High Tunnel Tomato Trials at SWMREC: A 10-Year Journey

Dr. Ron Goldy, MSUESouthwest Michigan Research and

Extension Center

Inside vs. Outside

Table 1. Yield in 25 pound cartons of ‘Mt. Spring’ grown in high tunnels and outside at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center in 2005.

Out of InTrait Tunnel Tunnel ChangeTotal Yield 2677 3229 +552No. 1 Large 1082 1748 +666Avg. Frt. Wt. 276 307 +31No. 2 399 550 +151No. 1 Small 345 442 +97Cull 851 489 -362

0.5#/A/Day1.0#/A/Day

Treatment(#/acre/day)

TotalYield

Yield No 1Large

FruitWeight

YieldNo. 2

Yield No. 1Small

YieldCull

GreenCore

GrayWall

1N : 1K 3306 1831 303 579 397 499 3.7 4.6

1N : 2K 3253 1757 310 573 462 461 3.9 5.2

1N : 3K 3019 1719 315 434 405 461 3.4 4.2

1N : 4K 3244 1775 308 485 513 471 3.5 4.2

1N : 3K+foliar CaNO3

3325 1657 297 679 435 553 3.3 4.9

Lsd 0.05 ns ns ns 195 ns ns ns ns

Yield in 25# cartons of ‘Mt Spring’ tomato as influenced by five nutrient treatments in 2005.

Treatment(#/acre/day)

TotalYield

Yield No 1Large

FruitWeight

YieldNo. 2

Yield No. 1Small

YieldCull

GreenCore

GrayWall

0.5N : 0.5K 3221 1773 301 466 398 585 4 5.4

0.5N : 1.0K 3050 1652 294 485 512 400 5.5 5.0

0.5N : 1.5K 3096 1651 301 422 559 463 4.1 4.2

0.5N : 2.0K 3030 1573 323 531 424 502 4.1 4.6

0.5N : 1.5K+ foliar CaNO3

3008 1566 300 426 447 569 4.5 4.0

Lsd 0.05 ns ns 28 ns ns ns 1.1 1.1

Yield in 25# cartons of ‘Mt Spring’ fresh tomato as influenced by five nutrient treatments at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center in 2005.

Trial repeated in 2006 using:

0.25 and 0.50 #N/A/day

No foliar CaNo3

Pre-plant only

N:KDrip

applied

TotalYield

Yield No. 1Large

FruitWeight

YieldNo. 2

Yield No. 1Small

YieldCull

GrayWall

GreenCore

1 : 2 2875 1771 316 330 427 347 6.17 6.69

1 : 3 2672 1684 309 248 381 359 5.42 4.62

1 : 1 2661 1619 311 298 460 284 6.62 5.87

1 : 4 2523 1422 310 325 372 404 6.50 5.87

1 : 5 2178 1268 291 212 416 283 5.20 5.62

none 2158 1154 289 255 417 333 6.12 5.75

Lsd .05 677 477 21 ns ns ns 1.37 1.50

Affect of five N : K ratios at a base of 0.50#N/acre/day on yield of ‘Mt. Spring’ tomato in 25 lbcartons/acre.

N : KDrip

applied

TotalYield

Yield No. 1Large

FruitWeight

YieldNo. 2

Yield No. 1Small

YieldCull

GrayWall

GreenCore

1 : 5 2691 1594 301 368 401 329 5.7 6.9

1 : 3 2687 1472 302 488 445 282 6.5 6.7

1 : 2 2605 1466 298 281 452 405 6.4 6.8

1 :4 2503 1350 297 446 400 307 6.7 6.8

none 2449 1426 306 304 385 334 6.7 7.4

1 : 1 2146 1282 300 203 362 299 6.0 6.6

Lsd .05 ns ns ns 206 ns ns ns ns

Affect of five N : K ratios at a base of 0.25#N/acre/day on yield of ‘Mt. Spring’ tomato in 25 lb. cartons/acre.

0.50#N Year

2005 2006

Total Yield 3081 2511

Yield No. 1 1643 1486

Fruit Wt. 304 304

Green Core 4.4 5.74

Gray Wall 4.6 6.00

Yield and fruit characteristics of tunnel-grown ‘Mt Spring’ tomato in 2005 and 2006.

Year

2005 2006

Avg. Maximum T 82.1 77.8

Avg. Minimum T 60.8 59.6

Mean T 71.4 68.7

Avg. Radiation 515.4 389.7

Daily temperature and solar radiation between 1 August and 16 September 2005 and 2006.

Conclusions:Light and Temperature important

Pre-plant plus 0.5# Nitrogen/A/day appears best

N : K at 1 : 3 appears best

2007 Trial:

Evaluation of 14 Fresh Market cultivars

Evaluation of 6 Roma cultivars

Evaluations heavily weighted against gray wall

Variety Seed

Source

Total

Yield

Yield No.

