, and yellowing leaves. Leafhoppers can also be

vectors of plant pathogens, causing a variety of diseases. Rubus

stunt is a leafhopper-transmitted disease found in wild and

cultivated Rubus plants in Europe, the Middle East, and Russia

(Converse 1991). It has not been found in North America, but

the primary leafhopper vector Macropsis fuscula occurs in

the western United States (Converse 1991).

Kentucky State University (KSU) horticulture personnel

are examining the suitability of newly released primocane

fruiting blackberries and raspberries in central Kentucky. is

study quantiﬁes leafhoppers during a ﬁve-week period in mid-

summer 2012 in central Kentucky.

Materials and Methods

Bushes of six varieties of blackberry and raspberry were

obtained from Indiana Berry and Plant Company (Plymouth,

Indiana). e varieties were Black Magic™, Caroline, Fall Gold,

Heritage, Nantahala, and Prime Ark 45

. ese plants were given

to growers in early June at ﬁve sites in three Kentucky counties:

Fayette, Franklin, and Shelby. All varieties were also planted

and sampled at the KSU Research Farm (Frankfort, KY). Each

site had 15 plants of each variety except the Montessori school

which had 10 total plants.

Insects for sampling were caught on sticky traps. irty-one

6 x 6 inch yellow sticky traps were stapled to tobacco stakes close

to the main cane of the blackberry or raspberry plants. Traps

were removed from stakes and placed into one gallon plastic

storage bags and labeled with location name, sample number,

date, and variety. ey were then placed into a freezer for a

minimum of 24 hours to kill live insects. Samples were taken

weekly at each site and each variety at each location.

Traps were inspected with a Bausch & Lomb lighted mag-

niﬁer and Nikon binocular dissecting microscope. Species

and species groups (i.e., unidentiﬁable species within a genus)

were assigned a reference number, counted, and recorded.

Dr. Paul Freytag, Professor Emeritus, University of Kentucky

Department of Entomology, was consulted concerning species

identiﬁcations. e leafhoppers of Illinois, (Eurymelinae-

Balcluthinae)and e Nearctic leafhoppers (Homoptera:

Cicadellidae)were used as taxonomic keys (DeLong 1948;

Oman 1949).

Results

irty-nine species and species groups were found over

the ﬁve-week period (Table 1). A total of 20,818 leafhoppers

were caught. Four leafhoppers comprised 90% of the total

catch. Agallia constricta was most abundant (68%), Cuerna

costalis represented 9% of the total, Graphocephala spp. (7%),

and Draeculacephala spp. (6%) (Figure 1). KSU Farm had the

most leafhoppers trapped. is may be because the bramble

test plot was near other blackberry and raspberry plantings that

were previously established, and these could have contributed

to the larger number of leafhoppers trapped at this location.

Agallia constricta is a light brown, straw to greenish-tinged

leafhopper 3.4 – 3.8 mm in length (Amgueddfa Cymru 2010a).

It can be distinguished by two spots on its vertex and two spots

on its pronotum. It can be a vector for the potato yellow dwarf

virus and is commonly found in the Southeastern United States

(Amgueddfa Cymru 2010a).

Table 1. Leafhopper species/species

groups caught in/near brambles in

three central Kentucky counties.*

Cuerna costalis

Agallia constricta

Graphocephala spp.

Draeculacephala spp.

Endria/Flexamia spp.

Erythroneura spp.

Scaphoideus spp.

Paraulacizes irrorata

Novellina seminuda

Stirellus bicolor

Empoasca spp.

Deltocephalus spp.

Polyamia sp.

Balclutha sp.

Chlorotettix sp.

Scaphytopius frontalis

Paraphlepsius sp.

Aceratagallia sp.

Tylozygus bidus

Collandonus sp.

Gyponana spp.

Japananus spp.

Flexamia spp.

Spangbergiella sp.

15 additional species were unidentied.

SMALL FRUIT AND GRAPES

Cuerna costalis has a yellow or white stripe on the sides,

red and black legs, and grows to about 8.4 mm in length

(Amgueddfa Cymru 2010b). It has two generations per year

and overwinters in Kentucky (Amgueddfa Cymru 2010b). is

leafhopper feeds on the xylem ﬂuid of plants and is a known vec-

tor for phony peach disease and Pierce’s disease (grape) and has

been found in the United States in the northern, southern, and

mid-western states. It has also been found in Ontario, Canada

(Amgueddfa Cymru 2010b).

Graphocephala spp. are 6.7 to 8.4 mm long, striped leaf-

hoppers, commonly known as “sharpshooters.” ey may have

stripes in varying shades of red, green, blue, and yellow, with

no more than two colors present (Amgueddfa Cymru 2010c).

Similar to Draeculacephala spp. in size and coloration, it has

been found in southern and midwestern United States. Feeding

by large numbers can cause leaf scorch (Amgueddfa Cymru

2010d).

Draeculacephala spp. are commonly called “dragon

heads” because of their long, conical heads. ey range from

5.5 – 9 mm in length and are green and bright to faded blue.

Draeculacephala can live for about 100 days and are abundant

throughout the United States and Canada (Amgueddfa Cymru

2010c).

Fortunately, Macropsis fuscula was not collected in this

study. However, it is important to continue to survey leafhop-

pers in Kentucky to determine if this vector of rubus stunt has

become established. We will continue sampling blackberry

plantings for this insect.

Figure 1. Percentages of the four most abundant leafhopper species by overall trap count .

Draeculacephala spp., 6%

Agallia constricta, 68%

Graphocephala ssp., 7%

Other spp., 10%

Cuerna costals, 9%

References

Amgueddfa Cymru-National Museum Wales. 2010a.

Species Account: Agallia constricta. http://naturalhis-

tory.museumwales.ac.uk/vectors/browsespecies.php?-

recid=592#Tabs.

Amgueddfa Cymru-National Museum Wales. 2010b. Species

Account: Cuerna costalis. http://naturalhistory.museum-

wales.ac.uk/vectors/browsespecies.php?-recid=593#Tabs.

Amgueddfa Cymru-National Museum Wales. 2010c. Species

Account: Graphocephala versuta. http://naturalhis-

tory.museumwales.ac.uk/vectors/browsespecies.php?-

recid=767#Tabs.

Amgueddfa Cymru - National Museum Wales. 2010d. Spe-

cies Account: Draeculacephala crassicornis. http://

naturalhistory.museumwales.ac.uk/vectors/browsespecies.

php?-recid=594.

DeLong, D. M. 1948. e leafhoppers of Illinois (Eurymelinae-

Balcluthinae). Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 24

(2):97-376.

Oman, P. W. 1949. e Nearctic leafhoppers (Homoptera:

Cicadellidae). A generic classiﬁcation and check list. Wash-

ington Entomological Society Memoirs 3: 1-253.

Pritts, M.P. 1991. Introduction. Ellis, M.A., R.H. Converse, R.N.

Williams, and B. Williamson (Eds.) Compendium of Rasp-

berry and Blackberry Diseases and Insects. APS Press, 1-2.

SMALL FRUIT AND GRAPES

Wine and Seedless Table Grape Cultivar Evaluation Trial

Jeﬀ Wheeler, Sean Lynch, Kristi Durbin, and Patsy Wilson, Department of Horticulture

Introduction

e climate in Kentucky is well suited to produce a variety

of wine and table grape cultivars. However, spring frosts, winter

temperature ﬂuctuations and long, warm, humid summers pose

challenges to growing grapes in Kentucky. Successful produc-

tion requires proper cultural practices and matching cultivar

and rootstock to a speciﬁc site. e primary types of grapes

grown in Kentucky are Vitis vinifera (European), interspeciﬁc

hybrids, and Vitis aestavalis (Norton). V. vinifera cultivars of-

ten produce more desirable wines than the interspeciﬁc hybrids

and Norton and potentially have the highest economic gain for

grape growers and wine makers. However, V. vinifera cultivars

are more susceptible to winter injury and diseases, often result-

ing in a lower yield and increased labor inputs. A cultivar trial

consisting of table, interspeciﬁc hybrid, and V. vinifera grape

cultivars was conducted to assess and improve fruit and wine

quality through cultural management, and rootstock and clone

selection. e following research update provides the 2013

season production and cultivar performance results.

Materials and Methods

Two research vineyards were planted in the spring of 2006

at the University of Kentucky Horticulture Research Farm in

Lexington, Kentucky. Vineyard one consists of ﬁve table-grape

and 20 American/hybrid cultivars. Each cultivar in vineyard one

has four replications with three vines per replication (12 vines

total) in a randomized complete block design. All cultivars were

planted at 545 vines/acre (8 ft between vines and 10 ft between

rows) and trained to a 6-foot single high wire bilateral cordon.

Vines were planted as own-rooted vines with the exception of

Chambourcin, Chardonel, Vidal bBlanc and Traminette that

were additionally planted on the rootstocks 101-14, 3309 and

5C, respectively. In 2008 own-rooted Chambourcin, Frontenac

Gris, and Marquette were added to this planting. Vineyard two

was established in 2006 and consists of 15 European cultivars

(Vitis vinifera) and 21 diﬀerent clones. Each cultivar and clone

has four replications with four vines per replication (16 vines

total) in a randomized complete block design. All vines were

planted on the rootstock 101-14, spaced at 622 vines/acre

(7 ft between vines and 10 ft between rows) and trained to

bilateral cordons located 36 inches from ground level. Shoots

were trained to a modiﬁed ballerina system with downward-

positioned shoots allowed to grow on the east side of the trel-

lis. In 2008 the V. vinifera cultivars Cabernet Sauvignon #8,

Malbec, Petite Verdot, Rkatsitelli, Touriga, Tinto Cao, and Pinot

Noir were added to this planting.

Standard commercial cultural management practices

were used in both vineyards. In March 2013 vines were spur

pruned to retain approximately six count buds per linear foot

of vineyard row. No herbicide or tillage was utilized to control

winter annual weeds. Summer annual weeds were controlled

with a single banded application of post-emergent herbicide

(glyphosate) in July and followed by a single spot spray where

necessary. Vines expressed normal to high vigor and no fertilizer

was applied during the 2013 growing season. Disease and pest

control were in accordance with the Midwest Commercial

Small Fruit and Grape Spray Guide (ID-94).

Crop and vine balance were achieved by shoot thinning to

four to six shoots per foot of cordon (V. vinifera) and ﬁve to

seven shoots per foot of cordon (hybrid) in mid-May and cluster

thinned to appropriate crop loads post-fruit set (berries bb size).

Bird netting was only applied to the hybrid block in the 2013

growing season due to reduced bird feeding. Fruit maturity and

harvest dates were determined by taking 100-berry samples

starting at veraison to monitor the progression of total soluble

solids (TSS) (Atago Digital Refractometer), pH (Hannah 222

pH meter) and titratable acidity (TA) (end point titration of pH

8.2 using 0.100 N sodium hydroxide) until harvest. Each vine

was harvested separately to determine the number of clusters

and yield/vine. A ﬁnal 100-berry sample was taken at harvest to

determine fruit chemistry (TSS, pH and TA) and berry weight.

Results and Discussion

e 2013 vintage was largely deﬁned by cooler temperatures

and above average rainfall, especially during June, July, and

August in which rainfall totals were nearly twice the historical

average. Above average rainfall required diligent canopy man-

agement and timely fungicide applications to reduce damage

caused by fungal pathogens. Downy mildew was especially

diﬃcult to control on late ripening cultivars carrying a larger

than average crop. For most cultivars both cluster size and the

number of clusters per shoot were larger than average resulting

in large yields despite appropriate shoot and cluster thinning

(Tables 1-3). Although the average yield for all white hybrid

cultivars was nearly 7.5 tons per acre, fruit composition values

were held within a commercially acceptable range (Tables 1 and

4). Larger than average yields, cool temperatures, and above

average rainfall delayed harvest dates and led to lower than

average sugar accumulation and higher than normal Titratable

Acidity (Tables 4-6). Cool weather also delayed veraison, which

seemed to reduce the severity of fruit damage caused by June

beetles typically attracted to soft ripening fruit. Cooler, slower

ripening conditions produced white wines with exceptional

aroma and acid structure; however these conditions also led

to less than ideal phenolic maturity of late ripening red grape

cultivars, especially on cultivars suﬀering from over-cropping

and intense downy mildew pressure. Despite larger than aver-

age rainfall, cluster rot severity was low for all cultivars except

Riesling, which had nearly 30% culled clusters (Table 3). e

only other yield loss to vineyard pests was bird damage to early

ripening red cultivars Frontenac, Foch, GR7, and Marquette,

where yields were reduced from 45% to 73% (Table 1).

SMALL FRUIT AND GRAPES

e eﬀects of rootstocks on vine performance are becom-

ing more apparent as vines become older and are subjected to

more stress. When compared to corresponding own rooted

vines, Chardonel, Traminette, and Vidal blanc vines planted on

rootstock have all maintained larger overall vine size resulting in

larger berry size, cluster size and yield per acre (Tables 1 and 4).

is increase in productivity has not been detrimental to fruit

composition at harvest, suggesting that rootstocks may help

maintain long-term vine productivity in Kentucky vineyards.

e vineyards at the University of Kentucky Horticulture Re-

search Farm are planted in an excellent site where most varieties

can reach full production potential. Not all sites in Kentucky will

be able to consistently produce an economically viable crop of all

varieties. It is imperative to evaluate each grape growing site and

match variety and rootstock to that speciﬁc site.

This project was funded by the Kentucky Agriculture Development

Board through a grant to the Kentucky Vineyard Society.

Table 1. Yield components for the American/hybrid winegrape cultivar

trial, UK Horticulture Research Farm, Lexington, KY, 2013.

Cultivar /Rootstock

Harvest

Date

Yield per

Shoots

Per

Foot of

Cordon

Culled

Clusters

Cluster

Weight

(lb)

Acre

(tons)

Foot

(lb)

White

NY76.084 08/23 6.7 3.3 5.5 4 0.37

Cayuga 08/26 8.5 4.2 5.3 2 0.56

Seyval blanc 09/04 5.5 4.6 5.2 19 0.93

Vignoles 09/04 2.8 1.4 5.6 14 0.23

Chardonel/C-3309 09/09 11.4 5.7 5.1 2 1.00

Chardonel/OR 09/09 7.0 3.5 4.6 5 0.75

Vidal blanc/5C 09/30 10.3 5.3 4.5 6 0.87

Vidal blanc/OR 09/30 8.5 4.2 4.5 5 0.78

Villard 09/16 8.9 4.6 4.8 0 0.68

Traminette 09/11 6.0 3.0 5.6 0 0.34

Traminette/5C 09/11 7.1 3.6 5.4 3 0.41

Frontenac Gris 08/30 1.8 0.9 5.3 30 0.21

Red

Marquette 08/30 1.9 1.0 5.6 47 0.15

Foch 09/04 1.0 0.5 5.7 73 0.10

Corot Noir 09/04 9.2 4.5 4.4 2 0.69

Frontenac 09/23 1.4 0.7 4.9 71 0.19

GR7 09/09 2.4 1.2 5.4 45 0.20

Chancellor 09/20 7.1 3.5 5.7 4 0.41

Noiret 09/16 4.0 2.0 4.1 3 0.36

Chambourcin/101-14 10/14 8.1 4.4 4.2 2 0.72

Chambourcin/OR 10/14 2.1 1.4 5.2 0 0.49

Norton 10/21 8.6 4.1 6.6 1 0.29

St. Vincent 10/14 11.3 5.6 5.2 0 0.73

Yield per acre calculated using 8ft x 10ft vine/row spacing, with 545 vines per

acre.

Total yield divided by the total length of cordon = yield per linear foot of

cordon.

Total number of shoots divided by the total length of cordon = shoots per

linear foot of cordon.

Percentage of harvested clusters having ≥ 30% damage.

Table 2. Yield components for the seedless table grape cultivar trial,

UK Horticulture Research Farm, Lexington, KY, 2013.

Cultivar



Harvest

Date

Yield per

Shoots

Per Foot

of Cordon

Culled

Clusters

Cluster

Weight

(lb)

Acre

(tons)

Foot

(lb)

Einset 08/06 2.0 1.1 4.7 51 0.24

Reliance 08/13 3.3 1.9 5.7 61 0.56

Jupiter 08/13 2.3 1.2 5.8 80 0.30

Marquis 08/30 3.9 2.0 4.9 14 0.62

Neptune 09/11 6.1 3.2 5.1 0 0.75

Yield per acre calculated using 8ft x 10ft vine/row spacing, with 545 vines

per acre.

Total yield divided by the total length of cordon = yield per linear foot of

cordon.

Total number of shoots divided by the total length of cordon = shoots

per linear foot of cordon.

Percentage of harvested clusters having ≥ 30% damage.

