$3.00
NC State
Cucumber
Trials
Summary
2001
Todd C. Wehner
Professor
Tammy L. Ellington
Agric. Res. Tech. III
Department of Horticultural Science
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of
Jimmy Prince and the personnel at the Horticultural
Crops Research Station, Clinton, NC for help in planting
2
maintaining, and harvesting the trials, and to Marie Hall
for assembling this report.
1/2/04
3
About This Report
The data contained in this publication are made available to interested persons so
that they will be informed as to the nature and scope of our cucumber breeding
program. Since the results of the trials are based on one year's data, they
should be interpreted cautiously. Genotype x environment interactions make it
likely that the performance of any given cultigen (cultivar or breeding line) will
be significantly different in other trials. Often, cultigens that perform well
for yield, earliness, fruit quality, or disease resistance in one trial will
perform significantly worse in other trials.
Other factors, known only to the researchers, may complicate the interpretation of
the results, making it difficult for others to interpret differences from one year
to the next. For example, the effect of seed lot, pollenizer, harvest labor,
irrigation, fertilizer, pollinating insects and weather patterns may cause some
test plots in the field to receive better or worse treatment than average.
Therefore, we urge caution in interpreting these data. Conclusions drawn by the
reader will be more accurate if they are of a general nature. For example, note
which cultigens performed in the top third for yield, rather than which one was at
the very top.
Pricing schemes
Value of production figures were obtained by assigning the following prices
for the marketable grades:
Spring
Summer
Grade
$/cwt
$/cwt
No.1 (< 1 1/16")
$18.30
$18.30
No.2 (1 1/16 - 1 1/2")
9.55
9.55
No.3 (1 1/2 - 2")
6.45
6.45
No.4 (> 2")
0.00
0.00
The
the
are
for
pricing system is the one currently in use in North Carolina (averaged over
spring and summer crops) and is revised annually. The same pricing systems
applied to all production in a particular year even though commercial prices
summer production are usually higher than for spring production.
Yield is presented in cwt/A to make it easy to convert to other useful values.
For example, approximation of bu/A can be obtained by taking cwt/A x2, MT/ha
by taking cwt/A x 1/10, and t/A by taking cwt/A x 1/20.
Progression of breeding lines through trials:
Stage 1 trial
Stage 2 trial
Stage 3 trial
Stage 4 trial
2 replications --> 1 replication --> 3 replications --> 3 replications
1 harvest
6 harvests
6 harvests
6 harvests
spring season
summer season
________________________
The cost of planning these trials, doing the field work, running the data
analysis, and summarizing the results for this report was approximately $48,000
for the brinestock, pickling and slicing cucumber trials. Printing and binding
charges were approximately $3.00 per report.
Please direct correspondence to:
Todd C. Wehner, Professor
Department of Horticultural Science
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Phone: 919.515.5363
Fax:
919.515.2505
EMail: todd_wehner@ncsu.edu
Web:
http://cuke.hort.ncsu.edu/
Not for publication
4
Contents
Trial
Page
_________________________________________________________________________________
Pickling Cucumber Trials
Brinestock Evaluation..............................................4
Stage 1 Pickling Cucumber Trial (Preliminary).....................10
Stage 2 Pickling Cucumber Trial (Observational)...................10
Stage 3 Pickling Cucumber Trial (Replicated Spring)...............10
Stage 4 Pickling Cucumber Trial (Replicated Summer)...............21
Slicing Cucumber Trials
Stage 1 Slicing Cucumber Trial (Preliminary)......................29
Stage 2 Slicing Cucumber Trial (Observational)....................29
Stage 3 Slicing Cucumber Trial (Replicated Spring)................29
Stage 4 Slicing Cucumber Trial (Replicated Summer)................38
_________________________________________________________________________________
1/2/04
5
Pickling Cucumbers
Brinestock Evaluation - 2001
Spring (Stage 3) Pickle Trial
Todd C. Wehner and Tammy L. Ellingtonz
Department of Horticultural Science
North Carolina State University
Introduction
Cucumbers from harvests 2, 4, and 6 of the stage 3 spring pickling cucumber
trial were each placed in one brine tank at Mt. Olive Pickle Co. The tanks
were purged with nitrogen to remove excess carbon dioxide from the brine.
Methods
The cultigens (cultivars and breeding lines) were evaluated for fruit quality
(shape, external color, texture, seedcell size, and lot uniformity), firmness,
bloaters, and other defects in October. Quality was evaluated by judges from
industry: Phil Denlinger, Sonny Coghill, Lawrence Crocker, Bob Quinn, and
Janet Turner (Mt. Olive), Eddie Quill, Darrel Hawley, Rachel Huerta, and Carlos
Gurrala (Dean Foods), Curtiss and John Cates (Addis Cates Co.), Mike Cain
(Sunseeds), and Bill Rankin (Harris Moran).
Fruit quality was evaluated using a rating system (that approximated letter
grades) from 1 to 9, where 9 = A+, 8 = A, 7 = A-, 6 = B+, 5 = B, 4 = B-, 3 = C,
2 = D, 1 = F. Bloaters and defects were measured as percentage of fruits with
damage in a sample of 20 grade 3B fruits. Firmness was measured by punching 10
grade 2B fruits with a Magness-Taylor tester (having a 5/16" diameter tip). All
cultigens were randomized, replicated and coded to prevent bias and provide a
measure of error variance.
Results
The cultigens are presented in order by decreasing fruit quality in Table 1, and
are ranked for resistance to bloaters and defects in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
Fruit texture and firmness rankings are in Table 4. The average quality ratings
assigned by each judge in the test are presented in Table 5, showing how lenient
each judge was relative to the others. Due to insufficient replication, the
bloater data showed few significant differences among cultigens.
Summary
- The cultigens with best fruit quality in brinestock were Calypso, Vlaspik,
Colt, Napoleon, and Cross Country.
- The most bloater resistant cultigens were Calypso, Patton, Cross Country,
Premio, and Johnston.
- As usual, brinestock firmness (from the punch test) was only partially
correlated with texture (subjective rating from the judges), so the two
traits are measurements of different aspects of cucumber fruit firmness.
- Judges ranged from Gurrola, who was the most liberal in quality ratings to
Curtiss Cates, who was the most conservative. Analysis of variance indicated
significant differences among judges for the way they rated fruit quality.
However, interaction of judge with cultigen was non-significant (all judges
gave good cultigens high ratings, and bad cultigens low ratings).
________________________
z Thanks to Mt. Olive Pickle Co., Mt. Olive, N.C. for assistance in brining the
cucumbers, and for providing the facilities for evaluating the cultigens tested.
Thanks also to the personnel at the Horticultural Crops Research Station,
Clinton, N.C. for help in running the field trials.
Not for publication
6
Table 1. Brinestock evaluation - quality ratings (cultigens are ranked by
average quality).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar
Seed
Average
Extrnal Text- Seed UniformRank
or line
source
quality Shape color
ure cell
ity
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Calypso
NCState Univ
6.2
6.3
5.9
6.1
6.3
6.6
2 Vlaspik
Seminis
6.2
5.9
6.8
5.7
6.0
6.7
3 Colt
Seminis
6.1
6.1
6.5
5.4
6.1
6.3
4 Napoleon(3502)
SunSeeds
5.9
6.2
6.6
5.2
5.4
6.3
5 CrossCountry4318 Harris Moran
5.9
5.6
6.1
5.9
6.1
6.0
6 HMX-0469
Harris Moran
5.9
5.7
5.4
5.5
6.1
6.6
7 Arabian
Seminis
5.8
6.0
6.8
4.8
5.2
6.5
8 Jackson(3540)
SunSeeds
5.8
5.8
6.8
5.2
5.2
6.1
9 Royal
Harris Moran
5.8
5.7
6.3
5.6
5.0
6.3
10 WI6856Ax6760B
Wis-USDA
5.7
6.1
5.8
5.2
5.2
6.4
11 HMX-0468
Harris Moran
5.7
5.1
6.6
5.4
5.1
6.3
12 Johnston
NCState Univ
5.7
5.6
6.4
5.4
4.9
6.1
13 Premio
Sakata
5.7
5.8
5.2
5.5
5.6
6.2
14 Raleigh
NCState Univ
5.7
5.9
6.2
5.2
4.7
6.3
15 Vlasstar(10489)
Seminis
5.6
5.6
6.2
5.1
5.3
5.9
16 Patton (3528)
SunSeeds
5.5
5.4
6.1
5.0
5.5
5.7
17 Palomino(1911)
Seminis
5.4
5.3
6.3
4.9
5.1
5.6
18 SRQP-2861
SunSeeds
5.4
5.5
6.2
4.7
4.9
5.8
19 Manteo
NCState Univ
5.4
5.1
6.2
4.9
4.8
6.0
20 Macarthur
SunSeeds
5.3
4.8
6.2
4.9
4.9
5.9
21 Wis.SMR 18
Univ. Wis.
5.3
5.5
4.3
5.3
5.1
6.1
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.5
Mean
5.7
5.7
6.1
5.2
5.4
6.1
CV (%)
15.8
22.7
15.7 25.4 27.3 18.6
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Quality rated 1 to 9 (9=A+, 8=A, 7=A-, 6=B+, 5=B, 4=B-, 3=C, 2=D, 1=F).
Correlation (Shape with Uniformity) = 0.59**
Correlation (Texture with Seedcell) = 0.92**
1/2/04
7
Table 2. Brinestock evaluation - percentage of fruit damaged by bloaters
(cultigens are ranked by balloon bloater resistance).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar
Seed
Total
HoneyRank
or line
source
bloaters
Balloon
Lens
comb
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
Calypso
NCState Univ
4
2
2
0
2
Patton (3528)
SunSeeds
5
3
1
1
3
CrossCountry4318
Harris Moran
6
3
3
1
4
Premio
Sakata
7
3
2
2
5
Johnston
NCState Univ
4
4
0
0
6
Royal
Harris Moran
6
4
1
1
7
Raleigh
NCState Univ
8
5
2
1
8
Vlaspik
Seminis
8
6
3
0
9
Wis.SMR 18
Univ. Wis.
7
6
0
1
10
Manteo
NCState Univ
10
6
3
1
11
Colt
Seminis
11
7
3
2
12
HMX-0469
Harris Moran
12
7
4
2
13
WI6856Ax6760B
Wis-USDA
9
7
2
0
14
Vlasstar(10489)
Seminis
8
8
0
0
15
HMX-0468
Harris Moran
15
8
3
4
16
Jackson(3540)
SunSeeds
13
9
3
1
17
Macarthur
SunSeeds
15
9
4
2
18
Napoleon(3502)
SunSeeds
12
10
2
0
19
Palomino(1911)
Seminis
17
11
4
2
20
SRQP-2861
SunSeeds
15
14
1
0
21
Arabian
Seminis
21
14
4
3
________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
10
8
4
2
Mean
10
7
2
1
CV (%)
62
69
111
143
________________________________________________________________________________
Not for publication
8
Table 3. Brinestock evaluation - percentage of fruit damaged by defects
(cultigens are ranked by resistance to defects).
