NCSU Cucumber Breeding Report - 1991
Todd C. Wehner
Professor
Rufus R. Horton, Jr.
Agric. Res. Tech. II
Department of Horticultural Science
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of
F.E. Cumbo and the personnel at the Horticultural
Crops Research Station, Clinton, NC for help in planting
maintaining, and harvesting the trials.
About This Report
The data contained in this publication are made available to interested persons so
that they will be informed as to the nature and scope of our cucumber breeding
program. Since the results of the trials are based on one year's data, they
should be interpreted cautiously. Genotype ¥ environment interactions make it
likely that the performance of any given cultigen (cultivar or breeding line) will
be significantly different in other trials. Often, cultigens that perform well
for yield, earliness, fruit quality, or disease resistance in one trial will
perform significantly worse in other trials.
Other factors, known only to the researchers, may complicate the interpretation of
the results, making it difficult for others to interpret differences from one year
to the next. For example, the effect of seed lot, pollenizer, harvest labor,
irrigation, fertilizer, pollinating insects and weather patterns may cause some
test plots in the field to receive better or worse treatment than average.
Therefore, we urge caution in interpreting these data. Conclusions drawn by the
reader will be more accurate if they are of a general nature. For example, note
which cultigens performed in the top third for yield, rather than which one was at
the very top.
Pricing schemes
Value of production figures were obtained by assigning the following prices
for the marketable grades:
Price
Grade per cwt
No.1 (< 1 1/16") $16.00
No.2 (1 1/16 - 1 1/2") 9.00
No.3 (1 1/2 - 2") 5.80
No.4 (> 2") 0.00
The pricing system is the one currently in use in North Carolina (averaged over
the spring and summer crops) and is revised annually. The same pricing systems
are applied to all production in a particular year even though commercial prices
for summer production are usually higher than for spring production.
Progression of breeding lines through trials:
Stage 1 trial Stage 2 trial Stage 3 trial Stage 4 trial
2 replications --> 1 replication --> 3 replications --> 3 replications
1 harvest 6 harvests 6 harvests 6 harvests
spring season summer season
________________________
The cost of planning these trials, doing the field work, running the data analysis,
and summarizing the results for this report was approximately $22,000 each for the
pickling and slicing cucumber trials (not including the costs for cooperators at
other locations).
Direct correspondence to:
Todd C. Wehner, Professor
Department of Horticultural Science
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
919-515-5363 (Voice)
919-515-2505 (Fax)
Todd_Wehner@NCSU.Edu (EMail)
http://cuke.hort.ncsu.edu/wehner.html (World wide web page)
Pickling Cucumbers
Brinestock Evaluation - 1990
1993 Stage 3 Pickle Trial
Todd C. Wehner and Rufus R. Horton, Jr.z
Department of Horticultural Science
North Carolina State University
Introduction
Cucumbers from the third and fifth harvests (June 28 and July 5, respectively)
of the 1990 stage 3 spring pickling cucumber trial were each placed in one
brine tank at Mt. Olive Pickle Co. on June 29 and July 6. The tanks were purged
with nitrogen to remove excess carbon dioxide from the brine.
Methods
The 21 cultigens (cultivars and breeding lines) were evaluated for fruit quality
(shape, external color, texture, seedcell size, and lot uniformity), firmness,
bloaters, and other defects on January 16, 1990. Quality was evaluated by 9
judges: Sonny Coghill, Lawrence Crocker, Phil Denlinger, and Janet Turner (Mt. Olive),
Jerry Ferrell and Tim Smith (C. F. Cates), Ron Thomas (Vlasic Foods), Blake Johnson
(Asgrow Seed), and George Hughes (private consultant). Fruit quality was evaluated
using a rating (approximating letter grades) from 1 to 9, where 9 = A+, 8 = A,
7 = A-, 6 = B+, 5 = B, 4 = B-, 3 = C, 2 = D, 1 = F. Bloaters and defects were
measured as percentage of damage in a sample of 10 grade 3B fruits. Firmness
was measured by punching 10 grade 2B fruits with a Magness-Taylor tester
(having a 5/16" diameter tip).
Results
The cultigens are presented in order by decreasing fruit quality in Table 1,
and are ranked for resistance to bloaters and defects in Tables 2 and 3,
respectively. Fruit texture and firmness rankings are in Table 4. The average
quality ratings assigned by each judge in the test are presented in Table 5,
showing how lenient each judge was relative to the others. Due to insufficient
replication, the bloater data show few significant differences among cultigens.
Other Cultigens Tested
We also had the opportunity to evaluate several new experimentals in grower
trials, which are shown below, along with a check. The quality of Ark.H-19
was worse than the others, with color, texture, and seedcell problems.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar Average External Text- Seed Unifrm Firm- Honey- Soft
or line quality Shape color ure cell -ity ness Blloon comb BED Cntrs
_________________________________________________________________________________
Ark.H-19 4.8 6.0 4.4 4.4 3.3 6.0 16.5 0 0 10 70
SUNRE 3537 6.0 6.3 7.3 5.1 5.0 6.6 17.6 40 10 10 0
SUNRE 5153 6.4 6.1 7.1 6.1 6.0 6.7 17.7 10 0 0 0
Check 7.9 8.0 7.7 8.0 7.6 8.0 16.7 0 0 0 0
_________________________________________________________________________________
Summary
- The cultigens with best fruit quality were 89WI206200, 89WI306300, Discover M,
90WI 401400, Parker and NUN 7209.
- The most bloater resistant cultigens were 89WI206200, Ark. H-19, Raleigh,
Picklemech and Discover M.
- The cultigens with the highest firmness and texture ratings were Express,
FMX-4838, Discover M, 89WI306300 and 89WI206200.
- Judges ranged from Coghill, who was the most liberal in quality ratings to
Denlinger, who was the most conservative.
________________________
z Thanks to Mt. Olive Pickle Co., Mt. Olive, N.C. for assistance in brining the
cucumbers, and for providing the facilities for evaluating the cultigens tested.
Thanks also to the personnel at the Horticultural Crops Research Station, Clinton,
N. C. for help in running the field trials.
Table 1. Brinestock evaluation - quality ratings (cultigens are ranked by
average quality).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar Seed Average External Text- Seed Uniform-
Rank or line source quality Shape color ure cell ity
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 89WI206200 Univ. Wis. 6.9 5.7 6.8 7.2 7.7 7.0
2 89WI306300 Univ. Wis. 6.7 6.7 7.1 6.6 6.7 6.6
3 Discover M Asgrow Seed 6.4 5.6 6.4 6.8 6.9 6.3
4 90WI 401400 Univ. Wis. 6.4 6.4 6.2 6.0 6.3 6.8
5 Parker Nunhem Zaden 6.3 7.1 7.8 5.4 4.1 7.1
6 NUN 7209 Nunhem Zaden 6.2 7.3 7.6 5.4 3.5 7.3
7 FMX-4838 Ferry-Morse 6.1 4.3 6.5 6.6 6.8 6.4
8 Ark. H-19 Univ. Ark. 6.0 7.0 5.9 5.3 5.4 6.6
9 Express Northrup King 6.0 5.3 6.4 6.1 5.9 6.2
10 HMX 6466 Harris-Moran 5.8 6.1 6.3 5.4 4.9 6.4
11 Raleigh NC State Univ 5.8 5.7 6.6 5.7 5.0 6.1
12 Wis. SMR 18 Check 5.8 6.1 5.4 5.7 5.2 6.6
13 Picklemech Northrup King 5.7 4.9 6.6 5.1 6.1 5.7
14 SUNRE 3529 SunSeeds 5.6 4.9 6.8 5.3 4.6 6.2
15 Calypso Check 5.6 5.6 6.2 5.2 5.1 5.8
16 WI3733Gx6226 Wis-USDA 5.4 5.9 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.7
17 Magic Asgrow Seed 5.0 4.8 5.9 4.4 5.4 4.5
18 Johnston NC State Univ 5.0 5.0 6.2 4.1 4.4 5.1
19 FMX-4850 Ferry-Morse 4.8 4.8 6.6 4.2 3.7 4.8
20 HMX 6465 Harris-Moran 4.2 3.4 5.5 3.2 4.4 4.3
21 90WI 402400 Univ. Wis. 3.9 4.2 4.5 2.7 4.2 4.1
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.0
Mean 5.7 5.6 6.3 5.3 5.3 6.0
CV (%) 19 24 22 30 24 25
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Quality rated 1 to 9 (9 = A+, 8 = A, 7 = A-, 6 = B+, 5 = B, 4 = B-, 3 = C,
2 = D, 1 = F).
Correlation (Shape with Uniformity) = 0.81**
Correlation (Texture with Seedcell) = 0.75**
Table 2. Brinestock evaluation - percentage of fruit damaged by bloaters
(cultigens are ranked by bloater resistance).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar Seed Total Honey-
Rank or line source bloaters Balloon Lens comb
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 89WI206200 Univ. Wis. 0 0 0 0
2 Ark. H-19 Univ. Ark. 0 0 0 0
3 Raleigh NC State Univ 10 5 5 0
4 Picklemech Northrup King 10 5 0 5
5 Discover M Asgrow Seed 20 5 0 15
6 Wis. SMR 18 Check 10 10 0 0
7 Johnston NC State Univ 15 10 0 5
8 Magic Asgrow Seed 20 10 0 10
9 89WI306300 Univ. Wis. 15 15 0 0
10 FMX-4838 Ferry-Morse 15 15 0 0
11 90WI 402400 Univ. Wis. 15 15 0 0
12 Parker Nunhem Zaden 20 15 0 5
13 Calypso Check 25 15 5 5
14 FMX-4850 Ferry-Morse 45 15 0 30
15 SUNRE 3529 SunSeeds 30 20 0 10
16 Express Northrup King 30 20 0 10
17 HMX 6465 Harris-Moran 40 20 0 20
18 HMX 6466 Harris-Moran 30 25 0 5
19 90WI 401400 Univ. Wis. 50 40 0 10
20 NUN 7209 Nunhem Zaden 55 45 10 0
21 WI3733Gx6226 Wis-USDA 70 45 5 20
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 36 25 8 20
Mean 25 17 1 7
CV (%) 70 71 340 135
_________________________________________________________________________________
Table 3. Brinestock evaluation - percentage of fruit damaged by defects
(cultigens are ranked by resistance to defects).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Blossom-
Cultivar Seed Total Placental end Soft
Rank or line source defects hollows defects centers
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 89WI206200 Univ. Wis. 0 0 0 0
2 FMX-4838 Ferry-Morse 0 0 0 0
3 Raleigh NC State Univ 10 0 0 10
4 89WI306300 Univ. Wis. 10 0 10 0
5 Discover M Asgrow Seed 10 0 0 10
6 90WI 401400 Univ. Wis. 10 10 0 0
7 Wis. SMR 18 Check 15 0 5 10
8 90WI 402400 Univ. Wis. 15 0 0 15
9 HMX 6465 Harris-Moran 15 0 5 10
10 Ark. H-19 Univ. Ark. 20 0 0 20
11 Picklemech Northrup King 20 0 5 15
12 Magic Asgrow Seed 20 5 5 10
13 HMX 6466 Harris-Moran 20 0 0 20
14 WI3733Gx6226 Wis-USDA 20 0 0 20
15 Johnston NC State Univ 25 5 0 20
16 SUNRE 3529 SunSeeds 25 0 0 25
17 Express Northrup King 25 5 5 15
18 Calypso Check 30 10 5 15
19 FMX-4850 Ferry-Morse 30 0 0 30
20 Parker Nunhem Zaden 35 10 0 25
21 NUN 7209 Nunhem Zaden 40 5 0 35
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 32 11 10 30
Mean 19 2 2 14
CV (%) 82 223 262 99
_________________________________________________________________________________
Table 4. Brinestock evaluation - firmness and texture of fruit, and resistance
to bloaters and defects (cultigens are ranked by firmness).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Firm- Total
Cultivar Seed ness Text- bloaters Total Bal-
Rank or line source (lbs.) ure &defects bloaters loon Defects
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Ark. H-19 Univ. Ark. 17.7 5.3 20 0 0 20
2 HMX 6466 Harris-Moran 17.3 5.4 50 30 25 20
3 Express Northrup King 17.0 6.1 55 30 20 25
4 Calypso Check 16.9 5.2 55 25 15 30
5 FMX-4838 Ferry-Morse 16.1 6.6 15 15 15 0
6 Parker Nunhem Zaden 15.9 5.4 55 20 15 35
7 Picklemech Northrup King 15.9 5.1 30 10 5 20
8 Discover M Asgrow Seed 15.8 6.8 30 20 5 10
9 89WI306300 Univ. Wis. 15.8 6.6 25 15 15 10
10 Johnston NC State Univ 15.8 4.1 40 15 10 25
11 89WI206200 Univ. Wis. 15.8 7.2 0 0 0 0
12 WI3733Gx6226 Wis-USDA 15.8 5.1 90 70 45 20
13 FMX-4850 Ferry-Morse 15.7 4.2 75 45 15 30
14 HMX 6465 Harris-Moran 15.6 3.2 55 40 20 15
15 SUNRE 3529 SunSeeds 15.5 5.3 55 30 20 25
16 90WI 401400 Univ. Wis. 15.2 6.0 60 50 40 10
17 Wis. SMR 18 Check 15.2 5.7 25 10 10 15
18 NUN 7209 Nunhem Zaden 15.2 5.4 95 55 45 40
19 90WI 402400 Univ. Wis. 14.8 2.7 30 15 15 15
20 Magic Asgrow Seed 14.8 4.4 40 20 10 20
21 Raleigh NC State Univ 14.1 5.7 20 10 5 10
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 2.4 1.0 55 36 25 32
Mean 15.8 5.3 44 25 17 19
CV (%) 7 30 60 70 71 82
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Firmness determined by punching 10 grade 2B fruits with a Magness-Taylor
punch-tester (10 fruits per sample).
