Project title:
Improving Strawberry Plant Establishment In
Used Beds
Project number:
SF 108
Project leader:
Robert Irving, ADAS UK Ltd
Report:
Final report, January 2011
Previous report
Annual report, January 2010
Key staff:
Robert Irving
Location of project:
J W Busby & Partners, Manor Farm, Chilcote,
Swadlincote, Derbyshire, DE12 8DL
Project coordinator:
Mr S McGuffie, New Farm Produce, Nr.
Lichfield, Staffs, WS13 8EX
Date project commenced:
1st February 2009
Date project completed (or expected 31st January 2011
completion date):
Key words:
Strawberry, soil, establishment, root
treatment.
Whilst reports issued under the auspices of the HDC are prepared from the best
available information, neither the authors nor the HDC can accept any responsibility for
inaccuracy or liability for loss, damage or injury from the application of any concept or
procedure discussed.
No part of this publication may be presented, copied or reproduced in any form or by any
means without prior written permission of the Horticultural Development Company.
The results and conclusions in this report are based on an investigation conducted over
a two-year period. The conditions under which the experiments were carried out and the
results have been reported in detail and with accuracy. However, because of the
biological nature of the work it must be borne in mind that different circumstances and
conditions could produce different results. Therefore, care must be taken with
interpretation of the results, especially if they are used as the basis for commercial
product recommendations.
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
AUTHENTICATION
We declare that this work was done under our supervision according to the procedures
described herein and that the report represents a true and accurate record of the results
obtained.
Robert Irving
Consultant
ADAS UK Ltd
Signature ....R
I Irving
Date...8 February 2011
Report authorised by:
T M O’Neill
Horticulture Research Manager
ADAS UK Ltd
Signature.. p.p.
Dr Kim Green
Date...14 February 2011
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
CONTENTS
Grower Summary ............................................................................................................ 1
Headline ...................................................................................................................... 1
Background and expected deliverables ....................................................................... 1
Summary of the project and main conclusions ............................................................ 1
Financial benefits ........................................................................................................ 4
Action points for growers ............................................................................................. 5
Science Section .............................................................................................................. 6
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 6
Materials and methods ................................................................................................ 8
Results ...................................................................................................................... 14
Discussion................................................................................................................. 22
Project Conclusions .................................................................................................. 24
Technology transfer .................................................................................................. 25
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
GROWER SUMMARY
Headline
Four treatments (1-Osmocote, 2-Plantmate Granules, 7-Omex Bio and 9-Feed
Solution) applied at planting improved early canopy development in one of two
everbearer strawberry varieties in 2010 but did not result in yield benefits.
Background and expected deliverables
Most of the UK strawberry crop is still produced in plastic-covered raised beds in field
soils. The soil is commonly fumigated and there is a strong desire to prolong the value
of this investment into a second crop by replanting the beds. This saves costs and
reduces the use of soil fumigants.
Good plant establishment has a significant effect on yield. Strawberry growers are
increasingly considering whether to continue to produce in field soil or switch to
substrate systems. Replanting of beds has become more problematic as a farm's soil
is repeatedly used for strawberries.
Specific objectives of this project are:

To indentify non-pesticide products that improve plant establishment of
replanted everbearer crops into previously cropped soil.

To compare the performance of these products with standard agronomic
treatments.

To quantify the establishment treatments on initial canopy development and on
yield in July, August and September.