_________________________________________________________________________________
BlossomCultivar
Seed
Total Placental
end
Soft
Rank
or line
source
defects hollows defects centers
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
CrossCountry4318
Harris Moran
1
1
0
0
2
Colt
Seminis
1
1
0
0
3
Calypso
NCState Univ
3
0
1
2
4
Jackson(3540)
SunSeeds
3
0
1
2
5
HMX-0468
Harris Moran
3
1
1
1
6
Patton (3528)
SunSeeds
3
1
2
1
7
Napoleon(3502)
SunSeeds
3
0
1
2
8
Wis.SMR 18
Univ. Wis.
4
4
0
0
9
Royal
Harris Moran
4
0
0
4
10
Vlaspik
Seminis
4
2
1
1
11
HMX-0469
Harris Moran
4
3
1
0
12
Macarthur
SunSeeds
4
1
1
2
13
Palomino(1911)
Seminis
5
2
1
2
14
Arabian
Seminis
5
5
0
0
15
Manteo
NCState Univ
6
3
0
3
16
Premio
Sakata
8
1
1
5
17
Johnston
NCState Univ
8
2
1
5
18
WI6856Ax6760B
Wis-USDA
8
2
0
6
19
Raleigh
NCState Univ
8
2
3
3
20
SRQP-2861
SunSeeds
9
1
3
5
21
Vlasstar(10489)
Seminis
10
1
2
7
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
5
3
3
4
Mean
5
2
1
17
CV (%)
64
130
183
7
_________________________________________________________________________________
1/2/04
9
Table 4. Brinestock evaluation - firmness and texture of fruit, and resistance
to bloaters and defects (cultigens are ranked by firmness).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
FirmTotal
Cultivar
Seed
ness Text- bloaters Total
BalRank
or line
source
(lb.) ure & defects bloaters loon Defects
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Palomino(1911)
Seminis
19.5
4.9
21
17
11
5
2 Calypso
NCState Univ 19.0
6.1
7
4
2
3
3 Johnston
NCState Univ 18.6
5.4
12
4
4
8
4 Vlaspik
Seminis
18.3
5.7
12
8
6
4
5 HMX-0469
Harris Moran 17.9
5.5
16
12
7
4
6 Colt
Seminis
17.9
5.4
13
11
7
1
7 Premio
Sakata
17.8
5.5
14
7
3
8
8 Wis.SMR 18
Univ. Wis.
17.7
5.3
11
7
6
4
9 Vlasstar(10489)
Seminis
17.4
5.1
18
8
8
10
10 CrossCountry4318 Harris Moran 17.2
5.9
7
6
3
1
11 Royal
Harris Moran 17.1
5.6
10
6
4
4
12 WI6856Ax6760B
Wis-USDA
17.1
5.2
17
9
7
8
13 Raleigh
NCState Univ 17.0
5.2
16
8
5
8
14 HMX-0468
Harris Moran 16.5
5.4
18
15
8
3
15 Patton (3528)
SunSeeds
16.5
5.0
8
5
3
3
16 Arabian
Seminis
16.4
4.8
26
21
14
5
17 Macarthur
SunSeeds
16.0
4.9
19
15
9
4
18 Manteo
NCState Univ 15.6
4.9
16
10
6
6
19 Jackson(3540)
SunSeeds
15.5
5.2
16
13
9
3
20 Napoleon(3502)
SunSeeds
14.5
5.2
15
12
10
3
21 SRQP-2861
SunSeeds
14.4
4.7
24
15
14
9
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
2.0
11
10
8
5
Mean
17.0
15
10
7
5
CV (%)
7.3
43
62
69
64
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Firmness determined by punch-testing (Magness-Taylor) 10 grade 2B fruits.
Correlation of Texture with: Firmness = -0.35**, Balloon = -0.84**
Correlation of Texture with: Honeycomb = -0.49**, Soft centers = -0.33**
Not for publication
10
Table 5. Brinestock evaluation - quality ratings assigned by the judges
(judges are ranked by leniency).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Average
External
Seed
UniformRank
Judge
quality
Shape
color Texture
cell
ity
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
Gurrola
6.7
6.8
7.1
6.8
6.2
6.7
2
Denlinger
6.4
6.1
6.7
6.3
6.0
6.9
3
Crocker
6.3
5.9
6.6
5.3
6.6
7.0
4
Turner
6.2
5.6
5.7
6.5
6.3
6.7
5
Rankin
6.0
5.7
5.9
6.2
6.1
6.3
6
Huerta
5.8
6.3
7.1
4.9
5.5
5.3
7
Coghill
5.8
5.9
6.3
5.4
5.5
5.7
8
Quill
5.7
6.2
6.3
4.9
4.9
6.3
9
Quinn
5.3
4.9
5.5
4.9
4.3
7.2
10
Cain
5.3
5.4
6.0
4.7
4.5
5.9
11
Hawley
5.2
5.5
6.0
4.4
4.4
5.5
12
Cates,J
4.9
4.2
5.3
4.1
5.3
5.5
13
Cates,C
4.8
5.3
5.2
4.3
4.1
5.1
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Quality rated 1 to 9 (9=A+, 8=A, 7=A-, 6=B+, 5=B, 4=B-, 3=C, 2=D, 1=F).
1/2/04
11
Preliminary (Stage 1) Pickling Cucumber Trial
2001
The stage 1 pickle trial was not run this year.
Observational (Stage 2) Pickling Cucumber Trial
2001
The stage 2 pickle trial was not run this year.
Spring (Stage 3) Pickling Cucumber Trial
2001
Todd C. Wehner and Tammy L. Ellington
Experiment Design
1.
A randomized complete block with 3 replications of pickle cultivars
and breeding lines (collectively referred to as cultigens) was grown.
2.
Plots were single 20 ft. rows with 5 ft. alleys at each end.
3.
Rows were on raised 18" beds spaced 60" apart (center to center).
4.
Fertilizer consisted of 80-80-80 lb/A (N-P-K) broadcast preplant and
30-0-0 lb/A (N-P-K) sideplaced at the 2 to 4 leaf stage.
5.
Curbit was applied preemergence at the rate of 1 lb. a.i./A.
6.
The trial was planted 21 May, and harvested 6 times
(Mondays and Thursdays) between 5 and 23 July.
Data Collection
1.
Firmness was measured on 3 Grade 3 fruits using a Magness-Taylor tester
with a 5/16" tip.
2.
Length/Diameter ratio was calculated by measuring 5 Grade 2 fruits.
3.
Quality ratings were from 1 to 9, with 1 = worst, 9 = best.
4.
Disease ratings were from 0 to 9, with 0 = no disease, 1-2 = trace,
3-4 = slight, 5-6 = moderate, 7-8 = severe, 9 = plant dead.
Results
The following cultigens performed well, and could be advanced
to the next stage:
1
2
3
4
5
6
Napoleon(3502)
Vlaspik
Jackson(3540)
Colt
HMX-0469
Vlasstar(10489)
SunSeeds
Seminis
SunSeeds
Seminis
Harris Moran
Seminis
Not for publication
12
Table 6. Stage 3 spring pickle trial - yield data (cultigens are ranked
by fruit value).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Fruit grade distribution Plants
Cultivar
Seed
Value Weight
(% by weight)
per A
Rank
or line
source
($)
(cwt) Cull No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 (x1000)
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Napoleon(3502)
SunSeeds
2023
297
13
9
25
43
9
22
2 Vlaspik
Seminis
2009
249
17
16
37
27
4
19
3 Jackson(3540)
SunSeeds
1894
278
16
8
29
38
8
22
4 WI6856Ax6760B
Wis-USDA
1826
293
14
7
29
35
14
20
5 Arabian
Seminis
1778
291
17
7
25
41
11
22
6 Vlasstar(10489)
Seminis
1750
275
14
7
26
42
12
22
7 Colt
Seminis
1718
236
16
11
25
44
4
22
8 Royal
Harris Moran 1712
222
16
12
36
31
4
22
9 SRQP-2861
SunSeeds
1708
265
23
8
29
33
7
19
10 HMX-0469
Harris Moran 1704
225
14
14
34
30
8
22
11 HMX-0468
Harris Moran 1678
238
19
9
35
32
5
20
12 Palomino(1911)
Seminis
1656
280
26
8
23
37
6
22
13 Raleigh
NCState Univ 1651
259
17
7
28
38
9
20
14 Calypso
NCState Univ 1621
268
18
8
26
36
12
22
15 Patton (3528)
SunSeeds
1616
258
15
7
26
42
10
22
16 Johnston
NCState Univ 1604
235
23
10
31
33
4
22
17 Macarthur
SunSeeds
1603
275
22
6
24
37
11
22
18 CrossCountry4318 Harris Moran 1543
236
17
9
31
33
9
22
19 Premio
Sakata
1369
249
19
7
25
32
17
22
20 Manteo
NCState Univ
980
147
26
10
32
27
5
21
21 Wis.SMR 18
Univ. Wis.
872
232
19
4
15
27
35
22
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
531
98
6
4
10
11
9
3
Mean
1634
253
18
9
28
35
10
21
CV (%)
20
24
21
29
21
19
55
8
_________________________________________________________________________________
Correlation (Fruit value with fruit weight) = 0.85**
1/2/04
13
Table 7. Stage 3 spring pickle trial - earliness data (cultigens are ranked
by fruit value in harvests 1 and 2).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cumulative fruit value and % of
total valuez (6 harvests) for harvest:
Cultivar
Seed
1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5_
Rank
or line
source
$/A %
$/A %
$/A %
$/A %
$/A %
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Napoleon(3502)
SunSeeds
529 25
864 42 1153 56 1483 73 1748 86
2 Vlaspik
Seminis
424 21
835 41 1208 60 1575 78 1744 87
3 Macarthur
SunSeeds
507 30
834 52 1081 67 1271 79 1406 87
4 Arabian
Seminis
563 30
828 46 1120 62 1319 75 1554 87
5 HMX-0469
Harris Moran
383 22
807 48 1104 65 1320 77 1521 89
6 Colt
Seminis
500 29
780 45 1050 61 1262 73 1473 86
7 Raleigh
NCState Univ
449 26
768 46 1020 61 1236 74 1433 87
8 Palomino(1911)
Seminis
492 28
760 44 1080 64 1290 77 1395 84
9 Calypso
NCState Univ
426 24
734 44
979 60 1229 77 1350 84
10 Jackson(3540)
SunSeeds
441 23
733 38 1072 57 1377 73 1589 83
11 Vlasstar(10489)
Seminis
477 27
727 41
997 57 1279 73 1443 82
12 SRQP-2861
SunSeeds
385 22
689 39 1020 59 1241 72 1393 81
13 Johnston
NCState Univ
393 24
675 42
958 60 1223 76 1369 86
14 Premio
Sakata
346 24
641 46
830 60 1081 79 1169 85
15 HMX-0468
Harris Moran
379 23
629 37
880 52 1094 65 1392 83
16 Royal
Harris Moran
336 18
620 35
897 52 1240 73 1424 83
17 Patton (3528)
SunSeeds
447 26
587 35
881 52 1030 62 1289 76
18 CrossCountry4318 Harris Moran
321 21
550 36
817 53
998 65 1291 84
19 WI6856Ax6760B
Wis-USDA
231 12
545 30
866 46 1240 68 1516 83
20 Manteo
NCState Univ
113 11
300 30
475 48
699 71
797 81
21 Wis.SMR 18
Univ. Wis.
