from: gillard, peter [mailto: ] sent: to: cc: subject · be processed by cedenco’s plant in...

From: Gillard, Peter [mailto: ]

Sent: Monday, 26 September 2011 8:14 AM To: Rouw, John

Cc: Walsh, Martin; Ottesen, Peter Subject: RE: ACCC/ Australian Processing Tomato Growers application - invitation to make a

submission [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Importance: High John

Thank you for your email concerning the Australian Processing Tomato Growers’

Association’s application to the ACCC under subsections 88 (1A) and (1) of the Competition

and Consumer Act 2010 (formerly known as the Trade Practices Act 1974).

The Association is seeking authorisation of an arrangement whereby its members can

collectively negotiate the terms and conditions of growing contracts with processors for a

period for five years.

DAFF has no objections to such an authorisation and is mindful that processing tomato

growers have faced a number of difficulties recently.

• Floods in northern Victoria had a major impact on tomatoes grown in that area. This

placed a lot of pressure on the finances of tomato growers.

• In late May 2011 Heinz announced the closure of its Girgarre plant in northern

Victoria. The plant will cease production in six-twelve months with the loss of 146

jobs. Media sources are reporting Heinz has organised the contracts this season to

be processed by Cedenco’s plant in Echuca, the only remaining tomato processing

facility left in Australia.

As an interested party DAFF wishes to be kept informed about progress of the application at

the draft and final determination stages.

For your information I have enclosed some material which provides background information

on the industry. Please note I’m seeking an 2009-10 update to Tomatoes.xlsx (which covers

2008-09) and will forward you this as soon as I’m able. You may find pages 4, 9-12, 29 and 30

of the enclosed grower magazine helpful in setting context for the industry.

Regards

Peter Gillard Assistant Manager Horticultural Policy | Agricultural Productivity Division Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry P | F | E | GPO Box 858, Canberra ACT 2601

TOMATOES Industry Location The fresh and processing tomato industries are two separate industries (growing different varieties in different ways in different locations) . the fresh sector has two components: field grown; and hydroponically grown. Fresh field tomatoes are principally grown in Queensland (Bowen, Bundaberg and Darling Downs) and supply the southern States during the winter/spring months . Victoria is the other major producing state . fresh tomatoes are harvested all year by hand. Hydroponically grown tomatoes in greenhouses are undergoing rapid expansion. For example: Flavorite at Warragul Victoria; Costa Exchange at Guyra New South Wales; and D’VineRipe Pty Ltd/Como Glasshouse Pty Ltd at Two Wells, South Australia. The processing tomato industry is situated principally in the Goulburn/Murray river areas of northern Victoria and in the Riverina/MIA region of New South Wales . it is a seasonal industry with mechanised harvesting . processing occurs from February to April. Production The gross value of production of Australian tomatoes in 2009-10 was $347 million, with the value of production in Queensland being $145 million, in Victoria $109 million, in South Australia $33 million, in New South Wales $31 million and in Western Australia $23 million, (source: ABS 2010a). The volume of tomato production in 2009-10 was 472,000 tonnes with Victorian production 286,000 tonnes, Queensland production 102,000 tonnes, New South Wales production 55,000 tonnes, South Australian production 14,000 tonnes and Western Australia production 13,000 tonnes (source: ABS 2010b). Total tomato production was 440,000 tonnes in 2008-09 (source: ABS 2010b), comprising: . field-grown tomato production of 198,000 tonnes, with Queensland production 135,000

tonnes, Victorian production 41, 000 tonnes and Western Australia production 18,000 tonnes; . greenhouse-grown tomato production of 24,000 tonnes, with South Australian production

10,000 tonnes, New South Wales production 6,000 tonnes and Victorian production 6,000 tonnes;

. processing tomato production of 218,000 tonnes, with Victorian production 197,000 tonnes

and New South Wales production 18,000 tonnes.

2 International Trade Exports of fresh tomatoes in 2010-11 totalled 2,400 tonnes valued at $5.9 million, mostly exported to New Zealand ($4.4 million) . export of processed tomato products in 2010-11 were valued at $14.8 million, with canned

tomato exports $2.8 million, tomato paste, pulp and puree $0.9 million and tomato sauce $11.1 million.

Imports of fresh tomatoes in 2010-11 totalled 3,400 tonnes valued at $7.6 million, all imported from New Zealand . imports of dried tomatoes in 2010-11 totalled $8.6 million, with Turkey the major supplier. Australian production of processed tomatoes is not sufficient to meet domestic requirements . in 2010-11 imports of canned tomatoes were valued at $52.5 million, imports of tomato paste,

pulp and puree $37.1 million and imports of tomato sauce $14.9 million . imports of canned tomatoes emanate mainly from Italy; imports of paste mostly emanate from

China, Italy and the USA; imports of tomato sauce emanate mainly from Italy and the USA. Industry Characteristics In 1996, 65% of processing tomatoes were grown in Victoria and 85% were processed in Victoria

. the remainder were grown and processed in NSW and SA. Tomatoes are mainly processed for paste, sauces, soup and canning . for 2001-02, 60% of the harvest was processed into tomato paste, 21% into whole-peeled

tomatoes and pieces and 19% into sauces, juice, soup, dried and others (Source: Australian Processing Tomato Grower).

Industry Issues Australia had in place a countervailing duty on imports of canned tomatoes from Italy, to compensate for EU processing subsidies and export subsidies. The Federal court set aside a decision to continue the countervailing duty after 28 April 2002. A subsequent Customs investigation published in April 2003 found Italian canned tomatoes enter Australia at subsidised prices but the Australian industry is not threatened with material injury. Thus this matter is terminated. Horticulture Policy Agricultural Productivity August 2011 Sources ABS 2010a: Value of Agricultural Commodities Produced 2009-10, Cat no. 7503.0, released 31 May 2011. ABS 2010b: Agricultural Commodities 2009-10, Cat no.7121.0, released 11 April 2011.

Australian Processing Tomato Grower

ISSN 1322-8617

PUBLISHED BY THE AUSTRALIAN PROCESSINGTOMATO RESEARCH COUNCIL INC.

VOLUME 31 SEPTEMBER 2010

Financial Report (Audited)Processing Tomato Investment Summary Year Ended 30 June 2010

APTRC Other

Providers

Total Project Budgets 2009/10

Notes

Funds available 1 July 2009 127,351

INCOME

Grower and Processor Levies 09/10 98,293

Other Voluntary Contributions Received (from HAL project participants) 15,000 1

DAFF Next Gen Farmers 1,818

APTG Contribution to TM06001 4,150

Other Income 8,749

Total Income 113,010 15,000 128,010

EXPENDITURE

DAFF Next Gen Farmers Project 25,634 25,634

TM05007: Technology transfer to the processing tomato industry 16,500 16,500

TM06001: Australian processing tomato representation to WPTC 4,151 4,151

TM06004: Soil and crop health management in processing tomatoes 27,150 27,150

TM08002: Evaluation of Processing Tomato Cultivars in the Dry Tropical and Sub-tropical Areas of Queensland

30,794 2

TM09000: Australian Processing Tomato Industry Development Program 35,807 35,807

TM09002: Processing Tomatoes Industry Development Needs Assessment 2,272 2,272

TM09003: Nuffield Farming Scholarship (Australian Processing Tomato Growers) 21,719 3

TM09005: Lycopene levels in Australian Processing Tomatoes 35,220 4

TM09910: Processing Tomato Partnership Agreement 2009-12 Consultation 1,615

Total Investment 85,879 143,428 113,128

Annual Surplus/Deficit 27,131 (128,428) 14,882

Funds available 30 June 2010 154,482 (128,428) 14,882

AUSTRALIAN PROCESSING TOMATO GROwERI SS N 1 3 2 2 - 8 6 1 7 VO LU M E 3 1 S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 0

APTRC Chairman’s Report 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jason Fritsch Page 02

Horticulture Australia: Processing Tomato Overview 2009/2010 . . . . . . Owen Connelly Page 03

Horticulture Australia Across Industry Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 04

Strategic Plan (2010-2013) and Industry Development Needs Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peter Gray Page 05

Annual Industry Survey 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liz Mann Page 07

TM09000 Technology Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liz Mann Page 10

TM06001 Australian Processing Tomato Industry Representation to World Processing Tomato Council. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liz Mann Page 12

NSW processing tomato variety evaluation - 2009/10 trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tony Napier Page 14

Victorian Processing Tomato Variety Trial - 2009/010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liz Mann Page 16

TM06004 The effect of Silicon (Si) on yield and soluble solids (brix%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .of processing tomatoes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liz Mann Page 17

TM06004 Nutrition and soil management for high yielding, high soluble solids processing tomatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Doris Blaesing Page 18

TM06004 Nutrient management principles for processing tomatoes . . Doris Blaesing Page 21

Long term impacts of sub surface irrigation on soil health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr Dean Lanyon and Jim Kelly Page 23

TM06004 Arbuscular Mycorrhizas: Beneficial Soil Fungi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .in the Australian Processing Tomato Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr Ashley Martin Page 24

2009/10 Cedenco Field Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jason Fritsch Page 27

2010 Heinz Tomato Field Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .David Barthold Page 28

EDITORIAL

The Australian Processing Tomato Research Council Inc (APTRC) is pleased to introduce the 2010 edition of the “Australian Processing Tomato Grower” magazine, which presents the outcomes from the 2009/10 industry research program.

Drought followed by summer rain have impacted upon the industry during the past season. Funds available for the industry’s research and development program continue to remain limited.

Again, we thank the businesses who continue to sponsor this important magazine.

These projects have been facilitated by HAL in partnership with the Australian Processing Tomato Research Council Inc. Projects have been funded by the voluntary contributions from industry. The Australia Government provides matched funding for all HAL’s R&D activities.These projects highlight the benefits passed back to you, as members of the industry, through the processing tomato research levy which is funded 50/50 by growers and processors.The ongoing partnership with Horticulture Australia enhances the practical value of your investment – an investment that is geared to improving your business efficiency and profitability.

Co-editors Liz Mann Peter Gray APTRC Inc

Design and PrintingWillprint Shepparton

September 2010 | Australian Processing Tomato Grower 01

1) Includes non APTRC VCs from Syngenta, Advanced Plant Nutrition Pty. Ltd. And Hillview Compost P/L2) Project managed by SPC Ardmona Ltd3) Project managed by APTG4) Project managed by Cedenco

Welcome to the 2010 edition of the Australian Processing Tomato Grower, detailing all of the research and development that has been undertaken within our industry over the last 12 months.

The last 8 years have been dominated by drought, which saw irrigation water supplies diminish to historical lows and prices for temporary water skyrocket to unsustainable historical highs. Correspondingly, the volume of processing tomatoes diminished over this period with a low point of only 150,940 tonnes delivered in 2008, a combination of a poor season and low water supply. Interestingly, the following two years (2009 and 2010) have seen the industry expand again back to in excess of 260,000 tonnes, with an increase in grower numbers, all the while experiencing continued drought conditions. Throughout this period, the Australian tomato processing industry has continued a research and development program whilst dealing with diminishing funds. APTRC recognised the importance and need for vital research to continue within the industry with priorities around ‘core’ trial work, and the need to keep skilled researchers within the industry. As a result, some projects have been rationalised and cut back to affordable levels whilst others such as the industry variety trials have been largely brought ‘in house’; that is, much of the trial work is now planned and completed by Liz Mann and growers with some outside assistance in NSW from Tony Napier (NSW I & I). I believe it is a measure of how robust the Australian Tomato Processing Industry is that the industry has been able to grow above the lows of 2008, all the while continuing with R & D during the recent challenging times. It is a credit to the Growers, Processors and APTRC together with the assistance of Horticulture Australia that the Industry has been able to ‘weather’ the last few years.

There are many positives to come out of the 2009-10 season. The ‘Annual Industry Survey’, contained within, highlights the fact that field yields (harvested area only) achieved another record high this year of 94.4 tonnes per hectare, whilst solids remain at almost 5.1%. This is largely due to the skilled grower base that exists within the industry, but also in part to the continual adoption of sub-surface drip (80% of all irrigated area) as the preferred method of irrigation. The results of much of the research conducted this last

year such as continued variety trial evaluation, Mycorrhiza research and Doris Blaesing’s ever-growing understanding of nutrients and the role they play in plant nutrition puts the industry in good stead going forward.

It is with a growing sense of optimism that I write this report. It is raining and Lake Eildon and the Hume Weir are filling at better than 60,000 megalitres per week. Hopefully this will be the end of the drought years and low water supplies. APTRC through the efforts of Liz Mann has been the first delivery partner to secure funding through the Commonwealth Government’s ‘On-Farm Irrigation Efficiency Program’ to enable processing tomato growers to convert flood irrigation blocks into sub-surface drip irrigation. This funding will help continue the adoption and dominance of efficient sub-surface drip irrigating techniques within our industry. Finally, Australia’s largest processor, Cedenco,was recently purchased by Kagome, a Japanese company with a strong background in tomato growing and processing. I am sure that the presence of Kagome along with the rain and new drip installations will only make our industry stronger going forward.

The Processing Tomato Industry will continue to face challenges into the future such as low overseas raw material prices and exchange rate volatility, all of which make it difficult for the Australian industry to compete with ‘cheaper’ imported paste products. It underlines how important research and development is in contributing to an industry that must strive to be even more efficient and competitive in the global market.

I commend to you the 2010 Australian Processing Tomato Grower magazine and thank on behalf of APTRC the efforts of Liz Mann and Peter Gray for putting the magazine together, the continued support of Horticulture Australia Limited and the department of Industry and Investment, NSW, and all other Researchers and contributors to this magazine.

APTRC Chairman’s Report 2010Jason Fritsch – Chairman

02 September 2010 | Australian Processing Tomato Grower 01

Horticulture Australia: Processing Tomato Overview 2009/2010Owen Connelly, HAL Industry Services Manager

Processing tomato yields of 94.4t/ha have been achieved in 2009/10, a large increase from 1989/90 when average yield in the Goulburn Valley was 45t/ha. This demonstrates continuous improvement through the APTRC R&D projects and the subsequent adoption of research outcomes and technology by growers.

The new challenge for the APTRC is to increase domestic consumption of processing tomatoes through generic promotion of their proven health benefits. Recently Liz Mann conducted two meetings with leading food companies and nutritionists to discuss the steps to achieving higher consumption of Australian-produced processed tomato products.

Part of that generic promotion is the role of Lycopene, an antioxidant contained in processed tomatoes. Project TM09005,

managed by the Industry Development Manager, APTRC, and funded by a voluntary contribution from Cedenco with matched funding by HAL, commenced in January 2010 to evaluate the Lycopene levels associated with tomato cultivars and selected harvest timings. This information could potentially provide the platform for generic promotion of the health benefits of Australian processed tomatoes. Further projects will evolve to assist generic promotion once an audit of all relevant health benefit research is completed.

Through matching Commonwealth funding, Horticulture Australia supports the APTRC Research and Development projects for the Processing Tomato Industry to achieve to its strategic outcomes.


Year Ended 30th June 2010 R&D 2009/2010

Notes

Funds Available 1st July 2009 28,484

INCOME

Voluntary Contributions Received by HAL 190,139

Commonwealth Contributions 184,159

Other Income

Total Income 374,298

Budget 222,709

Variance to Budget 151,589

PROGRAM INVESTMENT

TM05007: Technology Adoption in the Australian Processing Tomato Indus-try, 2005 - 2008.

60,000

TM06001: Australian processing tomato industry representation to World Processing Tomato Council

20,660

TM06004: Nutrition and soil management for high yielding high soluble solids processing tomatoes

38,834

TM08000: Minor use permits for the processing tomato industry

TM08002: Evaluation of Processing Tomato Cultivars in the Dry Tropical and Sub-tropical Areas of Queensland

53,120 SPCA project

TM09000: Australian Processing Tomato Industry Development Program 61,000

TM09002: Processing Tomatoes Industry Development Needs Assessment 3,518

TM09003: Nuffield Farming Scholarship (Australian Processing Tomato Grow-ers)

37,000 APTG project

TM09005: Lycopene levels in Australian Processing Tomatoes 50,000 Cedenco Project

TM09910: Processing Tomato Partnership Agreement 2009-12 – Consultation

Across Industry Contribution 3,064

Service Delivery Programs by HAL 44,186

TOTAL INVESTMENT 371,382

Budget 222,711

Variance to Budget -148,671

Annual Surplus/Deficit 2,916

Funds Available June 30 2010 31,400

HAL Financial Report 2009/2010Processing Tomato Investment Summary


Project No

Project Title Project start Project completion

Contact Organisation

AH07033 Incident Response Protocol - development and training for horticulture

21-Apr-08 30-Sep-09 Julian Heath Control Risks

AH09009 Food security discussion paper 01-Apr-10 28-May-10 Richard Bennett Horticulture Australia Limited

AH07006 Promoting the health advantage of fruit and vegetable to increase their consumption

01-Jul-07 30-Jun-10 Chris Rowley Horticulture Australia Limited

AH07007 Horticulture Wellbeing Initiative 27-Jun-08 31-Jul-09 Philippa Lorimer Horticulture Australia Limited

AH07002 HAL Market Access Coordination 01-Jul-07 01-Oct-09 Stephen Winter Stephen Winter & Associates Pty Ltd

AH07003 Market access support program (follows project AH05034)

30-Jun-08 01-Oct-09 Kim James Horticulture Australia Limited

AH09012 Codex participation 2009-10 01-Oct-09 28-May-10 Richard Bennett Horticulture Australia Limited

AH09018 Office of Horticulture Market Access – National Director

01-Apr-10 28-Feb-12 Stephen Winter Stephen Winter & Associates Pty Ltd

AH09019 Office of Horticulture Market Access – Technical (SPS and Research and Develop-ment) Manager

01-Oct-09 30-Sep-10 Rob Duthie Kalang Consultants

AH09021 Office of Horticulture Market Access - Operations Support

01-Sep-09 31-Dec-11 Wayne Prowse Horticulture Australia Limited

AH09023 Health and well-being in horticulture 01-Nov-09 01-Nov-10 Chris Rowley Horticulture Australia Limited

AH09026 Productivity Commission Study on Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements

08-Feb-10 31-Mar-10 Stephen Winter Stephen Winter & As-sociates Pty Ltd

HG08061 Market Access R&D Support Service 01-Jul-08 01-Oct-09 Rob Duthie Kalang Consultants

AH04007 Pesticide Regulation Coordinator 05-Jul-04 31-Jul-09 Kevin Bodnaruk AKC Consulting Pty Ltd

AH08003 Analysis of Horticulture’s carbon footprint 20-Feb-09 23-Oct-09 Alison Turnbull Horticulture Australia Limited

AH08014 Horticulture industry consultation on Award modernisation

17-Nov-08 30-Nov-09 Dr Ravi Hegde Horticulture Australia Limited

AH08019 Access to the Invasive Species Compendium for the Australian horticultural industry

01-May-09 31-May-10 Nick Langley CRC For National Plant Biosecurity

AH09003 Plant protection: Regulatory support and co-ordination

01-Jul-09 30-May-14 Kevin Bodnaruk AKC Consulting Pty Ltd

AH09005 Horticulture Water Initiative - 2009-10 Program

01-Sep-09 30-Jun-10 Alison Turnbull Horticulture Australia Limited

AH09014 Across-industry climate research, development and extension (RD&E) activities

13-Apr-10 31-Mar-11 Alison Turnbull Horticulture Australia Limited

AH09029 Horticulture Balanced Scorecard - Economic Assessment

16-Apr-10 12-May-10 Dr Isabel

Faeth Access Economics Pty Ltd

MT07029 Managing pesticide access in horticulture 01-Jul-07 30-Jun-10 Peter Dal Santo AgAware Consulting Pty Ltd

MT09043 Enhancing confidence in product integrity in domestic and export markets

30-Sep-09 31-May-11 Richard Bennett Horticulture Australia Limited

Horticulture Australia Across Industry Program

Objective 1: To enhance the efficiency, transparency, responsiveness and integrity of the supply chain

Objective 2: Maximise the health benefits of horticultural products

Objective 3: Position horticulture to compete in a globalised environment

Objective 4: Achieve long term viability and sustainabilityfor Australian horticulture

The Australian Processing Tomato Research Council contributes funding towards an across industry program that addresses issues affecting all of horticulture. Details of the current program

are listed here. A full report of the program can be found at www.horticulture.com.au/industry/acrossindustry.asp.