To ascertain the financial worthiness of the treatments applied.
Summary of the project and main conclusions
Products evaluated in the first year of the project in 2009 included Bio-Fungus
Granules, Broadleaf P4, Broadleaf root dip, Humaroot SP, Omex Bio 18, Omex DP98,
Plantmate Drench, Scotts Miracle Gro, side forking, Standard feed solution 1:1:1 and
Vaminoc S.
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
1
Bare root everbearer varieties were chosen to provide the most challenging plant
material for establishment in 2009.
In 2010, twelve products (Osmocote Exact Standard 5-6 month 15:9:12, Plantmate
Granules, Broadleaf P4, Agralan Revive, Omex DP98, Huma-Root SP, Omex Bio 18,
Side forking, Standard feed solution 1:1:1, Plantmate Drench, Vaminoc S, Radifarm)
were selected following the results in 2009. Full details of all products applied in 2009
and 2010 are listed in Tables 1 and 2 (below).
They were applied to potted strawberry varieties Eve´s Delight and Evie 2, planted into
once-used beds in Derbyshire in March 2010. Potted plants were used in 2010, to
improve uniformity of plant stock. Slightly heavier soil was also used in 2010 than had
been used the previous year.
Table 1: Details of product application rates for 2010 and 2009
Treatment
Number
Name
2010 application rates
2009 application rates
1
Osmocote Exact
Standard 5-6 month
15:9:12
3 g in planting hole per
plant
Miracle Gro 18:9:10, 3 g
granules in planting hole
per plant
2
Plantmate Granules
Not used
3
Broadleaf P4
4
Agralan Revive
5
Omex DP98
6
Huma-Root SP
7
Omex Bio 18
8
Side forking
9
Standard feed solution
1:1:1
1 g in planting hole per
plant
1 g in planting hole per
plant
10 ml per litre, 250 ml
drench per plant
4 ml per litre of water, 250
ml drench per plant
0.4 g per litre, 250 ml
drench per plant
6 ml per litre of water, 250
ml drench per plant
One four pronged fork per
planting hole
6 ml per litre of water, 250
ml drench per plant
10
Plantmate Drench
1.16 g per litre, 250 ml
drench per plant
11
Vaminoc S
12
Radifarm
13
Control
8 g granules in planting
hole per plant
2.5 ml /litre, 250 ml drench
per plant
No treatment
Pre planting root dip at 10
g per litre of water for 1015 minutes
2 g granules in planting
hole per plant
Not used
1 g in planting hole per
plant
Not used
2 ml per litre of water, 250
ml per plant
0.1g per litre of water, 250
ml drench per plant
2 ml per litre of water, 250
ml per plant
One four pronged fork per
hole
3 ml per litre of water, 250
ml drench per plant
No treatment
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
2
Table 2: Details of product claims
Treatment
Number
Name
(Distributor/Manufacturer)
Properties and product claims
1
Osmocote Exact Standard
5-6 month 15:9:12
(Scotts)
Controlled release fertilisers slowly release fertiliser
through a polymer coated granule. They are widely
and successfully used for container ornamental
production, where nutrition is placed in the compost
for the life of the crop and only water is applied
thereafter. Scotts have been developing their use for
soil grown crops. They may reduce the amount of soil
leached nutrients.
2
Plantmate Granules
(FAST)
A granular formulation containing proprietary strains of
Trichoderma harzianum. It claims a protective quality
against pathogens e.g. Pythium, Rhizoctonia and
Phytophthora. Also a claim to stimulate auxins for
better growth.
3
Broadleaf P4
(Agriculture Polymers
International)
Broadleaf P4 is a granular polymer formulation that
absorbs and stores hundreds of times its own weight
of water. This property claims to reduce losses to
moisture stress and improves establishment and
growth. Dissolved nutrients are also absorbed, though
available to the crop, and may reduce leaching.
4
Agralan Revive
(Agralan)
A liquid culture of the bacterium Bacillus subtilis,
which helps create soil conditions for healthy plant
growth. Used for seedlings, cuttings and other plant
material as a soil drench, a root dip, post planting
treatment or compost additive.
5
Omex DP98
(Omex)
A phosphite source of phosphorous that is normally
applied as a foliar spray and sometimes as a drench
at planting. As a foliar application, it is claimed to
improve rooting and promote plant health.
6
Huma-Root SP
(Plant Solutions)
A humic and fulvic acid powder that is applied as a
drench. Their high cation exchange capacity is
claimed to enhance nutrient uptake, improved root
growth and reduced transplant stress.
7
Omex Bio 18
(Omex)
A liquid formulation of kelp, major and minor elements.
It can be applied as a drench or foliar spray. The
contained 'bio stimulants' and nutrients are claimed to
produce improvements in root growth and nutrient
uptake.
8
Side forking
Poor soil structure is a major cause of failed plant
establishment. Side forking a used bed can loosen the
soil and may improve root development. A four
pronged fork was inserted to 30 cm depth to the side
of the replanting hole immediately after planting, then
gently firmed back to ensure good root contact.
9
Standard feed solution
1:1:1
A basic feed of N:P:K. Vegetable transplant work in
the eighties showed a yield benefit from nutrient
solution drenching at planting. The application of a
feed strength solution using straight feeds, coupled
with the consolidating process of a drench may
improve establishment in strawberry beds.
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
3
Table 2 continued: Detail of product claims
10
Plantmate Drench
(FAST)
A wettable powder formulation containing proprietary
strains of Trichoderma harzianum. It claims a
protective quality against pathogens e.g. Pythium,
Rhizoctonia and Phytophthora. It also claims to
stimulate auxins for better growth.
11
Vaminoc S
(Fargro)
A non-soluble granular formulation containing
arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, which have been
specially selected for strawberries. Fungal hyphae
extend from the inoculated roots improving the
absorptive surface area of root systems. This process
claims more rapid crop establishment, disease
protection and increased yields.
12
Radifarm
(Hutchinsons)
A liquid formulation of enzymatically produced extract
from plant material with added natural components,
which help stimulate the formation of new roots, and
the extension of the existing season.
13
Control
No treatment applied
The key findings were as follows:

No treatments significantly improved the yield for any variety or transplant type
used in 2009 and 2010.