136 15
294 33
405 46
560 64
664 76
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
244 8
286 8
377 9
398 7
471 7
Mean
394 23
676 41
947 57 1193 73 1379 84
CV (%)
37 21
26 12
24 9
20 5
20 5
_________________________________________________________________________________
Correlation (Fruit value with value in harvests 1 and 2) = 0.90**
Not for publication
14
Table 8. Stage 3 spring pickle trial - fruit quality data (cultigens are
ranked by average quality).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Overall
Cultivar
Seed
Average
Seed- impresRank
or line
source
qualityz
Shapez Colory cellz
sionz
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
Colt
Seminis
8.0
8
8
8
8
2
Arabian
Seminis
7.7
8
8
7
8
3
WI6856Ax6760B
Wis-USDA
7.6
8
8
7
8
4
Patton (3528)
SunSeeds
7.4
8
8
7
8
5
Calypso
NCState Univ
7.2
7
7
7
7
6
Jackson(3540)
SunSeeds
7.1
8
8
6
7
7
Napoleon(3502)
SunSeeds
7.1
7
8
7
7
8
HMX-0469
Harris Moran
7.0
7
7
7
7
9
Palomino(1911)
Seminis
7.0
7
7
7
7
10
Vlasstar(10489)
Seminis
7.0
7
8
7
7
11
HMX-0468
Harris Moran
7.0
7
9
7
7
12
Johnston
NCState Univ
6.9
7
8
7
7
13
Vlaspik
Seminis
6.8
7
8
7
6
14
CrossCountry4318
Harris Moran
6.8
7
7
7
7
15
Macarthur
SunSeeds
6.7
7
8
6
7
16
Premio
Sakata
6.6
7
5
6
7
17
Royal
Harris Moran
6.6
7
8
6
7
18
Raleigh
NCState Univ
6.4
6
7
6
7
19
Manteo
NCState Univ
6.3
6
8
7
6
20
SRQP-2861
SunSeeds
6.0
6
8
6
6
21
Wis.SMR 18
Univ. Wis.
5.2
7
4
4
5
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
0.8
1
1
1
1
Mean
6.9
7
7
6
13
CV (%)
7.2
9
6
12
16
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Quality rated 1 to 9 (1 = poor, 5 = average, 9 = excellent).
y Color rated 1 to 9 (1 = white, 5 = medium green, 9 = very dark green).
Correlation (Fruit value with average quality) = 0.19ns
1/2/04
15
Table 9. Stage 3 spring pickle trial - other quality data (cultigens are
ranked by average quality).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar
Seed
Firm- L/D
Defects1°
Defects2°
Rank or line
source
ness ratio 2
4
6
2
4
6
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Arabian
Seminis
15.7 3.2
K
K
T
G
H
K
2 Patton (3528)
SunSeeds
14.7 3.2
K
G
K
T
K
H
3 Macarthur
SunSeeds
14.7 3.1
T
G
T
D
T
G
4 Colt
Seminis
14.3 3.1
K
T
K
T
H
T
5 Johnston
NCState Univ 14.3 3.3
T
T
T
K
K
G
6 Vlasstar(10489) Seminis
14.0 3.1
T
T
T
K
K
K
7 Manteo
NCState Univ 14.0 3.5
T
T
T
G
G
G
8 Wis.SMR 18
Univ. Wis.
14.0 3.1
W
W
W
Y
T
Y
9 HMX-0468
Harris Moran 13.7 3.3
T
T
T
K
G
A
10 CrossCountry4318 Harris Moran 13.3 3.3
T
T
T
G
G
G
11 Premio
Sakata
13.3 3.0
T
W
T
W
D
W
12 Raleigh
NCState Univ 13.3 3.1
H
D
T
T
T
G
13 Palomino(1911)
Seminis
13.0 3.2
T
T
T
K
K
G
14 WI6856Ax6760B
Wis-USDA
12.7 3.1
K
I
K
T
K
T
15 Calypso
NCState Univ 12.3 3.0
T
T
K
H
K
A
16 HMX-0469
Harris Moran 12.0 3.1
T
T
T
K
G
K
17 Vlaspik
Seminis
12.0 3.3
T
T
G
G
K
T
18 Jackson(3540)
SunSeeds
11.7 3.0
H
T
T
K
K
C
19 Royal
Harris Moran 11.7 3.1
T
T
T
G
G
K
20 Napoleon(3502)
SunSeeds
11.0 3.2
K
G
K
G
T
T
21 SRQP-2861
SunSeeds
11.0 3.0
H
M
T
T
T
D
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
3.5 0.2
Mean
13.1 3.1
CV (%)
16.2 5.0
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Quality rated 1 to 9 (1 = poor, 5 = average, 9 = excellent).
Defects were rated as follows (giving primary and secondary for each harvest):
A - wArty fruit
J – RiDGed
S - Separated carpels
B - Blossom end defects
K - Keep(excellent)
T - Tapered ends
C - Crooks excessive
L - Late maturity
U - Uniform green
D - Dogbone shape
M - Mottled fruit
V - Varicolor (dark stem
E - Early maturity
N - Nubs excessive
end, light blossom end)
F - Four celled
O - Offtype fruit
W - White fruit
G - lonG fruit
P - Placental hollows
X - neCKS on fruit
H - sHort fruit
Q Y - Yellow fruit
I - strIped fruit
R - Reject (poor)
Z - diSeased fruit
Not for publication
16
Table 10. Stage 3 spring pickle trial - fruit keeping ability data (cultigens
are ranked by % weight loss).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Weight
Rating (0 - 9)y
FirmCultivar
Seed
loss
ShrivRots &
ness
Rank
or line
source
(%)z
eling
disease
(lb.)x
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
WI6856Ax6760B
Wis-USDA
16
3
3
17
2
Royal
Harris Moran
17
4
1
13
3
Manteo
NCState Univ
17
2
3
16
4
CrossCountry4318
Harris Moran
17
3
1
13
5
Vlasstar(10489)
Seminis
18
3
1
13
6
SRQP-2861
SunSeeds
18
3
3
13
7
Johnston
NCState Univ
18
3
1
15
8
Colt
Seminis
19
6
2
13
9
Calypso
NCState Univ
20
2
1
14
10
Palomino(1911)
Seminis
20
3
4
14
11
HMX-0468
Harris Moran
20
5
1
14
12
Patton (3528)
SunSeeds
21
5
1
14
13
Arabian
Seminis
22
4
1
13
14
Vlaspik
Seminis
22
5
2
15
15
Raleigh
NCState Univ
22
2
1
13
16
Napoleon(3502)
SunSeeds
22
5
5
11
17
HMX-0469
Harris Moran
22
5
1
12
18
Macarthur
SunSeeds
23
5
5
13
19
Wis.SMR 18
Univ. Wis.
24
8
3
11
20
Premio
Sakata
27
5
2
12
21
Jackson(3540)
SunSeeds
28
3
1
12
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
7
2
3
4
Mean
20
4
2
13
CV (%)
20
36
97
19
_________________________________________________________________________________
z After storage at room temperature for 8 days in open kraft paper bags.
y Shriveling & disease rated 0-9 (0=none, 1-3=slight, 4-6=moderate, 7-9=advanced).
x Firmness after storage using Magness-Taylor fruit punch tester.
Correlation (Weight loss with shriveling) = 0.35**
Correlation (Weight loss with firmness) = 0.00ns
1/2/04
17
Table 11. Stage 3 spring pickle trial - bloater resistance data (cultigens
are ranked by bloater resistance).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Total
Cultivar
Seed
bloater
HoneyRank
or line
source
damage
Balloon
Lens
comb
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
Colt
Seminis
0
0
0
0
2
Vlaspik
Seminis
0
0
0
0
3
HMX-0469
Harris Moran
1
1
0
0
4
Napoleon(3502)
SunSeeds
1
0
0
1
5
CrossCountry4318
Harris Moran
1
1
0
0
6
Arabian
Seminis
2
1
0
1
7
Wis.SMR 18
Univ. Wis.
2
2
0
0
8
Vlasstar(10489)
Seminis
2
0
0
2
9
HMX-0468
Harris Moran
2
2
0
1
10
Jackson(3540)
SunSeeds
3
0
1
1
11
Johnston
NCState Univ
3
2
0
1
12
Palomino(1911)
Seminis
3
3
0
0
13
Royal
Harris Moran
3
1
1
1
14
Macarthur
SunSeeds
3
2
1
1
15
Patton (3528)
SunSeeds
4
3
0
1
16
Manteo
NCState Univ
4
0
3
1
17
SRQP-2861
SunSeeds
5
4
0
1
18
Raleigh
NCState Univ
5
3
0
2
19
Calypso
NCState Univ
6
4
0
2
20
WI6856Ax6760B
Wis-USDA
6
6
0
0
21
Premio
Sakata
7
7
0
0
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
6
6
2
2
Mean
3
2
0
1
CV (%)
129
182
461
137
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Data are means of 2 harvests, 5 fruits/cultigen.
Fruits tested in 5 gal. pails purged with 100% CO2.
Not for publication
18
Table 12. Stage 3 spring pickle trial - bloater resistance data (cultigens
are ranked by total bloater + defect resistance).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Bloaters Total
Blossom Placen
Cultivar
Seed
+
bloater Total
-end
-tal
Soft
Rank or line
source
defects damage defects defects hollow center
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Colt
Seminis
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 Vlaspik
Seminis
1
0
1
1
0
0
3 Wis.SMR 18
Univ. Wis.