This article summarises the report which presents the medium-term strategic direction for the Australian processing tomato industry, and an assessment of its development needs. This is a rapidly changing industry and its strategic direction will again be reviewed in three years’ time.

Australian and global consumption of processed tomato products has grown strongly during the past twenty years. Although only accounting for about 1% of global production, the Australian industry remains at the forefront of innovation, and has consistently “boxed above its weight”.

Recent years of low rainfall have impacted adversely on the industry and annual production has fallen significantly, although 2009 was one of the best growing seasons ever. However, the increasing demand for tomato products will see it grow again when water pressures ease. The industry’s strategic objectives will be met through the following elements:

We will meet consumer needs and increase demand• through new product development based on market research;• generic promotion of the distinctive health benefits of

Australian-grown tomatoes; and• testing imported products for their compliance with

Australian food safety standards.

We will improve production efficiency• through more productive manufacturing technologies and

processes;• by adopting agronomic practices that optimise fruit yield and

quality while containing cost;• by growing varieties that can deliver higher yields and

improved quality at reduced cost; and• Benchmarking industry performance and sharing knowledge. We will improve market intelligence• by commissioning an annual report on global economic and

industry trends and drivers.

We will pursue the efficient use of industry resources• by managing climate variability effectively;• by building industry skills and leadership; and• encouraging collaborative research with similar industries.

The processing tomato industry already has a comprehensive communications program through which to incorporate the following recommendations:• The widely-respected and effective IDM position should be

retained;• The current suite of communication tools should be retained,

but APTRC will re-scope these as industry conditions change;• Identify a suitable agency that can provide an informed

annual update of global industry trends;• Use APTRC’s extensive networks to identify alternative

development strategies that could be applied in Australia;• Encourage and support growers to improve their agronomic

and business management skills;• Implement a low-cost program to promote the health

attributes of processed tomato products; and• Encourage processors to partner with HAL in developing new

products and processes.

Industry IssuesThe previous strategic plan identified major and minor research priorities based on the following issues and needs:• Productivity improvement through new technology, and

cultivars that provide high yields and soluble solids;• Market research as a driver of industry growth;• Managing grower risk – High-value or green manure

rotational crops, ‘best-bet’ research into agronomic practices; and information about good growing practice.

Issues in 2009Attendees at the 2009 Tomato Forum identified the following issues facing the industry:

Issue CommentaryWater The availability and cost of water were key factors in the

decline of production during the three seasons to 2008Tomato Price The economic risk that growers face demands an

appropriate price for their tomatoes. The reality is that prices may vary during some seasons, but the long-run picture is not one of higher price.

Skills Better management skills will be required if farm size is to increase, to achieve economies of scale.

Global perspective

There is potential for China to be a net importer in the future as domestic consumption increases. Also, California now only accounts for 25% of global trade, down from 50% in the past. Does that state’s industry have the same influence on global paste price as in the past? Subsidies are re-merging in Europe. We need more information about global trade and a continuous picture of our competitiveness.

Market research

Ardmona Foods, in conjunction with HAL, had previously conducted market research which resulted in the “Rich and Thick” range of products, one of their most promising lines ever.

Market benefits could also identify the best ways for industry to promote the health qualities of tomatoes, especially lycopene

Productivity We need to assess new growing technologies. An average yield of 100t/ha must be a goal (growing steadily over many years, average Australian yield exceeded 90t/ha in 2009).

Managing risk

Maintaining high average yield means managing risk. More information during critical growth stages may be helpful

GM tomatoes

GM products are not wanted by consumers. However, Heinz is using gene markers to speed up variety development.

Table 1 Industry Issues

In the context of this strategic plan, the topics of tomato price (a matter for contract negotiation between growers and processors) and GM tomatoes (not wanted by consumers) are recognised, but do not form part of industry development at this time.

The main themes identified in 2005 continue to be important today. To these have been added: managing low rainfall; improving industry skills; and developing good intelligence from a global perspective.

Industry StrategiesThe key industry objectives will be delivered through the following strategies, based on Future Focus priorities:

Objective CommentaryObjective 1 We will meet consumer needs and increase demandStrategies Through new product development based on market

research;Generic promotion of the distinctive health benefits of

Australian-grown tomatoes; andTesting imported products for their compliance with

Australian food safety standards. Objective 2 We will improve productivity Strategies Through more productive manufacturing technologies and

processes;By adopting agronomic practices that optimise fruit yield

and quality, while containing cost;By growing varieties that can deliver higher yields and

improved quality, at reduced cost; andBenchmarking industry performance and sharing

knowledge.Objective 3 We will improve market intelligenceStrategy By commissioning an annual report on global economic

and industry trends and driversObjective 4 We will pursue the efficient use of industry resourcesStrategies By managing climate variability effectively;

Building industry skills and leadership; andEncouraging collaborative research with similar industries.

Table 2 Future Focus objectives and strategies

Strategic Plan (2010-2013) and Industry Development Needs AssessmentPeter Gray, RMCG


A common link across these areas of industry development is that of technology transfer, delivered through the Industry Development Manager’s role in Lauren Thompson, followed by Liz Mann, the industry has had the services of two people who have been highly instrumental in facilitating industry growth. Attendees at the May 2009 Forum confirmed again that the IDM position is very well regarded by all stakeholders and we recommend that this position continue during the life of this current plan.

During previous years processors have been slow to work through APTRC in reviewing various aspects of their factory processes or market sectors that could benefit from research. There are opportunities for processors to leverage their R&D investment with HAL. That organisation also has a process which will protect commercially sensitive research for a number of years.

Fulfilling Future Focus objectivesLaunched in May 2009, Future Focus is the national horticulture plan developed by HAL and its industry groups. Future Focus contends that Australian horticulture is not realising the trading potential being achieved by its competitors, and it identifies the elements that should form the basis for future industry development (see www.futurefocus.org.au). The Future Focus strategic direction is based on:

• Three Programs – building consumer demand; market access; and resource use

• Driven by Three Engines – research; information; and policy

• Underpinned by a drivetrain – industry leadership

The three key programs have been broken down into 11 sub-programs, which provide relatively different profit pay-offs to industry. The processing tomato industry’s strategies align with Future Focus strategic direction in the following ways:

Future Focus sub-program

APTRC Strategies

Developing Commercial/Marketing Platforms

No strategies defined

Developing Novel products and delivering Consumer satisfaction

New product development based on market research

Increasing Productivity Adopt new manufacturing technologies and processes to reduce unit cost

Adopt agronomic practices which optimise fruit yield and quality

Implement evaluation programs which identify varieties that provide higher yield and improved quality

Being Clean and Green Adopt an environmental assurance systemProduct Promotion Encourage consumption of Australian

products through the generic promotion of the distinctive attributes of tomatoes

Export Access No strategies definedMarket Intelligence Market research and the creation of a global

viewWater Improve water use efficiency; understand

the new planning tools available to manage low rainfall years

Adapting to Climate Change

Promote carbon-efficient agronomic practices and develop suitable fruit varieties

Reducing Labour cost and attracting labour skills

Improve labour productivity and develop labour-saving devices

Enable industry personnel to build skills

Table 3 Future Focus and APTRC – in order of profit payoff contribution

Potential projectsDuring development of this plan, the following ideas emerged as potential projects within the defined strategic direction of the industry:

• Encourage the development of a Health and Wellness Promotion committee amongst processors to promote the consumption of Australian-grown products;

• Commence a testing program for imported products to determine if they meet the same food safety standards as Australian-grown products;

• Investigate ideas that enable profitable continuous cropping on land in which sub-surface irrigation systems have been installed;

• Collaborate with the fresh tomato industry. Fresh market growers are currently considering a statutory levy and could be agreeable to pooling resources on similar research issues;

• Consider adopting a suitable environmental assurance system to demonstrate the industry’s ‘clean and green’ credentials to consumers, and to mitigate the adverse impacts of national climate policy on agriculture;

• Measure the industry’s nitrous oxide emissions to better understand its environmental footprint; and

• Pursue further water-use efficiency, and seek government grants to convert to drip irrigation.

Industry Development Needs Assessment

Summary of RecommendationsThe processing tomato industry already has a comprehensive communications program through which to incorporate the following recommendations:

• The widely-respected and effective IDM position should be retained;

• The current suite of communication tools should be retained, but APTRC will re-scope these as industry conditions change;

• Identify a suitable agency that can provide an informed annual update of global industry trends;

• Use APTRC’s extensive international and other industry networks to identify alternative development strategies that could be applied in Australia;

• Encourage growers to improve their agronomic and business management skills;

• Implement a low-cost program to promote the health attributes of processed tomato products; and

• Encourage processors to partner with HAL in developing new products and processes.

There are opportunities for developmentThe challenge for the APTRC is to continuously strive to improve its suite of communication tools each year. The following are subjects for consideration:

• The industry requires an informed interpretation of global trade;

• Review the better communication practices that occur in other countries and determine if any could be adopted by APTRC;

• Continue to develop the agronomic and business management skills of growers;

• In conjunction with WPTC, develop a program to promote the health benefits of tomatoes. A number of small horticultural industries are implementing low-cost programs to increase public appreciation of their products; and

• Much of APTRC’s focus has traditionally been biased towards the growing sector. This has largely occurred because processors felt self-sufficient for their needs and close seasonal contact between growers, processor management and field officers has delivered information effectively. However, processors could benefit from a dialogue with HAL and the door should be open to research and development projects past the farm gate.


Annual Industry Survey 2010 Liz Mann, Industry Development Manager, APTRC Inc.

SummaryApproximately 264,978 tonnes of tomatoes were delivered for processing during the 2009/10 season. This is a decrease of approximately 2% on last year’s intake. The average field yield was approximately 94.4 tonne/ha, the highest average yield on record for the Australian industry.

The average tomato soluble solids level was 5.08%

22 specialist processing tomato growers supplied the tonnes processed during the 2009/10 harvest, in addition to one research farm.

The three major processors, SPC Ardmona, Heinz and Cedenco processed a total of 245,791 tonnes, and a number of smaller businesses processed a total of 19,187 tonnes. Growers own one of the smaller processing operations.

An area totalling around 3,442 hectares was planted although only 2,806 ha were actually harvested. 80% of the area was drip irrigated and 65% sown with transplants.

2009 imports of tomato products were the equivalent of 253,197 raw material tonnes, an approximate 32% decrease from the previous year. Exports equated to approximately 7,722 raw tonnes, a slight decrease from the previous year.

261,

667

205,

272

152,

339

247,

025

244,

088

287,

740

299,

212

334,

176

309,

331

367,

607

379,

900

374,

314

260,

800

320,

100

320,

300

293,

600

229,

000

150,

940

271,

289

264,

978

2221

16

23

71

30

38

45

48

5355

57

3332 31 31

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

1990

/91

1991

/92

1992

/93

1993

/94

1994

/95

1995

/96

1996

/97

1997

/98

1998

/99

1999

/00

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

Season

Tonn

es

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Num

br o

f Gro

wer

s

tonnes

growernumber

Graph 1 Paid Tomato Tonnes DeliveredSource: - Industry Survey & Horn, B (2000, 2001,2002,2003)

Season Hectares(Excl Market Growers)

% SurfaceUnder Drip

% SurfaceTransplants

1998/99 4,328 48% 21%1999/00 5,108 49% 25%2000/01 4,779 53% 33%2001/02 4,486 55% 43%2002/03 3,648 62% 46%2003/042004/052005/06 3,500 65% 45%2006/07 2,860 68% 55%2007/08 2,308 74% 66%2008/09 3,000 76% 57%2009/10 3,442 80% 65%

Table 1. Penetration of Drip Irrigation and TransplantsSource: - Industry Survey & Horn, B (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003)

Management preference differed greatly between NSW and Victoria, with the majority of drip irrigated crops being in Victoria. 1,245 ha of processing tomatoes were grown in NSW, although only 889.26 ha were harvested, producing a total of 54,523 tonnes

during 2009/10, a reduction from 79,952 tonnes in the previous year. The remainder of the tonnes were produced in Northern Victoria.

This year’s tomato harvest and processing commenced on the 27th January, but only continued for a few days before closing down. The harvest then recommenced on the 3rd February, again only for a few days, while fruit continued to ripen in the field. On the 9th February the harvest began and processing continued. The harvest then continued until Friday 5th March when heavy rain fell across the region. This rain caused everything to cease for a period of just under a week. Harvest then continued with the last crops harvested by mid May.

Average Field Yields Over Time

Annual Growth from 1982/82 to 2001/02 = 4.8%

y = 33.632e0.0378x

R2 = 0.8663Annual Growth across graph 3.78%

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

95

105

1982

/83

1983

/84

1984

/85

1985

/86

1986

/87

1987

/88

1988

/89

1989

/90

1990

/91

1991

/92

1992

/93

1993

/94

1994

/95

1995

/96

1996

/97

1997

/98

1998

/99

1999

/00

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

Year

Tonn

es/h

a

AverageField Yield

Expon.(1983-2002)

Graph 2. Field Yield Over TimeSource: - Industry Survey & Horn, B (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003)

5.25%5.38%

4.99%

4.76%

4.57%

4.77%4.64%

5.06%

4.75%4.89%

5.00%

5.16%

4.87%

5.19%5.32%

5.08%4.93%

4.69%

5.22%

5.10%

050,000

100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000

1990

/91

1991

/92

1992

/93

1993

/94

1994

/95

1995

/96

1996

/97

1997

/98

1998

/99

1999

/00

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

Season

Tonn

es

4.00%4.20%4.40%4.60%4.80%5.00%5.20%5.40%5.60%

solu

ble

solid

s %

tonnes

SolubleSolids

Graph 3. Soluble Solids History Source: - Industry Survey & Horn, B (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003)

Note: Soluble Solids for 2002/03 are calculated from approximately 180,000 tonnes. Soluble Solids from 2003/04 and 2004/05 are calculated from approximately 265,000 tonnes. Soluble solids for 2006/07 are calculated from approximately 214,500 tonnes. Soluble solids for 2007/08 are calculated from approximately 131,879 tonnes. Soluble solids for 2008/09 are calculated from approximately 251,539 tonnes, and for 2009/10 from approximately 245,791 tonnes.

Soluble Solids

Tonnes SS/ha

Tonnes Soluble Solids

1994/95 5.19% 2.769 12,6681995/96 4.99% 3.059 14,3581996/97 4.76% 3.051 14,2421997/98 4.87% 3.839 16,2741998/99 4.57% 3.164 14,1361999/00 4.69% 3.324 17,2412000/01 4.77% 3.767 18,1212001/02 4.64% 3.826 17,3682002/03 5.06% 3.578 13,1962003/04 4.93% 3.945 15,7812004/05 4.75% 3.901 15,2142005/06 4.89% 3.988 14,3572006/07 5.00% 4.003 11,4502007/08 5.16% 3.353 7,7392008/09 5.32% 4.811 14,4332009/10 5.08% 4.797 13,461

Table 2. National Production of Soluble SolidsSource: - Industry Survey & Horn, B (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003)


Variety Hectares %H3402 984.7 28.6%H3402 /H2401 935.2 27.2%H4401 326.7 9.5%H3002 192.6 5.6%H4001 116.5 3.4%H5803 114.7 3.3%H9035 106.7 3.1%ENP113 81.7 2.4%H3202 39 1.1%H9723 35.5 1.0%Unspecified 483 14.0%H3506 19 0.6%Other 4 0.1%H2201 3 0.1%TOTAL 3442.3 100.0%

Table 3. Varieties Grown by the IndustrySource: - Industry Survey (planted area per variety)

Main Varieties 2009/10 Season H3402 R2 = 0.0397

H3402/H2401 Mix R2 = 0.0145

25

45

65

85

105

125

145

165

4.00% 4.20% 4.40% 4.60% 4.80% 5.00% 5.20% 5.40% 5.60% 5.80% 6.00%

Soluble Solids %

Yiel

d t/h

a

H3002H3402H3402/H2401 MixH4001H4401

Graph 4. Main Varieties Grown by the Industry Source: - Industry Survey

As shown in the above graph yield and solids appear inversely related, although this is a weak relationship as demonstrated by the very low R2 values obtained for each variety. As R2 values become closer to 1.0, the better the fit of the regression line. That is, the closer the line passes through all of the points

AUSTRALIAN MARkET OVERVIEw Imports83,843 tonnes of tomato products valued at close to $99 million were imported during 2009. Peeled tomato products, particularly in retail packs, are the major import category.

Product $’000 % of Tonnes Tonnes $/kgDried/powder Total $7,380 1,786 $4.13

Turkey $3,862 53% 938 $4.12China $1,186 18% 314 $3.78Israel $810 11% 193 $4.20

whole/pieces <1.14L Total $39,683 36,335 $1.09

Italy $32,935 78% 28,316 $1.16USA $5,439 18% 6,507 $0.84Argentina $349 2% 676 $0.52

whole/pieces >1.14L Total $9,530 11,034 $0.86

Italy $8,216 91% 10,085 $0.81USA $235 4% 404 $0.58Turkey $823 2% 243 $3.39

Paste/puree <1.14L Total $12,727 9,050 $1.41

Italy $7,913 64% 5,799 $1.36China $3,884 29% 2,619 $1.48Greece $256 2% 175 $1.46

Paste/puree >1.14L Total $18,754 18,389 $1.02

China $8,909 45% 8,301 $1.07USA $5,788 35% 6,460 $0.90Italy $2,059 12% 2,205 $0.93

Tomato Juice (Litres*1000) Total 62 40 $1.57

China $22 49% 19 $1.12USA $32 32% 13 $2.52Thailand $4 12% 5 $0.83

Sauce/ketchup (Litres*1,000) Total $10,845 7,207 $1.50

Italy $7,810 70% 5,028 $1.55Turkey $562 10% 726 $0.77Spain $600 7% 522 $1.15

Table 6. Main Sources of Imports in 2009Source: - Australian Bureau of Statistics

Based on the above table are the following:• Majority of Dried Tomato imports are from Turkey at 938

tonnes, remaining pretty much unchanged from the previous year.

