High Tunnel Tomato Trials at SWMREC: A 10-Year Journey
Dr. Ron Goldy, MSUESouthwest Michigan Research and
Extension Center
Inside vs. Outside
Table 1. Yield in 25 pound cartons of ‘Mt. Spring’ grown in high tunnels and outside at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center in 2005.
Out of InTrait Tunnel Tunnel ChangeTotal Yield 2677 3229 +552No. 1 Large 1082 1748 +666Avg. Frt. Wt. 276 307 +31No. 2 399 550 +151No. 1 Small 345 442 +97Cull 851 489 -362
0.5#/A/Day1.0#/A/Day
Treatment(#/acre/day)
TotalYield
Yield No 1Large
FruitWeight
YieldNo. 2
Yield No. 1Small
YieldCull
GreenCore
GrayWall
1N : 1K 3306 1831 303 579 397 499 3.7 4.6
1N : 2K 3253 1757 310 573 462 461 3.9 5.2
1N : 3K 3019 1719 315 434 405 461 3.4 4.2
1N : 4K 3244 1775 308 485 513 471 3.5 4.2
1N : 3K+foliar CaNO3
3325 1657 297 679 435 553 3.3 4.9
Lsd 0.05 ns ns ns 195 ns ns ns ns
Yield in 25# cartons of ‘Mt Spring’ tomato as influenced by five nutrient treatments in 2005.
Treatment(#/acre/day)
TotalYield
Yield No 1Large
FruitWeight
YieldNo. 2
Yield No. 1Small
YieldCull
GreenCore
GrayWall
0.5N : 0.5K 3221 1773 301 466 398 585 4 5.4
0.5N : 1.0K 3050 1652 294 485 512 400 5.5 5.0
0.5N : 1.5K 3096 1651 301 422 559 463 4.1 4.2
0.5N : 2.0K 3030 1573 323 531 424 502 4.1 4.6
0.5N : 1.5K+ foliar CaNO3
3008 1566 300 426 447 569 4.5 4.0
Lsd 0.05 ns ns 28 ns ns ns 1.1 1.1
Yield in 25# cartons of ‘Mt Spring’ fresh tomato as influenced by five nutrient treatments at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center in 2005.
Trial repeated in 2006 using:
0.25 and 0.50 #N/A/day
No foliar CaNo3
Pre-plant only
N:KDrip
applied
TotalYield
Yield No. 1Large
FruitWeight
YieldNo. 2
Yield No. 1Small
YieldCull
GrayWall
GreenCore
1 : 2 2875 1771 316 330 427 347 6.17 6.69
1 : 3 2672 1684 309 248 381 359 5.42 4.62
1 : 1 2661 1619 311 298 460 284 6.62 5.87
1 : 4 2523 1422 310 325 372 404 6.50 5.87
1 : 5 2178 1268 291 212 416 283 5.20 5.62
none 2158 1154 289 255 417 333 6.12 5.75
Lsd .05 677 477 21 ns ns ns 1.37 1.50
Affect of five N : K ratios at a base of 0.50#N/acre/day on yield of ‘Mt. Spring’ tomato in 25 lbcartons/acre.
N : KDrip
applied
TotalYield
Yield No. 1Large
FruitWeight
YieldNo. 2
Yield No. 1Small
YieldCull
GrayWall
GreenCore
1 : 5 2691 1594 301 368 401 329 5.7 6.9
1 : 3 2687 1472 302 488 445 282 6.5 6.7
1 : 2 2605 1466 298 281 452 405 6.4 6.8
1 :4 2503 1350 297 446 400 307 6.7 6.8
none 2449 1426 306 304 385 334 6.7 7.4
1 : 1 2146 1282 300 203 362 299 6.0 6.6
Lsd .05 ns ns ns 206 ns ns ns ns
Affect of five N : K ratios at a base of 0.25#N/acre/day on yield of ‘Mt. Spring’ tomato in 25 lb. cartons/acre.
0.50#N Year
2005 2006
Total Yield 3081 2511
Yield No. 1 1643 1486
Fruit Wt. 304 304
Green Core 4.4 5.74
Gray Wall 4.6 6.00
Yield and fruit characteristics of tunnel-grown ‘Mt Spring’ tomato in 2005 and 2006.
Year
2005 2006
Avg. Maximum T 82.1 77.8
Avg. Minimum T 60.8 59.6
Mean T 71.4 68.7
Avg. Radiation 515.4 389.7
Daily temperature and solar radiation between 1 August and 16 September 2005 and 2006.
Conclusions:Light and Temperature important
Pre-plant plus 0.5# Nitrogen/A/day appears best
N : K at 1 : 3 appears best
2007 Trial:
Evaluation of 14 Fresh Market cultivars
Evaluation of 6 Roma cultivars
Evaluations heavily weighted against gray wall
Variety Seed
Source
Total
Yield
Yield No.
