Field data for various crops

Testing the Economic and Environmental Sustainability of a Home Garden

A Plant Science Paper Submitted To

The University Of Saskatchewan

Saskatoon

In Partial Fulfillment

the Requirements for

PlSc. 494.6

By

Hanny Elsadr

March 30, 2007

Abstract

Typically hobby gardeners striving to produce fruit, vegetable and herb crops in

home gardens only rarely obtain crop yields or quality sufficient to compensate for their

efforts. This project addressed the question - can a home garden be made more

economically sustainable by using appropriate management practices including; a) soil

amendments, b) optimum site selection for each crop, c) cultivar selection, d) irrigation,

e) optimum pruning, training and harvesting techniques, and f) effective disease control

methods.

Fifty different fruits, vegetables and herbs were grown over the 2004, 2005 and

2006 growing seasons in a 118.53 m2 Toronto-based urban garden. Climatic conditions,

harvest dates, flavor characteristics, fruiting duration, yields/m2 and susceptibility to

disease and pests were recorded and used in an effort to increase productivity and

profitability over the three years of the study. Costs, yields, total gross revenue and

profits were calculated for each crop and for the garden as a whole. Although most crops

tested could be grown successfully under the conditions available within the garden, a

more limited number produced yields sufficient to offset the cost of production. Carrots,

cauliflower, tomatoes, lettuce, eggplants, peppers, spinach, Swiss chard, blackberries,

raspberries and nearly all herbs were all profitable. Selecting the most appropriate crops,

cultivars and production techniques caused the profitability of the garden to increase with

time.

The study showed that well managed urban gardens could represent an

economically and environmentally sound method of producing food that also enhances

the biodiversity and aesthetic appeal of the urban environment.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the department of Plant Sciences at the University Of Saskatchewan for

supplying the research resources that were required to complete this study. I would also

like to acknowledge the following people: Dr. Doug Waterer for making available his

expertise on vegetable production. Dr. Bob Bors for making available his expertise on

fruit production practices. Dr. Doug Waterer, Jackie Bantle, William Hrycan and the

Agriculture Development Fund for providing vegetable cultivar and cultural trial

information. Angela Elsadr for helping design, construct and maintain the garden, taking

photographs of the garden and keeping accurate records. Tarek Elsadr and Sabah Elsadr

for supplying the funds for this project and for maintaining the greenhouse and the

garden. Sally Elsadr for helping harvest produce. Sepher Shafei, Sina Shafei, Anil

Lochan, Ted Baird, Erik Fonseca, Chris Lau, Kareem Tahar and Jeff Nierop for helping

in the construction of the garden.

Table of Contents

Abstract................................................................................................................................iiAcknowledgements............................................................................................................iiiTable of Contents................................................................................................................ivList of Tables.....................................................................................................................viiList of Figures..................................................................................................................viii1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................12.0 Materials and Methods..................................................................................................6

2.1 Site Description.........................................................................................................62.3 Soil Analysis..............................................................................................................7

2.3.1 Spring 2004.........................................................................................................72.3.2 Soil Test Characteristics for the Garden Site in 2004, 2005 and 2006...............72.3.3 Recommended Soil Improvements.....................................................................82.3.4 Soil Status In 2005............................................................................................112.3.5 Soil Status in 2006............................................................................................12

2.4 Construction of Raised Beds...................................................................................132.5 Irrigation System.....................................................................................................132.6 Greenhouse..............................................................................................................142.7 Disease and Pest Control.........................................................................................152.8 Pesticide Used..........................................................................................................15

2.8.1 Carbaryl (Sevin)................................................................................................162.8.2 Sulfur................................................................................................................162.8.3 Copper...............................................................................................................162.8.4 Rodenticides.....................................................................................................172.8.5 No Damp...........................................................................................................172.8.6 Slug and Snail Control......................................................................................17

2.9 Iron...........................................................................................................................172.10 Theft.......................................................................................................................182.11 Weeds....................................................................................................................182.12 Crop Selection.......................................................................................................182.13 Cultivar Selection..................................................................................................192.14 Plantings................................................................................................................192.15 Crop Location Within the Garden.........................................................................192.16 Yield Analysis.......................................................................................................202.17 Crop Pricing...........................................................................................................202.18 Cost Analysis.........................................................................................................212.19 General Crop Yield and Cost Analysis..................................................................22

