PR-423
edited by Brent Rowell
Horticulture
Faculty
Robert Anderson
Doug Archbold
Jerry Brown
Robert Geneve
Terry Jones
Brent Rowell
John Snyder
John Strang
Technical Staff
Ann Clements
June Johnston
Sharon Kester
Dave Lowry
Kay Oakley
Janet Pfeiffer
Darrell Slone
Dave Spalding
Dwight Wolfe
Students
Jessica Anderson
Jenny Heringer Vires
Tina Wilson
Agricultural Economics
Faculty
Tim Woods
Entomology
Faculty
Ric Bessin
Plant Pathology
Faculty
John Hartman
Bill Nesmith
Technical Staff
Julie Beale
Ed Dickson
Grower and Industry Cooperators
Wayne Cropper
Don Haney
Mark Haney
Louie Hodge
Joseph LeMaster
Angelika Parham
Jeff Rees
Young Wilbur
Gerald Woods
This is a progress report and may not reflect exactly the final outcome of ongoing projects.
Mention or display of a trademark, proprietary product, or firm in text or figures does not constitute an endorsement and does not imply approval to the exclusion of other suitable products or firms.
Dewayne L. Ingram, Chair, Department of Horticulture
The faculty, staff, and students involved in UK's fruit and vegetable programs are pleased to offer this 1999 research report. This is one way we share information generated from a coordinated research program involving several departments in the College of Agriculture. The research areas on which we concentrate reflect stated industry needs, expertise available at UK, available operating and labor support, and the nature of research projects around the world that generate information applicable to Kentucky. Dr. Brent Rowell is the editor of this report and coordinator of our multi-disciplinary team of faculty, staff, and students addressing the research and educational needs in Kentucky related to vegetable crops. If you have questions and/or suggestions about a particular research project, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Although the purpose of this publication is to report research results, please find below some 1999 highlights of our Extension program and undergraduate and graduate degree programs addressing the needs of the horticultural industries.
Extension programs targeting Kentucky's fruit and vegetable industry include both highly visible and more subtle activities. Statewide, area, and multi-county educational meetings and on-farm demonstrations are probably the most visible. Publications, videos, slide programs, newsletters, articles in state and national industry magazines, newspaper articles, radio spots, and television programs are all-important, visible elements of our Extension program. Some of the more subtle but vital activities and services include training county Extension agents, the work of the Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic, soil testing and interpretative services, and general problem solving.
Although there are many facets of the Extension program conducted by the team of subject matter specialists and county agents, allow me to focus on just three of our recently developed educational resource items. If you haven't seen Commercial Vegetable Crop Recommendations 1998-99, the new Cooperative Extension publication Marketing Options for Commercial Vegetable Growers, and the new instructional video Tomato Production and Marketing, please allow me to introduce them to you. Each of these are available through your county Cooperative Extension office and are also available online at <http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/agpubs.htm>.
Commercial Vegetable Crop Recommendations 1998-99 (ID-36) is the compilation of production recommendations for over 30 commercial vegetable crops in Kentucky. This 120-page publication is written by a team of faculty from several departments and edited by Dr. Brent Rowell (UK Horticulture). The recommendations made in this publication are based upon field research, production experiences in several regions of the state, and pesticide regulations. The quality of this publication was validated by its receiving the 1999 Blue Ribbon Extension Publication Award, presented by the American Society for Horticultural Science, Southern Region.
Marketing Options for Commercial Vegetable Growers (ID-134) is a new publication by Dr. Rowell, Dr. Tim Woods (UK Agricultural Economics), and Jim Mansfield (Kentucky Department of Agriculture Marketing Division). This eight-page publication provides characteristics of the commercial vegetable markets and various proven avenues for accessing those markets. This is a "must-read" publication, given the fact that market drives profitable production, and marketing strategies are among the first decisions for successful vegetable crop managers.
The Tomato Production and Marketing instructional video (VHO-1265) is a 20-minute introduction to commercial tomato production from the perspective of growing for specific markets. You will find that the refreshing approach of this video will keep your attention while providing a fairly detailed overview of the primary characteristics of tomato production and the requirements for a profitable enterprise. The presentation is designed especially for new producers and tobacco growers considering new crop alternatives.
The Department of Horticulture offers areas of emphasis in horticultural enterprise management and horticultural science within a plant and soil science bachelor of science degree. Following are a few highlights of our undergraduate program in 1999:
The plant and soil science degree program had over 100 students in the fall semester of 1999, of which almost one-half are horticulture students and more than one-third are turfgrass students. Nineteen horticulture students graduated in the past year.
We believe that a significant portion of an undergraduate education in horticulture must come from outside the classroom. In addition to the local activities of the UK Horticulture Club and field trips during course laboratories, students have excellent off-campus learning experiences. Here are the highlights of such opportunities in 1999:
The demand is high for graduates with a master's degree or doctorate with an emphasis in horticulture, entomology, plant pathology, agricultural economics, or biosystems and agricultural engineering. Our master's degree graduates are being employed in industry, Cooperative Extension, secondary and post-secondary education, and governmental agencies. Last year, there were eight graduate students in these degree programs conducting research directly related to the Kentucky fruit and vegetable industry.
Graduate students are active participants in our research program and contribute significantly to our ability to address problems and opportunities important to Kentucky horticulture. The demand for graduates and the need for graduate research greatly outstrip the funds available for student support, infrastructure to support their work, and our ability to recruit students into this field of study.
Brent Rowell, Department of Horticulture
Headline writers yearn for the killer hookline. Unfortunately, headline writers are not the same people who write the articles. I learned this the hard way, when an otherwise objective Lexington Herald Leader article on tomato production was crowned with "Can a Tomato Save Kentucky's Farms?"1 I had heard of killer tomatoes, but savior tomatoes were entirely new to me. The lead sentence stated the real theme of the article: "Could a Kentucky tomato help ease small farmers' dependence on tobacco income?" "Save" and "ease" have entirely different meanings. The gist of the article was that staked tomato production might be an opportunity for some tobacco growers seeking to diversify.
Bad headlines often lead to worse headlines. The savior tomato story was used by the Associated Press and then by National Public Radio. A new headline, "Ag Experts See Tomato as Possible Substitute for Tobacco," bore little relationship to the original article.
Why the frequent exaggeration and overkill on this topic? I believe the press and the non-farming public like the idea of a savior for the tobacco farmer. They like the idea of a panacea, a cure-all, a green silver bullet—that one thing that will help tobacco go away without causing pain and hardship for folks who have been leaf-dependent for centuries. As one of our local growers put it a few years ago: "It's relatively easy and seemingly convincing for these sources who are not in the nitty-gritty dirt business to espouse idealistic approaches."
Tobacco farmer salvation is being touted by all sorts of evangelists these days. Even state government officials have succumbed to the temptation to proclaim single solutions. The day after the saving tomato story broke, NPR aired a good story on aquaculture. A state lawmaker could not resist saying confidently that aquaculture was the thing that could help most Kentucky tobacco growers.
So add to the staked tomato savior a fish or shrimp savior, an organic farming savior, a pawpaw savior, a Kentucky vineyard savior, perhaps a mushroom savior, and, let's certainly not forget, that controversial hemp savior. And then there are those who believe that real salvation lies only with industrial growth providing more off-farm employment and thereby further reducing the number of Kentucky farms. While off-farm employment may continue to be the most common consequence of declining tobacco, it is of little comfort to those who would prefer to continue farming.
What's wrong with this picture? Maybe nothing if these and other alternatives are considered together. The problem is the irresistible urge to proclaim a single commodity, enterprise, or industry as the one thing above all others that will somehow replace lost tobacco income.
Growing and marketing Kentucky premium tomatoes might be an alternative for some tobacco growers. Fish or shrimp farming may help others. Sweet sorghum has good possibilities in some areas. Other horticultural enterprises like medicinal herbs or native plant nurseries may work for still others. There are a host of opportunities and possibilities. Most of them need further exploration and development, and none of them deserves single solution status.
There have been all sorts of claims and speculations—but few level-headed discussions—about how to make up for declining tobacco quotas. Fruit and vegetable production will always be on the front lines of any such discussion, since the potential returns on small acreages are comparable to tobacco. And unlike the current status of many traditional Kentucky farming activities, markets are expanding, and commercial vegetable production is profitable.
Net returns/acre from several popular vegetable crops equal or exceed returns from tobacco. The impact of our on-farm demonstration program on tobacco growers has been well documented.2 Tobacco growers not previously growing vegetables have commonly added $3,000 (net returns) to farm income from a 1-acre demonstration plot. Those already growing vegetables usually doubled farm income by participating in the program and adopting recommended varieties coupled with drip irrigation.
But how many tobacco growers will be able to benefit from a transition to vegetable crop production? Few people are aware of the projections made over a decade ago by Harold G. Love, then UK Agricultural Economics professor, and master's level student James R. Mansfield3.
Mansfield's important 1986 study looked at the potential impact of vegetable crops as tobacco alternatives when sold through various marketing channels. He considered farms located in the burley-producing region, defined as the area bounded by I-65 on the west, I-75 on the east, the Ohio River on the north, and the Tennessee border to the south.
At that time (1982 data) there were reportedly 50,515 small tobacco farms (gross sales less than $40,000) in Kentucky, of which about 75%, or 37,886, were within the region described above. Only about half of these, or 18,943 farms, were considered actual producers (not leasing out their quota). Professor Love's analysis stated that "a viable Kentucky fresh market vegetable industry" could successfully penetrate an 11-city regional market area and that sales of a 10% market share to this area would amount to approximately $35.2 million. This would amount to $1,858 in gross sales for each of the 18,943 farms.
Further speculation assumed that farmers on only half of these farms would be interested in participating in wholesale produce marketing; and therefore, gross sales for these 9,471 farms would be $3,716/farm. This amount, according to the author, would begin to rival tobacco income on many small farms.
Although we do not know precisely how many "small tobacco farms" exist today, we do know that the number of tobacco farms declined by nearly 40% in the 15-year period from 1982 to 1997. In addition, values of most vegetable products have risen considerably since 1986. The gross sales figures and potential impacts of vegetable production on small farms would be considerably higher if the same assessments were calculated for 1999.
Mansfield concluded that high volume sales to area retail and wholesale produce distributors was the most promising marketing channel in terms of replacing declining tobacco income. Recent advertising and promotion notwithstanding, retail and wholesale distributors in the state purchase a very small percentage of produce from Kentucky growers. Most of the produce moved through these channels is purchased from grower-shippers in the major vegetable producing states, supplied by national wholesalers, or is purchased through terminal markets.