1 Large

Avg.

Fruit

Weight

Yield

No.1

Small

Yield

No. 2

Yield

Cull

Indy SY/RG 2629 600 262 277 218 1533

Paragon JS 2602 642 250 251 128 1581

ACR 2012 AC 2478 583 246 444 75 1376

Mt. Spring SY/RG 2473 611 277 222 234 1405

Mt. Crest NU 2427 618 256 230 217 1362

Linda SK 2417 616 280 93 110 1598

Soraya SY/RG 2237 304 270 69 36 1828

Crista RI 2168 613 278 104 99 1352

NRT 6785 NU 2144 357 279 115 86 1587

Red Delight SK 2125 217 278 78 149 1682

Big Shot RI 1997 328 255 102 93 1474

Sebring SY/RG 1966 234 232 60 42 1630

Florida 47 RI 1857 304 247 137 82 1333

FL 7514 RU 1806 421 226 281 68 1037

Lsd = .05 569 256 26 83 93 404

Variety SS Total

Yield

Yield

No. 1

No. 1

Fruit Wt.

Yield

No. 2

Yield

Cull

Plum Crimson RI 2787 2096 103 0 691

ACR 8625 AC 2388 1319 122 0 1069

Marianna SK 2383 1751 125 0 632

Mireina SY/RG 2325 986 142 6 1333

Miroma SY/RG 2234 977 125 7 1250

Plum Dandy HM 2054 1216 84 6 832

Lsd=.05 575 458 9 ns 229

CONCLUSIONS:

Mt. Spring, Mt. Crest and Crista performed best for fresh market-types

Plum Crimson and Marianna performed best for Roma-types

Year

Avg. Maximum T

Avg. Minimum T

Mean T

Avg. Radiation

Daily temperature and solar radiation comparison from 1 August to 16 September 2005, 2006 and 2007.

2005 2006 2007

82.1 77.8 79.4

60.8 59.6 60.0

71.4 68.7 69.7

515.4 389.7 409.4

oardc.ohio-state.edu/tomato/HartzRatioCalculator.htm

2008 Goals:

Possible Organic Production

Crop Rotation

Black vs. white ground cloth

Mt. Spring vs. Tradiro

Crop Rotation

Rotate the soil

Soil Mix

Peat/Rice Hulls/Bark

Lime to pH of 6.2

Nature Safe 10-2-8 at 40:1

Wetting Agent

2 cu ft. in 3 cu ft. bag

June 16

July 2

July 14

August 6

September 24

Treatment Tot. Wt. Fruit Wt. Wt. Wt.Wt. No. 1 Wt. No. 2 Sm. Cull

Mt. Spring 2745 1639 274 285 454 367Black

Mt. SpringWhite 2692 1446 276 306 473 467lsd=0.05 ns ns ns ns ns ns

Problems

pH spiked to 8.6

Uneven distribution of fertilizer

Two-cubic feet in a three-cubic foot bag

Nutrient deficiencies

July 14

August 6

August 12

ELEMENT H. MS S. MS H. T. S. T.

N 2.65 1.61 2.67 1.56

S 0.95 0.93 1.21 1.08

P 0.26 0.23 0.33 0.22

K 3.2 2.21 3.73 1.60

Mg 0.44 0.56 0.63 0.52

Ca 1.69 2.12 1.98 2.54

Na 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01

B 21 16 21 15

Z 20 17 44 25

Mn 191 263 376 381

Fe 81 76 91 87

Cu 8 3 8 3

Al 27 31 35 50

Water management is critical

2009 Trial

Buckets not bags

Compost tea

Doloress Matias

301 Mix from Morgan’s Composting

Fertilizer: Compost Tea

2.5 gallons/week applied through drip

Plus 50 ml/week directly into bucket on two rows

PH: 6.4LOW OPTIMUM HIGH

SOLUBLE SALTS(MMHO) 8.43 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

PARTS PER MILLION OF:NITRATE-N 388 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX PHOSPHORUS 24 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXPOTASSIUM 630 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXCALCIUM 840 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXMAGNESIUM 316 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXSODIUM 249 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXCHLORIDE 440 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXZINC 1.5MANGANESE 1.0COPPER 0.7IRON 9.1PERCENT OF TOTAL SALTS:NITRATE 6.6 XXXXXXXXPOTASSIUM 10.7 XXXXXXXXXXCALCIUM 14.2 XXXXXXXXXXMAGNESIUM 5.4 XXXXXXXXXXX

ACCEPTABLE EXCESSIVESODIUM 4.2 XXXXXXXXXCHLORIDE 7.4 XXXXXXXXXXXX

April 20, 2009

April 27, 2009

July 2, 2009

July 24, 2009

July 24, 2009

August 4, 2009

Nutrient deficiencies were again observed

September 25, 2009

September 5 September 24

2011 Five Treatments:

1. Conventional fertilizer2. Tea through drip3. Tea through drip + 60ml4. Tea through drip + 120ml5. Tea through drip + 240ml

Drip tea = 20 gallons/acreConventional = ½ lb nitrogen/acre/day of

5-10-27 + micros

Trt Tot. Wt.