2
2
0
0
0
0
4 CrossCountry4318 Harris Moran
2
1
1
0
1
0
5 Vlasstar(10489)
Seminis
2
2
0
0
0
0
6 HMX-0468
Harris Moran
2
2
0
0
0
0
7 Napoleon(3502)
SunSeeds
3
1
1
1
1
0
8 Arabian
Seminis
3
2
1
0
1
0
9 Palomino(1911)
Seminis
3
3
1
0
1
0
10 HMX-0469
Harris Moran
4
1
3
1
1
0
11 Royal
Harris Moran
4
3
1
0
1
0
12 Macarthur
SunSeeds
4
3
1
1
0
0
13 Johnston
NCState Univ
5
3
2
1
1
0
14 Patton (3528)
SunSeeds
5
4
1
0
0
1
15 Jackson(3540)
SunSeeds
5
3
3
0
0
3
16 Raleigh
NCState Univ
6
5
1
1
0
0
17 SRQP-2861
SunSeeds
6
5
2
0
1
1
18 Calypso
NCState Univ
7
6
2
0
0
2
19 WI6856Ax6760B
Wis-USDA
8
6
2
0
1
1
20 Premio
Sakata
8
7
1
0
1
0
21 Manteo
NCState Univ
10
4
6
1
3
2
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
6
6
4
1
1
3
Mean
4
3
1
0
0
0
CV (%)
86
129
139
278
170
319
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Data are means of 2 harvests, 5 fruits/cultigen.
Fruits tested in 5 gal. pails purged with 100% CO2.
1/2/04
19
Table 13. Stage 3 spring pickle trial - sex expression and vine data
(cultigens are ranked by gynoecious rating).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar
Seed
Gyn.
Vine
Vine
Rank
or line
source
ratingz sizey
colorx
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
Raleigh
NCState Univ
9
7
8
2
Patton (3528)
SunSeeds
9
6
7
3
SRQP-2861
SunSeeds
9
5
7
4
Vlasstar(10489)
Seminis
8
7
6
5
HMX-0468
Harris Moran
8
7
8
6
HMX-0469
Harris Moran
8
7
7
7
Colt
Seminis
8
6
6
8
Royal
Harris Moran
8
6
6
9
Vlaspik
Seminis
8
6
5
10
Johnston
NCState Univ
8
6
8
11
Palomino(1911)
Seminis
8
6
6
12
Macarthur
SunSeeds
7
7
8
13
Calypso
NCState Univ
7
7
5
14
Arabian
Seminis
7
6
6
15
CrossCountry4318
Harris Moran
7
7
8
16
Premio
Sakata
7
7
6
17
Manteo
NCState Univ
6
5
6
18
Napoleon(3502)
SunSeeds
6
6
7
19
Jackson(3540)
SunSeeds
6
6
6
20
Wis.SMR 18
Univ. Wis.
5
8
5
21
WI6856Ax6760B
Wis-USDA
5
7
5
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
2
2
2
Mean
7
6
6
CV (%)
16
16
15
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Gynoecious rating (1 = androecious, 2-3 = andromonoecious, 4-6 = monoecious,
7-8 = predominately gynoecious, 9 = gynoecious).
y Size rated 1 to 9 (1=very small, 9=very large).
x Color rated 1 to 9 (1=yellow, 9=very dark green).
Correlation (Yield with gynoecious rating) = 0.18**
Correlation (Yield with vine size) = 0.40**
Not for publication
20
Table 14. Stage 3 spring pickle trial - disease data (cultigens are ranked
by average disease).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar
Seed
Average
Anthrac
Powdery
Rank
or line
source
disease
-nose
mildew
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
HMX-0469
Harris Moran
0.5
1
0
2
Calypso
NCState Univ
1.2
2
0
3
Jackson(3540)
SunSeeds
1.3
2
0
4
HMX-0468
Harris Moran
1.7
2
1
5
Vlasstar(10489)
Seminis
1.8
3
0
6
Raleigh
NCState Univ
2.0
2
2
7
Napoleon(3502)
SunSeeds
2.2
3
1
8
Premio
Sakata
2.3
2
2
9
Vlaspik
Seminis
2.3
3
1
10
Colt
Seminis
2.3
4
1
11
Macarthur
SunSeeds
2.3
4
0
12
Johnston
NCState Univ
2.5
2
3
13
CrossCountry4318
Harris Moran
2.7
2
3
14
SRQP-2861
SunSeeds
3.0
3
3
15
WI6856Ax6760B
Wis-USDA
3.2
6
0
16
Arabian
Seminis
4.2
4
5
17
Palomino(1911)
Seminis
4.3
4
5
18
Patton (3528)
SunSeeds
4.7
2
7
19
Royal
Harris Moran
5.3
4
7
20
Manteo
NCState Univ
6.2
6
7
21
Wis.SMR 18
Univ. Wis.
7.3
8
7
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
1.7
3
2
Mean
3.0
3
3
CV (%)
33.6
51
47
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Disease rated 0 to 9 (0=none, 1-2=trace, 3-4=slight, 5-6=moderate, 7-8=advanced,
9=plant dead).
Correlation (Yield vs. disease rating) = -0.30*
1/2/04
21
Table 15. Stage 3 spring pickle trial - selection indexes (cultigens ranked
by SWI1).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Simple weighted Average rank
Cultivar
Seed
indexes
indexes__
Rank
or line
source
SWI1
SWI2
ARI1
ARI2
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
Napoleon(3502)
SunSeeds
9.7
8.1
7.8
9.1
2
Vlaspik
Seminis
9.5
7.8
9.0
10.0
3
Jackson(3540)
SunSeeds
9.2
7.9
8.3
9.8
4
Colt
Seminis
9.2
7.7
6.1
7.5
5
HMX-0469
Harris Moran
9.2
7.8
8.1
8.0
6
Arabian
Seminis
9.1
7.7
8.0
8.0
7
Vlasstar(10489)
Seminis
8.8
7.6
9.6
9.2
8
Macarthur
SunSeeds
8.8
7.5
10.7
9.4
9
Calypso
NCState Univ
8.8
7.6
8.9
9.3
10
Raleigh
NCState Univ
8.6
7.4
11.9
10.4
11
HMX-0468
Harris Moran
8.5
7.3
10.0
10.6
12
Palomino(1911)
Seminis
8.4
7.2
11.2
10.9
13
Johnston
NCState Univ
8.4
7.2
11.3
10.5
14
WI6856Ax6760B
Wis-USDA
8.3
7.3
9.2
11.2
15
SRQP-2861
SunSeeds
8.2
7.0
14.4
13.7
16
Patton (3528)
SunSeeds
7.9
6.9
10.6
10.9
17
Royal
Harris Moran
7.8
6.6
13.6
14.2
18
CrossCountry4318
Harris Moran
7.8
6.8
13.1
12.7
19
Premio
Sakata
7.7
6.7
12.9
11.5
20
Manteo
NCState Univ
5.4
4.9
17.2
16.5
21
Wis.SMR 18
Univ. Wis.
4.7
4.4
19.3
17.6
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
1.7
1.2
3.9
4.0
Mean
8.3
7.1
11.0
11.0
CV (%)
12.9
10.8
21.5
22.0
_________________________________________________________________________________
z SWI is simple weighted index calculated from the performance of a cultigen for
yield; earliness; fruit shape, seedcell size and overall impression; and disease
resistance. The index is calculated with 2 different methods of weighting each
trait (10 is best, 1 is worst).
ARI is the average ranking of each cultigen for yield, earliness, fruit quality
and disease resistance. The index is calculated with 2 different sets of
secondary traits added in with the primary traits (1 is best).
Correlation (Yield with SWI1) = 0.95**
Correlation (Yield with ARI1) = -0.59**
Not for publication
22
Summer (Stage 4) Pickling Cucumber Trial
2001
Todd C. Wehner and Tammy L. Ellington
Experiment Design
1.
A randomized complete block with 3 replications of pickle cultivars
and breeding lines (collectively referred to as cultigens) was grown.
2.
Plots were single 20 ft. rows with 5 ft. alleys at each end.
3.
Rows were on raised 18" beds spaced 60" apart (center to center).
4.
Fertilizer consisted of 80-80-80 lb/A (N-P-K) broadcast preplant
and 30-0-0 lb/A (N-P-K) sideplaced at the 2 to 4 leaf stage.
5.
Curbit was applied preemergence at the rate of 1 lb. a.i./A.
6.
The trial was planted 16 July, and harvested 5 times
(Mondays and Thursdays) between 27 August through 10 September.
Data Collection
1.
Firmness was measured on 3 Grade 3 fruits using a Magness-Taylor tester
with a 5/16" tip.
2.
Length/Diameter ratio was calculated by measuring 10 Grade 2 fruits.
3.
Quality ratings were from 1 to 9, with 1 = worst, 9 = best.
4.
Disease ratings were from 0 to 9, with 0 = no disease, 1-2 = trace,
3-4 = slight, 5-6 = moderate, 7-8 = severe, 9 = plant dead.
Results
The following cultigens performed well, and could be advanced
to the next stage:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Patton (3528)
Calypso
Raleigh
Arabian
HMX-0469
Vlaspik
Cross Country (4318)
1/2/04
SunSeeds
NCState Univ
NCState Univ
Seminis
Harris Moran
Seminis
Harris Moran
23
Table 16. Stage 4 summer pickle trial - yield data (cultigens are ranked
by fruit value).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Fruit grade distribution Plants
Cultivar
Seed
Value Weight
(% by weight)
per A
Rank or line
source
($)
(cwt) Cull No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 (x1000)
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Patton (3528)
SunSeeds
770
141
24
8
25
26
17
26
2 Vlaspik
Seminis
732
123
33
10
25
23
9
25
3 Calypso
NCState Univ
726
141
31
7
23
26
13
26
4 Raleigh
NCState Univ
692
126
25
8
21
31
15
23
5 HMX-0469
Harris Moran
672
142
34
7
24
21
14
26
6 Royal
Harris Moran
660
112
37
11
28
21
3
26
7 Arabian
Seminis
621
90
28
13
31
19
8
24
8 CrossCountry4318 Harris Moran
613
144
30
7
18
22
23
26
9 Colt
Seminis
582
107
29
9
21
25
15
24
10 Premio
Sakata
560
107
27
9
20
26
17
26
11 Johnston
NCState Univ
556
108
28
7
22
28
16
26
12 Vlasstar(10489) Seminis
551
116
34
6
17
28
14
24
13 WI6856Ax6760B
Wis-USDA
532
90
36
12
23
20
9
25
14 Napoleon(3502)
SunSeeds
504
94
31
9
25
23
12
26
15 Jackson(3540)
SunSeeds
493
84
33
9
30
20
8
26
16 HMX-0468
Harris Moran
491
91
36
9
23
22
10
24
17 Macarthur
SunSeeds
487
107
47
9
20
15
9
26
18 Palomino(1911)
Seminis
473
113
41
5
14
27
13
25
19 SRQP-2861
SunSeeds
347
66
29
8
18
29
15
26
20 Manteo
NCState Univ
91
27
66
10
12
11
0
25
21 Wis.SMR 18
Univ. Wis.