• Majority of Whole/pieces are imported from Italy, at 38,401 tonnes, down from 43,569 tonnes in 2008.

• Majority Paste <1.14 litres imports are from Italy at 5,799 tonnes, down from 7,060 tonnes in 2008.

• Majority Paste >1.14 litres imports are from China at 8,301 tonnes. During the previous year the majority of these imports were from the USA at 22,176 tonnes, and China at 7,955 tonnes. During 2007 the majority of the paste >1.14 litres came from China at 6,567 tonnes.

• Majority of the Juice imports are from China at 19 tonnes. During 2008 the majority of the juice imports were from the USA, at 27 tonnes.

• Majority of the Sauce/Ketchup imports are from Italy at 5,028 tonnes, an increase of 10% from 4,860 tonnes in 2008.

Table 4. Imports of Tomato Products Source: - Australian Bureau of Statistics Import volume was equivalent to about 253,197 tonnes of raw tomatoes.

Table 5. Equivalent Tonnes Raw Tomato Imported Source: - Australian Bureau of Statistics and ATPA Conversion Factors

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Product $’000 Tonne $’000 Tonne $’000 Tonne $’000 Tonne $’000 Tonne $’000 Tonne $’000 Tonne $’000 Tonne $’000 Tonne $’000 TonneDried/powder 6,377 1,098 6,632 1,085 7,173 1,262 7,176 1,476 6,610 1,451 6,884 1,605 8,286 1,778 8,696 1,888 8,890 1,783 7,380 1,786Peeled/piecesIn packs <1.14L 15,885 15,534 16,330 15,335 18,013 16,179 21,141 18,202 24,035 22,037 32,269 32,911 24,783 26,494 31,538 32,888 51,257 44,215 39,683 36,335In packs >1.14 L 7,879 8,876 7,726 7,180 8,210 7,704 10,779 11,860 9,701 8,214 5,917 7,857 6,357 8,230 9,825 11,916 13,085 13,742 9,530 11,034All peeled/pcs 23,764 24,410 24,056 22,515 26,223 23,883 31,920 30,062 33,736 30,251 38,186 40,768 31,140 34,724 41,363 44,804 64,342 57,957 49,213 47,369Paste/pureeIn packs <1.14 L 3,203 3,115 5,804 5,528 5,483 5,169 7,268 6,358 8,342 6,894 9,345 7,901 7,453 6,996 9,206 8,167 12,645 9,532 12,727 9,050In packs >1.14 L 9,380 8,733 7,951 7,795 5,428 5,146 10,249 11,216 11,359 11,834 9,792 10,798 9,428 10,357 20,358 22,038 38,344 36,978 18,754 18,389All paste/puree 12,583 11,848 13,755 13,323 10,911 10,315 17,517 17,574 19,701 18,728 19,137 18,699 16,881 17,353 29,564 30,205 50,989 46,510 31,481 27,439Juice 109 40 192 67 199 114 137 79 139 137 75 52 123 88 101 75 41 30 62 40(Litres*1,000)Sauce/ketchup 7,407 5,542 7,832 5,353 6,674 4,545 7,512 5,293 8,058 5,466 8,842 6,465 11,861 7,879 11,554 7,828 12,109 7,844 10,845 7,207(Litres*1,000)Total 50,240 42,938 52,467 42,343 51,180 40,119 64,262 54,484 68,244 56,033 73,124 67,589 68,291 61,822 91,278 84,800 136,371 114,123 98,980 83,841

Product Factor 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Dried/powder 20 22,000 21,700 25,200 29,520 29,020 32,100 35,560 37,760 35,660 35,720Whole/pcs <1.14L 1.1 17,100 16,900 17,797 20,022 24,241 36,202 29,143 36,177 48,636 39,969Whole/pcs >1.14L 1.1 9,800 7,900 8,500 13,046 9,035 8,643 9,053 13,108 15,116 12,137Paste/puree <1.14L 5.5 14,000 24,900 23,300 34,969 37,917 43,456 38,478 44,919 52,428 49,776Paste/puree >1.14L 5.5 48,000 42,900 28,300 61,688 65,087 59,389 56,964 121,209 203,377 101,137Juice 1.1 100 100 158 274 104 96.8 82.5 33 33 43Sauce/ketchup 2 11,100 10,700 9,100 10,586 10,932 12,930 15,758 15,656 15,688 14,415Total Tomato 122,000 125,100 112,300 169,989 176,506 192,823 185,053 268,910 370,938 253,197


Product $,000 % of Tonnes Tonnes $/kgwhole/pieces Total $6,166 2,417 $2.55

New Zealand $1,285 35% 834.9 $1.54Japan $2,599 31% 743.4 $3.50USA $650 20% 473.8 $1.37

Paste/puree Total $1,281 802 $1.60

New Zealand $1,156 96% 767 $1.51Papua New Guinea $40 2% 13 $3.11Sri Lanka $2 1% 9 $0.22

Sauce/ketchup Total $7,453 4,444 $1.68

New Zealand $5,725 82% 3,652 $1.57New Caledonia $299 4% 180 $1.66Papua New Guinea $360 4% 169 $2.13

Juice Total $72 60 $1.20

New Zealand $12 27% 16.2 $0.71Korea, South $12 20% 11.9 $1.04Hong Kong $10 16% 9.8 $1.02

Table 9. Major Export Destinations in 2008Source: - Australian Bureau of Statistics

Export and Import Volumes Compared

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Exports 42,600 21,900 23,100 50,500 49,454 32,608 28,979 17,154 14,721 15,421 16,021

Imports 112,600 122,000 125,100 112,300 163,631 169,612 184,922 185,053 268,910 370,938 253,197

Net Imports 70,000 100,100 102,000 61,800 114,177 137,004 155,943 167,899 254,190 355,516 237,176

% Exports/Imports 38% 18% 18% 45% 30% 19% 16% 9% 5% 4% 6%

Table 10 Exports and Imports, Raw Tomato Equivalent Tonnes Source: - Australian Bureau of Statistics. ATPA Conversion Factors

Exports

Australian Production, Imports and Exports of Processed Tomato Products

050000

100000150000200000250000300000350000400000

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Production

Imports

Exports

Expon. (Exports)

Expon. (Imports)

Annual Growth of Imports 10.24%Annual Growth of Exports -0.88%

Graph 5. Australian Production, Imports and Exports

Demand for Tomato ProductsAdding production and import volumes provide an idea of the gross demand for Australian processed tomato, (graph 6). The domestic market size is this total less exports. The analysis is crude as year-end inventory levels are not known and crop years do not exactly coincide with calendar years.

[1] Juice exports are recorded in litres. In this report, one litre of juice assumed to weigh one kilogram. Table 7. Exports of Tomato Products Source: - Australian Bureau of Statistics

In raw tomato equivalent volume terms, the export volume has continued to decrease.

[1] Juice exports are recorded in litres. In this report, one litre of juice assumed to weigh one kilogram. Table 8. Equivalent Tonnes Raw Tomato Exported Source: - Australian Bureau of Statistics. ATPA Conversion Factors

New Zealand was again the most significant export destination in all categories.

Product Factor 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Whole/pieces 1.1 400 500 1,000 700 1,400 7,438 2,229 2,627 3,079 1,810 2,285 2,658Paste/puree 5.5 45,900 38,700 10,600 7,400 35,900 32,423 20,708 16,682 5,049 4,505 3,273 4,409Sauce/ketchup 2 3,200 2,800 9,500 14,100 12,200 8,734 8,802 8,936 8,716 7,860 9,598 8,888Juice [1] 1.1 400 600 800 900 1,000 859 870 735 310 547 266 66Total Tomato 49,900 42,600 21,900 23,100 50,500 49,454 32,608 28,979 17,154 14,721 15,421 16,021

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Product $’000 Tonne $’000 Tonne $’000 Tonne $’000 Tonne $’000 Tonne $’000 Tonne $’000 Tonne $’000 Tonne $’000 Tonne $’000 TonneWhole/p’cs 1,204 889 948 630 2,251 1,239 8,180 6,762 3,476 2,026 4,542 2,388 5,819 2,799 5,757 1,645 5,442 2,077 6,166 2,417Paste/puree 2,767 1,942 2,814 1,347 9,376 6,529 7,530 5,895 4,217 3,765 1,150 3,033 2,856 918 1,870 819 959 595 1,281 802Ketchup/s’ce 11,210 4,770 14,774 7,062 15,310 6,122 9,615 4,367 9,710 4,401 9,669 4,468 8,996 4,358 8,559 3,930 10,003 4,799 7,453 4,444Juice[1] 766 679 857 842 868 923 833 781 791 791 749 668 666 282 706 497 394 242 72 60Total 15,947 8,280 19,393 9,881 27,805 14,817 26,158 17,805 18,194 10,983 16,110 10,557 18,337 8,357 16,892 6,891 16,798 7,713 14,972 7,722

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 3 Yr AverageProduction 367,600 379,900 374,300 260,800 320,000 320,000 293,600 229,000 150,940 271,000 216,980Plus imports 122,000 125,100 112,300 163,631 169,612 184,922 185,053 268,910 370,938 253,197 297,682Gross demand 489,600 505,000 486,600 424,431 489,612 504,922 478,653 497,910 521,878 524,197 514,662Less exports 21,900 23,100 50,500 49,454 32,608 28,979 17,154 14,721 15,421 16,021 15,388Domestic demand 467,700 481,900 436,100 374,977 457,004 475,943 461,499 483,190 506,456 508,176 499,274

Table 11. Apparent Demand for Processing Tomatoes (Raw Material Tonnes) Source: - Estimate Based on Industry Survey & Horn, B (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003)


Australian Consumption of Processed Tomato Product

y = 2E-16e0.0245x

R2 = 0.5293Domestic Growth = 2.45%

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

Tonn

es

Domestic DemandExpon. (Domestic Demand)

Graph 6. Australian Consumption of Processed Tomatoes

Australian and Californian Comparison The graphs below indicate the Australian yield as both tonnes/hectare and solids/hectare. The tonnes/hectare has been increasing at a rate of 3.76% per year, and the soluble solids/hectare at 2.78%. The actual Australian figure for 2010 was 94.4 tonnes/hectare at 5.08oBrix.

Comparison of Australian Tomato Yields with California - Field Yield as Tonne/Hectare

y = 1E-13e0.017x

R2 = 0.9205Annual Increase in Yield = 1.7%

y = 2E-31e0.0376x

R2 = 0.8605Annual Increase in Yield = 3.76%

283236404448525660646872768084889296

100

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

Year

Fiel

d Yi

eld

- Ton

nes/

Hec

tare

CaliforniaAustraliaExpon. (California)Expon. (Australia)

Graph 7. Australian and Californian Field Yields

Soluble Solids per Hectare for California and Australia 1992 -2009

y = 2E-12e0.0141x

R2 = 0.6565Annual Increase in SS/ha = 1.41%

y = 2E-24e0.0278x

R2 = 0.7907Annual Increase in SS/ha = 2.78%

2.3

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

4.5

4.7

4.9

5.1

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

Solu

ble

Solid

s pe

r Hec

tare

CaliforniaAustraliaExpon. (California)Expon. (Australia)

Graph 8. Australian and Californian Tonnes of SS/ha

TM09000 Technology Transfer Liz Mann, Industry Development Manager, APTRC Inc.

The technology transfer projects are now in their 20th year. The previous project TM05007 officially ceased in September 2009, but continued through support of the APTRC for an additional 3 months. The new project commenced in January 2010 following the completion of the Industry Development Review and Needs Assessment in October 2009 and an extended period of negotiation with Horticulture Australia Ltd.. The current project continues to be based on a 3 day a week role.

Following the Industry Development Needs Assessment it was determined that the current suite of communication tools should be retained, but APTRC would re-scope these as industry conditions change. In addition the industry’s extensive local and international networks need to be maintained and utilised to identify alternative development strategies that could be applied in Australia.

As a result technology transfer strategies used during this project continued along the lines of the previous projects, with the continued inclusion of additional distinct subprojects and management of other projects funded by the Australian Government. The most significant of these projects was the announcement of the first round of the Federal Government’s $300 million On-Farm Irrigation Efficiency program, worth $100 million, which will save as much as 60,000ML over a year – savings which will be shared between the environment and irrigation farmers.

The announcement was made by Senator Wong on the 19th March 2010 of the successful delivery partners for the first round. The Australian Processing Tomato Research Council Inc. received in-principle approval to proceed to Stage 2 and receive up to $11.71M in funding, to be spread across the whole processing tomato industry. The first grower meeting to explain this program was held on the 29th March in Echuca and was attended by all except one grower.

An additional project also commenced this season funded by a voluntary contribution from Cedenco with matched funding from HAL. This project commenced in January 2010 and was titled “Lycopene levels in Australian Processing Tomatoes”. The aim of this project was to evaluate the lycopene levels in Australian processing tomatoes, taking into the account the impact of cultivars, harvest timing and environmental variation.

An additional subproject which the IDM became involved in was the formation of a working group to determine how the national consumption of Australian tomato products could be increased through the generic promotion of tomatoes and health. The first meeting of this group was held on the 1st February 2010, and included representatives from the Australian Processing Tomato Growers, SPCA, Cedenco, MARS, Simplot and Campbells. A subsequent meeting was also held on the 8th June 2010 after which a business proposal was developed to determine the priorities of the group and initial generic promotion program.

The strategies implemented and activities to enhance technology transfer awareness continued based on the following broad groupings:• Facilitate the development of the skills and networks amongst

growers, processors and support service providers.• Grower group meetings and visits • Coordination of training • Field days, on farm demonstrations • Technical tours for growers• Visiting scientists and growers from overseas


• Communication activities, including the publication and distribution of newsletters and industry magazine

• Research program enhancement activities • Facilitating meetings with growers and researchers• Preparation and distribution of meeting papers for the APTRC

meetings• Identification of Industry R & D needs• Management of the industry’s R & D program• Assist with the minor use permit program for agricultural

chemicals• Industry Representation• Plant Health Australia• Horticulture Australia Ltd

In addition the following activities were also undertaken during 2009/10:• Compilation of the Annual Industry Survey• Preparation of funding submissions to other organisations,

including DEWHA and HAL• Primary contact person for growers, support service personnel

and processors to source relevant information to answer any queries that may arise.

• Maintain networks with people involved in the processing tomato industry from across the world.

The Annual Industry Survey was once again updated to incorporate the industry statistics from the past season. This survey is considered important as it ensures accurate data is available to industry members. This year the additional analysis of yields and solids for the main processing tomato varieties grown by the industry was continued. Some of this data is also supplied to World Processing Tomato Council’s Commission on the Exchange of Information. Segments of the Annual Industry Survey are included in this magazine.

Meeting with growers to discuss the On-farm Irrigation Efficiency Program

Facilitate Development of the Skills and Networks amongst Growers, Processors and Support Service ProvidersThe number of skill development opportunities for industry members during the past year has remained low. As grower numbers continue to decrease it has proved more difficult to generate sufficient interest to gather the minimum numbers required to enable industry-specific training. During April 2010 the third follow-up session of the Sustainable Farm Families Workshop was held for processing tomato growers. In July 2010 a Farm Chemical User Refresher course was also held for processing tomato growers in Echuca. These courses are held every 5 years to ensure growers maintain their accreditation to meet the requirements of the Approved Supplier Program.

Two grower crop inspections were held during 2009/10. In December the first was held at Boort which was well attended by growers, followed by a BBQ dinner at Lyndon and Michelle’s home. In late January another crop inspection occurred which travelled through Rochester and Corop, and included an inspection of a number of trials, including an industry cultivar trial and a trial by Crop Care. This was also well attended by growers and processors and finished with a dinner on the lawns at Darryl and Eril Rathjen’s home at Colbinabbin.

Communication ActivitiesThe communications component of the Technology Transfer project included a number of different activities:• A quarterly newsletter, “Tomato Topics”, continued to be

produced during the season;• The annual publication, the “Australian Processing Tomato

Grower”, was produced in September 2009. This magazine was distributed to people involved in the industry throughout Australia, and also overseas;

• The annual processing tomato forum. This was held at the beginning of May 2010, and included a presentation from Rabobank titled “The Australian Processed Tomato Industry in Global Perspective”

Research Program Enhancement Activities Once again the IDM had a close involvement in monitoring the progress of the industry funded research projects and keeping the APTRC and other industry members informed of progress.

During the past season the IDM has continued to assist researchers involved in the solids, nutrition and mycorrhizal project. This required coordination of the industry sap petiole program in conjunction with Doris Blaesing and IK Caldwell, along with providing assistance in the field with trial establishment and harvest assessment for the mycorrhiza project. During the 2009/10 season the IDM was also involved in an on-farm trial evaluating a silicon based product in conjunction with Doris Blaesing. In addition regional based group meetings were arranged with growers and researchers to discuss farm specific issues.

Due to continued APTRC budget constraints the IDM this year was once again responsible for undertaking the industry’s cultivar evaluation. Thanks must go to Tony Napier from I & I NSW for managing the trials at Darlington Point, NSW. The full reports from these trials are contained in this magazine.

Industry RepresentationIn addition to core activities the IDM continued to act as the key contact person for the industry and coordinated the activities of the APTRC. This involved responding to state or federal government issues, and providing general industry information to service companies, media and research organisations. During the past year this has included communicating with Plant Health Australia. The IDM also provided a channel for the dissemination of important information to all industry members. During November 2009 and May 2010 the IDM also represented the industry at meetings with Horticulture Australia Ltd.

Professional Development and NetworkingNetworks across horticulture have also been maintained by the IDM, with regular contact with other IDO/IDMs from across Australia. This contact has been in an informal way via phone calls and email. In addition Liz attended the 9th World Processing Tomato Congress in Estoril, Portugal. This was also attended by nine industry representatives from Australia.

AcknowledgementsThe Technology Transfer project would not be possible without the support of growers, processor representatives, Horticulture Australia program managers, researchers, consultants, and other support industry representatives.

Annual Crop Inspection - Corop


TM06001 Australian Processing Tomato Industry Representation to world Processing Tomato Council Liz Mann, Industry Development Manager, APTRC Inc and Louis Chirnside, Grower Representative APTG

The World Processing Tomato Council (WPTC) was formed in 1998 and consists of professional grower and/or processor organisations representing their production area. WPTC’s headquarters are based in Avignon (France), it is currently chaired by Jim Beecher from California, and Sophie Colvine is the General Secretary. Professional organisations from the following countries were the founding members of the Council: AMITOM countries (France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Tunisia, Egypt and Turkey), Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, USA (California). These countries have since been joined by new AMITOM members, Algeria, Jordan, and Morocco, as well as Japan, South Africa and China, while Brazil recently rejoined.

