LIBRARY, A a u COLLEGE. campus. A229-11s1-7M-L1§6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR College Station, Brazos County, Texas BULLETIN NO. 438 NOVEMBER, 1931 DIVISION OF HORTICULTURE Tomato Varieties and Fertilizers for the Lower Rio Grande Valley 0f Texas AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President STATION STAFFq‘ ADMINISTRATION: A. B. CONNER, M. S., Director R. E. KARPER, M. S., Vice-Director CLARIcE MIxsoN, B. A., Secretary M. P. HOLLEMAN, JR., Chief Clerk J. K. FRANCKLOW, Assistant Chief Clerk CHEsTER HIGGS, Executive Assistant HOWARD BERRY, B. S., Technical Assistant CHEDHSTRY: _ G. S. FRARs, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. AsBURY, M. S., Chemist J. F. FUDGE, Ph. D., Chemist E. C. CARLYLE, M. S., Assistant Chemist W. H. WALKER, Assistant Chemist ELMA GRAHAM, Assistant Chemist L. OGIER, B. S., Assistant Chemist_ . J. STERGES, B. S., Assistant Chemist EANNE F. DEMOTTIER, Asst. Chemist _ AY TREIcHLER, M. S., Assistant Chemist . L. ScHwARTz, B. S., Assistant Chemist . M. POUNDERs, B. S., Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE: S. H. YARNELL, Sc. D., Chief _ **L. R. HAWTHORN, M. S., Horticulturist J. F. WOOD, B. S., Horticulturist L. E. BROOKS, B. S., Horticulturist REED, B. S., Horticulturist HUSBANDRY: . M. JoNEs, A. M., Chief _ _ . L.WARWICK, Ph.D., Breeding Investigations . P. DAvIs, Wool Grader TOMOLOGY: . L. THOMAS, Ph. D., Chief: State J omw~>a< I Zmw~; Q H > Z i Z > r E '1'] Entomologist _ . . REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist_ . . FLETCHER, Ph. D., Entomologist . . OWEN, JR., M. S., Entomologist . . RONEY, M. S., Entomologist _ . . GAINEs, JR., M. S., Entomologist . . JoNEs, M. S., Entomologist . BIBBY, B. S., Entomologist . CLARK, B. S., Entomologist _ . DUNNAM, Ph. D., Entomologist . MORELAND, B. S., Asst. Entomologist . HEARD, B. S., Chief Inspector DDALL, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector . McGREGOR, B.S., Foulbrood Inspector N OMY: I . REYNoLDs, Ph. D., Chief . KARPER, M. S., Agronomist _ . IVIANGELSDORF, Sc. D., Agronomist . KILLOUGH, M. S., Agronomist . REA, B. S., Agronomist _ . LANGLEY, M. S., Agronomist CATIONS: . JAcKsON, Chief qmuuéwm QWMOZFW mil) €€ mpg; QB‘! > Q I mwom muwwm ma" 3 >ww U50 VETERINARY SCIENCE: *M. FRANCIS, D. V. M., Chief H. ScHMIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian _ _ **F. P. MATHEws, D.V.M., M.S., Veterinarian W. T. HARDY, D. V. M., Veterinarian ——;—————, Veterinarian PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY: . J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief . N. EZEKIEL, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist . J. BACH, M. S., Plant Pathologist . H. ROGERS, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist M AND RANCH ECONOMICS: . P. GABBARD, M. S., Chief . E. PAULsON, Ph. D., Marketing . A. BONNEN, M. S., Farm Management . R. NIsBET, B. S., Ranch Management **A. C. MAOEE, M. S., Farm Management RURAL HOME RESEARCH: JEssIE WHITAcRE, Ph. D., Chief MARY ANNA GRIMEs, M. S., Textiles ELIZABETH D. TERRILL, M. A., Nutrition SOIL SURVEY: **W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chi_e E. H. TEMPLIN, B. S., Soi Surveyor A. H. BEAN, B. S., Soil Surveyor R. M. MARsHALL, B. S., Soil Surveyor **M. W. BECK, B. S., Asst. Soil Surveyor BOTANY: V. L. CORY, M. S., Act. Chief S. . F, M. S., Botanist SWINE HUSBANDRY: FRED HALE, M. S., Chief DAIRY HUSBANDRY: O. C. COPELAND, M. S., Dairy Husbandman POULTRY HUSBANDRY: R. SHERWOOD, M. S., Chief J. R. COUcH, B. S.,Asst. Poultry Husbandman AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING: . P. SMITH, M. S., Chief MAIN STATION FARM: G. T. McNEss, Superintendent APICULTURE (San Antonio): H. B. PARKS, B. S., Chief A. H. ALEX, B. S., Queen Breeder FEED CONTROL SERVICE: F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief JAMEs SULLIVAN, Assistant Chief S. D. PEARcE, Secretary flee“ FA 502"» J. H. ROGERs, Feed Inspector K. . KIRKLAND, B. S., Feed Inspector 1S). . REYNOLDs, JR., Feed Inspector E. . WILsON, B. S., Feed Inspector L D ‘A. MOORE, Feed Inspector H. G. WICKES, B. S., Feed Inspector SUBSTATIONS No. 1, Beeville, Bee County: R. A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Lindale, Smith County: _ P. R. JOHNSON, M. S., Superintendent _ **B. H. HENDRIcKsoN, B. S., Sci..in Soil Erosion **R. W. BAIRD, B. S., Assoc. Agr. Engineer No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County: R. H. STANsEL, M. S., Superintendent H. M. REED, M. S., Horticulturist No. 4, Beaumont, Jelferson County: R. H. WYcHE, B. S., Superintendent **H. M. BEAcHELL, B. S., Jr. Agronomist No. 5, Temple, Bell County: HENRY DUNLAvY, M. S., Superintendent C. H. ROGERs, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist H. E. REA, B. S., Agronomist S. . WOLFF, M. S., Botanist _ **H. V. GEIB, M. S., Sci. in Soil Erosion **H. O. HILL, B. S., Jr. Civil Engineer No. 6, Denton, Denton County: P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent **I. M. ATKINS, B. S., Jr. Agronomist No. 7, Spur, Dickens County: _ R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent B. C. LANGLEY, M.- S., Agronomist No. 8. Lubbock, Lubbock County: L. JoNEs, Superintendent FRANK GAINEs, Irrig. and Forest Nurs. No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: J. J. BAYLEs, B. S., Superintendent No. l0, College Station, Brazos County: R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., In charge L. J. McCALL, Farm Superintendent No. ll, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County: H. F. MORRIS, M. S., Superintendent **No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: J. R. QUINBY, B. S., Superintendent **J. C. STEPHENs, M. A., Assistant Agronomist No. 14, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties: W. H. DAMERON, B. S., Superintendent ————————————, Veterinarian W. T. HARDY, D. V. M., Veterinarian O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd **O. G. BABCOCK, B. S., Asst. Entomologist No. 15, Weslaco, Hidalgo County: W. H. FRIEND, B. S.. Superintendent . W. CLARK, B. S., Entomologist . J. BAcH, M. S., Plant Pathologist . F. WOOD, B. S., Horticulturist N . 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County: . H. MCDOWELL, B. S., Superintendent . E. BROOKS, B. S., Horticulturist No. 19, Winterhaven, Dimmit County: E. MORTENsEN, B. S., Superintendent **L. R. HAWTHORN, M. S., Horticulturist ro°~gw Teachers in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects on the Station: W. ADRIANcE, Ph. D., Horticulture W. BILSING, Ph. D., Entomology _ P. LEE, Ph. D., Marketing and Finance ScoATEs, A. E., Agricultural Engineering G. S. V. D. A. K. IVIACKEY, M. S., Animal Husbandry *Dean School of Veterinary Medicine. _ **ln cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture. i; S. IVIOGFORD, M. S., Agronomy BRIsON, B. S., Horticulture . R. HORLAcHER, Ph. D., Genetics W i KNOX, M. S., Animal Husbandry DARNELL, M. A., Dairy Husbandry TAs of November l. 1931. Tomato production is one of the leading truck-gardening enterprises in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. The annual pro- duction of tomatoes has increased from 946 cars in 1926-27 to 2,927 cars for the 1930-31 season. Since the shipping sea- son is short, early maturity of the crop is a most important factor. Shipping quality of the fruits is also an important consideration. The globe or round-type fruits are in better demand but these varieties are late and somewhat unprolific as compared with varieties like Bonny Best. Varieties of the semi-globe or oblate type are less productive and mature later than varieties of the flattened or oblong type, but are more desirable from the commercial standpoint than other types. Bonny Best, John Baer, Clark’s Early, and similar varieties come under this classification and appear to be better adapted to this region than any of the other varieties studied. An application of 20 tons of manure per acre increased the annual yield of marketable fruit by 2,000 pounds. Twelve hundred pounds per acre of 4-8-8 fertilizer gave decided in- creases in yield, but six-hundred-pound applications of the same fertilizer were not equal to applications of six hundred pounds per acre of superphosphate. Pruning reduced the total yield of fruit, but increased the percentage of early marketable fruit. _ Spacing the plants relatively close together increased the yield of early fruit, and did not materially reduce the size of the fruits. “Pocketing” was more severe on some varieties than others, and was confined to individual plants in some instances. Fer- tilizers did not materially alfect the percentage of “pocketed” fruits. CONTENTS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ Method of Growing Tomatoes in the Lower Rio Grande Valley . . . . . . 5 Variety Tests with Tomatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Plan of the Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Conditions of the Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Method of Measuring Varietal Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Classification of Varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Results of Variety Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Commercial Desirability of Tomato Varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 Shape, Size, a.nd Shipping Quality of Fruit Yields . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Yields of Various Varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2O Description of the More Important Varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Pruning Tests with Tomatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2'7 Spacing Tests with Tomatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Fertilizer Experiments with Tomatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Plan of Experiments . . . . . . . . . . .9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Preliminary Experiments in 1925 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Results of Fertlizer Experiments, 1926 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3O Results of Fertilizer Experiments, 1927-1931 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31 Effect of Fertilizer Treatment on Size of Fruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Effect of Fertilizer Treatment on “Pocketing” . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3'7 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38 BULLETIN NO. 438 NOVEMBER, 1931 TOMATO VARIETIES AND FERTILIZERS FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY W. H. FRIEND The production of tomatoes during the late spring and early summer is one of the most important trucking enterprises of. the irrigated por- tions of the counties comprising the Lower Rio Grande Valley. The car-lot production of this crop has ranged from 85 cars in 1920 to 2,927 cars in 1931. During the last six-year period, production has averaged approximately 1,000 cars for the first three years and more than 2,000 cars for the last three seasons. Thus, it will be seen that the tomato industry is rapidly expanding in this region (Table 1). Tomato harvesting in the second early regions to the north of the Valley is usually Well under way by the first Week in June. In a late season there may be an overlapping of the harvesting periods of the two regions, and in such an event, the Valley producers, because they are further removed from the markets, are at a disadvantage. The fact that the shipping season is fairly well defined makes it desirable for the Valley growers to get their tomatoes on the market relatively early. Further, the fact that the producing areas are far removed from the points of consumption makes it necesasry that the tomatoes hold up well in transit. i Methods of Growing Tomatoes in the Lower Rio Grande Valley Tomatoes are grown on soils ranging from the light sandy loams to clay loams and clays. Becausethe heavier soils are more retentive of moisture and require less irrigation, and because vegetative growth is much less on heavy soils than on the light sandy loam soils, many grow- ers prefer the heavier soils for tomato production. A most important point in selecting a location for a planting of tomatoes is consideration of the crop previously grown. It is highly important that tomatoes be rotated with unrelated crops, and crops that are not subject to the same pests and diseases. It is unwise to follow potatoes, egg plant, or peppers with tomatoes because these plants are rather closely related. It is also unwise to plant tomatoes on ground known to be infested with nematodes. Since early fall and winter vegetables are usually planted on land previously in corn or spring vegetable-s, tomatoes are usually grown on land that grew cotton during the previous season. This is a v-ery good practice, especially where the stalks are plowed under early in the fall. The land for tomatoes is usually plowed, disked, floated, and then listed into rows thirty-six to forty-eight inches apart. If fertilizer is 6 BULLETIN NO. 438, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION to be used, it is applied in the bottom of the furrows and mixed with the soil with a cultivator before irrigation Water is applied. A time-ly rain may make the use of irrigation water unnecessary in starting the seedlings off, but since the plants are started during the dry season, it is much the safer policy to water the land before the seeds are planted. This Watering is usually done about two Weeks be- fore the seeds are to be planted. . Since earliness is a most important factor in the production of toma- toes, it is the common practice for growers to start the spring crop dur- ing the latter part of December. In recent years there has been a tend- ency to advance the time of planting to early December. Since the average date of the last killing frost is about February 18, the earlier plantings encounter much more- serious frost hazards than do the Jan- uary plantings. The young plants are most effectively protected by being planted twice as close together as is required for a permanent stand, then xvhen Weather forecasts indicate that there is danger of a killing frost, each alternate plant should be covered with soil. Should the frost fail to materialize, no effort is made to uncover the plants Which were covered with soil, and dependence must then be had upon the single stand re- maining uncovered; of course, if the frost kills the unprotected plants then the alternate plants may be uncovered and Will be earlier than plantings made after the frost. The older and larger plants are pro- tected by this method With more difficulty, and for this reason extra early seeding makes the enterprise more hazardous from the standpoint of loss from frost. Dry “northers” frequently sweep the country during the times when spring tomato plants are developing and cause considerable damage to the plants, both by actual desiccation and by whipping the plants about and bruising the succulent stems and foliage. The use of temporary windbreaks between the rows of tomatoes is of great benefit in protect- ing them from damaging winds. A great deal of protection during the windy season can be afforded by annual white sweet clover (Hubam), cabbage, beets, or early squash. Corn does not develop early enough to be of much benefit and may shade the plants too much, especially Where it is planted in alternate rows. The actual planting of the seed is usually done with a vegetable seeder ; however, some prefer to plant the seed in hills by hand. Where planting is done on a firm, moist seed bed, germination is quite rapid and the plants grow off at a fairly rapid rate. When the plants are siX to eight inches in height, the first thinning is done. Hills of four to six plants are allowed to remain until the plants have attained a height of ten to twelve inches, or until it is thought that the danger of cutworms is past. At the final thinning, the plants which are allowed to remain are left singly in hills and two to three feet apart in the rows. Close spacing of the plants in the row and the crowding together of the rows will lessen the injury from TOMATO VARIETIES AND FERTILIZERS FOR LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 7 ‘7 wind, but in the case of the vigorous growing varieties may cause the fruit to be shaded too much. It is not the common practice to prune tomatoes in this region; how- ever, much interest has been shown in this practice during recent years. It Keeping the vines pruned to three main stems until the first three or l four clusters of fruit are set is probably the best method of pruning 5 under Valley conditions. It has already been pointed out that the application of about four acre inches of water should precede the planting of the crop. An ad- ditional ten acre inches of water, either as rainfall or irrigation, should be sufficient for a crop under normal conditions. The plants should ~ not be allowed to sufier for moisture, especially during the month of . March. flVfiTWmrqwy$¢ ‘f, ,1“, Table 1. Tomato shipments from the lower Rio Grandc Valley, 1919-1931 Car-Loads Season Shipped* 1919 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 1920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . 85 1921 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455 1922 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 1923 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 1924 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 288 1925 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 1926 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925 1927 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946 1928 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ,357 1929 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ,906 1930 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,272 1931 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ,927 *Express shipments included in these figures ; Cultivation starts when the plants are large enough to have soil " worked to them and should be continued as often as necessary to keep _ weeds under control. Sled cultivators may be used for the first one or two cultivations, but sweep cultivators of the horse-hoe type are most generally used. ‘y: Hoeing should be resorted to whenever nece-sary in order that weeds i‘, be kept under control. The timely use of hoes will do much to keep the crop free of weeds and will thereby reduce the work of harvesting. ‘l Spraying or dusting to control insect pests and diseases has not been A practiced very generally in the Valley. A sporadic outbreak of late blight in the 1931 crop has done much to stimulate interest in this j phase of tomato culture. _ I The use of a combination spray containing Bordeaux (4-4-50), l arsenate of lead (1-50), and nicotine sulphate (1-1000) is probably ' spraying should be done relatively early in the life of the plant, as late spraying may result in some stained fruit. Fungicidal-insecticidal » dusts may be used to combat insect pests and diseases of the tomato, ’ but have been observed to be less effective than the liquid sprays. a the best material to use in protecting the vines and crop. Most of the ' 8 BULLETIN NO. 438, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Harvesting the crop starts when the first fruits are in the “mature ‘ green” stage. At this stage the intra-locular mass is in a semi-liquid 0r jelly-like state and almost fills the cavity. When this substances has a dry appearance, the fruit is immature and will not ripen prop- i‘ erly after it has been removed from the vine. The bulk of. the crop ripens during May, but this may vary one or two weeks either way, according to the season. VARIETY EXPERIMENTS WITH TOMATOES Plan of Experiments The variety studies with tomatoes at the Valle-y Station were initi- ated in 1924 for the purpose of obtaining information over a period of years in regard to the performance of the different varieties under con- ditions existing in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Certain varieties were studied for a single season only, while others of greater impor- tance to this region were included throughout the entire period. The varieties studied were compared with a check variety, which was the one most widely grown commercially at the time the experiments were started. Conditions of the Experiments With Varieties The tomato variety experiments were conducted on Victoria Fine Sandy Loam soil (6, '7, 8). This is not the soil type on which the greater portion of the Valley tomato crop is produced, but most of the expansion in tomato growing is being made on sandy loam soil. It has been observed that certain varieties behave differently when planted on different kinds of soil. This fact should be taken into considera- tion in making practical application of the results presented in this bulletin. ' The tomato plants used in the variety work were grown in rotation with spring and winter truck crops, and with summer crops of cotton and corn. The usual method of plowing, disking, floating, listing, and irrigating the land in preparation for planting was followed. Seed used in the experiments was obtained from the original growers in most instances, and was obtained from the same source from year to year, except where several strains of the same variety were included i11 the experiment. Commercial seed was use-d; not selected stocks fur- nished especially for experimental planting. In growing the crop, the seed was planted at one side of the water furrow in rows six feet apart. Seeding was usually done during the early part of 'January. Plants were thinned to three plants per hill when they were approximately six inches in height. Final thinning to one plant every three feet was done when it was thought that cut- worm danger was past. The plantings were cultivated as often as nec- essary to keep weeds under control. Irrigation water was applied dur- ing the growth period, at such times as soil-moisture conditions indi- TOMATO VARIETIES AND FERTILIZERS FOR LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 9 cated that a need for additional soil moisture existed or would exist within a short time. The plats used in this work were arranged so that the rows of plants were six feet apart, each row of 44 hills constituting a plat 1_/ firi-acre in size. Due to the fact that Wide spacing between the rows was fol- lowed, buffer rows between the variety plats were not used. In most cases, every fifth plat was planted to the check variety. While the soil on the experimental plats seems quite uniform, the productive capac- ity of the field varies considerably. For this reason, yield records ‘of the different varieties are compared with the average yield of the two nearest check plats rather than with the average yield of all of [the check plats. 4 Method 0f Measuring Varietal Characteristics In recording data concerning the different varieties, actual yields were taken on a plat basis. Characteristics such as color, shape, rela- tive size, pocketing, and regularity of fruit, season of maturity, and vine characters were determined on a percentage basis. Measurements such as diameter and length of fruit, thickness of wall, and average weight of fruit were determined by actual measurement of not less ' than twenty fruits, which were picked in the “pink” stage. The adaptability characteristics, other than yield of fruit, are prob- ably more important in evaluating the desirability of a variety for use in the Valley than is yielding capacity, as determined by the plat me-thod. Most of the varieties studied were prolific. The kind of fruit produced and the season at which the fruit matures are more im- portant than gross tonnage of fruit. Yield of marketable fruit is in- cluded and will give some idea concerning the quality of the crop, especially in regard to size and shape of the fruit. The percentage of “pocketed” fruit may also be considered as a measure of quality. “Pocketing” or “puffing,” a condition in which the jelly-like tissues in the seed cavities fail to fill the entire locule, is a most important point to consider in arriving at the relative value of the tomato varie- ties. The classification of Traub, Hotchkiss, and Johnson (9) is used in indicating the severity of pocketing. Fruit colors refer to Ridgwafs Color Chart (5). Only two color groupings, scarlet red and pomegranate purple, are made in classifying the varieties. Shape is designated as (1) round or globular, (2) oblate or flatten- ened globular, and (3) oblong or flattened. Regularity of shape was determined on a percentage basis. Where less than sixty per cent of the crop failed to conform to the varietal type, the strain was desig- nated as “very irregular”; where less than seventy but more than sixty per cent conformed to the varietal type, the designation was “irregular,” and where more than seventy per cent of the crop conformed to- the variety type, the designation was “regular.” “Season of maturity” was determined on the basis of the period dur- 10 BULLETIN NO. 438, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Fig. 1. Tomato fruits of the globe type. Note the small amount of inter-locular tissue present, giving the fruit a seedy appearance. Fig. 2. Tomato fruits of the oblate type. Note that the inter-locular tissue is more pronounced than in the case of the globe type fruit. AA .. 