Correlation (Texture with Firmness) = 0.26*
Correlation (Texture with Balloon) = -0.09ns
Correlation (Texture with Lens) = -0.08ns
Correlation (Texture with Honeycomb) = -0.18ns
Table 5. Brinestock evaluation - quality ratings assigned by the judges
(judges are ranked by leniency).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Average External Seed Uniform-
Rank Judge quality Shape color Texture cell ity
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Coghill 6.8 6.8 8.0 6.3 6.3 6.7
2 Turner 6.4 6.4 6.1 6.3 6.1 7.2
3 Crocker 6.4 5.8 7.1 6.2 5.7 7.4
4 Hughes 6.2 6.1 7.7 5.5 5.8 5.7
5 Ferrell 5.6 5.4 5.5 5.3 5.9 5.8
6 Smith 5.4 5.0 6.0 4.7 5.5 5.5
7 Johnson 4.9 4.8 5.8 5.1 3.9 4.9
8 Thomas 4.8 5.1 5.2 4.3 4.1 5.2
9 Denlinger 4.7 4.5 5.2 4.1 4.5 5.2
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Quality rated 1 to 9 (9 = A+, 8 = A, 7 = A-, 6 = B+, 5 = B, 4 = B-, 3 = C,
2 = D, 1 = F).
Stage 1 Pickling Cucumber Trial
1991
Todd C. Wehner and Rufus R. Horton, Jr.
Experiment Design
1. Two replications of 14 pickle cultivars and breeding lines (collectively
referred to as cultigens) were grown.
2. Plots were single 5 ft. rows with 5 ft. alleys at each end.
3. Rows were on raised 18" beds spaced 60" apart (center to center).
4. Fertilizer consisted of 80-80-80 lbs/A (N-P-K) broadcast preplant and
30-0-0 lbs/A (N-P-K) sideplaced at the 2 to 4 leaf stage.
5. Curbit was applied preemergence at the rate of 1 lb. a.i./A.
6. The trial was planted April 17, and harvested once-over on June 10
(when the check plots had approximately 10% oversized fruits).
Results
The following cultigens performed well, and could be advanced to the next stage:
1 90UW403400 Univ.Wis.
2 90UW303300 Univ.Wis.
3 Regal Harris-Moran
4 89UW710711 Univ.Wis.
5 89UW206200 Univ.Wis.
Table 6. Stage 1 spring pickle trial - yield data (cultigens ranked by
no. marketable fruits per plot).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
No.fruit/plot Fruit Plants
Cultivar Seed Market- % Early per per
Rank or line source able Total culls yield plant plot
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 90UW302300 Univ.Wis. 28 29 4 12 1.9 15
2 FMX-4934 Ferry-Morse 23 27 14 5 1.8 15
3 90UW303300 Univ.Wis. 23 25 9 7 1.7 15
4 FMX-4838 Ferry-Morse 23 24 2 15 1.8 13
5 Regal Harris-Moran 22 23 4 11 1.5 15
6 89UW710711 Univ.Wis. 21 21 0 9 1.4 15
7 Calypso Harris-Moran 20 23 13 9 1.5 15
8 90UW403400 Univ.Wis. 20 22 9 10 1.5 15
9 89UW206200 Univ.Wis. 19 23 15 7 1.5 15
10 M 21 NCStateUniv. 18 19 4 2 1.4 14
11 Addis NCStateUniv. 16 18 11 4 1.2 15
12 Carolina Harris-Moran 16 18 8 9 1.2 15
13 FMX-4932 Ferry-Morse 16 19 16 5 1.4 14
14 90UW402400 Univ.Wis. 16 17 9 11 1.3 13
15 M 12 NCStateUniv. 14 14 4 1 1.0 15
16 M 17 NCStateUniv. 10 12 21 2 0.8 15
17 Wis.SMR 18 SunSeeds 10 12 17 0 0.8 15
18 Clinton NCStateUniv. 7 7 0 0 0.4 15
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 10 11 12 5 0.7 2
Mean 18 19 9 6 1.3 15
CV(%) 27 26 62 36 25 7
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Early yield is estimated from the number of oversized fruits per plot.
Table 7. Stage 1 spring pickle trial - fruit quality data (cultigens ranked by
average quality rating).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Overall
Cultivar Seed Average Seed- impres-
Rank or line source quality Shape Color cell sion
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 90UW403400 Univ.Wis. 7.5 8 6 7 8
2 90UW303300 Univ.Wis. 7.3 8 8 7 8
3 Clinton NCStateUniv. 7.3 8 7 7 8
4 M 21 NCStateUniv. 7.2 6 8 8 8
5 Regal Harris-Moran 7.0 8 7 7 7
6 89UW710711 Univ.Wis. 6.8 6 8 8 8
7 89UW206200 Univ.Wis. 6.7 7 7 7 7
8 M 17 NCStateUniv. 6.7 6 4 7 7
9 Calypso Harris-Moran 6.5 7 6 6 8
10 Carolina Harris-Moran 6.5 7 6 6 7
11 FMX-4932 Ferry-Morse 6.5 7 7 6 7
12 FMX-4934 Ferry-Morse 6.3 7 8 5 8
13 M 12 NCStateUniv. 6.2 6 9 7 6
14 Addis NCStateUniv. 6.2 5 8 6 8
15 FMX-4838 Ferry-Morse 5.3 5 5 5 6
16 Wis.SMR 18 SunSeeds 5.0 6 6 4 6
17 90UW402400 Univ.Wis. 5.0 5 8 4 6
18 90UW302300 Univ.Wis. 5.0 5 8 5 6
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 1.5 2 2 2 2
Mean 6.3 6 7 6 7
CV(%) 11 18 11 18 11
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Quality rating 1-9 (1 = poor, 5 = average, 9 = excellent; except color which is
1 = white, 5 = medium green, 9 = very dark green).
Table 8. Stage 1 spring pickle trial - other quality data (cultigens ranked
by average quality rating).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar Seed Average Primary Secondary
Rank or line source quality Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 1 Rep 2
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 90UW403400 Univ.Wis. 7.5 K K P K
2 90UW303300 Univ.Wis. 7.3 H K K K
3 Clinton NCStateUniv. 7.3 H K K K
4 M 21 NCStateUniv. 7.2 T G K K
5 Regal Harris-Moran 7.0 T M K K
6 89UW710711 Univ.Wis. 6.8 T H K K
7 89UW206200 Univ.Wis. 6.7 T G G K
8 M 17 NCStateUniv. 6.7 W W T H
9 Calypso Harris-Moran 6.5 H H M K
10 Carolina Harris-Moran 6.5 W H M W
11 FMX-4932 Ferry-Morse 6.5 T A S G
12 FMX-4934 Ferry-Morse 6.3 T K K K
13 M 12 NCStateUniv. 6.2 H H L K
14 Addis NCStateUniv. 6.2 K T T K
15 FMX-4838 Ferry-Morse 5.3 Y W K T
16 Wis.SMR 18 SunSeeds 5.0 Y M K T
17 90UW402400 Univ.Wis. 5.0 H M M K
18 90UW302300 Univ.Wis. 5.0 H H M K
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Defects were rated as follows (giving only the 2 worst comments each rep):
A - wArty fruit J - S - Separated carpels
B - Blossom end defects K - Keep(excellent) T - Tapered ends
C - Crooks excessive L - Late maturity U - Uniform green
D - Dogbone shape M - Mottled fruit V - Varicolor (dark stem
E - Early maturity N - Nubs excessive end, light blossom end)
F - Four celled O - Offtype fruit W - White fruit
G - lonG fruit P - Placental hollows X - neCKS on fruit
H - sHort fruit Q - Y - Yellow fruit
I - strIped fruit R - Reject (poor) Z - diSeased fruit
Table 9. Stage 1 spring pickle trial - sex expression data (cultigens ranked
by number of male nodes).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar Seed % male Plants Market-
Rank or line source nodesz /plot able
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 90UW402400 Univ.Wis. 0 13 16
2 FMX-4838 Ferry-Morse 1 13 23
3 90UW403400 Univ.Wis. 2 15 20
4 90UW302300 Univ.Wis. 2 15 28
5 FMX-4934 Ferry-Morse 3 15 23
6 Calypso Harris-Moran 3 15 20
7 Regal Harris-Moran 4 15 22
8 89UW710711 Univ.Wis. 7 15 21
9 FMX-4932 Ferry-Morse 8 14 16
10 90UW303300 Univ.Wis. 8 15 23
11 Carolina Harris-Moran 9 15 16
12 89UW206200 Univ.Wis. 11 15 19
13 Wis.SMR 18 SunSeeds 15 15 10
14 M 12 NCStateUniv. 16 15 14
15 Addis NCStateUniv. 17 15 16
16 Clinton NCStateUniv. 18 15 7
17 M 17 NCStateUniv. 19 15 10
18 M 21 NCStateUniv. 23 14 18
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 6 2 10
Mean 9 15 18
CV(%) 32 7 27
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Counted on the first 5 nodes of 5 plants per plot (gynoecious plants should
have few male nodes).
Table 10. Stage 1 spring pickle trial - selection indices
(cultigens ranked by SI1).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Selection Overall
Cultivar Seed index Market- No. Seed- impres-
Rank or line source SWI1 SWI2 able early Shape cell sion
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 90UW403400 Univ.Wis. 5.8 5.8 20 10 8 7 8
2 90UW303300 Univ.Wis. 5.8 5.8 23 7 8 7 8
3 Regal Harris-Moran 5.7 5.6 22 11 8 7 7
4 89UW710711 Univ.Wis. 5.2 5.4 21 9 6 8 8
5 89UW206200 Univ.Wis. 5.2 5.2 19 7 7 7 7
6 Calypso Harris-Moran 5.1 5.2 20 9 7 6 8
7 FMX-4934 Ferry-Morse 5.1 5.1 23 5 7 5 8
8 M 21 NCStateUniv. 5.0 5.2 18 2 6 8 8
9 Carolina Harris-Moran 4.9 5.0 16 9 7 6 7
10 FMX-4932 Ferry-Morse 4.8 4.8 16 5 7 6 7
11 FMX-4838 Ferry-Morse 4.7 4.8 23 15 5 5 6
12 90UW302300 Univ.Wis. 4.7 4.8 28 12 5 5 6
13 Clinton NCStateUniv. 4.7 4.7 7 0 8 7 8
14 M 17 NCStateUniv. 4.4 4.5 10 2 6 7 7
15 M 12 NCStateUniv. 4.4 4.4 14 1 6 7 6
16 Addis NCStateUniv. 4.3 4.6 16 4 5 6 8
17 90UW402400 Univ.Wis. 4.0 4.1 16 11 5 4 6
18 Wis.SMR 18 SunSeeds 3.5 3.5 10 0 6 4 6
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 1.0 0.9 10 5 2 2 2
Mean 4.8 4.9 18 6 6 6 7
CV(%) 10 8 27 36 18 18 11
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Selection index was calculated using marketable and early number of fruits, and
ratings for shape, seedcell and overall impression.
Stage 2 Pickling Cucumber Trial
1991
The stage 2 pickle trial was not run this year.
Stage 3 Pickling Cucumber Trial
1991
Todd C. Wehner and Rufus R. Horton, Jr.
Experiment Design
1. A randomized complete block with 3 replications of 28 pickle cultivars and
breeding lines (collectively referred to as cultigens) was grown.
