|
|
|
| Authors: | D.M. May, S. Guillen |
| Keywords: | Extended field storage, Lycopersicon esculentum |
Abstract:
When ripe tomatoes exceeded processing capacity, growers were forced to field store tomatoes.
The first objective was to find varieties that field stored with minimal yield or quality losses.
High tonnage in the Fresno area for September harvest, when yields traditionally can be 30–50% lower than July, and early August harvest was the second objective.
Processing tomato acreage in California expanded from 228,000 acres in 1980 to 327,000 acres in 1999. Eight new processing plants were built in Fresno County or in bordering counties, while only one was built in Northern California.
When Heinz closed its factory in Tracy in 1995, and other factories closed soon after, the tonnage that had previously been shipped out was shifted back to Fresno, delaying harvest into late August and September.
Later harvest meant lower yield potential; Fresno County average tomato yields have declined five tons.
This shift of acreage to Fresno County for a delayed harvest has cost growers about $300/acre in income.
To get early tomato contracts, growers are required to move tonnage into the late harvest period.
Results of research showed extended field storage of two varieties of 150 tested were economical.
The increased yield ranged from 20–50% depending on variety and time of planting.
Two extended field storage varieties yielded the same at first harvest as the two standard varieties, Halley and H8892, which make up over 40% of California’s annual tomato tonnage.
After three weeks of field storage, the two extended field storage varieties yielded almost 30% more than the two standard varieties whose yield had declined 10%. Other varieties tested had significantly less yield than the standards.
Fruit quality was not significantly changed over the four weeks of field storage period.
|
Download Adobe Acrobat Reader (free software to read PDF files) |
|