4>.s‘..'u~.4m_il:k_> Fig. 3. Tomato fruits of the oblong or flattened type. Note that there is an abun- dance of inter-locular tissue, giving the fruit a meaty appearance. TOMATO VARIETIES AND FERTILIZERS FOR LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 11‘. ing which the bulk of the crop for each of the strains matured, and not 0n the basis of the ripening period of a few early fruits. Vine characters indicate the relative size of the vines, leafiness, and habit of growth. Protection afforded the fruit is one of the important factors in the consideration of these characters. Classification of Varieties A method of classification which emphasizes shape as well as color has been presented in this publication and differs in that respect from the classification proposed by Halstead (2). The one emphasizing shape of fruit should be of practical value to the grower in that it lists those varieties having the most desirable shape, those having the least. desirable shape, and those intermediate between the other two groups. Since this character is a most important consideration in the commercial grading of fruit, varieties producing fruit which is round,‘ or globular are the most desirable, other factors being equal. Only three botanical varieties of Lycopersicum esculentum (1) are considered in the present classification: . A. L. esculentum var. commune. Fruit usually large; standard foliage; spreading habit of growth. Most commercial types of tomatoes. B. L. esculentum var. valiclum. Thick, short stems; upright growth; foliage very dark green; short and dense. Dwarf tomatoes. C. L. esculentum var. graindifolium. Foliage with entire margins resembling potato foliage; plants of spreading habit; fruit large and multicolor. Potato-leaved tomatoes. The varieties are classified as to color under each of the following shape classes: (1) Fruit oblate or compressed spherical; (2) Fruit round or spherical; and (3) Fruit oblong or flattened. 12 BULLETIN NO. 438, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 2. Classification of varieties based on color and shape of fruit Group A. Lycopersicum esculentum var. commune (Most commercial types 0f tomatoes) 1. Fruits Oblate in Shape. 2. Fruits Round in Shape. (a) Scarlet-Red Color. A and M First Early (a) Scarlet-Red Color. Avon Early Fargo Break O’ Day L008 1936p“ Burbank - Louisiana Red Bonny Best Marglobe Clarks Early Red Head Chalk’s Early Jewel Hummer (b) Pomegranate-Purple Color. John Baer Cooper’s Special Livingston’s Favorite Coreless Matchless Early Shipper Manyfold Globe Norton Gulf State Market Norduke Kanora Perfection King of the Earlies Perfect First Early Rosy Morn Viking Self Topper Stone _ _ 3. Fruits Oblong in Shape. (b) Pomegranate-Purple Color. (a) Scarlet-Red Color. Acme Duke of York Beauty Earliana _ Boulder Early Michigan Early Detroit ‘ New Prolific Fordhook First Early Paragon Louisiana Pink Winter Queen Marvelosa _ Trucker’s Favorite (b) Pomegranate-Purple Color. ~ Black and Brimmer June Pink Group B. L. esculentum var. validum (Dwarf tomatoes) 1. Fruits Oblate in Shape. 2. Fruits Round in Shape. (a) Scarlet-Red Color (a) Scarlet-Red Color. Dwarf Champion Dwarf Stone (b) Pome ranate-Purple Color. 3. Fruits Oblong in Shape. Dwar Giant (a) (b) Pomegranate-Purple Color. Giant Tree Group C. L esculentum var. grandifolium (Potato leaved tomatoes). 1. (Fruits Oblate in Shape. 3. (Fyuits Oblong in Shape. a a _ (b) Pomegranate-Purple Color. 2. Fruits Round in Shape. Mika o (b) Pomegranate Color. Magnus Results of Variety Experiments The tomato varieties included in the experiments during the period from 1925 to 1930, inclusive, are classified in Table 2. It should be noted that most of the varieties produce fruit Which is either oblate in shape or flattened; comparatively few varieties produce the highly desirable, globe-shaped, or spherical fruits. Color is not so important as shape in determining the Worth of a variety; but Where other fac- tors are equal, the purple-fruited sorts are more desirable than are the scarlet-fruited varieties. Purple fruited tomatoes develop a more at- tractive color when ripened off the vines than do the average run of scarlet-fruited varieties, especially Where the yellow under color is strongly pronounced. TOMATO VARIETIES AND FERTILIZERS FOR LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 13 COMMERCIAL DESIRABILITY OF TOMATO. VARIETIES Probably the most important consideration in determining the suit- ability of a variety of tomatoes for commercial use concerns uniform- ity in the shape of the fruit.- Fig. 4. Two types of blemishes common to most commercial varieties of tomatoes. Shape, Size, and Shipping Quality of Fruit Factors such as diameter of fruit, length of fruit, thickness of wall, average Weight, and severity of pocketing, as they are operative in determining shape, size, and shipping quality of fruit, are of first importance. This impor- tance is due to the decided market demand for spherical fruits of medium size that hold up Well in transit. The ratio of length to diameter, When considered along svith regularity of shape, gives one an accurate conception con- cerning the nature of the fruit. Xeither extreme in regard to size is desirable, from the standpoint of the commercial producer. To- matoes larger in diameter than _ _ y three inches and Weighing 0.4 Fleet 5_ A ‘desirable type ef basin en pound (approximately 6% ozs.) Nete the ebeenee ef are too large to be commercially desirable, While fruit smaller than one and one-half inches in diameter and Weighing less than 0.1 pound each are too small for market. the , varieties. 14 BULLETIN NO. 438, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The relative sizepf the fruit is of importance in rating the varieties for the reason that both very large and small tomatoes are undesirable from a commercial standpoint. Medium-size tomatoes are the most de- sirable and are in greatest demand on the market. EarlineSS 0f maturity is an important factor in tomato production, since both the planting and the end of the shipping season have rather fixed ‘limits. The shipping season can be lengthened only by using early-maturing varieties. The adaptability characteristics of the differ- ent varieties are shown in Tables 3 and 4. The amount or p-ercentage of “pocketing” 0r puffy fruit pfgducgd by a variety has a rather important bearing on the commercial desirability of that variety. Since some Varieties produce more fruit showing the severe forms of pocketing than do other varieties, these varieties must ibe considered inferior to the others in regard to this characteristic. In general, it has been observed that the more “meaty” tomatoes, of the fiat type, show less “pocketing” than do tomatoes of the less seedy globe type. Data. in regard to “pocketing” are also presented in Tables 3 and 4. Note the small number Fig. 6. Normal (right) and pocketed (left) tomato fruits. of relatively large locules in the case of the pocketed fruit. Mostwcommercial varieties of tomatoes yield well under normal con- ditions. Comparatively few varieties are so unproductive as to be termed not prolific. Most of the varieties observed are prolific, while some few varieties are very prolific. In arriving at the yielding capac- ities of the varieties, quality of the crop must be given due consider- ation. It is not possible to use the same standard for grading all of In grading for shape, the standard for tomatoes of the oblong o.r flattened type would be decidedly different from that of round or globe-type tomatoes. ' i ..\£. < 62L Ho nowwuw émwfim, 33F. E ©3wo>pws wish emu.“ TOMATO VARIETIES AND FERTILIZERS FOR LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 15 . - . . . . . . . . . - - - . . . - .. .-.-...-. N.Q §-N %.N .-.¢-.....................-X$€HHOW?OSUTZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. S w m2. Nd 5N 9N . . . . . . . - . . . | . - . . . - -. x N.o x-N N.N ......................4..--»|-@Q°%waH@2 . . . . . . . . .. N N mm... N... 5N fiN ..........................¢Emm§E2=¢1_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. N“ wma N5 NN 9N ......:.......................$~m.£¢= . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. N mm... Ne QN fiN ......................J8:~2@:xw:=w N N w q NN... ma mN HN . . . . . . . . . . . . . A . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...:2o_w . - - . . ¢ - - - . . - - - . . . . . . . - . - . . - . - . N-o x-N ovfl . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . 4 . - - - 1 ¢ v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. N NN.¢ N... fiN N; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N mm... Nd NN 9N ? l? i w m~o §N¢N N-N . . - - . < . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . - . . - . - . . . . . . . . . . - - ¢ . . . . - . - - - - - - n . . . N.o @.N o~N . . . . . . . v . . - < . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . §n £.N O.N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .--.&W@m . . - . . . . - . . . . » . - . . . -. .u¢-.--.. N-o fi-N o-N ....4...-..................-u>é,flflm ulnillllnx 2E5 AEMENV Afifiawog Afieiomv >$>v d5 $53G 3:35 3:25 N25; .~Q NMQ#QQMN@Q .g.wwfl®g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . %.¥O.T~mw> Biih auofiiuoh: m0 HQQESZ owm~o>< wwQGMQMSP .*wofloiw> 3x53 we wofimiuaombwno fizfim .m 05mm. 16 BULLETIN NO. 438, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIOfi N - - > - n . - . - . 0 . . - . . . . - ~ - ... . . . » - § fivazOhm .%umw2 . - . . . . . Umkflq . . . . . . .UMC..QQ . . . . . . UMQ>Q@ . . . . . . . . UQNQ . . . . .Em.;%v@2 .hwi.—mmwh.mw N . . . . . fliwznvhfim . . . . .E5:U®E . . wmibt . . . . . . . . .CCwNUw@@2 . . . . .E5@wv®2 . . . . . . . . YDNTHWQE % . . . . . ohm . . . . .E:@@U2 ..UMQU@ .@U2 . . . . . . . . . . . - . . Qwflq . . . . . . . . . . . . ..mfl:.wmfim 2 0222205 25>. . 522652 . .5256 652 . . . . . Z222m22m . . . . . . . .5254 . 12552602 . . . . . . . .252:m5.i2 2 5222205 2252/ . . . . .55652 . .5256 .652 . . . . . .55>5m . . 50505622 . 12522652 .52sm5.i2 >25m22m 2 0222205 .652 . 552652 . . 5256 .652 . . . . . . .2525 . . 50255622 . . . . .5:2652 . . . . . . . 355M522 .21 0222205 25> . 11552602 . .5256 .652 05255 .602 . . 502555622 . . 1.552652 . . . . . . . .22=w2:2 .a Qvwrwlohg évUz . . . . .E:@vvmw2 .. Umn~@wv .@@2 . . . . . . . . .QQWNUW@@E . . . . -EH,;@@2 . . . . . . . .¢:w@:@mv.~h» é . . . . . .U€@@Q¢~m . . Efizvnvz . . Uminut qv®g . . . . . . . . . . . . .>2@T~Nm . . . . .E5@@U2 . . . . . . . ..~N@:mU.-~% 2 . 0222205 202 . . 1.522652 . .5256 .652 . . . . . . 225cm . 150255622 . . . . .5:2652 . . . . . . . .5353: m. . UazOhg xfihmvk/ . - . . . . . . . . . . . . HMQQO . . . . . . . . . . . . .~%T~Nm . . . . . . . . . . . .,~N:Hmmv.~.~% m. 02.22205 2C5> . . 1.5222652 . .5256 .652 . . 522m . . 50505622 . . . . .5222652 $515552 2n2222w22m m . . . . . . nZwZQkQ . . . . .E52@®2 . . QmCUwu .@®2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02.61% . . . . Jfimfiivvflz . . . . . . . ..~N—5m_.w.~.~— 2 10222205 202 .. 155 52 . .5256 .652 552,55 .602 . . . . . . 152512 1.15:2 52 .... . 252250222 .2 Qzpwznvhmm .@Q2 . . . . . . . U MNQ . . . . . . . QWQQQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UwNQ . . . . . . . Q MNJ . . . ..~N_U@0h.: \m.~@> 7 - . . . .-...®wqmwo . . . . ... . . . . . . . . a . - - ¢ . . | . ¢ - . - - » . . . . - . - . . . . . . . . . 4 - - . . - . - . aww ..U€:Q.~Q ‘wnvz ... ....Q®.~WJ . . . ....@mg.wo . . . . . . . . . . . ..@.wfiwi .....EH;@Q2 . . . . . . . . .¢~N@5%Qm fin .U€:QHQ %HU> . . E:@@Q2 . . . . . . .=UQO . . . . . . .. .~%T~Nww ~fihwv> .. . . .E:@ Q2 . . . . . . . ..~G:.-%Q.~h% m 0222295 55> . . . . . . 255m . 22555 c5220 . . . . . . .3525. . . .2255 55> . 222555 25> . . . . . . . . $52-$02 fi . . . . . Qzrzwckm . - . . .EH~@@@2 . . Umiwwt .%v.».w§ . . . . . . . . . . . . .xfi—hflm . . . . . . . . . . . .HN~:@UM.M% Mw . U€zohg %HU> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EQQO . . . . . . . . .%T~mw@ %.~U> .. . . .E:@%vmv2 .. . . . . . .umflégwmwhhi w . HOZ . . . . Qhmfiimvmvz .. Omimvwu . . . . . . . . . . . . .~m~hflm . . . . .E5@@02 . . . . . . . .-G_UWQHQ@ @ ._ . . . .U~t~@@ohm . . . . . . Umimv@ .@U2 . . . . . . . . . . . . .>_.~Nm . . . . .E:@t@2 ... .._N:A%Uh.; ~@.~@> v 10.22205 202 1.155652 . .5256 .652 . . . . . .2255, . 1220555622 . 1.552652 . . . . . . . . .2565”. 2 10222205 202 12.53652 .......525D . . . . ..05>5m . . . . . . .552 1.1502652 . . . . . . . 1522552 2 ..0222205 202 . . . . . 1.552 . . . . . . 525D . . . . . .55>5m . . 50255622 . . . . 22.52652 ....52:m5.i2 55> @ ..U2%ZO.~Q woz . . . . . . .Q@.~N1@ .. . . . . . QWCUQ . . . . . . . . . . . . .. QQN1@ .. . . .E3@@®2 . . . . . . . . ..._N—5wmvm m.’ . .O¢:Q.~Q HQZ . . . . Hhmiwvfiz . .®.mD®@ . . . . . . . . .COWNUW@@E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hfl—5@®m m. . . . . . 022220252 . . . . 552652 . .5256 .652 . . . . . . .2526 . . 50555622 . . . . .5222652 .252:m5222 2£fi2m22m 2 ..0222202Q 202 . 1255652 . . . . . . 525D . . . . . .05>5m . . . . . . . 55.2 . 11552652 . . . . . . . 552255222 .21 0222205 2W5> . . . . . . 255m . .5256 .652 . . . . . .525>5m . . 50555622 . . 1.55652 . . . . . . . . 5522552 N . - - - » . . . . . - . . . - ~ - . . . . . - . . . . - - . . . . . - ¢ . - . . . . - 2 w fbzz-UMQ xfihw> . . . . . . QMQQQ . . . . .E:@wumv2 . . . . . . .>%—.~flm . . . . . . . mvmkflq . . . . . . . . .hfli.-m®m m. . 0222205 202 .. . . .5:2652 . .5256 .652 . . . . . . .2225 . . 50555622 . . . 1522652 . . . . . . . .25_=55t2 @ . .U~.%:Q.~Q .~°Z . . . . .EH~@@@2 . . UWQU@ .%v@2 . . . . . . . . .QQMNUWE.E . . . . .E:@@Q2 . . . . . . . .HW.=.-mU.~h@ w. 5222205 2252» . . . . 552652 . . . . . . 55220 130525602 1.22255 55> . . . . . . 255m . . . . . . .. 352255.222 m . . . 