Pennsylvania Statewide Winter Squash Cultivar Evaluation

Sánchez, Enrique Martínez-Salanova; Butzler, Thomas M.; Stivers, Lee; Elkner, Timothy E.; Bogash, Steven M.; Oesterling, R. Eric; Orzolek, Michael D.

doi:10.21273/horttech.22.6.826

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The cultivars evaluated and the standards we have used are largely farmer-driven, at first through a formal survey [19] and more recently through informal conversations with several farmers. We have also established relationships with seed company representatives who provide recommendations for newer cultivars and often provide seed at no cost.…”

Section: Program Initiation and Building Industry Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

Section: Building University Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Pennsylvania State University Statewide Cultivar Evaluation Program Model

Sánchez

Butzler

Elkner³

et al. 2021

Horticulturae

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultivar selection is an important managerial task for commercial farmers. Numerous available options provide marketing opportunities for farmers; however, they can also make cultivar selection time-consuming. For the past 13 years, a team of Penn State Extension educators and university faculty has implemented a new model to evaluate cultivars for key vegetable crops to assist farmers. Our approach started by building relationships within the vegetable industry with farmers, seed company representatives, and farmer-driven organizations who support our program with funding and gift-in-kind donations. We also added rigor to cultivar evaluations by conducting trials of key vegetable crops over 2 years at three locations. The results were used to develop cultivar recommendations, which were disseminated through various face-to-face and distance Extension avenues. The results were also published in refereed journals. The combination of funding, Extension products, and refereed articles led to university support. A drawback to our approach was the difficulty implementing uniform production methods at three experimental sites. The input of a statistical consultant assisted with overcoming this drawback. This model also required the use of strategies common to successful teams. Our methods are described here for those who desire to build a similar program.

show abstract

Section: Program Initiation and Building Industry Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Building University Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pennsylvania State University Statewide Cultivar Evaluation Program Model

Sánchez

Butzler

Elkner³

et al. 2021

Horticulturae

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selecting vegetable cultivars suitable to local environmental conditions and with quality traits desired by the evolving market and consumer needs is an important production decision farmers face annually. As seed companies continue to expand their offerings of new cultivars and rootstocks, selecting the best cultivar and/or scion/rootstock combination can be challenging for farmers. Land-grant universities, through their integrated research and extension programs, can provide an unbiased, science-based evaluation of the available cultivar and rootstock options to assist farmers in making this important selection. A two-year study was conducted to evaluate 20 hybrid cultivars and two grafted entries of muskmelons at three locations in Pennsylvania in 2018 and 2019 to provide farmers with science-based recommendations focused on fruit yield and physicochemical quality characteristics. Most cultivars did not differ in fruit yields from the standard “Aphrodite”. “Sugar Cube” produced more, smaller sized melons than “Aphrodite”. However, the combination of the soluble solids concentration, flesh pH, and titratable acidity values was not as favorable, indicating that consumer preference may be lower for “Sugar Cube” than for other cultivars. Yield from grafted entries was not different from the non-grafted “Aphrodite”; although, biotic and abiotic stressors favoring the use of grafting were not present throughout the study. Physicochemical evaluation of the combination of “Aphrodite” scion and “Flexifort” rootstock was more favorable than “Aphrodite/RS841” and non-grafted “Aphrodite”. This combination may be desirable even in the absence of yield stressors.

show abstract

“…These MFV are often fresh and tender, but their maturity is low, and some are even unformed; therefore, their appearance is different from the mature NFV; common types of MFV include mini spinach and mini maize. The newly cultivated variety of fruits and vegetables are those that are almost the same in shape to NFV but smaller in size; common types include cherry tomatoes [ 1 ], finger carrots, and baby pumpkins [ 2 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on the Consumption Trend, Nutritional Value, Biological Activity Evaluation, and Sensory Properties of Mini Fruits and Vegetables

Wang

et al. 2021

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mini fruits and vegetables (MFV) are pocket fruits and vegetables whose shape and volume are significantly smaller than those widely sold and well-known normal fruits and vegetables (NFV) on the market. Through the research on the market status and consumption trends of MFV, it was found that MFV have recently become a new market favorite. However, compared with NFV, there was found to be no relevant data on sensory quality, nutritional value, safety, etc. of MFV; this could indicate low consumer awareness of MFV, which in turn affects their planting and sales choices, as well as the market scale remaining small. In this context, six MFV with high degree of marketization were selected and compared with their corresponding NFV to evaluate the nutritional value, biological activity, and sensory properties. The results showed the nutritional value of MFV to be mainly related to their species. The nutritional value of MFV derived from immature, tender vegetables was generally lower than that of mature NFV. For example, the content of zeaxanthin in normal maize was 0.43 mg/kg, which was about 2.87 times that of mini maize (0.15 mg/kg). For newly cultivated mini varieties, their nutritional value often had different trends and rules compared with NFV. The nutritional value obtained by consuming MFV is not equal to that obtained by consuming the corresponding NFV of the same weight.

show abstract

Pennsylvania Statewide Winter Squash Cultivar Evaluation

Cited by 3 publications

References 3 publications

Pennsylvania State University Statewide Cultivar Evaluation Program Model

Pennsylvania State University Statewide Cultivar Evaluation Program Model

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

Research on the Consumption Trend, Nutritional Value, Biological Activity Evaluation, and Sensory Properties of Mini Fruits and Vegetables

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About