Only about 5% of the fresh vegetables consumed in Kentucky have been grown in the state. Although it is not possible for Kentucky growers to supply the quantities required throughout the year, locally grown vegetables provide many advantages to the consumer. A conservative and obtainable goal would be for Kentucky growers to supply a third of the fresh vegetables consumed within the state during our four-month marketing season. Kentuckians consume over 600 million pounds of fresh vegetables each year. If local growers could provide a third of summer consumption, this would amount to 73 million pounds of produce grown on approximately 2,500 acres, adding over $18 million to the agricultural economy.
Direct marketing, considered promising in 1986, is becoming increasingly important in Kentucky as in most other parts of the country. A 1999 survey indicated that direct marketing (farmer's market sales, roadside stands, U-picks, etc.) may account for up to 55% of current produce sales in the state as opposed to around 37% in the mid-1980's4. The $35.2 million sales projection cited above, considered both "conservative and realistic" at the time, did not include sales from direct marketing.
What are the chances of Kentucky developing the "extensive fresh market vegetable industry" that Love and Mansfield's estimates were based upon? All indications are that development of this industry is both feasible and practical. Kentucky is located within a 10-hour drive of 20 of the nation's largest cities and within a two-day drive of an additional 20. These 40 cities have a combined population of over 185 million served by more than 20,000 supermarkets.
The value of produce that Kentucky growers supplied through wholesale channels was estimated to be only $6 million in 1991. This amounts to only about 1/10 of 1% of the total value of vegetables produced in the United States. Given this underdeveloped status, it should be possible for Kentucky to increase its market share sixfold to 0.6%, which would increase crop value by about $50 million. This would match current production levels in Tennessee. It should be possible to increase vegetable production sold through all marketing channels to $100 million. Although this does not approach tobacco in total crop value, it could have tremendous impact if dispersed among many small farms in tobacco-dependent counties.
There are still lingering hopes and dreams floating around that vegetable processing facilities could somehow save Kentucky farms. This requires a greater leap of faith than any of the marketing options previously discussed. Building new processing facilities is very attractive to those unfamiliar with the industry or its history in the state. Unfortunately, continuing long-term trends in that industry make Kentucky an unfavorable location for expanding most types of vegetable production for processing.
Nationwide consumption and demand for many canned and frozen vegetable products have been flat or are in a state of decline. It is also true that consumption of fresh-cut items and those using tomato or pepper-based products (salsa, pizza, etc.) continues to rise. But rising consumption patterns may not translate into increased opportunities for Kentucky growers in this case.
Vegetable production for processing has all but disappeared from Kentucky. Most processors have moved to the regions of supply where economies of scale permit buying large volumes at the lowest possible cost. There were no more cucumbers grown for processing in the state after Dean Foods bought and closed Louisville's Paramount Foods in 1995. None of the half-dozen or so pepper processing companies remain active in the state, and 5,000 acres of processing peppers have dwindled to nearly nothing in 1999. Moody Dunbar, a pepper processor based in east Tennessee with a long history of operations in Kentucky, now buys most of its peppers from California, where its largest facilities are located.
Six potato chip plants were once located in or near Kentucky, but low prices and economies of scale meant that only one or two large western Kentucky growers could profit from this market. There were once over 2,000 acres of processing snap beans in and around Wayne County; production ended when the company closed its Tennessee plant. Tennessee had its own thriving processing snap bean industry centered around Crossville, but low prices forced the majority of these growers into production for the fresh market.
The latest vegetable processing venture occurred in western Kentucky, where millions of dollars were invested in tomato processing facilities and equipment before those involved learned the hard lessons taught by low prices, economies of scale, and fierce competition. That venture passed away in 1997.
Recent discussions have centered on establishing a large fresh-cut vegetable operation in Kentucky. While this is definitely a growth industry, as consumers purchase increasing amounts of packaged salad mixes and other minimally processed products, there are some obvious problems which have yet to be considered. There are pressures for low prices and economies of scale in this business as in other processing enterprises.
It has been difficult, for example, for Kentucky growers to supply the state's few existing fresh-cut businesses with cabbage that can compete in price and quality with cabbage produced by large growers in upstate New York. There are also obvious advantages in a state like New York, where cabbage growers have invested and continue to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in research and development on improving production for this market.
Other ominous clouds appear to be looming on this market horizon. Several large California produce companies recently closed their fresh-cut operations after buyers forced them to absorb all new costs associated with product liability and food safety protection.
None of the vegetable crop alternatives are easy or as easy as tobacco. Getting into most horticultural enterprises is risky business. It is also hard work, and there are obstacles and pitfalls along the way. Overcoming obstacles and reducing risks will require changes in farming traditions, adjustments to new marketing systems, changes in university programs, and new infrastructure investments.
Tobacco growing is arguably the oldest farming tradition in America. By comparison, starting a vegetable production enterprise seems daring and difficult in many Kentucky counties. It requires new thinking about farming and can lead to cultural changes in farm communities. Although growing broccoli may not be that much different from growing tobacco, it means doing something different from what has been done for centuries. It means new and unfamiliar conversations at local stores and lunch counters. It means more attention to detail and more concerns about timing, markets, and marketing.
As an Extension specialist, I'd like to think farmers get most of their information from county agents backed up by specialists. Many do, and innovators often do. But it is well known that farmers get much of their information from other farmers, learning a great deal from the example of others in their own communities. The farmer-innovator, that brave soul who is the first to start vegetable production, is likely to suffer from bouts of loneliness. He or she may feel quite isolated in terms of information, example, and assistance. The farmer-innovator may even be laughed at when looking for help at the local ag supply store (true story) and will also have a tough time finding some of the most effective minor-use pesticides.
Are changes in long-established crops and associated farming traditions really possible? Not only are they possible, but watershed changes are taking place now and have taken place throughout Kentucky's history. Over 250,000 pounds of Kentucky tobacco were marketed in New Orleans in the year 1790. By the end of that same year, the Spanish had limited future tobacco purchases to a mere 40,000 pounds annually—the equivalent of a single flatboat load. Although this was a major shock for most Southern planters, Kentuckians turned in great numbers to wheat and hemp production.
Setting aside for a moment hemp's current controversial status, consider it as an example of how major upheavals have occurred in Kentucky agriculture. Kentucky hemp production peaked in 1859, with 40,000 tons of fiber grown on approximately 100,000 acres. Kentucky became known all over the world for its quality hemp production. But by the end of that century the advent of steamships and petroleum engines had severely reduced the demand for hemp rope and sails. The remaining but greatly diminished demand could then be supplied by cheap Russian imports. Although revived briefly during the Second World War, hemp production disappeared after the government canceled growing permits at the war's end. There are some striking parallels in the changes that took place in hemp production at the end of the 19th century and those occurring in tobacco at the end of the 20th.
Even major vegetable production regions were not always so. The Salinas Valley in California, the world's largest salad bowl, produces 12,500 tons of tomatoes, 15,000 tons of strawberries, and 82,000 tons of lettuce each year. But the valley was once used primarily for cattle ranching and later for sugar beet production. The vegetable tradition (more accurately an agricultural revolution) developed only in the 1920s. Three hundred acres of lettuce planted around Salinas in 1922 had grown to 43,000 acres by the end of that decade.
Georgia peanut farmers are not known as the most innovative farmers in the world, and many Kentucky growers would consider themselves equal or even more daring than their Georgia counterparts. But a growing number of Georgia peanut growers have become world class vegetable producers. Farm income from vegetables continues to rise in Georgia, surpassing peanuts in 1995, and is now second only to King Cotton. Farm income from vegetables increased from $180 million in 1989 to $434 million in 1995.
The real question is not whether significant changes will take place, but whether Kentucky can adapt to new realities and manage what is hopefully a gradual transition to new crops and their unfamiliar marketing systems.
Vegetable production is inherently riskier than tobacco production, and most tobacco growers are keenly aware of this fact. It is tobacco's enviable and long-established cooperative marketing system which eliminates many of the risks for growers. Tobacco production is regulated and limited and based in part on buying intentions. Prices are held high, and surpluses can be brought in to be sold later.
Vegetable crops are highly perishable, and vegetable marketing is often a free market adventure. Prices are volatile and cause grower returns to fluctuate. There are no quotas, no pools, no support prices. Most products cannot be stored and sold later. "Sell it or smell it" is still a good rule of thumb in the produce business.
What can be done to help reduce these risks for new Kentucky growers? The word infrastructure often comes to mind. Infrastructure is the underlying support system for a building, government, community, or industry. It is the foundation required to support construction and growth. Marketing infrastructure development has often been discussed and advocated in these pages. The good news is that Kentucky is making significant progress in establishing a serious marketing infrastructure for crops other than tobacco.5
Small farmer cooperatives are important components of infrastructure building. Minimum purchase volumes required by major buyers generally preclude small farms as individual suppliers. Grower-owned cooperatives can assemble marketable shipments of fresh produce and help minimize risks by providing cooling and packing facilities.
These groups of new and experienced growers learn from each other and have something in common to talk about. A new cooperative can become a center of production where a critical mass of serious vegetable growers can establish a foothold in Kentucky. It can become a catalyst for change in farming culture and traditions. This is already happening in parts of south-central Kentucky in association with the Cumberland Farm Products Cooperative. Growers are attempting to replicate that success with new vegetable co-ops in eastern Kentucky, in the Bluegrass region, and in the Mammoth Cave area.
Land grant universities and the Cooperative Extension Service are also vital components of vegetable production and marketing infrastructure. The universities and the Extension service must become more adept at responding to major changes in agriculture and to shifting demands of the marketplace.
After examining farming trends reflected in the 1997 Kentucky Census of Agriculture, one UK economist has called for the College of Agriculture to devote its primary efforts toward enterprises where the per capita consumption is rising and to devote considerable resources to assisting small farmers who earn most of their income from off-farm sources.6
Because crop varieties, pest management recommendations, and irrigation techniques are also constantly changing, a statewide applied research network for vegetable and other horticultural crops is essential to ensure that Kentucky growers can remain competitive. Growers are constantly faced not only with serious production problems, but also with important issues like food safety and labor management. Significant investments in the state's applied research on vegetable crop production systems for small and part-time farmers must accompany marketing infrastructure development. This investment will require a solid foundation of adequately staffed and funded field stations in at least three major physiographic regions of the state.
The present system is inadequate to the task and will need a major push forward if the goal of an extensive and sustainable fresh market vegetable industry is to be realized. Our statewide roster of permanent research farm personnel for vegetable crops reads as follows: one farm manager, one farmhand, and one technician—not even enough to draw a flow chart. These same three people also work with a number of other horticultural crops. Kentuckians should decide for themselves whether this "system" is adequate for the task at hand as they enter the 21st century.