1 Large
Avg.
Fruit
Weight
Yield
No.1
Small
Yield
No. 2
Yield
Cull
Indy SY/RG 2629 600 262 277 218 1533
Paragon JS 2602 642 250 251 128 1581
ACR 2012 AC 2478 583 246 444 75 1376
Mt. Spring SY/RG 2473 611 277 222 234 1405
Mt. Crest NU 2427 618 256 230 217 1362
Linda SK 2417 616 280 93 110 1598
Soraya SY/RG 2237 304 270 69 36 1828
Crista RI 2168 613 278 104 99 1352
NRT 6785 NU 2144 357 279 115 86 1587
Red Delight SK 2125 217 278 78 149 1682
Big Shot RI 1997 328 255 102 93 1474
Sebring SY/RG 1966 234 232 60 42 1630
Florida 47 RI 1857 304 247 137 82 1333
FL 7514 RU 1806 421 226 281 68 1037
Lsd = .05 569 256 26 83 93 404
Variety SS Total
Yield
Yield
No. 1
No. 1
Fruit Wt.
Yield
No. 2
Yield
Cull
Plum Crimson RI 2787 2096 103 0 691
ACR 8625 AC 2388 1319 122 0 1069
Marianna SK 2383 1751 125 0 632
Mireina SY/RG 2325 986 142 6 1333
Miroma SY/RG 2234 977 125 7 1250
Plum Dandy HM 2054 1216 84 6 832
Lsd=.05 575 458 9 ns 229
CONCLUSIONS:
Mt. Spring, Mt. Crest and Crista performed best for fresh market-types
Plum Crimson and Marianna performed best for Roma-types
Year
Avg. Maximum T
Avg. Minimum T
Mean T
Avg. Radiation
Daily temperature and solar radiation comparison from 1 August to 16 September 2005, 2006 and 2007.
2005 2006 2007
82.1 77.8 79.4
60.8 59.6 60.0
71.4 68.7 69.7
515.4 389.7 409.4
oardc.ohio-state.edu/tomato/HartzRatioCalculator.htm
2008 Goals:
Possible Organic Production
Crop Rotation
Black vs. white ground cloth
Mt. Spring vs. Tradiro
Crop Rotation
Rotate the soil
Soil Mix
Peat/Rice Hulls/Bark
Lime to pH of 6.2
Nature Safe 10-2-8 at 40:1
Wetting Agent
2 cu ft. in 3 cu ft. bag
June 16
July 2
July 14
August 6
September 24
Treatment Tot. Wt. Fruit Wt. Wt. Wt.Wt. No. 1 Wt. No. 2 Sm. Cull
Mt. Spring 2745 1639 274 285 454 367Black
Mt. SpringWhite 2692 1446 276 306 473 467lsd=0.05 ns ns ns ns ns ns
Problems
pH spiked to 8.6
Uneven distribution of fertilizer
Two-cubic feet in a three-cubic foot bag
Nutrient deficiencies
July 14
August 6
August 12
ELEMENT H. MS S. MS H. T. S. T.
N 2.65 1.61 2.67 1.56
S 0.95 0.93 1.21 1.08
P 0.26 0.23 0.33 0.22
K 3.2 2.21 3.73 1.60
Mg 0.44 0.56 0.63 0.52
Ca 1.69 2.12 1.98 2.54
Na 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01
B 21 16 21 15
Z 20 17 44 25
Mn 191 263 376 381
Fe 81 76 91 87
Cu 8 3 8 3
Al 27 31 35 50
Water management is critical
2009 Trial
Buckets not bags
Compost tea
Doloress Matias
301 Mix from Morgan’s Composting
Fertilizer: Compost Tea
2.5 gallons/week applied through drip
Plus 50 ml/week directly into bucket on two rows
PH: 6.4LOW OPTIMUM HIGH
SOLUBLE SALTS(MMHO) 8.43 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
PARTS PER MILLION OF:NITRATE-N 388 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX PHOSPHORUS 24 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXPOTASSIUM 630 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXCALCIUM 840 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXMAGNESIUM 316 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXSODIUM 249 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXCHLORIDE 440 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXZINC 1.5MANGANESE 1.0COPPER 0.7IRON 9.1PERCENT OF TOTAL SALTS:NITRATE 6.6 XXXXXXXXPOTASSIUM 10.7 XXXXXXXXXXCALCIUM 14.2 XXXXXXXXXXMAGNESIUM 5.4 XXXXXXXXXXX
ACCEPTABLE EXCESSIVESODIUM 4.2 XXXXXXXXXCHLORIDE 7.4 XXXXXXXXXXXX
April 20, 2009
April 27, 2009
July 2, 2009
July 24, 2009
July 24, 2009
August 4, 2009
Nutrient deficiencies were again observed
September 25, 2009
September 5 September 24
2011 Five Treatments:
1. Conventional fertilizer2. Tea through drip3. Tea through drip + 60ml4. Tea through drip + 120ml5. Tea through drip + 240ml
Drip tea = 20 gallons/acreConventional = ½ lb nitrogen/acre/day of
5-10-27 + micros
Trt Tot. Wt.
