Vegetable Crop Quality

Pumpkin Hybrid Review – 2017

In an effort to help growers select and grow the best pumpkins for their operation, the Integrated Pest Management Program planted a demonstration trial at the Western Ag Research Station in South Charleston to highlight foliage, handle, fruit size, and fruit quality. There were 20 entries from four companies in the trial, with emphasis placed on hybrids that offered some type of disease resistance, primarily to powdery mildew. The intent of the trial was primarily for growers who attended the pumpkin field day to observe differences in plant and fruit quality in person, in order to generate a visceral opinion and appreciation for the hybrid.

The trial was originally direct seeded June 1st, but due to mice damage and flooding rains, was replanted with transplants June 16th. Approximately 75 pounds of nitrogen was side dressed as liquid 28-0-0 on June 9th, with no P or K applied per soil test recommendations. Strategy and Dual were used pre-emerge to control weeds, with shielded applications of glyphosate followed by hoeing and hand weeding throughout the season. Once powdery mildew was detected in these plots on July 24th, they were sprayed on a 7-10 day schedule with a standard fungicide program that alternated several modes of action, per OSU recommendations.

While specific trial data was collected, because it was not replicated or randomized, all calculations for yield and fruit size should be seen as estimates taken from one site, under a specific set of weather conditions. When making decisions about hybrid selection for 2018, this information should be combined with other trial data from around the state or region. This trial was not irrigated, and received above average rain fall for this location based on historical records.

Group shot of pumpkin hybrid trial, large fruit in top row, medium sized fruit in middle row, and small fruit in bottom row.

To obtain average fruit weight, 3-5 fruit of each hybrid per plot representing the largest, smallest, and average sized fruit were chosen and weighed. All other marketable fruit in plot were counted and used in yield calculation, which was based on a 15’ row spacing, 35’ length of row, with plant spacing 3-4’ apart.

If you have additional questions about the trial, contact me directly at jasinski.4@osu.edu.

Yield data from pumpkin hybrid trial, see above for yield estimates. *indicates reduced stand in trial.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seed companies and other pumpkin hybrid attributes from 2017 trial. PMR = powdery mildew resistant, PMT = powdery mildew tolerant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Monitor and Predict Conditions during Production, Storage, and Transport

Vegetable growers rely on an increasing diversity and quality of information to succeed. This information includes what the temperature, humidity, and other conditions around their crops have been, are, and are likely to be in the near future. Of course, past, current, and future weather conditions are hugely important to all growers. However, conditions in confined spaces at any point during crop production, storage, or transport also influence the farm’s bottom line. This article has three sections. Section 1 highlights grower-friendly pieces of equipment making it easy to monitor and, in some cases, record important conditions in fields, high tunnels, storages, sheds, trailers, vehicles, containers, and other locations nearly anytime. Section 2 references an online source of past growing condition data for various locations in Ohio. Section 3 includes a link to a site offering local forecasts for nearly any location in Ohio and the U.S.

Monitoring. Personal “weather stations” are increasingly reliable, durable, widely available, and lower-cost. Stations are rarely moved and are commonly placed in or near production areas. Stations that fit nearly any budget and interest are available from ag/forestry and other equipment suppliers. Costs hinge on variables monitored (number, frequency), data storage capability, quality of instrumentation, extent and type of connectivity, and expectations for maintenance. Upper-tier stations track and record temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and direction, barometric pressure, and rainfall. Simpler systems that monitor temperature and send data by text are popular with some growers (especially ones using high tunnels during spring and fall), or others wanting to monitor conditions in storages, packing sheds, and other areas. Not surprisingly, applications for ultra-small, battery-powered, durable, portable, and relatively inexpensive sensor-datalogger units measuring about 1.5-inch square are also increasing. Growers, distributors, shippers, buyers, and retailers — everyone in vegetable supply chains — look to document conditions surrounding crops or shipments from field to delivery and through display. Crop production researchers have long-used sensor-datalogger units to record temperature and humidity in soils and air in many plots simultaneously. People focused on post-harvest topics, such as conditions affecting crop condition in storage and transit, have done the same. As unit prices drop and questions about crops increase, people in supply chains look to temperature, humidity, and other data for partial answers. Individual sensor-datalogger units take and record readings often (e.g., every five minutes) and store data collected over periods lasting weeks, if needed. Data are downloaded to a laptop or uploaded to a personal website and imported directly to a worksheet.

I am often asked to help determine the cause(s) for various crop defects, all of which have cost the grower real money. More and more of these cases involve defects discovered after harvest, e.g., after delivery or transport. Also, the situations can involve a disagreement between grower and employee, shipper, or buyer, etc. regarding where the problem began. In all cases, some reliable record of the temperature and humidity surrounding the crop from harvest through delivery (and storage on-site, if used) would have helped the diagnostic process. Obtaining those records is easier and less expensive each year. Also, three complex challenges may intensify peoples’ interest in crop monitoring on the farm and past the farm gate: 1) spray drift, 2) maximally effective application of crop protectants, perhaps especially fungicides, and 3) food safety. Regarding weather monitoring and forecasting, personalization of the process has helped fuel https://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/overview.asp and related groups.

Past Weather/Growing Conditions. The OSU-OARDC manages a set of weather stations (http://www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/weather1/) and daily or hourly data from the stations can be viewed/downloaded soon or long after they were recorded (e.g., http://www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/weather1/stationinfo.asp?id=12). Like all stations, the OARDC ones provide data specific to their location. So, the data should be used cautiously. Still, the stations provide numbers for important locations over many years.

Weather Forecasts. There is no shortage of weather forecasting services and apps and everyone has their favorite. I have come to appreciate being able to obtain current, multi-variable National Weather Service forecasts for nearly any location in the U.S. quickly and easily. The process outlined at https://www.weather.gov/wrn/hourly-weather-graph requires only a minute and a few mouseclicks or taps on the screen of your mobile device but no downloads. I have bookmarked several locations and can see forecasts for them quickly.