Much of what has been discussed in this paper depends upon Kentucky building a strong foundation to support stability and growth in the fresh vegetable industry. This is not an elusive silver bullet. Developing a viable fresh vegetable industry is only one promising alternative among many new, possible small farm enterprises.
Kentucky has been handed an incredible and unprecedented opportunity. The state is expected to receive $138 million annually for the next 25 years from Phase I of the National Tobacco Settlement. The approaching social and economic losses to tobacco-dependent rural communities are severe and have been documented. What better way to invest a portion of this money than to plow it back into efforts to assist those most affected by changes in tobacco? Both the farming and non-farming public seem to agree on this point: a study conducted last March by the UK Survey Research Center revealed that an overwhelming majority of Kentuckians (85%) thought settlement dollars should be used to help farmers grow other crops.
All major farm groups have come to agree on what is now called the Unified Plan for Agricultural Development in Kentucky. The horticulture component of this plan calls for $2 million in annual funding for the continuation of the Kentucky Department of Agriculture's ongoing marketing infrastructure development and promotion programs. This amount also includes funding for regional marketing specialists.
The horticulture plan also calls for capital investments of $6.8 million over the first three years for expansion and improvement in horticultural research and educational facilities in Eastern, Central, and Western Kentucky. This amount includes funding for a major expansion of our ongoing hands-on demonstration program.
Recurring funds of $2.2 million will pay for new research farm personnel and technical staff in support of statewide applied research and Extension programs. Perhaps one of the most critical uses of these funds will be to hire new regional Extension staff with specialized knowledge of vegetable crop production technology.
The horticulture plan will help reduce risks considerably for tobacco growers looking for new crop alternatives. Every dollar invested in this way is expected to return more than $3 in increased sales of horticultural products over a 10-year period. The impact of doing nothing should be painfully obvious to anyone who received the 20% pay cut as a result of last year's quota reductions.
Kentucky has come to a crossroads at century's end. Kentucky citizens and their elected representatives must now decide which road to take. One road prepares for change by building a solid foundation for a new and different agricultural future. Travelers on the other road linger with talk of tomato saviors and silver bullets.
1 Business Monday, Lexington Herald-Leader, 30 August 1999.
2 Pumpkin Patches on Tobacco Road—Improving Horticultural and Other Farm Product Marketing Opportunities in Tobacco Communities. Commodity Growers Cooperative Assn. 1998. Lexington. 72 p.
3 Love, Harold G., A. Jermolowicz, and F. Stegelin. 1986. Prospects for Kentucky Agriculture: Horticulture. in Prospects for Kentucky Agriculture: A Resource Document. Univ. of Kentucky. 526 p. Mansfield, James R. 1987. Comparing Marketing Channels for Kentucky Fruits and Vegetables. M. S. thesis. Dept. Agricultural Economics, Univ. of Kentucky.
4 See State Fruit and Vegetable Survey Highlights in this report.
5 See "Revisiting the `A' Word: Horticultural Opportunities 1998-1999." NewHarvest. Winter 1998.
6 Debertin, David L. 1999. The 1997 Kentucky Census of Agriculture, Projections for 2002 and 2007 and Implications for the College of Agriculture. Dept. Agricultural Economics, Univ. of Kentucky. Publication RIS-99-2.
Tim Woods, Department of Agricultural Economics
The Kentucky Partnership for Food Safety and Quality Assurance is an initiative within the University of Kentucky organized to assess food quality and safety needs in horticultural and other agricultural enterprises. This group conducted a survey this summer of fruit and vegetable producers throughout Kentucky. Several interesting marketing trends and facts were confirmed through this survey, and here are some of the highlights. More detailed findings will be forthcoming in a report being prepared by the University of Kentucky.
More than 200 usable surveys were completed from our sample of Kentucky producers. The sample represents a selection of producers who receive NewHarvest, those listed in the Kentucky Department of Agriculture Directory, and those involved in the Farm Bureau Roadside Market program. The list was selected in such a way as to create a representative sample that would reflect the marketing activity of all fruit and vegetable producers in the state. Survey results indicated some interesting marketing patterns among our fruit and vegetable producers.
An overwhelming majority of the produce growers in the state sell at least some of their produce through direct marketing channels like farmers' markets, roadside stands, or Upicks. The 82% of growers indicating they sell through these direct markets well exceeded the next most frequently identified marketing channel, which was direct to retail (sales to a local grocery or other retail sellers). Direct to retail was used by 29% of the respondents. The percentage of producers indicating their selling activity by marketing channel is shown in Figure 1.
The majority of growers indicated they use several marketing channels. Produce is being sold into two or more different market channels by 52% of those responding (Figure 2). Diversification of market channels allows largervolume producers to take advantage of opportunities in local markets while still producing for wholesale distribution. Still, nearly half of the farmers indicated they focus their sales to a single market.
Farmers were asked to indicate their 1998 total sales as well as the percent sold into each market. Their gross sales are reported by market channel in Figure 3. Interestingly, 55% of the total sales farmers reported from 1998 were from direct marketing channels.
There was a total of nearly $3 million in sales reported from the survey respondents, with $1.6 million reported in direct sales. If the sample is a good indication of marketing activity of fruit and vegetable producers in the state, then direct marketing can be considered a very important component. The importance of direct marketing, however, does not diminish the importance of wholesale markets or their potential for growth. Wholesale markets are important to the balance and viability of a total marketing system, and most sales through Kentucky cooperatives go through wholesale distribution channels. It is interesting that a significant proportion of Kentucky farmers are involved in direct selling and that the value of sales generated in this market channel can no longer be regarded as minor or secondary.
Figure 1. Markets used by Kentucky farms.
Figure 2. Market diversification.
Figure 3. Distribution of sales.
Dave Spalding and Brent Rowell, Department of Horticulture
The Department of Horticulture has been conducting on-farm demonstrations with commercial vegetables for over a decade. Most of these demonstrations have been established at the request of interested tobacco growers in cooperation with their county Extension agents. It has been necessary to reduce the number of demonstrations since 1998 as a result of the additional time required by the Extension associate assisting the new Central Kentucky Vegetable Growers' Cooperative.
On-farm demonstrations were conducted in 1999 in Bracken, Lewis, and Mason counties. The grower/cooperator in Bracken County grew 0.8 acres of bell peppers, and the cooperator in Lewis County grew 1 acre of peppers. There were two cooperators from Mason County: one grew 1 acre of bell peppers, and the other grew 2 acres. Department of Horticulture specialists also worked closely with first-time commercial vegetable growers in Marion, Mercer, and Nicholas counties. The growers in these counties generally represented larger farming operations looking at vegetable production to reduce their dependence on tobacco and to more efficiently utilize migrant labor employed in tobacco production. Data from bell pepper production in Mercer County (Anderson Circle Farms) and Nicholas County (Caswell Farms) are included in this report. In addition, the Extension associate worked closely with a new grower in Marion County who had 5 acres of staked tomatoes; his production data were not available at the time of publication.
As in previous years, grower/cooperators were provided with transplants, black plastic mulch, drip irrigation lines, and the use of equipment for raised bed preparation and transplanting. The cooperators supplied all other inputs, including labor and management of the crop. In addition to identifying and working closely with cooperators, the county Extension agents took soil samples from each plot and scheduled, promoted, and coordinated field days at each site. The Extension associate from the University of Kentucky made regular weekly visits to each plot to scout the crop and make appropriate recommendations.
The demo plots were to have been transplanted to three different bacterial spot-resistant varieties (Boynton Bell, Enterprise, and Lexington). However, about three weeks before transplanting, the locally grown transplants were found to be infected with Impatiens Necrotic Spot Virus (INSV), and those transplants could not be used. Replacement plants were eventually located in northern Ohio. Peppers were transplanted into 6 in. high raised beds covered with black plastic with drip lines under the plastic. Plants were transplanted in an offset manner in double rows and were spaced 12 in. apart in the row with the rows spaced 15 in. apart. Raised beds were 6 ft from center to center. The plants were sprayed with appropriate fungicides and insecticides on an as-needed basis, and the cooperators were asked to follow the fertigation schedule provided.
The larger growers in Mercer and Nicholas counties provided all their own inputs and equipment. The Extension associate made regular visits to those operations to scout the crop and make recommendations. Production practices on these farms were essentially the same as those for the smaller demonstration plots, although on a larger scale.
In a very difficult crop year with extreme drought in much of central and eastern Kentucky, producers who had adequate water and transplanted on time had relatively high yields and returns. The small demonstration cooperators were late in getting their crops in because of diseased locally grown transplants that had to be replaced with plants grown farther north. These northern plants were very young and small when transplanted 10 to 15 days later than originally planned. These conditions contributed to a low early fruit set and the loss of early production when prices are traditionally higher. The Lewis county plot was the last to be transplanted and had almost no early production due to the extreme heat conditions that existed when those plants were flowering and setting fruit. In addition to the early heat problems, the water source for this plot proved to be inadequate later in the season when water requirements were highest. The result was a very poor yield and a very low return, as reflected in the accompanying data (Table 1). The 2-acre plot in Mason County was unfortunately destroyed by a hailstorm on 22 June. By contrast, the Anderson Circle and Caswell Farm crops were transplanted on time and for the most part had adequate water. These first-time growers had higher yields, resulting in considerably higher net returns/acre (Table 2).