In 2010, four treatments (1-Osmocote, 2-Plantmate Granules, 7-Omex Bio and
9-Feed Solution) significantly improved canopy development in Eve's Delight,
although the improvements did not last for the whole growing season. The
same treatments did not enhance canopy development in Evie 2.

The lack of significant growth improvements following treatment applications to
different varieties and transplant materials make it hard to recommend these
root treatments for conventionally grown everbearer strawberries planted in a
healthy well managed soil. It is possible that treatment differences might have
been more marked under more adverse soil conditions or had sequential
applications been used.
Financial benefits
No treatment showed a lasting significant improvement of growth or yield over the
control in 2010. This is despite increasing the application rates of the more promising
treatments from the 2009 trial. There are no financial benefits demonstrated in this trial.
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
4
Action points for growers
Growers suffering from poor crop performance on replanted beds cannot look to root
treatments applied in the manner of this trial to provide a significant improvement.
Given these results, the options are:

Evaluate efficacy of past fumigant use and areas for improvement

Acquire fresh ground

Examine the costs/benefits of a move to soilless substrates
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
5
SCIENCE SECTION
Introduction
Everbearer strawberry varieties respond positively to rapid establishment right from the
start. Establishment rates are presently improved with fleecing at planting and early
tunnelling. Both practices lift the soil temperature early in the season and improve the
speed of root development and establishment. This trial reviewed treatments that may
improve this process further. Bare root material was chosen for the first year as it may
better express the benefits of enhanced root zone development compared to potted
material (see Year 1 Annual report). Potted material was used in 2010 to reflect
industry practice and provide more even sized planting material.
The objectives of the experiment in 2010 were to maximise any potential improvements
found with the 2009 treatments and to quantify any growth improvements by means of
early canopy expansion, then later yield measurement.
The 2009 results showed a canopy improvement for some products, although these
were not statistically significant. Their application rates were increased for 2010 after
discussion with the manufacturers and HDC. Three new products were added, two of
which had new activities. Two were dropped. These changes were made to maximise
the chances of identifying a useful response.
Table 3: Treatments Unchanged For 2010 Trial
Treatment
Number
Name
Reasoning
3
Broadleaf P4
No change to 2009
8
Side forking
No change to 2009
13
Control
No change to 2009
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
6
Treatments adjusted for 2010 trial
Treatment
Number
Name
Reasoning
1
Osmocote Exact Standard
5-6 month 15:9:12
There was a sample delivery problem in 2009.
Miracle Gro 18:9:10 was replaced by the intended
equivalent professional brand for 2010
5
Omex DP98
Rate increased to seek a better response in 2010
6
Huma-Root SP
Rate increased to seek a better response in 2010
7
Omex Bio 18
Rate increased to seek a better response in 2010
9
Standard feed solution 1:1:1
Rate increased to seek a better response in 2010
10
Plantmate Drench
A root drench was advised by the suppliers for the
2010 trial rather than the 2009 advice to root dip
11
Vaminoc S
Rate increased to seek a better response in 2010
Treatments added to 2010 trial
Treatment
Number
Name
Reasoning
2
Plantmate Granules
Plantmate Granules were not available in 2009
4
Agralan Revive
Agralan Revive was not available in 2009, and offered
a unique activity for 2010
12
Radifarm
Radifarm was not available in 2009, and offered a
unique activity for 2010
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
7
Treatments dropped from 2010 trial
Treatment
Number
Name
Reasoning
-
Bio Fungus Granules
No longer on sale for 2010 and caused transient root
burn in 2009
Broadleaf Root Dip
No advantage noted in 2009. There was little water
absorbing capacity compared to the hole application.
Removed to make space for additional treatments in
2010
-
Materials and methods
Site details
A second year raised bed crop was chosen at JW Busby & Partners, Chilcote,
Derbyshire. The soil was a well graded, free draining sandy loam, pH 6.6 with no
obvious signs of compaction or root disease and, as such, had excellent potential for
good establishment. The 2009 season had however been cropped with the highly wiltsensitive variety Sweet Eve, which suffered low level verticillium wilt, following soil
disinfestation the previous autumn. The dead Sweet Eve crowns were pulled out
immediately before replanting.
The trial was planted within a large block of replanted Evie 2, which remained disease
free for 2010. All of the 2010 plants were planted directly into the previous plant holes.
Soil samples for nutrient analysis were taken as a zigzag pattern on 2nd March 2010
and analysed for major nutrients and texture.
Treatments
Thirteen root zone treatments including the control were administered at planting
(Tables 4 and 5). Normal crop management practices, including trickle feeding using a
conventional feed, were applied thereafter.
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
8
Table 4: Details of product application rates for 2010 and 2009
Treatment
Number
Name
2010 application rates
2009 application rates
1
Osmocote Exact
Standard 5-6 month
15:9:12
3 g per plant in planting
hole
Miracle Gro 18:9:10, 3 g
granules per plant in
planting hole
2
Plantmate Granules
1 g in planting hole per
plant
Not used
3
Broadleaf P4
1 g per plant in planting
hole
1 g per plant in planting
hole
4
Agralan Revive
10 ml per litre, 250 ml
drench per plant
Not used
5
Omex DP98
4 ml per litre of water, 250
ml drench per plant
2 ml per litre of water, 250
ml per plant
6
Huma-Root SP
0.4 g per litre, 250 ml
drench per plant
0.1g per litre of water, 250
ml drench per plant
7
Omex Bio 18
6 ml per litre of water, 250
ml drench per plant
2 ml per litre of water, 250
ml per plant
8
Side forking
One four pronged fork per
planting hole
One four pronged fork per
hole
9
Standard feed solution
1:1:1
6 ml per litre of water, 250
ml drench per plant
3 ml per litre of water, 250
ml drench per plant
10
Plantmate Drench
1.16 g per litre, 250 ml
drench per plant