2. Plots were single 20 ft. rows with 5 ft. alleys at each end.
3. Rows were on raised 18" beds spaced 60" apart (center to center).
4. Fertilizer consisted of 80-80-80 lbs/A (N-P-K) broadcast preplant and
30-0-0 lbs/A (N-P-K) sideplaced at the 2 to 4 leaf stage.
5. Curbit was applied preemergence at the rate of 1 lb. a.i./A.
6. The trial was planted April 17, and harvested 6 times (Mondays and Thursdays)
between June 3 and June 20.
Data Collection
1. Firmness was measured on 3 Grade 3 fruits using a Magness-Taylor tester
with a 5/16" tip.
2. Length/Diameter ratio was calculated by measuring 10 Grade 2 fruits.
3. Quality ratings were from 1 to 9, with 1 = worst, 9 = best.
4. Disease ratings were from 0 to 9, with 0 = no disease, 1 = trace,
4 = first stem lesions, 9 = plant dead.
Results
The following cultigens performed well, and could be advanced to the next stage:
1 XVC 4776 Campbell IRT
2 HMX 4489 Harris-Moran
3 XVC 5642 Campbell IRT
4 Raleigh NCState Univ.
5 Johnston NCState Univ.
6 UW90502500 Univ. Wis.
7 NUN 7209 Nunhem Zaden
Table 11. Stage 3 spring pickle trial - yield data (cultigens are ranked by
fruit value).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Fruit grade dist. Plants
Cultivar Seed Valuez Weight (% by weight) per A
Rank or line source ($) (cwt) No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 (X1000)
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 XVC 4776 Campbell IRT 3196 381 20 39 34 7 26
2 HMX 4489 Harris-Moran 3095 409 17 31 44 8 26
3 XVC 5642 Campbell IRT 3092 338 25 41 30 4 25
4 Johnston NCState Univ. 2741 285 28 45 24 4 26
5 Raleigh NCState Univ. 2690 298 25 40 27 7 26
6 Calypso NCState Univ. 2530 294 23 39 29 10 26
7 NUN 7209 Nunhem Zaden 2507 284 23 41 28 8 25
8 UW90502500 Univ. Wis. 2478 314 21 37 28 15 26
9 Picklemech Northrup King 2471 303 21 37 30 12 22
10 UW90306300 Univ. Wis. 2307 282 21 37 31 11 23
11 Parker Nunhem Zaden 2272 252 25 42 25 8 22
12 WI3733Gx6226 Wis-USDA 2231 267 23 39 23 15 21
13 UW90204200 Univ. Wis. 2182 243 26 39 26 9 22
14 Express Northrup King 2178 251 23 41 26 10 24
15 SUNRE 3528 SunSeeds 2107 250 20 41 31 8 19
16 UW90503500 Univ. Wis. 2092 271 17 37 33 13 26
17 Magic Asgrow Seed 2028 245 21 39 30 10 25
18 HMX 6466 Harris-Moran 1993 218 27 42 22 9 24
19 XPH 1651 Asgrow Seed 1981 222 23 45 25 7 26
20 Sumter Clemson Univ. 1827 233 16 39 35 10 24
21 XPH 1664 Asgrow Seed 1798 215 22 38 29 11 26
22 FMX-4937 Ferry-Morse 1702 206 21 37 32 11 10
23 M 12 NCState Univ. 1417 169 20 41 30 10 24
24 Wis.SMR 18 Univ. Wis. 1316 183 15 36 32 17 22
25 M 17 NCState Univ. 1315 151 24 38 26 11 26
26 Clinton NCState Univ. 1182 136 20 45 27 7 26
27 H-19 Univ. Ark. 1164 140 20 42 25 12 26
28 88-35-7 Univ. Ark. 310 33 31 38 28 3 26
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 499 68 6 8 8 7 5
Mean 2079 245 22 40 29 9 24
CV (%) 15 17 17 12 18 44 13
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Value = (No.1 x $16.00) + No.2 x $9.00) + (No.3 x $5.00).
Correlation (Fruit value with fruit weight) = 0.96**
Optimum number of replications for yield measurement = t2 x 2 x EMS/(LSD)2
Table 12. Stage 3 spring pickle trial - earliness data (cultigens are ranked
by fruit value in harvests 1 and 2).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cumulative fruit valuez and % of
total valuez (6 harvests) for harvest:
Cultivar Seed 1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5
Rank or line source $/A % $/A % $/A % $/A % $/A %
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 XVC 4776 Campbell IRT 781 25 1044 33 1863 58 2368 74 2979 93
2 Raleigh NCState Univ. 569 21 932 35 1494 56 1924 71 2491 92
3 HMX 4489 Harris-Moran 582 19 881 29 1511 51 1914 64 2872 92
4 XVC 5642 Campbell IRT 515 16 774 24 1599 51 2048 66 2797 90
5 Johnston NCState Univ. 393 14 762 28 1405 51 1890 69 2502 91
6 UW90502500 Univ. Wis. 425 17 750 30 1315 53 1765 71 2281 92
7 NUN 7209 Nunhem Zaden 377 15 742 30 1198 48 1599 64 2242 89
8 Express Northrup King 309 14 660 30 1151 53 1512 69 1986 91
9 Picklemech Northrup King 335 14 651 26 1272 52 1754 71 2317 94
10 UW90204200 Univ. Wis. 279 13 622 28 1181 54 1590 73 1992 91
11 Calypso NCState Univ. 250 10 608 23 1166 46 1696 67 2313 91
12 UW90306300 Univ. Wis. 177 8 553 24 1129 49 1560 67 2119 92
13 UW90503500 Univ. Wis. 206 10 540 26 1023 49 1468 70 1977 94
14 HMX 6466 Harris-Moran 206 11 525 27 945 48 1273 64 1725 87
15 Parker Nunhem Zaden 234 10 486 21 937 41 1335 59 1998 88
16 SUNRE 3528 SunSeeds 250 12 482 23 945 45 1295 61 1870 89
17 Magic Asgrow Seed 144 7 399 20 825 41 1236 61 1765 87
18 XPH 1664 Asgrow Seed 169 9 393 22 703 39 1012 56 1516 84
19 WI3733Gx6226 Wis-USDA 110 5 392 18 958 43 1461 66 1946 87
20 FMX-4937 Ferry-Morse 145 9 348 21 762 45 1027 60 1478 87
21 XPH 1651 Asgrow Seed 135 7 306 15 606 30 947 48 1696 85
22 Wis.SMR 18 Univ. Wis. 45 3 202 13 443 33 654 49 1198 90
23 Sumter Clemson Univ. 36 2 193 10 365 20 689 38 1470 81
24 M 12 NCState Univ. 24 2 116 8 394 28 659 46 1212 86
25 M 17 NCState Univ. 15 1 81 6 262 22 465 37 1028 79
26 Clinton NCState Univ. 2 0 33 3 167 14 345 29 968 82
27 H-19 Univ. Ark. 2 0 7 1 44 4 213 18 961 83
28 88-35-7 Univ. Ark. 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 3 138 45
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 147 5 206 7 258 8 312 8 502 6
Mean 240 10 481 20 917 40 1275 57 1851 87
CV (%) 37 33 26 22 17 12 15 8 17 4
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Value = (No.1 x $16.00) + No.2 x $9.00) + (No.3 x $5.00).
Correlation (Fruit value with value in harvests 1 and 2) = 0.89**
Table 13. Stage 3 spring pickle trial - fruit quality data (cultigens are
ranked by average quality).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Overall
Cultivar Seed Average Seed- impres-
Rank or line source qualityz Shapez Colory cellz sionz
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 XPH 1664 Asgrow Seed 7.9 9 7 7 8
2 XPH 1651 Asgrow Seed 7.9 8 7 8 8
3 Clinton NCState Univ. 7.7 8 8 7 8
4 UW90502500 Univ. Wis. 7.5 8 7 6 8
5 Sumter Clemson Univ. 7.3 7 5 8 7
6 H-19 Univ. Ark. 7.0 8 8 6 7
7 FMX-4937 Ferry-Morse 7.0 7 7 7 7
8 Magic Asgrow Seed 7.0 7 6 7 7
9 UW90306300 Univ. Wis. 7.0 6 7 8 7
10 UW90503500 Univ. Wis. 6.8 6 7 7 7
11 M 12 NCState Univ. 6.7 7 7 7 6
12 WI3733Gx6226 Wis-USDA 6.7 6 6 7 7
13 HMX 6466 Harris-Moran 6.4 7 6 6 7
14 M 17 NCState Univ. 6.3 7 3 7 5
15 Johnston NCState Univ. 6.2 6 7 6 7
16 XVC 5642 Campbell IRT 6.2 6 6 6 7
17 Express Northrup King 6.1 6 6 7 6
18 Calypso NCState Univ. 6.1 6 7 6 6
19 UW90204200 Univ. Wis. 6.1 5 6 7 6
20 XVC 4776 Campbell IRT 6.0 5 7 7 6
21 Picklemech Northrup King 6.0 6 6 6 6
22 SUNRE 3528 SunSeeds 5.9 6 6 5 6
23 Parker Nunhem Zaden 5.8 7 7 5 6
24 88-35-7 Univ. Ark. 5.7 8 8 3 6
25 NUN 7209 Nunhem Zaden 5.4 6 8 5 5
26 Raleigh NCState Univ. 5.3 5 7 5 6
27 HMX 4489 Harris-Moran 5.2 5 6 6 5
28 Wis.SMR 18 Univ. Wis. 4.7 6 4 3 5
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 1.2 2 1 2 2
Mean 6.4 6 6 6 7
CV (%) 11 18 10 17 14
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Quality rated 1 to 9 (1 = poor, 5 = average, 9 = excellent).
y Color rated 1 to 9 (1 = white, 5 = medium green, 9 = very dark green).
Correlation (Fruit value with average quality) = -0.20NS
Table 14. Stage 3 spring pickle trial - other quality data (cultigens are
ranked by average quality).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Defectsy in harvest-
Cultivar Seed Firm- L/D Primary Secondary
Rank or line source ness ratio 2 4 6 2 4 6
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 M 17 NCState Univ. 22.3 3.3 W W G V M W
2 Clinton NCState Univ. 21.0 2.9 K H K H K H
3 88-35-7 Univ. Ark. 21.0 3.1 - - V - - H
4 M 12 NCState Univ. 20.7 3.0 H H K M K C
5 H-19 Univ. Ark. 20.5 3.2 - X V - B K
6 UW90306300 Univ. Wis. 20.3 3.0 K G H T T K
7 UW90502500 Univ. Wis. 20.0 3.1 8 K K H T T
8 UW90503500 Univ. Wis. 19.7 3.0 T T T K K K
9 Sumter Clemson Univ. 19.3 3.3 W M T X K W
10 FMX-4937 Ferry-Morse 19.3 3.2 T G K A T K
11 UW90204200 Univ. Wis. 19.3 3.7 G T T K G G
12 WI3733Gx6226 Wis-USDA 19.0 3.1 K T C V K T
13 HMX 6466 Harris-Moran 18.7 3.2 G T T A G D
14 Calypso NCState Univ. 18.7 3.3 C T K A K T
15 Picklemech Northrup King 18.7 3.5 M T T V G G
16 SUNRE 3528 SunSeeds 18.7 3.2 T A K H T M
17 XPH 1651 Asgrow Seed 18.3 3.5 G K K K G G
18 Express Northrup King 18.3 3.4 M M T V T G
19 Parker Nunhem Zaden 18.0 3.0 A A A K H H
20 NUN 7209 Nunhem Zaden 18.0 2.9 A A A H T H
21 Wis.SMR 18 Univ. Wis. 18.0 3.1 T W T Y M Y
22 HMX 4489 Harris-Moran 17.7 3.6 T D A C T T
23 Raleigh NCState Univ. 17.0 3.3 C T T T N K
24 Magic Asgrow Seed 16.7 3.5 G K D K G K
25 Johnston NCState Univ. 16.7 3.5 K N G A T T
26 XVC 5642 Campbell IRT 16.7 3.5 C G T T T G
27 XVC 4776 Campbell IRT 16.3 3.3 C T T T G G
28 XPH 1664 Asgrow Seed 16.0 3.1 K K K K H K
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 2.7 0.2
Mean 18.7 3.2
CV (%) 9 4
_________________________________________________________________________________
Correlation (L/D ratio vs. yield) = 0.26*
z Quality rated 1 to 9 (1 = poor, 5 = average, 9 = excellent).