One of the primary benefits realized by the larger growers but not reflected in data was the better utilization of migrant labor that those farms employed in their tobacco enterprises. This is an important factor in their plans to increase vegetable production on those farms in the year 2000.
| Table 1. Bell pepper costs and returns of grower/cooperators. | |||
| Inputs | Bracken County (0.8 acre) | Mason County (1.0 acre) | Lewis County (1.0 acre) |
| Plants | $580 | $725 | $725 |
| Fertilizer | $166 | $15 | $45 |
| Black Plastic | $84 | $105 | $105 |
| Drip Lines | $110 | $140 | $140 |
| Fertilizer Injector | $55* | $55* | $55 |
| Herbicide | -------- | -------- | --------- |
| Insecticide | $68 | $60 | $15 |
| Fungicide | $88 | --------- | --------- |
| Water | $700 | $1,031 | $300 |
| (235,000 gal) | (275,000 gal) | (130,000 gal) | |
| Labor | $965 | $1,490 | $340 |
| (193 hrs) | (260 hrs) | (51 hrs) | |
| Machine | $232 | $316 | $33 |
| (50 hrs) | (68 hrs) | (7 hrs) | |
| Total Expenses | $3,049 | $3,937 | $1,758 |
| Yield | 19,415 lb | 24,780 lb | 2,400 lb |
| Green | 15,675 lb | 19,080 lb | --------- |
| Red | 3,740 lb | 5,700 lb | 2,400 lb |
| Income | $3,268 | $5,072 | $238 |
| Net Income | $218 | $1,135 | ($1,519) |
| Net Income/Acre | $273 | $1,135 | ($1,519) |
| Dollar Return/ Dollar Input | $1.07 | $1.29 | $0.14 |
| *Prorated for multi-year use. | |||
| Table 2. Bell pepper costs and returns for larger grower/cooperators. | ||
| Inputs | Anderson Circle Farm (5.0 acres) | Caswell Farms (2.0 acres) |
| Plants | $3,393 | $1,150 |
| Fertilizer | $2,408 | $188 |
| Black Plastic | $525 | $320 |
| Drip Lines | $700 | $404 |
| Fertilizer Injector | $75 | $55* |
| Herbicide | $180 | -------- |
| Insecticide | $460 | $72 |
| Fungicide | $590 | $102 |
| Water | $2,180 | $800 |
|
(1,240,000 gal) |
(480,000 gal) |
|
| Labor | $5,538 | $1,910 |
|
(850 hrs) |
(318 hrs) | |
| Machine | $581 | $ 432 |
|
(125 hrs) |
(85 hrs) | |
| Total Expenses | $16,629 | $5,434 |
| Yield | 178,161 lb | 53,925 lb |
| Green | 79,325 lb | 53,925 lb |
| Red | 98,836 lb | ------------ |
| Income | $27,637 | $9,207 |
| Net Income | $11,007 | $3,773 |
| Net Income/Acre | $2,201 | $1,887 |
| Dollar Return/Dollar Input | $1.66 | $1.69 |
| *Prorated for multi-year use. | ||
Gerald R. Brown and Dwight Wolfe, Department of Horticulture
Although apples are the principal tree fruit grown in Kentucky, the hot, humid summers and heavy clay soils in Kentucky make apple production a more difficult task for growers in this state than for major apple-producing regions where soil and climate are more favorable. Poor plum tree survival due to our heavy clay soils has also limited production of this tree fruit, and peach production can be expected to be erratic as a consequence of extreme temperature fluctuations that occur in the winter and spring. In spite of these challenges, productive orchards are one of the highest/acre income enterprises suitable for upland rolling soil that have a low potential for soil erosion. Kentucky still imports more apples than it produces, and the strong market for peaches continues to encourage growers to plant peach trees. Continued identification of improved rootstocks and cultivars is required for growth of the Kentucky fruit industry. For these reasons, Kentucky continues to be a cooperator, along with 39 other states and three provinces of Canada, in the Cooperative Regional NC-140 Project: Rootstocks and Interstem Effects on Pome and Stone Fruit.
Scions of known cultivars on various rootstocks were produced by commercial nurseries and distributed to cooperators for each planting. The University of Kentucky has six NC-140 rootstock plantings:
I. 1990 apple cultivar/rootstock planting consisting of five cultivars on six different rootstocks and replicated six times/rootstock. Trees are spaced 8 ft apart within rows 16 ft apart.
II. 1993 apple rootstock planting consisting of `Liberty' on six rootstocks and eight replications/rootstock. Trees are spaced 16 ft apart within rows 23 ft apart.
III. 1994 apple rootstock planting consisting of `Red Gala' on six rootstocks and 10 replications/rootstock. Trees are spaced 13 ft apart within rows 18 ft apart.
IV. 1999 dwarf and semi-dwarf apple rootstock planting consisting of two groups of apple rootstocks:
i) dwarfing group with 11 rootstocks and planted on a 10 x 16 ft spacing.
ii) a semi-dwarfing group with six rootstocks and
planted on a 13 x 20 ft spacing.
V. 1990 plum rootstock planting consisting of `Stanley' plum on 10 different rootstocks and seven replications/rootstock. Trees are spaced 16 ft apart within rows 20 ft apart.
VI. 1994 peach rootstock planting consisting of `Redhaven' peach on 12 different rootstocks and eight replications/rootstock. Trees are spaced 16 ft apart within rows 20 ft apart.
Except for the 1990 apple cultivar/rootstock planting, trees of each rootstock were allocated to blocks (rows) in a randomized block design [i.e., each rootstock appears once and at random within each block (row)]. In the 1990 apple cultivar/rootstock planting, trees of each cultivar/rootstock combination were allocated to the blocks in a split-plot design [i.e, groups of six trees (each on a different rootstock) of each cultivar were randomly allocated to each block (row). Soil management is a 6.5 ft herbicide strip with mowed sod alleyways. Trees were fertilized and sprayed according to local recommendations (1, 2). Yield, trunk circumference, and maturity indices such as soluble solids were measured annually for each planting.
The winter of 1999 in Kentucky was mild, followed by a wet spring and severe drought through the late summer and fall. Fruit generally had variable quality due to the drought. The effect of drought was greater on late-season maturing cultivars.
The 1990 Apple Cultivar/Rootstock Planting continues the evaluation of promising rootstocks identified from previous trials at the UK Research and Education Center while also evaluating cultivars/rootstock interactions. This planting is our first trial to be trained to the Dutch slender spindle system and supported by electrical conduit fastened to a wire trellis. This is one of a number of orchard systems that have been developed in Europe to reduce labor requirements and to enhance early production. Eastern and Midwestern growers are rapidly adopting this production technique, and it is appropriate that UK provides our growers with information on this system's performance. The chief advantage of this system is early production and reduced labor inputs. Early production allows growers to quickly establish orchards with newer, more profitable cultivars.
One hundred sixty-one trees of a possible 180 are in our test because three cultivar-rootstock combinations (Golden Delicious/EMLA M.9, Jonagold/Bud.9, and Liberty/Ott.3) and one tree of Liberty/Bud.9 were not available for this planting. A trellis system was constructed in 1992. Based on foliar analysis and visual observation of vegetative growth, no nitrogen was applied in 1993-99. Vegetative growth is now in the high-normal range. With the controlled vigor, the surviving trees are developing nicely. All pest control decisions are based on IPM procedures; the same as are used by our more progressive growers. Fire blight was very light in 1999. Nevertheless, 84 of the 161 planted trees (52%) have not survived, and significant differences in mortality by rootstock and cultivar were observed (Tables 1 and 2).
Both rootstock and cultivar significantly influenced cumulative yield, 1999 yield, picked fruit, dropped fruit, average fruit weight, and trunk circumference (Tables 1 and 2). Percent soluble solids and fruit pressure were significantly affected by cultivar (Table 1), but not by rootstock. The number of root suckers varied significantly by rootstock, but not by cultivar (Table 2). Significant cultivar by rootstock interactions were only observed for dropped fruit, average fruit weight, and fruit pressure (Table 3).
This planting is located on a farm of a commercial apple producer in Nancy, KY, which is about 200 miles east of Princeton. The planting provides us with a comparison of rootstock performance between Western and south-central Kentucky. To date, differences in mortality have not been statistically significant. Three out of eight trees on CG.202 and CG.210 have died, and four trees on CG.30, CG-222, and CG-13 and two on M.7 have died. Statistical differences were not observed for trunk circumference, the number of root suckers, theoretical cumulative, and 1999 yield (Table 4).
The 1994 semi-dwarf apple rootstock planting is the first trial at this station to be trained to the French vertical axe system. It also includes a number of new stocks, along with some that have performed well in previous plantings at UK REC.
This planting was established as planned, except for the substitution of B.9 for P.1. Trickle irrigation and a trellis system similar to the one in the 1990 apple planting were constructed in 1995. The mortality of trees on M.26 (10% survival) differed significantly from trees on the other five rootstocks (100% survival for trees on CG.11 and 90% for the others). The maturity indices (% soluble solids and pressures), the weight of picked and dropped fruit, cumulative yield, 1999 yield, trunk circumference, and the number of root suckers varied significantly by rootstock (Table 5).
This planting consists of two groups of apple rootstocks: a dwarfing group with 11 rootstocks and a semi-dwarfing one with six rootstocks. Eight of the dwarfing rootstocks and three of the semi-dwarfing ones have not been tested at the Princeton station.
Ninety trees of a possible 108 are in our planting because 12 were not available for our site (one CG.16N, two-CG.13, three CG.41, one CG.814, and four CG.30N). Furthermore, three trees never leafed out after planting (one CG.16T, one CG.16N, and one CG.41N). In spite of the severe drought, all the others appear to be alive.
Significant differences were observed for trunk circumference in the spring and fall for both groups of rootstocks (Table 6). Significant differences were observed for growth in trunk circumference for the semi-dwarfing rootstocks but not for the dwarfing ones. Conversely, the number of feathers varied significantly for the dwarfing rootstocks but not the semi-dwarfing ones.
Poorly drained clay soils typically found in Kentucky have limited plum production. Rootstocks recently developed in France on soils similar to ours offer the potential for expanding the fruit industry in Kentucky to include this crop.
To date, three trees on Julian A, five on Citation rootstock, two trees on Myrobolan seedling, and one tree of Marianna GF 8-1 have died, probably as a result of winter injury. All others (86%) are alive. Statistical differences were observed for cumulative yield, 1999 yield, picked and dropped fruit, fruit size, number of root suckers, and trunk circumference, but not for soluble solids (Table 7).
Peaches are one of the most popular fruits in Kentucky. The strong market for this crop continues to entice growers to plant trees in spite of the fact that one can expect erratic production due to extreme temperature fluctuations that occur in winter and spring in this state. A rootstock that is more suitable to Kentucky's climate than ones traditionally used would be of great value to fruit industry in the state. A rootstock that could significantly delay bloom would change the future of the Kentucky peach industry. To date, 75 of the 94 trees planted are alive (80% survival). Statistical differences were observed for trunk circumference, 1999 yield, and average fruit weight (Table 8), but differences were not observed for cumulative yield, bloom date, number of root suckers, fruit pressure, and soluble solids (Table 7). The Julian date for 10% maturity was 183 for all trees, except for those on Ta Tao, which was 193.
The NC-140 plantings are of utmost importance to Kentucky for gaining access to and testing new rootstocks from around the world. The detailed and objective evaluation of these rootstocks will provide growers with the information needed to select the most appropriate rootstocks for their needs when they become commercially available in the future.
The 1990 Apple Cultivar/Rootstock Planting and the 1994 and 1999 Apple Rootstock Planting will provide us with needed information on adaptability of the slender spindle and the vertical axe systems to trees grown on our fertile soils. The 1993 CG-Liberty Apple Planting is an off-station cooperative effort between the University of Kentucky and a commercial grower and provides us with a way to compare rootstock performance between Western and south-central Kentucky. The 1990 Plum Planting should provide us with needed information to determine if there are suitable rootstocks for growing plums in western Kentucky's wet clay soils. The 1994 Peach Planting should provide us with needed information to determine if tree survival, winter hardiness, and cropping frequency can be improved by using any of the recently developed rootstocks.