50
16
55
6
17
10
11
3
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
406
71
13
5
8
10
13
3
Mean
533
102
22
9
22
22
12
24
CV (%)
46
42
35
32
22
27
66
7
_________________________________________________________________________________
Correlation (Fruit value with fruit weight) = 0.93**
Not for publication
24
Table 17. Stage 4 summer pickle trial - earliness data (cultigens are ranked
by fruit value in harvests 1 and 2).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cumulative fruit value and % of
total valuez (6 harvests) for harvest:
Cultivar
Seed
1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5_
Rank
or line
source
$/A %
$/A %
$/A %
$/A %
$/A %
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 HMX-0469
Harris Moran 308 47 511 76 637 95 649 97 672 100
2 Calypso
NCState Univ 278 37 476 62 640 87 699 96 726 100
3 Vlaspik
Seminis
289 43 466 65 679 93 715 98 732 100
4 Patton (3528)
SunSeeds
271 36 454 59 636 82 691 89 770 100
5 Arabian
Seminis
245 42 430 72 563 91 598 97 621 100
6 Colt
Seminis
298 53 412 71 544 90 568 96 582 100
7 CrossCountry4318 Harris Moran 204 33 398 65 565 92 588 96 613 100
8 Vlasstar(10489) Seminis
304 56 388 68 494 86 530 94 551 100
9 Jackson(3540)
SunSeeds
232 47 383 76 484 98 487 98 493 100
10 Macarthur
SunSeeds
207 46 364 77 467 96 484 99 487 100
11 Palomino(1911)
Seminis
287 68 364 82 462 99 473 100 473 100
12 Royal
Harris Moran 211 31 347 52 556 84 611 92 660 100
13 Raleigh
NCState Univ 203 30 336 49 524 76 639 92 692 100
14 Napoleon(3502)
SunSeeds
264 49 334 62 475 95 496 99 504 100
15 HMX-0468
Harris Moran 187 41 314 62 452 90 483 98 491 100
16 WI6856Ax6760B
Wis-USDA
158 35 295 60 494 93 517 98 532 100
17 Johnston
NCState Univ 187 36 284 53 465 83 519 94 556 100
18 SRQP-2861
SunSeeds
192 59 281 81 330 94 344 99 347 100
19 Premio
Sakata
116 22 281 51 450 81 512 92 560 100
20 Manteo
NCState Univ
27 29
37 37
58 66
68 75
91 100
21 Wis.SMR 18
Univ. Wis.
32 41
32 41
50 100
50 100
50 100
______________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
176 28 281 27 389 10 399
6 406
0
Mean
214 42 342 63 477 89 511 95 533 100
CV (%)
50 41
50 26
49
7
47
4
46
0
_________________________________________________________________________________
Correlation (Fruit value with value in harvests 1 and 2) = 0.92**
1/2/04
25
Table 18. Stage 4 summer pickle trial - fruit quality data (cultigens are
ranked by average quality).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Overall
Cultivar
Seed
Average
Seed- impresRank
or line
source
qualityz
Shapez Colory cellz
sionz
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Patton (3528)
SunSeeds
7.6
8
8
7
8
2 Vlasstar(10489)
Seminis
7.2
7
7
7
7
3 Arabian
Seminis
7.0
7
8
7
7
4 Johnston
NCState Univ
6.9
7
8
6
7
5 WI6856Ax6760B
Wis-USDA
6.8
7
8
6
7
6 Raleigh
NCState Univ
6.8
7
7
6
8
7 Calypso
NCState Univ
6.7
7
6
6
7
8 CrossCountry4318 Harris Moran
6.7
7
7
7
7
9 Royal
Harris Moran
6.7
7
7
6
7
10 HMX-0468
Harris Moran
6.7
7
7
6
7
11 Colt
Seminis
6.6
7
7
6
7
12 Napoleon(3502)
SunSeeds
6.4
6
7
6
7
13 Macarthur
SunSeeds
6.0
7
8
5
7
14 Premio
Sakata
5.9
7
5
5
6
15 Vlaspik
Seminis
5.9
6
7
5
6
16 Manteo
NCState Univ
5.8
6
6
6
6
17 SRQP-2861
SunSeeds
5.7
6
8
5
6
18 HMX-0469
Harris Moran
5.7
6
5
5
6
19 Jackson(3540)
SunSeeds
5.4
6
8
5
6
20 Palomino(1911)
Seminis
5.3
5
5
5
6
21 Wis.SMR 18
Univ. Wis.
3.4
4
3
3
3
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
1.2
1
1
2
1
Mean
6.2
6
7
6
7
CV (%)
11.9
13
13
19
13
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Quality rated 1 to 9 (1 = poor, 5 = average, 9 = excellent).
y Color rated 1 to 9 (1 = white, 5 = medium green, 9 = very dark green).
Correlation (Fruit value with average quality) = 0.30*
Not for publication
26
Table 19. Stage 4 summer pickle trial - other quality data (cultigens are
ranked by average quality).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar
Seed
FirmL/D
Defects1°
Defects2°
Rank
or line
source
ness
ratio 2
4
6
2
4
6
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
HMX-0468
Harris Moran
16.0
3.4
T
T
T
K
G
K
2
Manteo
NCState Univ
16.0
3.6
T
L
C
A
T
G
3
Wis.SMR 18
Univ. Wis.
16.0
3.0
Y
Y
Y
W
W
W
4
Macarthur
SunSeeds
15.7
3.4
K
T
C
K
C
N
5
Patton (3528)
SunSeeds
15.3
3.1
K
G
K
K
K
D
6
Premio
Sakata
15.3
3.2
T
W
M
A
K
H
7
Arabian
Seminis
15.0
3.2
K
K
N
C
K
K
8
WI6856Ax6760B
Wis-USDA
15.0
3.3
K
K
H
I
K
K
9
Calypso
NCState Univ
14.7
3.2
A
T
A
V
G
K
10
Colt
Seminis
14.7
3.1
K
K
C
V
H
T
11
Palomino(1911)
Seminis
14.7
3.4
C
T
M
V
G
D
12
HMX-0469
Harris Moran
14.3
3.3
K
M
T
C
D
D
13
SRQP-2861
SunSeeds
14.0
3.0
K
S
D
C
H
K
14
Vlasstar(10489)
Seminis
13.7
3.3
K
K
T
A
K
K
15
Jackson(3540)
SunSeeds
13.7
3.0
K
D
N
K
N
D
16
Johnston
NCState Univ
13.3
3.5
K
G
K
T
K
G
17
Raleigh
NCState Univ
13.3
3.2
K
T
K
A
C
D
18
CrossCountry4318
Harris Moran
13.3
3.4
K
K
M
T
T
D
19
Royal
Harris Moran
13.3
3.1
K
T
K
A
N
T
20
Vlaspik
Seminis
13.0
3.5
K
T
T
K
G
D
21
Napoleon(3502)
SunSeeds
12.3
3.1
K
D
D
T
K
N
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
2.6
0.2
Mean
14.4
3.3
CV (%)
10.8
4.5
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Quality rated 1 to 9 (1 = poor, 5 = average, 9 = excellent).
Defects were rated as follows (giving primary and secondary for each harvest):
A - wArty fruit
J – RiDGed
S - Separated carpels
B - Blossom end defects
K - Keep(excellent)
T - Tapered ends
C - Crooks excessive
L - Late maturity
U - Uniform green
D - Dogbone shape
M - Mottled fruit
V - Varicolor (dark stem
E - Early maturity
N - Nubs excessive
end, light blossom end)
F - Four celled
O - Offtype fruit
W - White fruit
G - lonG fruit
P - Placental hollows
X - neCKS on fruit
H - sHort fruit
Q Y - Yellow fruit
I - strIped fruit
R - Reject (poor)
Z - diSeased fruit
1/2/04
27
Table 20. Stage 4 summer pickle trial - sex expression and vine data
(cultigens are ranked by gynoecious rating).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar
Seed
Gyn.
Vine
Vine
Rank
or line
source
ratingz
sizey
colorx
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
Macarthur
SunSeeds
9
7
8
2
Raleigh
NCState Univ
9
7
7
3
Vlaspik
Seminis
9
6
6
4
Vlasstar(10489)
Seminis
8
7
7
5
Palomino(1911)
Seminis
8
7
6
6
Jackson(3540)
SunSeeds
8
5
6
7
HMX-0469
Harris Moran
8
7
8
8
Patton (3528)
SunSeeds
8
7
7
9
Arabian
Seminis
8
7
7
10
SRQP-2861
SunSeeds
8
6
6
11
Colt
Seminis
8
5
6
12
Johnston
NCState Univ
8
6
8
13
Napoleon(3502)
SunSeeds
7
6
6
14
HMX-0468
Harris Moran
7
6
7
15
CrossCountry4318
Harris Moran
7
6
6
16
Royal
Harris Moran
7
6
5
17
Calypso
NCState Univ
7
8
7
18
WI6856Ax6760B
Wis-USDA
6
6
5
19
Premio
Sakata
6
6
6
20
Wis.SMR 18
Univ. Wis.
5
5
5
21
Manteo
NCState Univ
4
4
4
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
2
2
2
Mean
7
6
6
CV (%)
18
16
17
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Gynoecious rating (1 = androecious, 2-3 = andromonoecious, 4-6 = monoecious,
7-8 = predominately gynoecious, 9 = gynoecious).
y Size rated 1 to 9 (1=very small, 9=very large).
x Color rated 1 to 9 (1=yellow, 9=very dark green).
Correlation (Yield with gynoecious rating) = 0.32**
Correlation (Yield with vine size) = 0.58**
Not for publication
28
Table 21. Stage 4 summer pickle trial - disease data (cultigens are ranked
by anthracnose resistance).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar
Seed
AnthracRank
or line
source
nose
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
Raleigh
NCState Univ
2.3
2
Johnston
NCState Univ
2.3
3
Calypso
NCState Univ
4.0
4
HMX-0469
Harris Moran
4.3
5
Patton (3528)
SunSeeds
4.3
6
CrossCountry4318
Harris Moran
4.3
7
Macarthur
SunSeeds
4.7
8
Vlasstar(10489)
Seminis
4.7
9
Vlaspik
Seminis
5.0
10
Premio
Sakata
5.0
11
Arabian
Seminis
5.3
12
Colt
Seminis
5.7
13
HMX-0468
Harris Moran
5.7
14
Napoleon(3502)
SunSeeds
6.0
15
Royal
Harris Moran
6.3
16
WI6856Ax6760B
Wis-USDA
6.3
17
Jackson(3540)
SunSeeds
6.7
18
SRQP-2861
SunSeeds
6.7
19
Wis.SMR 18
Univ. Wis.