Wt. No. 1
No. 1 F Wt.
Wt. No. 2
Wt. Culls
5 1769 511 161 237 1022
1 1575 418 170 238 919
2 1480 397 162 128 955
4 1464 298 155 138 1029
3 1404 347 161 195 862lsd .05 ns 208 ns ns ns
Tomato fruit yield in grams per plant from 5 nutrient treatments.
Variety TotWt.
Wt. No.1
Count No.1
Wt.No. 2
Wt. Cull
Bigdena 1060 283 1.04 101 675
Pilavy 1013 267 1.42 103 642
Rapsodie 968 48 0.25 61 859
Torry 922 375 2.13 73 474
Clermon 805 57 0.29 0 748
Panzer 748 234 1.04 87 426
Growdena 713 306 1.25 33 374lsd=0.05 ns ns 1.62 101 284
Per plant yield in grams for seven tomato varieties grown under high-tunnels.
2010 Goals:
White Buckets vs. Black Bags
Morgan’s 301 vs. Mojo-grow vs. Filtrexx
Compost Tea vs. Conventional
Nutrient Morgan’s 301 Mojo-Grow FiltrexxpH 5.5 A 6.9 H 7.4 VH
Nitrate(ppm) 558 VH 1 L 107 OPhosphorous(ppm) 15.3 H 12.1 H 3.2 A
Potassium(ppm) 469 VH 212 O 859 VHCalcium(ppm) 846 O 486 O 166 A
Magnesium(ppm) 167 O 229 O 51 ASodium(ppm) 147 O 122 O 71 OSulfur(ppm) 364 VH 632 VH 42 OBoron(ppm) 0.3L 0.5 L 0.6 LIron(ppm) 17.4A 14.0 L 14.3 L
Manganese(ppm) 7.8 A 14.2 A 2.7 LZinc(ppm) 4.1 L 4.2 L 14.4 A
Copper(ppm) 0.5 L 0.8 L 0.5 LA = Acceptable H = High L = Low O = Optimum VH = Very High
Treatment Yield/Plant Fruit/Plant Fruit Weight Clusters/Plant
Cluster Weight
Morgan/Conventional
3695 31 118.6 6.8 547.4
Morgan/Tea 2746 25 107.7 5.5 501.4Mojo-
Grow/Tea1701 19 90.7 4.6 364.4
Filtrexx/Tea 1507 16 93.4 4.0 376.0Lsd=.05 420 3 8.7 0.7 52.4
Per plant yields of Doloress cluster tomato grown in a high-tunnel situation at SWMREC, Benton Harbor, Michigan in 2010. Yield, cluster and fruit weight is in grams.
Element Morgan’s conventional
Morgan’stea
Mojo-Grow Filtrexx
Nitrogen % 3.54 S 3.81 S 1.45 D 1.82 D
Sulfur % 0.69 H 0.76 H 0.52 S 0.61 H
Phosphorous % 0.54 H 0.54 H 0.49 H 0.47 H
Potassium % 4.06 H 4.24 H 3.21 S 3.54 S
Magnesium % 0.41 S 0.47 S 0.39 S 0.37 S
Calcium % 1.50 S 1.53 S 0.99 S 1.26 S
Sodium % 0.04 H 0.04 H 0.02 S 0.02 S
Boron ppm 50 H 29 S 26 S 32 S
Zinc ppm 56 H 52 H 32 S 33 S
Manganese ppm 70 S 42 S 42 S 39 S
Iron ppm 100 S 102 H 92 S 91 S
Copper ppm 15 H 13 H 9 S 13 H
Aluminum ppm 48 S 54 S 85 S 55 S
Leaf nutrient analysis 7/1/2010.
D= Deficient; S= Sufficient; H= High
What have we learned?
Tomatoes aren’t the easiest crop to grow in tunnels
Small-fruited tomatoes better
Conventional less difficult than organic
Water management important
Lower disease pressure
Insects still a problem (mites)
Biochar
Trt. Tot. Yield Yield No. 1 Count Avg. No. 1 Yield No. 2 Yield Cullgms/bag gms/bag No. 1/bag wt (gms) gms/bag (gms/bag)
0 2872 2142 15 145 199 5310.5 2809 2154 14 149 118 5371 2254 1638 12 136 52 5642 2201 1420 10 147 86 6954 3327 2116 15 144 649 5628 2042 1379 10 127 208 455Lsd 0.05 968 640 4 16 567 191