The NC-140 orchard systems plantings are regularly used as demonstration plots for visiting fruit growers, Extension personnel, and research scientists. The research data collected in these trials will help to establish baseline production and economic records for the various orchard system/rootstock combinations which can be utilized by orchardists in Kentucky.
1. Brown, Gerald R. and Dwight Wolfe. 1999. Rootstock and Interstem Effects on Pome and Stone Fruit Trees. Fruit and Vegetable Crop Research Report—1998. University of Kentucky publication PR-410:8-11.
2. Brown, Gerald R. and Dwight Wolfe. 1999. Optimal Training of Apple Trees for High-Density Plantings. Fruit and Vegetable Crop Research Report—1998. University of Kentucky publication PR-410:12-13.
| Table 1. 1999 cultivar results NC-140 1990 apple cultivar/rootstock planting1. | ||||||||||
| Cultivar2 | Cumulative Yield per Live Tree (lb) | Picks (lb/tree) | Drops (lb/tree) | 1999 Yield (lb/tree) | Average Fruit Wt (oz) | Mean Pressure of Blush & off Sides (lb) | Percent Soluble Solids | Number of uckers | Trunk Circum. (in.) | Percent of Trees Alive |
| Liberty | 397 | 33 | 22 | 55 | 3.7 | 23.1 | 14.0 | 4.1 | 10.9 | 66 |
| Golden Delicious | 377 | 62 | 11 | 73 | 5.3 | 19.0 | 15.5 | 2.8 | 11.9 | 37 |
| Jonagold | 337 | 66 | 13 | 79 | 6.4 | 16.0 | 13.4 | 2.1 | 12.1 | 23 |
| Rome | 280 | 13 | 22 | 35 | 7.5 | 22.0 | 14.2 | 1.3 | 11.9 | 39 |
| Empire | 243 | 42 | 7 | 49 | 4.1 | 21.4 | 12.2 | 6.1 | 9.0 | 72 |
| Mean | 313 | 40 | 15 | 53 | 4.8 | 21.1 | 13.5 | 3.9 | 10.7 | 48 |
| LSD (.05) | 90 | 20 | 7 | 20 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 3.9 | 1.5 | N/A |
| 1 University of Kentucky, Research and Education
Center, Princeton, KY.
2 Arranged by cumulative yield in descending order. |
||||||||||
| Table 2. 1999 rootstock results NC-140 1990 apple cultivar/rootstock planting1. | ||||||||||
| Rootstocks2 | Cumulative Yield per Live Tree (lb) | Drops (lb/tree) | Picks (lb/tree) | 1999 Yield (lb/tree) | Average Fruit Wt (oz) | Mean Pressure of Blush & Offsides (lb) | Percent Soluble Solids | Trunk Circumference (in.) | Percent of Trees Alive | Number of Suckers |
| M.26 EMLA | 470 | 18 | 68 | 79 | 5.4 | 20.4 | 14.0 | 15.6 | 53.3 | 0.7 |
| M.9 EMLA | 419 | 15 | 62 | 68 | 4.7 | 22.1 | 13.0 | 13.0 | 41.7 | 5.4 |
| Ottawa 3 | 353 | 7 | 53 | 77 | 5.5 | 18.9 | 12.7 | 12.6 | 16.7 | 7.7 |
| Bud.9 | 309 | 18 | 35 | 51 | 5.1 | 21.5 | 13.7 | 9.8 | 82.6 | 5.8 |
| MARK | 190 | 11 | 20 | 40 | 4.0 | 21.0 | 13.3 | 7.6 | 46.7 | 3.5 |
| P.22 | 172 | 13 | 20 | 51 | 4.6 | 21.3 | 13.5 | 6.9 | 46.7 | 3.5 |
| Mean | 313 | 15 | 40 | 53 | 4.8 | 21.1 | 13.5 | 10.7 | 47.8 | 3.9 |
| LSD (.05) | 99 | 4 | 20 | 23 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 2.3 | N/A | 3.9 |
| 1 University of Kentucky, Research and Education
Center, Princeton, KY.
2 Arranged by cumulative yield in descending order. |
||||||||||
| Table 3. 1999 results NC-140 1990 apple cultivar/rootstock planting1. | |||
| Cultivar/Rootstock Combination2 | Dropped Fruit/Live Tree (lb) | Average Fruit Wt (oz) | Fruit Pressure (lb) |
| Liberty/M.26 | 20 | 3.4 | 23.0 |
| Liberty/M.9 | 18 | 4.3 | 23.1 |
| Golden Delicious/M.26 | 9 | 6.2 | 17.9 |
| Rome/M.26 | 29 | 7.1 | 21.4 |
| Jonagold/M.26 | 20 | 7.2 | 15.9 |
| Empire/M.26 | 13 | 4.0 | 21.0 |
| Liberty/Bud.9 | 22 | 3.5 | 23.2 |
| Golden Delicious/Bud.9 | 13 | 5.5 | 18.2 |
| Jonagold/Ottawa 3 | 9 | 6.6 | 17.4 |
| Rome/M.9 | 18 | 7.6 | 21.9 |
| Rome/Bud.9 | 26 | 7.9 | 23.3 |
| Empire/Ottawa 3 | 4 | 3.4 | 21.8 |
| Empire/M.9 | 11 | 4.3 | 21.2 |
| Empire/Bud.9 | 7 | 4.0 | 21.5 |
| Jonagold/P.22 | 9 | 7.1 | 14.5 |
| Golden Delicious/MARK | 9 | 3.6 | 22.2 |
| Liberty/MARK | 24 | 2.8 | 23.3 |
| Liberty/P.22 | 22 | 4.1 | 22.7 |
| Empire/MARK | 7 | 4.4 | 21.3 |
| Rome/MARK | 7 | • | • |
| Rome/P.22 | 18 | 7.5 | 19.6 |
| Jonagold/MARK | 13 | 5.1 | 15.6 |
| Empire/P.22 | 4 | 4.1 | 21.8 |
| LSD (0.5) | 11 | 1.4 | 21.1 |
| 1 University of Kentucky, Research and Education
Center, Princeton, KY.
2 Arranged by cumulative yield in descending order. |
|||
| Table 4. 1999 results 1993 NC-140 CG-Liberty apple rootstock planting1. | ||||
| Rootstock2 | Theoretical Cumulative Yields3(lb/tree) | 1999 Yield (lb/tree) |
1999 Trunk Circumference (in.) |
Number of Root Suckers4 |
| CG.030 | 254 | 126 | 12.7 | 1 |
| CG.210 | 225 | 137 | 14.3 | 1 |
| CG.222 | 223 | 121 | 12.2 | 5 |
| CG.202 | 139 | 37 | 9.0 | 1 |
| M.7 | 130 | 53 | 12.1 | 2 |
| CG.013 | 121 | 90 | 12.4 | 9 |
| Mean | 181 | 9 | 12.0 | 3 |
| LSD (.05) | 161 | 86 | 3.9 | 9 |
| 1 Appledale Farm, Nancy, KY.
2 Arranged by theoretical cumulative yield in descending order. 3 Theoretical cumulative yield was calculated by summing the theoretical yield for 1996 through1999. Theoretical yield for 1996 through 1997 was calculated by multiplying the number of fruit on each live tree in this planting by the average weight/fruit from `Liberty' trees in the 1990 apple planting (4.4 oz and 4.3 oz for 1996 and 1997, respectively). For 1998 and 1999, yield to the nearest 0.1 bushels was converted to pounds by using a conversion factor of 42 lb/bushel. 4 Suckers are a disadvantage because they serve as a source of infestation and must be removed. |
||||
| Table 5. 1999 results NC-140 1994 apple semi-dwarf rootstock planting1. | |||||||||
| Rootstock2 | Cumulative Yield/ Live Tree (lb) | Picks (lb/tree) | Drops (lb/tree) | 1999 Yield (lb/tree) | Fruit Size (oz/fruit) | Mean Pressure of Blush & Off sides (lb) | Percent Soluble Solids | Truck Circum. (in.) | Number of Root Suckers |
| CG.30 | 251 | 123 | 13 | 137 | 4.8 | 20.4 | 13.6 | 9.2 | 23 |
| V.2 | 229 | 101 | 9 | 110 | 4.7 | 19.4 | 13.3 | 8.8 | 8 |
| M.26 EMLA | 212 | 68 | 4 | 73 | 4.2 | 23.4 | 13.9 | 7.7 | 0 |
| B.9 | 121 | 46 | 7 | 53 | 4.0 | 20.0 | 13.2 | 5.7 | 2 |
| CG.11 | 106 | 73 | 7 | 79 | 4.7 | 17.9 | 13.9 | 13.5 | 18 |
| CG.13 | 101 | 73 | 4 | 79 | 5.1 | 19.4 | 14.6 | 14.1 | 20 |
| Mean | 159 | 84 | 9 | 90 | 5.7 | 19.5 | 13.7 | 10.3 | 14 |
| LSD (.05) | 53 | 29 | 7 | 29 | 0.6 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 15 |
| 1 University of Kentucky, Research and Education
Center, Princeton, KY.
2 Arranged by cumulative yield in descending order. There is usually a direct correlation between trunk circumference and yield. |
|||||||||
| Table 6. 1999 results NC-140 1999 apple dwarf and semi-dwarf rootstock planting1. | ||||||
| Rootstock |
Trunk Circumference (in.) |
Trunk Circumference Growth (in.) |
Number of Feathers |
Number of Trees Planted |
Number of Trees Lost3 |
|
|
Mar 99 |
Oct 99 |
|||||
| Dwarfing2 | ||||||
| CG.13 | 3.0 | 3.1 | 0.1 | 16 | 4 | 0 |
| G.16N | 2.0 | 2.2 | 0.2 | 8 | 5 | 1 |
| G.16T | 2.0 | 2.3 | 0.3 | 7 | 6 | 1 |
| CG.41 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 0.3 | 10 | 3 | 1 |
| Sup.1 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 0.2 | 5 | 6 | 0 |
| Sup.3 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 0.2 | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| CG.179 | 1.9 | 2.1 | 0.2 | 8 | 6 | 0 |
| Sup.2 | 1.9 | 2.1 | 0.2 | 4 | 6 | 0 |
| CG.202 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 0.2 | 8 | 5 | 0 |
| M.9 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 0.1 | 2 | 6 | 0 |
| M.26 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 0.2 | 3 | 6 | 0 |
| Mean | 1.9 | 2.1 | 0.2 | 6 | -- | -- |
| LSD (0.05) | 1.6 | 1.6 | 0.2 | 4 | -- | -- |
| Semi-Dwarfing2 | ||||||
| CG.30N | 2.4 | 2.7 | 0.3 | 6 | 2 | 0 |
| Sup.4 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 0.1 | 5 | 6 | 0 |
| M.7 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 0.2 | 4 | 6 | 0 |
| CG.707 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 0.1 | 4 | 5 | 0 |
| CG.814 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 4 | 5 | 0 |
| M.26 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 2 | 6 | 0 |
| Mean | 1.9 | 2.0 | 0.2 | 4 | -- | -- |
| LSD (0.05) | 2.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 4 | -- | -- |
| 1 University of Kentucky, Research and Education
Center, Princeton, KY.
