Tomato transplants were grown in float-beds at the Tobacco Experiment Station, Greeneville. Plants were grown in 72 cell seedling planters filled with conventional growing media. Plant were grown in the greenhouse for about five and were transplanted to the field on May 1, 2001. Field plots were established in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Black plastic mulch (1.25 mil) was utilized. Plots were 24 ft long on 7 ft centers and were equipped with trickle irrigation. Plants were spaced 20 in. apart on the plastic with 14 plants per plot. Transplants received a drench application of Terrachlor for disease control. .All plots received a 500 lbs/A broadcast application of 10-10-10 fertilizer prior to transplanting. Plots were fertigated with KNO₃, CaNO₃, and NH₄NO₃ combinations beginning June 01, 2001 and continuing until final tomato harvest for a total of 51 lbs N/A with 14 lbs/A from CaNO₃, 14 lbs/A from KNO₃ and 23 lbs/A from NH₄NO₃. Fruits were harvested seven times beginning July 03 and ending July 30. All data were analyzed by ANOVA methods and means of significant treatment differences were separated using Fisher’s Protected LSD at the 0.05 level of probability.

The transplants used in this experiment were of excellent quality. Growing conditions were also excellent after transplanting resulting in strong, stocky plants with good foliage growth and early fruit set. Due somewhat to a paucity of field labor, grading of the fruits was restricted to only 2 size categories, those falling within the USDA grading system for No.1 and No. 2. Fruits smaller than about 4 ounces were considered as culls. Yields of fruits in the No1 category ranged from 575 boxes/a from ‘Floralina’ to 834 boxes/a from ‘Sunbrite’ (Table 1). Yields of No 2 sized fruits were in about the same range. Highest total marketable fruit yield was 1511 boxes/a from’ ‘BHN 444' and the lowest was 1095 boxes/a from ‘Florida 91'. All other cultivars fell within this range and did not differ significantly from each other. Fruit appearance and quality was good from all cultivars evaluated. Fruit firmness varied among cultivars with ‘BHN 444' having the firmest fruit ratings and Sunpride have the softest fruit ratings (Table 2). These were subjective ratings made on No. 1 sized fruits from 3 harvest periods. Foliage disease ratings made about the middle of the harvest season indicated differences of the incidence foliage disease among the cultivars evaluated. This too was a subjective rating on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 indicating the least severe incidence of disease at the time of the rating. Plants of ‘Mountain Spring’ and ‘Sunbeam’ showed significantly less severe disease incidence than did ‘BHN 543'. Disease ratings did not differ significantly among the other cultivars evaluated.

Table 1. Yield performance of 10 tomato cultivars evaluated at The University of Tennessee Knoxville Experiment Station, 2001.

Means in a column followed by the same letter are not statistically different according to Duncan’s Multiple Range Test at P=0.05.

Means in a column followed by the same letter are not statistically different according to Duncan’s Multiple Range Test at P=0.05.

*Rating scale 1-5, 5=firmest fruit or least incidence of foliage disease.