SMALL FRUIT AND GRAPES

Table 4. Fruit composition for the American/hybrid winegrape cultivar trial,

UK Horticulture Research Farm, Lexington, KY, 2013.1

Cultivar/Rootstock 100 Berry Wt. (lb) TSS

(%) Juice pH TA

(%)

White

NY76.084 0.44 16 3.0 0.90

Cayuga 0.75 18.3 3.2 0.82

Seyval blanc 0.49 20.3 3.4 0.67

Frontenac Gris 0.23 24 3.4 0.67

Vignoles 0.42 23.4 3.2 1.29

Chardonel/C-3309 0.58 19.5 3.2 1.18

Chardonel/OR 0.57 21.0 3.2 0.77

Vidal/5C 0.55 19.2 3.7 0.78

Vidal/OR 0.42 20.4 3.6 0.77

Villard 0.66 21.8 3.3 0.72

Traminette 0.46 20.8 3.4 0.67

Traminette/5C 0.45 20.7 3.5 0.83

Red

Marquette 0.23 26.5 3.2 0.64

Foch 0.30 22.1 3.4 0.66

Corot Noir 0.59 16.4 3.6 0.58

Frontenac 0.26 24.5 3.6 1.47

GR7 0.41 21.1 3.5 0.67

Chancellor 0.47 21.8 3.5 0.75

Noiret 0.51 19.2 3.4 0.81

Chambourcin/101-14 0.62 22.7 3.7 0.76

Chambourcin/OR 0.57 22.5 3.7 0.86

Norton 0.32 22.0 3.8 1.28

St. Vincent 0.82 20.3 3.4 0.95

Fruit samples were collected and analyzed on harvest dates listed in Table 1.

TSS = total soluble solids measured as °Brix in juice.

TA = Titratable acidity measured as grams of tartaric acid per liter of juice.

Table 3. Yield components for the vinifera winegrape cultivar trial, UK Horticulture

Research Farm, Lexington, KY, 2013.

Cultivar/Clone

Harvest

Date

Yield per

Shoots

Per Foot of

Cordon

Culled

Clusters

Cluster

Weight

(lb)

Acre

(tons)

Foot

(lb)

White

Pinot Grigio #146 09/01 4.6 2.7 5.3 6 0.33

Pinot Grigio #152 09/01 4.9 5.6 9.4 7 0.34

Pinot Grigio #4 09/01 5.3 2.8 5.1 3 0.34

Chardonnay #15 09/18 5.8 3.3 4.8 0 0.37

Chardonnay #37 09/18 4.5 2.6 4.8 2 0.34

Chardonnay #4 09/18 7.0 3.9 4.7 1 0.52

Chardonnay #43 09/18 6.2 3.1 4.9 3 0.37

Chardonnay #76 09/18 4.6 2.6 5.1 6 0.35

Viognier 09/17 8.5 4.9 5.4 0 0.49

Rkatsiteli 09/23 5.0 3.8 5.2 0 0.59

Riesling #12 09/20 4.7 2.6 5.1 25 0.36

Riesling #17 09/20 4.1 2.3 4.9 31 0.39

Riesling #9 09/20 4.6 2.4 4.8 33 0.38

Red

Limberger 09/30 9.1 5.0 4.5 0 0.62

Petite Verdot #2 09/30 4.3 3.0 4.9 1 0.28

Tinto Cao 10/15 6.6 4.5 4.6 0 0.46

Touriga 09/20 6.0 3.4 5.2 0 0.29

Cabernet Franc #214 10/15 8.9 4.6 5.5 2 0.49

Cabernet Franc #312 10/15 8.6 4.6 5.3 18 0.61

Cabernet Franc #4 10/15 6.6 3.7 5.7 21 0.51

Cabernet Franc #5 10/15 10.0 5.4 5.6 7 0.60

Cabernet Sauvignon #337 10/15 8.1 3.9 5.0 2 0.46

Cabernet Sauvignon #8 10/15 7.7 4.0 5.4 0 0.40

Yield per acre calculated using 7ft x 10ft vine/row spacing, with 622 vines per acre.

Total yield divided by the total length of cordon = yield per linear foot of cordon.

Total number of shoots divided by the total length of cordon = shoots per linear foot

of cordon.

Percentage of harvested clusters having ≥ 30% damage

Table 5. Fruit Composition for the seedless table

grape cultivar trial, UK Horticulture Research Farm,

Lexington, KY, 2013.1

Cultivar/Rootstock

Berry

Wt.

(g)

TSS

(%)

Juice

(%)

Einset 0.60 20.6 3.3 0.57

Reliance 0.57 17.7 3.1 0.85

Jupiter 0.97 19.3 3.5 0.67

Marquis 1.30 18.6 3.5 0.65

Neptune 1.10 20.7 3.4 0.80

Fruit samples were collected and analyzed on

harvest dates listed in Table 2.

TSS = total soluble solids measured as °Brix in juice.

T.A. = Titratable acidity measured as grams of

tartaric acid per liter of juice.

Table 6. Fruit Composition for the vinifera winegrape

cultivar trial, UK Horticulture Research Farm, Lexington,

KY, 2013.

Cultivar/Clone #

Berry

Wt. (lb)

TSS

(%)

Juice

(%)

White

Pinot Grigio #146 0.26 18.3 3.4 0.59

Pinot Grigio #152 0.27 18.0 3.5 0.57

Pinot Grigio #4 0.28 18.2 3.3 0.56

Chardonnay #15 0.40 20.4 3.8 0.72

Chardonnay #37 0.41 20.5 3.8 0.68

Chardonnay #4 0.42 20.8 3.7 0.89

Chardonnay #43 0.41 20.5 3.9 0.69

Chardonnay #76 0.40 20.6 3.9 0.65

Viognier 0.28 19.9 3.9 0.65

Rkatsiteli 0.47 17.8 3.4 0.71

Riesling #12 0.42 19.7 3.5 0.57

Riesling #17 0.41 17.2 3.6 0.56

Riesling #9 0.44 17.0 3.3 0.56

Red

Limberger 0.46 17.4 3.6 0.62

Petite Verdot #2 0.28 22.0 3.6 0.65

Tinto Cao 0.41 20.3 4.0 0.51

Touriga 0.48 19.8 3.6 0.51

Cabernet Franc #214 0.45 21.6 4.0 0.45

Cabernet Franc #312 0.46 21.4 4.1 0.47

Cabernet Franc #4 0.48 21.5 4.0 0.44

Cabernet Franc #5 0.50 20.7 4.0 0.42

Cabernet Sauvignon #337 0.41 19.8 4.0 0.51

Cabernet Sauvignon #8 0.41 20.7 3.9 0.53

Fruit samples were collected and analyzed on harvest

dates listed in Table 3.

TSS = total soluble solids measured as °Brix in juice.

T.A. = Titratable acidity measured as grams of tartaric acid

per liter of juice.

SMALL FRUIT AND GRAPES

Rabbiteye Blueberry Variety Evaluation, 2013

Chris Smigell, John Strang and John Snyder, Department of Horticulture

is trial was established to evaluate rabbiteye blueberry

(Vaccinium ashei Reade) and southern highbush blueberry

(V. corymbosum L.) variety adaptation to central Kentucky

growing conditions. ese blueberry types typically have

shorter chilling requirements and may bloom earlier than

highbush blueberries, making them more prone to spring

frost injury. Rabbiteye blueberries are less winter hardy

than highbush and most southern highbush blueberries.

However they are less sensitive to higher soil pH and fruit

later in the season allowing for fruit season extension.

Materials and Methods

e blueberries were planted at the Horticultural Research

Farm in Lexington in the spring 2004. Plants were acquired from

Fall Creek Nursery, Lowell, OR; Finch Nursery, Bailey, NC; De-

Grandchamp’s Farm, South Haven, MI; and Dr. Jim Ballington

at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Most of the

highbush and southern highbush varieties were removed from

the trial in 2011.

Plants were set on raised beds of Maury silt loam soil

into which peat and composted pine bark mulch had been

incorporated and the soil pH had been adjusted from 5.6 to

4.6 by applying 653 lb of sulfur per acre. Seventy pounds of

phosphorus, as triple super phosphate was applied per acre and

incorporated into the ﬁeld prior to bed shaping and planting.

Five replications of individual plant plots were set in rows run-

ning east to west in a randomized block design. e southern

highbush and highbush plants were randomized together at

one end of the planting and spaced 4 ft apart in the row with

12 ft between rows. e rabbiteye blueberries were planted at

the other end with 6 ft between plants and 12 ft. between rows.

All plants were mulched with a three-foot-wide, six-inch-deep

layer of wood chips. Plants have been fertilized yearly with

Scott’s Osmocote Plus 5-6 month controlled release (15-9-12)

fertilizer that contains six trace elements and magnesium at

the rate of 1 oz per plant in March, April, May, June, and July.

Fungicide applications included lime sulfur, Rally, and Captan.

Herbicides for weed control included Surﬂan, Roundup, and

Rely. All chemicals were applied as per recommendations in

the Midwest Small Fruit and Grape Spray Guide (ID-94).

Fruit were harvested on 23 June, 6 July, and 11 July. Twenty

ﬁve berries from each plant were weighed to determine aver-

age berry size at each harvest, and fruit were rated for taste and

appearance several times during the season.

Results

Rainfall was above normal in January, below normal in

February and March, and above normal in April and May.

Monthly temperature averages were 6 and 5°F above normal

for December and January, respectively. e average tem-

perature in March was 6 degrees below normal, and for the

rest of the season temperatures generally ran below normal.

A freeze occurred on the morning of 2 April 2013. e

Kentucky Mesonet weather station, located 100 feet from

the planting, recorded a minimum temperature of 28.°F five

feet above ground. e freeze eliminated the entire crop on

all rabbiteye varieties except for the ‘NC-1827’ selection

(Table 1). e highbush variety, ‘Spartan’ and the southern

highbush variety, ‘Lenore’ both had crops, although not large

ones. e smaller crops on the ‘Spartan’ and ‘Lenore’ were at

least partially due to a delay in erecting bird nets on the plant-

ing. Other non-replicated highbush and southern highbush

varieties in the planting had good crops, and commercial

highbush blueberry growers had full crops across Kentucky

in 2013. ‘Spartan’ and ‘Lenore’ had higher yields than the

NC-1827, but the yield diﬀerences were not statistically

signiﬁcant. One of the reasons for establishing this trial was

to compare the eﬀect of frosts on rabbiteye varieties versus

highbush and southern highbush varieties. is is the ﬁrst

year that the rabbiteye blueberries have mostly frosted out

and the highbush and southern highbush have not.

Highbush and southern highbush varieties produce

fruit earlier in the season than rabbiteye varieties as shown

by the diﬀerence in ﬁrst harvest dates (Table 1). Previous

data shows that ‘NC-1827’ has consistently been one of the

earliest producing and highest yielding rabbiteye varieties

in this trial.

ere were no signiﬁcant diﬀerences in berry taste

between varieties. ‘Spartan’ had a significantly higher

individual berry weight than the ‘Lenore’ and ‘NC-1827’.

Berry weight or size was considerably larger in 2013 than

2012. e rabbiteye ‘NC-1827’ had a signiﬁcantly higher

appearance rating. Rabbiteye fruit were nearly spherical,

had a very heavy, attractive bloom, and were very uniform

in appearance, compared to ‘Spartan’ and ‘Lenore’.

Acknowledgments

e authors would like to thank Grant Clouser, Paul Dengle,

Dave Lowry and Joseph Tucker for their hard work and assistance

in the successful completion of this trial.

Funding for this project was provided by a grant from the Agricultural

Development Board through the Kentucky Horticulture Council.

Table 1. Highbush, southern highbush, and rabbiteye blueberry yield,

fruit size, taste, appearance ratings and rst harvest dates, Lexington,

KY, 2013.

Variety Type

Yield

(lbs/A)

Berry wt

(oz/25

berries)

Berry

taste

(1-5)

Berry

appearance

(1-5)

First

harvest

(date)

Spartan HB 1529 a 1.7 a 4.2 a 4.1 b 28 June

Lenore SH 1229 a 1.3 b 4.5 a 4.2 b 28 June

NC-1827 R 861 a 1.3 b 4.3 a 4.6 a 11 July

Climax R - - - - -

Columbus R - - - - -

Ira R - - - - -

Powderblue R - - - - -

Tifblue R - - - - -

Type: HB = highbush; SH = southern highbush; R = rabbiteye

Means followed by the same letter are not signicantly dierent

(Walter-Duncan Multiple Range Test LSD P = 0.05)

Berry taste: 1 = poor; 5 = excellent

Berry appearance 1=poor, 5=excellent

SMALL FRUIT AND GRAPES

Advanced Thorny and Thornless

Primocane-fruiting Blackberry Selection Trial

Jeremiah D. Lowe, Kirk W. Pomper, and Sheri B. Crabtree, Department of Plant and Soil Science, Kentucky State University;

John R. Clark, Department of Horticulture, University of Arkansas; and John G. Strang, Department of Horticulture, University of Kentucky

Introduction

Blackberry plants are unusual among fruit crops in that they

have perennial root systems, but have biennial canes. ere are

two cane types, primocanes, or ﬁrst year canes, which are usually

vegetative, and ﬂoricanes, which are the same canes and ﬂower

and produce fruit the next growing season. Floricanes then die

after fruiting and need to be removed. Primocane-fruiting black-

berries have the potential to produce two crops per year, with a

normal summer crop (ﬂoricane) and a later crop on the current

season primocanes. Primocane-fruiting blackberries ﬂower and

fruit from mid-summer until frost, depending on temperatures,

plant health, and location. Growers can reduce pruning costs by

mowing canes in late winter to obtain a primocane crop only.

Mowing also provides anthracnose, cane blight and red-necked

cane borer control without pesticides. Relying only on a primo-

cane crop also avoids potential winter injury of ﬂoricanes.

e ﬁrst commercially available primocane-fruiting black-

berry varieties, ‘Prime-Jim®’ and ‘Prime-Jan®,’ were released by the

University of Arkansas in 2004 (Clark et al., 2005; Clark 2008).

‘Prime-Ark®45’ was released for commercial use in 2009. Fruit size

and quality of primocane-fruiting blackberries can be aﬀected by

the environment. Summer temperatures above 85°F can greatly

reduce fruit set, size and quality on primocanes, resulting in

substantial reductions in yield and fruit quality in areas with this

temperature range in summer and fall (Clark et al., 2005; Stanton

et al., 2007). All currently available primocane-fruiting blackberry

selections are thorny and erect. e objective of this study was to

determine if thorny and thornless advanced selections developed

by the University of Arkansas (UARK) Blackberry Breeding

Program have better yields and fruit quality than ‘Prime-Ark®45’

under Kentucky growing conditions.

Materials and Methods

In June 2011, plants of the commercially available primo-

cane-fruiting cultivar ‘Prime-Ark 45®’ (thorny erect, primocane-

fruiting) and the Arkansas Primocane-fruiting (APF) selections

of thorny or thornless (T) advanced selections (APF-153 T,

APF-156 T, APF-158, APF-172, APF-185 T, APF-190 T, and

APF-205 T) from the UARK blackberry breeding program,

were planted at the Kentucky State University (KSU) Research

and Demonstration Farm in Frankfort, Kentucky. Plants were

arranged in a randomized complete block design, with four

blocks, including ﬁve plants of each cultivar per block (total of

20 plants of each cultivar) in a 10 foot plot. Spacing was two feet

between each plant, and ﬁve feet between groups of ﬁve plants;

with each row being 70 feet in length. Rows were spaced 14

feet apart. is trial was planted on certiﬁed organic land and

managed with organic practices following the National Organic

Program standards. Weeds werecontrolled by placing a 6-8 in.

deep layer of straw around plants, adding straw when necessary

and hand weeding. Plants were irrigated weekly with t-tape

laid in the rows. Floricanes of most selections began producing

fruit in June 2013, and fruit were harvested each Monday and

ursday until a killing frost (26°F) on 25 October.

Results and Discussion

is year ﬂoricanes began producing fruit in June. Primo-

cane fruit production began in late June for all selections. Fruit

production continued until frost (Table 1). APF-158 had the

highest yield at 7146 lb/acre. . Yields of other selections in this

trial were much lower, ranging from 5636-760 lb/A. Prime-

Ark 45® had a yield of 3795 lb/acre. APF-153 T had the largest

average berry weight at 6.26 g. APF-172, APF-185T, and APF-

190T had the smallest berry weights, which were below 4.5 g.

