Final Report for FNE94-049

Project Type: Farmer
Funds awarded in 1994: $1,180.00
Projected End Date: 12/31/1995
Region: Northeast
State: Massachusetts
Project Leader:
Expand All

Project Information

Summary:

Note to readers, attached is the complete final report for FNE94-049.

Shaw’s Success is a variety of cranberry that is resistant to fungal diseases; however, because it is not especially high-yielding, it is not widely grown. Mr. Griffith, with help from researchers at the University of Massachusetts, experimented with four fertilizer programs, to examine whether variation from the usual practice as regards quantity, timing, and manner of application could raise the yield levels enough to make Shaw’s Success a plausible alternative to the better known, and more susceptible, varieties, such as Early Black, Howes, and Stevens.

They fertilized plots of Shaw’s Success with either 1) four applications of N-P-K fertilizer in granular form (the “traditional” practice), 2) two applications (the second and third) of N-P-K fertilizer in granular form, and two applications of fish emulsion and potassium sulfate, 3) N-P-K as in treatment 1, with an additional foliar application of N and P, or 4) fertilization as in treatment 2, with an additional foliar application of N and P. Chlorothalinol was applied to all plots at early bloom, by chemigation, and a foliar application of Zn was made to all plots at the roughneck stage.

They found few or no treatment effects on the number of berries produced per square foot of bog, on the weight per berry, or on the incidence of fungal disease. Yields were diminished in those treatments receiving the additional foliar application. Highest yields were obtained from treatment 1, the traditional practice; while substitution of fish emulsion and potassium sulfate in treatment 2 did not materially hurt yields, it certainly didn’t help them either.

Cooperators

Click linked name(s) to expand
  • Frank Caruso

Research

Participation Summary
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or SARE.