Pre planting root dip at 10
g per litre of water for 1015 minutes
11
Vaminoc S
8 g granules per plant in
planting hole
2 g granules per plant in
planting hole
12
Radifarm
2.5 ml /litre, 250 ml drench
per plant
Not used
13
Control
No treatment
No treatment
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
9
Table 5: Detail of product claims
Treatment
Number
1
Name
(Distributor/Manufacturer)
Osmocote Exact Standard
5-6 month 15:9:12
(Scotts)
2
Plantmate Granules
(FAST)
3
Broadleaf P4
(Agriculture Polymers
International)
4
Agralan Revive
(Agralan)
5
Omex DP98
(Omex)
6
Huma-Root SP
(Plant Solutions)
7
Omex Bio 18
(Omex)
8
Side forking
Properties and product claims
Controlled release fertiliser slowly releases nutrients
through a polymer coated granule. They are widely
and successfully used for container ornamental
production, where nutrition is placed in the compost
for the life of the crop and only water is applied
thereafter. Scotts have been developing their use for
soil grown crops. They may reduce the amount of soil
leached nutrients.
A granular formulation containing proprietary strains of
Trichoderma harzianum. It claims a protective quality
against pathogens e.g. Pythium spp, Rhizoctonia spp
and Phytophthora spp. Also a claim to stimulate
auxins for better growth.
Broadleaf P4 is a granular polymer formulation that
absorbs and stores hundreds of times its own weight
of water. This property claims to reduce losses to
moisture stress and improves establishment and
growth. Dissolved nutrients are also absorbed, though
available to the crop, and may reduce leaching.
A liquid culture of the bacterium Bacillus subtilis,
which helps create soil conditions favourable to
healthy plant growth. For seedlings, cuttings and other
plant material as a soil drench, a root dip, post
planting treatment or compost additive.
A phosphite source of phosphorous that is normally
applied as a foliar spray. Sometimes as a drench at
planting. There is claimed improved rooting and
promoted plant health as a foliar application.
A humic and fulvic acid powder that is applied as a
drench. The high cation exchange capacity is claimed
to enhance nutrient uptake, improved root growth and
reduced transplant stress.
A liquid formulation of kelp, major and minor elements.
It can be applied as a drench or foliar spray. The
contained 'bio stimulants' and nutrients are claimed to
produce improvements in root growth and nutrient
uptake.
Poor soil structure is a major cause of failed plant
establishment. Side forking a used bed can loosen the
soil and may improve root development. A four
pronged fork was sunk 30 cm deep to the side of the
replanting hole immediately after planting, then gently
firmed back to ensure good root contact.
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
10
Table 5 continued: Detail of product claims
9
Standard feed solution
1:1:1
10
Plantmate Drench
(FAST)
11
Vaminoc S
(Fargro)
12
Radifarm
(Hutchinsons)
13
Control
A basic feed of N:P:K. Vegetable transplant work in
the eighties showed a yield benefit from nutrient
solution drenching at planting. The application of a
feed strength solution using straights, coupled with the
consolidating process of a drench may improve
establishment in strawberry beds.
A wettable powder formulation containing proprietary
strains of Trichoderma harzianum. It claims a
protective quality against pathogens e.g. Pythium spp,
Rhizoctonia spp and Phytophthora spp. Also a claim
to stimulate auxins for better growth.
A non-soluble granular formulation containing
arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, which have been
specially selected for strawberries. Fungal hyphae
extend from the inoculated roots improving the
absorptive surface area of root systems. This process
claims more rapid crop establishment, disease
protection and increased yields.
A liquid formulation of enzymatically produced extract
from plant material with added natural components,
which help stimulate the formation of new roots, and
the extension of the existing season.
No treatment applied
Soil compaction assessment
An analogue soil compaction gauge (manufacturers Spectrum Technologies Inc) was
used to assess bed compaction after removal of the previous crop but before replanting
on the same day. Ten readings were taken in a zigzag pattern across the site for each
variety.
Planting material
7 cm potted everbearers varieties Evie 2 and Eve´s Delight were used. These were
very uniformly sized plants, an improvement on the 2009 bare root plants.
Crop management and treatment application
The crop followed the conventional cropping pattern for the farm. The soil beds were
prepared, sterilised with metham sodium (Basamid) in autumn 2008, and then cropped
in 2009 with Sweet Eve. Plants were killed after harvest with glyphosate and the dead
plants removed just before replanting in 2010.
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
11
Treatments were applied (Figs 2 and 3) and the crops planted on 2nd March 2010.
Granule treatments were placed in the hole before planting and drenches immediately
after planting (Figs 2 & 3). The area was covered with single layer fleece on 4th March
and tunnelled on 17th April. The fleece was removed on 15th May.
Fig 2: Photo of granules in hole
Fig 3: Drenching a hole
Crop assessment
Two parameters were chosen, canopy development and picked yield.
It was
considered that measuring root volumes would be excessively time consuming for this
project and possibly inaccurate.
Canopy development was measured as groundcover within the first three months
before there was overlapping of plant canopies. The crop canopy area was recorded
as a digital image using a fixed height tripod to ensure a standardised recorded area.
The images were later scored manually using a standard overlaid grid. Four recordings
were made to provide three sets of canopy expansion data.
Each plot was
photographed and scored separately. The canopy score is the proportion of squares
filled per plot (Fig 1). Each plant was scored each time then totalled for the plot. The
canopy score was not converted into m2 of canopy as this contributed nothing to the
assessment. It was calculated as the increase in filled squares since the previous
recording.
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
12
Fig 1: photo of grid over canopies
The results are presented as grid scores per treatment.
Picked yield was established as three picks per plot to reflect a week’s picking during
early August, late August and mid September. This was a total of nine picks. Picking
dates were:

August 2nd, 5th & 9th

August 23rd, August 26th, August 30th

Sept 14th, Sept 17th, Sept 22nd
This was not a total harvest of the season but provided a second check for the canopy
data to identify if there were significant advantages from any particular treatment in the
main yielding times of the season. Each plot was weighed separately and recorded by
carefully selected and trained farm staff. The results are presented as a combined
weight for the four replicates.
Experiment design and analysis
The two varieties Evie 2 and Eve´s Delight were planted as two adjacent randomised
complete block trials. Each trial contained four adjacent beds with a full replication of
the 13 treatments in each bed. Individual plots contained eight plants plus two guard
plants, approximately 1.6 m of bed length. The trial was planted at 5 plants per metre
of bed on a standard double row; the field density was 29,411 plants per ha.
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
13
An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA, using Genstat) was applied to the data to identify
statistically significant treatment differences.
Results
Soil nutrient analysis and texture
Both blocks had closely matched nutrient status. The two blocks also had closely
matched textures (Tables 6 and 7).
Table 6: Soil nutrient status, 2nd March 2010
Index
mg/l (Available)
Soil pH
P
K
Mg
P
K
Mg
Eve's Delight
6.6
4
3
3
47.2
313
168
Evie 2
6.6
3
3
4
42.8
307
179
Table 7: Soil texture
Eve's Delight
Evie 2
Sand (2.00 – 0.06mm) %
47
48
Silt (0.060 - 0.002mm) %
25
23
Clay (< 0.002mm) %
28
29
Textural Classification
Clay Loam
Clay Loam
Soil compaction status
The soil was moist and easy to penetrate. Soil within a range of 0-200 PSI (0-1380
KN/m² = K Pa) is regarded as free of compaction problems.
There was minimal
compaction, the lower the number, the less resistance to the meter tip (Table 3). Many
of the higher scores were due to a stone being in the way. No areas of compaction or
poor drainage were identified in the trial site. These were well constructed beds in their
second year.
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
14
Table 8: Soil compaction readings pre-planting – 2nd March 2010
PSI (KN/m² = K Pa)
at 0 cm depth
PSI (KN/m² = K Pa)
at 10 cm depth
PSI (KN/m² = K Pa)
at 20 cm depth
PSI (KN/m² = K Pa)
at 30 cm depth
Eve's Delight
0
(0)
10
(69)
10
(69)
20
(138)
0
(0)
0
(0)
10
(69)
25
(173)
0
(0)
15
(104)
15
(104)
20
(138)
0
(0)
0
(0)
10
(69)
40
(276)
0
(0)
0
(0)
10
(69)
40
(276)
0
(0)
0
(0)
20
(138)
30
(207)
0
(0)
10
(69)
10
(69)
80
(552)
0
(0)
10
(69)
10
(69)
50
(346)
0
(0)
10
(69)
10
(69)
30
(207)
0
(0)
20
(138)
20
(138)
40
(276)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
100
(692)
0
(0)
0
(0)
25
(173)
25
(173)
0
(0)
0
(0)
25
(173)
25
(173)
0
(0)
10
(69)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
20
(138)
0
(0)
10
(69)
0
(0)
10
(69)
10
(69)
50
(346)
10
(69)
10
(69)
20
(138)
30
(207)
0
(0)
0
(0)
20
(138)
30
(207)
0
(0)
0
(0)
15
(104)
20
(138)
0
(0)
10
(69)
20
(138)
50
(346)
Evie 2
Results summarising the effects of treatments on canopy development and yields in
both strawberry varieties are shown in Tables 9 - 14.
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
15
Table 9: Eve's Delight Canopy Scores
Eve's Delight Canopy Score April 8th
Canopy Score
10
8
6
4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
11
12
13
Treatment
LSD (At 5% level) 1.452, F pr 0.005
Eve's Delight Canopy Score April 16th
14
Canopy Score
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Treatment
LSD (At 5% level) 1.702, F pr < 0.001
Eve's Delight Canopy Score May 9th
Canopy Score
32
24
16
8
Treatments
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Treatment
LSD (At 5% level) 5.539, F pr 0.005
1 Osmocote Exact Standard 5-6
month 15:9:12
2 Plantmate Granules
3 Broadleaf P4
4 Agralan Revive
Eve's Delight Canopy Score May 20th
5 Omex DP98
6 Huma-Root SP
Canopy Score
50
7 Omex Bio 18
40
8 Side forking
30
9 Standard feed solution 1:1:1
20
10 Plantmate Drench
10
11 Vaminoc S
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Treatment
9
10
11
12
13
12 Radifarm
13 Control
LSD (At 5% level) 7.699, F pr 0.048
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
16
Table 10: Evie 2 Canopy Scores
Canopy Score
Evie 2 Canopy Score April 8th
6
4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
11
12
13
Treatment
LSD (At 5% level) 1.468, F pr 0.990
Evie 2 Canopy Score April 16th
Canopy Score
10
8
6
4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Treatment
LSD (At 5% level) 1.473, F pr 0.518