Growing conditions in 2013 were mild compared to 2012. e

average high in July was 81.9°F. ere were 40 out of 122 days

with a daily high temperature above 85°F from June through

September. In June, 2012 there were three days that the tempera-

ture was over 100°F and only ﬁve days in that month had high

temperatures that were below 85°F. e lower temperatures in

2013 and increased age and size of plants led to a higher yield

for all varieties compared to 2012. Berry weights were larger

in 2013 than in 2012. Overall, APF-158, and APF-190T had a

superior yield to Prime-Ark 45® and APF-153T and APF-205T

had greater average berry weights. Year to year yield and fruit

quality characteristics will need to be further evaluated. APF-

153T has been released as Prime-Ark Freedom®.

Literature Cited

Clark, J.R., J.N. Moore, J. Lopez-Medina, C. Finn, P. Perkins-

Veazie. 2005. ‘Prime-Jan’ (‘APF-8’) and ‘Prime-Jim’ (‘APF-12’)

Primocane-fruiting Blackberries. HortScience, 40:852-855.

Clark, J.R. 2008. Primocane-fruiting Blackberry Breeding.

HortScience, 43:1637-1639.

Stanton, M.A., J.C. Scheerens, R.C. Funt, and J.R. Clark. 2007.

Floral Competence of Primocane-fruiting Blackberries

Prime-Jan and Prime-Jim Grown at ree Temperature

Regimens. HortScience, 42: 508-513.

Table 1. Yields and berry weights for seven advanced primocane-

fruiting selections and ‘Prime-Jan®’, from the University of Arkansas

Blackberry Breeding Program, at the Kentucky State University

Research Farm, 2013.

Selection

Fruit Weight

(oz)

Yield

(lb/acre) Harvest Date

Prime-Ark 45 0.17 cd

3795 c 6/24-10/22

APF-153 T 0.22 a 760 d 6/27-10/22

APF-156 T 0.17 cd 1976 d 6/27-10/22

APF-158 0.18 bc 7147 a 6/24-10/22

APF-172 0.15 e 3507 c 6/24-10/22

APF-185 T 0.15 e 868 d 6/24-10/22

APF-190 T 0.16 de 5636 b 6/24-10/18

APF-205 T 0.19 b 1329 d 6/27-10/22

Numbers followed by the same letter are not signicantly dierent (Least

Signicant Dierence P ≤ 0.05)

VEGETABLES

Bell Pepper Bacterial Spot Variety Trial, Central Kentucky

John Strang, Chris Smigell, Lucas Hanks, and John Snyder, Department of Horticulture; and Kenny Seebold, Department of Plant Pathology

Introduction

Bell peppers currently account for roughly 500 acres of

Kentucky fresh market vegetable production according to the

2012 Kentucky Produce Planting and Marketing Intentions

Grower Survey and Outlook (www.uky.edu/Ag/CCD/plant-

ingsurvey2012.pdf ). Seventeen bell pepper Capsicum annuum

varieties with resistance to a number of races of Xanthomonas

campestris pv. vesicatoria (Xcv), the causal agent of bacterial

spot, were evaluated for yield and bacterial spot resistance in a

replicated trial. A number of the varieties were selected based

on fruit quality and yield performance in a 2012 non-replicated

screening trial. e intent of this study was to evaluate variety

performance following inoculation with the races of Xcv cur-

rently found in Kentucky.

Materials and Methods

Varieties were seeded on 20 March 2013 into 72-cell plastic

plug trays (Landmark Plastics Corp., Akron, OH) ﬁlled with

ProMix BX general growing medium at the UK Horticultural

Research Farm in Lexington. Greenhouse-grown transplants

were set into black plastic-covered, raised beds using a water

wheel setter on 30 May. All transplants were watered in with

approximately a pint of starter solution (6 lb of 10-30-20 in

100 gallons of water). Each plot was 15 ft long and contained

30 plants set 12 inches apart in double rows spaced 15 inches

apart in the bed. Beds were 6 ft apart. Plots were replicated four

times in a randomized block design.

Sixty pounds of nitrogen per acre as 19-19-19 was applied

and tilled in prior to plastic laying. Beginning 14 June a rotation

of urea, 20-20-20, and calcium nitrate was applied weekly via

fertigation at a rate of 6 lb 4 oz nitrogen per acre for a total of

13 applications totaling 81 lb of nitrogen per acre. Following

this, four weekly nitrogen maintenance applications of 2 lb

nitrogen per acre as urea were made for a total of 8 additional

lb of nitrogen per acre. Dual II Magnum herbicide was applied

on 9 June between beds at a rate of 1.0 pt per acre. No fungicide

or bactericide applications were made to the planting. Coragen

was applied through the drip lines on 16 July at a rate of 5 ﬂ oz

per acre for insect control. Five Mustang Max sprays were ap-

plied at two week intervals beginning 6 August for corn borer

control. Stakes were driven along the outer row of the double

row of plants on each bed and two levels of tomato twine were

used to support the plants and reduce fruit sunscald.

Two pepper plants in each plot were inoculated on 30 July

with Xcv isolated from peppers from the Somerset, KY, area.

One leaf on each plant was inﬁltrated with a suspension of Xcv

at 10

colony-forming units per ml. Severity of bacterial spot

was assessed four times (9 August, 16 August, 27 August, and 5

September) by estimating the percentage of diseased leaf area (%

DLA). Values for % DLA were used to calculate the area under

the disease progress curve (AUDPC), an indicator of cumulative

disease severity for the season.

e plot was harvested four times during the season (2 Au-

gust, 27 August, 13 September and 8 October). Marketable fruit

were graded and weighed into the categories of jumbo, extra

large and large (all fruit >3 inches diameter), total marketable

yield (all fruit >2.5 inches diameter) plus misshapen but sound

fruit, which could be sold as “choppers” to food service buyers,

and cull fruit.

Results

Lexington received eight more inches of rainfall than nor-

mal from June through September; temperatures were 1 and

1.6°F warmer than normal in June and September and 1.7 and

0.4°F cooler than normal in July and August. Drip irrigation

was applied shortly after transplanting and all varieties showed

good survival rates. e cool season was not conducive to the

development of bacterial spot, and overall severity was low

throughout the trial.

Varieties are ranked in Table 1 based on the percentage of

jumbo, large and extra large fruit (by weight) since growers make

most of their income from these size classes. ‘Excursion II’, ‘Alli-

ance’, ‘Lafayette’, ‘Currier’, ‘Revolution’ and ‘Declaration’ were the

best performing varieties in this trial based on percentage and

tonnage of at least 30.4 tons per acre of jumbo, extra large and

large fruit, low amounts of silvering and cull fruit. ‘Excursion

II’, ‘Lafayette’ and ‘Alliance’ produced at least 40 tons per acre of

marketable fruit. ‘Excursion II’ fruit had a very low percentage

of silvering, and was rated high for fruit shape uniformity and

overall fruit appearance, however fruit size was not maintained

at the last harvest. ‘Lafayette’, ‘Declaration’, and ‘Revolution’ also

rated high for fruit shape uniformity. ‘Declaration’, ‘Revolution’,

‘Islamorada’, and ‘Lafayette’ rated highest for overall fruit ap-

pearance. ‘PS09941819 X5R’ had the highest total marketable

yield, at 46 tons per acre, but a very large percentage of fruit

displayed silvering. ‘Red Knight’ and ‘HMX 2641’ had some

of the lowest yields in the trial but had the highest percentage

of four-lobed fruit. ‘Aristotle’, one of the primary bacterial spot

resistant varieties planted over the last 10 years, showed lower

yields of jumbo, extra large and large fruit and high levels of fruit

silvering. Fruit cullage was primarily due to corn borer injury

and a slight amount of sunscald. Table 2 provides information

on the seed sources, days to harvest, fruit color and reported

bacterial spot race resistance.

Symptoms of bacterial spot were observed on ‘Red Knight’

before plants were inoculated, and likely resulted from infection

by Xcv present in seeds. Severity of bacterial spot was greatest

on ‘Red Knight’ and ‘Excursion II’, which had 10.25% and 9.25%

DLA, respectively, at the last evaluation made on 5 September

(Table 3). Disease severity did not exceed 2% DLA in any of the

other varieties. Cumulative severity of bacterial spot (AUDPC)

was highest for ‘Red Knight’, followed by ‘Vanguard’ (Table 3).

e AUDPC values for ‘Excursion II’ and ‘Aristrocrat’ were not

signiﬁcantly diﬀerent from ‘Vanguard’.

VEGETABLES

Acknowledgments

e authors would like to thank Grant Clouser, Paul Dengle,

Dave Lowry and Joseph Tucker for their hard work and assis-

tance in the successful completion of this trial.

Funding for this project was provided by a grant from the

Agricultural Development Board through the Kentucky Horticulture

Council.

Table 1. Yield data and fruit characteristic ratings, 2013.

Variety

Jumbo

+ XL +

Large

Total

Marketable

Yield

(tons/A)

Cull

(%)

Silvering

(%)

Fruit Shape

Uniformity

Fruit

Appearance

4-lobed

Fruit

(%)

Fruit Size

Maintained

Fruit Comments

Excursion II 85 a

40.9 ab

2.7 0.4 4.1 4.3 45 3.1 Attractive; large, but few XL in early harvests; one fruit

with bacterial spot

Islamorada 83 ab 33.0 cd 4.1 8.9 3.8 4.1 58 3.5 Attractive, good size, last harvest; one fruit with

bacterial spot, some pointy fruit

Lafayette 81 abc 40.5 ab 2.5 8.7 3.9 4.1 53 3.4 Attractive; fair no. of XL fruit in rst harvest; size held

up throughout season

Alliance 81 abc 40.6 ab 3.0 2.9 3.8 4.0 47 3.8 Attractive; very little silvering; a lot of XL at rst

harvest; size held up through season

Currier 79 a-d 38.6 bc 2.4 12.5 3.8 3.9 55 3.1 Attractive; a lot of XL at second harvest; fair amount

of small & medium fruit the last harvest; one fruit with

bacterial spot

Revolution 78 bcd 39.0 bc 3.1 7.1 3.9 4.4 37 4.4 Attractive; very large rm blocky fruit; lots of XL fruit

the last harvest

Karisma 76 cd 38.4 bc 2.8 11.8 3.7 3.8 55 3.0 Size held up through second harvest; mostly medium

size at last harvest

Clifton No. 1 76 cd 36.9 bcd 5.2 14.7 3.3 3.6 58 2.9 Very rm, thick wall; many with silvering

Declaration 76 cd 40.0 b 3.0 3.6 4.3 4.5 50 3.1 Lighter green than other varieties; size held up well

through second harvest; had more small short fruit

PS09941819 X5R 73 de 46.3 a 3.0 28.2 3.6 3.5 55 4.8 Attractive; a lot of XL, at rst harvest and size very

large at last harvest; extreme silvering rst two

harvests

Vanguard 72 de 36.2 bcd 3.6 13.6 3.5 4.0 65 4.4 Attractive; a lot of XL throughout the season

Archimedes 72 de 39.4 b 2.0 11.0 3.4 3.8 63 3.6 Fair no. of XL; some fruit elongated; very little fruit

silvering; many small misshapen fruit at last harvest

Aristotle 68 ef 40.5 ab 2.1 29.5 3.9 3.6 43 3 Fair no. of XL at rst two harvests, extreme silvering;

medium size fruit at last harvest

Tomcat 66 ef 34.3 bcd 2.4 42.4 3.5 3.1 55 3 Medium sized very rm fruit; not many XL fruit;

excessive silvering

Aristocrat 64 f 35.8 bcd 1.9 45.4 3.1 3.1 53 2.6 Large blocky fruit rst two harvests and size dropped

o for last harvest; excessive silvering

HMX 2641 63 f 31.6 d 2.4 47.1 2.9 2.7 75 2.3 Medium sized fruit; mostly small fruit at last harvest;

excessive silvering

Red Knight 54 g 31.4 d 1.9 37.7 3.3 3.0 70 2.6 XL very rm fruit at rst harvest; small size at last

harvest; excessive silvering

Percent of total marketable yield weight that was graded as jumbo, extra large and large (all fruit >3 inches diameter)

Total marketable yield included jumbo, extra large, large and medium fruit (all fruit >2.5 inches diameter) plus misshapen but sound fruit which could be sold as ‘choppers’ to food

service buyers.

Percent of total marketable yield weight that showed slivering or very ne, light colored streaking in harvests 1, 2 and 4.

Fruit shape uniformity at rst harvest: 1=poor, 5=excellent

Fruit appearance at rst harvest: 1=poor, 5=excellent

Fruit size maintenance at last harvest: 1=poor, 5=excellent

Means in column followed by the same letter are not signicantly dierent (Waller-Duncan Multiple Range Test LSD P≤0.05).

VEGETABLES

Table 2. Bell pepper days to harvest, seed source and fruit

color.

Variety

Seed

Source

Days to

Harvest

Fruit Color

Green

Ripe

Excursion II RU 75 med red

Islamorada SW 72 med red

Lafayette CL 70 lt-med yellow

Alliance HM 74 lt-med red

Currier SW 73 lt-dk red

Revolution SW 72 lt-med red

Karisma CL 71-75 med red

Clifton No. 1 CL 75 med-dk red

Declaration HM 70-75 lt-med red

PS0994-1819 X5R RU 73-75 med red

Vanguard ST 75 med red

Archimedes X3R SW 76 med red

Aristotle X3R ST 70-75 med-dk red

Tomcat CL 75 med red

Aristocrat CL 75 med red

HMX 2641 CL 65 med red

Red Knight X3R RU 64 med red

Days to harvest from seed catalogues and websites.

Green fruit color: med=medium, lt=light, dk=dark

Table 3. Bacterial spot severity on 17 varieties of bell pepper and Xcv

race resistance

Variety

Seed

Source

Bacterial spot severity

Bacterial

Spot Race

Resistance

% disease

(5 September)

AUDPC

Red Knight X3R RU 10.3 a

384.5 a

1,2,3

Vanguard ST 2.0 b 126.4 b 1-5

Excursion II RU 9.3 a 103.3 bc 1,2,3

Aristocrat CL 1.0 b 63.3 bcd unknown

Tomcat CL 1.0 b 38.3 cd 1-5,7-9

Currier SW 1.3 b 36.0 cd 1,2,3

Lafayette CL 0.8 b 17.5 d 1,2,3

Alliance HM 0.3 b 15.5 d 1,2,3,5

Aristotle X3R ST 0.8 b 14.6 d 1,2,3

Karisma CL 0.5 b 13.5 d 1,2,3

Clifton No. 1 CL 0.3 b 12.4 d unknown

Archimedes X3R SW 0.5 b 8.5 d 1,2,3

Islamorada SW 0 b 7.9 d 1-5

Revolution SW 0.3 b 4.3 d 1,2,3,5

HMX 2641 CL 0 b 3.1 d 1-4

Declaration HM 0 b 2.3 d 1,2,3,5

PS0994-1819 X5R RU 0 b 2.3 d 1-5

Percentage of diseased leaf area with symptoms of bacterial spot on the last

evaluation of the trial (5 September).

Total severity of disease calculated from ratings taken on 9, 16, and 27

August, and 5 September as the area under the disease progress curve

(AUDPC, showing cumulative disease severity for the season.

Bacterial spot race resistance from seed catalogues and websites.

Means in column followed by the same letter are not signicantly dierent

(Fisher’s Least Signicant Dierence, LSD P≤0.05).

Spring Red and Savoy Cabbage Variety Evaluation

Chris Smigell, John Strang, Lucas Hanks, and John Snyder, Department of Horticulture; Pam Sigler, Program and Staﬀ Development; and Elizabeth

Buckner, Family and Consumer Sciences

irteen red and eight savoy cabbage varieties were evalu-

ated in a replicated trial to evaluate their performance under

central Kentucky conditions. Culinary evaluations were con-

ducted to assess consumer varietal preferences.

Materials and Methods

Varieties were seeded on 12 February 2013 into 72 cell plas-

tic plug trays ﬁlled with ProMix BX general growing medium

(Premier Horticulture, Inc.) at the UK Horticulture Research

Farm in Lexington. Greenhouse-grown transplants were set

into the ﬁeld on 16 April 12 inches apart in single rows with

36 inches between rows. Each plot row was 10 feet long and

contained 11 plants. Varieties were replicated four times in

a randomized complete block design. Dacthal (14 lb/A) and

Devrinol (4 lb/A) herbicides were mixed into the soil, and Goal

(2 pt/A) was applied to the soil surface prior to planting. Select

Max (16 ﬂ oz/A) was applied for post-emergence grass control

on 3 June.

Sixty pounds per acre of nitrogen, phosphorus and potas-

sium were applied as 19-19-19, prior to planting, and tilled in.

Approximately one cup of starter solution (6 lb of 10-30-20 in

100 gallons of water) was applied at transplanting. e plot was

drip-irrigated and fertigated weekly with 10 lb of nitrogen per

acre beginning on 31 May for a total of 7 fertigations and 70 lb

of nitrogen per acre. ese fertigations used a rotation of cal-

cium nitrate, urea and 20-20-20. Coragen insecticide (5 ﬂ oz/A)

was applied 3 June through the drip lines, and Danitol (1pt/A),

Brigade (5 oz/A) and Mustang Max (4 oz/A) were sprayed for

insect control.