Wt. No. 1

No. 1 F Wt.

Wt. No. 2

Wt. Culls

5 1769 511 161 237 1022

1 1575 418 170 238 919

2 1480 397 162 128 955

4 1464 298 155 138 1029

3 1404 347 161 195 862lsd .05 ns 208 ns ns ns

Tomato fruit yield in grams per plant from 5 nutrient treatments.

Variety TotWt.

Wt. No.1

Count No.1

Wt.No. 2

Wt. Cull

Bigdena 1060 283 1.04 101 675

Pilavy 1013 267 1.42 103 642

Rapsodie 968 48 0.25 61 859

Torry 922 375 2.13 73 474

Clermon 805 57 0.29 0 748

Panzer 748 234 1.04 87 426

Growdena 713 306 1.25 33 374lsd=0.05 ns ns 1.62 101 284

Per plant yield in grams for seven tomato varieties grown under high-tunnels.

2010 Goals:

White Buckets vs. Black Bags

Morgan’s 301 vs. Mojo-grow vs. Filtrexx

Compost Tea vs. Conventional

Nutrient Morgan’s 301 Mojo-Grow FiltrexxpH 5.5 A 6.9 H 7.4 VH

Nitrate(ppm) 558 VH 1 L 107 OPhosphorous(ppm) 15.3 H 12.1 H 3.2 A

Potassium(ppm) 469 VH 212 O 859 VHCalcium(ppm) 846 O 486 O 166 A

Magnesium(ppm) 167 O 229 O 51 ASodium(ppm) 147 O 122 O 71 OSulfur(ppm) 364 VH 632 VH 42 OBoron(ppm) 0.3L 0.5 L 0.6 LIron(ppm) 17.4A 14.0 L 14.3 L

Manganese(ppm) 7.8 A 14.2 A 2.7 LZinc(ppm) 4.1 L 4.2 L 14.4 A

Copper(ppm) 0.5 L 0.8 L 0.5 LA = Acceptable H = High L = Low O = Optimum VH = Very High

Treatment Yield/Plant Fruit/Plant Fruit Weight Clusters/Plant

Cluster Weight

Morgan/Conventional

3695 31 118.6 6.8 547.4

Morgan/Tea 2746 25 107.7 5.5 501.4Mojo-

Grow/Tea1701 19 90.7 4.6 364.4

Filtrexx/Tea 1507 16 93.4 4.0 376.0Lsd=.05 420 3 8.7 0.7 52.4

Per plant yields of Doloress cluster tomato grown in a high-tunnel situation at SWMREC, Benton Harbor, Michigan in 2010. Yield, cluster and fruit weight is in grams.

Element Morgan’s conventional

Morgan’stea

Mojo-Grow Filtrexx

Nitrogen % 3.54 S 3.81 S 1.45 D 1.82 D

Sulfur % 0.69 H 0.76 H 0.52 S 0.61 H

Phosphorous % 0.54 H 0.54 H 0.49 H 0.47 H

Potassium % 4.06 H 4.24 H 3.21 S 3.54 S

Magnesium % 0.41 S 0.47 S 0.39 S 0.37 S

Calcium % 1.50 S 1.53 S 0.99 S 1.26 S

Sodium % 0.04 H 0.04 H 0.02 S 0.02 S

Boron ppm 50 H 29 S 26 S 32 S

Zinc ppm 56 H 52 H 32 S 33 S

Manganese ppm 70 S 42 S 42 S 39 S

Iron ppm 100 S 102 H 92 S 91 S

Copper ppm 15 H 13 H 9 S 13 H

Aluminum ppm 48 S 54 S 85 S 55 S

Leaf nutrient analysis 7/1/2010.

D= Deficient; S= Sufficient; H= High

What have we learned?

Tomatoes aren’t the easiest crop to grow in tunnels

Small-fruited tomatoes better

Conventional less difficult than organic

Water management important

Lower disease pressure

Insects still a problem (mites)

Biochar

Trt. Tot. Yield Yield No. 1 Count Avg. No. 1 Yield No. 2 Yield Cullgms/bag gms/bag No. 1/bag wt (gms) gms/bag (gms/bag)

0 2872 2142 15 145 199 5310.5 2809 2154 14 149 118 5371 2254 1638 12 136 52 5642 2201 1420 10 147 86 6954 3327 2116 15 144 649 5628 2042 1379 10 127 208 455Lsd 0.05 968 640 4 16 567 191