1022220222 . 11552652 . .5256 .652 . . . . . .55>5m . . 502505622 . 12502652 .252:m5222 2m2222m22m m ..0222205 202 1.2552652 Z5256 .652 . . . . . I222m22m 150255622 11.522652 . . . . . . . .52=m5222 Aha . - . . . . v - - . . . . . . . - - . . - . . - . - . . . . - . . . . N v ' - - . - u - . . . | . - » . . . - . 1 ¢ - . v . - » - - . ¢ ¢ . ¢ . . . 2555m 5225i 552554 55> 552352005 22222552 5225i 222552 20 20 .02 62527 .20 5055m 5n2m 232552522 . . . . . .265>m5~2 02520.22 555M522 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522022552 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5552/52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555222052 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..62022:52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .652 55222202 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5255! mcoq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q2522 555222012 . . . . . . . . . 52252552 5262522224 . . . . . . . . . . 5225M 5222 .20 m5! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55252 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552m 55.22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555D 5202. . . . . . . . . 6552 252D 6525.552 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .555s2.2 555222222 5552.0 Q5BDV 552,2. 552.0 . . . . . . . . . . .5552 525w 2E0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........2o_0 . > . . . . . ~ - . . . .¢-~ . . . . . . 4 - . . - - - -..-o¢.a-.omhmm . . . . . . . . 2:5 22E 5200.22.82 . . . . . . . . . . . . .........§a=$m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3956 2:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4522222022 35D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I220225D 225M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153m 258D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2252.0 653D . . . . . . . . . . . 1502225220 253D .Qfiqpp25.622.522.22 mzzz.....r...22255m.i~_0 $02550 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..25205~2m 5.5.2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5555252 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125D .0 2552M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2325522 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .562:0m2 - - . . . - < . - | . - - 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125m 250m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .550< . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135D 502/4 ..........2n2.5w22m.22n22625< 23525> 55225252, 05502 20 50222252055220 22222225255525 .25 0225.2. TOMATQ VARIETIES AND FERTILIZERS FOR LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 17 ~~h#~m~~N0~mNNm NH 00.000000 >00> . . . . . 00.000000 . 0002000 ~0Z 00.000000 0000/ . 00.000000 >000» . 00000000 ~0Z 00000000 .002 . 00.02000 ~02 . . . . . 00:00.0 . 0000000 ~0Z . 00.02000 ~0Z . . . . 10000.5 . 00008.0. 82 . . 00.000000 ~02 . 0000000 ~02 . . . . . . .=m0.0m . . . . 0003002 11.003002 . . . . . ..=m00w 11.003002 . . . . . . .Q@.MNQ . . . . . . . .QwhNJ . . . . .E5@wv@2 . . . . .E:@@U2 .. . . .E5:vwu2 .. . . .E:@@U2 . . . . .FC§@@U2 . . . .E0;UU2 . . . . - . rQmhmwJ . . . . . Qwhflifi .. . . .E:@@QE .. . . .Enn@tnw2 . ¢ - - . - . . . 00000 002-0060 . 00000 .002 . 00000 .002 . 00000 .002 . . . . . 0000C .......0000Q . 00000 .002 . 00000 .002 100000 .002 . $00000 .002 . . 002-0000 . . . . 003002 . 00000 .002 . 00000000000 . 00000 .002 . 00000 .002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .000>0m .002 . . . . . . . >00> . . . . . . . 0200000 . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . 0000000000 . . . . . . . 0000000000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . - . . . - ~ . . .-...-..¢Hm?:m@m . . . . ¢ - - . . . . 003M003 %.00> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C®U5U Mnwflgwg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OwTmnz/flm wfimmwxnvghk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .wiwgmwhg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UQQQZ . . . . . . . . . . fmmvflimwu NkNQU NQQN% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q.~QE %mom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rvfiUm @Um . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iomflhwm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ccwgnvnihmwm . . . . . . . . . . 00%T~N@v.# .~mh@h amvpwhnwl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .U_%@_Chfi% P/Uz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cowwcznuvz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fiodhnvz . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .Ux:@kQz . . . . . A00>00w0 0030.05 0000002 18 BULLETIN NO. 438, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Habit 0f Grvwthi The vine characteristics of the different varieties are of importance, as they afiect the shading of the fruit. Most varie- ties of tomatoes, when grown under Valley conditions, produce vines of considerable height and spread. Some varieties have relatively small leaves and the plant has an open habit of growth, while plants of the Fig. 7. Marked angularity of tomato fruits due to pocketing. other varieties may have large leaves and a dense habit of growth. Fruit on the open type of vines may not receive suflicient protection and may be subject to sunburn, while those on dense vines may be un- duly shaded and their normal development and maturity proportion- ately retarded. A TOMATO VARIETIES AND FERTILIZERS FOR LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 19 Table 5. Annual yields for tomato varieties, 1925 Increase (+) 0r Average yield Average yield Decrease (——) over Variety per plant per plant of Nearest check* nearest check* Yield per acre Pounds Pounds Pounds A and M First Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 2.84 —-— 1 ,C64 Avon Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7O 1.96 + 3,581 Brimmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.66 3.61 + 9,438 Boulder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.75 2.84 ~—— 5,175 Bonny Best . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.89 1.96 + 3,951 Crown Picked Globe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 68 4.24 — 7,550 Dwarf Stone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.11 3.61 —— 7,260 Dwarf Champion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.79 2.84 — 5,082 Early Detroit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.59 _ 3.15 —— 2,710 Early Shipper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .27 4.24 —— 9 ,534 Gulf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 4.24 — 2,952 Giant Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.59 3.61 — 4,936 Improved Black Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .22 3 . 15 + 338 King of the Earlies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.93 4.24 -—- 1 .500 Livingston Globe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.39 4.24 -—- 4,114 Livingston’s Favorite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.23 4.24 —— 4,888 Norton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.87 3.61 -— 7,411 New Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 3 . 15 — 6,098 Perfect First Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 42 2.84 + 2,807 Red Field Beauty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 26 3.15 —— 9.147 Rosy Morn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.13 4.24 ——10,1l2 Spark’s Earliana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.27 3 . 15 + 580 Winter Queen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.59 3.15 + 2,129 *Check——June Pink. Table 6. Annual yields for tomato varieties, 1926. Increase (+) or Average yield Average yield Decrease (——) over Variety per plant per plant of Nearest check* nearest check* Yield per acre Pounds Pounds Pounds Avon Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.97 7 .47 +10 .285 A and M First Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.83 10. 3 + 3,751 Acme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.80 10.73 — 2,335 Burbank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.25 7.51 +21 ,809 Beauty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.25 9.81 —- 5,517 Brimmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.24 7.70 —— 5,396 Cooper’s Special . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.86 7.60 + 6,364 Coreless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.35 9.81 —-10,236 Early Detroit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.10 7.60 —— 3,025 Early Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.19 7.51 -— 2,807 Earliana (Spark’s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.25 7.51 + 3,315 Fordhook First Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 .89 9.81 + 2 .516 Globe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.64 11.10 —— 556 Gulf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.62 10.27 — 786 Hummer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.44 7.51 -—— 2,504 John Baer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.75 10.85 + 1,089 June Pink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.18 9.81 + 5,287 Louisiana Pink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.86 9.81 + 6,110 Manifold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.06 9.81 + 6,352 Matchless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.73 9.81 -— 6,146 Norduke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.15 7.51 —— 6,485 Norton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.26 9.81 —- 5,505 Perfection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.41 9.81 —— 1 ,694 Perfect First Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.23 10 .73 —— 3,025 Paragon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.68 10.73 —— 8,530 Red Head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.88 9.81 + 2,504 Rosy Morn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.66 9.81 — 2,601 Self Pruning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.55 7.44 + 4,973 Trucker’s Favorite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.50 8.66 + 2,226 *Check——Livingston’s Globe (L). 20 BULLETIN NO. 438, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Yields of Various Varieties Total yield of marketable fruit produced is an important considel ation in arriving at the commercial value of a variety. The factor _ shape of fruit as it affects grade should be given due weight, however in interpreting any lot of yield data. Yield in one shape class ma‘ not have the same relative value as a similar yield figure in anothe- shape class. For example, five tons per acre of round tomatoes ma-s be Worth considerably more from the commercial standpoint than similar yield of either oblate-shaped or flattened tomatoes. Data int regard to annual yields are presented in Tables 5, 6, '7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Table 7. Annual yields for tomato varieties, 1927 Average _ Average p yield per Increase (+) or y Variety yield per plant of Decrease (-—) over Marketable 1- Plant nearest Nearest check* fruit a check* Yield per acre _ Pounds Pounds Pounds Per cent Acme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 11 2.98 ——2 ,262 84 Burbank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.33 .71 +5 ,590 7O Beauty N0. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.47 2 . 98 —1,827 61 Beauty No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.98 2.98 +2 ,42O 86 Beauty No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 2.98 —2 ,940 67 Beauty No.‘ 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.90 2 .98 -—1 ,306 74 Beauty No. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.09 2.98 —1,076 64 Cooper’s Special No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.38 2.21 + 205 66 Cooper’s Special N0. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 .02 2 .21 +3 ,400 71 Cooper’s Special No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 .47 2.21 +3 ,944 77 Cooper’s Special No. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.58 2.21 +5 ,287 74 Cooper’s Special No. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.61 2.21 + 484 71 Dwarf Champion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.39 .55 +1 ,226 53 Dwarf Giant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 .5.) + 85 Duke of York No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.36 .71 + 738 72 Duke of York No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .56 .71 ——— 181 95 Early Detroit No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.01 1.35 — 411 74 Early Detroit No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.35 1 .35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Fordhook First Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .42 1 .35 +2 ,504 49 Gulf State Market No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 3.69 2.98 859 69 Gulf State Market No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .42 2 . 