3.0 Results and Discussion................................................................................................243.1 Weather Conditions.................................................................................................24

3.1.1 2004 Weather Data...........................................................................................243.1.2 2005 Weather Data...........................................................................................243.1.3 2006 Weather Data...........................................................................................24

3.2 Crop Selection for Presentation in the Thesis..........................................................243.3 Crops Presented in the Thesis..................................................................................25

3.3.1 Apricots (Prunus armeniaca L.).......................................................................25

3.3.1.1 Introduction................................................................................................253.3.1.2 Trials..........................................................................................................253.3.1.3 Cropping Results.......................................................................................26

3.3.1.3.1 2004 and 2005.....................................................................................263.3.1.3.2 2006....................................................................................................26

3.3.1.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................273.3.2 Carrots (Daucus carota L.)...............................................................................28


3.3.2.3.1 2004....................................................................................................293.3.2.3.2 2005....................................................................................................313.3.2.3.3 2006....................................................................................................31

3.3.2.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................323.3.3 Cauliflower (Brassica Oleraceae L.)...............................................................33


3.3.3.3.1 2004....................................................................................................343.3.3.3.2 2005....................................................................................................353.3.3.3.3 2006....................................................................................................36

3.3.3.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................373.3.4 Cucumbers (Cucumis sativas L.)......................................................................37


3.3.4.3.1 2004....................................................................................................383.3.4.3.2 2005....................................................................................................423.3.4.3.3 2006....................................................................................................43

3.3.4.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................443.3.5 Grapes (Vitis saccharifera L)...........................................................................45


3.3.5.3.1 2004 and 2005.....................................................................................463.3.5.3.2 2006....................................................................................................47

3.3.5.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................483.3.6 Oregano (Origanum vulgaro L.).......................................................................49


3.3.6.3.1 2004....................................................................................................503.3.6.3.2 2005....................................................................................................503.3.6.3.3 2006....................................................................................................51

3.3.6.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................513.3.7 Peppers (Capsicum annum L.)..........................................................................52


3.3.7.3.1 2004....................................................................................................533.3.7.3.2 2005....................................................................................................573.3.7.3.3 2006....................................................................................................58

3.3.7.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................593.3.8 Raspberries (Rubus idaeus L)...........................................................................60


3.3.8.3.1 2004....................................................................................................613.3.8.3.2 2005....................................................................................................623.3.8.3.3 2006....................................................................................................63

3.3.8.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................633.3.9 Spinach (Spinacia oleraceae L.).......................................................................64


3.3.9.3.1 2004....................................................................................................653.3.9.3.2 2005....................................................................................................663.3.9.3.3 2006....................................................................................................67

3.3.9.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................683.3.10 Tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum M.).......................................................69

3.3.10.1 Introduction..............................................................................................693.3.10.2 Trials........................................................................................................693.3.10.3 Cropping Results.....................................................................................70

3.3.10.3.1 2004..................................................................................................703.3.10.3.2 2005..................................................................................................723.3.10.3.3 2006..................................................................................................73

3.3.10.4 Conclusion...............................................................................................744.0 Conclusion...................................................................................................................76

4.1 Summary..................................................................................................................764.3 Comparisons of Crop Categories.............................................................................814.4 Vegetables................................................................................................................834.5 Fruit..........................................................................................................................854.6 Herbs........................................................................................................................874.7 Ornamentals and Aesthetics....................................................................................894.8 Overall Outcomes and Future Expectations............................................................904.9 Importance of Home Gardens..................................................................................92

5.0 References....................................................................................................................95Appendix A........................................................................................................................98Appendix B......................................................................................................................103Appendix C......................................................................................................................104Appendix D......................................................................................................................109