2 Arranged by size of trunk circumference at planting in descending order. 3 These trees never leafed out after planting (1st week in March, 1999). |
||||||
| Table 7. 1999 results NC-140 1990 plum planting1. | |||||||
|
Rootstock2 |
Cumulative Yield/Live Tree (lb) | Picks (lb/tree) | Drops (lb/tree) | 1999 Yield (lb/tree) | Average Fruit Wt (oz) | Number of Root Suckers | Trunk Circumference (in.) |
| Marianna 4001 | 384 | 201 | 8.8 | 209 | 1.4 | 18 | 17.9 |
| Marianna GF-8-1 | 357 | 181 | 11.0 | 191 | 1.5 | 91 | 18.3 |
| Myrobolan 29C | 306 | 154 | 6.6 | 152 | 1.8 | 27 | 18.5 |
| GF 31 | 333 | 146 | 8.8 | 154 | 1.4 | 9 | 15.8 |
| Lovell Sdlg. | 333 | 126 | 6.6 | 134 | 1.7 | 2 | 16.3 |
| St. Julian A | 322 | 130 | 4.4 | 134 | 1.6 | 11 | 15.3 |
| EMLA Pixie | 317 | 137 | 4.4 | 141 | 1.4 | 27 | 16.5 |
| Myrobolan Sdlg. | 340 | 154 | 4.4 | 159 | 1.4 | 53 | 15.7 |
| Brompton | 205 | 77 | 8.8 | 86 | 1.3 | 14 | 11.7 |
| Citation | 159 | 35 | 15.4 | 51 | 1.1 | 2 | 10.0 |
| Mean | 317 | 141 | 8.8 | 148 | 1.5 | 27 | 16.1 |
| LSD (0.05) | 73 | 40 | 4.4 | 40 | 0.3 | 21 | 1.9 |
| 1 University of Kentucky, Research and Education
Center, Princeton, KY.
2 Arranged by cumulative yield in descending order. |
|||||||
| Table 8. 1999 results 1994 NC-140 peach rootstock planting1. | |||||
|
Rootstock2 |
Cumulative Yield/Live Tree (lb) |
1999 Yield (lb/tree) |
Trunk Circumference Spring (in.) |
Average Fruit Wt (oz) |
90% Julian Bloom Date |
| Lovell | 276 | 49 | 16.3 | 8.6 | 95.0 |
| Ta Tao 5 | 234 | 88 | 13.2 | 6.8 | 96.3 |
| CF 305 | 218 | 84 | 15.4 | 8.3 | 94.5 |
| Montclar | 212 | 64 | 15.8 | 7.9 | 95.1 |
| BY 520-9 | 205 | 57 | 15.5 | 8.5 | 94.4 |
| Stark's Redleaf | 203 | 37 | 15.6 | 9.2 | 95.0 |
| Ishtara | 196 | 110 | 11.6 | 5.6 | 93.6 |
| BY 520-8 | 194 | 44 | 15.4 | 8.9 | 95.0 |
| Rubira | 194 | 84 | 15.0 | 7.9 | 95.0 |
| Bailey | 192 | 53 | 13.3 | 8.2 | 94.5 |
| Tenn Natural | 185 | 53 | 13.7 | 8.5 | 94.5 |
| Higama | 172 | 40 | 14.1 | 8.6 | 95.0 |
| Mean | 205 | 64 | 14.6 | 8.1 | 94.8 |
| LSD (.05) | 53 | 40 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| 1 University of Kentucky, Research and Education
Center, Princeton, KY.
2 Arranged by cumulative yield in descending order. |
|||||
Gerald R. Brown and Dwight Wolfe, Department of Horticulture
Early production and optimal fruit size on vigorous sites are obtained when photosynthates are balanced properly between flower bud initiation and vegetative growth. Kentucky growers often have a problem with excessive vegetative growth or vigor, which greatly reduces the production that can be achieved from high density apple plantings. Pruning and training are possibly the most important techniques used by fruit growers to maintain the proper balance between flower bud initiation and vegetative growth. Identification of effective pruning and training techniques for vigorous sites is required for continued expansion of apple production in Kentucky. Both the University of Kentucky College of Agriculture and the Kentucky State Horticultural Society have made a long-term commitment to help meet this need. For this reason, research was initiated to determine training and pruning practices needed to obtain early production and optimal fruit size from trees trained to either the slender spindle or the French axe system on vigorous sites.
One hundred eighty trees of Golden Delicious on M.9 rootstock were set out in May 1997 in a randomized complete block design with eight treatment combinations (five rows with 32 trees/row). Trunk circumference averaged 2.4 in. at planting and did not vary significantly among rootstocks. A trellis was constructed, and trickle irrigation was installed. The trees were trained according to the treatment protocol (Table 1). Tree spacing was 8 ft apart within rows 16 ft 5 in. apart. Soil management was a 6.5 ft herbicide strip with mowed sod alleyways. Trees were fertilized and sprayed according to local recommendations (1, 2). Yield (beginning with 1998 yield), trunk circumference, and maturity indices such as soluble solids and flesh pressure were measured annually.
Trunk circumference, yield, and average weight/fruit did not vary significantly in the analysis of variance (Table 2). All trees are currently alive. Over half the total time spent training the trees was spent during the first five weeks the trees were trained. About two minutes/week was needed to train each tree during the first five weeks, but only 45 seconds/week was needed in the sixth week through the 16th week.
This and other plantings are regularly used as demonstration plots for visiting apple growers, Extension personnel, and research scientists. The research data collected in these trials will help to establish baseline production methods and an economic basis for the various orchard system/rootstock combinations that can be later used by orchardists in Kentucky.
1. G.R. Brown, R.T. Jones, J.G. Strang, L.A. Lester, J.R.Hartman, D.E. Hershman, R.T. Bessin. 1998 Commercial Tree Fruit Spray Guide. University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service, publication ID-98.
2. Midwest Tree Fruit Handbook, University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service, publication ID-93.
| Table 1. UKREC 1997 apple training study pruning/training treatments. | ||||||
| System | Pruning | Amount of 1-Year-old Wood Left after Heading at Planting | Angle1 | Limbs2 | Leader3 | |
| Level | Interval in Wks | |||||
| French Axe | Light | 1 | Not headed | 45 | No | D |
| French Axe | Moderate | 2 | 12-16 in. | 45-60 | Yes | C&D |
| French Axe | Moderate | 1 | 12-16 in. | 45-60 | Yes | D |
| French Axe | Heavy | 1 | 8-12 in. | 60-90 | Yes | D |
| Slender Spindle | Light | 1 | Not headed | 45 | No | A |
| Slender Spindle | Moderate | 2 | 14-20 in. | 45-60 | Yes | B |
| Slender Spindle | Moderate | 1 | 14-20 in. | 45-60 | Yes | B |
| Slender Spindle | Heavy | 1 | 10-14 in. | 60-80 | Yes | C |
| 1 Angle limbs are to be positioned.
2 French Axe--completely remove overly vigorous branches with narrow angles when 3 to 6 inches long. Slender Spindle--completely remove branches that compete with leader. 3 Leader management for 1999: A = weak leader renewal and new leader headed at 12 inches. B = bend leader at 60° angle, alternating direction with every 18 inches of new growth. C = leader bagged 1 month prior to bud break and bag removed at appropriate time. D = leader bent to horizontal, alternating direction after buds break on top side |
||||||
| Table 2. 1999 training results KSHS-1998 apple training planting1. | |||||||||
| Pruning Level2-- Interval in Wks |
Trunk Circumference (in.) |
Yield3/Tree (lb) | Average Fruit Wt (oz) | Minutes/10 trees | Total Time | Minutes/Lb of Fruit | |||
| Cumulative | 1999 | 19974 | 19985 | 19996 | |||||
| Light-1 | 5.2 | 21.2 | 19.8 | 6.2 | 122 | 102 | 182 | 406 | 19.2 |
| Moderate-2 | 5.3 | 24.0 | 22.0 | 6.2 | 96 | 86 | 165 | 347 | 14.5 |
| Moderate-1 | 5.5 | 19.8 | 17.1 | 5.9 | 114 | 111 | 191 | 416 | 21.0 |
| Heavy-1 | 5.2 | 20.9 | 20.5 | 6.1 | 119 | 120 | 216 | 455 | 21.8 |
| Mean | 5.3 | 21.4 | 19.8 | 6.1 | 113 | 103 | 189 | 405 | 18.9 |
| LSD (0.05) | 0.5 | 4.9 | 4.9 | 0.5 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 1 University of Kentucky, Research and Education
Center, Princeton, KY.
2 As described in Table 1. 3 Yield is the sum of picked and dropped fruit. Dropped fruit averaged less than 2.2 lb/tree. 4 For 14 weeks. 5 For 12 weeks. 6 For 16 weeks. |
|||||||||
Dwight Wolfe and Gerald R. Brown, Department of Horticulture
The blueberry is a fruit crop that is native to North America. At present, Kentucky has a small established commercial blueberry market and an excellent potential for local sales, U-pick, and home use.
A blueberry cultivar trial was established in the spring of 1993 at the UK College of Agriculture Research and Education Center in Princeton. The planting consists of eight cultivars spaced 4 ft apart within rows spaced 14 ft apart. The pH was reduced from above 6 to 5.4 with elemental sulfur prior to planting. The planting is mulched yearly with sawdust and is trickle irrigated using 1 gph vortex emitters. The planting is netted during the last week of May and fruit is harvested from the first week of June through the first week of July.
Cumulative yield from 1995 through 1999, the 1999 yield, and average percent fruit ripe by the end of the second and fourth weeks of June are shown in Table 1. Duke and Sierra have produced the most fruit to date. Duke has also been the earliest ripening cultivar in our planting, with 14.3% of Duke's fruit ripening during the first week of June. Sunrise also ripens early, with 7.7% of its fruit ripening during the first week of June. Picking for the other cultivars begins during the second week of June and is pretty well finished for all cultivars by the end of the fourth week of June. An exception would be Nelson, which is picked through the first week of July.