98 +1 ,742 73 Gulf State Market No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . 3.64 2.98 + 79 69 June Pink No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.40 .83 +5 ,529 77 June Pink No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.83 .83 +4,840 76 June Pink No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.42 .83 +4',343 78 June Pink No. 4 . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . 5.81 .83 +6,025 73 June Pink No. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.92 .83 +4,948 62 Kanora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84 .71 + 15/ 76 Louisiana Red . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .39 .71 +3 ,242 73 Louisiana Pink N0. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.29 2.98 + 375 72 Louisiana Pink No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.17 2.98 + 229 77 Louisiana Pink No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.91 2.98 +1 .125 86 Livingston Globe No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.34 2.98 --1 ,984 82 Livingston Globe No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 2 . 98 —3 ,049 91 Livingston Globe No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 2.98 —2 ,565 78 Livingston Globe No. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . _ 1.11 2.98 -—2 ,262 24 Livingston Globe No. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.24 2.98 —2,105 66 Longkeeper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.90 1 .35 +1 ,875 60 Magnus No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'60 1 .35 —— 907 65 Magnus No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 1.35 —— 496 57 Marvelosa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.50 1.35 +2 ,601 83 Mikado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 58 .71 +8,312 72 Marglobe No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 46 .71 + 907 74 Marglobe No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 5') .71 +1 ,016 72 orton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 .71 95 Perfect First Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.59 .55 +4 ,888 7O Rosy Morn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.52 1.35 + 2 . 73 Self Pruning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.98 2 .21 +3 ,351 80 Self Topping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.04 2.21 +2 ,214 80 Trucker’s Favorite No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .53 1 .35 — 992 86 Truckefs Favorite No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . .47 1 .35 —1 ,064 80 *Check--—Livingston’s Globe. TOMATO VARIETIES AND FERTILIZERS FOR LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 21 During the period from 1924 to 1931, inclusive, a number of strains and varieties of tomatoes were grown on the station, and their perform- ance studied. The yielding capacities of these strains and varieties varied almost as much as did such characters as shape, size, and sea- son of maturity. Table 8. Annual yield for tomato varieties, 1928. Average Average yield per Increase (+) or Market- Early Variety yield per plant of Decrease (-—) over able Market- plant nearest Nearest check* fruit able check* Yield per acre fruit Pounds Pounds Pounds Per cent Per cent Beauty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .43 1.98 ——1 ,331 26 84 Burbank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . 58 1 .98 +6 ,292 35 69 Clark’s Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 74 1 .46 + 677 49 82 Cooper’s Special No. 22 . . . . . . . . . . .90 1.86 ——2 ,323 41 80 Cooper’s Special No. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . 2.43 .92 +3 ,654 25 79 Cooper’s Special No. 8 . . . . . . . . . . . 1.91 1.45 +1 ,113 34 64 Duke of York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .39 1.81 ——1 ,016 44 65 Globe No. 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.26 1.98 + 677 33 69 Globe No. 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.56 1.92 —— 871 27 62 Gulf State Market No. 10 . . . . . . .. 2.15 1.45 +1 ,694 35 61 Gulf State Market N0. 11 . . . . . . . . 2.29 1.45 +2 ,O32 36 87 June Pink No. 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.85 2.12 +6 ,606 40 72 June Pink No. 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.90 1.81 +7 ,477 33 79 Louisiana Pink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3104 2.12 +2 ,226 21 69 Marvalosa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10 .92 +5 ,275 34 66 Marglobe No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 .61 — 96 28 75 Marglobe No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.24 .61 +1 ,524 34 71 Marglobe No. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 .61 + 508 43 79 Marglobe No. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 .92 —— 363 49 73 Norton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 1 .81 —2 ,250 47 69 Rosy Morn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.86 2 12 —— 629 34 71 Self Topper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .70 1 45 +3 ,025 23 76 Viking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.66 1 86 +1 ,936 43 95 *Check——Livingston’s Globe. Table 9. Annual yields for tomato varieties, 1928 (Fall Crop) Average Average yield per Increase (+) or Variety yield per plant of Decrease (——) over Marketable Plant nearest Nearest check* fruit check* Yield per acre Pounds Pounds Pounds Per cent Avon Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.59 2.97 +13 ,600 58 Burbank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.02 2 .97 +19 ,481 30 Cooper’s Special . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.61 3.73 + 6, 67 Earliana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.82 2.97 +16 ,577 51 First Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.85 5.32 + 8,542 42 Gulf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.22 4 .20 + 7,308 55 Globe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.28 4.14 —— 2,081 67 John Baer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.71 6.72 + 9,655 48 Louisiana Pink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.55 2.97 +15 ,923 42 MarglobeNo. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.72 5.32 + 3,388 62 Norton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.51 3.49 + 4,888 52 *Check——Marglobe (S). In general, tomatoes of the Earliana type are very prolific. Varie- ties like Avon Early, Burbank, Winter Queen, and June Pink are of this general type. Fruits of these varieties are flattened, rough or fur- roWed about the base, meaty, and thin-walled. The vines are rather 22 BULLETIN NO. 438, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION dnonfiwz zoos”? m.“ E. F. 8 SKI‘ + 3Y1 mma. 3a wwa 3.». Q Q F. 3 m3; ll wfi + Rim NTN 8a 0.7m 9. E 8 mm 29m + S? I SYN 2a $6.. 3a 3 Z. .5 Q 89w + mwo 7T M25. 3a Mae. mmfl 3 Q ow Q 25p l mam. + 22m 3N 8a firm .5. ww w» ow o5 v + 3N0 fil. wmim *5; 3+ E5. 3 B ms i. mmflol Sm I| QXN whfi $3 3a K § 3 S. mwflw + Eh + mwa 09m 3a S cw 3 ow fin.“ + m2... + mmfl MEN fig EM. Q C‘ g MK 2E.“ + 29$ 3w fim fiiw 5m fi 3 3 i. 3w.“ + 2:. m+ 3a. zww mod Nae aw ch 2 3 Zfifiw + mmm m+ maa ama mmm was E. fi mm mm N? v + wmm l owim Id :5. RWA acou 5m E9. Em ~29. 5m E3 Em mwcsom 3.56m wvcsom wucsom wwcscm wwcsom woECQQD wosswfi woiimcD uiiim UQGDQQED vocab» vwcsacD W555i wwcspncD wocsgm find tab 32w Em E2? "Evans 23mg 22a MQQ ownmfitiwwa Enmwvvimz Tkuonu GEwvZ we 32m 3Q E2» wwm$>< . ZEN ~25 AI|V @3332 32> wmwkw>< “o A+V owmokti .$:2Q $22295 tam @253 52h 6mg dviwiwq/ ofiwEo~ pow W32.» 12Ec< AZ 229B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CQW@QZU@Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . - . . QQwhQZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QQW@W@UQ1% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .HQNm isQT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-.-...QQO@U . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zwwuihmwg QQWQ@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . omwflmwh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .>T~Nm Hw.~@m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . .NHMG@TMNM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .%Tmflm M~MTMN@U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —N.@U0Q@ MQHOQQQU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .HwQm ~%gqom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .%—-.Nm qo>< fwifi/ TOMATO VARIETIES AND FERTILIZERS FOR LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 23 weak, open, and may allow the fruits to sunburn. The productivity and earliness of these varieties Wins them some favor, but the 10w grade of the fruit precludes their general use for commercial purposes, as shown in Table 4. Varieties of the Bonny Best, John Baer, and Clark’s Early type have become quite popular in recent years. The yield data presented in Tables 8 and 9 show that these varieties are quite productive, but not so productive as the varieties in the Earliana group. However, the greater uniformity in shape of the fruits of this group makes these varie- ties more desirable for the commercial producers. Of the round or globe-shaped tomatoes, Cooper’s Special and Self Pruning were the most prolific representatives of this group. Some strains of Globe, Gulf State Market, and Marglobe produced satisfac- tory yields of very desirable fruit during certain seasons, but, in gen- eral, varieties of this type were found to be not nearly as productive as those in the Bonny Best group. Varieties of the Stone, Greater Baltimore, and ‘Santa Clara Canner type are undesirable, both because of their lateness and because the fruits are quite irregular in shape (Table 11). The varieties Fargo and Break O’ Day deserve special mention be- cause both of these varieties possess many desirable characteristics in common, but are quite unlike in certain other respects. Both varieties belong in the round-shaped, scarlet-fruited class and both are quite early. They are very productive and mature their fruit earlier than do most of the other commercial varieties. The vines of these two varieties are quite small, those of the Fargo variety being real dwarfs. Fruits of the Break O’ Day variety averaged larger in size than did those of any of the varieties studied, except Brimmer, while those of the Fargo variety were the smallest tomatoes included in the experi- ments (Table 11). On the basis of a single sea.son’s experience, the variety Break O’ Day oifers considerable promise. The large, uniform, globe-shaped fruits of this variety are very attractive, but are thin-walled and do not color up well if harvested too early. The vines are small but very prolific and the fruit matures earlier than most commercial varieties. Considering the varieties and strains that were observed the greatest number of times, Bonny Best, John Baer, Gla.rk’s Early, and similar varieties oifer the greatest promise to commercial producers in this region. b Description of the More Important Varieties Many commercial varieties of tomatoes are desirable in most re- spects, but so far an ideal variety for the Valley has yet to be found. An ideal variety would be one that produces a large crop of medium- sized fruits, conforming to the globe type, that mature early, and are of an attractive color, hold up well in transit, and do not show objec- tionable pocketing. The plants should be sufliciently dense to ade- 24 BULLETIN NO. 438, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION wom. Enw w wm wwm mwm .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..w .02 052M202 wwm. www 2w 2w wow w“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iw .02 022502 wmm. wwm om 2w m: ww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..m .02 052M852 . wwm. m“.w mm ow 02 ww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . .53 5 .02 055-502 20. .2 mwm. ww. w mw Em oww 8 . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13C E605 080.5 02.5 00.. wmw ww 5m wmw 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2120 05:. www. Z w“m. ww.w wm mom mmw wm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1G0 500m 550m. wwm. w mwm. www ww N. wwm m“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 .02 055§0m .5055 mwPwm wmm. oww o: omm wmw ww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..w .02 052$ www. I omm. www ow wom wwm m“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... ww oww. mm Sm“ 5H0 m: 05 w“m z: w“o. w ww 1m“. mm w“m. ww . w ww 8w wow “w m“w. w ow 0%. m: wmm ow w mw 05 3w ww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11.33 5 .02 05010 w“w w “w 50.5 wwm. www ww mm “mm 5...: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .w .02 055§0m 505000 m“om m 5w wwm.w 5m. wwm wm 0. wwm om. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .w .02 0505§0m 0000050 0.2 “ ow 0E. w 02. wwm ww wm wmm 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .m .02 0005§0m 5000000 .... ww $5.05 wwm. www ww w wwm wmm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m .02 0555mm 5000000 wmm. _ ww wwo. .2 wwm. 0w...