Canopy Score
Evie 2 Canopy Score May 9th
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Treatments
1 Osmocote Exact Standard 5-6
month 15:9:12
2 Plantmate Granules
Treatment
LSD (At 5% level) 5.115, F pr 0.055
3 Broadleaf P4
4 Agralan Revive
Evie 2 Canopy Score May 20th
5 Omex DP98
6 Huma-Root SP
Canopy Score
40
7 Omex Bio 18
30
8 Side forking
20
9 Standard feed solution 1:1:1
10
10 Plantmate Drench
0
11 Vaminoc S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Treatment
9
10
11
12
13
12 Radifarm
13 Control
LSD (At 5% level) 9.256, F pr 0.384
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
17
Table 11: Eve's Delight Change in Canopy
Eve's Delight Change in Canopy Score April 8th
to 16th
Canopy Score
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Treatment
LSD (At 5% level) 1.062, F pr 0.033
Eve's Delight Change in Canopy Score April 16th
to May 9th
Canopy Score
20
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Treatments
Treatment
1 Osmocote Exact Standard 5-6
month 15:9:12
2 Plantmate Granules
LSD (At 5% level) 4.808, F pr 0.024
3 Broadleaf P4
4 Agralan Revive
Eve's Delight Change in Canopy Score May 9th to
20th
5 Omex DP98
Canopy Score
6 Huma-Root SP
20
7 Omex Bio 18
15
8 Side forking
10
9 Standard feed solution 1:1:1
10 Plantmate Drench
5
11 Vaminoc S
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Treatment
9
10
11
12
13
12 Radifarm
13 Control
LSD (At 5% level) 4.755, F pr 0.487
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
18
Table 12: EvIe 2 Change in Canopy
Evie 2 Change in Canopy Score April 8th to 16th
Canopy Score
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Treatment
LSD (At 5% level) 1.125, F pr 0.320
Evie 2 Change in Canopy Score April 16th to May
9th
Canopy Score
20
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Treatment
Treatments
1 Osmocote Exact Standard 5-6
month 15:9:12
2 Plantmate Granules
LSD (At 5% level) 4.618, F pr 0.041
3 Broadleaf P4
Evie 2 Change in Canopy Score May 9th to 20th
4 Agralan Revive
5 Omex DP98
Canopy Score
20
6 Huma-Root SP
15
7 Omex Bio 18
10
8 Side forking
9 Standard feed solution 1:1:1
5
10 Plantmate Drench
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Treatment
11 Vaminoc S
12 Radifarm
13 Control
LSD (At 5% level) 6.328, F pr 0.621
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
19
Table 13: Fruit weights and number, Eve’s Delight
Eve's Delight Total Weight of Nine Picks
Weight (g)
2500
2000
1500
1000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
12
13
Treatment
LSD (At 5% level) 576.3, F pr 0.152
Eve's Delight Berry Number of Nine Picks
Berry number
120
90
60
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Treatment
LSD (At 5% level) 26.35, F pr 0.111
Treatments
1 Osmocote Exact Standard 5-6
month 15:9:12
2 Plantmate Granules
Average berry weight (g)
Eve's Delight Average Berry Weight (g)of Nine
Picks
3 Broadleaf P4
4 Agralan Revive
21
5 Omex DP98
20
6 Huma-Root SP
19
7 Omex Bio 18
18
8 Side forking
9 Standard feed solution 1:1:1
17
10 Plantmate Drench
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Treatment
9
10
11
12
13
11 Vaminoc S
12 Radifarm
13 Control
LSD (At 5% level) 2.429, F pr 0.671
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
20
Table 14: Fruit weights and number, Evie 2
Evie 2 Total Weight of Nine Picks
Weight (g)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
11
12
13
Treatment
LSD (At 5% level) 754.3, F pr 0.254
Evie 2 Berry Number of Nine Picks
Berry number
160
140
120
100
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Treatment
Treatments
LSD (At 5% level) 38.08, F pr 0.402
1 Osmocote Exact Standard 5-6
month 15:9:12
2 Plantmate Granules
Evie 2 Average Berry Weight (g) of Nine Picks
3 Broadleaf P4
4 Agralan Revive
Average berry weight (g)
20
5 Omex DP98
6 Huma-Root SP
19
7 Omex Bio 18
18
8 Side forking
9 Standard feed solution 1:1:1
17
10 Plantmate Drench
11 Vaminoc S
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Treatment
9
10
11
12
13
12 Radifarm
13 Control
LSD (At 5% level) 1.854, F pr 0.092
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
21
Discussion
The 2010 potted plants had much greater size uniformity than the 2009 plants. It was
hoped that any treatment effect on canopy development would then be visually
noticeable on the plots. This was not so, the differences were small and only identified
after measurements and statistical procedures.
Each plot had eight plants, which were recorded individually for canopy size. Analysis
of this data showed that size variability was uniform across all treatments.
Four