y Defects were rated as follows (giving only the 2 worst comments each rep):
A - wArty fruit J - S - Separated carpels
B - Blossom end defects K - Keep(excellent) T - Tapered ends
C - Crooks excessive L - Late maturity U - Uniform green
D - Dogbone shape M - Mottled fruit V - Varicolor (dark stem
E - Early maturity N - Nubs excessive end, light blossom end)
F - Four celled O - Offtype fruit W - White fruit
G - lonG fruit P - Placental hollows X - neCKS on fruit
H - sHort fruit Q - Y - Yellow fruit
I - strIped fruit R - Reject (poor) Z - diSeased fruit
Table 15. Stage 3 spring pickle trial - fruit keeping ability data (cultigens
are ranked by % weight loss).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Weight Rating (0 - 9)y Firm-
Cultivar Seed loss Shriv- Rots & ness
Rank or line source (%)z eling disease (lb.)x
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 UW90204200 Univ. Wis. 13 7 2 16
2 XVC 5642 Campbell IRT 13 7 4 15
3 Parker Nunhem Zaden 14 8 2 19
4 UW90503500 Univ. Wis. 14 7 2 17
5 HMX 4489 Harris-Moran 14 6 4 14
6 Calypso NCState Univ. 14 7 2 16
7 M 17 NCState Univ. 15 6 2 18
8 NUN 7209 Nunhem Zaden 15 7 2 16
9 XVC 4776 Campbell IRT 15 6 2 15
10 UW90306300 Univ. Wis. 15 7 3 15
11 UW90502500 Univ. Wis. 17 7 3 19
12 Johnston NCState Univ. 17 5 3 14
13 Sumter Clemson Univ. 17 5 4 18
14 M 12 NCState Univ. 17 6 3 16
15 WI3733Gx6226 Wis-USDA 17 6 3 15
16 Express Northrup King 17 5 2 17
17 Clinton NCState Univ. 17 7 2 19
18 XPH 1664 Asgrow Seed 17 7 3 18
19 SUNRE 3528 SunSeeds 17 6 2 16
20 Picklemech Northrup King 18 6 2 15
21 Wis.SMR 18 Univ. Wis. 18 5 3 15
22 HMX 6466 Harris-Moran 19 6 2 17
23 FMX-4937 Ferry-Morse 19 6 3 16
24 XPH 1651 Asgrow Seed 20 6 2 18
25 Raleigh NCState Univ. 20 6 2 15
26 88-35-7 Univ. Ark. 21 8 2 20
27 Magic Asgrow Seed 22 5 3 15
28 H-19 Univ. Ark. 24 7 3 19
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 7 2 2 4
Mean 17 6 3 16
CV (%) 26 20 43 16
_________________________________________________________________________________
z After storage at room temperature for 8 days in open kraft paper bags.
y Shriveling and disease rated 0 to 9 (0=none, 1-3=slight, 4-6=moderate,
7-9=advanced).
x Firmness using Magness-Taylor fruit punch tester.
Correlation (weight loss with shriveling) = -0.58**
Correlation (weight loss with firmness) = -0.27*
Table 16. Stage 3 spring pickle trial - bloater resistance data (cultigens
are ranked by bloater resistance).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Total
Cultivar Seed bloater Honey-
Rank or line source damage Balloon Lens comb
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Wis.SMR 18 Univ. Wis. 0 0 0 0
2 H-19 Univ. Ark. 2 1 0 1
3 Calypso NCState Univ. 4 0 1 2
4 UW90306300 Univ. Wis. 4 2 0 2
5 Johnston NCState Univ. 4 2 0 2
6 Picklemech Northrup King 4 3 0 1
7 M 12 NCState Univ. 4 4 0 0
8 Express Northrup King 4 4 0 0
9 Raleigh NCState Univ. 4 2 0 2
10 UW90502500 Univ. Wis. 4 3 1 1
11 Magic Asgrow Seed 4 3 0 1
12 88-35-7 Univ. Ark. 5 2 2 1
13 SUNRE 3528 SunSeeds 5 4 0 1
14 Sumter Clemson Univ. 5 4 0 1
15 HMX 4489 Harris-Moran 6 5 0 1
16 XVC 4776 Campbell IRT 7 5 0 2
17 UW90503500 Univ. Wis. 7 5 1 2
18 M 17 NCState Univ. 7 6 0 1
19 Clinton NCState Univ. 7 6 0 1
20 XPH 1651 Asgrow Seed 7 7 0 0
21 UW90204200 Univ. Wis. 8 5 0 3
22 FMX-4937 Ferry-Morse 8 6 0 2
23 HMX 6466 Harris-Moran 8 8 0 0
24 XVC 5642 Campbell IRT 8 6 0 2
25 XPH 1664 Asgrow Seed 9 7 1 1
26 Parker Nunhem Zaden 10 8 1 1
27 WI3733Gx6226 Wis-USDA 10 7 0 3
28 NUN 7209 Nunhem Zaden 11 10 0 1
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) NS NS NS NS
Mean 6 4 0 1
CV (%) 87 104 308 96
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Data are means of 2 harvests, 5 fruits/cultigen. Fruits tested in 5 gal.
pails purged with 100% CO2.
Table 17. Stage 3 spring pickle trial - bloater resistance data (cultigens
are ranked by total bloater + defect resistance)z.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Bloaters Total Blossom Placen
Cultivar Seed + bloater Total -end -tal Soft
Rank or line source defects damage defects defects hollow centers
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Wis.SMR 18 Univ. Wis. 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 H-19 Univ. Ark. 2 2 0 0 0 0
3 Johnston NCState Univ. 4 4 0 0 0 0
4 Calypso NCState Univ. 4 4 1 0 0 1
5 Express Northrup King 4 4 0 0 0 0
6 Picklemech Northrup King 5 4 1 0 1 0
7 Raleigh NCState Univ. 5 4 1 0 1 0
8 SUNRE 3528 SunSeeds 5 5 0 0 0 0
9 UW90306300 Univ. Wis. 6 4 2 2 0 0
10 M 12 NCState Univ. 6 4 2 1 1 0
11 Magic Asgrow Seed 6 4 1 1 1 0
12 UW90502500 Univ. Wis. 6 4 2 0 2 0
13 Sumter Clemson Univ. 6 5 1 0 1 0
14 88-35-7 Univ. Ark. 7 5 3 0 0 3
15 UW90503500 Univ. Wis. 7 7 0 0 0 0
16 HMX 4489 Harris-Moran 7 6 2 1 0 1
17 XVC 4776 Campbell IRT 8 7 1 0 0 1
18 FMX-4937 Ferry-Morse 8 8 1 0 0 1
19 Clinton NCState Univ. 9 7 2 1 1 0
20 M 17 NCState Univ. 9 7 2 1 1 0
21 XPH 1651 Asgrow Seed 9 7 2 0 1 1
22 XVC 5642 Campbell IRT 9 8 1 0 0 1
23 UW90204200 Univ. Wis. 9 8 2 0 0 2
24 HMX 6466 Harris-Moran 10 8 2 1 1 0
25 XPH 1664 Asgrow Seed 12 9 3 2 0 1
26 NUN 7209 Nunhem Zaden 12 11 1 0 0 1
27 WI3733Gx6226 Wis-USDA 12 10 2 1 0 1
28 Parker Nunhem Zaden 13 10 3 0 0 3
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) NS NS NS 1 NS NS
Mean 7 6 1 0 0 0
CV (%) 80 87 128 172 263 223
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Data are means of 2 harvests, 5 fruits/cultigen. Fruits tested in 5 gal.
pails purged with 100% CO2.
Table 18. Stage 3 spring pickle trial - sex expression and vine data (cultigens
are ranked by number of male nodes).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar Seed % male Vine Vine
Rank or line source nodes z size y color x
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 XVC 4776 Campbell IRT 0 7 6
2 FMX-4937 Ferry-Morse 0 5 9
3 Picklemech Northrup King 3 7 7
4 WI3733Gx6226 Wis-USDA 3 7 6
5 SUNRE 3528 SunSeeds 3 6 7
6 UW90204200 Univ. Wis. 5 8 8
7 HMX 4489 Harris-Moran 5 7 7
8 UW90502500 Univ. Wis. 15 8 8
9 XVC 5642 Campbell IRT 16 8 6
10 Express Northrup King 16 7 8
11 Johnston NCState Univ. 17 7 7
12 HMX 6466 Harris-Moran 27 8 7
13 UW90306300 Univ. Wis. 28 8 7
14 Raleigh NCState Univ. 29 8 7
15 UW90503500 Univ. Wis. 33 7 7
16 NUN 7209 Nunhem Zaden 37 8 7
17 Calypso NCState Univ. 49 7 6
18 M 12 NCState Univ. 49 6 5
19 M 17 NCState Univ. 52 6 5
20 Magic Asgrow Seed 55 7 6
21 H-19 Univ. Ark. 56 5 5
22 Sumter Clemson Univ. 60 6 8
23 Wis.SMR 18 Univ. Wis. 65 8 6
24 Parker Nunhem Zaden 65 7 6
25 XPH 1664 Asgrow Seed 68 7 6
26 88-35-7 Univ. Ark. 75 4 5
27 XPH 1651 Asgrow Seed 76 7 7
28 Clinton NCState Univ. 79 4 8
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 32 2 1
Mean 35 7 7
CV (%) 55 15 11
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Counted on the first 5 nodes of 5 plants per plot (gyn plants have 0 male nodes).
y Size rated 1 to 9 (1=very small, 9=very large).
x Color rated 1 to 9 (1=yellow, 9=very dark green).
Correlation (yield with % male nodes) = -0.52**
Correlation (yield with vine size) = 0.64**
Table 19. Stage 3 spring pickle trial - disease data (cultigens are ranked by
average disease).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Gummy An-
Cultivar Seed Average stem thrac- Powdery
Rank or line source disease blight nose mildew
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 H-19 Univ. Ark. 1.4 2 3 0
2 SUNRE 3528 SunSeeds 1.4 3 2 0
3 Magic Asgrow Seed 1.8 3 2 0
4 M 12 NCState Univ. 1.9 3 3 0
5 88-35-7 Univ. Ark. 2.0 1 5 0
6 M 17 NCState Univ. 2.0 3 3 0
7 Johnston NCState Univ. 2.0 4 2 0
8 FMX-4937 Ferry-Morse 2.1 3 3 0
9 Clinton NCState Univ. 2.1 3 3 0
10 Calypso NCState Univ. 2.1 3 3 0
11 Express Northrup King 2.2 3 4 0
12 HMX 6466 Harris-Moran 2.2 3 4 0
13 UW90306300 Univ. Wis. 2.2 4 3 0
14 XPH 1651 Asgrow Seed 2.2 4 3 0
15 Picklemech Northrup King 2.3 3 4 0
16 XPH 1664 Asgrow Seed 2.3 4 3 0
17 UW90204200 Univ. Wis. 2.4 4 3 0
18 Raleigh NCState Univ. 2.4 5 3 0
19 Parker Nunhem Zaden 2.6 4 4 0
20 XVC 4776 Campbell IRT 2.7 4 4 0
21 UW90503500 Univ. Wis. 2.8 4 4 0
22 NUN 7209 Nunhem Zaden 3.1 5 5 0
23 Sumter Clemson Univ. 3.2 5 5 0
24 HMX 4489 Harris-Moran 3.4 5 6 0
25 UW90502500 Univ. Wis. 3.4 5 6 0
26 WI3733Gx6226 Wis-USDA 3.8 5 6 0
27 XVC 5642 Campbell IRT 4.0 6 6 0
28 Wis.SMR 18 Univ. Wis. 5.1 6 6 3
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 0.8 1 2 0
Mean 2.6 4 4 0
CV (%) 19 23 25 176
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Disease rated 0 to 9 (0=none, 1=trace, 4=first stem lesions, 9=plant dead).