“ “m ww w“m wmm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .w .02 00502 0.80 :50 “wm w ww ow“. wm www. 5 w w. mm wow m2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 m .02 500202 88m :50 *. ww wmw.wm Em. www w ow w“m wwm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A .02 $0102 002m :50 wow wm ww owfwm wmm. www mw www www “m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OltlUllAwv omhwm .... 5 wwfmm “wm. wow om ww mw 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .w .02 0500.00. 2:5 “of w ww wmw. w omm. ww. w mw ow 5m ow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m .02 550G 50m wwo. w “w 5w. w m3. “wm ww 2 “wm m“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 .02 0630C >55 www “ ““ SP5 “i. wow S: mwm www 2w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iw .02 .2555. *_ ww mmrmm wwm. ww . w ww w“ “ww wwm . . . . . . . . . . 1m .02 5502552 w“o_ w ww wow. I 02. www 8 N5 wmw ww . . . . . . . :20 550m 0.520 w“w.w mw 20. 2 9:. Ea. 5 “wm www ww . . . . . . . . . IAmo miwm 0.0506 00“. w ww www.om 05. oww ow 55 wwm ww . . . . . . .60 150$ 0.505030 w“w.“ mw www.wm 2m. ““.w ow NE www wmm . . . . . . . . :60 50m .0 0:35 www. 2 ww 0:... m: w“m. “w.“ mw wm wmw “om . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w .02 000m 550m 0Q w ww w““_wm 03. mww ww w“ wow “2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l“ .02 30m 550m .... ww :0. 2 wwm. ww.“ om ow m“w $0 . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . ..w .02 03m 550m www. “ a 00.0.2 wwm. wm.“ ww wm wow 9: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 .02 500m 550m wmw. w mw wwo. 2 Em. ow. w “w ww “wm 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .w .02 20m 550m www. “ 2w Fa. E “wm. 2.0 2w ww w“w i: .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..w .02 20m 550m S0. w :0 005.2 wwm. i.“ E “w “ww “E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . Im .02 000m 550m wow. “ ww “ww. S Em. www ow 5 05 wwm . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . :5 .02 20m 550m “ww w mw wwo 2 w“? oww 2w owm “S ww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :20 08m 550m 055cm 500 50m 5.50m 055cm wwcsom ~55 05¢ 05b 0:50 =05m 552002 050A 2530505 55b 05b 03.20505 0305x505 5.80 02500002502 025050505 550B 505 $5 50555 2 >~0€0> 0301» 030$ 0005035 303 0504 0004 0m20>< Awwm d0fi0im> 3058 5w 0305 R554 .2 25H TOMATO VARIETIES AND FERTILIZERS FOR LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 25 £53 ozfirhumow .5“ wow: fish 5.23.5, N 1O COMQ‘<2‘\-TNv-1OOHQFP4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..©.CZUCOaZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..W.OZUQOH@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..M~.QZQQQH@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..N.OZU~HO.#@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............M.OZQCCHW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HUQQNU NM.Q—U NdCG@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....A4mw UMT-Hmgw . . . . . . . . . . Onxnzmhfizkmvwmflz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..A@vUQC—MHN2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OQaiwhflg ..........................©.O.Z®QO@@kfl2 .............._...._.......@.°ZQQO@@HW2 26 BULLETIN NO. 438, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION quately protect the fruit, without undue shading, and should be re-l sistant to root and foliage diseases. ' .- Marglober Marglobe is a variety of rather recent introduction that has been quite popular because of its resistance to certain root and I foliage diseases, and because of the desirable qualities of its fruit.‘ However, the shape of the fruit is not particularly uniform, and a’ large percentage of the fruits are pocketed. On light, sandy loam ~ soils, it appears to be somewhat unproductive and matures its fruit relatively late. Marglobe vines are very dense, delaying maturity oft the fruit by shading. ’ Bonny Best. John Baer, Clarlfs Early= Growers who do not care to _. grow Marglobe on account of its unproductiveness and lateness have found tomatoes‘ of the Bonny Best type desirable. The fuit is not as uniform as it should be, and some of the fruits show objectionable l; pocketing. Vines of this group are medium dense and adequately pro- l‘ tect the fruit without undue shading, but are not disease-resistant. t CO0Per’S SPeeial, Self Pruning! Fruits of this variety are fairly reg- ular in regard to shape, but are quite variable in size. The fruits are round or globular and show considerable angularity due to pocketing. The vines are quite prolific and mature their fruit at about the same A time as Bonny Best. Vines are of a determinate habit of growth, with short internodes. Gulf State Market! This is a purple-fruited sort of the globe type. The vines are quite prolific, but the fruit is not as uniform in regard to size or shape as is that of Globe. The vines are quite vigorous and dense but are not resistant to disease. A large percentage of the fruits ’ are pocketed. Season of ripening is about the same as Globe. Globe: This variety was at one time the most popular variety with Valley growers. The fruits are pomegranate-purple in color, of the _ true globe shape, and quite uniform. The average size of the fruit is _, about 3 ounces. The vines are rather unproductive some seasons and ' are not disease-resistant. Their foliage is quite dense and may inter- fere with the maturity of the crop under certain climatic conditions. Many of the fruits show angularity from pocketing, and ripen late in the season. June Pinkr June Pink is an early pink-fruited tomato of the Earli- ana type. The fruits are meaty, quite variable in shape, rather thin- skinned, and are seldom pocketed. The vines are not as large as the average and rather open, thus allowing a portion of the fruit to sun- burn. It is not a disease-resistant variety. Louisiana Pink! This is a midseason, purple-fruited, disease-resist- ant variety that produces oblate fruit of rather variable shape. A large percentage of the fruits show angularity due to pocketing. The vines TOMATO VARIETIES AND FERTILIZERS FOR LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 27 are very dense and may cause shading of the fruit. The vines are very productive. Norton! Norton is a late-maturing, scarlet-fruited sort that is dis- ease-resistant and that has very large, dense vines. It is of interest because of its extraordinary unfruitfulness. Many vines produce no marketable fruit and some vines produce very few fruits of any kind. F8180! Vines of this variety are very small and rather open. It is more prolific than any variety that ,has been observed, and matures its crop ten days earlier than its nearest competitor. It produces fruit that is fairly uniform in regard to size and shape, but which is too small to be commercially desirable. Few of the fruits show undesir- able pocketing. This variety is of interest because it possesses prac- tically all of the desirable characters, with the exception of size of fruit. Break 0’ Dayl This new variety attracted considerable attention on its initial appearance. Its performance at the station during the sea- son of 1931 indicates that it is a variety of promise. It is one of the earliest varieties and produces an abundant crop of large, oblate fruits that show slightly more yellow than is desirable. The thinness of the fruit wall causes the fruit to show rather marked angularity. The per- centage of pocketed fruit was no greater than in the case of varieties like Bonny Best, Marglobe, or Stone. The vines are rather small and rather open, objectionable features which may be largely overcome by the use of fertilizer. PRUNING As shown in Table 10, pruning tends to lower the total yields of fruit but increases the average size of the fruit and hast-ens the maturity of the crop» in most instances. Some of the more vegetative types like Norton and Globe are more prolific when pruned, while non-vegetative types like Earliana and Fargo react unfavorably to the pruning treat- ment. Where earliness is a factor of importance, it seems that prun- ing the vines to two or three main branches would be advantageous. SPACING _ On the basis of a single sea.son’s work (Table 12), it may be said that spacing has considerable influence on the performance of the to- mato plant. The space allowed the plants in the rows and the distance between the rows of plants both affect production. Under the condi- tions of this test, the closely-spaced plants (3’ X 3’) produced the great- est acre yield of fruit and the fruit was not materially smaller than that from vines spaced 6’ X 6’. It should also be noted that the plats where the vines were spaced 3’ X 3’ produced more early and midseason fruit than did those spaced 3’ X 6' or 6’ 6'. 28 BULLETIN NO. 438, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 12. Effect of spacing on date of maturity, yield, and average size of fruit*. Acre yields by dates Acre Spacing 5 .23 6. 8 6 . 22 yields Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds 3x3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464 11,068 7,581 19,114 3x6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 166 7,577 4,930 12,674 6x6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 2,062 3,918 6,036 *C00per’s Special plants used in this test. It is not definitely known just why the closer spacing gave the great-i est yields, butit should be pointed out that close-planted vines pro tect each other from the wind, and do not make the excessive iregeta; tive development shown by plants which are allowed ample space for‘ ' development. The variety used in this test was Cooper’s Special. FERTILIZER EXPERIMENTS WITH TOMATOES The use of commercial fertilizers in the production of tomatoes in ~ the Lower Rio Grande Valley has been a subject of considerable inter- est to growers, especially during the past few years. The rather vari- able results secured from fertilizers have left some growers with a 3 doubt in their mind as to the profitable use of these materials. Potash s, has been specified as an important ingredient of the fertilizer mixture i by some packers and shippers. This recommendation is based on the v assumption that fertilizers containing potash materially improve the _ shipping quality of the fruit produced by vines fertilized with this ‘ material. ,_ Unfavorable weather, especially rain, during the harvesting period, i: has probably done more to discourage growers in the use of fertilizers than any one factor. The use of non-prolific varieties of tomatoes has also caused growers to fail to realize the full benefit from fertilizer applications. i Plan of Experiments The experiments concerning the use of fertilizers in the production of tomatoes were conducted in much the same manner as were the variety tests previously discussed. The fertilizer plats consisted of four rows six feet apart and 132 feet long. The two outside rows were used as buffer rows and yields from these rows were not recorded. The plats were laid out on two standard acres, 132 ft. by 330 ft. in size. This made it possible to practice a two-ye-ar rotation with other field or vegetable crops. The soil on which these tests were conducted is Victoria Clay Loam and is quite fiat. It is typical of a large tomato-producing area in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (6, '7, 8) and is better adapted to tomato production than is the Victoria Sandy Loam on which the variety tests TOMATO VARIETIES AND FERTILIZERS FOR LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 29 were conducted. Yields were take-n on a plat basis, weight of both total amount of fruit and the amount of marketable fruit being made to the nearest ounce. A double-beam, counter scale was used in mak- ing the weighings. The percentage of fruits showing “pockets” was determined either by counting or weighing the cut fruits. The prev- alence of virus diseases in the experimental planting made it seem ad- visable to select repre-sentative plants and record yields on the basis of average plant ‘yields. The same number of plants from areas of perfect p stand were selected within each fertilizer plat. It has been pointed out by Kraus and Kraybill (4) that it is not the total quantity of nutrients present in the plant which is operative in the fruiting response, but rather the balance between the various essential nutrients. The fertilizer applications reported in Tables 13 to 22 were made in an attempt to adjust the balance in the tomato plants as affected by varying the nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash additions to the soil. The results should give some idea concerning the most profitable kind or grade of fertilizer to use on the particular kind of soil on which these tests were conducted. After two years’ experience, it became obvious that vegetative varie- ties like Globe were not as responsive to fertilizers as were more pro- ductive varieties of the Coopefs Special type. This last named variety was used in the fertilizer experiments during the period from 1927 to 