List of Tables

Table 1. Soil Characteristics................................................................................................7Table 2. Base Saturation......................................................................................................8Table 3. Soil Nutrient Levels...............................................................................................8Table 4. Nutrient Recommendation Rates (kg/ha) Based on Soil Tests..............................8Table 5. Costs of Various Aspects of the Garden, Total costs and Costs Per Meter in 2004

- 2006.........................................................................................................................22Table 6. Yields and Economics of the Apricot Tree in 2006............................................27Table 7. Yields and Economics of Carrots in 2004 - 2006................................................30Table 8. Yields and Economics of Cauliflower in 2004 - 2006........................................34Table 9. Yields and Economics of Cucumbers in 2004 - 2006.........................................42Table 10. Yields and Economics of Grapes in 2004 - 2006..............................................48Table 11. Yields and Economics of Oregano in 2004 - 2006............................................50Table 12. Yields and Economics of Pepper in 2004 - 2006..............................................56Table 13. Yields and Economics of Raspberries in 2004-2006.........................................62Table 14. Yields and Economics of Spinach in 2004 - 2006.............................................66Table 15. Yields and Economics of Tomatoes in 2004 - 2006..........................................71

List of Figures

Fig. 1 Site Plan, Conceptual Design and Master Plan of The Garden (75 Pinto Dr. T.O. ON.).............................................................................................................................6

Fig. 2 Total Profits for Various Crop Categories in 2004 - 2006......................................82Fig. 3 Per Unit Area Profits of Various Crop Categories in 2004 - 2006..........................83Fig. 4 Vegetable Profits/m2 in 2004 - 2006.......................................................................85Fig. 5 Fruit Profits/m2 in 2004 - 2006................................................................................86Fig. 6 Herb Profits/m2 in 2004 - 2006...............................................................................88Fig. 7 Total Profits for Different Commodity Categories in the Home Garden in 2004,

2005 and 2006............................................................................................................90

1.0 Introduction

Hobby gardeners grow produce such as fruits, vegetables and herbs for a variety

of reasons including; a) recreation, b) to consume more nutritionally sound produce, c) to

achieve greater control over their food supply, d) to reduce the environmental impact of

storage and transportation associated with foreign production of food and f) to potentially

save money. Despite these real and potential benefits, the popularity of producing fruit

and vegetables in home gardens is decreasing. One possible reason for this decline is that

gardeners are not getting yields and quality of produce sufficient to offset the effort

required to maintain their gardens. Bittenbender (1985) asked a key question “Can home

garden projects be organized, implemented and evaluated that make significant

contributions to family nutritional and economic well-being, and still be feasible,

acceptable, self sustaining and cost effective?” This project attempted to answer this

question, using the garden associated with the author’s family home in Toronto as the

model.

Efficiency of gardening efforts can be improved by using appropriate

management practices including; a) soil amendments, b) selecting sites within the garden

best suited to each crop, c) selection of appropriate cultivars, d) irrigation, E) proper

pruning, training and harvesting techniques, and F) effective disease and insect control

methods.

In terms of soil quality the gardener has to determine if the soil texture, fertility,

tilth, depth and drainage are suited to the types of crops being grown. Soil quality in

typical urban gardens is usually not well suited for horticultural crop production. The

good quality surface soil is typically removed prior to the construction of the house. The

yard is then developed using the sub-soil excavated during the construction of the

basement. This sub-soil is often low fertility clay that becomes compacted during the

process of building the house. Homeowners can attempt to fix the problem with soil in

their garden by; a) adding organic matter and fertilizer to the soil over a period of several

years or b) removing the existing soil and replacing it with good quality soil. The first

method is a long-term project and may never produce high quality soil, however, it is not

very labor intensive and is relatively inexpensive. The latter method is more labor

intensive and may require a significant monetary investment to replace the soil, but it

ensures soil quality in both the short and long run. Once the soil has been modified or if

initially the soil quality is suitable for horticultural crop production the next factor may be

considered.

