Pennsylvania Statewide Synergistic Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation

Abstract

<jats:p>To provide growers with regional and statewide recommendations, 23 cultivars of bicolor and white synergistic sweet corn (<jats:italic>Zea mays</jats:italic>) were evaluated in southwestern, central, and southeastern Pennsylvania. ‘Temptation’ was the standard. Despite differing production practices used in all locations, all cultivars were not different or produced more marketable primary ears compared with Temptation. Paydirt was the only cultivar to produce lower marketable yields by weight than Temptation in 2 site years or more. However, ‘Paydirt’ has an early maturity, which improves its acceptability. Very few ears were unmarketable. In terms of ear size, measured as diameter and length, overall all cultivars were not different from Temptation. ‘Temptation’ is early maturing and ear size was expected to be smaller than later maturing cultivars. This was not observed. Ease of hand harvesting was determined by measuring two factors: distance from the base of the primary ear to the soil line and ease of picking (1–5 rating scale where 1 = difficult and 5 = easy). The closer the primary ear was to the soil line was thought to be more difficult to harvest. ‘Synergy’, ‘Espresso’, ‘Kristine’, and ‘Paydirt’ ears were lower than ‘Temptation’ on the culm in 2 site years or more. ‘Whiteout’, ‘Synergy’, and ‘Mattapoisett’ were rated as more difficult to pick than ‘Temptation’ in 2 site years or more. Distance from the soil line to the primary ear and picking ease ratings were not observed to be closely related to each other and a combination of these and other factors may more accurately reflect the ease of hand harvesting. Overall, growers in our region have access to a lot of synergistic sweet corn cultivars with acceptable yield, quality, and ease of hand harvesting characteristics giving them a wide range of options.</jats:p>

Pennsylvania State University Statewide Cultivar Evaluation Program Model

“…Our model of conducting evaluations for 2 years at three sites brings rigor to the experiment, which facilitates publishing results in refereed journals. Thus far, six refereed articles from this program have been published [6][7][8][9][10][11], with two more in the pipeline. Additionally, recommendations have been disseminated through various extension channels, including articles and presentations at local and regional meetings and webinars.…”

“…Common objectives of cultivar evaluations include updating recommendations and identifying top and/or poor performing cultivars [5]. The objective of our program has been to provide farmers in Pennsylvania and the mid-Atlantic region with recommendations for top-yielding cultivars, primarily in conventional systems [6][7][8][9][10][11]; although, performance in organic systems has also been evaluated [10]. Additionally, we have measured some produce quality attributes.…”

Fruit Yield and Physicochemical Quality Evaluation of Hybrid and Grafted Field-Grown Muskmelon in Pennsylvania

“…Through their research and extension programs, land-grant universities provide farmers an unbiased evaluation of cultivars and allied technologies, such as vegetable grafting. A reliable evaluation requires conducting field evaluations at multiple locations representative of the commercial production area, possibly repeated over a minimum of two seasons, while following the standard agronomic practices used by local farmers [15][16][17][18][19]. Using such protocols, it is possible to compare open-pollinated, hybrid, and/or grafted cultivars by measuring plant characteristics, yield performances, and/or quality of the harvested products, which are the main parameters farmers use for assessing the suitability of a cultivar or rootstock for their farms.…”