1930, inclusive. Break O’ Day, a very prolific, non-vegetative type, was used during the 1931 season. Recording the yield data on a hill or plant basis has brought out the fact that there is a marked variation in both the quantity and quality of the crop produced from individual plants of the same variety grown under similar conditions. Preliminary Experiments in 1925 During the first season a preliminary experiment with fertilizers was conducted to determine the response of the tomato plant to some of the more common fertilizer materials and mixtures then in rather gen- eral use in the older tomato-producing areas. The schedule of appli- cations was in general based on the work of the Troup Station (3). The results of this preliminary test are summarized in Table 13. It will be noted that fertilizer application on Plat 16 gave- a most decided increase over the check or unfertilized plats nearest it. This fertilizer application gave results that were superior to those secured from a 500-pound application of 4.51717 fertilizer. Cottonseed meal and super- phosphate, eve-n in double the amounts applied on Plat 16, failed to give results comparable to those secured where iron sulphate was in- cluded in the mixture. In the two instances where the rate of appli- cation was doubled, the results secured were not as satisfactory as with the lighter application. An application of 20 tons of manure per acre for this one season gave results second only to those secured by the 30 BULLETIN NO. 438, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION use of the mixture of cottonseed meal, superphosphate, and ii sulphate. ' Table 13. Tomato fertilizer experiments, 1925. Average _. Average yield per Increase (+) a Plat Fertilizer treatment Amount yield per plant of Decrease (—-—) o per acre plant Nearest Nearest check ‘ check* Yield per acre1 Pounds Pounds Pounds ' 2 Manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 tons 2.82 2.55 +1 ,306 4 Muriate of Potash . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 lbs. 2.90 3.10 — 968 6 Superphosphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 lbs. 2.83 2.59 +1 ,161 8 Superphosphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500 lbs. 1 .94 2.67 —3 ,533 l0 Nitrate of Soda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 lbs. 3.17 2.93 +1 ,161 12 7-4 5-7 P-N-K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500 lbs. 4.26 4.12 + 677 14 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 lbs. Superphosphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 lbs. 4 36 4.43 -— 338 16 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 lbs. Superphosphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 lbs. Iron Sulphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 lbs. 3 .75 3 15 +2 ,904 18 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500 lbs. Superphosphate . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . 500 lbs. 2.34 2.72 -—1 ,839 *Check plats received no fertilizer treatment. Results 0f Fertilizer Experiments 1926 The experiments With‘ fertilizer in 1926 are reported separately fof the reason that a change in the schedule of applications Was made afte this season. The results obtained must be considered as a single sea? son’s experience. It is interesting to note that cottonseed meal and? superphosphate mixture gave the greatest increase in yield this season; followed by the application of complete fertilizer, 4.51717 (N. P. Manure alone, at the rate of 20 tons per acre, gave the third best in; crease in yield (Table 14). i Table 14. Tomato fertilizer experiments, 1926. Average ‘ Average yield per Increase (+) or ‘_ Plat Fertilizer treatment Amount yield per plant of Decrease (——) over. -' per acre plant Nearest Nearest Check* check* Yield per acre Pounds Pounds Pounds 2 Manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 tons 2.22 2.05 +187 3 Sulphate of ammonia . . . . . . . . . 50 lbs. 1.43 2 .05 ——682 4 Sulphate of ammonia . . . . . . . . . 50 lbs. Superphosphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 lbs. 1.35 1.79 —484 5 Superphos hate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 lbs. Muriate o potash . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 lbs. 1.71 1.54 +187 6 Superphosphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 bls. 1 .41 1.54 —143 8 Sulphate of ammonia . . . . . . . . . 50 lbs. - Muriate of potash . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 lbs. 1.56 1.54 + 22 9 Kainit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 lbs. 1 . 11 1.54 —473 10 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 lbs. Superphosphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 lbs. 1 .58 1 .29 +319 11 Sulphate of ammonia . . . . . . . . . 85 lbs. Superphosphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 lbs. 1 .27 1 .04 +253 Sulphate of potash._ . . . . . . . . . . . 52 lbs. 12 Sulphate of ammonia . . . . . . . . . 85 lbs. Superphosphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 lbs. 1.06 1.04 + 22 Muriate of potash . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 lbs. . 13 Sulphate of ammonia . . . . . . . . . 25 lbs. Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 lbs. Superphos hate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 lbs. Muriate o potash . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 lbs. 1.04 1 .04 . . . . . *Check plats received no fertilizer treatment. TOMATO VARIETIES AND FERTILIZERS FOR LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 31 Fertilizer Experiments 1927 to 1931 During the period from 1927 to 1931, inclusive, a uniform schedule of application was followed. In these experiments 600 pounds per acre of a 4-8-4 fertilizer was used as a basis for comparison. The propor- tion of potash in the formula was varied from 4 per cent to 8 per cent, as shown in the tables. Superphosphate and manure Were used alone. In one case the amount of 4-8-8 fertilizer applied was doubled so that the plat received an application equivalent to 1,200 pounds per acre. The sources of mineral nutrients were nitrate of soda, superphosphate, land muriate of potash. The fertilizer materials were applied to the i-soil about the plants at the time of the final thinning. This method gof distribution made it possible to eliminate much of the washing of tfertility to the lower ends of the rows by irrigation water. i The results of these experiments are summarized in Tables 15 to 22, inclusive. It should be noted that the largest increases in yields were secured by the use of fertilizer during the 1928 and 1931 seasons. Increases were consistent but not particularly large during the season fof 1927. The presence of virus diseases in the planting in 1929 and the presence of unusual numbers of insects in 1930 reduce the value 10f these data for drawing conclusions. It is this element of uncon- trollable factors in production that causes the farmer to be undecided as to the benefits to be derived from fertilizing a crop of tomatoes. It will be seen that the 600-pound application of 4-8-4 fertilizer per acre gave rather consistent yield responses each season, except dur- ping 1929. When potash was omitted from the formula (4-8-0), the ‘yield responses were superior to those secured with the 4-8-4 fertilizer. ‘Doubling the percentage of potash in the formula did not materially ffect the yield of fruit, but did affect the size of the fruit (Table 21). fSuperphosphate applied alone Was approximately half as effective in in- Tfereasing yields as was the 4-8-0 mixture. Manure applied at the rate of 20 tons per acre gave consistently high increases in yield throughout ‘the period covered by this experiment. The application of 4-8-8 fertil- izer, at the rate of 1,200 pounds per acre, gave increases over the five- jryear period, amounting to 1,300 pounds of fruit per acre per season. The increases from manure were 700 pounds per acre per season in ex- Ecess of this figure (Table 20). The results of these experiments, fespecially in regard to the use of superphosphate, seem to be borne out Jby the experience of commercial producers of tomatoes in this region iduring the last few years. Effect of Fertilizer Treatment on Size of Fruit As shown in Table 21, manure and 1,200 pounds per acre of 4-8-8 ‘fertilizer produced the largest fruits during the five-year period cov- aered by these tests. The average weight of the fruit from the manure-d plats was 0.277 pounds compared with 0.274 for the 4-8-8 fertilizer Pplats and 0.259 pounds for the plats which received superphosphate 32 BULLETIN NO. 438, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 1 , Qfium an. . . .. . . . . . . . . . XOQJU , Q2 + wowNw moo om. .2: ccN 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . olwlw m: on oFfiN 1| N~N.o: NNQ wN. a»: oco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ic1o~|o N: wv cmo. m ll mNoH w no; wN. .2: coo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . élwl. I on QooMN l EN}. SN wN. .2: ooo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iw|w|v o2 on oFJN + Nwob: 2.4. on. .2: coo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zfwololw o om woo N + moPo: ow}. om. .2: oco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iwlwlv w om . . . . . . . .. mmfw vwmm hN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1x350 N. wm oow.c:+ owob: no h Nm. .2: oco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .o1o:|c o EN oNo o + Nwf: o5“. 2m. 2:5 oN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2::@§ m %»\~ + .WQ@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q E who + oNo m mo. N Nm. .2: oco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ol®lw‘fi m vwAm ¢ + fim. wgofi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UhH-QNE § ow .. . . . . . . . . . .. ENS SN wN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223:0 2 :50 3m 2.55m 2.55m 2.55m mucus: 0.8m 5Q 32> 2P: 2:: . 2:: onxuono omobwoZ oiwooxhmi BQQHQMQNE :1: 32w :5 vfiuooxhwg .$>o Alv ommouoofl 222% :83 .50 Qzfiazaa 250:2. 2:25.25 52:22am 22m .5 A+v ommohoa: v.64 32% 2:22; owwuo>< ommuo>< .wNo: docwEionxw 52:22 cowfioh. o: 03mm. .oNo: E 22m 25 3 @215“ 95m .3: 228M 255cm cnNi 22523.35 $251.2 o: cuZvRfi 32m 2926* on . . . . . . 1M . . . . . . . .. Noo. Now nN. . . . . . . . 1M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xoosU w: fiw wmN 2+ oNN. N ww. ~ NN. .2: coN 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. wlwlw m: N“. oNm + NE. w mN. 2 mN. .2: coo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..o|oH|o N: 2w ofiw + omFN mc.N “N. .2: ooo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IwIwLv I R omm + NoN.N No. 2 wN. 2: oco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. wlwlw c: m» vow + oNfN on. 2 wN. 2: oco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . {vwclwlw o 2n mow + wNFN co N wN. .2: coo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . olwlv w on . ovo} on." wN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2x350 N. om Now + woflN co. 2 wN. .2: oco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..olo~lo o wo mow. + Co. N cfiN mN. 25o oN . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..w5:m2 m no woN. 2+ mom. N mo 2 2. .2: ooo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iolwlw v no won. 2+ momfN omN NN. .2: oco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . élwlw m mmw . . .. WQQH . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .U.~5H~N2 @ on . . . . . . .. 5:: 2c oN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2x026 2 E3 .8: mouse: 2.56m 225cm 22:5: Eon “on E2? 2P: 2:: 2:: onxoono @3537: oifioxumE Mxnwcuiwfi 25.: whom :5 wimowvimz $>o Tic owmouoofi 2:2» 2:2: .3: oifimwxhwi 2Z5E< 2553a: 52:22am o2: .6 A+o uwwouon: 304 32> on B; omm$>< oww$>< 5N2 525E239"... .5252: 02inch. .3 Q53. TOMATO VARIETIES AND FERTILIZERS FOR LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 33 JG QHGUN 0.5 00350000 Oi H003 O0 0h @020 MUUJMY“ .82 5 02.0 2.: 8 00000.00... .008 020 00.0050 0.. @0550 0.091. wmw . . . . . . ..@... . . . . .. WM. . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . lvivflfiu 00 0H0 HI. Hmw.N >H.H 0H. .05 00N. H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. wlwlw 0H m“. 000 I1 0mm. 0 mm. H 0H. .05 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0|0H10 NH 0N. w0N I 0w0.N >0. H 0H. d5 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iwlwlw HH 0w 00H 1| 00w} 0.01. 0H. @5000 0H N0 HHw ll HN0. H >0. NH. .05 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *0..0|wl0. 0 0N. 00h + Hmw.N hHH 00H. 05000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wlwiw w 00 . . . . . . . . . . .. Nm0.N 0.0. 0H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10000000 N. HN. N00 l. 000. H N0. 0H. .05 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0|0Hl0 0 0h 0N0 + N00 N 0H. H 0H. 2000 0N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .00:002 0 Nw '1 N O .5 a - . - . . - . I - ¢ . . - . . - - . ~ . . - - . - . - - . . . - ¢ n fi R. w0N HI 000 N 0w. 0H. .05 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4010i. m 0w 0N0 1| H000. N 00. H wH. £000 0N . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000002 N 0w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. h0N.m 00H 0H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.000000 H 00000 000 0000000 2000000 00:00.» 00.00000 0000 000 E007 00:00 0000.0 00000 .5003? 0000002 0000000000000 0000000000000 00:00 000m 000 00000000002 00>0 H110 00000002 0300.0 000000 000 05000000000000 000000004 00000000000 0000:0000 000m 00 0+0 00000000 0004 00000 0000 00? 000022. 0 000.040 0m0H A000E0000x0 0000:0000 00000000. 0H 030.0 .0N0H :0 0E0 @0000 00 005000 000w 000 0050M .00 0000000 00N*._. .00000000m000 000200000 000 000000000 0050 0000000. R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 0HN.0 0.0.N HN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3300 00H 00. 0N> |l 0000 H0.N 0N. n5 00N. H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01010. 0H 00 00H. + 000.0 0.0.N 0N. m5 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0|0H|0 NH 00 0Q. 0| m3. w 00. H HN. .05 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iwlwlw 0H H0 000. + Nmmmh 00.0 0H. .05 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 010i. 0H R 0090+ 0.00. 0 8e NN. .2: 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......_.0-w|0. a 00 0N0 H+ 000.0 00in HN. .05 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010i. w 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 051.0 0x.N 0N. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3300 n 00 0N0 Iu 03.0 0.0.N HN. .05 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I010H|0 0 &\@ @@. wiofi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .O.~5CNE f‘. x0 0mm l 00.0.0 wwN NN. .05 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0|wl0. 0. aw + h 6N. oNv ~ - Q . - - - - . - . ¢ . . - - . ~ ~ ~ - - - < - I . - . ~ . - - - m 0w H000 w] NvNQ. 0.0. H 0N. 0:00 0N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3552 N 0h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. vwNfw H00 NN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30000000 H 00000 00L 2000000 000000 mwcsonH 0000000 0000 000 500V 0050.0 00000.0 00:00 .1002? 00000 070 002000000000 0000000000000 000.000 000a 000 00000000002 000/0 H110 owmw000nH 0000000 00020 000 00000000000000 00000004 000000000000 00n0=000b 00TH 00 110 00000005 0004 0000.» 000 00B 0m000>< 000003» .- v 7-1-11 34 BULLETIN NO. 438, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION $MJ+ $1>+ o8. T. own l| o2 + $.51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42: oomC wlwé m: w: + mmmél mom. + Q€Q+ mmrl oi. + mxxwmxuwmumwnuw”.%.A.m£¢¢8M11 225w gm + EXT 8m l fifll $2.1 E. + UHNHTH.......».............w§.::...e3:-.. N393 + ll Y.‘ + - . - . - . . ¢ . . . - - » . - . ¢ . - - . . . . . . . . - - - . . - . . - u m q + l l: filln . . . . . . . . . - . - . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . - v - x ooo m+ 2w N+ 3 ll mmm Tl :3 o+ moo H+ A H. omv P2552 m HE: m :32 moi-cm 2.55m wEEoA mmisom . fiisom . EQEQQEP .moZ .5»? m £3 Q2: $2 wfl: S2 Q5 fish Bnfivvimfi Mo P8: 5m 33> ioono 505...»: :25 Allowwfifiouw .5 A+v vmmvSE :32 Sbwfiism A875: .w.~:uE€v9:o ZNEZQH comfifi. on wink. duo: E i2: 25 3 @215: Bu: S: 3:?! we $.55: ommfw .._:@::mv.3 .5~:fi.7o~ o: @0339. 32: xuoaUvw a . ...... 1 may: w; a. ............................... 1 awn“; a fiw ? . . . . . . . - . - . . . . V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . oo owo. Tl moo. o mm . m Mm. i: ooo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lio.ll$H|o m: 5w mm . l mmoB mTm mw. i: ooo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iwlwlv I mm omw ~l. mvfio wmim om. i: ooo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iwlwlw o: on wmm + fimflw woim 3i i: ooo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..**olwlw o ow Co. .|.. INK. wad 3i d5 ooo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zwlwlw w no mwo.w wmo mw. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zlxuonno n mw mow Tl 2m o ngm ow. m5 ooo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zolofilo o @@ AwAni. WQQH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . .Q.~:HM.N2 fi no ooomo+ wowmmfi mmb wm. .2: ooo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... olwlw w xx .$ %¢. .MQ§ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - Mm @x Q - x WQQH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QHfl-nmfig § ow . Noam ood m: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...xoo:U fi E3 3m 2.55m 2.55m wwisom wfiisom 3am MOD 32> $5.: fish 22¢ "$30.3 owohwoZ Bnmooxbwfi eifioviwfi o fiwrflm “to: .5: oiwfiovimz $>o Allo vmwfioofl 2:2» ESQ .35 33 x: E ¢::o::< Eoifiwob hoummfioh Harm :0 IL ommnfiufi 981w 32> Emma? ow§o>< $3 o>< . 5m; .3: ofiionxo uwnmmfiou oomfioP .2 03:9 TOMATO VARIETIES AND FERTILIZERS FOR LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 35 . . . . . . . . .. 0H». wH. HN. 0H. nN. .. H; wwN. MH». 0H. 0N. nN. HNN. ocoz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ZIvHoonU h . . . . . . . . .. mw. wH. NN. wN. 0N. .. . . H vhN. i“. 0H. 0N. 0m. hN. .wQH00N.H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wlwlw mH HhN. 0m. mH. 0H. wN. wN. £5000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iwlwlw 0H . . . . . . . . .. i». HNH. HN. 0m. HNN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. w mmN. Hm. 0H. 0N. wN. mN. $5000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0|0H|0 NH . . . . . . . . .. av. mH. HN. Nm. wN. w NcN. 0v. NH. NN. 0m. wN. d5 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dlwlw a . . . . . . . . .. mm. 0H. NN. mm. 0H. v mwN mv. mH. HN. wN. hN. ah: 00w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ivlwlv HH . . . . . . . . .. Hw. wH. 0N. Nm. NN. w. nhN 0m. HH. HN. Hm. mN. wag 0N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qpscmz m. . . . . . . . . .. mv. wH. 0N. Hm. QN. N smug wvcsok mvcsonH wwczonH 2250b mvnsonH 05w .50 QHHQHCHNQPF dcZ 53> E/FH n»; 95H 0N3 £2 “N2 250:5» KPH wpwEisw fish QHQNHQJHNE Ho gamma? await/m no Hcwflfimob Qufiziow 0o auotmH .HN 03mm. 36 BULLETIN NO. 438, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION $2 2Q .0 imam UNN$N2 .232 mzwgou §N2N2 Q26 . 2N2 E x532 2 .2. 2N 2 £28232“ B: 2 22.00.“ E. NN2 E v0.2.2.2“. 22> N dz 2E 2:2 QUQQQMQOQ! MO 222252 GO ©omwm?* E5 .._.@32¢m.. 2 E295 .6 Eémvx “now: wo5o€N> NI NI 2+ N! NI EH 2 2 2 2N 2 N2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........£==N2 m. 2 2 2 NN. 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226 T: 2+ 2+ 2+ N! mNl w] 3 2 2 2N 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2Ea2 N 2 2 5 NN 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .220 T: w| Nrl m7} m..| ml wl. wm m2 mm om o2 ow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....o|w|o N2 3 2 2 Nm 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226 Eu: N+ N+ N+ N! 2+ ¢N+ 3 2 2 2 wN 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11. w , . 2 2 5 2 : 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $.82. N N. 2 _+ N+ 2+ 2| 2+ . 2 t E 2 .2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11 N 2 2 2 NN I 2 .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i250 T: ml Ni 2i w! N! 2 2 2 +N N 2 .@r.................................... . . . . . . . . . . . .222“ 2 3 2 2 Nm 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226 S»: 2| 2+ 2+ m! m! w! 2 2N 2 NN 2 2 .......muwrr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122+ 2 3 2 2 NN 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.50 ENS N+ N+ NI w! 2+ 2 NN 2 2N 2 2 rfmwrg....g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q11 w 3 2 2 N2 2 2 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jzszu Bu: ...... @\ m.‘ aw . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .3 2 2 2 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.2w S»: 2! w! 2+ 2| 2| QNI 2 N NN NN 2 2 ..........................................mm.........ETMYN m 2 2 2 N», 2 2 . .._.2§.:=D 22o N a 2 =32 S2 NN2 22 NN2 2N2 .522 I$2iwNN2 2N2 £22 2N2 , wcoflSwopa houzmfioh .02 325w 23.8w: h0>O OMNQMOUU k0 QmNOMOGM Kfivxoom QQNEOP... ¢N~fi~ 4 wwwoobw 319G m0 wcufivm 28:222..“ co 23:52am we Qbobm fim “ZQMH. TOMATO VARIETIES AND FERTILIZERS FOR LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 37 only. The fruit from the superphosphate plats was slightly smaller than that from the unfertilized plats. Effect of Fertilizer Treatment on Pocketing The data in regard to the amount of pocketed fruit produced 0n the different plats are summarized in Table 22. The six seasons’ results presented in this table do not warrant the conclusion that fertilizer treatments affect the amount and degree of pocketing (puffing) under the conditions of these experiments. It should be noted that there is no consistency in the results as indicated by percentage of pocketed fruit from the different plats. It was observed that there was marked variation in the amount of pocketed fruit produced by plants of the same variety grown under the same conditions as regards fertilizer treatment, irrigation, cultivation, etc. The percentage of pocketing varied from zero up to 85 per cent in the case of some plants observed. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer is indebted to Dr. H. P. Traub, formerly Chief of the Division of Horticulture of the Texas Experiment Station, for assist- ance in organizing the data pertaining to the experiments with toma- toes. Thanks are also- due Dr. S. H. Yarnell, Chief of the Division of Horticulture, for many helpful suggestions and criticisms. Seed for the variety test in 1931 (Table 11) was furnished by the office of Horticultural Crops and Diseases, U. S. Department of Agri- culture. SUMMARY 1. Bonny Best, John Baer, Clark’s Early, and similar varieties proved to be the most suitable types for commercial planting in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. * 2. Varieties of the Earliana type were early and prolific, but a large percentage of the fruit was unmarketable, because of its undesir- able shape and poor shipping quality. 3. Marglobe, Globe, Gulf State Market, and similar varieties were late and somewhat unprolific, but produced fruit of desirable shape and good shipping quality. 4. Varieties like Stone, Norton, and Santa Clara were too late to be commercially desirable. 5. Fargo proved to be a very early, prolific variety, but the fruit was under size. 6. Break O’ Day made a very favorable showing during the single season it was included in the tests. 7. Varieties of the Earliana type produced less “pocketed” fruit than did varieties of the Globe type. 8. Pruning reduced total yields in most instances, but increased the percentage of early, marketable fruit. 38 BULLETIN NO. 438, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 9. Pruning increased the total yield of marketable fruit in the case of varieties like Globe, Marglobe, and Norton. 10. Close spacing of the plants increased the yield of early, market-i able fruit and did not materially affect the size of the fruit. 11. Manure applied at the rate of 20 tons per acre gave the largest,‘ most consistent increases in yield. 12. Applications of 1,200 pounds per acre of 4-8-8 fertilizer, gave I yields amounting to 60.5 per cent of those secured with manure. 13. Applications of 600 pounds per acre of 4-8-8 and 4-8-4 fertilizer gave yields lower than those secured with 600 pounds per acre of super- -¢ phosphate or 4-8-0 fertilizer. 14. Superphosphate applied at the rate of 600 pounds per acre gave ‘A yields approximately 75 per cent less than those secured with 20 tons with 1,200 pounds I of manure and 61 per cent less than those secured of 4-8-8 fertilizer. 15. The two fertilizer treatments which gave the largest increases in yield also produced the largest fruit, but the differences were small. 16. “Pocketing” was not materially affected by the use of fertilizer but caused slightly less loss in the case of the plats receiving super- phosphate at the rate of 600 pounds per acre. 17'. “Pocketing” was confined to a few individual plants in many instances, and caused more loss in some seasons than in others. LITERATURE CITED 1. Bailey, L. H., 1924. Manual of cultivated plants. New York. _ A 2. Halstead, B. D., 1924. New Jersey Agr. Exp. Sta. Ann. Rept., 1924, p. 503. 3. Hotchkiss, W. S., and Green, E. C., 1906. Tomato fertilizers at Troup, Texas. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 84. 4. Kraus, E. J., and Krayhill, H. R, 1918. Vegetation and re- production with special reference to the tomato. Oregon Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 149. 5. Ridgway, Robert, 1912. Color standards and color nomencla- ture. Pub. by author, Washington, D. C. 6. Soil Survey of Cameron County, Texas. 1927. Bureau of Soils (Advance sheets). 7. Soil Survey of Hidalgo County, Texas. Bul. 13. 8. Soil Survey of Willacy County, Texas. 1926. Bureau of Soils Bul. 3. 9. Traub, H. P., Hotchkiss, W. S»., and Johnson, P. R. 1930. Tentative classification of types of “tomato pockets.” Plant Physio]. 2:235-240. Macmillan, 1925. Bureau of Soils