These results should be useful to growers in selecting a blueberry cultivar. Avoiding labor peaks and harvest times conflicting with the production and/or harvest of other crops may have to be weighed against the highest yielding cultivar.
Other factors important to cultivar selection are discussed in other publications (1,2).
1. John Strang, Terry R. Jones, and G.R. Brown. 1989. Growing Highbush Blueberries in Kentucky. University of Kentucky College of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service, publication HO-60.
2. Dwight Wolfe and Gerald R. Brown. 1999. Blueberry
Cultivar Trial. Kentucky Fruit Facts. 1-99:2.
| Table 1. Blueberry cultivar trial results1. | |||||
| Cultivar2 | Yield (lb/bush) | Average Percent Ripe Fruit at End of Week in June | |||
| Cumulative | 1999 | 2nd | 4th | ||
| Duke | 32.4 | 9.3 | 55.1 | 93.7 | |
| Sierra | 28.9 | 7.8 | 32.2 | 90.9 | |
| Bluecrop | 24.7 | 6.7 | 28.7 | 79.1 | |
| Blue Gold | 24.5 | 8.8 | 32.9 | 78.2 | |
| Toro | 23.6 | 6.2 | 27.1 | 76.2 | |
| Nelson | 22.3 | 5.9 | 14.6 | 66.7 | |
| Sunrise | 17.8 | 5.7 | 53.0 | 95.2 | |
| Patriot | 16.2 | 5.4 | 47.4 | 93.8 | |
| LSD (0.05) | 4.2 | 1.9 | 5.4 | 2.4 | |
| 1 The planting was established in April
1993. Plant spacing is 4 feet between bushes in rows 14 feet apart. There
are three bushes/cultivar/rep combination.
2 In descending order of cumulative yield (1995-1999). |
|||||
Terry Jones, Department of Horticulture
Kentucky growers produce an estimated 700 acres of spring cabbage for sale to fresh and slaw markets. Bravo has been the standard cultivar grown for both markets. It has excellent hardiness and disease resistance. It produces a head that is large (4-6 lb), and close plant spacing must be practiced to permit sales to fresh market. Some buyers also complain about poor head density. Buyers would like to be able to buy a dense cabbage from Kentucky 10 to 14 days earlier than our current harvest in order to fill a market window that exists between the end of harvest in Georgia and the onset of Kentucky sales. Seventeen cabbage cultivars were evaluated for spring production at Quicksand in 1999.
Seventeen cabbage cultivars were seeded on 3/28/99 in the greenhouse. They were transplanted to the field on 4/22/99 at Quicksand. The plot consisted of a randomized complete block design with four replications. Each replication was a single row 15 ft long. Plant spacing in row was 12 in., and rows were 36 in. apart. Fifteen plants/replication for each cultivar were used. One cup/plant of a 20-20-20 starter fertilizer was used at transplanting. Soil test results for this site are shown below.
| Table 1. Cabbage trial 1999 fresh market cabbage soil test results*. | ||||||
| pH | Buf pH | P | K | Ca | Mg | Zn |
| 6.7 | 7.2 | 119 | 252 | 5151 | 217 | 9.5 |
| * Soil test results from 1998. | ||||||
On 28 April, six days after transplanting, Devrinol 50 WP (4 lb) was applied over the top of the cabbage plants and irrigated in for weed control. Cabbage was fertilized three times (May 3, May 17, and May 31) by side dressing 50 lb actual N/acre as ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3). This represents a total of 150 lb actual N/acre and is close to what is recommended in Commercial Vegetable Crop Recommendations 1998-99 (ID-36). Plots were sprayed as needed for insect and disease control. Overhead irrigation was used to maintain plant growth and head formation.
The 1999 cabbage growing season was warm and dry throughout. Because of irrigation, plant size and yield were much higher than most commercial growers experienced. Results for the 17 cabbage cultivars are shown in Tables 2 and 3. Sixteen of the 17 cultivars showed no significant difference in head numbers/acre; only Cecile had significantly fewer heads/acre. When total pounds of cabbage/acre was evaluated, Bravo and Fresco produced significantly more pounds of cabbage than the other cultivars. Nine other cultivars that were not different significantly from each other and produced good yields were Histonia, Blue Vantage, Atlantis, Blue Dynasty, Regalia, Bronco, XPH 15701, Ramada, and Morris. Average head weight was significantly higher for Bravo and Fresco. The following cultivars produced good head size and were not significantly different from each other: Blue Dynasty, Blue Vantage, Histona, Atlantis, Morris, Bronco, Regalia, Ramada, and XPH 15701. Comparing head density, the following seven varieties were the most dense and did not differ significantly: Ramada, Dynamo, Azurro, Super Red 80, Cecile, Blue Vantage, and Bronco.
Boxed cabbage requires a count of 14 to 16 heads that weigh slightly more than 50 pounds. The following cultivars fit these requirements: Super Red 80, Cecile, Gideon, Heads Up, and Azurro. Two of these are red cultivars, and the other three are green cultivars. Cecile had plant stand problems (unidentified root rot), and Heads Up had a big core and was slightly loose. It also had wide leaves at the base of the heads that held water. Gideon was still the best box-sized cabbage tested this year. Gideon did not do as well in this year's trial as in past years. Average head size was smaller (3.9 lb vs. 4.1 lb in 1998); yield/acre was also several thousand pounds less. For growers without water, Gideon tended to be smaller than marketable size. Some growers reported more thrips damage on Gideon than on other nearby cultivars.
The three green cabbage cultivars that were among the highest scoring in the first three criteria were Ramada, Blue Vantage, and Bronco. Bronco and Ramada held their heads up off the ground and had narrow wrapper leaf bases, which reduced head decay. Bravo, the industry standard for fresh green cabbage, produced the most lb/acre and had the largest head size (6.8 lb) among all cultivars tested. Bravo, however, has a fairly loose head and is not suitable for boxed cabbage under good growing conditions and 12 inch, in-row spacings. Bronco and Ramada held their heads up off the ground and had narrow wrapper leaf bases which reduced head decay. Bravo, the industry standard for fresh green cabbage, produced the most lb/acre and had the largest head size (6.8 lb) among all cultivars tested. Bravo, however, has a fairly loose head and is not suitable for boxed cabbage under good growing conditions and 12-inch, in-row spacings.
| Table 2. Cabbage yields and quality measurements,
Quicksand, KY. Yield data are means of four replications. |
||||||||||||
| Cultivar | Days to Harv | Head No./acre | Total Wt Lb/Acre | Avg Wt/Hd (lb) | Core Size (in.) | Head Dim. LxW (in.) | Hd Density1 | Head Shape2 | Internal Color3 | Wt Crate 14 Hd (lb) | Plant Size4 | |
| PSI | Rated 1-5 | |||||||||||
| XPH 15701 | 70.0 | 14278 | 62,620 | 4.4 | 3.7 | 6.8 x 6.5 | 21.5 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 61.3 | 2 |
| Blue green cabbage, big core, leaves wide at base, hold water. | ||||||||||||
| Blue Dynasty | 76.5 | 12826 | 66,066 | 5.1 | 3.3 | 7.5 x7.0 | 22.0 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 72.0 | 3 |
| Attractive plant, leaves wide at base. Some heads not very solid. | ||||||||||||
| Morris | 71.0 | 13068 | 61,468 | 4.7 | 3.2 | 6.9 x 6.7 | 22.7 | 5 | 2 | 5 - 2 | 66.0 | 2.5 |
| Blue-green cabbage, wide leaves at base, uneven head size, hot taste. | ||||||||||||
| Super Red 80 | 84.0 | 13068 | 47558 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 6.7 x 6.1 | 27.7 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 51.1 | 2.3 |
| Solid, hard heads, narrow leaves at base, some heads failed to size up. | ||||||||||||
| Blue Vantage | 76.0 | 14036 | 71,816 | 5.1 | 3.8 | 7.6 x 6.9 | 27.2 | 5 | 2 | 1 - 2 | 71.5 | 3 |
| Big core, nice-looking but actually loose inside heads. Leaves wide at base, hold water. | ||||||||||||
| Dynamo | 65.0 | 13068 | 25,952 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 5.5 x 4.9 | 27.9 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 27.8 | 1.3 |
| Nice early home garden cv. type. Blue-green heads. Very uniform. Good taste. | ||||||||||||
| Ramada | 81.0 | 18392 | 64,691 | 4.6 | 3.2 | 6.8 x 6.2 | 28.7 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 63.7 | 2.8 |
| Attractive, and heads hold up well. Leaves narrow at base, solid heads. Some size variability due to crowding. | ||||||||||||
| Cecile | 74.0 | 11132 | 45,012 | 4.0 | 2.9 | 6.7 x 5.3 | 27.6 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 55.5 | 3 |
| Variable plant and head size. Some stunted plants never harvested because of root disease. Leaves wide at base, hold water. | ||||||||||||
| LSD (P=0.05) | 1475 | 12468 | 0.8 | 2.3 | ||||||||
| 1 PSI: pounds/square in. measured with a penetrometer.
Also rated 1-5 with 1= very loose and 5= very hard.