WPTC has the following objectives:• To create permanent links between professional grower and/or

processor organisations;• To study and recommend to member organisations any

action intended to better organise the markets and favour fair competition;

• To undertake any action, in agreement with its members, to increase consumption of tomato products.

It was decided that the Council would only discuss a limited list of themes and, for each theme, an autonomous Commission was created. Three Commissions were set up when the WPTC was created:• A Commission on the Exchange of Information, currently

chaired by Kebede Gashaw (California). Its tasks include collecting information on the production and consumption of tomato products, analysing it and disseminating to all members.

• A Commission on Tomato & Health currently chaired by Gwen Young (California). This commission is charged with analysing the abundance of published information, sometimes contradictory, on the health benefits of tomato products.

• A Commission on the International Legislation currently chaired by Carlo Leoni (Italy). The WPTC has been recognized as a non-government organization by the Codex Alimentarius since February 1999. As such, its representatives may attend Codex Committee meetings and express the views of its members.

• A Commission on Generic Promotion was created in November 2004 to coordinate the effort undertaken by individual associations in their domestic market to promote tomato products, with the aim of increasing the global consumption of tomato products worldwide. This commission has now been combined with the Commission on Tomato & Health.

October 2009 wPTC Meeting, The main discussions during this meeting were as follows.

Kebede Gashaw presented his activity and chaired a roundtable discussion of current production. The provisional total for the AMITOM countries stood at 16.755 million tonnes. In California, the harvest was not yet finished with the volume harvested to date at 13.316 million short tons. The total volume at this meeting was predicted to be in the order of 13.35 million short tons - 12.1 million tonnes.

Andrew Yu made a detailed presentation of the 2009 production in China which reached 8 655 000 tonnes. This was due to an increase in planted area, partly due to the low price of cotton this year, and a yield increase to 72 t/ha. The brix was higher than normal at 4.8° (the increasing use of hybrids raised the average brix - 4°brix is used as the base for the calculations). The global production figure reached during the meeting was 42.7 million tonnes. However, it was based on a Brazil production figure estimated during the meeting at 1.5 million tonnes, but later corrected to 1 million tonnes –the global estimate was then revised to 42.2 million tonnes.

Andrew Yu also made a presentation of the recipe contest recently launched in China at the initiative of WPTC and CCFIA. The contest website is at www.tomatoprc.com. The contest is progressing very well, with good coordination between China and the WPTC. Altogether, 32 winning recipes will be selected and later used for communication in China and abroad. The overall winner was announced during the Estoril congress in June.

Andrew Yu also presented a bid for China to organize the 2012 WPTC congress in Beijing. The proposal was unanimously accepted.

February 2010 wPTC Meeting, CaliforniaDiscussion once again focused on production, with 2009 being the highest production year on record. There have been significant cutbacks in contract intentions in both Europe and California; however, the general consensus was that these cutbacks would not be enough to balance production plus current inventories with increasing consumption. Therefore, inventory levels will likely remain high.

During the World Processing Tomato Council an update was also provided on the recipe contest. The contest had gone beyond all original hopes thanks to the involvement and financing of CCFIA and Tunhe. The next challenge will be how to make the best use of the recipes created to promote consumption in China and to extend this to other countries in Asia, such as India, where potential is also huge.

An update was also provided on tomatoes, health and generic promotion. Rodger Wasson discussed the activities of the Tomato Products Wellness Council (TPWC) and in particular the new emphasis on market research in 2010 to determine which messages are likely to influence the consumer.

9th world Congress on the Processing Tomato – Estoril, PortugalA group of 4 growers (Louis & Geraldine Chirnside, Stuart Hill and Roger Nolan) and 4 processors (Jason Fritsch, Richard Lawrence, Ian Bryce and Shayne Davis) attended the 9th World Congress in Estoril, in addition to Liz Mann. This event was attended by in excess of 300 delegates from across the world.

The week started with the WPTC meeting on the Sunday afternoon. At this meeting Brazil was accepted as a member of WPTC. Earlier in the day Egypt had also been accepted as a member of AMITOM. To date WPTC represents more than 95% of the processing tomatoes grown worldwide.

The first session on the Monday morning was titled “To Produce 200 tonnes/ha”. The first speaker, Dr. Josep Izquierdo from Bayer CropScience, spoke about the importance of crop protection products and that without them crop yields may be reduced by approximately 50%. Other factors which also limit crop production are limited arable land, water and climate change. Research is focused on increasing crop yields and quality while at the same time considering sustainable production methods (i.e. impact on the economy, ecology and society). To develop a new crop protection product the total cost is estimated in excess of ¤200M and takes between 8-10 years. During this time over 200,000 substances may be evaluated with only one compound actually reaching the market. The total Global Market Value of crop protection is estimated at over ¤500M, with 10% of the products as herbicides, 42% as fungicides and 58% as insecticides.

The second speaker for the morning was Dr. John Lindbo, his topic was “Molecular genetics and non-GMO variety development”. Currently there is very little diversity in commercial tomato varieties as they are 99.99% genetically identical. Tomatoes contain 12 chromosomes, with each affecting traits such as Brix and fruit firmness. Approximately 25% of the DNA contributes to the genes. To maximise crop production all genes need to be


performing at their maximum, i.e. no “slow” alleles (alleles are one of two or more versions of a gene). Molecular markers can now be used to differentiate genes and enable the process to be fast tracked by testing young plants and discarding the undesirable plants at a young age. New technologies are also available to make DNA sequencing easier and cheaper.

Dr. Timothy Conner from Monsanto followed speaking about “How Genetic Engineering Contributes to Tomato Varietal Performance”. To develop a biotech crop takes between 8-10 years and costs between $US 80-100M. Biotechnology includes GE, GM, GMO, and transgenic crops. To date the technology has been used to develop tomatoes with Lepidoptera resistance, drought tolerance and some resistance to whitefly and thrips. It is more difficult to develop resistance to viruses as strains often evolved very quickly and resistance breaks down.

The context of future tomato policy in the EU: “Prospects for CAP after 2013” was presented by Prof. Arlindo Cunha. CAP began in the early 1960’s as an interventional and protectionist measure; as a response to specific problems at specific times. In 1992 there were reforms which resulted in it being a market-oriented policy, particularly due to the oversupply of goods, and unsustainable budgets. In 1994 after the Uruguay round of GATT agreements, CAP II came into existence. It responded to a set of societal concerns; stable supply of markets, respecting the environment and biodiversity, adapting to higher global competition and price volatility, and ensuring adequate incomes. In 2013 the current budget ends and a new policy will be developed. The current cost of CAP is approximately ¤55Billion/year, which is 40% of the total EU budget. In future the CAP is likely to be less economy-driven but more budget-focused, less agricultural-focused but more focused on rurality, and less common but more national and regionally-focused.

Sikke Meerman, Chairman of the Working Group on Water and Agriculture SAI Platform was the final speaker for the Monday morning session, speaking about water and irrigation. The work of SAI can be found at www.saiplatform.org. Members include Kellogg’s, Fonterra, Nestlé, McCain, DANONE, Kraft, Lamb Weston, Unilever, McDonald’s, General Mills, Sara Lee, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Heineken. The Water Footprint (WF) of a crop is the volume of water used to grow it (evapotranspiration), plus the theoretical volume required to dilute polluted water (generated during growth) to an unpolluted condition. Water can be identified into four categories:

Blue Rivers and LakesGreen RainGrey RecycleRed Water required for diluting polluted water

The virtual-water content (VWC) of a product incorporates three categories, the blue, green and grey categories. The VWC or the number of litres of water to grow 1 kg of tomatoes varies between countries, with Australia estimated at 94, China at 168, Italy 106, USA 70, India 302 and the world average at 184. For hydroponic production in the Netherlands VWC is estimated at 8. The Australian figure reported in this presentation did appear higher than if the calculation was based on 7ML/ha and an average yield of 94 t/ha. Using these figures then this equates to approximately 74 litres.

The Monday afternoon session was titled “What the Future Holds” and was focused on processing technology and improvements beyond the farm gate. Approximately 64.7% of total product cost can be attributed to the cost of the raw product, with 7.4% to transport, 4.6% as direct costs and less than 10% attributed to the cost of energy, although the actual energy costs are about 22% of the processor margin. Evaporators and heat exchangers are the main users of energy.

Tuesday morning started with a session on “Selling/Delivering the Tomato”. The first speaker was Dr. Roel van Neerbos from H.J. Heinz. He talked about converting a brand into an “icon”. The way they converted Heinz ketchup from a “brand” into an “icon” was to advertise that the tomatoes are grown from seeds developed by Heinz just for that product, the tomatoes were harvested at optimum ripeness etc, and carefully processed in the factory with dozens of quality checks, etc. A quote from Henry John Heinz “To

improve the product in glass or can you must improve it while it is still in the ground” further strengthened this advertising campaign and also assisted in increasing sales by 6% this year.

Jonathan Banks then spoke on the increasing power of distribution, both short or long term trends. The main point of the presentation was the need to keep developing brand equity to beat private labels. This was done by promoting such things as health, convenience, indulgence and ethics. After the 2002 recession there was a 9% growth in sales for companies that did not promote and market their products, compared to a 276% growth for companies that did promote and market their products.

Tuesday afternoon’s session was titled “The continuing Growth in Consumption”. The first couple of speakers, Prof. Rueff and Dr. Suganuma spoke about tomatoes, lycopene and human health, including an outline of oxidative stress, and the damage it causes the body. Lycopene, along with Vitamins C & D, are considered antioxidative enzymes which may help alleviate this process.

Yelong Qin from China followed with a talk on “Will the new generation’s Chinese population consume processed tomatoes?” Consumption in China is currently expected to increase considerably in the coming years. During 2009/10 only 207,000 tonnes of paste (28/30%Brix) were consumed in China. This is likely to increase in the future as children and teenagers prefer the western diet incorporating KFC, McDonald’s, pizzas, etc. In addition WPTC has this year undertaken a recipe competition in China to assist in increasing the consumption of processed tomato products within the country.

Russia has also seen remarkable growth in consumption during the past years. During the past 10 years imports of processed tomato products has increased by 130%, with approximately 94% of the domestic demand being imported from China, Uzbekistan and Iraq. This occurred at the same time as a drop in local production, resulting from a decrease in government support. Russian diets are typically rich in soups and main dishes, with 87% of the population regularly consuming tomato products. Of this group approximately 34% produce their own processed tomato products due to the final taste and price. Tomato juice is also the third most popular juice on the market and has 11% of the total juice market.

Production and consumption in Brazil has also changed over the past years. The population of Brazil is 190M and growing rapidly. GDP is growing at 6.5%. The industry has grown 17% in three years, and per capita consumption is currently at 17.4kg. Approximately 60,000 ha of tomatoes are grown each year, with about one third used for processing. Crop yields average some 76 t/ha, although during 2007 the average yield reached 82 t/ha. The crop is a winter crop, with 120 days from seeding to harvest and temperatures ranging between 21-28oC. The main challenges for the country are high humidity, and the associated bacterial & fungal diseases.

On Tuesday night the Gala Dinner was held at Palácio Nacional de Queluz, a Portuguese 18th-century palace located at Queluz. The evening started with an equestrian show and was followed by drinks outside the second major part of the palace, the great western wing, known as the Robillon wing. The Dinner followed and was held in the gardens, with most delegates wrapping themselves in green blankets to keep warm. The evening concluded with a concert inside the palace by Mariza, a Portuguese singer, followed by a walk through the palace to the parked buses.

The final session on Wednesday was titled “Sustainable Production”. The first speaker was Prof. Soromenho Marques speaking about global warming or climate change. He spoke about crisis (pain and hope) versus collapse (pain and oblivion). He also stated that climate change is a symptom of dysfunctional social and economic practices and policies. It is a social and economic issue. The emphasis needs to shift. He also mentioned that crop production, thus food, would increase if the human diet became less reliant on meat. The three main challenges affecting food production are: climate change, globalisation and global inequality.

The next presentation forecast the European Union in 30-40 years’ time. In 1950 Europe had 15% of the world’s population, while


in 2010 it has 7.2%. By 2050 it is estimated that Europe will only represent 5.4%. After 2050, it is forecast that the world’s population will actually start decreasing. The GDP for China as a percentage of the world’s was 4.66% in 1950, 12.5% in 2009, and is expected to be 24.3% in 2050. At the same time as global population increases and shifts, world energy demand will double from 2001 to 2050, and water availability per capita will decrease, especially in Africa and Asia.

The final presentation before the closing ceremony was from Paul Roberts, author of “The End of Food”, California, USA. For the first world countries, food is 10-20% of the household cost, whereas for the third world, food is 50-90% of household cost. In 2008 a peak in gas price occurred prior to the peak in fertiliser price. The biofuel policy effectively linked grain production with fuel, thus the cost of food increased. To maintain food production into the future we need to manage a number of other issues, including soil degradation. At the moment it has been predicted that global soil loss is 75 billion short tons/year, with 80% of the world’s farmland already moderately to severely degraded. In China it has been predicted that the level of soil loss is 57 times greater than the natural rate of creation, whereas in Europe this is 17 times and in the USA 10 times. The closing statement from Paul was that we need to remember to never waste a good crisis, as out of this can come innovation, authentic ingredients and market diversity.

Following the Official Congress the Australian delegates (minus

Ian Bryce), participated in a tour through to Benavente, where we visited tomato fields and a processing factory, before heading towards Évora for an overnight stay. The next morning we toured the city before heading towards Águas de Moura and visiting a second tomato processing factory. This tour provided not only an opportunity to inspect tomato fields and factories but to also experience some Portuguese history and culture, and network with fellow congress delegates.

IntroductionI&I NSW and the Australian Processing Tomato industry continued the cultivar evaluation program. The aim of the program in NSW for 2009/10 was to evaluate existing commercial early sown varieties in a direct seeded and furrow irrigated system. One replicated, machine harvested processing tomato variety trial was established in NSW for the 2009/10 season.

SummaryA slight negative correlation could be seen between marketable fruit yield and percentage brix. The higher a variety yielded, the lower the percentage brix.

H7204 recorded the highest marketable fruit yield but the lowest percentage brix while SPS669-6 recorded the lowest marketable fruit yield but the highest percentage brix.

H7204 recorded the highest Total Soluble Solids (TSS) yield with 6.43 t/ha but was statistically similar to all other varieties.

SPS669-6 produced the largest average fruit size in the trial.

Materials and methodsLocation and timeThe trial was sown in a commercial crop owned by Jim Geltch, near Darlington Point. The trial was sown on the 9th September 2009 and first irrigated on 23/9/09. It was harvested on 8th February 2010 giving a growing time of 138 days from first irrigation to harvest. After 138 days SPS669-6 had just reached 80% red fruit while ENP113, H3002 and H7204 were about ten days past 80% red fruit. The lab assessments were conducted on the 9th February 2010.

VarietiesNo Variety Source1 ENP113 Lefroy Valley2 H3002 Heinz3 H7204 Heinz4 SPS669-6 South Pacific Seeds

Table 1: Varieties evaluated in the NSW processing tomato trial – 2009/10

Irrigation and sowing methodThe trial was direct seeded into 1.8m beds and furrow irrigated. A three bed Sfoggia seeder was used (the grower’s equipment)

to sow the trial. The trial was sown with two plant lines per bed at the same seeding rate as the surrounding commercial crop (approximately 110,000 seeds per hectare).

Trial design and statistical analysisThere were four treatments (varieties) replicated four times. Original plot size was 700m by one bed (1.8m). The trial design was not fully randomised, but designed to minimise disruption to the grower at the time of sowing the trial. Data was analysed by ANOVA and if significant differences (P<0.05) were obtained amongst the treatments, the treatment means were then separated by Tukey’s test. The original plot size was 700m by one bed but was later reduced to 150m by one bed when the surrounding commercial crop needed to be resown. Yield assessments were then planned to be conducted by harvesting the entire 150m plots using Cedenco’s commercial harvesting equipment and trailer load cells. Unfortunately this was unable to be done due to irrigation and fungicide treatments at the time of harvest. Final harvest assessments were conducted on 3m of bed per plot.

AssessmentsA random 3m length was hand harvested from every plot in the trial and recorded for total yield. Sub-samples between 12 to 15kg were saved from every plot to calculate the percentage of small, red, green and rotten fruit. Fruit that could fit through a 31mm diameter hole were considered as small fruit. The marketable yield was calculated using the yield of red fruit only. The weight of small, green and rotten fruit was not included in the calculation of marketable yield. The average fruit size was calculated from all red fruit collected at harvest. Soluble solids were measured by combining 15 randomly selected red fruit collected at harvest.

Results

VarietyMarketable yield (t/ha)

% TSS(Brix)

TSS Yield(tTSS/ha)

Fruit size(g)

ENP113 100.67 b 5.24 ab 5.27 a 50.86 abH3002 113.25 ab 4.94 b 5.59 a 52.37 abH7204 134.52 a 4.78 b 6.43 a 47.77 bSPS669-6 91.00 b 5.75 a 5.22 a 63.04 a

Treatments sharing a common letter are not significantly different by Tukey’s test at P = 0.05.

NSw processing tomato variety evaluation - 2009/10 trialTony Napier – I&I NSW

Stuart Hill and Roger Nolan on the Post Congress Tour


NSW Processing Tomato Variety Trial - 2009/10TSS yield (t/ha)

ENP113 (5.28)

H3002 (5.60)

H7204 (6.42)

SPS669-6 (5.23)

80

100

120

140

4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

% Brix

Frui

t yie

ld (t

/ha)

David Collins

6t/ha TSS

5t/ha TSS

Graph 1: Results of the NSW processing tomato variety trial – 2009/10

ConclusionH7204 had the highest marketable fruit yield in the trial with 134.52 t/ha which was statistically similar to H3002 with 113.25 t/ha. H7204 had a significantly higher marketable yield than ENP113 and SPS669-6. Fruit from SPS669-6 recorded the highest percentage brix at 5.75% which was statistically similar to ENP113 with 5.24%. SPS669-6 had a significantly higher percentage brix than H3002 and H7204. H7204 had the highest TSS yield with 6.42 t/ha which was statistically similar to all other varieties. SPS669-6 had the largest average fruit size in the trial with 63.04 g/fruit which was statistically similar to ENP113 and H3002. SPS669-6 was significantly larger than H7204.

Visual assessments of crop maturityFruit counts prior to harvest demonstrated that SPS669-6 was a longer maturing variety than the other three varieties. It was estimated that SPS669-6 needed 135 days to reach 80% red fruit while ENP113, H3002 and H7204 needed 127 days to reach 80% red fruit.