Correlation (yield vs. gummy stem blight rating) = 0.46**
Table 20. Stage 3 spring pickle trial - selection indexes (cultigens ranked
by SWI1).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Simple weighted Average rank
Cultivar Seed indexesz indexesy
Rank or line source SWI1 SWI2 ARI1 ARI2
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 XVC 4776 Campbell IRT 11.7 9.3 12.2 11.8
2 HMX 4489 Harris-Moran 10.7 8.7 16.1 14.7
3 XVC 5642 Campbell IRT 10.5 8.5 13.8 14.8
4 Raleigh NCState Univ. 10.5 8.3 14.5 12.6
5 Johnston NCState Univ. 10.3 8.4 10.8 10.9
6 UW90502500 Univ. Wis. 10.1 8.2 11.3 11.2
7 NUN 7209 Nunhem Zaden 9.6 7.8 15.5 14.5
8 Calypso NCState Univ. 9.4 7.8 13.2 12.6
9 Picklemech Northrup King 9.4 7.8 13.6 12.4
10 UW90306300 Univ. Wis. 9.2 7.7 11.1 10.2
11 Express Northrup King 9.0 7.4 14.0 13.9
12 UW90204200 Univ. Wis. 8.8 7.3 14.6 13.4
13 UW90503500 Univ. Wis. 8.6 7.2 14.2 13.5
14 Parker Nunhem Zaden 8.6 7.1 15.8 15.8
15 SUNRE 3528 SunSeeds 8.4 7.1 14.1 13.0
16 HMX 6466 Harris-Moran 8.4 7.0 14.1 14.2
17 Magic Asgrow Seed 8.2 7.1 11.9 13.4
18 WI3733Gx6226 Wis-USDA 8.1 6.9 16.0 16.4
19 XPH 1651 Asgrow Seed 8.1 7.0 9.9 12.1
20 XPH 1664 Asgrow Seed 8.1 6.9 11.5 13.8
21 FMX-4937 Ferry-Morse 7.6 6.5 13.8 14.2
22 Sumter Clemson Univ. 7.1 6.2 15.1 16.3
23 M 12 NCState Univ. 6.4 5.6 15.5 15.4
24 Clinton NCState Univ. 6.0 5.3 13.3 14.9
25 H-19 Univ. Ark. 6.0 5.3 15.8 16.7
26 M 17 NCState Univ. 5.9 5.1 16.5 16.2
27 Wis.SMR 18 Univ. Wis. 5.3 4.6 23.2 22.6
28 88-35-7 Univ. Ark. 4.1 3.5 20.8 22.1
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 1.4 1.1 4.2 3.9
Mean 8.5 7.1 14.4 14.4
CV (%) 10 9 18 16
_________________________________________________________________________________
z SWI is a simple weighted index calculated by averaging the performance of
a genotype for yield; earliness; fruit shape, seedcell size and overall
impression; and disease resistance. The index is calculated with 2 different
methods of weighting each trait (10 is best, 1 is worst).
y ARI is the average ranking of each genotype for yield, earliness, fruit
quality and disease resistance. The index is calculated with 2 different
sets of secondary traits added in with the primary traits (1 is best,
21 is worst).
Correlation (yield with SWI1) = 0.96**
Correlation (yield with SWI2) = 0.95**
Correlation (yield with ARI1) = -0.44**
Correlation (yield with ARI2) = -0.60**
Stage 4 Pickling Cucumber Trial
1991
Todd C. Wehner and Rufus R. Horton, Jr.
Experiment Design
1. A randomized complete block with 3 replications of 21 pickle cultivars and
breeding lines (collectively referred to as cultigens) was grown.
2. Plots were single 20 ft. rows with 5 ft. alleys at each end.
3. Rows were on raised 18" beds spaced 60" apart (center to center).
4. Fertilizer consisted of 80-80-80 lbs/A (N-P-K) broadcast preplant and
30-0-0 lbs/A (N-P-K) sideplaced at the 2 to 4 leaf stage.
5. Curbit was applied preemergence at the rate of 1 lb. a.i./A.
6. The trial was planted July 19, and harvested 6 times (Mondays and Thursdays)
between August 23 and September 10.
Data Collection
1. Firmness was measured on 3 Grade 3 fruits using a Magness-Taylor tester
with a 5/16" tip.
2. Length/Diameter ratio was calculated by measuring 10 Grade 2 fruits.
3. Quality ratings were from 1 to 9, with 1 = worst, 9 = best.
4. Disease ratings were from 0 to 9, with 0 = no disease, 1 = trace,
4 = first stem lesions, 9 = plant dead.
Results
The following cultigens performed well, and could be tested next year:
1 UW90306300 Univ. Wis.
2 Express Northrup King
3 Johnston NCState Univ.
4 UW90502500 Univ. Wis.
5 SUNRE 3528 SunSeeds
6 Raleigh NCState Univ.
7 XVC 4776 Campbell IRT
Table 21. Stage 4 summer pickle trial - yield data (cultigens are ranked
by fruit value).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Fruit grade dist. Plants
Cultivar Seed Valuez Weight (% by weight) per A
Rank or line source ($) (cwt) No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 (X1000)
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 XVC 4776 Campbell IRT 1156 126 27 39 31 4 26
2 UW90306300 Univ. Wis. 1108 149 17 34 36 14 26
3 Express Northrup King 1090 127 25 38 29 8 26
4 Johnston NCState Univ. 1046 117 23 40 35 2 26
5 Raleigh NCState Univ. 995 103 30 42 23 5 26
6 UW90502500 Univ. Wis. 949 118 22 32 38 9 26
7 SUNRE 3528 SunSeeds 947 112 23 39 30 8 25
8 FMX-4937 Ferry-Morse 882 103 21 41 31 7 14
9 UW90204200 Univ. Wis. 821 89 28 36 33 3 24
10 Calypso NCState Univ. 818 99 22 33 35 10 26
11 XPH 1651 Asgrow Seed 757 83 26 41 26 7 26
12 XVC 5642 Campbell IRT 742 76 29 41 27 3 26
13 XPH 1664 Asgrow Seed 724 95 16 38 33 13 26
14 Magic Asgrow Seed 719 83 25 42 24 9 26
15 Picklemech Northrup King 705 78 26 39 26 8 24
16 H-19 Univ. Ark. 658 65 28 50 22 0 26
17 UW90503500 Univ. Wis. 649 85 16 38 34 12 26
18 NUN 7209 Nunhem Zaden 628 68 24 47 27 2 26
19 HMX 4489 Harris-Moran 550 60 26 39 28 7 26
20 Clinton NCState Univ. 483 54 23 46 26 6 26
21 M 17 NCState Univ. 477 58 22 35 32 11 26
22 Sumter Clemson Univ. 391 46 25 44 22 10 25
23 M 12 NCState Univ. 377 43 25 42 22 10 25
24 Parker Nunhem Zaden 355 37 30 45 22 3 26
25 HMX 6466 Harris-Moran 310 30 38 39 19 4 26
26 88-35-7 Univ. Ark. 205 20 28 55 17 0 26
27 WI3733Gx6226 Wis-USDA 44 3 68 32 0 0 26
28 Wis.SMR 18 Univ. Wis. 11 1 47 0 20 0 21
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 233 33 20 13 14 8 2
Mean 664 76 27 39 27 6 25
CV (%) 21 27 46 20 33 75 5
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Value = (No.1 x $16.00) + No.2 x $9.00) + (No.3 x $5.00).
Correlation (Fruit value with fruit weight) = 0.97**
Table 22. Stage 4 summer pickle trial - earliness data (cultigens are ranked
by fruit value in harvests 1 and 2).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cumulative fruit valuez and % of
total valuez (6 harvests) for harvest:
Cultivar Seed 1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5
Rank or line source $/A % $/A % $/A % $/A % $/A %
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 UW90502500 Univ. Wis. 280 30 447 48 664 70 752 79 864 91
2 XVC 4776 Campbell IRT 174 14 398 34 741 64 879 75 1090 94
3 Johnston NCState Univ. 247 23 386 36 706 67 817 77 963 92
4 Raleigh NCState Univ. 170 17 349 35 635 64 744 75 917 92
5 Express Northrup King 186 17 342 31 607 56 745 68 982 90
6 XVC 5642 Campbell IRT 167 23 302 41 524 72 568 77 694 93
7 SUNRE 3528 SunSeeds 194 20 292 30 555 58 656 69 830 88
8 UW90306300 Univ. Wis. 133 12 290 26 590 53 743 67 1004 91
9 FMX-4937 Ferry-Morse 111 13 237 27 481 55 607 69 785 89
10 NUN 7209 Nunhem Zaden 153 24 236 38 406 65 483 77 577 91
11 HMX 4489 Harris-Moran 131 25 223 42 347 64 415 76 499 90
12 Calypso NCState Univ. 139 16 220 26 449 55 570 70 693 85
13 UW90204200 Univ. Wis. 118 15 215 26 434 53 546 67 696 85
14 Picklemech Northrup King 71 10 184 27 396 57 505 72 634 90
15 UW90503500 Univ. Wis. 96 15 169 26 339 52 400 62 531 82
16 XPH 1664 Asgrow Seed 60 8 146 19 354 48 458 62 624 86
17 Magic Asgrow Seed 20 3 109 15 353 49 486 67 638 88
18 Parker Nunhem Zaden 39 12 76 23 171 51 209 60 312 88
19 HMX 6466 Harris-Moran 28 8 72 21 155 46 187 57 273 84
20 XPH 1651 Asgrow Seed 10 1 53 6 254 32 388 50 646 85
21 Sumter Clemson Univ. 7 2 48 16 157 44 256 68 349 89
22 M 17 NCState Univ. 12 2 34 7 179 37 243 50 384 80
23 Clinton NCState Univ. 0 0 20 4 85 18 172 36 358 74
24 WI3733Gx6226 Wis-USDA 10 24 18 46 25 58 32 71 32 71
25 M 12 NCState Univ. 5 1 9 2 107 27 191 50 304 80
26 H-19 Univ. Ark. 0 0 0 0 7 1 44 7 341 52
27 88-35-7 Univ. Ark. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 22 9
28 Wis.SMR 18 Univ. Wis. 0 0 0 0 5 33 5 33 5 33
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 77 8 113 12 165 23 186 21 215 20
Mean 91 12 174 23 347 48 432 60 573 81
CV (%) 51 42 39 32 29 29 26 21 23 15
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Value = (No.1 x $16.00) + No.2 x $9.00) + (No.3 x $5.00).
Correlation (Fruit value with value in harvests 1 and 2) = 0.82**
Table 23. Stage 4 summer pickle trial - fruit quality data (cultigens are
ranked by average quality).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Overall
Cultivar Seed Average Seed- impres-
Rank or line source quality z Shape z Color y cell x sion z
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 XPH 1664 Asgrow Seed 8.3 9 7 8 8
2 SUNRE 3528 SunSeeds 7.1 7 7 7 7
3 UW90306300 Univ. Wis. 7.1 7 7 7 7
4 XPH 1651 Asgrow Seed 7.1 7 7 7 7
5 Clinton NCState Univ. 7.1 7 7 7 7
6 FMX-4937 Ferry-Morse 7.0 8 7 6 7
7 H-19 Univ. Ark. 6.9 8 6 7 6
8 Sumter Clemson Univ. 6.9 6 5 8 6
9 Express Northrup King 6.8 6 6 8 6
10 M 12 NCState Univ. 6.6 7 6 6 7
11 M 17 NCState Univ. 6.6 7 3 7 6
12 Picklemech Northrup King 6.6 6 7 8 6
13 UW90502500 Univ. Wis. 6.4 7 6 6 6
14 Magic Asgrow Seed 6.1 6 6 5 7
15 Raleigh NCState Univ. 6.1 6 7 7 6
16 Johnston NCState Univ. 6.0 7 7 6 6
17 NUN 7209 Nunhem Zaden 6.0 6 8 5 7
18 UW90204200 Univ. Wis. 5.9 6 7 6 5
19 UW90503500 Univ. Wis. 5.9 6 7 7 5
20 Calypso NCState Univ. 5.9 6 6 7 5
21 XVC 4776 Campbell IRT 5.4 5 7 6 5
22 XVC 5642 Campbell IRT 5.2 6 7 5 5
23 Parker Nunhem Zaden 5.2 5 7 5 6
24 HMX 6466 Harris-Moran 5.2 4 7 7 5
25 88-35-7 Univ. Ark. 4.7 5 5 5 4
26 HMX 4489 Harris-Moran 4.4 4 6 5 4
27 WI3733Gx6226 Wis-USDA 4.1 4 6 5 4
28 Wis.SMR 18 Univ. Wis. 3.3 4 3 3 3
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 0.7 1 1 1 1
Mean 6.1 6 6 6 6
CV (%) 7 11 9 14 9
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Quality rated 1 to 9 (1 = poor, 5 = average, 9 = excellent).
y Color rated 1 to 9 (1 = white, 5 = medium green, 9 = very dark green).