All marketable heads were harvested when ﬁrm and were

evaluated for total marketable yield, number of heads per acre,

head weight and size. Harvesting began on 2 July and continued

on a roughly weekly basis through 21 August. One head from

each replication was evaluated for core length, head ﬁrmness,

internal and external appearance, color, and raw product taste.

Culinary evaluations were conducted on two heads of each

variety by two Family Consumer Science panels. e ﬁrst panel

rated the red varieties for visual appeal, and ﬂavor and texture

when prepared raw, steamed or roasted. e second panel rated

the savoy varieties for visual appeal, and ﬂavor and texture in

the raw form only. Both panels commented on the attractive

appearance of all cabbage varieties, regarding cut cabbage color,

leaf texture, internal design and core appearance.

Steamed cabbage was chopped into bite-sized pieces. Two

cups of chopped cabbage were placed in a steamer basket that

was placed into a covered stainless steel pan holding one cup of

VEGETABLES

water. Cabbage was cooked over medium heat (7-9) for 10 min-

utes. Cabbage to be roasted was cut into 1-inch-thick rounds.

ese were placed in a single layer on a baking sheet covered

with parchment paper that had been coated with one table-

spoon of extra-virgin olive oil. e cabbage was then brushed

with olive oil and was roasted in a preheated 400°F oven for 42

minutes until the cabbage was tender and the edges had turned

golden.

Results and Discussion

e growing season was cool, wet and ideal for cabbage

production. Harvest and head evaluation data for red and

savoy cabbage are shown in Tables 1 and 2. One head from

each of four replications was measured (length, width and

core length), tasted, and rated for color and appearance by two

horticulture department personnel. Varieties are ranked based

on total marketable yield in Tables 1 and 2. Family Consumer

Science taste panel evaluations are ranked based on cut head

visual appearance and are shown in Table 3. In Kentucky total

marketable yield is not the primary grower consideration used

for selecting a variety. Since specialty cabbage types are generally

sold directly to consumers, appearance and quality are primary

concerns for obtaining repeat sales.

e top red varieties based on Horticultural Research Farm

and Family Consumer Science evaluations were Scarlet King,

Rondale and Rio Grande Red. e top savoy varieties were Savoy

King, Savoy Ace Improved and Savoy Blue.

Horticultural Research Farm Evaluations

Scarlet King, Super Red 80, Red Dynasty, Rondale, Kosaro

and Rio Grande Red were the best performing red varieties

(Tables 1 and 2). Rondale and Rio Grande Red were rated lower

than most other varieties for internal appearance because sev-

eral heads showed some core browning. Growers should select

varieties that produce heads in their most marketable size range.

Rio Grande Red had larger heads averaging 4.0 lb. while Kosaro

heads averaged 2.9 lb. Kosaro had a relatively small core length.

All red varieties were very ﬁrm.

e top savoy varieties were Savoy King, Savoy Ace Im-

proved, Clarissa, Savoy Blue and Miletta. Head ﬁrmness was

lower for Savoy King because in retrospect this variety was

harvested too early, although the heads looked very good at

the time of harvest. Heads left longer in the ﬁeld became very

large without splitting. Savoy Blue and Taler were rated lower

for internal appearance because several heads displayed inter-

nal tip burn, which is associated with calcium deﬁciency. Raw

savoy cabbage tended to be not as sweet as the red cabbage and

a little dry. Savoy cabbage heads are less dense as compared with

conventional cabbage.

Family Consumer Science Evaluations

All of the cabbage consumer panel participants ate cabbage

regularly with 50% of red cabbage panelists, and 76% of the

savoy cabbage panelists eating it monthly or more frequently.

Participants most frequently ate cabbage raw in salads or slaw.

e majority of both red cabbage panelists and savoy cabbage

panelists purchased cabbage from grocery stores (88% and 82%,

respectively), and farmer’s markets (50% and 41%, respectively).

Participants rated the red cabbage for appearance, ﬂavor

and texture in a variety of preparation styles (raw, steamed and

roasted) on a Likert Scale of 1 to 5 (1 = not at all appealing and

5 = very appealing). All varieties of raw red cabbage received

an average or appealing rating (mean > 3.0) for appearance

and texture with the exception of Primero (visual appeal mean

= 2.75). Flavor of the raw cabbage varied from not appealing

(mean = 2.86 for Super Red 80 and Super Red 90) to very ap-

pealing (mean > 4 for Scarlet King, Rondale, and Rio Grande

Red).

Steamed and roasted cabbage ranked as average or less

appealing visually. Scarlet King and Rondale were the only

varieties receiving an appealing (mean = 4) rating for ﬂavor

when steamed. Rondale received the highest rating for texture

when steamed (mean = 4.5). Scarlet King, Rio Grande Red

and Rondale received appealing ratings (mean > 4) for ﬂavor

and texture when roasted. None of the participants had eaten

roasted cabbage prior to the panel but all indicated that they

would roast cabbage in the future.

Participants rated the visual appeal, ﬂavor and texture of raw

savoy cabbage. All varieties received a mean score greater than

3.0 on a 5 point Likert Scale with 5 being very appealing. Savoy

King (mean = 4.06) and Savoy Blue (mean = 4.53) received the

highest rating for visual appeal. Savory Blue received the highest

mean score (4.06) for ﬂavor with Taler, Miletta, and Primavoy

receiving less than appealing ratings (mean < 3.0). Taler is the

only variety that received less than appealing (mean < 3.0) for

texture.

Acknowledgments

e authors would like to thank Grant Clouser, Paul Dengle,

Dave Lowry, Joseph Tucker and Mark Williams for their hard

work and assistance in the successful completion of this trial.

Funding for this project was provided by a grant from the

Agricultural Development Board through the Kentucky Horticulture

Council.

VEGETABLES

Table 1. Variety yield data, head dimensions, split head number, rmness and taste ratings, and comments.

Variety

Seed

Source

Days to

Harvest

Total

Marketable

Yield

(lb/A)

Heads

(No/A)

Avg.

Head

(lb)

Head

Length

X Width

(in)

Core

Length

(in)

Head

Firmness

(1-5)

Split

Heads

(No/A)

Taste

Raw

(1-5)

Comments

(Red)

Rio Grande Red SI 73 62,944 a

15,609 4.0 6.8X6.6 3.8 4.8 0 3.9 Crunchy, slightly to not sweet, a

little core browning

Scarlet King SI 70 62,109 a 15,972 3.9 6.7X7.2 3.6 4.5 0 4.5 Mild, crunchy, slightly sweet

Super Red 80 JO 82 54,740 ab 16,698 3.3 6.2X6.1 3.0 4.9 0 4.7 Mild, crunchy, sweet

Rondale ST 75 50,711 abc 15,246 3.3 6.9X6.1 2.9 4.8 0 4.4 Mild, crunchy, slightly to not

sweet, some with core browning

Red Dynasty SI,S 72 47,843 bcd 14,157 3.4 6.9X5.9 3.8 4.9 0 4.7 Mild, crunchy, sweet

Kosaro SW 74 43,669 bcd 15,246 2.9 6.0X5.9 2.7 5.0 0 4.4 Mild, crunchy slightly sweet

Azurro SW 78 43,306 bcd 13,794 3.1 6.5X6.7 3.1 4.5 0 3.1 Some sulfur notes, nice

iridescent wrapper leaves

Integro JO 85 41,201 bcd 14,520 2.8 6.6X5.4 3.3 5.0 0 4.6 Mild, very crunchy, slightly

sweet, a few with core browning

Cairo SW 85 39,785 cde 14,157 2.8 5.6X6.0 2.5 4.6 0 4.0 Crunchy, dry, slightly bitter and

sweet

Primero SW 72 36,590 cde 15,972 2.3 5.2X5.8 3.0 4.9 363 4.1 Mild, crunchy, slightly sweet,

some core browning, nice waxy

bloom

Super Red 90 CL Mid late 35,102 de 12,705 2.8 6.6X5.4 4.0 4.8 0 4.6 Mild, crunchy, slightly sweet

Red Jewel CL,SK 75 34,360 de 14,157 3.1 5.4X5.4 2.8 4.7 0 3.4 Crunchy, sulfur notes, slightly

bitter and sweet

Ruby Perfection JO 86 26,463 e 11,253 2.4 6.5X4.7 3.7 5.0 0 4.5 Mild, very crunchy, slightly

sweet, large core for size

(Savoy)

Savoy King CL 80 70,458 a 15,609 4.5 5.9X9.3 3.9 3.6 0 3.9 Mild, slightly dry, not sweet;

heads get very large and at if

left in eld

Savoy Ace

Improved

RU 73 58,842 ab 13,794 4.3 7.7X7.7 4.0 4.1 0 3.9 Mild, crunchy, not sweet

Savoy Blue ST 80 56,810 ab 12,705 4.5 6.3X7.9 3.1 3.7 0 4.4 Mild, slightly sweet, tip burn

Clarissa SW 78 51,183 ab 18,150 2.8 6.4X6.5 3.1 4.0 0 4.3 Crunchy, slight sulfur note,

slightly sweet

Alcosa SW,JO 62 46,500 ab 14,520 3.2 6.7X6.8 3.3 3.5 6,534 3.1 Dry, some sulfur notes, not sweet

Primavoy ST 98 45,266 ab 13,431 3.4 7.1X7.2 5.0 3.8 0 3.3 Mild, dry, not sweet, slightly

tough, large core, heads did not

ll well

Miletta ST 88 45,121 ab 15,246 3.0 6.3X7.4 3.3 3.9 0 4.5 Mild, crunchy, slightly sweet

Taler ST 85 38,587 b 13,794 2.8 6.6X6.9 5.1 3.7 0 3.0 Dry, not sweet, some tip burn,

large core, did not mature

Days to harvest from seed catalogues

Head Firmness and Raw Taste: 1= poor; 5= excellent

Means in column followed by the same letter are not signicantly dierent (Waller-Duncan Multiple Range Test LSD P≤0.05)

VEGETABLES

Table 2. Red and savoy cabbage head appearance and color, 2013.

Variety

External

Appearance

(1-5)

Internal

Appearance

(1-5)

Color

Intensity

(1-5)

Internal Color

(Red)

Rio Grande Red 4.6 3.6 3.8 Rose purple

Scarlet King 4.5 4.3 4.0 Rose purple

Super Red 80 4.6 4.5 4.2 Reddish purple

Rondale 4.4 3.7 4.5 Dark purple

Red Dynasty 4.4 4.5 4.4 Rose purple

Kosaro 4.5 4.5 4.8 Dark purple

Azurro 4.7 4.3 4.2 Reddish purple

Integro 4.7 4.1 4.8 Dark purple

Cairo 4.3 4.5 4.5 Dark purple

Primero 4.0 4.0 4.3 Purple

Super Red 90 4.5 3.8 4.2 Rose purple

Red Jewel 4.4 4.2 4.1 Rose purple

Ruby Perfection 4.6 4.0 5.0 Dark purple

(Savoy)

Savoy King 4.6 4.4 Cream to green

Savoy Ace Improved 4.8 4.6 Cream

Savoy Blue 4.8 2.7 Cream to yellow

Clarissa 4.6 4.6 Yellowish green

Alcosa 4.1 4.2 Cream to green

Primavoy 4.7 3.0 Cream to green

Miletta 4.7 4.7 Cream to green

Taler 4.0 2.5 Cream to light green

External appearance: 1=poor; 5=excellent

Internal appearance: 1=poor; 5=excellent

Color intensity: 1=light; 5=dark purple

Table 3. Family Consumer Science red and savoy cabbage visual appearance, avor and texture evaluations, 2013.

Variety

Visual Appeal

Raw

(1-5)

Flavor

Raw

(1-5)

Texture

Raw

(1-5)

Visual Appeal

Steamed

(1-5)

Flavor

Steamed

(1-5)

Texture

Steamed

(1-5)

Visual Appeal

Roasted

(1-5)

Flavor

Roasted

(1-5)

Texture

Roasted

(1-5)

(Red)

Super Red 80 4.4 2.9 4.4 3.3 3.3 3.7 2.8 3.0 3.5

Cairo

4.3 3.5 4.6 3.3 3.7 3.5 2.3 3.2 3.3

Rio Grande Red

4.1 4.1 4.3 3.0 3.8 3.8 3.2 4.5 4.7

Scarlet King

4.1 4.1 4.1 3.3 4.0 4.0 3.3 4.2 4.0

Red Jewel

4.1 3.6 4.1 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.0 3.2 3.8

Kosaro

4.0 3.6 4.0 2.2 2.8 3.5 3.2 3.3 3.8

Integro

4.0 3.1 3.7 2.5 3.2 3.8 2.5 3.0 3.8

Rondale

4.0 4.1 4.3 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.3 4.3 4.3

Azurro

3.9 3.9 3.8 2.2 2.8 3.0 3.3 2.8 3.7

Red Dynasty

3.8 3.4 3.6 2.3 2.5 3.3 3.0 2.5 3.3

Super Red 90

3.8 2.9 4.0 2.3 2.7 3.5 2.8 3.0 3.8

Ruby Perfection

3.1 3.6 3.7 2.8 3.7 4.2 2.3 2.5 3.8

Primero

2.8 3.3 3.4 2.2 2.5 3.3 3.5 3.3

3.7

(Savoy)

Savoy Blue

4.5 4.1 3.8

Savoy King

4.1 3.7 3.7

Clarissa

4.0 3.2 3.5

Miletta 3.8

2.7 3.6

Alcosa

3.5 3.5 3.8

Taler

3.5 2.3 2.9

Primavoy

3.4 2.9 3.6

Savoy Ace Improved

3.1 3.8 3.9

Appearance, avor and texture mean ratings: 1 = poor; 5 = excellent. Red cabbage was rated by six and the savoy cabbage by 17

evaluators.

VEGETABLES

Managing Brown Marmorated Stink Bug

using Selective Exclusion Screening Materials

Rachelyn Dobson, Chelsea Berrish, and Ric Bessin, Department of Entomology

Brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB), Halyomorpha halys

(Stål) is a new invasive pest in Kentucky. It was ﬁrst conﬁrmed in

Boyd, Jeﬀerson, and Fayette counties in the fall of 2010. BMSB

is increasing in Kentucky rapidly and is likely to be a key pest

of most ﬁeld crops, most fruit crops, and many vegetable crops

including tomatoes, peppers, beans, eggplant, sweet corn, and

okra. In states that have had BMSB for a longer time, BMSB has

become the primary pest of many crops and has been particu-

larly problematic with organic production. While conventional

producers have several insecticides that provide satisfactory

BMSB control, organic producers have had very limited results

with OMRI-approved materials. Coordinated research studies

in a dozen states are investigating management of BMSB on

certiﬁed organic farms. Tactics being evaluated include the

use of OMRI-approved insecticides, trap crops, and selective

exclusionary netting.

While the ﬁnest screening materials should exclude all stages

of BMSB, they are also likely to exclude natural enemies of the

BMSB and other pests, and other beneﬁcial insects. is pepper

trial was conducted in a transitional organic plot to evaluate the

impact of three types of exclusionary screening materials on

BMSB damage to the peppers, productivity of the plants, and

natural enemies of insect pests.

Materials & Methods

Untreated bell pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) seeds (‘Ar-

istotle’, Seedway, Hall, NY) were grown in 72-cell trays using

Organic Grow Mix in an organic greenhouse. Seedlings were

planted in the ﬁeld on May 14, on the University of Kentucky

Horticultural Research Farm in Lexington. Prior to bed prepa-

ration, 100 units of organic nitrogen (Fertrell 4-2-4) were culti-

vated into the soil and incorporated to a depth of 6 inches with

a rotary tiller. Four pairs of plant beds 120 feet in length were

established. Each pair of beds had an 18 inch furrow between

the beds and there were 48 inches between pairs of beds. Pepper

plants were set as double rows on black plastic with 18 inches

between staggered rows and 15 inches between plants in a

row. Landscape fabric was laid to suppress weeds in alleyways

between replicates and secured with landscape staples. A dome

like cage was created using a two ½ inch diameter, 15-foot re-

inforcing construction rods (Lowes, Lexington, KY). e rods

were driven eight inches into the soil on a bed and extended

from one corner of one plastic bed to the opposite corner of the

other bed to create the frame to support the netting materials.

e two rods were secured in the center where they crossed

with wire for stability. Each frame enclosed a 6.5 ft section of

the paired beds and was approximately 4.5 ft in height. Cage

fabric was draped over the frames and secured around the

base of the cages with a total of 16 paving stones. Treatments

were: 1) unscreened control plots; 2) ⁄-inch mesh (Indus-

trial Netting, Minneapolis, MN); 3) ⁄-inch mesh (Industrial

Netting, Minneapolis, MN) and 4) a ﬁne mesh 30% woven shade

cloth (Shade Cloth Store, Libertyville, IL). Treatments were

randomized and exclusionary netting materials were placed

over pepper rows prior to fruit initiation stage; a total of 24

pepper plants were covered by each cage. Yellow sticky cards

were attached to 18-inch wooden stakes, placed in the center

of each cage and collected every week for a total of six weeks.