2 Head shape: 1 = flat, 2 = round, 3 = high round. 3 Internal color: 1 = white, 2 = whitish green, 3. = yellowish green, 4 = yellow, 5 = whitish yellow, 6 = red and white. 4 Plant size: 1 = small, 2 = medium, 3 = large. |
||||||||||||
| Table 3. Cabbage yields and quality measurements,
Quicksand, KY. Yield data are means of four replications. |
||||||||||||
| Cultivar | Days to Harv | Head No./acre | Total Wt Lb/Acre | Avg Wt/Hd (lb) | Core Size (in.) | Head Dim. LxW (in.) | Hd Density1 | Head Shape2 | Internal Color3 | Wt Crate 14 Hd (lb) | Plant Size4 | |
| PSI | Rated 1-5 | |||||||||||
| Bravo | 84.0 | 13,794 | 94,380 | 6.9 | 3.7 | 7.2 x 8.0 | 21.0 | 4 | 1 - 2 | 1 | 95.8 | 3 |
| Healthy plants. Fairly big core. Leaves wide at base Blue-green heads not very solid. | ||||||||||||
| Fresco | 82.0 | 14,278 | 94,380 | 6.6 | 3.9 | 8.4 x 7.6 | 20.4 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 92.7 | 3 |
| Brownish-watery core when cut. Did not taste good. Leaves wide at base and hold water, some trimming necessary. | ||||||||||||
| Atlantis | 74.0 | 13,310 | 66,676 | 5.0 | 2.9 | 7.4 x 6.6 | 21.7 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 70.4 | 2 |
| Some uneven plant and head sizes. Leaves narrow at base. Some sunburn on heads. | ||||||||||||
| Gideon | 76.0 | 13,310 | 51,672 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 7.1 x 5.9 | 24.2 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 54.3 | 2.6 |
| Wavy leaf margins. Narrow leaves at base, head held up off ground well. Very solid heads. | ||||||||||||
| Histona | 71.0 | 14,278 | 72,416 | 5.1 | 3.3 | 7.5 x 7.0 | 23.6 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 71.0 | 3 |
| Blue-green cabbage with wide leaves at base. Uneven head size, big core. Good taste. | ||||||||||||
| Heads Up | 64.5 | 14,036 | 56,686 | 4.0 | 4.2 | 7.3 x 6.9 | 21.9 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 56.5 | 2.4 |
| Big core for size. Somewhat loose with air space in heads, leaves wide at base. | ||||||||||||
| Regalia | 70.0 | 14,278 | 65,398 | 4.6 | 3.4 | 7.4 x 6.7 | 16.9 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 64.1 | 2 |
| Wide leaves at base hold water. Not very solid. | ||||||||||||
| Bronco | 75.0 | 13,794 | 63,704 | 4.6 | 3.4 | 7.4 x 6.7 | 25.8 | 5 | 3 | 2 - 5 | 64.6 | 3 |
| Heads up off ground, leaves narrow at base, very solid, some uneven plant size. Crowded. Nice heads! | ||||||||||||
| Azurro | 77.0 | 12,826 | 51,672 | 4.0 | 3.4 | 6.8 x 6.2 | 27.9 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 56.3 | 2.6 |
| Nice plant, heads up off ground, leaves narrow at base, Heads larger on ends of plots. Did not like chewy taste. | ||||||||||||
| LSD (P=0.05) | 1,475 | 12,468.0 | 0.8 | 2.3 | ||||||||
| 1 PSI: pounds/square in. measured with a penetrometer.
Also rated 1-5 with 1= very loose and 5= very hard.
2 Head shape: 1=flat, 2=round, 3=high round. 3 Internal color: 1=white, 2=whitish green, 3=yellowish green, 4=yellow, 5=whitish yellow, 6=red and white. 4 Plant size: 1=small, 2=medium, 3=large. |
||||||||||||
John Strang, Kay Oakley, Dave Lowry, Darrell Slone, and John Snyder, Department of Horticulture; Angelika Parham, Louie Hodge, and Young Wilbur, Bud's Produce, Elizabethtown, KY
`Bravo' has been the standard cabbage variety grown in Kentucky for both fresh and processing markets for many years. This variety has very good disease resistance and has been a dependable producer in difficult seasons such as we experienced in 1999. A market window exists for Kentucky cabbage, which is 10 to 14 days earlier than `Bravo.' Consequently, this study was initiated to evaluate a number of the newer cabbage varieties at the University of Kentucky South Farm in Lexington.
Seventeen cabbage cultivars were planted on March 28 in the greenhouse. Transplants were set on May 4 in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Plots were 15 ft long, and plants were set in double rows with plants spaced 13 in. apart in the row and 15 in. between rows on 4 ft centers. There were 30 plants/plot. A 20-20-20 starter solution was used at transplanting. Preplant fertilizer consisted of 140 lb of actual N, P, and K/acre as 19-19-19. Plants were fertigated with 99 lb of actual N as ammonium nitrate on June 18. Dual Magnum at 2 pts/acre was applied on May 3 for weed control. Pounce, Sevin, Asana, and Dipel were used for insect control, while Bravo, fixed copper, and Dithane M45 were used for disease control. The plot was trickle irrigated based on soil tensiometer readings. Ten ft of row were harvested in each plot on June 29 and on July 2, 6, 8, 12, 15, and 19. Five heads of each cultivar were taken to Bud's Produce in Elizabethtown on June 28 and evaluated for slaw acceptability and shelf life.
The season was hot and dry, particularly toward the end of harvesting. The top earliest maturing fresh market cultivars (57 to 70 days after transplanting) were Ramada, Fresco, Atlantis, and Blue Vantage. Although Ramada is listed in catalogues as being a later-maturing variety, it matured relatively early in these trials. The top later-maturing fresh market cultivars (70 or more days after transplanting) were Bravo, Bronco, Cecile, and Blue Dynasty. Ramada, Blue Dynasty, and Atlantis should be spaced slightly farther apart in the row to increase head size.
From a processing standpoint, the best early slaw varieties were Heads Up and Ramada. Blue Vantage was the best in last year's trials but did not hold up well this year after processing. The best later-maturing slaw variety was Cecile. All of these were judged to be exceptionally good at holding up after processing, as slaw made from them stored for 18 days, fully a week longer than the normal expected shelf life.
The red cabbage cultivar Super Red 80 performed slightly better than Azurro.
| Table 1. Cabbage yield and head characteristics,
Lexington, KY. Yield data are means of four replications. |
|||||||||
| Cultivar | Seed Source | Days to Harvest |
Total Yield (lb/acre) |
No. Heads /Acre |
Head Wt (lb)Z |
Core Length (in)y | Head Size L x W (in)y | Head Density (psi)x | Head Density (1-5)yw |
| Bravo | H | 73 | 81,757 | 19,602 | 4.2 | 2.9 | 17.5 x 23.4 | 15.8 | 2.6 |
| Fresco | SW, BZ | 60-70 | 69,097 | 18,241 | 3.8 | 3.0 | 20.4 x 21.5 | 14.8 | 2.6 |
| Bronco | SW, BZ | 70 | 62,699 | 18,513 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 19.1 x 19.4 | 21.3 | 3.4 |
| Cecile | SW, BE | 70 | 61,338 | 18,241 | 3.4 | 2.4 | 18.9 x 19.0 | 22.7 | 3.4 |
| Histonia | SW,BZ | 57-60 | 60,984 | 19,058 | 3.2 | 2.2 | 18.9 x 19.9 | 15.6 | 2.3 |
| Heads Up | H | 57-60 | 58,942 | 19,058 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 18.8 x 19.6 | 18.3 | 3.6 |
| Blue Vantage | ST | 60 | 58,534 | 18,241 | 3.2 | 2.3 | 19.1 x 19.4 | 20.2 | 2.4 |
| XPH15701 | AS,PS | 57-60 | 57,663 | 17,969 | 3.2 | 2.5 | 18.1 x 19.6 | 16.8 | 3.4 |
| Ramada | SW,BZ | 64-70 | 57,036 | 19,602 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 17.6 x 19.1 | 23.8 | 3.5 |
| Blue Dynasty | AS,PS | 70-73 | 56,265 | 19,239 | 2.9 | 2.7 | 17.7 x 18.8 | 19.6 | 2.7 |
| Regalia | ST | 57 | 54,995 | 18,785 | 2.9 | 2.3 | 19.0 x 17.9 | 14.6 | 3.9 |
| Atlantis | ST | 57-60 | 54,042 | 19,330 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 18.4 x 18.0 | 18.0 | 3.6 |
| Morris | SW,BZ | 57-60 | 53,906 | 19,330 | 2.8 | 2.1 | 17.8 x 18.6 | 17.8 | 3.5 |
| Gideon | SW,BZ | 70 | 51,183 | 17,969 | 2.8 | 3.3 | 18.0 x 18.4 | 22.4 | 3.6 |
| Super Red 80 | LI | 70 | 50,530 | 19,058 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 16.1 x 16.3 | 23.1 | 3.9 |
| Azurro | SW,BZ | 70 | 43,016 | 18,513 | 2.3 | 3.6 | 16.5 x 17.9 | 23.7 | 2.1 |
| Dynamo | H | 57 | 27,524 | 19,058 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 14.9 x 14.2 | 23.5 | 4.5 |
| Waller-Duncan | |||||||||
| LSD (P = 0.05) | 7,225 | ns | 0.5 | 1.1 | 3.1 | 0.8 | |||
| z Based on 12 heads..
y Based on 12 heads. x psi = pounds/square inch. Measured with a penetrometer (5/16 in. diam. head); avg for 12 heads. w Rated as 1 = very loose to 5 = very hard. |
|||||||||
|
Table 2. Cabbage head characteristics and fresh market quality, Lexington, KY. |
||||||||
|
Cultivar |
Head Shape (1-3)z | Internal Color (1-4)y | Head Cracking (1-5)x | Wrapper Leaf Coverage (1-5)w | Leaf Drainage (1-5)v | Number of Off Type, Soft Head, or No Head | Wt of 16 Heads (lb) | Fresh Market Quality (1-5)u |
| Bravo | 1 | 3 | 1.0 | 4.3 | 2.8 | 0.00 | 67 | 4.5 |
| Fresco | 2 | 3 | 1.3 | 2.8 | 3.6 | 0.00 | 61 | 3.8 |
| Bron | 2 | 3 | 1.0 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 0.00 | 54 | 5.0 |
| Cecile | 2 | 3 | 1.0 | 3.6 | 3.3 | 0.50 | 54 | 3.8 |
| Histonia | 2 | 3 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 0.25 | 51 | 2.3 |
| Heads Up | 2 | 3 | 4.8 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 0.00 | 50 | 2.0 |
| Blue Vantage | 2 | 3 | 1.0 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 0.75 | 51 | 4.5 |
| XPH15701 | 2 | 3 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 0.25 | 51 | 3.3 |
| Ramada | 2 | 2 | 1.0 | 4.4 | 3.5 | 0.50 | 46 | 4.5 |
| Blue Dynasty | 2 | 3 | 1.6 | 4.4 | 3.6 | 0.25 | 46 | 4.5 |
| Regalia | 2 | 3 | 4.8 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 0.00 | 46 | 2.0 |
| Atlantis | 2 | 3 | 1.5 | 2.8 | 3.3 | 0.25 | 45 | 3.8 |
| Morris | 2 | 3 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 0.00 | 45 | 2.8 |
| Gideon | 2 | 3 | 1.0 | 4.6 | 4.5 | 0.75 | 45 | 4.8 |
| Super Red 80 | 2 | 5 | 1.0 | 4.3 | 3.9 | 0.25 | 43 | 4.0 |
| Azurro | 1 | 5 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 2.8 | 0.75 | 37 | 4.3 |
| Dynamo | 2 | 3 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 0.00 | 22 | 2.0 |
| Waller-Duncan | ||||||||
| LSD (P-0.05) | 0 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 0.5 | |||