NSw processing tomato variety evaluation – Four year averagesOver the last four seasons I&I NSW have conducted seven early season variety trials including four replicated machine harvested trials and three replicated hand harvested trials. During this time the five commercial varieties H3002, H7204, SPS669-6, Early Magnum and ENP113 were included in the trials. ENP113, H3002 and H7204 were included in all seven trials, Early Magnum was included in five trials while SPS669-6 was included in four of the trials.

ENP113 can now be used as the standard variety in these trials to indicate the performance of the other commercial varieties. All the trials were direct seeded into double rows and furrow irrigated. The trials were all sown during September and harvested between 22nd January and 8th February. All seven trials have been individually analysed and previously reported to industry.

The following data are the average results of the five commercial varieties included in the variety trials over the last four years. The results are given in comparison to how ENP113 performed. ENP113 averaged 78 t/ha of fruit yield at 5.5% Brix and a Total Soluble Solids (TSS) yield of 4.2 t/ha over the four years.

Results

Average Fruit Yield

-9

-6

-3

0

3

6

9

12

ENP113 H3002 H7204 SPS669-6 EarlyMagnum

% c

ompa

red

to E

NP

113

Graph 2: Four year average of fruit yield (t/ha) compared to ENP113

Average Brix Percentage

-9

-6

-3

0

3

6

9

12


% c

ompa

red

to E

NP1

13

Graph 3: Four year average of brix (%) compared to ENP113

Average TSS Yield

-9.0

-6.0

-3.0

0.0

3.0

6.0

9.0

12.0


% c

ompa

red

to E

NP1

13

Graph 4: Four year average of TSS yield (t/ha) compared to ENP113

ConclusionWhen the early season variety trials are averaged over the last four years, H7204 achieved the highest average fruit yield with a 12.1% higher average yield than ENP113. H3002 achieved the second highest average yield at 3.8% higher than ENP113 (see Graph 2). SPS669-6 achieved the highest average Brix% at 6.3% higher than ENP113 while ENP113 achieved the second highest average Brix% (see Graph 3). H7204 produced the highest average TSS yield at 7.8% higher than ENP113. SPS669-6 recorded the second highest average TSS yield at 2.4% higher than ENP113 (see Graph 4). SPS669-6 produced the largest average fruit size which was 18.8% larger than any other variety.

AcknowledgementsI would like to gratefully acknowledge Jim Geltch and the Rorato family for hosting the trials over the past four seasons plus Liz Mann for her technical advice and organisational skills. The machine harvesting operations conducted by Cedenco and hand harvesting conducted by I&I NSW staff is also gratefully acknowledged.


IntroductionThe Australian Processing Tomato industry once again continued the cultivar evaluation program, following a simplified format similar to the previous year. Three replicated, machine harvested processing tomato variety trials were planted in Victoria during the 2009/10 season, although only two went to completion.

SummarySun 6366 recorded the highest yield at Corop, although this was not the case at Rochester, due to a later harvest and fruit breaking down. At Rochester H5803 yielded the highest. In both places the highest yielding variety was not significantly different to H3402, H3506, H4001, TOM 90031 or TOM 90032.

H4401 recorded the highest brix at both sites, but was statistically similar to all varieties except Early Magnum at Corop. At Rochester H4401 was statistically higher than all varieties except Sun 6366, H5803, TOM 90032 and SPS 669-6.

In both trials Sun 6366, SPS 669-6 and TOM 90032 all had brix levels higher than H3402, the industry standard.

At both trial sites all Heinz and the TOM (or United Genetics) varieties showed very little breakdown at harvest.

Lycopene levels of individual varieties greatly varied, although H4401 showed the highest level at both sites.

Materials and methodsLocation and timeThe trials were planted in commercial crops, located near Rochester and Corop. All transplants were either raised by Boomaroo or Berwick Speedy Seedlings. The first trial was planted at Kennedy’s property at Corop on the 14th October 2009. The second trial at SS Farms, Timmering on the 26th October 2009, with the third trial planted on the 28th October 2009 at North Central Produce, Rochester.

The second trial which was planted at SS Farms was terminated shortly after establishment due to herbicide damage. The other trials were carried through until harvest, with the first trial harvested on the 24th February 2010, and the third trial harvested on the 5th March 2010.

VarietiesNo Variety Source1 SPS 669-6 South Pacific Seeds2 Early Magnum Lefroy Valley3 TOM 90031 (UG18806) Lefroy Valley4 TOM 90032 (UG19406) Lefroy Valley5 H5803 Heinz6 H3506 Heinz7 H4001 Heinz8 H3402 Heinz9 H4401 Heinz10 Sun 6366 Nunhems

Table 1: Varieties evaluated in the Victorian processing tomato trials – 2009/10

Irrigation and sowing methodThe trials were transplanted into 1.52m beds and irrigated via sub-surface drip in commercial fields. All crop management was performed by the grower.

Trial design and statistical analysisThere were ten treatments (varieties) replicated three times at each of the trial sites. Plot size was 1 bed in width (1.52m), but the length varied between sites, aiming for lengths of between 125-135m. The trial design was fully randomised. H4401 was only replicated twice at the first trial site due to the lack of plants.

Data was analysed by ANOVA and if significant differences (P<0.05) were obtained amongst the treatments, the treatment means were then separated by Tukey’s test.

Plot yields were obtained during the machine harvest by using either the Cedenco or Heinz load cells contained on their bulk harvest trailers. At both harvests the crops contained very little or no green fruit.

AssessmentsPlot yields were obtained for each individual plot using the load cells on the bulk trailers. Soluble solids were measured from 20 randomly selected red fruit per plot, collected from the machine during harvest. This fruit was cut in half and juiced to produce one sample per plot. Juice for lycopene testing was also collected during this process. Soluble solids were measured using a Palm Abbe Digital Refractometer and lycopene was measured using a Maselli Misure LC01 Colorimeter + Spectrophotometer.

Results

Kennedy Agricultural Co Trial (First Trial), Corop

Variety Yield (t/ha)

% SS (Brix)

TSS Yield (tTSS/ha)

Yield @ 5%Brix

Lycopene (mg/kg)

SPS669-6 149.5 b 5.0 a 7.47 149.5 100.3Early Magnum 157.9 ab 4.1 b 6.53 130.6 98.0TOM 90031 161.7 ab 4.5 ab 7.22 144.5 81.0TOM 90032 159.4 ab 4.8 a 7.65 153.0 85.7H5803 170.4 ab 4.5 ab 7.72 154.5 94.7H3506 168.3 ab 4.6 ab 7.80 155.9 97.5H4001 161.6 ab 4.5 ab 7.22 144.4 105.5H3402 171.6 ab 4.6 ab 7.95 159.0 112.7H4401 153.3 b 5.3 a 8.13 162.5 115.5Sun 6366 178.3 a 4.9 a 8.74 174.8 104.0Treatments sharing a common letter are not significantly different by Tukey’s test at P = 0.05.

NB. Lycopene measurements were only conducted using 1 sample rep per variety and were frozen prior to testing

Kennedy machine harvest tomato trial - 2009/10 tonnes/ha solids

Early Magnum

H3506TOM 90031H4001

H3402H5803

TOM 90032H4401

Sun 6366

SPS 669-6

6 t/ha of solids 7 t/ha of solids

8 t/ha of solids

130.00

140.00

150.00

160.00

170.00

180.00

4.00 4.20 4.40 4.60 4.80 5.00 5.20 5.40

Average Brix

Ave

rage

t/ha

Kennedy machine harvest tomato trial - 2009/10tonnes/ha and Brix

178a

153b

172ab

162ab

168ab

170ab

149b

158ab 162ab

159ab

4.9a

4.5ab

4.6ab4.5ab

4.8a

4.5ab

4.6ab

4.1b

5.0a

5.3a

145.0

150.0

155.0

160.0

165.0

170.0

175.0

180.0

SPS

669

-6

Ear

ly M

agnu

m

TOM

900

31

TOM

900

32

H58

03

H35

06

H40

01

H34

02

H44

01

Sun

636

6

Variety

Frui

t Yie

ld (T

/ha)

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

4.5

4.7

4.9

5.1

5.3

5.5

Brix

Average t/haAverage Brix

NCP Trial (Third Trial), Rochester

VarietyYield (t/ha)

% SS (Brix)

TSS Yield (tTSS/ha)

Yield @ 5%Brix

Lycopene (mg/kg)

SPS669-6 84.7 c 5.7 ab 4.80 96.0 114.6 aEarly Magnum 98.4 bc 4.7 c 4.62 92.5 117.3 aTOM 90031 106.8 ab 5.1 bc 5.48 109.6 113.7 aTOM 90032 112.8 ab 5.6 ab 6.32 126.3 114.2 aH5803 117.2 a 5.4 ab 6.33 126.5 111.8 aH3506 104.2 ab 5.2 bc 5.38 107.7 112.2 a

H4001 111.0 ab 5.1 bc 5.70 114.0 99.6 a

H3402 115.0 ab 5.2 bc 6.02 120.4 104.5 a

H4401 106.8 ab 5.8 a 6.19 123.9 120.1 a

Sun 6366 98.4 bc 5.5 ab 5.45 108.9 109.9 aTreatments sharing a common letter are not significantly different by Tukey’s test at P = 0.05.

Victorian Processing Tomato Variety Trial - 2009/010Liz Mann, Industry Development Manager, APTRC Inc


NCP machine harvest tomato trial - 2009/10 tonnes/ha solids

Early Magnum

H3506

TOM 90031H4001

H3402 H5803TOM 90032

H4401

Sun 6366

SPS 669-6 5 t/ha of solids

6 t/ha of solids

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9

Average Brix

Ave

rage

t/ha

NCP machine harvest tomato trial - 2009/10tonnes/ha and Brix

113ab

107ab

98bc

85c

117a

104ab

111ab115ab

107ab

98bc

5.8a5.7ab

4.7c

5.2bc5.1bc

5.6ab

5.4ab5.2bc 5.1bc

5.5ab

75

85

95

105

115

125

135

145

SPS

669

-6

Ear

ly M

agnu

m

TOM

900

31

TOM

900

32

H58

03

H35

06

H40

01

H34

02

H44

01

Sun

636

6

Variety

Frui

t Yie

ld (T

/ha)

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

4.5

4.7

4.9

5.1

5.3

5.5

5.7

5.9

Brix

Average t/haAverage Brix

ConclusionBoth trials were perhaps past what could be considered their optimum harvest date, with the Corop trial being harvested at 133 days and the Rochester trial harvested at 138 days. This was reflected in a couple of the varieties which were soft and beginning to break down. SPS 669-6 was perhaps the softest variety followed by Sun 6366 and Early Magnum. In both trials H4401 was slightly later maturing, although very few to no green fruit were present at harvest.

Sun 6366 recorded the highest yield at Corop, although this was not the case at Rochester due to a later harvest and fruit breaking down. At Rochester H5803 yielded the highest. In both places

the highest yielding variety was not significantly different to the H3402 or H3506, H4001, TOM 90031 or TOM 90032.

The TOM or United Genetics varieties, TOM 90031 and TOM 90032 both appeared to hold very well with fruit firmness appearing similar to that of the Heinz varieties.

H5803 continued to perform well again this year, producing the highest average yield and one of the highest brix levels at Rochester, while also being in the highest performing group for yield and solids at Corop.

H4401 this year performed well at both sites, producing the highest brix. The yield at Corop was slightly lower than some of the other varieties perhaps due to a few green fruit still being present, although the yield was not significantly different at P=0.05 than the other Heinz varieties. At Rochester H4401 produced a higher yield than three of the non-Heinz varieties which had began to breakdown.

In both trials Sun 6366, SPS 669-6 and TOM 90032 all had brix levels higher than H3402, the industry standard.

Lycopene levels of individual varieties differed greatly, with no significant difference being found between varieties at either site.

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

Lyco

pene

(mg/

kg)

SP

S 6

69-6

Ear

ly M

agnu

m

TOM

900

31

TOM

900

32

H58

03

H35

06

H40

01

H34

02

H44

01

Sun

636

6

Variety

Lycopene Levels Variety Trials 2009/10

NCPKennedy

AcknowledgementsI would like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance provided by all people involved in the transplanting at each of the three properties, including the growers (Kennedy Agricultural Co., North Central Produce, and SS Farms) for the use of their property and Cedenco and Heinz for providing the load cells for harvest.

TM06004 The effect of Silicon (Si) on yield and soluble solids (brix%) of processing tomatoesLiz Mann, Industry Development Manager, APTRC Inc and Doris Blaesing, RM Consulting Group

IntroductionSilicon used as a plant nutrient has the potential to improve cell strength and plant defences against stress, including pests and diseases.1

The trial evaluated a Silicon (Si) product called MaxSil, applied pre-planting, and its effect on yield, soluble solids and Si uptake into plants, as well as the effect on nutrient uptake and balances.

The silicon used in the trial was blended with a small amount of humate (and other inert material). This material was used as a binder to make the MaxSil granules. The effective rate of Si in MaxSil was 20% of the product weight applied (2,000 ppm soluble silicon) The CEC (Cation Exchange Capacity) of the material was 130 meq/100g.

The trial was set up in a crop planted on the 16th November 2010 in a complete replicated block design on Geoff Wolfe’s property with the following treatments:Treatment Product application rate (kg/ha) Si application rate (kg/ha)

1 50 102 100 203 0 - Untreated control 0

Trial PlanBlock 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 42 3 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 2

AssessmentsDuring the season complete nutrient uptake testing2 was conducted at two stages of plant growth:• early fruit set around Growth Stage 4.2 and

• early fruit ripening / first red fruit around Growth Stage 6.1At stage 6.1, red fruit was collected for a nutrient uptake and soluble solids (brix) analysis.

At harvest, on the 8th April 2010 (143 days after planting), yield data was obtained by harvesting the full row of each plot using a commercial harvester and load cells. A full fruit nutrient and brix analysis was conducted from fruit randomly collected during harvest.

An analysis of variance was conducted on trial data.

Results Petiole samples did not show differences in nutrient levels at both sampling dates.

Rate (kg/ha)

NO3 (ppm)

P (ppm)

K (ppm) Ca (ppm) Mg (ppm)

S (ppm)

0 34.5 158.3 2581 79.3 86.8 108.350 36.0 156.5 2744 87.5 93.8 113.5

100 36.0 161.5 2731 96.0 91.8 110.8


Rate (kg/ha)

Zn (ppm)

B (ppm) Cu (ppm) Fe (ppm) Mn (ppm)

Mo (ppm)

0 1.68 0.47 3.27 2.14 0.62 0.0750 1.74 0.47 3.32 2.42 0.66 0.07

100 1.93 0.44 3.36 2.47 0.69 0.08

Rate (kg/ha)

Si (ppm)

Brix (%)

All nutrients (ppm) Cl (ppm)

Na (ppm)

0 3.01 4.95 3059 306.5 97.350 3.46 5.30 3243 328.0 101.3

100 3.49 5.18 3239 311.3 107.3

Table 1 – Nutrient levels and brix % in mature fruit (GS 6.1) – mean values from 2 MaxSil applications and one control

The results in Table 1 show that the application of Si enhanced overall nutrient uptake and brix levels. However, this trend was not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.

Previous work on processing tomato nutrition, conducted as part of this project, has shown that an improvement in overall nutrient uptake and particularly in cations is usually linked to better yield and quality. The project work showed that high nutrient uptake or accumulation is not related to the amount of fertilisers applied but is linked to nutrient uptake conditions in the root zone, such as soil structure, soil biology and nutrient interactions as well as the physiological condition of the plant e.g. level of stress. The observation that Si can enhance or balance nutrient uptake has been described previously.3

The improvement in nutrient uptake also means that elements like chloride and sodium, which can be toxic at high levels are taken up in greater amounts. However, the typical reduction of K uptake with increased uptake of Na did not occur. This confirms work conducted on the effect of Si on salinity stress in plants where an increase in K uptake was found in Si treated plants under saline conditions compared to untreated plants.4

Brix levels did not show statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level. Tomatoes from the 50 kg/ha rate had, on average, the highest brix levels.

Yield Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Average 1 Average 2 0 kg/ha 126 132 135 124 129.3 129.3

50 kg/ha 139 128 132 125 131.0 131.0100 kg/ha 123 133 109 136 125.4 130.8

Lycopene Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Average 1 Average 2 0 kg/ha 81.6 90.7 85.0 113.7 92.8 92.8

50 kg/ha 94.3 99.0 87.7 96.0 94.3 94.3100 kg/ha 94.3 87.0 39.7 98.7 79.9 93.3

Table 2 – Yields and Lycopene levels – Si trial

Yields and Lycopene did not produce statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level (Table 2). The 100 kg/ha rate in block 3 seemed low in yield and Lycopene compared to other plots. Two averages have been calculated to show the data with and without inclusion of this plot, with Average 1 including all the data and Average 2 excluding this plot.

Plate 1 – Photos showing trial plots on 1-3-2010; from left to right: 0 kg/ha, 50kg/ha and 100 kg/ha

The photos in Plate 1 show that the application of Si may have affected fruit maturity. Fruit in plots treated with the highest rate showed more red colouring on 1st March 2010 than fruit in untreated plots. If Si affected the maturity of fruit, this may have to be considered in yield and quality assessment for trials i.e. plots should be assessed at the industry standard for optimum harvest maturity (80% red fruit for processing tomatoes). The results of this trial may have been affected by differences in maturity at the time of harvest.

Conclusions and recommendations• Silicon, applied to processing tomatoes as MaxSil in a replicated

trial, did not lead to significant differences in nutrient uptake, yield or quality at the 95% confidence level.

• MaxSil may accelerate fruit maturity. This means for the trial that the optimum harvest date for the commercial crop may have been too late for one or both of the MaxSil treatments.

• Application of MaxSil may increase total nutrient and especially cation uptake into fruit, which has been an indicator for increased yield potential and soluble solids production.

• In further trials with Si products in tomatoes, harvest assessments should be conducted at optimum commercial harvest maturity for each treatment.

AcknowledgementsAdvanced Plant Nutrition Pty Ltd and Horticulture Australia Limited funded the trial. IK Caldwell supplied crop sampling services. Geoff Wolfe for assisting with the establishment of the trial.

1 Epstein, E., 1994; Review: The anomaly of silicon in plant biology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 91, pp. 11-17

2 NU-test sap analysis, AgVita Analytical Pty Ltd 3 Jian Feng M. and Naoki Y., 2006; Silicon uptake and accumulation in higher

plants. Review Article, Trends in Plant Science Vol.11 No.84 P. Zuccarini, 2008; Effects of silicon on photosynthesis, water relations and

nutrient uptake of Phaseolus vulgaris under NaCl stress. Biologia Plantarum, Springer Netherlands, 157-160

This project focused on supporting processing tomato growers to achieve their strategic goal of producing high yielding crops (average of 90-100 tonnes per hectare) with high levels of soluble solids (average > 5% fruit brix).

The processing tomato industry has undergone rapid change in the past 10-15 years. A major driver has been that irrigation practices increasingly moved from furrow to drip irrigation. Drip irrigation allowed for increased water use efficiency and fertigation, which led to a major increase in average industry yields.