Cards were put out on June 6, 13, 20, and 27; July 3, 11, 18, and

25; and August 1, 8, 15, and 22. Sticky cards were placed inside

clear plastic bags, labeled at collection, and refrigerated for

later insect identiﬁcation. Insect categories identiﬁed were lady

beetles, hover ﬂies, lacewings, big-eyed bugs, and damsel bugs.

Peppers were harvested in the mature green stage and graded

according to USDA size categories of “Fancy,” “No. 1” and “No.

2” (USDA 2005). Stink bug damage and sunscald were recorded

along with the number of other culls. Harvest dates were 15 July,

30 July, and 12 September. Brown marmorated stink bug was

counted in each cage at time of harvest.

Results

Barrier fabrics inﬂuenced yield and marketability of bell

peppers (p < 0.05). ere were more marketable fruit per cage

and increased fruit weight per cage in the uncovered, ⁄-inch

and ⁄-inch netting treatments than the ﬁne mesh shade cloth

(Table 1). e ⁄-inch and ⁄-inch treatments did not increase or

decrease marketable fruit yield as compared to the uncovered

control. e uncovered control had more fruit that graded

USDA Fancy than did the ⁄-inch screen or the ﬁne mesh netting

(Table 2). Barrier fabrics inﬂuenced fruit damage to bell peppers

(Table 3). All screens reduced damage by piercing sucking in-

sects, green stink bug and BMSB, with the ﬁne mesh providing

more protection than the ⁄-inch netting. e ⁄-inch and ﬁne

mesh also signiﬁcantly reduced the number of sunscald fruit.

e ﬁne mesh had signiﬁcantly fewer cull fruit than the other

treatments. All of the barrier fabrics reduced the percentage

of piercing-sucking damaged fruit compared to the uncovered

control, and the ﬁne mesh had proportionally less piercing-

sucking damage than other netted treatments (Table 4).

Physical barriers are used to prevent plant damage by ex-

cluding insect pests from accessing plants, although beneﬁcial

insects may also be excluded. Barrier fabrics reduce the num-

bers of lady beetles and hover ﬂies captured on sticky cards

compared to the uncovered control (Table 5). Fewer hover ﬂies

were collected on yellow sticky cards in the ﬁne mesh than the

more course barrier fabrics. No stink bugs were found in the

cages at the end of the study.

Conclusions

e number of BMSB and native (green and brown) stink

bugs were low in this study. e barrier nettings were able to

reduce damage by piercing-sucking pests, with the ﬁne mesh

VEGETABLES

fabrics providing a higher level of protection. e barrier fab-

rics also provided protection from sunscald. However, barrier

fabrics also reduced fruit yield, likely due to plant shading. e

ﬁner barrier mesh provided the least number of marketable

fruit despite having less fruit damage from insects. e barrier

mesh fabrics also reduced the number of beneﬁcial insects as

compared to the no-barrier control treatment, but the trend

was for the more open mesh treatments to have more beneﬁcial

insects than those with a tighter weave. ere may be a yield

cost with using barrier fabrics to exclude BMSB that may not

be recovered with low densities of BMSB.

References

USDA. 2005. United States Standards for Grades of Sweet Pep-

pers. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getﬁle?dDocNa

me=STELPRDC5050318.

Table 1. Total Yield and fruit weight (lb) and number of

marketable bell peppers ‘Aristotle’ grown in cages with barrier

fabrics at the UK Horticultural Farm, 2013

Treatment

Total fruit per

cage

1,2

Total fruit wt

(lb) per cage

Marketable fruit

per cage

Fine mesh 108.0 c 43.7 b 89.2 b

1/8” 138.2 b 54.8 a 110.2 a

1/6” 144.6 ab 56.3 a 113.2 a

No screen 153.6 a 55.2 a 123.2 a

P; d.f. P = .0001; 3, 16 P = .0059; 3, 16 P = .0019; 3, 16

Means within the same column followed by the same letter are not

signicantly dierent (ANOVA, LSD P ≤ 0.05).

Fruit were harvested from all of the 24 plants in each cage.

Table 2. USDA Grade distribution of marketable bell peppers

‘Aristotle’ grown in cages with barrier fabrics at the UK

Horticultural Farm, 2013

Treatment

USDA Grades of Marketable Fruit

No. Fancy

No. 1 No. 2

Fine mesh 49.2 b 34.2 5.8 c

1/8” 58.4 ab 37.6 14.8 ab

1/6” 50.2 b 42.2 20.8 a

No screen 66.8 a 43.3 13.0 b

P; d.f. P =0.01; 3,16 P =0.15; 3,16 P =0.0012; 3,16

Means within the same column followed by the same letter are

not signicantly dierent (ANOVA, LSD P ≤ 0.05).

Table 3. Number of culled fruit within damage type categories of

bell peppers ‘Aristotle’ grown in cages with barrier fabrics at the UK

Horticultural Farm, 2013

Treatment

Fruit Damage Category

Sunscald

Piercing-

sucking

Other

damage Total

Fine mesh 0.0 c 2.4 c 16.4 a 18.8 b

1/8” 1.4 bc 12.6 b 13.2 ab 27.2 a

1/6” 2.6 ab 8.8 bc 20.0 a 31.4 a

No screen 3.4 a 24.6 a 2.4 b 30.4 a

P; d.f. P = 0.0048; 3,16 P = 0.0001; 3,16 P = 0.03; 3,16 P = .018; 3,16

Means within the same column followed by the same letter are not

signicantly dierent (ANOVA, LSD P ≤ 0.05).

Table 4. Percent piercing-sucking

damage on bell peppers ‘Aristotle’

grown in cages with barrier fabrics

from 30-July to 10-Sept. at the UK

Horticulture Research Farm, 2013

Treatment

Percentage

Piercing-sucking

Damage

Fine mesh 2.2 c

1/8” 9.2 b

1/6” 6.0 b

No screen 16.2 a

P; d.f. P = 0.0002; 3,16

Means in the same column

followed by the same letter are not

signicantly dierent (ANOVA, LSD

P ≤ 0.05).

Table 5. Number of benecial insects identied on yellow sticky cards

placed in cages with barrier fabrics enclosing bell peppers ‘Aristotle’

from 6-Jun to 27-Aug. at the UK Horticultural Research Station, 2013

Treatment Lady Beetles

Hover Flies

Green

Lacewings

Damsel

bugs

Fine mesh 0.4 b 0.2 c 0.2 b 0.0

1/8” 2.4 b 2.0 bc 0.0 b 0.0

1/6” 3.0 b 3.2 b 0.0 b 0.4

No screen 8.8 a 13.4 a 0.8 b 0.0

P; d.f. P = 0.0001; 3,16 P = 0.0001; 3,16 P = 0.027; 3,16 P = 0.09; 3,16

Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not

signicantly dierent (ANOVA, LSD P ≤ 0.05).

Developing More Resilient Cantaloupe Production Systems

Amanda Skidmore, Tim Coolong, Mark Williams, Department of Horticulture; and Ric Bessin, Department of Entomology

e key to successful cantaloupe production in Kentucky

has relied upon eﬀective management of insect pests and the

pathogens they may vector. Cucumber beetles, striped and

spotted, are key pests of all cucurbit crops and they also vec-

tor Erwinia tracheiphila (Smith), the pathogen that causes

bacterial wilt of cucurbits. Management of this disease relies

on preventing the beetles from feeding on cucurbit plants,

particularly prior to fruit set when the plants are small. Many

producers have been using systemic neonicotinoid insecticides

as a transplant drench to provide the ﬁrst three weeks of control

of cucumber beetles when the plants are ﬁrst set in the ﬁeld.

After three weeks they monitor for cucumber beetles and use

one of several pyrethroids to reduce beetle numbers as needed

(Bessin 2004).

However, use of some insecticides with cucurbit production

has the potential to interfere with insect pollinators upon which

cucurbit crops are entirely dependent. Without pollinators

there will be no fruit set. ere has been national concern over

VEGETABLES

the loss of honey bee colonies since Colony Collapse Disorder

(CCD) was ﬁrst recognized in 2006. While insecticides were

not directly implicated in a recent USDA/EPA report on CCD

(USDA 2013), the report did indicate that neonicotinoid insec-

ticides may play a role in terms of colony health.

Another factor we are addressing in this study is soil health.

Vegetable production systems employing raised plastic beds

require intense soil manipulation. Excessive tillage can have

negative eﬀects on soil structure through reduction of organic

matter and breaking the structure of soil (USDA NRCS 2013).

With this study we begin evaluating strip tillage as an alternative

to the traditional raised plastic bed system.

Materials and Methods

is study was conducted at the UK Horticultural Research

Farm in Lexington, KY. In the fall of 2012, a cover crop consist-

ing of winter rye, ﬁeld pea, and radish was established for all

plots. Fungicide-treated cantaloupe (Cucumis melo L.) seeds

(‘Athena’, Seedway, Hall, NY) and grown in 72-cell plastic trays

until four weeks of age. In the spring of 2013, half of the plots

had the soil completely prepared with a rotary tiller and raised

beds with black plastic and trickle irrigation established. In the

other plots, the cover crop was ﬂail mowed as the rye began to

produce a seed head. A strip eight inches wide was then tilled

in each plot for the plant bed. is study used a split plot design

with tillage practice treatments arranged in the main plots as a

randomized block design and with or without row cover treat-

ments in the split plot. Transplants were set in the ﬁeld on May

21, 2013, in conventionally managed plots on the UK Horticul-

tural Research Farm. Each main plot was forty feet in length

and consisted of two outer border rows and two center rows

for data collection (on six foot centers), one with a row cover

over wire hoops and one without a row cover. e 6-foot-wide

spunbond polypropylene row covers (Agribon AG- 30) were

held down with lose soil in plots with raised beds and paving

stones every 2 to 3 feet in the strip till plots. In-row plant spacing

of 2 feet resulted in 21 plants per row. Row covers were removed

with the initiation of female ﬂower formation on June 18, 2013.

e plants in the rows without a row cover received ⁄ ﬂ oz of

a water-diluted drench of imidacloprid (Macho 2F) at a rate of

16 ﬂ oz/A. Prior to transplanting and bed formation, 100 units

of nitrogen/A in the form of calcium nitrate was incorporated

in the soil and was tilled to a depth of 6 inches with a rotary

tiller. Drip tape was laid on top of the row in the strip till plots

and held in place with landscape fabric staples approximately

every ten feet.

On a weekly basis, insect pests and natural enemies of pests

were recorded from three 3.28 by 3.28-foot samples in each

uncovered sub plot. While female ﬂowers were present, weekly

pollinator survey was conducted in each plot with three one-

minute observations. A single yellow sticky card attached to a

12-inch stake was placed in each subplot and changed weekly to

monitor for natural enemies (data yet to be processed). A single

pitfall trap was also placed in each subplot row and changed

weekly to monitor ground associated arthropods (data yet to be

processed). Plots were harvested and graded according to USDA

standards (USDA 2008) and causes for culling were identiﬁed.

Soil core samples were collected from each plot before planting,

post-planting, mid-season, and at the end of the season (data

yet to be processed).

Data were subjected to analysis or variance using a split-plot

randomized block design. Prior to analysis of the percentile data,

these data transformed by arcsine of the square root to account

for non-homogeneity of the variance amongt the means (SAS

2012). Means presented in the table are of the raw data.

Results and Discussion

e 2013 growing season at the UK Horticultural Research

Farm can be characterized as excessively wet and cool. Weekly

counts of striped cucumber beetles averaged over the season

indicated signiﬁcantly higher numbers in the subplots without

the early season row cover treatment than in those plots with

early season row covers without insecticide (Table 1). is dif-

ference was more pronounced in the plasticulture system. No

signiﬁcant diﬀerences were observed with average numbers of

spotted cucumber beetles. Signiﬁcantly more lady beetles were

observed in the strip-till plots compared to the plasticulture

plots and this eﬀect was similar with and without row covers.

is diﬀerence may be due to the increased shelter and struc-

tural complexity of the strip till plots or may be in response to

alternative food items.

Weekly counts of pollinators found no signiﬁcant diﬀer-

ences in visitation rates of honey bees, bumble bees or other

bees with respect to tillage practices, early season row covers, or

the interaction between these factors (Table 2). However, there

was a signiﬁcant eﬀect of the row cover on the mean number

of female cantaloupe ﬂowers, with the plants that were under

the row covers early season having more female ﬂowers. Plants

grown under the early season row covers appeared larger and

more vigorous and the number of female ﬂowers reﬂected these

diﬀerences.

Tillage practices signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced the total number

and total weight of cantaloupes produced (Table 3) and this

eﬀect was more pronounced without the row cover. On av-

erage, the raised bed with black plastic produced about 40%

more cantaloupes than did the strip tillage plots. ere were

signiﬁcantly more marketable cantaloupes produced with the

plasticulture system than with the strip tillage.

All treatments exhibited a large number of culled fruit; the

majority were culled due to eﬀects of the very wet weather,

which resulted in fruit splitting. e mean number of culled

fruit due to insect feeding was signiﬁcantly higher in the plasti-

culture plots than the strip tillage plots while the row cover had

no detectable eﬀect on insect damage (Table 4). e numbers of

poorly pollinated fruit resulting in culling were not signiﬁcantly

diﬀerent among treatments. e percentage of insect damaged

fruit relative to the total number of fruit produced was signiﬁ-

cantly higher in the plasticulture plots.

In terms of fruit production, the plasticulture system out-

performed the strip tillage system in this study. Some of this

may be due to the raised bed providing more drainage in this

excessively wet year or the combination of black plastic and

raised bed heating the soil more rapidly with the prolonged

VEGETABLES

cool conditions during the growing season. Early-season row

covers reduced the average number of striped cucumber beetles

throughout the season compared to a systemic insecticide

treatment. Strip tillage, with greater structural complexity due

to cover crop residue on the soil surface, had a beneﬁcial eﬀect

on the numbers of lady beetles. Visitation rates of pollinators

did not diﬀer much among our treatments, although it may

be diﬃcult to see diﬀerences among treatments in plots of

this size. ere was an eﬀect of tillage on the number insect

damaged fruits with strip tillage plots having much less insect

damage. is diﬀerence may be the result of increased levels of

natural enemies in the strip till plots or possibly temperature or

moisture diﬀerences aﬀecting the cucumber beetles. Some of

these answers may become available as the remainders of the

samples collected during the summer are processed.

References

Bessin, R. 2004. Cucumber beetles. University of Kentucky,

Department of Entomology, Entfact 311. http://www2.

ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef311.asp.

SAS institute. 2012. SAS 9.3. Cary, NC.

USDA 2008. United States Standards for Grades of Cantaloups.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getﬁle?dDocName=S

TELPRDC5050255.

USDA 2013. Report on the national stakeholders conference on

honey bee health: National honey bee health stakeholder

conference steering committee. http://www.usda.gov/

documents/ReportHoneyBeeHealth.pdf.

USDA NRCS. 2013. Soil Quality/ Soil Health Management.

http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/management/management.html.