7.0
20
Palomino(1911)
Seminis
7.7
21
Manteo
NCState Univ
8.0
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
2.5
Mean
5.3
CV (%)
28.5
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Disease rated 0 to 9 (0=none, 1-2=trace, 3-4=slight, 5-6=moderate, 7-8=advanced,
9=plant dead).
Correlation (Yield vs. anthracnose rating) = -0.61**
1/2/04
29
Table 22. Stage 4 summer pickle trial - selection indexes (cultigens ranked
by SWI1).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Simple weighted
Average rank
Cultivar
Seed
indexes
indexes___
Rank
or line
source
SWI1
SWI2
ARI1
ARI2
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
Patton (3528)
SunSeeds
6.2
5.8
5.3
6.8
2
Calypso
NCState Univ
6.0
5.6
8.3
8.4
3
Raleigh
NCState Univ
5.7
5.5
7.3
8.6
4
Arabian
Seminis
5.6
5.4
8.8
9.3
5
HMX-0469
Harris Moran
5.6
5.4
10.5
9.3
6
Vlaspik
Seminis
5.5
5.2
10.8
10.9
7
CrossCountry4318
Harris Moran
5.5
5.4
9.1
9.5
8
Vlasstar(10489)
Seminis
5.5
5.4
8.4
9.0
9
Johnston
NCState Univ
5.4
5.3
8.4
9.2
10
Colt
Seminis
5.3
5.1
10.6
10.6
11
Royal
Harris Moran
5.1
4.8
9.6
11.3
12
Macarthur
SunSeeds
5.0
5.1
10.7
9.4
13
HMX-0468
Harris Moran
4.8
4.7
10.8
10.8
14
WI6856Ax6760B
Wis-USDA
4.8
4.7
10.6
11.2
15
Napoleon(3502)
SunSeeds
4.7
4.7
11.2
12.4
16
Premio
Sakata
4.7
4.5
11.8
11.3
17
Jackson(3540)
SunSeeds
4.7
4.6
13.1
12.6
18
Palomino(1911)
Seminis
4.2
4.4
14.9
13.3
19
SRQP-2861
SunSeeds
4.1
4.4
14.0
13.2
20
Manteo
NCState Univ
2.7
2.8
17.1
16.8
21
Wis.SMR 18
Univ. Wis.
2.0
2.2
19.8
17.4
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
1.7
1.3
4.9
4.1
Mean
4.9
4.8
11.0
11.0
CV (%)
21.5
15.8
27.2
22.6
_________________________________________________________________________________
z SWI is simple weighted index calculated from the performance of a cultigen for
yield; earliness; fruit shape, seedcell size and overall impression; and disease
resistance. The index is calculated with 2 different methods of weighting each
trait (10 is best, 1 is worst).
ARI is the average ranking of each cultigen for yield, earliness, fruit quality
and disease resistance. The index is calculated with 2 different sets of
secondary traits added in with the primary traits (1 is best).
Correlation (Yield with SWI1) = 0.95**
Correlation (Yield with ARI1) = -0.79**
Not for publication
30
Slicing Cucumbers
Preliminary (Stage 1) Slicing Cucumber Trial
2001
The stage 1 slicer trial was not run this year.
Observational (Stage 2) Slicing Cucumber Trial
2001
The stage 2 slicer trial was not run this year.
Spring (Stage 3) Slicing Cucumber Trial
2001
Todd C. Wehner and Tammy L. Ellington
Experiment Design
1.
A randomized complete block with 3 replications of slicer cultivars
and breeding lines (collectively referred to as cultigens) was grown.
2.
Plots were single 20 ft. rows with 5 ft. alleys at each end.
3.
Rows were on raised 18" beds spaced 60" apart (center to center).
4.
Fertilizer consisted of 80-80-80 lb/A (N-P-K) broadcast preplant
and 30-0-0 lb/A (N-P-K) sideplaced at the 2 to 4 leaf stage.
5.
Curbit was applied preemergence at the rate of 1 lb. a.i./A.
6.
The trial was planted 21 May, and harvested 6 times
(Mondays and Thursdays) between 9 and 26 July.
Data Collection
1.
Fruits were weighed after sorting into No.1, No.2 and cull
(nubs and crooks) grades according to U.S.D.A. standards.
2.
Fruit length, diameter and weight were recorded for 3 fruit per plot.
3.
Quality ratings were from 1 to 9, with 1 = worst, 9 = best.
4.
Disease ratings were from 0 to 9, with 0 = no disease, 1-2 = trace,
3-4 = slight, 5-6 = moderate, 7-8 = severe, 9 = plant dead.
Results
The following cultigens performed well, and could be advanced
to the next stage:
1
2
3
4
5
6
XP3501217
SCU 6601
General Lee (4440)
SRQS-2653
EX4674277
SRQS-2387
1/2/04
Seminis
Sakata
HarrisMoran
SunSeeds
Seminis
SunSeeds
31
Table 23. Stage 3 spring slicer trial - yield data (cultigens ranked by
cwt/A of Fancy + No. 1 grade fruit).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Yield(cwt/A)
Percent
Plants
Cultivar
Seed
Fancy Marketfancy
Percent per A
Rank
or line
source
+No.1
able
+No.1
culls (X1000)
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
SCU 6601
Sakata
177
311
46
19
22
2
GeneralLee4440
HarrisMoran
163
294
46
16
20
3
SRQS-2387
SunSeeds
148
305
31
36
20
4
XP3501217
Seminis
146
324
32
27
20
5
SRQS-2653
SunSeeds
134
314
28
34
22
6
Poinsett 76
CornellUniv
125
267
35
25
21
7
Ashley
Check
124
241
40
24
21
8
Speedway
Seminis
118
253
35
21
15
9
EX4674277
Seminis
116
270
33
23
22
10
Dasher II
Seminis
86
202
29
29
19
11
Marketmore 76
Check
84
202
35
18
21
12
HMX-8416
HarrisMoran
79
211
26
30
18
13
Cherokee 7
Check
78
171
32
30
5
14
EX4675898
Seminis
61
189
20
38
19
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
70
106
18
13
3
Mean
117
254
34
26
19
CV (%)
36
25
26
30
11
_________________________________________________________________________________
Correlation (Marketable yield with % culls) = -0.36*
Not for publication
32
Table 24. Stage 3 spring slicer trial - earliness data (cultigens ranked
by weight of Fancy + No.1 grade fruit in harvests 1 and 2).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cumulative fruit weight and % of
total weight (6 harvests) for harvest:
Cultivar
Seed
1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5!!
Rank or line
source
wt. % wt.
% wt.
% wt.
% wt.
%
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 XP3501217
Seminis
126 38 158 48 178 54 232 71 292 89
2 SRQS-2653
SunSeeds
47 15 124 38 169 54 197 63 270 87
3 EX4674277
Seminis
62 21 112 39 149 53 182 65 228 82
4 SCU 6601
Sakata
71 24 106 34 181 58 236 76 273 88
5 Speedway
Seminis
74 31 102 41 137 52 187 75 232 91
6 EX4675898
Seminis
55 31
85 46 104 56 130 70 162 86
7 GeneralLee4440 HarrisMoran
23
8
85 29 147 50 170 57 220 74
8 SRQS-2387
SunSeeds
58 19
82 27 163 54 222 73 269 88
9 HMX-8416
HarrisMoran
56 28
74 36 134 62 156 74 187 89
10 Ashley
Check
16
6
61 24
98 40 141 59 205 85
11 Cherokee 7
Check
39 25
61 37
79 47 121 72 151 88
12 Dasher II
Seminis
34 19
56 29 103 51 128 64 168 84
13 Poinsett 76
CornellUniv
22
9
37 14 114 41 171 65 221 84
14 Marketmore 76
Check
3
3
13
7
77 40 112 55 164 79
________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
44 18
56 15
74 15
73 14 101 12
Mean
49 20
83 32 131 51 170 67 217 85
CV (%)
54 53
41 27
33 18
25 12
28
8
________________________________________________________________________________
Correlation (Marketable yield with yield in harvests 1-2)
= 0.38*
Correlation (Marketable yield with % of yield in harvests 1-2) = -0.11ns
1/2/04
33
Table 25. Stage 3 spring slicer trial - fruit quality data (cultigens ranked
by average quality).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar
Seed
Average
Seed- Overall
Rank
or line
source
quality
Shape
Color
cell impression
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
SCU 6601
Sakata
7.4
7
8
7
8
2
GeneralLee4440
HarrisMoran
7.3
8
8
6
8
3
Dasher II
Seminis
7.1
7
8
7
7
4
Marketmore 76
Check
6.9
8
8
5
8
5
XP3501217
Seminis
6.7
7
8
6
7
6
Speedway
Seminis
6.7
7
8
6
7
7
HMX-8416
HarrisMoran
6.7
6
8
8
6
8
SRQS-2387
SunSeeds
6.6
7
8
6
7
9
Cherokee 7
Check
6.4
7
7
6
7
10
EX4674277
Seminis
6.3
7
8
5
7
11
Poinsett 76
CornellUniv
6.3
7
8
5
7
12
SRQS-2653
SunSeeds
6.1
6
8
6
6
13
Ashley
Check
5.8
6
7
6
6
14
EX4675898
Seminis
5.3
5
7
6
5
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
1.0
1
1
1
1
Mean
6.5
7
8
6
7
CV (%)
9.1
10
8
13
11
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Quality rated 1 to 9 (1 = poor, 5 = average, 9 = excellent;
except color where 1 = white, 5 = medium green, 9 = very dark green).