In furrow-irrigated crops, all nutrients apart from nitrogen (N) had to be pre-applied. Most of the nitrogen was applied during the growing season as water-run urea, which is the only fertiliser that suits furrow irrigation. It has no electrical charge and therefore does not ‘stick’ to soil particles, and does not lead to a gradient in

nutrient levels in the water from one end of a furrow to the other.

The tomato nutrition strategy that had been developed under furrow irrigation was continued with drip irrigation. While the effect on yield was positive the effect on the soluble solids (brix) levels of fruit was negative. This was partly due to variety selection, as some varieties show a strong negative correlation between yield and soluble solids levels while others can produce high yield without a significant drop in soluble solids levels. Previous work had shown that the decline in soluble solids levels could also be attributed to crop nutrition factors and irrigation management1.

While fertiliser practices were initially not modified with the introduction of subsurface drip irrigation, cropping rotations

TM06004 Nutrition and soil management for high yielding, high soluble solids processing tomatoesDoris Blaesing, RM Consulting Group


changed from one tomato crop every four to five years to, up to, four years of tomatoes in the same paddock, in order to make best use of the expensive irrigation infrastructure.

The change in irrigation and rotation combined with maintaining the ‘traditional’ nutrition strategy had the following consequences:

1. Yields increased and soluble solid levels (brix%) dropped;

2. The increase in tomato yield and number of tomato crops grown over a five-year period led to a massive increase in nutrients removed from the root zone which growers had to adjust to in thinking and practices;

3. The need to develop fertigation practices that moved away from traditional concepts to support high soluble solids yields required an adjustment of thinking and practices with regard to crop nutrition as outlined in the following table (Table 1):

Issue Practice adjustment Key questions

Type, timing and amounts of pre-plant fertiliser applications

Not all nutrients (apart from N) required by the crop need to be pre-applied because fertigation allows in-crop applications

A range of solid fertilisers are available that have different nutrient combinations, concentrations, salt indices, nutrient availability and distribution (e.g. mixes vs compounds), ease of access and price. Which elements need to be pre-applied; how much is required; in which form and how close to planting?

Type, timing and amounts of in-crop fertiliser applications

Fertigation can be tailored to crop demand; trace elements and nutrients important for fruit quality, (e.g. calcium or potassium) could be applied at certain growth stages

A wide range of liquid and soluble fertilisers is available with different nutrient combinations, concentrations, salt indices, nutrient availability, ease of access & use (e.g. mixing compatibility) and price. Which elements are required at which crop stage and how much is needed; do some fertilisers perform better than others in regards to availability or uptake efficiency even though they contain the same nutrients?

Foliar fertilisers

Foliar fertiliser technology has developed over the past years and most fertilisers can be mixed with pesticides so that application costs are not high

A wide range of foliar fertilisers is available with different nutrient combinations, concentrations, ease of access, mixing compatibility with different pesticides and price - can foliar fertilisers be used at times of crop stress or to deal with imbalances that cannot be addressed via fertigation either due to soil (wetness, nutrient fixing) or weather conditions (e.g. rain, heat); how effective are foliar fertilisers?

Products used as crop and soil ‘enhancers or activators’

Decisions about the cost benefit of crop and soil enhancers have to be made

A wide range of products are now available that claim to support nutrient uptake, improve root growth or resistance to diseases or alleviate plant stress – do some of these products provide value above good soil and crop management practices?

Manures Spreading and incorporating manures or composts can contribute to crop nutrition and soil health and improve water holding capacity

Which type of manure / compost; how much to use and when, how often; how to adjust fertigation to account for nutrients in the manure / compost; what is the cost / benefit?

Mycorrhiza Mycorrhiza can increase P, N and water use ef ficiency

Do tomato crops develop a mycorrhiza association naturally; if yes, how can this be improved – soil management, inputs, inoculation, when and how can this be used?

Table 1: Summary of the major fertiliser issues, adjustment in practice required and some key questions

4. The use of subsurface drip irrigation combined with several years of tomato cropping in the same paddock led to compaction around drip lines over time and appeared to affect overall soil health. Growers had to understand and consider soil health management options such as minimising tillage, incorporating crop residues, using green crops, using

manures or composts, and using fertilisers that do not increase soil salinity. Some simple tools and an understanding of soil testing data were required to assess and manage soil heath, salinity and structure (compaction);

5. The lack of rotation often led to plant health decline after the 2nd or 3rd crop in the same paddock; growers had to understand the interactions between soil and plant health and consider management options, including the use of manures/composts, soil or plant health enhancing products and mycorrhiza.

Apart from variety selection and irrigation management, crop nutrition and soil health management were identified as major factors that needed to be adapted to turn the situation of decreasing soluble solids levels associated with increasing yields around.

For crop nutrition, this meant changing approaches that had been developed for furrow irrigation which had limitations e.g. in regards to the type and timing of fertiliser use.

The main challenges were:1. To develop a nutrient management approach with industry

that fits with:a) subsurface drip irrigation and fertigation technologiesb) fertiliser products suitable for fertigationc) the available range of granular fertilisers e.g. custom

blends or compound fertilisersd) paddock-specific soil conditions and rotatione) tomato nutrition requirements at different physiological

growth stages;2. For the project manager, growers and their advisers to

understand soil health management options under the intensive tomato production system with up to four tomato crops in consecutive years;

3. To prove that the chosen nutrition and soil management approaches work for growers and their crops i.e. that they deliver the required nutrient amounts and balances, yields, soluble solids, ease of use, cost / benefit, sustainability and low risk of failure;

4. To support growers and their advisers in the understanding and adoption of new approaches, practices and decision making processes through adequate delivery of relevant information (‘right’ content and delivery methods)

The challenges were met through:1. Consulting with growers, the industry development manager,

agronomists, fertiliser specialists and researchers to understand:a) current nutrition, irrigation and soil management

practices and options for change, if requiredb) fertilisers and techniques used pre-planting and at

planting, and options for change, if requiredc) fertilisers suitable for fertigation and recommended usesd) typical water and soil constraints that may influence

fertiliser use efficiency through effects on root growth and function and options for improvement, if required

e) technologies, products or management methods that may improve nutrient use efficiency (e.g. soil conditioning products, ways to increase organic carbon, methods to improve root function and crop health e.g. tomato mycorrhiza or stimulants);

2. Individual farm visits, paddock surveys and grower group meetings to assess and understand the soil health status, interactions with nutrient uptake and crop outcomes and to discuss rotation and soil management options;

3. Field trials in commercial crops based on:a) input from growers, the industry development manager,

agronomists and fertiliser specialists to identify, nutrients, products or soil management options to investigate, and to formulate trial objectives, and methods

b) large-scale nutrition monitoring of commercial crops to provide feedback to growers on how their chosen fertiliser program, rotation, irrigation and soil management


affect soils and crops, and environmental outcomes (e.g. nutrient leaching, water use efficiency);

4. Refining and fostering the understanding of crop nutrition and soil monitoring principles and methods for processing tomatoes, and options for reacting to monitoring results especially through adjusting fertiliser programs, soil management approaches or rotations, including green crops;

5. Using a range of methods and ways to provide decision and risk management support such as:a) demonstrating that suggested new approaches and

technologies are based on an understanding of processing tomato production systems, the wider context of the farming businesses, environmental and resource pressures or economic pressures and industry relations

b) working closely with the industry development manager c) networking and making connections between people that

may support the industry through their knowledge and access to technologies

d) challenging assumptions and established practices3) individual farm visits and one-on-one conversationsf) discussion groups (regional / ‘neighbourhood’ groups)g) publications in industry newsletters and magazinesh) workshops and field daysi) presentations at industry Research &Development ( R&D)

eventsj) participation in R&D and crop nutrition planning meetingsk) preparation of decision support tools (e.g. nutrient

budgeting calculator, a nutrient management manual, nutrition and irrigation monitoring interpretation poster)

Industry statistics illustrate that the project outcomes, along with variety improvements, reverted the downward trend in fruit soluble solids levels that had come about with the increasing use of subsurface drip irrigation and the related improvement in tomato yields.

This project provides an example of how the introduction of a new technology (subsurface drip irrigation) into a production system can have positive2 and negative3 effects that require a major adjustment in thinking and management approaches, not only for the target crop but also whole farming systems. It highlights that a pure technology focus and the sole use of traditional Research and Development and Extension approaches may not be sufficient to support new decision making processes that lead to the adaptation of R&D outcomes in dynamic and complex farming systems.

The project identified that successful extension i.e. the acceptance of new approaches or technologies requires:• consultation with growers, organisations and individuals who

are informing decision making processes in farming businesses for the target industry

• a clear understanding of the issues, priorities, motivation and goals of the target group(s)

• building relationships, networks, trust and mutual respect• understanding the farming, industry, social and cultural

context• understanding the baseline knowledge and capacity to use

new concepts in the target group• understanding that risk management is a major driver for

decision making • understanding that farming requires complex decisions to

be made which consider and affect the whole business and farming family, and may affect communities

• understanding that principles, attitudes and beliefs as well as industry and community perception or pressures have a strong

influence on complex decision making• capacity building and adaptive management approaches

based on principles of adult learning• sound technical knowledge and R&D skills• evaluation of project outcomes to investigate to what degree

goals have been achieved, and if not, what can be done about it (review)

The final project report submitted to the funding organisations presents and discusses:• technical information based on the outcomes of trials and

surveys, and • approaches to extension, capacity building and managing

change that are based on principles of systems thinking, and an understanding of complex decision-making and adaptive management.

The project report recommendations are to support farming businesses that are part of the processing tomato industry in: • continuing the self management of RD&E and strategic

planning as an industry• capacity building, especially the professional and personal

development of young growers• developing new cropping and business opportunities• business management, decision making and succession

planning• the ability to compete with overseas producers through

production efficiencies and cost reduction (e.g. in relation to labour, transport, fuel /energy etc)

• the ability to recognise and efficiently deal with biosecurity risks

Technical and R&D topics that should be pursued are:• methods to establish and maintain mycorrhiza in intensive

production systems, including a focus on soil health management

• pest, disease and weed management • new crops and products

R&D projects need to include in their planning and budgets:• consultation with industry• appropriate methods of technology transfer and capacity

building• an evaluation of the projects’ impact e.g. in regards to practice

change or level of adoption and cost benefit of the work.

Doris Blaesing conducting a soil health workshop at Echuca West

1 Blaesing, D. 2002; Maximising Soluble Solids in Processing Tomatoes, A Survey Approach, Final Report to Horticulture Australia. TM01004

2 water use efficiency, yield3 drop in soluble solids, industry profitability and soil health, sustainability and

nutrient leaching risks


TM06004 Nutrient management principles for processing tomatoesDoris Blaesing, RM Consulting Group

Nutrients: Their role in plant growthTogether with carbohydrates produced via photosynthesis from water, carbon dioxide and sunlight, nutrients are essential building blocks of plant matter.

Even though literature on plant nutrition often depicts symptoms of nutrient deficiency and excess, crops should never get to a stage of deficiency where symptoms appear. Monitoring of soil, plant and water will assure that crops grow symptom free. Any visual symptoms are a sign that irreversible damage has been done; even if a treatment alleviates visible stress signs. When monitoring on a regular basis using a NU-test sap analysis this can be avoided, as the results will pick up when nutrients are in low supply long before symptoms appear.

Mobile Vs Immobile elementsNutrients that are taken up and utilised by the plant may be stored and relocated to another part of the plant for use later. These elements that are easily transported are known as mobile. Elements that cannot be readily remobilised and transported to other areas of the plant are known as immobile.

Deficiency symptoms of mobile elements show up first in the older plant parts. Mobile nutrients include nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and magnesium.

Deficiencies of immobile nutrients often display symptoms in new growth. Immobile nutrients include, calcium, boron, zinc, sulphur, molybdenum, manganese and iron.

FACTORS AFFECTING NUTRIENT UPTAkEIntroductionThe following factors that affect nutrient uptake need to be considered in a holistic way. Each factor interacts with several or all of the others. Seasonal changes will also play a part in how these factors will interact with each other, thus affecting nutrient utilisation.

Soil pHSoil pH greatly influences the growth and yield of plants. This is largely a result of chemical reactions in the soil which influence nutrient availability and uptake.

Soil pH greatly affects the solubility of nutrients. The majority of essential plant nutrients are obtained from the soil. Before plants can take up a nutrient it must be dissolved in the soil solution. Most nutrients are more soluble or available in acid soils than in neutral or slightly alkaline soils.

Phosphorus is never readily soluble in the soil but is most available in soil with a pH range around 5.5 to 6.5. Extremely and strongly acid soils (pH 4.0-5.0) can have toxic concentrations of soluble aluminium, iron and manganese, while having low levels of calcium and magnesium. The pH range for most readily available plant nutrients is around pH 6 to 7.

The soil pH can also influence plant growth by affecting the activity of beneficial micro-organisms. Bacteria that decompose soil organic matter are suppressed in strongly acid soils. This prevents organic matter from breaking down, resulting in an accumulation of organic matter and the tie up of nutrients, particularly nitrogen, which are held in the organic matter and would become available through mineralisation under neutral conditions.

Nutrient availability as affected by soil pH is shown in the adjacent diagram; the wider the band, the greater the availability or activity.

Soil texture and typeWhen making predictions about the nutrient uptake of a crop, it is essential to know about the soil type, and how it can interact with the availability of nutrients. Generally, higher levels of organic matter and clay in a normal pH range are indicators of a good nutrient holding capacity.

Nutrient management decision guide

Do you know what type and amount of nutrients

your crop needs and when they are required?

Find out crop nutrient uptake and removal figures from

government/industry publications, agronomist or consultant

No

Do you know nutrients levels and fertility conditions in the crop rootzone?

Major and minor nutrients (trace elements)Available soil nutrients Soil pH, salinity, sodicity Organic matter incl. crop residues Irrigation water quality Soil structure Soil texture Rooting zone depth Soil microbial indicators

Yes

Undertake soil and water tests or assessments as

required

No

Do you know the risk of nutrient losses or poor availability to the crop due to:

Potential leaching of nutrients past the rootzonePotential loss of nutrients in surface run-off water (or by wind) Volatilisation (losses to air) Nutrient fixing (clay minerals, microbes) Poor or unhealthy root system Poor irrigation water quality

Yes

Assess the risk and costs of nutrient

losses or poor uptake conditions

No

Do you have information of the mode of action of different fertilizers in regards to:

Nutrient concentration Nutrient form or formulation Salt index or acidification potential Potential losses, fixing or nutrient interactions

Yes

Obtain information from supplier, agronomist, consultant or Internet

etc

No

Develop paddock nutrient management programs that meet crop needs; try to plan for a several year rotation; consider the value of soil improvements; consider irrigation strategies

and water quality. Obtain quality planting material (variety, health, age etc) to get good establishment.

Try to minimise potential impacts on the environment. Monitor crop growth and consider soil nitrogen, and plant testing during crop growth to

adjust nutrient status

Yes

Nutrient application decision guide

Are fertilizer types, amounts, timing and application methods based on a nutrient budget and chosen to maximise benefit to the crops and minimize potential waste? Consider:

Target yield Uptake and removal figures Growth curve Rotation Soil condition/fertility Seasonal climate Run-off and leaching risks Volatilization and nutrient fixing risks Wind or water erosion risks

Review nutrient management program to determine:

Right rate Right timings Right placement Best types of fertilisers

No

Yes

Is fertilizer application equipment regularly calibrated and maintained?

Yes Review fertilizer application practices and put in place equipment calibration, recording and maintenance program

No

Do you check accuracy of fertilizer application regularly via soil or plant testing?

Profitability and responsible fertilizer use

YesImplement a monitoring program to avoid under or over fertilising


Sandy loam, SandSandy soils are well drained and aerated. Without high organic matter content, and having an open structure, they are prone to drying out quickly and may require frequent irrigation. Extra fertiliser may be required due to the additional irrigation and possible leaching. They are often referred to as “hungry” soils because of their low nutrient holding capacity. With careful management however, they can be amongst the most productive soil types. They are easy to work, and warm up quickly during warm weather.

Medium Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Silt LoamThese are the soil types usually very well suited to cultivation but compact more easily than sand. They achieve a good balance between the ability to be very productive and the amount of attention required. The medium loam group is probably the best cropping soil texture in this respect.

Clay, Sandy Clay, Clay LoamThese soils are referred to as fertile soils, due to their ability to hold nutrients on soil particle surfaces. The main drawback is the usually high water holding capacity, which restricts the nutrient mobility and may keep these soils cold in spring. Water logging and compaction may occur more easily than in lighter soils.

Chalk, Limestone Rich Limestone soils may be deficient in micronutrients and phosphorus due to a high pH. These soils are often very shallow, and severely limit the types of plants that can be grown successfully in them.

Organic SoilsManganese, copper and zinc may be unavailable to plants in organic soils due to strong bonding qualities of the organic particles. Organic soils are often acid and not suitable for a wide range of crops.

Soil physical properties or structurePoorly structured or compacted soils restrict root growth and thus access to nutrients and water. Drainage is reduced, leading to potential temporary water logging after rain or irrigation. On the other hand, compacted soils dry out fast needing frequent light irrigation applications. They also are more prone to higher pressure from soil borne diseases and contain lower microbial activity.

Soil microbial activityGenerally, soil microbial activity is directly linked to organic matter content, pH and structure. The higher the organic matter content, the better the structure and the closer the pH to the optimum, the higher the expected microbial activity and the more balanced the microbial population should be. With good microbial activity, disease pressure from soil borne diseases may be lower.

Irrigation A prerequisite for balanced crop nutrition is adequate water supply. Over or under watering may reduce the uptake of all or some nutrients, leading to inconsistency in nutrient uptake, which will be evident in NU-test sap analysis results. Irrigation practices influence the size and distribution of root systems and thus access to nutrients from the soil. If the root volume is restricted, nutrient availability to the crop will also be. If roots are forced into the subsoil in search of water, mainly nutrients available from the subsoil will be taken up. This means that topsoil test results will be a poor indication of potential nutrient availability.

water QualityMany natural waters contain impurities that may make them risky to use on certain crops. Plants vary in their ability to tolerate and use poor quality water; so do soils vary in their resistance to its effect (buffering capacity). Therefore, knowledge of a water supply quality is essential in determining its suitability for irrigation and potential effect on nutrient uptake.

The most damaging property of poor quality water is an excess of soluble salts. Plants have difficulty extracting water from soils with a high level of soluble salts. Large quantities of salt may

be added to the soil each year in saline irrigation water, e.g. 1 milligram per litre (mg/L) of salt as Total Dissolved Ions (TDI = TDS: Total Dissolved Salts) is equal to 1 kilogram of salt per megalitre (ML) or 1,000,000 litres of irrigation water. Even though salts may not be harmful immediately to the plant or soil, the salt has to go somewhere. Depending on the soil texture and chemistry, and the amount of leaching that occurs, the salt will accumulate somewhere in the soil profile.