Table 1. Mean number (SE) of spotted and striped cucumber

beetles and lady beetles during weekly square meter observation

of cantaloupe, ‘Athena,’ grown in strip tillage or plasticulture plots

with and without row covers at the UK Horticultural Farm, 2013

Treatment

Striped

cucumber

beetle

Spotted

cucumber

beetle Lady beetles

Plasticulture

No row cover

8.33 (1.5) 0.83 (0.2) 7.83 (0.4)

Plasticulture

With row Cover

3.67 (1.3) 0.92 (1.6) 14.17 (2.7)

Strip tillage

No row cover

4.25 (1.6) 0.92 (1.6) 4.75 (0.9)

Strip tillage

With row cover

4.17 (1.4) 0.75 (1.6) 5.00 (0.9)

Row cover eect p = 0.03; 1,6 p = 0.54; 1,6 p = 0.09; 1,6

Tillage eect p = 0.37; 1,3 p = 0.89; 1,3 p = 0.04; 1,3

Interaction p = 0.03; 1,6 p = 0.10; 1,6 p = 0.11; 1,6

Table 2. Mean number pollinators (SE) and female owers observed

during one minute observations of 1 m of row of cantaloupes, ‘Athena,’

grown in strip tillage or plasticulture plots with and without row

covers at the UK Horticultural Farm, 2013

Treatment Honey bees

Bumble

bees Other bees

Female

owers

Plasticulture

No row cover

5.25 (1.0) 0.30 (0.2) 0.25 (3.0) 1.67 (0.4)

Plasticulture

With row Cover

5.7 (1.4) 0.67 (0.5) 0.33 (3.7) 3.83 (0.4)

Strip tillage

No row cover

10.8 (0.7) 0.42 (0.2) 0.42 (4.6) 1.67 (0.1)

Strip tillage

With row cover

8.3 (0.4) 0.50 (0.3) 0.91 (2.1) 2.25 (0.9)

Row cover eect p = 0.18; 1,6 p = 0.39; 1,6 p = 0.29; 1,6 p = 0.04; 1,6

Tillage eect p = 0.06; 1,3 p = 1.0; 1,3 p = 0.17; 1,3 p = 0.26; 1,3

Interaction p = 0.08; 1,6 p = 0.56; 1,6 p = 0.44; 1,6 p = 0.19; 1,6

Table 3. Mean number and weight of fruit (SE) and number of

marketable cantaloupes, ‘Athena,’ grown in strip tillage or plasticulture

plots with and without row covers at the UK Horticultural Farm, 2013

Treatment

Number of

Fruit

Weight of

Fruit (lb)

Number of

Marketable Fruit

Plasticulture

No row cover

80.8 (4.1) 375.4 (15.1) 32.3 (3.0)

Plasticulture

With row Cover

69.0 (3.2) 290.9 (20.3) 24.3 (3.7)

Strip tillage

No row cover

44.0 (2.5) 176.9 (8.7) 7.5 (4.6)

Strip tillage

With row cover

49.8 (9.3) 182.2 (23.4) 4.5 (2.1)

Row cover eect p = 0.47; 1,6 p = 0.07; 1,6 p = 0.09; 1,6

Tillage eect p = 0.03; 1,3 p = 0.01; 1,3 p = 0.02; 1,3

Interaction p = 0.06; 1,6 p = 0.05; 1,6 p = 0.40; 1,6

Table 4. Mean number harvested cantaloupe, ‘Athena,’ fruit (SE) in

various cull classes grown in strip tillage or plasticulture plots with and

without row covers at the UK Horticultural Farm, 2013

Treatment

Number

of Insect

Damaged Fruit

Number

of Poorly

Pollinated Fruit

Percent Insect

Damaged Fruit

Plasticulture

No row cover

7.5 (3.0) 1.25 (0.5) 8.9 (3.3)

Plasticulture

With row Cover

8.8 (2.7) 0.5 (0.5) 12.3 (3.4)

Strip tillage

No row cover

1.3 (0.6) 0.0 (0.0) 2.7 (1.3)

Strip tillage

With row cover

0.5 (0.5) 1.0 (0.7) 0.8 (0.8)

Row cover

eect

p = 0.90; d.f.= 1,6 p = 0.84; d.f.= 1,6 p = 0.70; d.f.= 1,6

Tillage eect p = 0.05; d.f.= 1,3 p = 0.32; d.f.= 1,3 p = 0.06; d.f.= 1,3

Interaction p = 0.64; d.f.= 1,6 p = 0.19; d.f.= 1,6 p = 0.12; d.f.= 1,6

VEGETABLES

Financial Comparison of Organic Potato Production Using Dierent

Integrated Pest Management Systems

Sean Clark and Janet Meyer, Berea College Agriculture and Natural Resources Program

Introduction

Potatoes are one of the least expensive fresh vegetables to

buy, though organic price premiums can be relatively high, as

much as 80% or more than conventional retail prices (Lin et al.

2008). Producing organic potatoes therefore can be proﬁtable for

market gardeners and small farmers selling direct to customers,

even when yields are low and input costs high, as is often reported

(e.g. Mäder et al 2002, Maggio et al. 2008, Varis et al. 1996).

Scaling up small-scale, organic potato production can be

risky, in large part due to weeds, insects, and diseases, and the

limited management options and/or high costs. An organic

grower seeking to sell potatoes to wholesale distributors or

institutional consumers, like schools or hospitals, cannot aﬀord

to depend exclusively on labor-intensive, market-gardening pest

control practices, such as hand-cultivating weeds or hand-picking

Colorado potato beetles (Leptinotarsa decemlineata). Less

labor-intensive production practices, through mechanization and

other technologies, are necessary for economic viability. Here we

report the results of ﬁeld trials comparing the cost-eﬀectiveness

and practicality of four pest management systems for growing

organic potatoes to sell through regional wholesale markets.

Materials and Methods

In 2010 a 0.8-acre, transitional organic ﬁeld with silty loam

soil was planted with two potato cultivars under four diﬀerent

organic pest management systems (0.10 acre for each cultivar X

system combination). e four systems were: 1) clean-cultivated

with hilling; 2) clean-cultivated with hilling followed by straw

mulch; 3) raised beds with white plastic mulch; and 4) raised

beds with white plastic mulch and ﬂoating row covers (Agribon

15). Approved fertilizer (NatureSafe, 13-0-0) was applied at

planting to provide 125 lbs of N per acre.

Potatoes were planted on April 29. Due to an extreme rain

and severe ﬂooding of the site several days after planting, all

“clean-cultivated” plots were deemed a total loss. e ﬁeld

received over eight inches of rain in 48 hours (May 1-3, 2010)

and was washed out by substantial surface runoﬀ from higher

elevations. e plots on raised beds with plastic mulch survived

relatively intact.

‘e raised beds covered in white plastic mulch were on

6-ft centers with two rows per bed spaced 2 ft apart. ey were

hand planted through holes in the plastic, made with a water

wheel, to a depth of about 4 to 6 inches at 1-ft spacings within

the row. Beds were prepared with a tractor-mounted bed shaper

and plastic-mulch layer with drip irrigation installed as a single

line down the center of each bed. e cultivars were ‘Désirée’

and ‘Peanut.’ All variable production costs (labor and material),

yields, and returns were recorded throughout the production,

marketing and sales period. Fixed costs per-acre were estimated

based on equipment, land and storage.

In addition to weeds, Colorado potato beetle was anticipat-

ed to be the most important pest to manage and was therefore

monitored with weekly scouting. Economic thresholds of two

larvae per plant or 0.5 adult per plant (Dwyer et al. 2001) were

used to justify a spinosad treatment (Entrust® SC). e scouting

data indicated that the ﬂoating row covers did protect the plants

to some degree early in the season, but the peak densities of

adult beetles per plant were nearly identical with and without

ﬂoating row covers. An unanticipated pest, diagnosed by the

University of Kentucky Plant Disease Diagnostic Laboratory

as black dot disease caused by the fungus Colletotrichum coc-

codes, resulted in extremely poor stands of ‘Peanut’.

In 2011, a few changes were made to the trial. In an eﬀort

to avoid pathogen contamination from the ﬁrst-year site, the

trial was moved to another transitional organic ﬁeld on the

farm nearly a half mile from the previous site–one also with

silty loam soil. e ﬂoating-row-cover production system was

dropped from the trial due to the high costs (material and

labor) and lack of clear beneﬁts. us, the trial included three

potato production systems: 1) clean-cultivated and hilled; 2)

clean-cultivated and hilled followed by straw mulch; and 3)

raised beds with plastic mulch. A single cultivar, ‘Red Pontiac,’

was grown in three 0.10-acre plots. Potatoes in the two clean-

cultivated systems were grown in single rows and planted into

non-bedded furrows for ease in cultivation and hilling. Because

the site had been in grass/legume pasture, we assumed some

N credit and only applied 75 lb of N (NatureSafe, 13-0-0). All

systems were on drip irrigation.

Seed potatoes were planted in the plastic-mulched raised

beds on March 25, but in the other two systems planting could

not occur until May 11 due to wet soil. As in in the previous

year, heavy rains and poor drainage were a problem early in

the season. Standing water was common and the plants were

severely aﬀected by charcoal rot, a disease caused by the patho-

gen Macrophomina phaseolina (diagnosed by the University

of Kentucky Plant Disease Diagnostic Laboratory). e disease

was more severe in the clean-cultivated plots than in the one

with plastic-mulched, raised beds.

Based on weekly scouting for Colorado potato beetle and

using the thresholds in Dwyer et al. (2001), a single spinosad ap-

plication was made to the plastic-mulch system, while two were

applied to the straw-mulch system, and three to the bare-ground

system (Table 1). e additional applications in the latter two

treatments were deemed necessary as the number of larvae per

plant reached the threshold while plants in the plastic-mulch

system, which were planted earlier, were senescing.

Weeds in the plastic-mulch system were managed by

cultivating between the plastic beds twice with a rototiller

(BCS walk-behind tractor, 12-hp). e other two systems each

received two cultivations–once with a tine weeder (Lely USA,

VEGETABLES

Pella, IA) and once using a Williams tool system (Market Farm

Implement, Friedens, PA)–and a single hilling. After the second

cultivation and hilling, straw was manually applied to the clean-

cultivated, straw-mulch system suﬃcient to cover the soil.

Results and Discussion

Yields

Potato yields were poor to marginal in both years of the trial.

We expected weeds and Colorado potato beetle to be the most

important pests to manage. However, plant pathogens and ex-

cessive wetness were by far the most important factors limiting

yield in both years. e only production system demonstrating

even minimally acceptable yields was that using raised beds

and plastic mulch (Table 1). e plastic mulch, however, was

not without some drawbacks. e inability to hill the potatoes

resulted in many green tubers that were unmarketable. e

plastic mulch also provided an appealing habitat for rodents,

which damaged some of the tubers. Finally, although the plastic

mulch is ﬁnancially justiﬁable because it reduces hand weeding

and/or machine cultivation costs, it does generate a signiﬁcant

amount of non-recyclable plastic waste. e ﬂoating row cover

provided no beneﬁts. In fact, it added material and labor costs

and may have reduced yield due the fabric limiting the amount

of light reaching the plants.

Costs

We expected higher production costs in this trial compared to

the large farms of the western U.S. since we lacked the economy

of scale and mechanized ﬁeld operations. Furthermore, costs of

organic insect pest and weed control are generally higher than for

conventional pesticide-based methods. Indeed, the costs of produc-

tion in this trial were considerably higher than those for large-scale

production in the western U.S., which are reported to be about

$2,000 per acre (Bohl and Johnson 2010; Painter et al. 2010). Our

total costs averaged nearly $6,000 per acre (range: $3,807-$7,226)

due in large part to high manual labor costs (Table 2).

ough most ground preparation and weed management ac-

tivities, as well as lifting the tubers at harvest, were accomplished

with tractor-driven implements, other activities relied heavily on

human labor. Harvesting, cleaning, sorting, storing, and selling the

potatoes contributed signiﬁcantly to manual labor costs–and the

greater the yield, the higher the cost. Manual labor costs ranged

from 42% to 65% of total costs (Table 3), while in large-scale opera-

tions they are less than 10% of total costs (Bohl and Johnson. 2010,

Painter et al. 2010).

Using straw mulch in 2011 contributed signiﬁcantly both to

material and labor costs in that system (Table 2). e intended

purposes of the straw were to suppress weeds, prevent greening

of growing tubers at the soil surface, provide habitat for predators

of Colorado potato beetle, minimize soil splashing onto the leaves

during rain and conserve moisture during any droughts. A longer-

term function of the straw mulch is the addition of organic matter

to the soil. Depending on how plastic and straw mulch costs are

allocated (pest management vs. soil conservation), total pest man-

agement costs (for weeds and Colorado potato beetle) accounted

for 10 to 20% of total production costs per acre. e straw mulch

added nearly 40% more in costs over simple clean-cultivation-plus-

hilling and generated no increase in yield, and at most only a slight

reduction in scouting and spraying costs (Table 2). Seed potatoes

accounted for 20 to 50% of material input costs and 10 to 15% of

total production costs across the systems. Sources for certiﬁed

organic seed, largely produced in Colorado and Maine, are limited,

making acquisition a challenge both logistically and ﬁnancially.

Based on the costs and yields measured in this trial, the raised

bed/plastic mulch system has potential as long as diseases can

be managed by: 1) crop rotation; 2) use of well-drained sites; 3)

planting later in the season when conditions are dryer and warmer;

and 4) readily available pathogen-free, certiﬁed-organic seed. e

costs and yields recorded for this system can be used to determine

a break-even point and assess the feasibility of producing organic

potatoes under a range of market conditions. Dividing the yields

by the costs of production gives us a break-even point of about

$0.75-0.90 per pound (Figure 1). Since these were transitional

organic ﬁelds and not yet certiﬁed, the potatoes were sold through

wholesale markets at $0.50-0.75 per pound, which does not quite

meet the break-even price. Retail prices for fresh potatoes at the

local farmers market during the same period (late summer and

fall) were $1.50-2.00 per pound, which would theoretically allow

for a reasonable proﬁt, assuming suﬃcient market demand. us,

this production system could be sustained by selling retail but not

likely via wholesale.

Conclusions

Securing a price of at least $1.20-1.40 would likely be neces-

sary to justify the risk of growing potatoes organically instead of

some more proﬁtable and less risky crop. Production costs per

pound could be reduced by improving yields and/or investing

in equipment to substitute mechanization for manual labor.

It’s important to note that the pest management systems in

this study did not adequately address potato diseases. Clearly,

ﬁnding reliable means to minimize losses to disease and extreme

weather is critical. In summary, this trial demonstrates some of

the risks of producing potatoes organically in central Kentucky

and provides some estimates of production costs.

Literature Cited

Bohl, W.H., and S.B. Johnson. [eds.] 2010. Commercial po-

tato production in North America.Potato Association of

America Handbook.

Dwyer, J.D., J.F. Dill, and H.S. Carter. 2001. Field scouting: A tool

for potato pest management. Maine Potato IPM Program

Fact Sheet 209. http://www.umaine.edu/umext/potatopro-

gram/Fact%20Sheets/scouting.pdf.

Lin, B.H., T.A. Smith, and C.L. Huang. 2008. Organic premiums

of US fresh produce.Renewable Agriculture and Food

Systems 23: 208-216.

Mäder, P., A. Fliessbach, D. Dubois, L. Gunst, P. Fried, and U.

Niggli. 2002. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farm-

ing.Science296: 1694-1697.

Maggio, A., P. Carillo, G.S. Bulmetti, A. Fuggi, G. Barbieri, and S.

De Pascale. 2008. Potato yield and metabolic proﬁling under

conventional and organic farming.European Journal of

Agronomy28: 343-350.

VEGETABLES

Painter, K., J. Miller, and N. Olson. 2010. Costs and returns

for irrigated organic Russet Burbank potato production

in southern Idaho. University of Idaho Extension Bulletin

876. Available at: http://www.cals.uidaho.edu/edcomm/

pdf/BUL/BUL0876.pdf.

Varis, E., L. Pietilä, and K. Koikkalainen. 1996. Comparison of

conventional, integrated and organic potato production in

ﬁeld experiments in Finland.Acta Agriculturae Scandi-

navica B-Plant Soil Sciences46: 41-48.

Table 1. Potato yields in organic production trials on the Berea College Farm,

2010-2011.

Cultivar Production system Year

Marketable

tubers

(lbs per acre)

Désirée Plastic mulch 2010 9,825

Désirée Plastic mulch + oating row cover 2010 6,534

Peanut Plastic mulch 2010 2,952

Peanut Plastic mulch + oating row cover 2010 2,130

Red Pontiac Clean-cultivated + hilled 2011 1,887

Red Pontiac Clean-cultivated, hilled + straw mulch 2011 1,694

Red Pontiac Plastic mulch

2011 6,098

Table 2. Costs of production for potatoes produced organically in transitional organic elds, 2010 and 2011.