Correlation (Marketable yield with average quality) = -0.04ns
Not for publication
34
Table 26. Stage 3 spring slicer trial - fruit dimensions and comments
(cultigens ranked by average quality rating).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar
Seed
Length Diameter Wt. Defect1° Defect2°
Rank
or line
source
(0.1")
(0.1") (lb.) 2 4 6 2 4 6
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 SCU 6601
Sakata
8.5
2.2
0.91 D K K K T T
2 GeneralLee4440 HarrisMoran
8.1
2.1
0.78 K T T H K K
3 Dasher II
Seminis
8.3
2.1
0.80 T T K H K T
4 Marketmore 76
Check
8.4
2.1
0.88 T K K K M M
5 XP3501217
Seminis
8.8
2.1
0.84 T T K K K T
6 Speedway
Seminis
8.5
2.2
0.93 H H H K T A
7 HMX-8416
HarrisMoran
8.9
2.0
0.85 M T K T K T
8 SRQS-2387
SunSeeds
8.4
2.1
1.13 H K K T T M
9 Cherokee 7
Check
7.7
2.2
0.80 K H H T T M
10 EX4674277
Seminis
8.4
2.1
0.92 T T K H K M
11 Poinsett 76
CornellUniv
7.8
2.1
0.76 H K H K H K
12 SRQS-2653
SunSeeds
9.0
2.1
0.95 I T A D A I
13 Ashley
Check
8.4
2.2
0.83 A M M D I I
14 EX4675898
Seminis
8.4
2.1
1.05 H H M M M H
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
0.6
0.2
0.26
Mean
8.4
2.1
0.89
CV (%)
4.8
5.3
17.73
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Defects were rated as follows (giving primary and secondary for each harvest):
A - wArty fruit
J – RiDGed
S - Separated carpels
B - Blossom end defects
K - Keep(excellent)
T - Tapered ends
C - Crooks excessive
L - Late maturity
U - Uniform green
D - Dogbone shape
M - Mottled fruit
V - Varicolor (dark stem
E - Early maturity
N - Nubs excessive
end, light blossom end)
F - Four celled
O - Offtype fruit
W - White fruit
G - lonG fruit
P - Placental hollows
X - neCKS on fruit
H - sHort fruit
Q Y - Yellow fruit
I - strIped fruit
R - Reject (poor)
Z - diSeased fruit
1/2/04
35
Table 27. Stage 3 spring slicer trial - fruit keeping ability data (cultigens
are ranked by % weight loss).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Weight
Rating (0 - 9)y
FirmCultivar
Seed
loss
ShrivRots &
ness
Rank
or line
source
(%)z
eling
disease
(lb.)x
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
SCU 6601
Sakata
14
3
0
16
2
GeneralLee4440
HarrisMoran
16
5
1
17
3
Dasher II
Seminis
20
4
1
20
4
Marketmore 76
Check
19
3
3
15
5
XP3501217
Seminis
20
4
1
16
6
Speedway
Seminis
21
4
0
14
7
HMX-8416
HarrisMoran
19
3
0
14
8
SRQS-2387
SunSeeds
15
2
1
15
9
Cherokee 7
Check
18
4
1
14
10
EX4674277
Seminis
15
4
2
16
11
Poinsett 76
CornellUniv
12
3
1
17
12
SRQS-2653
SunSeeds
22
4
2
15
13
Ashley
Check
15
3
4
15
14
EX4675898
Seminis
19
4
1
15
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
10
3
3
4
Mean
17
4
1
15
CV (%)
34
54
117
14
_________________________________________________________________________________
z After storage at room temperature for 8 days in open kraft paper bags.
y Shriveling & disease rated 0-9 (0=none, 1-3=slight, 4-6=moderate, 7-9=advanced).
x Firmness after storage using Magness-Taylor fruit punch tester.
Correlation (Weight loss with shriveling) = 0.39*
Correlation (Weight loss with firmness) = -0.30*
Not for publication
36
Table 28. Stage 3 spring slicer trial - sex expression and vine data (cultigens
ranked by gynoecious rating).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Early
EarliCultivar
Seed
Gyn.
yield
ness
Vine
Vine
Rank
or line
source
ratingz (cwt/A)
(%)x
sizew
colorw
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
XP3501217
Seminis
8
158
48
8
6
2
SRQS-2653
SunSeeds
8
124
38
8
8
3
HMX-8416
HarrisMoran
8
74
36
6
6
4
Cherokee 7
Check
7
61
37
7
8
5
EX4674277
Seminis
7
112
39
7
6
6
EX4675898
Seminis
7
85
46
7
6
7
Speedway
Seminis
7
102
41
6
7
8
Dasher II
Seminis
7
56
29
6
7
9
Poinsett 76
CornellUniv
6
37
14
7
8
10
SCU 6601
Sakata
5
106
34
7
7
11
GeneralLee4440
HarrisMoran
5
85
29
7
7
12
Ashley
Check
5
61
24
7
7
13
SRQS-2387
SunSeeds
5
82
27
8
8
14
Marketmore 76
Check
3
13
7
5
6
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
2
56
15
2
2
Mean
6
83
32
7
7
CV (%)
24
41
27
18
14
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Gynoecious rating (1 = androecious, 2-3 = andromonoecious, 4-6 = monoecious,
7-8 = predominately gynoecious, 9 = gynoecious).
y Early yield is weight of Fancy+No.1 grade fruit produced in harvests 1 and 2.
x Earliness is the percent of the yield (Fancy + No.1 grade fruit)
of 6 harvests that was produced in harvests 1 and 2.
wVine size & color are rated 1 (small or yellow green) to 9 (large or dark green).
Correlation (Marketable yield with gynoecious rating) = 0.00ns
1/2/04
37
Table 29. Stage 3 spring slicer trial - disease ratings (cultigens ranked
by GSB resistance).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar
Seed
AnthracRank
or line
source
nose
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
HMX-8416
HarrisMoran
1.3
2
SCU 6601
Sakata
1.3
3
GeneralLee4440
HarrisMoran
1.7
4
Cherokee 7
Check
2.0
5
XP3501217
Seminis
2.3
6
Poinsett 76
CornellUniv
3.0
7
EX4674277
Seminis
3.3
8
EX4675898
Seminis
3.3
9
Marketmore 76
Check
3.7
10
SRQS-2653
SunSeeds
4.3
11
Dasher II
Seminis
4.3
12
Ashley
Check
4.3
13
SRQS-2387
SunSeeds
4.3
14
Speedway
Seminis
5.7
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
3.0
Mean
3.2
CV (%)
55.8
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Disease rated 0 to 9 (0=none, 1-2=trace, 3-4=slight, 5-6=moderate, 7-8=advanced,
9=plant dead).
Correlation (Marketable yield with anthracnose rating) = 0.01ns
Not for publication
38
Table 30. Stage 3 spring slicer trial - selection indexes (cultigens ranked
by SWI1).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Simple weighted
Average rank
Cultivar
Seed
indexes
indexes___
Rank
or line
source
SWI1
SWI2
ARI1
ARI2
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
XP3501217
Seminis
8.3
7.3
5.5
4.9
2
SCU 6601
Sakata
8.2
7.3
3.8
4.2
3
GeneralLee4440
HarrisMoran
7.6
6.9
4.7
5.2
4
SRQS-2653
SunSeeds
7.2
6.3
8.0
7.6
5
EX4674277
Seminis
6.9
6.1
7.5
7.1
6
SRQS-2387
SunSeeds
6.8
6.1
7.3
7.7
7
Speedway
Seminis
6.5
5.8
7.8
7.9
8
HMX-8416
HarrisMoran
6.1
5.7
7.4
7.2
9
Poinsett 76
CornellUniv
5.9
5.4
8.9
9.0
10
Ashley
Check
5.8
5.2
9.8
9.6
11
Cherokee 7
Check
5.6
5.3
8.3
8.0
12
Dasher II
Seminis
5.5
5.2
7.7
8.2
13
EX4675898
Seminis
5.3
5.0
9.9
9.1
14
Marketmore 76
Check
4.9
4.6
8.3
9.2
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
1.8
1.4
2.7
2.8
Mean
6.4
5.9
7.5
7.5
CV (%)
16.7
14.1
21.3
22.0
_________________________________________________________________________________
z SWI is simple weighted index calculated from the performance of a cultigen for
yield; earliness; fruit shape, seedcell size and overall impression; and disease
resistance. The index is calculated with 2 different methods of weighting each
trait (10 is best, 1 is worst).
ARI is the average ranking of each cultigen for yield, earliness, fruit quality
and disease resistance. The index is calculated with 2 different sets of
secondary traits added in with the primary traits (1 is best).
Correlation (Marketable yield with SWI1) = 0.83**
Correlation (Marketable yield with ARI1) = -0.47**
1/2/04
39
Summer (Stage 4) Slicing Cucumber Trial
2001
Todd C. Wehner and Tammy L. Ellington
Experiment Design
1.
A randomized complete block with 3 replications of slicer cultivars and
breeding lines (collectively referred to as cultigens) was grown.
2.
Plots were single 20 ft. rows with 5 ft. alleys at each end.
3.
Rows were on raised 18" beds spaced 60" apart (center to center).
4.
Fertilizer consisted of 80-80-80 lb/A (N-P-K) broadcast preplant
and 30-0-0 lb/A (N-P-K) sideplaced at the 2 to 4 leaf stage.
5.
Curbit was applied preemergence at the rate of 1 lb. a.i./A.
6.
The trial was planted 16 July, and harvested 4 times
(Mondays and Thursdays) between 30 August through 10 September.
Data Collection
1.
Fruit were weighed after sorting into No.1, No.2 and cull
(nubs and crooks) grades according to U.S.D.A. standards.
2.
Fruit length, diameter and weight were recorded for 3 fruit per plot.
3.
Quality ratings were from 1 to 9, with 1 = worst, 9 = best.
4.
Disease ratings were from 0 to 9, with 0 = no disease, 1-2 = trace,
3-4 = slight, 5-6 = moderate, 7-8 = severe, 9 = plant dead.
Results
The following cultigens performed well, and could be advanced
to the next stage:
1
2
3
4
5
6
EX4675898
SCU 6601
Poinsett 76
HMX-8416
General Lee (4440)
EX4674277
Seminis
Sakata
CornellUniv
HarrisMoran
HarrisMoran
Seminis
Not for publication
40
Table 31. Stage 4 summer slicer trial - yield data (cultigens ranked by
cwt/A of Fancy + No. 1 grade fruit).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Yield(cwt/A)
Percent
Plants
Cultivar
Seed
Fancy Marketfancy
Percent per A
Rank
or line
source
+No.1
able
+No.1
culls (X1000)
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
EX4675898
Seminis
39
78
24
47
26
2
Poinsett 76
CornellUniv
38
74
33
3
26
3
SCU 6601
Sakata
38
76
33
31
26
4
HMX-8416
HarrisMoran
23
44
21
57
24
5
EX4674277
Seminis
15
42
20
45
26
6
XP3501217
Seminis
13
40
21
49
25
7
GeneralLee4440
HarrisMoran
12
28
15
63
26
8
Cherokee 7
Check
10
16
31
12
5
9
SRQS-2387
SunSeeds
8
24
11
62
24
10
Dasher II
Seminis
6
19
13
57
25
11
Speedway
Seminis
6
23
9
34
22
12
Marketmore 76
Check
2
3
19
68
25
13
Ashley
Check
1
12
5
30
8
14
SRQS-2653
SunSeeds
1
1
5
62
25
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
31
54
27
40
3
Mean
15
34
18
44
22
CV (%)
121
94
87
54
8
_________________________________________________________________________________
Correlation (Marketable yield with % culls) = -0.36*
1/2/04
41
Table 32. Stage 4 summer slicer trial - earliness data (cultigens ranked by
weight of Fancy + No.1 grade fruit in harvests 1 and 2).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cumulative fruit weight and % of
total weight (6 harvests) for harvest:
Cultivar
Seed
1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5!!