replicates and randomisation of plots gave confidence in the data.
There was a marked difference in variety response.
Eve's Delight: Assessment of Canopy and Yield Data
The canopy scores all have a Frequency of Probability of <0.05, which indicates there
are significant effects in the data, Table 9.
Treatments 1 (Osmocote), 2 (Plantmate Granules), 7 (Omex Bio) and 9 (Feed Solution)
all showed a consistent improvement over the Control for canopy scores. This
improvement was usually statistically significant (P<0.05) for these treatments.
There is a sign that these treatment benefits declined later in the season, since May
20th scores were not significantly better that the control. This may have been due to
treatment breakdown over time, displacement by irrigation or increased beneficial
factors such as soil temperatures increasingly influencing root development.
The canopy differences, which give a measure of canopy expansion, also show a
significant effect, though only for the first early assessment of April 8 to April 16
Although there was a trend for some treatments to apparently increase yield, no
treatments showed a statistically significant improvement in yield compared with the
untreated control for 2010, Table 10. There was a non-significant trend for treatment 7
(OmexBio) that contributed to early canopy expansion, to give yields that were lower
than the untreated control.
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
22
Evie 2: Assessment of Canopy and Yield Data
No treatments showed a statistically significant improvement in canopy size or yield in
2010, Tables10, 12 and 14.
Evie 2 is a tougher, more soil-borne disease resistant variety so may not have
benefitted from these treatments in the same way as the more delicate Eve’s Delight.
From June onwards, canopy measurement became increasingly meaningless as the
canopy overlap between plants and within each plant increased.
The 2009 results (Year 1 Annual Report) showed that treatments with a nutritional
mode of action came closest to producing significant responses. This seems to still be
the case again for 2010 where three of the four significant responses were nutrient
based. Treatments 1 (Osmocote), 7 (Omex Bio) and 9 (Feed Solution) all showed a
consistent improvement over the Control for canopy scores, although this was just for
one variety, and did not translate into a yield response.
There was an important turn around for the slow release fertiliser treatment. Two very
similar brands of slow release fertiliser were used, one for each year. The 2009 brand
´Miracle Gro 18:9:10´ was placed in the planting hole and caused transient root scorch
but had no long term deleterious effect. Slow release fertilisers have well proven
advantages so treatment was included again for 2010, but managed differently.
The 2010 equivalent ´Osmocote Exact Standard 5-6 month 15:9:12´ (treatment 1) was
not at all damaging and was one of the treatments that showed a significant advantage
on Eve´s Delight. It was placed 5 cm away from the planting hole and located on the
trickle tape side. This avoided a damaging fertiliser hotspot near the developing roots.
Overall, the product claims were for a range of properties that may not have been
particularly relevant for this particular site.
For example, not all the products
recommended a single application at planting. They may have had foliar or trickle
application for several applications but this was beyond the scope of this trial.
The 2010 site had excellent clay loam soil for trouble free planting, with no serious
history of major soil-borne pathogens. There was a very low level of loss to verticillium
wilt with sensitive Sweet Eve in the previous year. No losses were seen in 2010. The
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
23
soil also had a moderate pH and adequate phosphate index. It is possible that the soil
could have been too fertile for the products to express their properties. Possibly a root
promoting treatment providing phosphorous would have little additional impact under
these conditions.
Similarly, side forking and treatment with products claiming to
manage soil-borne pathogens had minimal impact under conditions of good soil
structure with low levels of pathogen inoculum. Two products, Huma-Root SP and
Omex Bio 18, actually state that the greatest effects would be seen under adverse
conditions.
Project Conclusions
In 2009 and 2010, a range of treatments applied at planting was evaluated for their
effect on everbearer strawberry establishment, growth and yield.