Correlation (Fruit value with average quality) = 0.48**
Table 24. Stage 4 summer pickle trial - other quality data (cultigens are
ranked by average quality).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Defectsy in harvest-
Cultivar Seed Firm- L/D Average Primary Secondary
Rank or line source ness ratio qualityz 2 4 2 4
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Clinton NCState Univ. 17.7 2.8 7.1 H H H C
2 UW90503500 Univ. Wis. 17.7 3.0 5.9 N C N N
3 M 17 NCState Univ. 17.3 3.4 6.6 W W W C
4 Wis.SMR 18 Univ. Wis. 17.0 3.2 3.3 T T Y Y
5 XPH 1664 Asgrow Seed 16.7 3.1 8.3 T H T K
6 H-19 Univ. Ark. 16.7 3.0 6.9 T T T T
7 M 12 NCState Univ. 16.7 2.8 6.6 C K C K
8 Magic Asgrow Seed 16.7 3.6 6.1 T C T K
9 UW90306300 Univ. Wis. 16.3 3.1 7.1 T N T K
10 XPH 1651 Asgrow Seed 16.3 3.3 7.1 C C C K
11 Express Northrup King 16.3 3.6 6.8 C N C C
12 UW90502500 Univ. Wis. 16.3 3.0 6.4 N N N C
13 Sumter Clemson Univ. 16.0 3.2 6.9 C C C K
14 Calypso NCState Univ. 16.0 3.2 5.9 N C C T
15 SUNRE 3528 SunSeeds 15.7 3.3 7.1 T N T K
16 Picklemech Northrup King 15.7 3.4 6.6 T C T H
17 UW90204200 Univ. Wis. 15.7 3.7 5.9 G T T G
18 XVC 4776 Campbell IRT 15.7 3.4 5.4 T C G T
19 FMX-4937 Ferry-Morse 15.3 3.3 7.0 T N T K
20 HMX 6466 Harris-Moran 15.3 3.5 5.2 C N C C
21 WI3733Gx6226 Wis-USDA 15.3 2.6 4.1 N C C N
22 HMX 4489 Harris-Moran 15.0 3.6 4.4 N N C C
23 Raleigh NCState Univ. 14.7 3.4 6.1 T N T T
24 Johnston NCState Univ. 14.3 3.4 6.0 C N T T
25 NUN 7209 Nunhem Zaden 14.3 3.0 6.0 N N N H
26 XVC 5642 Campbell IRT 14.0 3.7 5.2 N C T T
27 Parker Nunhem Zaden 14.0 2.9 5.2 N N H H
28 88-35-7 Univ. Ark. 12.0 3.1 4.7 T T T T
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 2.4 0.4 0.7
Mean 15.7 3.2 6.1
CV (%) 9 7 7
_________________________________________________________________________________
Correlation (L/D ratio vs. yield) = 0.35**
z Quality rated 1 to 9 (1 = poor, 5 = average, 9 = excellent).
y Defects were rated as follows (giving only the 2 worst comments each rep):
A - wArty fruit J - S - Separated carpels
B - Blossom end defects K - Keep(excellent) T - Tapered ends
C - Crooks excessive L - Late maturity U - Uniform green
D - Dogbone shape M - Mottled fruit V - Varicolor (dark stem
E - Early maturity N - Nubs excessive end, light blossom end)
F - Four celled O - Offtype fruit W - White fruit
G - lonG fruit P - Placental hollows X - neCKS on fruit
H - sHort fruit Q - Y - Yellow fruit
I - strIped fruit R - Reject (poor) Z - diSeased fruit
Table 25. Stage 4 summer pickle trial - sex expression and vine data (cultigens
are ranked by number of male nodes).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar Seed % male Vine Vine
Rank or line source nodes z size y color x
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 XVC 4776 Campbell IRT 0 6 5
2 SUNRE 3528 SunSeeds 0 5 7
3 Picklemech Northrup King 0 5 7
4 FMX-4937 Ferry-Morse 0 5 7
5 WI3733Gx6226 Wis-USDA 0 3 5
6 XVC 5642 Campbell IRT 3 5 5
7 Parker Nunhem Zaden 3 3 5
8 Express Northrup King 5 6 8
9 UW90502500 Univ. Wis. 9 6 6
10 Raleigh NCState Univ. 12 5 6
11 HMX 4489 Harris-Moran 13 4 6
12 UW90306300 Univ. Wis. 20 7 7
13 Johnston NCState Univ. 21 5 7
14 NUN 7209 Nunhem Zaden 21 5 5
15 HMX 6466 Harris-Moran 25 3 4
16 UW90503500 Univ. Wis. 28 5 7
17 Wis.SMR 18 Univ. Wis. 28 5 4
18 UW90204200 Univ. Wis. 32 6 8
19 Sumter Clemson Univ. 33 5 8
20 Calypso NCState Univ. 35 5 6
21 Clinton NCState Univ. 37 5 7
22 M 17 NCState Univ. 44 6 6
23 XPH 1651 Asgrow Seed 47 6 7
24 Magic Asgrow Seed 49 5 7
25 M 12 NCState Univ. 53 4 5
26 XPH 1664 Asgrow Seed 59 6 7
27 H-19 Univ. Ark. 75 4 4
28 88-35-7 Univ. Ark. 77 3 4
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 21 2 1
Mean 26 5 6
CV (%) 50 20 11
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Counted on the first 5 nodes of 5 plants per plot
(gyn plants have 0 male nodes).
y Size rated 1 to 9 (1=very small, 9=very large).
x Color rated 1 to 9 (1=yellow, 9=very dark green).
Correlation (yield with % male nodes) = -0.25*
Correlation (yield with vine size) = 0.57**
Table 26. Stage 4 summer pickle trial - disease data (cultigens are ranked
by average disease).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Average An- Gummy
Cultivar Seed disease thrac- stem
Rank or line source rating nose blight
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 88-35-7 Univ. Ark. 1 0 1
2 H-19 Univ. Ark. 1 1 1
3 XPH 1651 Asgrow Seed 1 2 0
4 UW90306300 Univ. Wis. 2 3 0
5 FMX-4937 Ferry-Morse 2 3 0
6 M 17 NCState Univ. 2 3 0
7 Express Northrup King 2 3 1
8 Raleigh NCState Univ. 2 3 1
9 Clinton NCState Univ. 2 3 1
10 XPH 1664 Asgrow Seed 2 3 0
11 SUNRE 3528 SunSeeds 2 3 1
12 UW90204200 Univ. Wis. 2 3 1
13 Magic Asgrow Seed 2 3 1
14 M 12 NCState Univ. 2 3 2
15 Picklemech Northrup King 2 4 1
16 Johnston NCState Univ. 2 4 1
17 Sumter Clemson Univ. 2 4 1
18 Calypso NCState Univ. 3 4 1
19 UW90502500 Univ. Wis. 4 5 2
20 UW90503500 Univ. Wis. 4 5 2
21 XVC 4776 Campbell IRT 4 5 2
22 HMX 6466 Harris-Moran 4 6 1
23 XVC 5642 Campbell IRT 4 6 2
24 HMX 4489 Harris-Moran 4 6 2
25 Parker Nunhem Zaden 4 6 2
26 NUN 7209 Nunhem Zaden 5 6 3
27 Wis.SMR 18 Univ. Wis. 5 8 3
28 WI3733Gx6226 Wis-USDA 6 8 3
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 1 1 1
Mean 3 4 1
CV (%) 28 21 63
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Disease rated 0 to 9 (0=none, 1=trace, 4=first stem lesions, 9=plant dead).
Correlation (yield vs. anthracnose rating) = -0.31**
Table 27. Stage 4 summer pickle trial - selection indexes (cultigens
ranked by SWI1).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Simple weighted Average rank
Cultivar Seed indexesz indexesy
Rank or line source SWI1 SWI2 ARI1 ARI2
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 UW90306300 Univ. Wis. 6.5 5.8 7.0 7.8
2 Express Northrup King 6.5 5.7 8.2 8.5
3 Johnston NCState Univ. 6.3 5.5 11.2 11.3
4 UW90502500 Univ. Wis. 6.3 5.5 10.7 10.4
5 SUNRE 3528 SunSeeds 6.2 5.5 8.5 9.6
6 Raleigh NCState Univ. 6.1 5.4 10.9 11.0
7 XVC 4776 Campbell IRT 6.1 5.3 14.0 13.3
8 FMX-4937 Ferry-Morse 5.9 5.3 9.0 10.1
9 XPH 1664 Asgrow Seed 5.8 5.2 7.5 9.1
10 UW90204200 Univ. Wis. 5.4 4.8 13.5 13.1
11 Calypso NCState Univ. 5.3 4.8 13.9 13.3
12 XPH 1651 Asgrow Seed 5.2 4.7 10.5 12.0
13 Picklemech Northrup King 5.2 4.7 12.3 12.8
14 XVC 5642 Campbell IRT 5.1 4.6 17.2 16.8
15 H-19 Univ. Ark. 4.9 4.4 12.1 12.9
16 Magic Asgrow Seed 4.9 4.5 14.0 13.8
17 UW90503500 Univ. Wis. 4.8 4.3 16.3 14.9
18 NUN 7209 Nunhem Zaden 4.8 4.4 16.2 16.6
19 Clinton NCState Univ. 4.6 4.1 12.6 13.3
20 M 17 NCState Univ. 4.3 3.9 13.9 14.0
21 Sumter Clemson Univ. 4.3 4.0 14.7 15.6
22 HMX 4489 Harris-Moran 4.2 4.0 20.8 19.0
23 M 12 NCState Univ. 4.1 3.7 15.9 16.1
24 Parker Nunhem Zaden 3.7 3.5 20.7 20.9
25 HMX 6466 Harris-Moran 3.6 3.4 20.8 20.7
26 88-35-7 Univ. Ark. 3.5 3.2 20.7 20.4
27 WI3733Gx6226 Wis-USDA 2.4 2.7 25.5 22.8
28 Wis.SMR 18 Univ. Wis. 2.1 1.7 27.3 25.3
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 0.7 0.5 2.6 2.4
Mean 4.9 4.4 14.5 14.5
CV (%) 8 7 11 10
_________________________________________________________________________________
z SWI is a simple weighted index calculated by averaging the performance of
a genotype for yield; earliness; fruit shape, seedcell size and overall
impression; and disease resistance. The index is calculated with 2 different
methods of weighting each trait (10 is best, 1 is worst).
y ARI is the average ranking of each genotype for yield, earliness, fruit
quality and disease resistance. The index is calculated with 2 different
sets of secondary traits added in with the primary traits (1 is best,
21 is worst).
Correlation (yield with SWI1) = 0.96**
Correlation (yield with SWI2) = 0.95**
Correlation (yield with ARI1) = -0.79**
Correlation (yield with ARI2) = -0.83**
Slicing Cucumbers
Stage 1 Slicing Cucumber Trial
1991
The stage 1 slicer trial was not run this year.
Stage 2 Slicing Cucumber Trial
1991
The stage 2 slicer trial was not run this year.
Stage 3 Slicing Cucumber Trial
1991
Todd C. Wehner and Rufus R. Horton, Jr.
Experiment Design
1. A randomized complete block with 3 replications of 21 slicer cultivars
and breeding lines (collectively referred to as cultigens) was grown.
2. Plots were single 20 ft. rows with 5 ft. alleys at each end.
3. Rows were on raised 18" beds spaced 60" apart (center to center).
4. Fertilizer consisted of 80-80-80 lbs/A (N-P-K) broadcast preplant and
30-0-0 lbs/A (N-P-K) sideplaced at the 2 to 4 leaf stage.
5. Curbit was applied preemergence at the rate of 1 lb. a.i./A.
6. The trial was planted April 17, and harvested 6 times (Mondays and
Thursdays) between June 6 and June 24.
Data Collection
1. Fruit were weighed after sorting into No. 1, No. 2 and cull
(nubs and crooks) grades according to U.S.D.A. standards.
2. Fruit length, diameter and weight were recorded for 3 fruit per plot.
3. Quality ratings were from 1 to 9, with 1 = worst, 9 = best.
4. Disease ratings were from 0 to 9, with 0 = no disease, 1 = trace,
4 = first stem lesions, 9 = plant dead.