Rank or line
source
wt. % wt.
% wt.
% wt.
% wt.
%
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 EX4675898
Seminis
29 35
74 96
78 100
78 100
78 100
2 SCU 6601
Sakata
15 22
72 93
73 98
76 100
76 100
3 Poinsett 76
CornellUniv
9
8
42 37
70 62
74 67
74 67
4 XP3501217
Seminis
13 25
39 99
40 100
40 100
40 100
5 HMX-8416
HarrisMoran
10 22
36 77
41 82
44 100
44 100
6 EX4674277
Seminis
5 14
27 71
42 100
42 100
42 100
7 SRQS-2387
SunSeeds
11 30
24 100
24 100
24 100
24 100
8 Speedway
Seminis
5 26
22 64
23 66
23 67
23 67
9 GeneralLee4440 HarrisMoran
7 59
20 77
26 90
28 100
28 100
10 Dasher II
Seminis
8 36
19 97
19 97
19 100
19 100
11 Cherokee 7
Check
5 20
14 57
16 67
16 67
16 67
12 Ashley
Check
1
5
10 91
12 100
12 100
12 100
13 Marketmore 76 Check
2 67
3 100
3 100
3 100
3 100
14 SRQS-2653
SunSeeds
0
0
1 33
1 33
1 33
1 33
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
15 45
44 50
53 52
52 50
54 50
Mean
9 26
29 78
33 85
34 88
34 88
CV (%)
104 102
92 38
95 36
94 34
94 34
_________________________________________________________________________________
Correlation (Marketable yield with yield in harvests 1-2)
= 0.96**
Correlation (Marketable yield with % of yield in harvests 1-2) = 0.16ns
Not for publication
42
Table 33. Stage 4 summer slicer trial - fruit quality data (cultigens ranked
by average quality).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar
Seed
Average
Seed- Overall
Rank or line
source
quality
Shape
Color
cell impression
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
Poinsett 76
CornellUniv
7.0
8
8
7
7
2
HMX-8416
HarrisMoran
7.0
7
9
7
7
3
GeneralLee4440
HarrisMoran
6.8
7
8
6
7
4
EX4675898
Seminis
6.3
7
8
5
7
5
SCU 6601
Sakata
6.1
6
9
6
6
6
EX4674277
Seminis
6.0
6
9
6
6
7
Marketmore 76
Check
5.9
5
7
7
5
8
Ashley
Check
5.8
6
7
5
6
9
XP3501217
Seminis
5.8
5
8
7
5
10
Dasher II
Seminis
5.4
5
8
7
5
11
Speedway
Seminis
5.2
6
7
4
6
12
Cherokee 7
Check
5.1
5
6
5
5
13
SRQS-2387
SunSeeds
4.7
5
5
5
5
14
SRQS-2653
SunSeeds
4.7
4
5
6
4
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
1.2
1
1
1
1
Mean
5.8
6
7
6
6
CV (%)
12.4
15
8
14
15
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Quality rated 1 to 9 (1 = poor, 5 = average, 9 = excellent;
except color where 1 = white, 5 = medium green, 9 = very dark green).
Correlation (Marketable yield with average quality) = 0.32*
1/2/04
43
Table 34. Stage 4 summer slicer trial - fruit dimensions and comments
(cultigens ranked by average quality rating).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar
Seed
Length Diameter Wt. Defect1° Defect2°
Rank
or line
source
(0.1")
(0.1") (lb.) 2 4 6 2 4 6
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Poinsett 76
CornellUniv
7.4
2.1
0.71 H H H K K K
2 HMX-8416
HarrisMoran
8.5
2.0
0.69 K T K T K T
3 GeneralLee4440 HarrisMoran
7.9
2.0
0.71 D T D T C T
4 EX4675898
Seminis
8.5
2.1
0.78 G T G D D D
5 SCU 6601
Sakata
8.1
2.2
0.78 T T T H H H
6 EX4674277
Seminis
7.9
2.1
0.69 H T H T K T
7 Marketmore 76
Check
6.9
2.0
0.52 H C H C H C
8 Ashley
Check
6.9
2.1
0.67 M M M H H H
9 XP3501217
Seminis
8.0
2.0
0.67 T H T D D D
10 Dasher II
Seminis
7.8
2.1
0.70 D C D N H N
11 Speedway
Seminis
7.8
2.1
0.71 H M H C H C
12 Cherokee 7
Check
7.3
1.9
0.68 M K M H H H
13 SRQS-2387
SunSeeds
7.6
2.0
0.69 T C T D H D
14 SRQS-2653
SunSeeds
7.0
1.9
0.57 C T C M C M
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
0.8
0.1
0.13
Mean
7.7
2.0
0.68
CV (%)
6.7
4.3
11.48
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Defects were rated as follows (giving primary and secondary for each harvest):
A - wArty fruit
J – RiDGed
S - Separated carpels
B - Blossom end defects
K - Keep(excellent)
T - Tapered ends
C - Crooks excessive
L - Late maturity
U - Uniform green
D - Dogbone shape
M - Mottled fruit
V - Varicolor (dark stem
E - Early maturity
N - Nubs excessive
end, light blossom end)
F - Four celled
O - Offtype fruit
W - White fruit
G - lonG fruit
P - Placental hollows
X - neCKS on fruit
H - sHort fruit
Q Y - Yellow fruit
I - strIped fruit
R - Reject (poor)
Z - diSeased fruit
Not for publication
44
Table 35. Stage 4 summer slicer trial - sex expression and vine data
(cultigens ranked by gynoecious rating).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Early
EarliCultivar
Seed
Gyn.
yield
ness
Vine
Vine
Rank
or line
source
ratingz (cwt/A)
(%)x
sizew colorw
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
EX4675898
Seminis
8
74
96
8
7
2
GeneralLee4440
HarrisMoran
8
20
77
8
8
3
EX4674277
Seminis
8
27
71
7
6
4
HMX-8416
HarrisMoran
8
36
77
7
7
5
SRQS-2653
SunSeeds
8
1
33
7
7
6
XP3501217
Seminis
7
39
99
8
6
7
SRQS-2387
SunSeeds
7
24
100
6
7
8
Dasher II
Seminis
7
19
97
7
7
9
Cherokee 7
Check
7
14
57
6
8
10
SCU 6601
Sakata
6
72
93
8
7
11
Speedway
Seminis
6
22
64
6
7
12
Poinsett 76
CornellUniv
5
42
37
7
7
13
Ashley
Check
5
10
91
5
6
14
Marketmore 76
Check
4
3
100
6
6
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
2
44
50
1
2
Mean
7
29
78
7
7
CV (%)
16
92
38
12
15
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Gynoecious rating (1 = androecious, 2-3 = andromonoecious, 4-6 = monoecious,
7-8 = predominately gynoecious, 9 = gynoecious).
y Early yield is weight of Fancy+No.1 grade fruit produced in harvests 1 and 2.
x Earliness is the percent of the yield (Fancy + No.1 grade fruit) of 6 harvests
that was produced in harvests 1 and 2.
w Vine size & color are rated 1 (small or yellow green) to 9 (large or
dark green).
Correlation (Marketable yield with gynoecious rating) = 0.29ns
1/2/04
45
Table 36. Stage 4 summer slicer trial - disease ratings (cultigens ranked
by anthracnose resistance).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar
Seed
AnthracRank
or line
source
nose
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
HMX-8416
HarrisMoran
4.7
2
Poinsett 76
CornellUniv
4.7
3
EX4675898
Seminis
5.7
4
Cherokee 7
Check
6.0
5
SCU 6601
Sakata
6.0
6
Ashley
Check
6.0
7
SRQS-2387
SunSeeds
6.3
8
GeneralLee4440
HarrisMoran
6.7
9
Dasher II
Seminis
7.0
10
EX4674277
Seminis
7.7
11
XP3501217
Seminis
7.7
12
Speedway
Seminis
7.7
13
Marketmore 76
Check
8.0
14
SRQS-2653
SunSeeds
8.3
_______________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
1.8
Mean
6.6
CV (%)
16.5
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Disease rated 0 to 9 (0=none, 1-2=trace, 3-4=slight, 5-6=moderate, 7-8=advanced,
9=plant dead).
Correlation (Marketable yield with anthracnose rating) = -0.70**
Not for publication
46
Table 37. Stage 4 summer slicer trial - selection indexes (cultigens ranked
by SWI1).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Simple weighted
Average rank
Cultivar
Seed
indexes
indexes___
Rank
or line
source
SWI1
SWI2
ARI1
ARI2
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
EX4675898
Seminis
4.6
5.2
4.9
4.9
2
SCU 6601
Sakata
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.1
3
Poinsett 76
CornellUniv
4.4
4.4
4.7
5.5
4
HMX-8416
HarrisMoran
4.1
4.7
3.9
4.5
5
GeneralLee4440
HarrisMoran
3.3
4.1
6.1
6.9
6
XP3501217
Seminis
3.1
4.1
7.6
7.5
7
EX4674277
Seminis
3.1
3.7
7.2
7.5
8
Ashley
Check
2.7
3.9
8.4
8.2
9
Dasher II
Seminis
2.7
3.8
8.5
8.0
10
Cherokee 7
Check
2.7
3.3
8.6
8.3
11
SRQS-2387
SunSeeds
2.6
3.8
9.6
8.5
12
Speedway
Seminis
2.6
3.2
9.3
9.3
13
Marketmore 76
Check
2.3
3.6
9.3
8.9
14
SRQS-2653
SunSeeds
1.8
2.2
11.9
11.9
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%)
1.8
1.3
3.2
3.3
Mean
3.7
3.9
7.5
7.5
CV (%)
26.6
21.0
26.0
26.7
_________________________________________________________________________________
z SWI is simple weighted index calculated from the performance of a cultigen for
yield; earliness; fruit shape, seedcell size and overall impression; and disease
resistance. The index is calculated with 2 different methods of weighting each
trait (10 is best, 1 is worst).
ARI is the average ranking of each cultigen for yield, earliness, fruit quality
and disease resistance. The index is calculated with 2 different sets of
secondary traits added in with the primary traits (1 is best).
Correlation (Marketable yield with SWI1) = 0.96**
Correlation (Marketable yield with ARI1) = -0.71**
1/2/04