As plants absorb water and nutrients from the soil solution they may also pick up high concentrations of salts, resulting in toxicity, depending on the crops sensitivity. Saline water may reduce the availability of essential plant nutrients, for example crops grown on a low calcium soil may become deficient in calcium if the crop is irrigated with water high in magnesium or sodium. High sodium levels will decrease potassium levels in the plant.

Water pH is also important for crop nutrient uptake. Irrigation water with a very low, acid pH may result in dissolving iron and manganese in the soil, which are then prone to leaching.

Irrigation of 20mm (=0.2ML/ha) with water of a nitrate concentration of 50 mg/L supplies the soil with the equivalent of 10 kg/ha of nitrate (= 2.2 kg N) per application, an amount that warrants consideration in the nitrogen budget.

Conversion of nitrate in water to nitrogen equivalent to crop

An input of “X” mg/L of nitrate can be converted to additional nitrogen in (kg/ha) by dividing by 4.43. For example, 100mm of irrigation at a nitrate concentration of 100mg/L would introduce 22.5 kg of elemental nitrogen per hectare.

Root distribution, density and healthNormal nutrient uptake relies on a healthy root system that is of a typical size for the plant, with a balanced root/shoot ratio. Anything that affects the size or health of the root system negatively, will affect nutrient uptake in the same way. Factors that reduce root growth and function are:• Soil structure (compaction)• Water logging• Drought• Nitrogen over fertilisation• Soil borne diseases• Hostile subsoil (pH, boron, salinity)• Drip irrigation management

weatherPlant growth is slowed as temperatures get too cold or too hot. Severe winds cause plants to shut down temporarily and stop nutrient uptake. Rain combined with good growing conditions will lead to growth spurts that may lead to low nutrient concentrations for a day or two.

During thunderstorms, lightning releases nitrogen oxides from the air, which will become available to plants with the rainwater.

Fertilisers and soil conditionersThe choice of a fertiliser type, as well the amount, method and timing of application will influence nutrient availability and uptake efficiency. As a rule, liquid fertilisers applied with irrigation water is a very effective way of applying nutrients. Compound fertilisers1 usually provide a more even distribution of nutrients than blended fertilisers2 (blends may separate during spreading). Foliar fertilisers are suitable to correct acute deficiencies quickly or support the crop during periods of high demand and/or when root uptake cannot supply sufficient nutrients (e.g. due to adverse soil or climatic conditions). Fertiliser products and application methods have to be selected considering their value for the crop i.e. the amount or proportion of nutrient(s) taken into the crop, not placed onto the ground or foliage. The additional return from increased marketable yield due to targeted fertiliser application has to be considered in relation to its cost.

Lime/dolomite products change the soil pH and thus influence nutrient availability and uptake (see pH above).

1 All nutrients contained in the product are present in each granule.2 Each nutrient is present in separate granules that have been mixed together.


Other soil conditioners such as carbohydrate based products (e.g. molasses), amino acid solutions, seaweed extracts, humic acids and similar commodities may influence nutrient uptake under some conditions. They are not silver bullets that can alleviate unfavourable environmental conditions or ‘fix’ crop and soil management related problems.

2010 Grower Poster – Interpretation of plant sap monitoring results in relation to growth stages, fertigation and irrigationA poster was prepared for the 2009/2010 season to allow growers to easily interpret NU-test results and manage fertigation.

2010 Grower Poster – Interpretation of plant sap monitoring results in relation to growth stages, fertigation and irrigation A poster was prepared for the 2009/2010 season to allow growers to easily interpret NU-test results and manage fertigation.

IntroductionThe use of subsurface drip irrigation has become the dominant mode of irrigation in the processing tomato industry. Its use has been attributed to increases in yield and water use efficiency. The use of subsurface drip irrigation, or drip systems in general, has also been associated with a slow decline in soil health (Murray 2010). This has been noted in perennial systems such as the deciduous fruit industry and wine grape industry.

The decline in soil health is associated with continual wet conditions and the application of water and nutrients from a point source. Maintaining soils at or near field capacity for prolonged periods causes soils to slowly collapse and become denser. This densification eventually restricts root growth and function and hence crop yields. Subsurface drip systems used in the processing tomato industry often remain in the one location for several years. Yields have tended to decline with the increasing number of years the subsurface drip system is in place. The suggestion has been made that this decline in yield could be linked to a decline in soil structural health or other soil properties associated with the use of subsurface irrigation (eg soil salinity and soil pH). Hence, a comparison between a new and established subsurface drip irrigation system was undertaken to indicate whether considerable differences were apparent.

AimUsing paddocks currently in production the aim was to;

1. ascertain whether there are potential differences in soil properties between new and old subsurface drip systems, and

2. whether these differences could be attributed to a decline in potential productivity.

MethodTwo paddocks currently under tomato production were selected near Rochester for the study. One site was under its first year of production whilst the second was in its fourth year of production in five years (Tomatoes,Tomatoes,Barley,Tomatoes,Tomatoes). Two sampling locations were selected within each paddock distributed evenly along the 300+ metre rows. Composite soil profile samples were collected in late December 2009 from the two location sat 10cm intervals to a depth of 90cm. Soil profiles were collected along transects perpendicular to the subsurface drip line to the furrow (Figure 1). These samples were then analysed for soil salinity, pH and exchangeable cations.

Dri

p lin

e

Shou

lder

of b

ed

Mid

dle

of fu

rrow

25cm50cm

80cm

Emi�

er

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of sampling layout

Long term impacts of sub surface irrigation on soil healthDr Dean Lanyon and Jim Kelly (Arris Pty Ltd)


Results and DiscussionFor this soil type, a clay loam, the critical soil salinity threshold level at which yield reduction starts is in the order of 0.4-0.5 dS/m (Mass and Hoffman 1977). The quality of the irrigation water was good, with a low salinity of 0.12 dS/m. As shown in Figure 2 after 5 years of production the salinity levels have risen at the peripheries of the wetting patter. However, the salinity has not reached the critical level in the root zone directly around the subsurface drip emitter point.

1st year

Distance from drip line (cm)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Soil

dept

h (c

m)

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

5th year


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

EC1:5 (dS/m)

Figure 2: Variation in soil electrical conductivity (EC1:5) as a function of the number of years under subsurface drip irrigation

Whilst the soil salinity does not seem to be a major constraint to the reduction in potential yields the continual use of sodium dominant irrigation water can lead to the development of sodic subsoils. The measurement of the exchangeable sodium potential (ESP) along the drip line does not indicate the development of subsoil sodicity after 5 years (Table 1). In fact the sodicity of the soil under its first year of production shows higher ESP values that increase beyond critical ESP levels (ESP=6). This is more likely to reflect the differences in paddock location and history.

Depth(cm)

ESP

1st Year 5th Year

5 2.9 2.6

15 2.8 1.0

25 1.9 1.7

35 3.1 2.6

45 6.3 3.8

55 9.4 4.5

65 11.6 5.7

75 14.4 7.8

85 16.4 8.4

Table 1: Comparison of exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) as a function of the number of years under subsurface drip irrigation.

The use of fertigation is common in the tomato industry. Whilst fertigation can be used to manage the nutritional requirements of the tomato crop its use also can potentially cause the soil pH to decline. This is particularly the case with the use of ammonia and nitric based fertilizers and excessive leaching. As seen in Figure 3 the soil pH around the dripper emitter has decreased to 5.1 despite the high buffering capacity of the soil. At these soil pH levels the free hydrogen ion starts to occupy the soil exchange sites limiting

the nutritional capacity of the soil. Further, aluminium starts to compete with phosphorus severely limiting its uptake by plants. These levels, however, are only reached in the immediate vicinity of the subsurface drip line and by itself could not be attributed to the potential decline in tomato productivity.

One assessment that was not undertaken at each site was soil structural quality. Drip systems have been associated with soil structural decline in perennial systems (Murray 2010). Continual wet conditions cause aggregated soils to coalesce and develop properties not conducive to optimal root function (Lanyon 2001). The potential decline soil structural quality combined with changes in soil salinity and pH could have a cumulative impact on potential tomato yields. This comparison has highlighted that further investigation is required as well as possible management practices that may alleviate the problems developing such as the seasonal surface application of lime to reduce soil pH changes or the use of a calcium nitrate during fertigation which is much less acidifying.

1st year


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Soil

dept

h (c

m)

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

5th year


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

5.1 5.4 5.7 6.0 6.3 6.6 6.9 7.2 7.5 7.8 8.1

pH (CaCl2)

Figure 3: Variation in soil pH as a function of the number of years under subsurface drip irrigation

ConclusionsThe continual use of subsurface drip irrigation does seem to change a number of soil properties. Individually, these changes in the soil properties do not necessarily impact tomato productivity but their cumulative effect may. This coarse comparison does highlight the need to consider the impact of consecutive years of subsurface irrigation. Hence, management strategies that limit these changes, such as seasonal lime application, could be investigated to ascertain their effectiveness in reducing yield decline.

AcknowledgementsThis field evaluation was supported by the APTRC and Horticulture Australia Ltd. A thank you is also extended to Murray Lanyon for his assistance during sampling.

ReferencesLanyon DM (2001) Coalescence of a water stable soil, PhD thesis, University of Melbourne 245p

Mass EV and Hoffman GJ (1977) Crop salt tolerance - current assessment. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division 103, 115-134.

Murray R (2010) Long Term Sustainability of Precision Irrigation, Final report for NPSI and GWRDC (submitted)

TM06004 Arbuscular Mycorrhizas: Beneficial Soil Fungi in the Australian Processing Tomato IndustryDr Ashley Martin, Creation Innovation Agriculture and Forestry

IntroductionIn the 2009-10 tomato season further work continued on improving tomato soil health and productivity using arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi (also known as ‘VAM’). This season’s project built on the findings from the 2008-09 tomato season; that is, most tomato farmers were not benefitting from the potential nutrient (particularly P) uptake and yield increases demonstrated by mycorrhizal tomato plants, and that carbon levels could be improved in most tomato soils. The 2009-10 season’s work was funded partly by direct industry contribution from Syngenta and

Hillview Compost, matched by contributions from the APTRC and HAL.

AM fungi colonise the roots of approximately 80% of known plant species, including tomatoes, and can act as an efficient extension of plant root systems for the uptake of nutrients and water. The association between host plant and AM fungus is usually beneficial, in that the fungus transfers nutrients, most notably phosphorus (P), into the plant and receives carbohydrates in the form of sugars from the plant for growth and activity.


Initial work conducted in 2005 found that inoculation of tomato seedlings with AM fungi increased fruit yield by an average of 38% across two varieties under field conditions (Martin, 2006). However, AM fungi can be sensitive to some farming practices, such as fumigation, fungicides and high fertiliser applications (Martin 2006). Previous work conducted by Dr Tim Cavagnaro and Dr Ash Martin (Monash University) in 2008-9 found that mycorrhizal colonisation was generally low to absent across 30 fields on 17 farms. This meant that most growers were not capitalising on the potential yield and nutrient benefits associated with mycorrhizal colonisation. Colonisation was negatively correlated with:

• Soil fumigation

• Previous rotations of non-mycorrhizal host crops

• Plant-available P

Agrochemicals other than fumigants may also have a deleterious effect on mycorrhizal colonisation, and thus prevent growers from accessing the potential nutrient and yield increases they can provide. For this reason, tomato growers interested in using a new experimental systemic insecticide, ‘Syngenta Experimental’ (Syngenta Crop Protection Pty Ltd, North Ryde) wanted to investigate its effect on AM fungal colonisation.

Furthermore, the previous work in 2008-9 found that soil carbon levels were low on most farms. Tomato growers were interested in investigating the ability of compost to build carbon levels and potentially increase levels of desirable soil microorganisms such as AM fungi, thereby improving the biological health of their soils.

This season’s project, undertaken by agricultural microbiology consultancy Creation Innovation Agriculture and Forestry, had four main questions:

• Could low mycorrhizal colonisation, and therefore the absence of mycorrhizal benefits to growers, be overcome by inoculating tomato seedlings with mycorrhizal fungi isolated from the local area?

• What effect, if any, did inoculation have on fruit yield and quality compared to any indigenous colonisation and no colonisation?

• What effect, if any, did a new systemic insecticide produced by Syngenta have on colonisation?

• Could soil carbon levels and mycorrhizal colonisation be improved by the addition of a good quality compost?

To answer these questions we undertook the following research.

Our ApproachWe conducted some reasonably complex field experiments, one on each of two farms (1 and 2). The farms chosen had different soil characteristics (pH and soil type) and fumigation treatments (not fumigated and fumigated). Both farms had relatively low soil C (1.52 and 1.09 % total carbon, respectively) which is common for the region. Total carbon in soil from an unfarmed nature reserve measured in the previous season’s (2008-9) project was 1.49 %.

The treatment factors on each farm were:

• Insecticide treatments x 2 (± insecticide)

• Compost treatments x 2 (± compost)

• Inoculation treatments x 2 (± mycorrhizal inoculation)

• Tomato genotypes x 2 (Heinz 3402, 76R & rmc) (rmc is a mycorrhiza-resistant research variety derived from 76R).

The layout was a split-split plot type design with five replicate plots on each farm. Results from each farm were analysed individually. Results were analysed by Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and significant differences between means were determined by Tukey’s Test using the biological statistics software Genstat v12 (VSN International Ltd).

The Syngenta experimental insecticide was applied as a soil drench at the base of the tomato seedlings at the recommended rate.

The compost (Hillview Compost Pty Ltd) was incorporated into the top 10 cm of beds at a rate of 5 t/ha, and contained 1,117.8 mg/kg N, 2,237.3 mg/kg P and 8,920.1 mg/kg K. These nutrient levels are relatively high for thermo-compost as part of deliberate, normal practice by the manufacturer.

Soil and compost nutrient analyses were conducted by AgVita Analytical, Devonport, Tasmania.

OUR FINDINGS

Farm 1As can be expected with field experiments we had our share of problems to overcome. Very hot, windy weather immediately after planting resulted in higher than expected seedling mortality (particularly rmc). Dead seedlings were replaced approximately one week later when planting conditions were more favourable, but the replacement seedlings may have suffered greater transplant shock than normal as the planting map was confused and some seedlings had to be re-planted. Two misplaced seedlings were identified during statistical analysis and the data was adjusted accordingly. Furthermore the field didn’t grow as well as expected, and enthusiastic hand pickers picked two plots (from a total of 40 plots) before we harvested. This means that the data was not as robust as it could have been and ANOVA probabilities for differences were widened to 7.5% from the usual 5%. In problematic biological experiments probabilities are sometimes widened to 10%, so 7.5% in our situation was within reason and justifiable.

Farm 2

Mycorrhizal colonisation, yield and brixMycorrhizal colonisation was very low (≈2%) overall, and there were no significant differences in colonisation between inoculated and non-inoculated plants. Accordingly, there were no significant effects of inoculation treatments or interactions between inoculation and compost treatments on any of the measured variables.

InsecticideAlthough mycorrhizal colonisation was low, there was no indication that it was affected by the Syngenta experimental insecticide.

CompostCompost applied at 5 t/ha increased soil carbon by an average of 0.06% across both farms, and also increased N, P and K soil concentrations on both farms.

Mycorrhizal colonisationAs expected, inoculation significantly increased (333%) mycorrhizal colonisation over that in non-inoculated plants (Figure 1). However, total colonisation was still relatively low compared to previous field experiment results (Martin 2006 and Cavagnaro et al. 2005), which suggests that the presence of a limiting factor other than fumigation immediately prior to transplanting prevented full realisation of mycorrhizal inoculation potential. We speculate that this could be:

• Use of phosphorus acid in dripper line maintenance?

• Bed cultivation during the growth season?

• Soluble N applications?

• Other?

Colonisation of the inoculated seedlings prior to transplant was generally low (<10%). However, seedlings with this level of colonisation went on to develop ≈ 70% colonisation on one farm (but not another) in previous work (Martin 2006).

Yield and brixThe addition of compost plus inoculation produced the highest yield, which was significantly higher (23%) than the lowest


yield (no compost plus inoculation) (Figure 2). (Note: Due to the experimental problems mentioned above Tukey’s confidence intervals were widened (60%) to match ANOVA results.) Conversely, no compost plus inoculation produced the best brix levels, significantly (8%) higher than the lowest brix levels (compost plus inoculation) (Figure 3). Given the well-known negative relationship between yield and brix these results are not surprising. However, the yield increase for compost plus inoculation treatments (23%) was much greater than the brix decrease (8%), which indicates an overall benefit for compost plus inoculation treatments in terms of overall production.

InsecticideThe Syngenta experimental insecticide had no effect on

mycorrhizal colonisation.

CONCLUSIONS AND wHERE TO NEXT?The most obvious reason for the relatively low colonisation on both farms was soil fumigation before planting, although it doesn’t immediately explain the low colonisation of inoculated plants at harvest. On one farm, mycorrhizal inoculation of seedlings showed the potential to increase tomato yield, particularly when combined with the application of good quality compost. However, on both farms an as yet unknown factor, most probably linked to soil fumigation, is limiting the full potential of mycorrhizal colonisation of inoculated seedlings. One possible explanation is the presence of fumigant residues. Previous investigations (Martin 2006) suggest that, in theory, fumigant breakdown rates are sufficiently rapid to prevent residue accumulation. However, the link between fumigation and ongoing mycorrhizal suppression has not been specifically investigated in these types of soils and needs to be more fully understood to enable the uptake of mycorrhizal technology in processing tomato production.

The standard method of seedling inoculation developed from commercial nursery practices has repeatedly produced colonisation levels of approximately 10% in tomato transplants after approximately 8 weeks. In glasshouse container experiments, which are comparable in many ways to seedling production, colonisation is frequently at least 20% after the same time. This suggests that there are also some factors in the current inoculation method that are limiting mycorrhizal colonisation in seedlings. We speculate that these could be related to nutrient supply (particularly P) and the pH of the growth media. To date there has been no published work investigating the effect of seedling nursery practices on mycorrhizal colonisation of seedlings. A basic investigation of the influence of nursery practices on mycorrhizal colonisation of seedlings should provide very useful information that could be used to overcome colonisation suppression of inoculated plants in tomato fields.

The Syngenta experimental insecticide was not deleterious to mycorrhizal colonisation.

Applications of good quality compost may be a useful source of carbon and nutrients for tomato soils, and could help to magnify the benefits of mycorrhizal colonisation.

Summary of key recommendations1. Due to the apparent suppression of both native and inoculated

mycorrhizal fungi by some aspect of soil fumigation, we recommend an investigation to determine what aspect is responsible. Recommendations on how to overcome this suppression (if possible) should be able to be made from the findings.

2. Colonisation of inoculated tomato seedlings should be increased by investigating the effect of several key nursery practices that are likely to be inhibiting seedling colonisation in the nursery.

3. Simultaneously, the development of a mycorrhizal inoculum specific to the Australian processing tomato industry should continue. Yield and quality benefits of the inoculum

developed as part of the 2008-9 DAFF funded project should be repeat tested in different soil types, possibly along with research inocula known to produce yield increases in field grown processing tomatoes.