Results
The following cultivars and lines performed well, and could be advanced
to next year's trials:
1 SUNRE 3707 SunSeeds
2 Everslice Northrup King
3 XPH 1655 Asgrow Seed
4 Raider Harris-Moran
5 PSX 1043LX PetoSeed
Table 28. Stage 3 spring slicer trial - yield data (cultigens ranked by cwt/A
of Fancy + No. 1 grade fruit).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Yield (cwt/A) Percent Plants
Cultivar Seed Fancy Market- Fancy Percent per A
Rank or line source +No.1 able + No.1 culls (X1000)
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Everslice Northrup King 279 377 69 7 25
2 SUNRE 3707 SunSeeds 257 418 52 15 26
3 Poinsett 76 PetoSeed 226 311 68 6 26
4 XPH 1655 Asgrow Seed 226 300 67 9 22
5 Ashley Clemson Univ. 217 284 71 7 24
6 Marketmore 76 Cornell Univ. 206 269 75 3 26
7 Raider Harris-Moran 198 334 53 11 26
8 XPH 1653 Asgrow Seed 188 274 62 9 26
9 Prolific Sakata Seed 179 290 59 8 26
10 Dasher II PetoSeed 178 268 62 8 26
11 HMX 6402 Harris-Moran 172 287 56 7 26
12 PSX 1043LX PetoSeed 166 279 53 11 26
13 Sprint 440S Asgrow Seed 166 294 48 15 26
14 Tablegreen 72 Cornell Univ. 143 181 77 4 16
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 80 117 11 5 3
Mean 200 298 62 8 25
CV (%) 24 23 10 37 6
_________________________________________________________________________________
Correlation (marketable yield with % culls) = -0.02NS
Optimum number of replications for yield = t2 x 2 x EMS/(LSD)2
= 7 (for an LSD of 50 for
Yield of Fancy + No.1 fruits)
Table 29. Stage 3 spring slicer trial - earliness data (cultigens ranked by
weight of Fancy + No.1 grade fruit in harvests 1 and 2).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cumulative fruit weight & % of total
weight (6 harvests) for harvests -
Cultivar Seed 1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5
Rank or line source wt. % wt. % wt. % wt. % wt. %
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 SUNRE 3707 SunSeeds 73 18 108 26 165 39 250 60 300 72
2 PSX 1043LX PetoSeed 21 8 67 24 121 44 161 58 218 78
3 Sprint 440S Asgrow Seed 23 7 60 20 129 45 188 64 226 77
4 Raider Harris-Moran 29 8 52 15 138 41 205 63 249 75
5 XPH 1655 Asgrow Seed 14 4 48 15 116 38 172 57 224 75
6 Dasher II PetoSeed 18 6 45 16 100 37 151 56 195 72
7 HMX 6402 Harris-Moran 20 6 41 14 121 42 190 66 228 79
8 XPH 1653 Asgrow Seed 16 5 34 12 71 25 148 53 201 72
9 Everslice Northrup King 5 1 26 7 88 24 201 53 268 71
10 Prolific Sakata Seed 6 2 17 6 83 27 166 57 214 73
11 Ashley Clemson Univ. 3 1 16 6 52 18 162 57 206 73
12 Poinsett 76 PetoSeed 0 0 1 0 43 13 134 42 209 67
13 Marketmore 76 Cornell Univ. 0 0 0 0 44 15 91 34 151 58
14 Tablegreen 72 Cornell Univ. 0 0 0 0 10 5 30 17 83 48
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 21 5 32 7 60 12 76 12 97 13
Mean 16 5 37 12 91 29 161 53 212 71
CV (%) 77 67 51 35 39 25 28 13 27 11
_________________________________________________________________________________
Correlation (marketable yield with yield in harvests 1-2) = 0.58**
Correlation (marketable yield with % of yield in harvests 1-2) = 0.38*
Table 30. Stage 3 spring slicer trial - fruit quality data (cultigens ranked
by average quality).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar Seed Average Seed- Overall
Rank or line source quality Shape Color cell impression
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Marketmore 76 Cornell Univ. 7.9 8 8 7 9
2 PSX 1043LX PetoSeed 7.6 7 8 7 8
3 Poinsett 76 PetoSeed 7.1 7 7 7 7
4 Raider Harris-Moran 7.1 6 7 8 7
5 Dasher II PetoSeed 7.0 7 8 6 7
6 Everslice Northrup King 7.0 7 8 7 7
7 XPH 1653 Asgrow Seed 7.0 6 7 8 6
8 Tablegreen 72 Cornell Univ. 6.9 6 8 9 6
9 XPH 1655 Asgrow Seed 6.6 6 8 7 7
10 SUNRE 3707 SunSeeds 6.6 6 7 7 7
11 Sprint 440S Asgrow Seed 6.6 6 8 7 6
12 HMX 6402 Harris-Moran 6.3 5 7 8 6
13 Ashley Clemson Univ. 6.2 7 7 7 5
14 Prolific Sakata Seed 6.0 6 8 6 6
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 1.2 1 1 2 1
Mean 6.8 7 8 7 7
CV (%) 10 13 8 13 13
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Quality rated 1 to 9 (1 = poor, 5 = average, 9 = excellent;
except color where 1 = white, 5 = medium green, 9 = very dark green).
Correlation (marketable yield with average quality) = -0.25NS
Table 31. Stage 3 spring slicer trial - fruit dimensions and comments
(cultigens ranked by average quality rating).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Worst defects in
Dia- harvests 2, 4 and 6x
Cultivar Seed Length meter Wt. Primary Secondary
Rank or line source (0.1") (0.1") (lb.) 2 4 6 2 4 6
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Marketmore 76 Cornell Univ. 8.2 2.0 0.80 K K K T H T
2 PSX 1043LX PetoSeed 8.0 2.0 0.75 C K T T K K
3 Poinsett 76 PetoSeed 7.8 2.1 0.72 I K T V P H
4 Raider Harris-Moran 8.3 2.1 0.80 T T T D D K
5 Dasher II PetoSeed 7.9 2.0 0.62 K T T T A H
6 Everslice Northrup King 8.0 2.1 0.72 T T T I H K
7 XPH 1653 Asgrow Seed 7.7 2.1 0.69 M I T T D H
8 Tablegreen 72 Cornell Univ. 7.9 2.2 0.79 H H H K M K
9 XPH 1655 Asgrow Seed 8.2 2.1 0.78 T T T S D N
10 SUNRE 3707 SunSeeds 8.0 2.1 0.78 T T K I D T
11 Sprint 440S Asgrow Seed 7.8 2.1 0.74 C H T T T H
12 HMX 6402 Harris-Moran 7.9 2.1 0.72 T X T I H C
13 Ashley Clemson Univ. 8.1 2.1 0.77 M A A A T M
14 Prolific Sakata Seed 7.9 1.9 0.68 N A T I G M
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 0.5 0.1 0.12
Mean 8.0 2.1 0.74
CV (%) 4 4 9
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Quality rated 1 to 9 (1 = poor, 5 = average, 9 = excellent;
except color which is 1 = white, 5 = medium green, 9 = very dark green).
y The simple weighted index is calculated by averaging the performance of a
genotype for yield; earliness; fruit shape, color, seedcell size, and firmness;
and disease resistance (10 is best, 1 is worst).
x Defects were rated as follows (giving only the 2 worst comments each rep):
A - wArty fruit J - S - Separated carpels
B - Blossom end defects K - Keep(excellent) T - Tapered ends
C - Crooks excessive L - Late maturity U - Uniform green
D - Dogbone shape M - Mottled fruit V - Varicolor (dark stem
E - Early maturity N - Nubs excessive end, light blossom end)
F - Four celled O - Offtype fruit W - White fruit
G - lonG fruit P - Placental hollows X - neCKS on fruit
H - sHort fruit Q - Y - Yellow fruit
I - strIped fruit R - Reject (poor) Z - diSeased fruit
Table 32. Stage 3 spring slicer trial - fruit keeping ability data (cultigens
are ranked by % weight loss).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Weight Rating (0 - 9)y Firm-
Cultivar Seed loss Shriv- Rots & ness
Rank or line source (%)z eling disease (lb.)x
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Marketmore 76 Cornell Univ. 8 7 1 20
2 PSX 1043LX PetoSeed 9 8 1 18
3 Poinsett 76 PetoSeed 9 7 2 17
4 Raider Harris-Moran 8 8 1 19
5 Dasher II PetoSeed 8 8 2 17
6 Everslice Northrup King 8 7 1 17
7 XPH 1653 Asgrow Seed 9 7 1 19
8 Tablegreen 72 Cornell Univ. 9 6 2 15
9 XPH 1655 Asgrow Seed 9 7 3 12
10 SUNRE 3707 SunSeeds 8 8 2 18
11 Sprint 440S Asgrow Seed 9 8 2 19
12 HMX 6402 Harris-Moran 8 8 1 17
13 Ashley Clemson Univ. 8 7 1 19
14 Prolific Sakata Seed 11 7 3 19
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 2 1 2 6
Mean 9 7 2 18
CV (%) 15 11 66 22
_________________________________________________________________________________
z After storage at room temperature for 8 days in open kraft paper bags.
y Shriveling and disease rated 0 to 9 (0=none, 1-3=slight, 4-6=moderate,
7-9=advanced).
x Firmness using Magness-Taylor fruit punch tester.
Correlation (weight loss with shriveling) = -0.14NS
Correlation (weight loss with firmness) = -0.28NS
Table 33. Stage 3 spring slicer trial - sex expression and vine data
(cultigens ranked by increasing maleness).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Pct Early Earli-
Cultivar Seed male yield ness Vine Vine
Rank or line source nodesz (cwt/A)x (%)x sizew colorw
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 SUNRE 3707 SunSeeds 12 108 26 7 5
2 HMX 6402 Harris-Moran 12 41 14 6 6
3 XPH 1655 Asgrow Seed 20 48 15 6 5
4 Sprint 440S Asgrow Seed 29 60 20 7 6
5 PSX 1043LX PetoSeed 29 67 24 6 6
6 Dasher II PetoSeed 31 45 16 6 6
7 Raider Harris-Moran 33 52 15 7 7
8 Everslice Northrup King 35 26 7 7 8
9 XPH 1653 Asgrow Seed 39 34 12 8 8
10 Poinsett 76 PetoSeed 40 1 0 7 9
11 Tablegreen 72 Cornell Univ. 41 0 0 6 6
12 Prolific Sakata Seed 51 17 6 7 8
13 Marketmore 76 Cornell Univ. 57 0 0 7 6
14 Ashley Clemson Univ. 60 16 6 7 7
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 24 32 7 2 1
Mean 35 37 12 7 7
CV (%) 40 51 35 15 13
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Counted on first 5 nodes of 5 plants per plot (gynoecious plants should have
few or no male nodes).
y Earliness is the percent of the yield (Fancy + No.1 grade fruit) of 6 harvests
that was produced in harvests 1 and 2.
x Early yield is the weight of Fancy+No.1 grade fruit produced in harvests 1 and 2.
w Marketable yield is weight of Fancy + No.1 + No.2 grade fruit in 6 harvests.
Correlation (marketable yield with % male nodes) = -0.14NS
Table 34. Stage 3 spring slicer trial - disease ratings (cultigens ranked by
disease resistance).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Average An- Gummy
Cultivar Seed disease thrac- stem
Rank or line source rating nose blight
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Prolific Sakata Seed 3.2 3 3
2 Poinsett 76 PetoSeed 3.2 3 3
3 Everslice Northrup King 4.0 4 4
4 Ashley Clemson Univ. 4.2 4 4
5 Tablegreen 72 Cornell Univ. 4.3 4 4
6 Sprint 440S Asgrow Seed 4.7 5 4
7 Marketmore 76 Cornell Univ. 4.8 4 5
8 XPH 1653 Asgrow Seed 4.8 4 5
9 XPH 1655 Asgrow Seed 4.8 5 5
10 PSX 1043LX PetoSeed 4.8 5 4
11 SUNRE 3707 SunSeeds 5.0 4 6
12 Raider Harris-Moran 5.2 5 5
13 HMX 6402 Harris-Moran 5.3 6 5
14 Dasher II PetoSeed 5.7 6 6
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 2.0 2 2
Mean 4.6 5 5
CV (%) 26 27 30
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Disease rated 0 to 9 (0 = none, 1 = trace, 4 = first stem lesions,
9 = plant dead).
Correlation (marketable yield with gummy stem blight rating) = -0.07NS
Table 35. Stage 3 spring slicer trial - selection indexes
(cultigens ranked by SWI1).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Simple weighted Average rank
Cultivar Seed indexesz indexesz
Rank or line source SWI1 SWI2 ARI1 ARI2
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 SUNRE 3707 SunSeeds 8.5 7.5 6.0 5.4
2 Everslice Northrup King 7.7 7.0 6.0 5.9
3 XPH 1655 Asgrow Seed 7.0 6.3 7.4 7.3
4 Raider Harris-Moran 6.9 6.2 6.7 6.8
5 PSX 1043LX PetoSeed 6.8 6.2 6.4 6.3
6 Poinsett 76 PetoSeed 6.7 6.2 6.9 7.1
7 Sprint 440S Asgrow Seed 6.5 5.9 8.2 7.5
8 Ashley Clemson Univ. 6.4 5.8 8.6 8.5
9 XPH 1653 Asgrow Seed 6.4 5.8 6.9 7.3
10 Dasher II PetoSeed 6.4 5.8 7.4 7.7
11 Marketmore 76 Cornell Univ. 6.3 5.9 6.6 7.9
12 Prolific Sakata Seed 6.1 5.6 9.2 8.4
13 HMX 6402 Harris-Moran 6.1 5.5 9.6 9.1
14 Tablegreen 72 Cornell Univ. 5.1 4.8 9.1 9.8
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 1.6 1.3 2.8 2.7
Mean 6.6 6.0 7.5 7.5
CV (%) 15 13 23 22
_________________________________________________________________________________
z SWI is a simple weighted index calculated by averaging the performance of a
genotype for yield; earliness; fruit shape, seedcell size and overall impression;
and disease resistance. The index is calculated with 2 different methods of
weighting each trait (10 is best, 1 is worst).
z ARI is the average ranking of each genotype for yield, earliness, fruit
quality and disease resistance. The index is calculated with 2 different sets
of secondary traits added in with the primary traits (1 is best, 30 is worst).