Cultivar Désirée Peanut Red Pontiac

Production system, year

Plastic

mulch,

2010

Plastic

mulch + row

cover, 2010

Plastic

mulch,

2010

Plastic

mulch + row

cover, 2010

Clean-

cultivated +

hilled, 2011

clean-cultivated,

hilled + straw

mulch, 2011

Plastic mulch,

2011

Variable costs ($/acre)

Manual labor

Ground prep and plastic laying 80.00 $80.00 $80.00 $80.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cutting seed potatoes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 400.00 400.00 400.00

Planting 280.00 280.00 280.00 280.00 300.00 300.00 300.00

Fertilizing 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Row cover installation 0.00 280.00 0.00 280.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Straw mulch application 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 850.00 0.00

Hand cultivating/weeding 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Scouting and spraying 160.00 200.00 160.00 200.00 550.00 400.00 130.00

Harvesting 1600.00 1065.04 481.18 347.19 307.58 276.12 993.97

Cleaning, sorting, storing, and selling 1970.00 1306.80 590.40 426.00 377.40 338.80 1219.60

Plastic removal and disposal 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 0.00 0.00 240.00

Manual labor subtotal

4730.00 3851.84 2231.58 2253.19 1934.98 2564.92 3283.57

Machine operation

 

    

Ground preparation and plastic laying

160.00 160.00 160.00 160.00 30.00 30.00 130.00

Fertilizing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 30.00 30.00

Cultivation and hilling 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 20.00 20.00 50.00

Harvest 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00

Plastic removal and disposal 160.00 160.00 160.00 160.00 0.00 0.00 160.00

Machine operation subtotal

470.00 470.00 470.00 470.00 130.00 130.00 420.00

Material costs  



   

Seed potato

730.00 730.00 938.00 938.00 600.00 600.00 600.00

Fertilizer

450.00 450.00 450.00 450.00 274.00 274.00 274.00

Insecticide

62.00 62.00 62.00 62.00 234.00 156.00 78.00

Irrigation 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00

Plastic mulch 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 0.00 0.00 150.00

Straw mulch 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1800.00 0.00

Row cover

0.00 390.00 0.00 390.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Materials subtotal 1692.00 2082.00 1900.00 2290.00 1408.00 3130.00 1402.00

Total variable costs 6892.00 6403.84 4601.58 5013.19 3472.98 5824.92 5105.57

Fixed costs 334.00 334.00 334.00 334.00 334.00 334.00 334.00

Total costs

7226.00 6737.84 4935.58 5347.19 3806.98 6158.92 5439.57

manual labor costs at $10 per hour

machine operation at $20 per hour to account for labor, fuel, and maintenance

certied organic with shipping in 2010 and conventional, untreated in 2011

NatureSafe, 13-0-0, 125 lbs N in 2010, 75 lbs N in 2011

oating row cover amortized over two years

Spinosad (Entrust® SC)

VEGETABLES

(6,000.00)

(3,000.00)

3,000.00

6,000.00

9,000.00

12,000.00

0.50 0.70 0.90 1.10 1.30 1.50 1.70 1.90

Net returns ($ per acre)

Sell price ($ per lb)

Désirée

Red Pontiac

Figure 1. Net returns for potatoes produced organically on raised beds with plastic mulch at

sell prices from $0.50 to $2.00 per pound. Break-even prices were within the range of $0.75

and $0.90 per pound.

Table 3. Percentage of total production costs attributed to manual labor, machine operation and purchased materials, 2010-11.

Production

Costs ($/acre)

% of Total Production Costs

Plastic

mulch, 2010,

‘Désirée’

Plastic mulch+row

cover, 2010,

‘Désirée’

Plastic

mulch, 2010,

‘Peanut’

Plastic mulch+row

cover, 2010,

‘Peanut’

Clean-cultivated +

hilled, 2011, ‘Red

Pontiac’

clean-cultivated, hilled

+ straw mulch, 2011,

‘Red Pontiac’

Plastic mulch,

2011, ‘Red

Pontiac’

Manual Labor

65 57 45 42 51 42 60

Machine

Operation

7 7 10 9 3 2 8

Materials

23 31 38 43 37 51 26

VEGETABLES

Eect of Municipal Refuse Compost and Chicken Manure

Applications on Kale and Collard Green Yields and Quality

George Antonius, Eric Turley, Regina Hill, Division of Environmental Studies, Kentucky State University; and

John Snyder,

Department of Horticulture, University of Kentucky

Introduction

In the United States, about 317 million tons of animal

manure is produced annually from about 238,000 animal feed-

ing operations [1] and nearly 90% of about 11 million tons of

poultry litter produced annually is applied as fertilizer. [2, 3] e

rapid growth in the poultry industry has resulted in signiﬁcant

manure generation. [4] Chicken manure (CM) contains all es-

sential plant nutrients and has been documented as an excellent

fertilizer. [5] In addition, the United States produces nearly 15

million dry tons of municipal sewage sludge (SS) each year.

[6] e use of CM and SS as farm soil amendments provides a

constructive means of waste disposal and a viable method for

improving soil fertility and physical properties. [7] Using SS

has shown promise for some ﬁeld crops (e.g., maize, sorghum,

and forage grasses) and vegetables (e.g., lettuce, cabbage, beans,

potatoes, and cucumbers). [8]

e eﬀects of organic soil amendments on the antioxidant

contents of plants have received very little attention by sci-

entists. Most studies have focused only on crop yield and soil

properties after the addition of organic amendments, with little

attention to crop nutritional composition. Vegetables contain

numerous bioactive compounds known as “phytochemicals.”

Phenolic compounds are the largest category of phytochemicals

and the most widely distributed in the plant kingdom. Many

these compounds are antioxidants.

[9]

Ascorbic acid (vitamin C),

also an antioxidant, is the most important vitamin in fruits and

vegetables for human nutrition. More than 90% of the vitamin

C in human diets is supplied by fruits and vegetables.

e main objective of this study was to assess the impact

of soil amendment with SS and CM on kale and collard green

marketable yields, total phenols and ascorbic acid contents.

Materials and Methods

e study was conducted during the summer of 2012 on

a Lowell silty-loam soil (2.5% organic matter, pH 6.7) on the

Kentucky State University Research Farm, Franklin County,

Kentucky. e experimental design consisted of a randomized

complete block design replicated three times and included three

soil treatments, amendment with SS CM, or unamended soil

(no mulch-NM), and two crops, kale and collard greens. e

soil in six plots was mixed with SS obtained from the Metro-

politan Sewer District, Louisville, KY, and at 15 tons/A on a dry

weight basis. Six plots were mixed with CM obtained from the

Department of Animal and Food Sciences of the University of

Kentucky in Lexington at 15 tons/A on a dry weight basis. e

SS and CM were tilled into the topsoil to a depth of six inches.

e native soils in six plots were used as a no-mulch control

treatment (roto-tilled bare soil) for comparison purposes.

e plots were hand transplanted on 24 May 2012 with

45-day old kale (Brassica oleracea cv. Winterbor) and collard

greens (Brassica oleracea cv. Top Bunch) seedlings. Plants

were spaced 16 inches apart in rows two feet apart. At harvest,

ﬁve representative plants from each plot were collected at

random from each of the 18 ﬁeld plots (six replicates for each

soil treatment) and categorized as U.S. No.1, U.S. Commercial,

or unclassiﬁed grades (plants that did not meet the other two

grades) according to the USDA Standards grades for kale

[10]

and collard greens

[11]

Representative kale and collard leaf samples (20 g) were

ground and treated chemically to extract phenolic compounds

and vitamin C. e concentrations of these compounds were

measured. Soil pH, organic matter percent, and nitrogen, phos-

phorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium and zinc levels were

also determined. Yield, quality, total phenols, ascorbic acid, and

soil parameters tested under the three soil management prac-

tices were statistically analyzed using the ANOVA procedure.

Means were compared using Duncan’s multiple range test.

Results and discussion

e number of U.S. No. 1 collard plants was signiﬁcantly

greater in CM and SS mixed soil compared to NM soil, whereas

the number of unclassiﬁed plants was greater in NM soil com-

pared to the other two soil treatments (Figure 1, upper graph).

e total yield of U.S. No. 1 collard greens from the CM-mixed

soil was not signiﬁcantly diﬀerent from that obtained from SS-

mixed soil but had a greater yield than that of the NM soil (Figure

1, lower graph). e numbers of U.S. No. 1 kale plants obtained

from SS- and CM-amended soil were also greater compared

to the NM soil (Figure 2, upper graph). e total yield of kale

from the CM-amended soil was signiﬁcantly greater than the

total yield from the SS-treated soil. e total yield of kale clas-

siﬁed as commercial grade was greater in the NM treatment

compared to the CM and SS treatments (Figure 2, lower graph).

Overall, collard greens and kale yields obtained from CM- and

SS-amended soils were greater than the yields obtained from

NM soil (Figure 3). ese increases in U.S. No. 1 and total col-

lard green and kale yields from CM and SS treatments might

be due to improved soil fertility, nutrient retention, soil poros-

ity, and water-holding capacity associated with the addition of

soil amendments. Increased crop yields are often attributed

to increased organic matter content and improvements in

the physical properties of the soil such as increased aggregate

stability, increased moisture holding capacity and reduced soil

bulk density. e eﬀects on yield of amending native soils with

compost are also derived from availability of nutrients in the

compost. [12]

VEGETABLES

The concentrations of total phenols were significantly

greater (400 and 350 µg g-1 fresh weight) in collard leaves

of plants grown in the CM and SS treatments, respectively,

compared to plants grown in the NM soil (270 µg g-1 fresh

weight) (Figure 4). Similarly, concentrations of total phenols in

kale leaves of plants grown in NM (410 µg g-1 fresh weight) were

signiﬁcantly lower than in plants grown in CM and SS amended

soils (580 and 520 µg g-1 fresh fruit, respectively).

Ascorbic acid concentrations in the leaves of collard and

kale plants grown in NM soil were lower compared to those

in the plants grown in CM- and SS-amended soils. Ascorbic

acid concentrations in collards grown in soil amended with

CM and SS were not signiﬁcantly diﬀerent, though they were

greater than that found in plants grown in NM soil (Figure 5). In

contrast, ascorbic acid concentrations diﬀered between the CM

and SS treatments for kale. Regardless of soil treatments, total

phenols and ascorbic acid concentrations were signiﬁcantly (P<

0.05) greater in kale than in collard (Figure 6).

Considerable emphasis has been placed on the eﬀect of ni-

trogenous fertilizers on crop nutritional value. We investigated

the chemical and physical properties of the three soil treatments

used in this study that might explain variability among treat-

ments and the impact on yield, phenols and ascorbic acid con-

Chicken ManureSewage Sludge No Mulch

Soil Treatment

Thousands

Collard Yield

Number of plant acre

-1

US #1

Unclassied

Figure 1. Yield of collard expressed as number of plants (upper graph)

and lbs acre

-1

(lower graph) grown under three soil management

practices. Bars accompanied by dierent letter(s) in each class are

signicantly dierent (P ≤ 0.05) using Duncan’s multiple range test.

Chicken ManureSewage Sludge No Mulch

Soil Treatment

600

500

400

300

200

100

Collard Yield, lbs acre

-1

Chicken ManureSewage Sludge No Mulch

Soil Treatment

Thousands

US #1

Unclassied

Kale Yield,

Number of plants acre

-1

Figure 2. Yield of kale expressed as number of plants (upper graph)

and lbs acre

-1

(lower graph) grown under three soil management

practices. Bars accompanied by dierent letter(s) in each class are

signicantly dierent (P ≤ 0.05) using Duncan’s multiple range test.

Chicken ManureSewage Sludge No Mulch

Soil Treatment

400

300

200

100

Kale Yield, lbs acre

-1

Chicken ManureSewage Sludge No Mulch

Soil Treatment

600

500

400

300

200

100

Total Yield, lbs acre

-1

Collard

Kale

Figure 3. Yield of collard and yield of kale grown under three soil

management practices. Bars accompanied by dierent letter in

each crop are signicantly dierent (P ≤ 0.05) from each other using

Duncan’s multiple range test.

Chicken ManureSewage Sludge No Mulch

Soil Treatment

600

500

400

300

200

100

Collard

Kale

Total Phenols,

µg g

-1

Fresh Weight

Figure 4. Concentrations of total phenols in collard and kale plants

grown under three soil management practices. Bars for each crop

accompanied by the same letter are not signicantly dierent (P ≤ 0.05)

using Duncan’s multiple range test.

Chicken ManureSewage Sludge No Mulch

Soil Treatment

500

400

300

200

100

Collard

Kale

Ascorbic Acid,

µg g

-1

Fresh Weight

Figure 5. Concentrations of ascorbic acid in collard and kale plants

grown under three soil management practices. Bars for each crop

accompanied by the same letter are not signicantly dierent (P ≤0.05)

using Duncan’s multiple range test.

VEGETABLES

Table1. Chemical characterization of chicken manure and sewage sludge

amended soils, and no-mulch soil used for growing collard and kale at

Kentucky State University Research Farm, Franklin County, Kentucky, 2013.

Soil

treatment

Soil

(lbs/A)

Total

N (%)

(%)

CM 7.01 b 1210 a 480 a 11525 b 598 a 62 b 0.32 a 6.37 a

SS 7.14 a 1164 b 152 c 17105 a 531 b 65 a 0.26 b 4.13 b

NM 6.55 c 919 c 270 b 10535 c 622 a 45 c 0.20 c 2.55 c

Each value in the table is an average of six samples. Values within a column for

each parameter followed by the same letter(s) are not signicantly dierent

(P≤ 0.05).

tents of kale and collard green grown with CM and SS. e CM

treatment contained 6.4% organic matter (OM), whereas, the

SS treatment contained 4.1% OM compared to 2.6% in the NM

soil (Table 1). Concentrations of total nitrogen in soil amended

with CM and SS were greater (0.32 and 0.26%, respectively)

compared to 0.20% nitrogen content in the NM soil. Guertal

and Edwards

[16]

found that collard yield was increased with

increasing rates of soil nitrogen application. is might explain

the increased yield of collard greens and kale grown in CM- and

SS-amended soils compared to NM soil as indicated in Figure 3.

Additional research on the impact of CM and SS on crop yield

and crop nutritional composition of plants grown under these

practices is under investigation by our research team.

Conclusion

SS and CM were mixed with native soil to study their impact

on kale and collard green yields and quality. Plants grown in CM

and SS amended soil produced the greatest number of U.S. No.

1 grade collard and kale greens compared to NM soil. Across all

treatments, concentrations of ascorbic acid and phenols were

generally greater in kale than in collards. CM and SS enhanced

total phenols and ascorbic acid contents of kale and collard

compared to NM soil.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Tim Coolong for his assistance in providing

kale and collards seedlings, and Mr. Hank Schweickart for

preparing the ﬁeld plots. is investigation was supported by

a grant from USDA/NIFA to Kentucky State University under

agreement No. KYX 10-13-48P.

References

[1] USDA-NRCS. Manure nutrients relative to the capacity

of crop land and pasture land to assimilate: Spatial and

temporal trends for the United States, Publication No. nps

00-559, p. 18.

[2] Cabrera, L.M; Sims, J.T. Beneﬁcial use of poultry by-products:

Challenges and opportunities. In: Power, J.F.; Dick, W.A.

(Eds.). Land application of agricultural, industrial, and mu-

nicipal by-products. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., 2000, Madison, WI.

[3] Jackson, B.P.; Bertson, M.L.;Cabreta, J.J.; Camberto, J.C.;

Seaman, C.W. Wood, trace element speciation in poultry

litter. J. Environ. Qual. 2003, 32, 535–540.

[4] Payne, J., and Zhang, H. Oklahoma State University, Poultry

litter nutrient management: A guide for producers and

applicators, Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service,

Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources,

Publication # E-1027. Date accessed 10/16/2013.

[5] Subramanian, B.; Gupta, G. Adsorption of trace elements

from poultry litter by montmorillonite clay. J. Hazard Ma-

terials 2006, B128, 80–83.

[6] U.S. EPA. Environmental Fact Sheet: Yard Waste Compost-

ing, EPA/530-SW-91–009; USEPA, Oﬃce of Solid Waste,

Washington DC: 1991.

[7] Antonious, G.F.; Silitonga, M.R.; Tsegaye, T.D; Unrine, J.M.,

Coolong, T.; Snyder, J.C. Elevated concentrations of trace

elements in soil do not necessarily reﬂect metals available

to plants. J. Environ. Sci. Health 2013, 48, 210-225.

[8] Shiralipour, A.; McConnell, D.B.; Smith, W.H. Uses and Ben-

eﬁts of MSU compost: A review and assessment. Biomass

and Bioenergy 1992, 3, 267-279.

[9] Shahidi, F. Antioxidant factors in plant foods and selected

oilseeds. BioFactors 2000, 13, 179 - 185.

[10] United States Standards for Grades of Kale, July 21, 2005:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getﬁle?dDocName=

STELPRDC5050273.

[11] United States Standards for Grades of Collard Greens or

Broccoli Greens, April 16, 1953: http://www.ams.usda.gov/

AMSv1.0/getﬁle?dDocName=STELPRDC5050268.

[12] Swiader, J.M.; Morse, R.D. Inﬂuence of organic amend-

ments on phosphorus requirement. J. American Soc. Hort.

Sci. 1984, 109, 150–155.

CollardKale

600

500

400

300

200

100

Total Phenols

Ascorbic Acid

µg g

-1

Fresh Weight

Figure 6. Overall concentrations of total phenols and ascorbic acid (in

collard greens and kale grown under three soil management practices.

Bars for each crop accompanied by the same letter are not signicantly

dierent (P ≤ 0.05) using Duncan’s multiple range test.

