EFFECTS ON TOMATO YIELD AND QUALITY BY AMENDMENTS
CONTAINING AMINO ACIDS AND CARBOHYDRATES
William Terry Kelley
Extension Horticulturist
University of Georgia
P.O. Box 1209
Tifton, GA 31793 wtkelley@uga.edu
Introduction
Tomatoes are produced on over 6,600 acres in Georgia and in 2004 were the second leading vegetable commodity by value in the state with a farm gate total of over
$102 million. Horizon Ag Products and Helena Chemical Company have a new product with potential to increase tomato yield. QHP is a mixture of amino acids, organic acids and carbohydrates. This material was tested at different application frequencies to determine its effect on yield and quality of tomato.
Methods
Tomato plants (variety “Monica”, Sakata Seed Co.) were produced in a greenhouse by a commercial transplant grower. Plots were established at the Coastal
Plain Experiment Station Tifton Vegetable Park (elev. 382 feet) in Tifton, GA. Plot land was deep turned and disced in the Spring. Methyl bromide was applied (134 lb. a.i./acre) when black plastic mulch and drip tape were installed in the Spring. Cantaloupe had been the Spring crop in this area. The previous crop was destroyed by injecting metam sodium through the drip lines and over spraying with glyphosate.
Tomatoes were transplanted on September 1, 2005 into a Tifton sandy loam (fineloamy siliceous thermic Plinthic Kandiudults) soil. Plots consisted of a single row of tomatoes planted on raised beds that were spaced six feet apart (from center to center). Inrow spacing was 24 inches per plant. Plots were each 24 feet long and were replicated four times. The experiment was arranged in a Randomized Complete Block Design.
QHP was injected in all treated plots beginning at first flower. The treatments consisted of 1) an untreated check; 2) injection every week beginning at first flower: 2) injection every two weeks beginning at first flower; and 3) injection every three weeks beginning at first flower. The initial injection on all treatments was made on October 11,
2005. The subsequent injections followed the protocol. Due to the late planting and early cool weather, tomatoes did not ripen. However, there were significant fruit set and all tomatoes were stripped from the vines on December 21, 2005. Weights and numbers of fruit were recorded. Data was analyzed using the Statistical Analysis System and means separated using Least Significant Difference.
Results and Discussion
Results are presented in Table 1. There were no significant differences for any of
-35-

the measured parameters in the test except fruit size. There seemed to be some tendency for tomatoes treated one weekly to yield greater than those treated less frequently.
However, the ones treated less frequently in raw numbers were lower than the untreated check and since the differences were not significant, there can be little concluded from the data that was salvaged from this trial. A repetition of this test under Spring conditions would likely yield more discerning results.
-36-

Table 1.
Treatment
Untreated
Once/week
Yield by size, total yield, total fruit number, estimated total yield by fruit count and average fruit weight of tomatoes treated with HM 0506 every week, every two weeks and every three weeks beginning at first flower at
Tifton, Georgia in 2005.
Large
Yield (25# cartons)/Acre
Medium Small Total
Total Fruit
Number
Estimated
Yield by Fruit
Number
Average
Fruit Weight
(g)
Once/2 weeks
Once/3 weeks
Mean of Test
L.S.D. (0.1)
50.8 a
74.1 a
75.5 a
53.0 a
63.3
78.4
361.5 a
363.7 a
273.0 a
206.9 a
301.3
233.6
371.7 a
352 .1 a
275.1 a
290.8 a
323.2
295.0
784.1 a
789.9 a
626.5 a
550.8 a
687.8
560.9
67,881 a
70,059 a
51,909 a
48,462 a
59,633
48,633
1357.6 a
1401.2 a
1038.2 a
972.8 a
1192.5
972.7
130.3 ab
122.8 b
138.4 a
129.9 ab
130.4
13.6
C.V. (%) 77.4
48.5
57.1
51.0
Plots consisted of a single row and 12 plants per row spaced 24 inches apart.
51.0
51.0
6.5
-37-