Correlation (marketable yield with SWI1) = 0.89**
Correlation (marketable yield with SWI2) = 0.88**
Correlation (marketable yield with ARI1) = -0.47**
Correlation (marketable yield with ARI2) = -0.63**
Stage 4 Slicing Cucumber Trial
1991
Todd C. Wehner and Rufus R. Horton, Jr.
Experiment Design
1. A randomized complete block with 3 replications of 21 slicer cultivars
and breeding lines (collectively referred to as cultigens) was grown.
2. Plots were single 20 ft. rows with 5 ft. alleys at each end.
3. Rows were on raised 18" beds spaced 60" apart (center to center).
4. Fertilizer consisted of 80-80-80 lbs/A (N-P-K) broadcast preplant and
30-0-0 lbs/A (N-P-K) sideplaced at the 2 to 4 leaf stage.
5. Curbit was applied preemergence at the rate of 1 lb. a.i./A.
6. The trial was planted July 19, and harvested 6 times (Mondays and
Thursdays) between August 27 and September 13.
Data Collection
1. Fruit were weighed after sorting into No. 1, No. 2 and cull
(nubs and crooks) grades according to U.S.D.A. standards.
2. Fruit length, diameter and weight were recorded for 3 fruit per plot.
3. Quality ratings were from 1 to 9, with 1 = worst, 9 = best.
4. Disease ratings were from 0 to 9, with 0 = no disease, 1 = trace,
4 = first stem lesions, 9 = plant dead.
Results
The following cultivars and lines performed well, and could be advanced to next year's trials:
1 Poinsett 76 PetoSeed
2 Prolific Sakata Seed
3 Sprint 440S Asgrow Seed
4 Everslice Northrup King
5 HMX 6402 Harris-Moran
Table 36. Stage 4 summer slicer trial - yield data (cultigens ranked by cwt/A
of Fancy + No. 1 grade fruit).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Yield (cwt/A) Percent Plants
Cultivar Seed Fancy Market- Fancy Percent per A
Rank or line source +No.1 able + No.1 culls (X1000)
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Poinsett 76 PetoSeed 49 89 41 27 26
2 Prolific Sakata Seed 28 46 26 49 26
3 Sprint 440S Asgrow Seed 11 19 26 57 26
4 Dasher II PetoSeed 7 12 17 52 26
5 Ashley Clemson Univ. 6 17 19 43 26
6 Everslice Northrup King 6 13 13 65 26
7 PSX 1043LX PetoSeed 6 9 19 39 26
8 HMX 6402 Harris-Moran 5 11 13 75 26
9 XPH 1653 Asgrow Seed 5 7 12 51 26
10 Raider Harris-Moran 2 8 15 60 26
11 SUNRE 3707 SunSeeds 1 5 3 48 24
12 XPH 1655 Asgrow Seed 0 1 0 92 22
13 Marketmore 76 Cornell Univ. 0 0 0 0 26
14 Tablegreen 72 Cornell Univ. 0 0 0 0 26
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 15 23 25 45 3
Mean 9 17 14 47 26
CV (%) 101 81 104 57 6
_________________________________________________________________________________
Correlation (marketable yield with % culls) = -0.17NS
Table 37. Stage 4 summer slicer trial - earliness data (cultigens ranked by
weight of Fancy + No.1 grade fruit in harvests 1 and 2).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cumulative fruit weight & % of total
weight (6 harvests) for harvests -
Cultivar Seed 1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5
Rank or line source wt. % wt. % wt. % wt. % wt. %
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Prolific Sakata Seed 7 8 22 31 30 43 32 79 43 96
2 Poinsett 76 PetoSeed 0 0 17 16 38 40 71 78 85 93
3 Sprint 440S Asgrow Seed 7 31 16 80 16 80 18 93 19 100
4 Everslice Northrup King 1 3 5 51 6 58 8 69 13 94
5 HMX 6402 Harris-Moran 3 17 5 26 6 31 10 63 11 67
6 PSX 1043LX PetoSeed 1 4 4 15 4 15 9 33 9 33
7 Dasher II PetoSeed 1 33 3 70 7 84 10 94 11 98
8 Ashley Clemson Univ. 1 9 3 14 8 43 13 67 16 97
9 Raider Harris-Moran 0 0 2 42 3 47 4 52 8 100
10 SUNRE 3707 SunSeeds 0 0 2 23 2 23 3 33 4 47
11 XPH 1653 Asgrow Seed 0 0 1 6 2 12 6 61 7 67
12 XPH 1655 Asgrow Seed 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 33 1 33
13 Marketmore 76 Cornell Univ. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 Tablegreen 72 Cornell Univ. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 6 27 14 46 17 42 19 60 23 51
Mean 1 7 6 27 9 34 13 54 16 66
CV (%) 245 216 148 103 118 74 87 66 86 46
_________________________________________________________________________________
Correlation (marketable yield with yield in harvests 1-2) = 0.76**
Correlation (marketable yield with % of yield in harvests 1-2) = 0.13NS
Table 38. Stage 4 summer slicer trial - fruit quality data (cultigens ranked
by average quality).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cultivar Seed Average Seed- Overall
Rank or line source quality Shape Color cell impression
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Poinsett 76 PetoSeed 5.9 6 7 5 6
2 Prolific Sakata Seed 5.8 6 8 6 6
3 Ashley Clemson Univ. 5.0 5 6 6 5
4 HMX 6402 Harris-Moran 5.0 4 8 7 4
5 Everslice Northrup King 4.8 4 8 6 4
6 Sprint 440S Asgrow Seed 4.6 4 8 6 4
7 PSX 1043LX PetoSeed 4.6 4 8 6 4
8 Raider Harris-Moran 4.6 4 7 6 4
9 XPH 1653 Asgrow Seed 4.6 4 8 6 4
10 Dasher II PetoSeed 4.4 4 7 5 4
11 XPH 1655 Asgrow Seed 4.4 3 6 7 3
12 SUNRE 3707 SunSeeds 4.0 3 7 5 3
13 Marketmore 76 Cornell Univ. - - - - -
14 Tablegreen 72 Cornell Univ. - - - - -
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 1.0 1 1 2 1
Mean 4.8 4 7 6 4
CV (%) 13 14 9 23 16
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Quality rated 1 to 9 (1 = poor, 5 = average, 9 = excellent;
except color where 1 = white, 5 = medium green, 9 = very dark green).
Correlation (marketable yield with average quality) = -0.66**
Table 39. Stage 4 summer slicer trial - fruit dimensions and comments
(cultigens ranked by average quality rating).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Worst defects in
Dia- harvests 2, 4 and 6x
Cultivar Seed Length meter Wt. Primary Secondary
Rank or line source (0.1") (0.1") (lb.) 2 4 6 2 4 6
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Poinsett 76 PetoSeed 7.1 1.9 0.51 T C T K N N
2 Prolific Sakata Seed 7.3 1.9 0.51 N C C K N N
3 Ashley Clemson Univ. 6.5 1.9 0.48 T N N N T T
4 HMX 6402 Harris-Moran 6.4 1.7 0.43 N C T C X C
5 Everslice Northrup King 6.5 1.7 0.46 H T N N C C
6 Sprint 440S Asgrow Seed 6.3 1.9 0.43 N X N C N C
7 PSX 1043LX PetoSeed 6.9 2.2 0.44 N C N T N C
8 Raider Harris-Moran 6.3 1.8 0.43 N N X C C C
9 XPH 1653 Asgrow Seed 6.6 1.9 0.42 N N N H C C
10 Dasher II PetoSeed 6.6 1.8 0.44 N H C C N N
11 XPH 1655 Asgrow Seed 6.9 1.8 0.45 N N N C C C
12 SUNRE 3707 SunSeeds 5.3 1.8 0.37 N N N C C C
13 Marketmore 76 Cornell Univ. - - - - - - - - -
14 Tablegreen 72 Cornell Univ. - - - - - - - - -
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 1.2 0.5 0.18
Mean 6.6 1.9 0.45
CV (%) 11 16 23
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Quality rated 1 to 9 (1 = poor, 5 = average, 9 = excellent;
except color which is 1 = white, 5 = medium green, 9 = very dark green).
y The simple weighted index is calculated by averaging the performance of a
genotype for yield; earliness; fruit shape, color, seedcell size, and firmness;
and disease resistance (10 is best, 1 is worst).
x Defects were rated as follows (giving only the 2 worst comments each rep):
A - wArty fruit J - S - Separated carpels
B - Blossom end defects K - Keep(excellent) T - Tapered ends
C - Crooks excessive L - Late maturity U - Uniform green
D - Dogbone shape M - Mottled fruit V - Varicolor (dark stem
E - Early maturity N - Nubs excessive end, light blossom end)
F - Four celled O - Offtype fruit W - White fruit
G - lonG fruit P - Placental hollows X - neCKS on fruit
H - sHort fruit Q - Y - Yellow fruit
I - strIped fruit R - Reject (poor) Z - diSeased fruit
Table 40. Stage 4 summer slicer trial - sex expression and vine data
(cultigens ranked by increasing maleness).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Pct Early Earli-
Cultivar Seed male yield ness Vine Vine
Rank or line source nodesz (cwt/A)x (%)x sizew colorw
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 XPH 1655 Asgrow Seed 0 0 0 5 6
2 Tablegreen 72 Cornell Univ. 0 0 0 4 5
3 Raider Harris-Moran 1 2 42 6 7
4 XPH 1653 Asgrow Seed 3 1 6 7 7
5 SUNRE 3707 SunSeeds 3 2 23 7 5
6 HMX 6402 Harris-Moran 3 5 26 6 6
7 Prolific Sakata Seed 11 22 31 7 6
8 Dasher II PetoSeed 15 3 70 7 6
9 PSX 1043LX PetoSeed 17 4 15 3 6
10 Sprint 440S Asgrow Seed 20 16 80 8 7
11 Ashley Clemson Univ. 27 3 14 6 6
12 Marketmore 76 Cornell Univ. 28 0 0 6 6
13 Everslice Northrup King 33 5 51 7 7
14 Poinsett 76 PetoSeed 36 17 16 9 8
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 13 14 46 3 1
x- 14 6 27 6 6
CV (%) 57 148 103 27 13
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Counted on first 5 nodes of 5 plants per plot (gynoecious plants should have
few or no male nodes).
y Earliness is the percent of the yield (Fancy + No.1 grade fruit) of 6 harvests
that was produced in harvests 1 and 2.
x Early yield is the weight of Fancy+No.1 grade fruit produced in harvests 1 and 2.
w Marketable yield is weight of Fancy + No.1 + No.2 grade fruit in 6 harvests.
Correlation (marketable yield with % male nodes) = 0.43**
Table 41. Stage 4 summer slicer trial - disease ratings (cultigens ranked by
disease resistance).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Average An- Gummy
Cultivar Seed disease thrac stem
Rank or line source rating -nose blight
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Poinsett 76 PetoSeed 0.8 2 0
2 Prolific Sakata Seed 2.8 4 1
3 Everslice Northrup King 3.5 6 1
4 Sprint 440S Asgrow Seed 3.7 6 1
5 Ashley Clemson Univ. 4.2 6 2
6 Dasher II PetoSeed 4.3 7 2
7 Raider Harris-Moran 4.5 7 2
8 XPH 1653 Asgrow Seed 4.5 7 2
9 HMX 6402 Harris-Moran 4.5 7 2
10 Marketmore 76 Cornell Univ. 4.7 8 2
11 PSX 1043LX PetoSeed 5.0 8 2
12 Tablegreen 72 Cornell Univ. 5.3 8 3
13 XPH 1655 Asgrow Seed 5.7 8 4
14 SUNRE 3707 SunSeeds 5.7 8 4
_________________________________________________________________________________
LSD (5%) 1.2 2 1
Mean 4.2 6 2
CV (%) 17 14 37
_________________________________________________________________________________
z Disease rated 0 to 9 (0 = none, 1 = trace, 4 = first stem lesions,
9 = plant dead).
Correlation (marketable yield with anthracnose rating) = -0.82**
Table 42. Stage 4 summer slicer trial - selection indexes (cultigens ranked
by SWI1).z
_________________________________________________________________________________
Simple weighted Average rank
Cultivar Seed indexesz indexesz
Rank or line source SWI1 SWI2 ARI1 ARI2
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Poinsett 76 PetoSeed 4.4 4.3 3.1 3.1
2 Prolific Sakata Seed 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.6
3 Sprint 440S Asgrow Seed 3.0 3.8 5.4 4.8
4 Everslice Northrup King 2.8 3.3 6.1 5.7
5 HMX 6402 Harris-Mora