VEGETABLES

Asparagus Variety Evaluation

Lucas Hanks, Shawn Wright, Tim Coolong, and John Snyder, Department of Horticulture

ere are currently about 65 acres of asparagus being grown

in Kentucky. Since asparagus plantings are typically harvested

for 20 or more years it is important to evaluate newer varieties to

enable informed planting decisions. Eight varieties of asparagus

are being grown in a long-term replicated trial to assess their

yields under Central Kentucky growing conditions.

Materials and Methods

One-year old crowns were purchased from Walker Broth-

ers Plant Company and transplanted on 31 May 2011 at the

UK Horticulture Research Farm in Lexington. Six-inch-deep

furrows were dug in planting rows and crowns were planted

at a 14 inch in-row spacing, with ﬁve feet between rows. is

spacing is equivalent to a planting density of 5,808 plants per

acre. Varieties are replicated four times in a randomized com-

plete block design. Plot rows consist of 10 plants of a particular

variety, for a total of 40 plants of each variety.

Four hundred pounds of 19-19-19 fertilizer per acre were

applied in-furrow prior to transplanting. Drip irrigation was

installed to aid plot establishment for the ﬁrst growing season.

Prior to spear emergence, Sandea herbicide was applied to the

ﬁeld at a rate of 1 oz/A. No asparagus spears were harvested

during the 2011 growing season.

In early spring 2012, prior to spear emergence, plant residues

were mowed oﬀ. Two hundred pounds per acre of 19-19-19

fertilizer were broadcast on the plot. Chateau herbicide was

applied at a rate of 6 oz/A. After spear emergence in late spring,

Sandea herbicide was applied at a rate of 1 oz/A, and again in

mid-summer at the same rate. Again, no asparagus was har-

vested.

On 28 March 2013, plant residues were mowed and an

herbicide mixture of Gramoxone at 4 pt/A and Chateau at 6

oz/A were applied to the plot. At this time 19-19-19 granular

fertilizer was broadcast at a rate of 100 pounds of nitrogen per

acre. Spears initially emerged on 10 April. Harvest began on 13

April and continued until 5 June. Spears were harvested two or

three times per week. Marketable spears, those 5 to 12 inches in

length, were harvested and measured for weight and diameter.

During this time weeds were controlled by hand cultivation

as needed. On 15 June, Select Max herbicide was applied at a

rate of 16 oz/A to control perennial grasses. Carbaryl 4L was

applied on 5 May at a rate of 1 oz/A to control asparagus beetles.

is single application suppressed insect pests and no other

pesticides were applied

Results and Discussion

Harvest data for the eight asparagus varieties can be found

in Table 1. ere were no signiﬁcant diﬀerences in spear width

among varieties. Jersey Supreme, Grande and Atlas were the

top performers for the ﬁrst harvest year. Purple Passion yielded

the least amount of marketable spears, nevertheless its unique

coloration may allow for increased marketability. Overall, yields

for all varieties were lower than expected, but crown productiv-

ity should increase over the next few growing seasons.

Acknowledgements

e authors would like to thank Paul Dengel and Joseph

Tucker for their hard work and assistance in this evaluation.

Funding for this project was provided by a grant from the

Agricultural Development Board through the Kentucky Hor-

ticulture Council.

Table 1. Asparagus yield results, 2013.

Variety

Yield

per plant

(lb.)

Yield

per acre

(lb.)

Weight

per spear

(oz.)

No.

Spears

per plant

Spear

width

(in.)

Jersey Supreme 0.54 a

3136 0.39 22.2 0.39

Grande 0.53 a 3078 0.42 20.1 0.39

Atlas 0.50 ab 2904 0.43 18.6 0.41

Jersey Giant 0.43 abc 2497 0.36 20.3 0.36

Apollo 0.38 bcd 2207 0.38 15.9 0.38

UC-157 0.34 cd 1975 0.35 15.7 0.36

Jersey Knight 0.32 cd 1859 0.36 14.2 0.36

Purple Passion 0.24 d 1394 0.43 8.9 0.37

Average yield per plant for the entire season

Season-long average yield per plant x 5808 plants per acre

Average wt. per spear for the entire season

Average season-long wt. per plant divided by average season-long

weight per spear

Means in column followed by same letter are not signicantly dierent

(Waller-Duncan Multiple-Range Test (P≤0.05)

APPENDIX

AAS ................ All America Selection Trials, 1311 Buttereld Road,

Suite 310, Downers Grove, IL 60515

AS/ASG ........ Formerly Asgrow Seed Co., now Seminis (see “S”

below)

AC ................... Abbott and Cobb Inc., Box 307, Feasterville, PA 19047

AG................... Agway Inc., P.O. Box 1333, Syracuse, NY 13201

AM .................. American Sunmelon, P.O. Box 153, Hinton, OK 73047

AR ................... Aristogenes Inc., 23723 Fargo Road, Parma, ID 83660

AT .................... American Takii Inc., 301 Natividad Road, Salinas, CA

93906

B ...................... BHN Seed, Division of Gargiulo Inc., 16750 Bonita

Beach Rd., Bonita Springs, FL 34135

BBS ................. Baer’s Best Seed, 154 Green St., Reading, MA 01867

BC ................... Baker Creek Heirloom Seeds, 2278 Baker Creek Rd.,

Manseld, OH 65704

BK ................... Bakker Brothers of Idaho Inc., P.O. Box 1964, Twin Falls,

ID 83303

BR ................... Bruinsma Seeds B.V., P.O. Box 1463, High River, Alberta,

Canada, TOL 1B0

BS.................... Bodger Seed Ltd., 1800 North Tyler Ave., South El

Monte, CA 91733

BU ................... W. Atlee Burpee & Co., P.O. Box 6929, Philadelphia, PA

19132

BZ ................... Bejo Zaden B.V., 1722 ZG Noordscharwoude, P.O. Box

9, The Netherlands

CA ................... Castle Inc., 190 Mast St., Morgan Hill, CA 95037

CF ................... Cliftons Seed Co., 2586 NC 43 West, Faison, NC 28341

CG ................... Cooks Garden Seed, PO Box C5030 Warminster, PA

18974

CH ................... Alf Christianson, P.O. Box 98, Mt. Vernon, WA 98273

CIRT................ Campbell Inst. for Res. and Tech., P-152 R5 Rd 12,

Napoleon, OH 43545

CL ................... Clause Semences Professionnelles, 100 Breen Road,

San Juan Bautista, CA 95045

CN ................... Canners Seed Corp., (Nunhems) Lewisville, ID 83431

CR ................... Crookham Co., P.O. Box 520, Caldwell, ID 83605

CS ................... Chesmore Seed Co., P.O. Box 8368, St. Joseph, MO

64508

D ..................... Daehnfeldt Inc., P.O. Box 947, Albany, OR 97321

DN .................. Denholm Seeds, P.O. Box 1150, Lompoc, CA 93438-

1150

DR ................... DeRuiter Seeds Inc., P.O. Box 20228, Columbus, OH

43320

EB .................... Ernest Benery, P.O. Box 1127, Muenden, Germany

EV ................... Evergreen Seeds, Evergreen YH Enterprises, P.O. Box

17538, Anaheim, CA 92817

EX ................... Express Seed, 300 Artino Drive, Oberlin, OH 44074

EW ................. East/West Seed International Limited, P.O. Box 3, Bang

Bua Thong, Nonthaburi 1110, Thailand

EZ.................... ENZA Zaden, P.O. Box 7, 1600 AA, Enkhuisen, The

Netherlands 02280-15844

FED ................. Fedco Seed Co., P.P. Box 520 Waterville, ME, 04903

FM .................. Ferry-Morse Seed Co., P.O. Box 4938, Modesto, CA

95352

G ..................... German Seeds Inc., Box 398, Smithport, PA 16749-

9990

GB ................... Green Barn Seed, 18855 Park Ave., Deephaven, MN

55391

GL ................... Gloeckner, 15 East 26th St., New York, NY 10010

GO .................. Goldsmith Seeds Inc., 2280 Hecker Pass Highway, P.O.

Box 1349, Gilroy, CA 95020

GU .................. Gurney’s Seed and Nursery Co., P.O. Box 4178,

Greendale, IN 47025-4178

HL/HOL ......... Hollar & Co. Inc., P.O. Box 106, Rocky Ford, CO 81067

H/HM ............. Harris Moran Seed Co., 3670 Bualo Rd., Rochester, NY

14624, Ph: (716) 442-0424

HMS ............... High Mowing Organic Seeds, 76 Quarry Rd., Wlacott,

VT 05680

HN .................. HungNong Seed America Inc., 3065 Pacheco Pass

Hwy., Gilroy, CA 95020

HO .................. Holmes Seed Co., 2125-46th St., N.W., Canton, OH

44709

HR ................... Harris Seeds, 60 Saginaw Dr., P.O. Box 22960,

Rochester, NY 14692-2960

HS ................... Heirloom Seeds, P O Box 245, W. Elizabeth PA 15088-

0245

HZ ................... Hazera Seed, Ltd., P.O.B. 1565, Haifa, Israel

JU .................... J. W. Jung Seed Co., 335 High St., Randolf, WI 53957

JS/JSS ............ Johnny’s Selected Seeds, Foss Hill Road, Albion, MA

04910-9731

KS.................... Krummrey & Sons Inc., P.O. 158, Stockbridge, MI 49285

KU ................... Known-you Seed Co., 26 Chung Cheng 2nd Road,

Kaushiung Taiwan, 80271

KY ................... Known-You Seed Co., Ltd. 26 Chung Cheng Second

Rd., Kaohsiung, Taiwan, R.O.C. 07-2919106

KZ ................... Kitazawa Seed Co., PO Box 13220  Oakland,

CA 94661-3220

LI ..................... Liberty Seed, P.O. Box 806, New Philadelphia, OH

44663

LSL .................. LSL Plant Science, 1200 North El Dorado Place, Suite

D-440, Tucson, AZ 85715

MB .................. Malmborg’s Inc., 5120 N. Lilac Dr., Brooklyn Center, MN

55429

MK .................. Mikado Seed Growers Co. Ltd., 1208 Hoshikuki, Chiba

City 280, Japan 0472 65-4847

ML ................. J. Mollema & Sons Inc., Grand Rapids, MI 49507

MM ................. MarketMore Inc., 4305 32nd St. W., Bradenton, FL

34205

MN ................. Dr. Dave Davis, U of MN Hort Dept., 305 Alderman

Hall, St. Paul, MN 55108

MR .................. Martin Rispins & Son Inc., 3332 Ridge Rd., P.O. Box 5,

Lansing, IL 60438

MS .................. Musser Seed Co. Inc., Twin Falls, ID 83301

MWS .............. Midwestern Seed Growers, 10559 Lackman Road,

Lenexa, Kansas 66219

NE ................... Neuman Seed Co., 202 E. Main St., P.O. Box 1530, El

Centro, CA 92244

NI .................... Clark Nicklow, Box 457, Ashland, MA 01721

NU .................. Nunhems (see Canners Seed Corp.)

NS ................... New England Seed Co., 3580 Main St., Hartford, CT

06120

NZ ................... Nickerson-Zwaan, P.O. Box 19, 2990 AA Barendrecht,

The Netherlands

OE ................... Ohlsens-Enke, NY Munkegard, DK-2630, Taastrup,

Denmark

ON .................. Osbourne Seed Co., 2428 Old Hwy 99 South Road

Mount Vernon, WA 98273

OS ................... Outstanding Seed Co., 354 Center Grange

Road, Monaca PA 15061

OLS ................. L.L. Olds Seed Co., P.O. Box 7790, Madison, WI 53707-

7790

Appendix A: Sources of Vegetable Seeds

We would like to express our appreciation to these companies for providing seeds at no charge for vegetable variety trials. e

abbreviations used in this appendix correspond to those listed after the variety names in tables of individual trial reports.

APPENDIX

OT ................... Orsetti Seed Co., P.O. Box 2350, Hollister, CA 95024-

2350

P ...................... Pacic Seed Production Co., P.O. Box 947, Albany, OR

97321

PA/PK ............. Park Seed Co., 1 Parkton Ave., Greenwood, SC 29647-

0002

PARA .............. Paragon Seed Inc., P.O. Box 1906, Salinas CA, 93091

PE .................... Peter-Edward Seed Co. Inc., 302 South Center St.,

Eustis, FL 32726

PF .................... Pace Foods, P.O. Box 9200, Paris, TX 75460

PG ................... The Pepper Gal, P.O. Box 23006, Ft. Lauderdale, FL

33307-3006

PL .................... Pure Line Seeds Inc., Box 8866, Moscow, ID

PM .................. Pan American Seed Company, P.O. Box 438, West

Chicago, IL 60185

PR ................... Pepper Research Inc., 980 SE 4 St., Belle Glade, FL

33430

PT .................... Pinetree Garden Seeds, P.O. Box 300, New Gloucester,

ME 04260

R ...................... Reed’s Seeds, R.D. #2, Virgil Road, S. Cortland, NY

13045

RB/ROB ......... Robson Seed Farms, P.O. Box 270, Hall, NY 14463

RC ................... Rio Colorado Seeds Inc., 47801 Gila Ridge Rd., Yuma,

AZ 85365

RE .................... Reimer Seed Co., PO Box 236, Mt. Holly, NC 28120

RG ................... Rogers Seed Co., P.O. Box 4727, Boise, ID 83711-4727

RI/RIS ............. Rispens Seeds Inc., 3332 Ridge Rd., P.O. Box 5, Lansing,

IL 60438

RS .................... Royal Sluis, 1293 Harkins Road, Salinas, CA 93901

RU/RP/RUP .. Rupp Seeds Inc., 17919 Co. Rd. B, Wauseon, OH 43567

S ...................... Seminis Inc. (may include former Asgrow and Peto

cultivars), 2700 Camino del Sol, Oxnard, CA 93030-

7967

SE .................... Southern Exposure Seed Exchange, P.O. Box

460Mineral, VA 23117

SHUM ............ Shumway Seed Co., 334 W. Stroud St. Randolph, WI

53956

SI/SG .............. Siegers Seed Co., 8265 Felch St., Zeeland, MI 49464-

9503

SIT ................... Seeds From Italy, P.O. Box 149, Winchester, MA 01890

SK.................... Sakata Seed America Inc., P.O. Box 880, Morgan Hill,

CA 95038

SN ................... Snow Seed Co., 21855 Rosehart Way, Salinas, CA

93980

SO .................. Southwestern Seeds, 5023 Hammock Trail, Lake Park,

GA 31636

SOC ................ Seeds of Change, Sante Fe, NM

SST ................. Southern States, 6606 W. Broad St., Richmond, VA

23230

ST .................... Stokes Seeds Inc., 737 Main St., Box 548, Bualo, NY

14240

SU/SS ............. Sunseeds, 18640 Sutter Blvd., P.O. Box 2078, Morgan

Hill, CA 95038

SV ................... Seed Savers Exchange, 3094 North Winn Rd., Decorah,

IA 52101

SW .................. Seedway Inc., 1225 Zeager Rd., Elizabethtown, PA

17022

SY .................... Syngenta/Rogers, 600 North Armstrong Place (83704),

P.O. Box 4188, Boise, ID 83711-4188

T/TR ............... Territorial Seed Company, P.O. Box 158, Cottage Grove,

OR 97424

TGS ................. Tomato Growers Supply Co., P.O. Box 2237, Ft. Myers,

FL 33902

TS .................... Tokita Seed Company, Ltd., Nakagawa, Omiya-shi,

Saitama-ken 300, Japan

TT .................... Totally Tomatoes, P.O. Box 1626, Augusta, GA 30903

TW .................. Twilley Seeds Co. Inc., P.O. Box 65, Trevose, PA 19047

UA ................... US Agriseeds, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.

UG .................. United Genetics, 8000 Fairview Road, Hollister, CA

95023

US ................... US Seedless, 12812 Westbrook Dr., Fairfax, VA 22030

V ...................... Vesey’s Seed Limited, York, Prince Edward Island,

Canada

VL .................... Vilmorin Inc., 6104 Yorkshire Ter., Bethesda, MD 20814

VS ................... Vaughans Seed Co., 5300 Katrine Ave., Downers

Grove, IL 60515-4095

VTR ................. VTR Seeds, P.O. Box 2392, Hollister, CA 95024

WI ................... Willhite Seed Co., P.O. Box 23, Poolville, TX 76076

WP ................. Woodpraire Farms, 49 Kinney Road, Bridgewater, ME

04735

ZR ................... Zeraim Seed Growers Company Ltd., P.O. Box 103,

Gedera 70 700, Israel

The College of Agriculture is an Equal Opportunity Organization

1-2014

Mention or display of a trademark, proprietary product, or rm in text or gures does not constitute

an endorsement and does not imply approval to the exclusion of other suitable products or rms.