4. To minimise costs, and increase practicability and reliability while undertaking the above investigations it is recommended that these investigations be undertaken in the glasshouse. However, the investigation of fumigation aspects could be undertaken in the field if necessary, although at increased cost, and decreased practicability and reliability.

AcknowledgementsIndustry supporters: Syngenta and Hillview Compost; APTRC; HAL

Field and technical help: Liz Mann (APTRC) and Peter Heathman

Our collaborators: Dr Tim Cavagnaro (Monash University), Liz Mann (APTRC), Dr Doris Blaesing (RMCG)

Growers that participated in the experiments: SS Farms, John Kennedy

0

1

2

3

4

5

Not inoculated Inoculated

Myc

orrh

izal

col

onis

a�on

(% ro

ot le

ngth

) b

a

Figure 1 – Mycorrhizal colonisation of tomato plants from non-inoculated and inoculated nursery seedlings on Farm 1.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


Red

Frui

t Yi

eld

(kg/

plan

t)

No compost Compost

ab

ab

a

b

Figure 2 – The effect of compost and seedling inoculation on the yield of red fruits per plant on Farm 1.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


Red

Frui

t Br

ix (

%)

No compost Compostabab b

a

Figure 3 – The effect of compost and seedling inoculation on the brix of red fruits on Farm 1.


2009/10 Cedenco Field Report Jason Fritsch, GM Field Operations, Cedenco Australia

The 2009-10 season can best be described as a season of lost opportunity for Cedenco and its contracted Growers. Whilst crops and field yields in most cases were exceptional, a wetter than average February to April continually interrupted the harvesting operation, resulting in delays in getting the crop off. Unfortunately growers were unable to reap the benefits of very good field yields and deliver in excess of their contracted volumes given the nature of the season.

Irrigation waterThe continuation of dryer than average conditions meant that there was again uncertainty surrounding both the supply and price of water. In order to allay these concerns Cedenco offered a water subsidy to all contracted Growers. Temporary water began trading in excess of $400 per Megalitre (ML) in early August, but an initial allocation announcement of 7% in the middle of September followed by regular minor increases saw temporary water prices soften to less than $200 per ML. This price continued to fall to less than $100 per ML in early March onwards finishing with a final allocation of 71%.

A wetter than average current winter has also improved conditions with increased inflows and dam levels, hopefully putting all of the water issues that have challenged the industry during the past few years behind us!

weather and DiseaseThe winter leading into this last season showed some signs of improvement with a return to ‘normal’ rainfall patterns; however after a promising June and July, August was once again dryer than average. Rain in late September resulted in some delays in early plantings and the cooler weather following meant that early crop vigour was quite poor. Sporadic heavy rain events throughout October and early November continued to interrupt planting, in particular the direct seeded crops in the Boort region which were just emerging, resulting in some fields requiring replanting. A heat wave in mid November with day time temperatures in excess of 40oC also resulted in some plant stand ‘thinning’ and replanting.

The incidence of disease in the first 3 months of the season remained surprisingly low in established crops. A disciplined, timely approach of fungicides helped keep diseases such as bacterial speck at very low levels. Almost 25mm of rain over the first 2 days of the New Year brought about isolated cases of Sclerotinia and Canker, although infestations were generally not yield limiting.

Due to the cooler start and planting delays, crop maturity was 7 – 10 days behind scheduled delivery, however once into February continual rain events frustrated harvest. Rain was the most dominant feature of the months of February, March and

April. Harvest was continually interrupted by successive rain events with most areas receiving double the average rainfall for these months. A huge hail storm swept through the Deniliquin region, wiping out a significant volume of fruit on 7th March, and causing localised minor flooding. Interestingly, apart from the hail damaged fruit, most of the crop grown in Victoria stood up to the inclement weather exceedingly well.

Varieties / BrixH3402 continues to be the dominant variety of the Cedenco varietal mix with 42% of the planting area H3402 and a further 20% H3402 mix (H3402 / H2401). Given the rainfall over harvest brix levels were down on last season. H3402 (both alone and as mix) achieved 5.03% while the other two main varieties, H4401 and H3002, achieved 5.44% and 5.53% respectively.

With the wet conditions delaying harvest, varietal characteristics such as ‘extended field holding’ became much more prevalent. There was no question that H3402 (and H3402mix) was the superior variety this last season, handling the conditions significantly better than H4401 and H3002.

Yields and QualityThe Cedenco grower group continues to improve year after year averaging 103 t/ha (harvested hectares only). The drip irrigated crops yielded a record 107 t/ha while the furrow irrigated crops were a more modest 71 t/ha. Early crops harvested in Victoria were achieving in excess of 170 t/ha and when combined with continual rain interruptions meant that Cedenco could only take contract, resulting in the unfortunate circumstances of growers having to leave some crop unharvested.

Raw material quality was only minimally affected by the delays in harvesting, largely because of the volume of H3402 type fruit contracted. Colour was excellent all season and viscosity improved this year with the addition of H3402 mix.

Cedenco Processing PlantThe early yields and crop potential were cause for excitement; however the inclement weather in the field resulted in a frustrating processing season for the factory. Cedenco purchased 193,732 tonnes at an average of 5.13% brix, which was down on initial expectations.


2010 Heinz Tomato Field ReportDavid Barthold, Agriculture Manager, HJ Heinz Co. Australia Ltd.

Autumn 2009 again saw irrigation water reserves at very low levels. Based on uncertain inflow predictions, inflated water prices, and modified carryover rules, Heinz moved early to contract growers for 2010 by again offering a contract that included a water subsidy. As a

result of this action Heinz was able to contract its 2010 tomato requirement in full.

Direct seeding and planting commenced on target in late September and by mid October 40% of the contracted area had been planted. Cool temperatures during early October slowed crop development - the affects of which were felt at harvest. Favourable planting conditions continued until early November when above average daytime temperatures caused most growers to halt transplanting activities. Planting was completed by the first week of December, about 2 weeks behind schedule.

Through December weather conditions were close to average and therefore ideal for crop development. Following good rains in late November and mild temperatures during December meant that by the end of the month, most early and mid season crops were exhibiting large, healthy vines supporting high numbers of flowers and set fruit. In addition, low level pest and disease incidence meant that pesticide application frequency was minimal. Bacterial canker was evident in a number of crops; however the level of infection was low and thought to be manageable. Weed competition was also only of minor concern in most fields. By December 31st yield estimates indicated the 2010 crop had the potential to be as good, if not better, than 2009.

The New Year opened with heavy rain (and localised hail) over the tomato growing region. This was followed by a period of extreme heat (four days in a row over 40oC), further rain, and finally a run of cool night temperatures. Under these conditions several fields

suffered increased disease infection, particularly from bacterial diseases. Fortunately, the implementation of disease and nutrition strategies, combined with an improvement in weather conditions, helped minimise the impact on crop yield and quality.

In addition to encouraging disease, the conditions experienced during January proved suitable for the germination and establishment of summer weeds. Although infestation was mostly too late to impact yield through competition in several crops, the presence of weeds caused harvesting difficulties which added to yield losses. This was particularly a problem where the harvest was preceded by rain.

The 2010 Heinz harvest began on February 16 and finished on April 15. Although the factory opened on schedule, it was under capacity for the first week with some crops ripening late due to the low temperatures experienced earlier in the season. This situation was reversed in the second week of harvest as delayed crops became ripe at the same time as those planted a week later. From then until the end of March, ripe crop exceeded factory capacity.

After a number of years with minimal rainfall during the harvest, 2010 will be remembered as being wet. In fact, rainfall records for Echuca were around 120mm during the February – April period; the most rainfall received in that period for twenty years. Storms and rain delayed the Heinz harvest on four separate occasions, exacerbating ripe crop and capacity issues. From start to finish Heinz missed 10 days of processing due to rain, and operated at reduced capacity for another 8 due to wet harvest conditions following rain.

By season’s end Heinz had processed a little over 50,000 tonnes of tomatoes. The majority of this (81%) was the seed blend H3402 MIX. The remaining 19% was made up of a mixture of varieties headed by H3202 at 6% of intake. Field productivity was down slightly from 2009 with growers achieving an average solids yield of 4.3 t/ha. In addition, fruit defects were higher than 2009 at 4.8% (mostly as overripe). Despite this, paste colour and viscosity were within specification across all products.

For more information call the Syngenta Technical Product Advice Line on: Freecall 1800 067 108 or visit www.syngenta.com.au®Registered trademark of a Syngenta Group Company. Syngenta Crop Protection Pty Limited,

Level 1, 2-4 Lyonpark Road, Macquarie Park NSW 2113. AD10-084

TheonlyregisteredproductforPowderyMildewinfresh

markettomatoes

Broad-spectrumdiseasecontrol

Longlastingprotectionatthefloweringandfruitset

period

Deliversoptimalplanthealthandmarketableyield

Oneconvenientdrum

Top choice

Top shelf

Grow your reputation

Australian Processing Tomato Grower

ISSN 1322-8617

PUBLISHED BY THE AUSTRALIAN PROCESSINGTOMATO RESEARCH COUNCIL INC.

VOLUME 31 SEPTEMBER 2010

Barthold, DavidBlaesing, DorisChirnside, LouisConnelly, OwenFritsch, JasonGray, Peter

Kelly, JimLanyon, DeanMann, LizMartin, AshNapier, Tony

Contributors

Notice to Contributors: Authors wishing to contribute articles to the next ‘Australian Processing Tomato Grower’ should submit copy to Liz Mann, APTRC Inc., POBox 2293, Shepparton, Victoria, 3632 NO LATER THAN June 30, 2011. Where possible, photographs should be supplied as hi-res digital images on disk or email. Graphs, charts, tables, etc. should be submitted electronically, with an accompanying print-out for confirmation of data.


AdvertiserCampaspe Irrigation Back CoverAgricrop - Screen Duo Page 2 Syngenta - Amistar Top Page 28

· Drip irrigation systems for all agricultural applications as well as landscape and lawn

· Centre Pivots and Linear Irrigators

· Automation

· Pipe lines and fittings

· Recycle Systems

· Poly Welding

· Diesel and Electric Pumps sets

· Irrigation design service

Contact Geoff Mustey on 0428 843 399

81 Lowry St, (Kyabram Rd) RochesterPhone 03 5484 1619 Fax 03 4584 1620

Region

Vegetables for human consumption - Tomatoes - Area (ha)

Vegetables for human consumption - Tomatoes - Production (t)

Vegetables for human consumption - Tomatoes - Yield (t/ha)

Vegetables for human consumption - Tomatoes - Processing - Area (ha)

Vegetables for human consumption - Tomatoes - Processing - Production (t)

Vegetables for human consumption - Tomatoes - Processing - Yield (t/ha)

Vegetables for human consumption - Tomatoes - Fresh market - Area (ha)

Vegetables for human consumption - Tomatoes - Fresh market - Production (t)

Vegetables for human consumption - Tomatoes - Fresh market - Yield (t/ha)

Vegetables for human consumption - Tomatoes - Fresh market - Outdoor - Area (ha)

Vegetables for human consumption - Tomatoes - Fresh market - Outdoor - Production (t)

Vegetables for human consumption- Tomatoes - Fresh market - Outdoor - Yield (t/ha)

Vegetables for human consumption - Tomatoes - Fresh market - Undercover - Area (m2)

Vegetables for human consumption - Tomatoes - Fresh market - Undercover - Production (kg)

Vegetables for human consumption - Tomatoes - Fresh market - Undercover - Yield (kg/m2)

AUSTRALIA 6,789 440,093 64.8 2,612 217,663 83.3 4,177 222,430 53.3 4,021 197,947 49.2 1,554,715 24,482,206 15.7

NSW 709 27,546 38.9 458 17,893 39.1 251 9,653 38.4 194 3,554 18.3 570,819 6,098,917 10.7

Sydney 177 5,905 33.3 7 71 10.2 170 5,834 34.2 124 2,376 19.2 466,519 3,457,784 7.4

Hunter 20 363 17.8 0 0 0.0 20 363 17.8 20 363 17.8 0 0 0.0

Illawarra 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

Richmond-Tweed 15 650 44.4 0 0 0.0 15 650 44.4 14 472 34.4 9,027 178,144 19.7

Mid-North Coast 7 725 106.2 1 22 39.5 6 703 112.2 3 70 21.3 29,665 632,279 21.3

Northern 32 254 8.0 0 0 0.0 32 254 8.0 32 254 8.0 0 0 0.0

North Western 0 33 300.0 0 0 0.0 0 33 300.0 0 0 0.0 1,091 32,728 30.0

Central West 3 3 0.9 0 0 0.0 3 3 0.9 0 3 10.0 27,073 0 0.0

South Eastern 1 10 15.1 0 0 0.0 1 10 15.1 1 6 10.0 473 3,930 8.3

Murrumbidgee 3 1,657 488.3 0 0 0.0 3 1,657 488.3 1 9 17.8 28,935 1,648,029 57.0

Murray 451 17,946 39.8 450 17,800 39.6 1 146 181.7 0 0 0.0 8,037 146,022 18.2

Far West 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

Vic. 2,821 243,647 86.4 2,071 197,016 95.2 750 46,630 62.2 733 41,015 56.0 173,873 5,615,083 32.3

Melbourne 9 912 106.2 0 0 0.0 9 912 106.2 6 77 12.7 25,433 835,157 32.8

Barwon 7 1,749 268.4 0 0 0.0 7 1,749 268.4 0 0 0.0 65,184 1,749,371 26.8

Western District 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

Central Highlands 1 4 2.6 0 0 0.0 1 4 2.6 1 3 2.0 821 1,095 1.3

Wimmera 1 12 17.9 0 0 0.0 1 12 17.9 1 11 20.0 1,268 1,103 0.9

Mallee 65 5,618 86.3 61 5,581 90.9 4 37 10.0 4 37 10.0 0 0 0.0

Loddon 218 16,578 76.0 185 14,653 79.1 33 1,925 58.5 30 1,496 49.7 27,840 429,442 15.4

Goulburn 2,520 218,719 86.8 1,824 176,783 96.9 696 41,936 60.2 691 39,391 57.0 51,213 2,544,650 49.7

Ovens-Murray 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

East Gippsland 0 54 256.7 0 0 0.0 0 54 256.7 0 0 0.0 2,114 54,265 25.7

Gippsland 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

Qld 2,750 138,153 50.2 42 1,508 36.3 2,708 136,645 50.5 2,703 134,814 49.9 50,720 1,831,068 36.1

Brisbane 35 317 9.0 6 29 5.0 30 289 9.8 30 289 9.8 0 0 0.0

Gold Coast 0 389 3,004.7 0 0 0.0 0 389 3,004.7 0 388 3,000.0 0 647 5,000.0

Sunshine Coast 4 41 10.2 0 0 0.0 4 41 11.1 4 41 11.1 0 0 0.0

West Moreton 168 5,985 35.7 0 0 0.0 168 5,985 35.7 168 5,869 35.0 3,263 115,906 35.5

Wide Bay-Burnett 1,376 81,375 59.1 0 0 0.0 1,376 81,375 59.1 1,372 79,889 58.2 40,983 1,486,248 36.3

Darling Downs 55 2,829 51.0 0 0 0.0 55 2,829 51.0 55 2,829 51.0 0 0 0.0

South West 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

AUSTRALIAN TOMATO PRODUCTION & PRODUCTION AREAS, 2008-09

Fitzroy 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

Central West 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

Mackay 1,110 47,189 42.5 35 1,472 41.7 1,074 45,717 42.6 1,074 45,491 42.4 6,286 226,310 36.0

Northern 1 25 33.4 0 8 30.0 0 17 35.1 0 15 32.3 188 1,957 10.4

Far North 0 2 5.0 0 0 0.0 0 2 5.0 0 2 5.0 0 0 0.0

North West 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

WA 393 19,540 49.7 31 961 31.2 362 18,579 51.3 361 17,940 49.7 16,062 638,518 39.8

Perth 153 11,305 74.0 28 728 26.1 125 10,577 84.7 123 9,939 80.6 16,023 638,012 39.8

South West 23 1,198 52.0 0 0 0.0 23 1,198 52.0 23 1,198 52.0 0 0 0.0

Lower Great Southern 1 206 311.5 0 201 638.3 0 5 13.3 0 5 13.3 0 0 0.0

Upper Great Southern 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

Midlands 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

South Eastern 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

Central 208 6,254 30.0 3 32 12.4 206 6,223 30.2 206 6,223 30.2 0 0 0.0

Pilbara 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0

Kimberley 8 577 70.0 0 0 0.0 8 577 70.0 8 576 70.0 38 507 13.2

SA 111 10,390 93.8 11 283 24.7 99 10,107 101.8 27 570 20.8 719,042 9,537,144 13.3

Adelaide 87 4,605 53.2 10 282 27.3 76 4,323 56.7 21 444 20.7 548,546 3,878,716 7.1

Outer Adelaide 1 5 5.8 1 0 0.0 0 5 185.9 0 0 0.0 260 4,838 18.6

Yorke and Lower North 8 4,557 555.8 0 0 0.0 8 4,557 555.8 0 0 0.0 82,000 4,557,331 55.6

Murray Lands 15 1,211 82.4 0 2 5.0 14 1,209 84.4 6 120 21.3 87,117 1,089,346 12.5

South East 0 2 20.0 0 0 0.0 0 2 20.0 0 0 0.0 782 1,565 2.0

Eyre 0 2 10.0 0 0 0.0 0 2 10.0 0 2 10.0 0 0 0.0

Northern 0 9 59.8 0 0 0.0 0 9 59.8 0 3 30.0 336 5,349 15.9

Tas. 3 773 234.0 0 1 5.0 3 772 255.1 1 10 16.6 24,200 761,476 31.5

Greater Hobart 0 180 450.0 0 0 0.0 0 180 450.0 0 0 0.0 4,000 180,000 45.0

Southern 0 2 86.3 0 0 0.0 0 2 86.3 0 0 0.0 260 2,240 8.6

Northern 1 78 153.1 0 0 0.0 1 78 153.1 0 0 0.0 5,080 77,765 15.3

Mersey-Lyell 2 513 216.5 0 1 5.0 2 512 244.7 1 10 16.6 14,860 501,470 33.7

NT 2 43 20.8 0 0 0 2 43 20.8 2 43 20.8 0 0 0

Darwin 1 30 20.8 0 0 0 1 30 20.8 1 30 20.8 0 0 0Northern Territory - Balance 1 13 20.8 0 0 0 1 13 20.8 1 13 20.8 0 0 0

ACT 0 1 10.0 0 0 0 0 1 10.0 0 1 10.0 0 0 0

Canberra 0 1 10.0 0 0 0 0 1 10.0 0 1 10.0 0 0 0Australian Capital Territory - Balance 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0

SOURCE: ABS7121 Australian Commodities, 2008-09

from: gillard, peter [mailto: ] sent: to: cc: subject · be processed by cedenco’s plant in...

Documents