No treatments improved the yield for any variety used (Camarillo, Albion, Eve's
Delight and Evie 2) or transplant type (bare root material and potted material)
for 2009 and 2010.

Significantly improved canopy effects were noted on one variety only (Eve's
Delight) in 2010 following treatment with Osmocote, Plantmate Granules, Omex
Bio and Feed Solution, although these effects were short-lived. Controlled
release fertiliser brand Miracle Gro 18:9:10 caused temporary leaf scorch in
2009, though this did not affect yield. Osmocote Exact Standard 5-6 month
15:9:12, was included in 2010 under revised manufacturer guidance to place it
between the planting hole and trickle line. This avoided root scorch and no leaf
scorching was noted either, due to better placement.

These findings make it hard to recommend these root treatments as a single
planting application for conventionally grown everbearer strawberries planted in
healthy well managed soil. It is possible that treatment differences might have
been more marked under more adverse soil conditions.

From the results of this project, growers suffering poor crop performance on
replanted beds cannot rely on the single application root treatments tested in
this trial to provide a significant improvement.
Sequential applications may
improve crop responses, but this not tested in this trial.
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
24

Given these results, the alternative options are to evaluate the efficacy of past
sterilant use and areas for improvement, to acquire fresh ground or to
undertake a financial cost/benefit appraisal of a move to substrate production.
Technology transfer
HDC News, December 2009, ‘Get the Best from Re-used Beds’, Issue 159, pp20-21.
HDC News, February 2011, ‘Healthy Start for a Second Crop', Issue 170, p16
 2010 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
25