Organizing the garden in a space efficient manner is the second means to increase

productivity. Questions that should be addressed include; Which crops are best suited to a

given garden area and why? How can one use vertical and horizontal space in the garden

most efficiently? Every yard has a different overall orientation and its own set of

microclimates in terms of light and wind exposure, daily and seasonal temperature

fluctuations, irrigation requirements, potential for disease accumulation and structural

assets and obstacles. All of these factors must be accounted for when trying to decide

which crop will grow best in a specific area of the garden and which cultural practices

should be used for each crop. Years of experience will enable the gardener to tailor the

site to crop needs and achieve efficient productivity of the garden.

The next consideration regards the types of crops that should be grown. This

factor is determined by a) the geographic location of the garden, b) personal preference

and c) the practicality of growing the crop in terms of yields, profitability and space use

efficiency. The household must consider which crops they use on a regular basis and

which are used less frequently when deciding the amount of land allocated to each crop.

Once these questions have been addressed, garden space can be allocated efficiently to

the selected crops.

Another important consideration is cultivar selection. There may be hundreds of

cultivars available for each crop. The gardener must ask themselves what cultivars should

be selected and why? Are their favorite cultivars available in local garden outlets or do

they have to be purchased from further a field? If seed must be imported, what are the

shipping and handling costs? Is there a need to purchase the crop as transplants? Are

differences in yield, quality, disease resistance and flavor significant enough to

compensate for the extra effort involved in accessing uncommon cultivars? There are

many factors that determine how well a specific cultivar(s) is suited to a specific garden;

a) is the cultivar suited to the climate and soil conditions at the garden site, b) How much

and how early does it yield, c) what is its flavor relative to the personal preference of the

gardener, d) is the cultivar disease and pest resistant and e) what is the growth habit of the

cultivar (i.e. is it suited to production within the confined space available in a typical

garden)? It usually makes sense to grow more than one cultivar and to evaluate their

relative merit. It also makes sense to try a few new cultivars each year.

The fifth consideration deals with maintenance of the garden. The garden must fit

the maintenance capabilities of the household while still being aesthetically pleasing and

well enough taken care of to prevent legal trouble and/or hassles with neighbors.

Households that do not have much free time to manage the garden will need to automate

the garden as much as possible and/or must consider hiring a cheap source of labor.

Using automation or outside labor will increase the costs of the garden, but may save

money in the long run if they increase the productivity of the garden.

Irrigation is the sixth consideration. Is rainfall alone adequate to sustain the

garden throughout the growing season or is supplemental irrigation required? Does the

gardener have enough time to manually irrigate the garden or is an automated system

necessary? What types of maintenance is required for the automated irrigation system?

How much does the irrigation system cost? How often will the irrigation system be used?

Is overhead irrigation desired or will drip or flood irrigation better meet the garden

needs? Will irrigation increase pests and diseases? If any of these questions are not

addressed, the irrigation system may prove to be inefficient or more problematic than not

having an irrigation system at all.

Another consideration is the various options for production. Does the gardener

want to grow organically or will they use conventional methods? Is the gardener

informed about the challenges of going organic? Are there organic fertilizers and pest

control products available in local garden outlets? Is the gardener familiar with the

pruning and training practices required for optimum productivity of most fruit crops?

How, when and how much fertilizer will be applied? How often will the homeowner

scout the garden for diseases and pests and do they know what they are looking for? How

and when would harvest commence and finish? How can walls and corners of the garden

be made productive? How would one control theft? How can the grower best use the

available land throughout the growing season? By considering these options and

addressing these issues the garden can be made more productive.

Pest and disease control is unfortunately crucial to successful production of most

fruits and vegetables. The first line of defense against disease and pest problems is the

use of appropriate cultural practices. The garden should start off free of pests and disease

and should be kept clean throughout the years. Changing the microenvironment of the

garden may decrease the amount and range of pests and disease that cause problems.

Chemical products are available for the control of most diseases and pests that affect

vegetable and fruit crops. However, most of these products are only available to licensed

applicators and as such are not available to small scale or hobby growers. This may limit

the potential for hobby gardeners to successfully grow certain types of produce. The

solution is to; a) try to control pests without chemical control products, b) to make the

most effective use of available chemical options or c) quit growing crops not suited to

your location and pest management capabilities.

One of the most important questions that should be addressed is how much will

the garden cost and are the required financial resources available? If money is limiting,

the design may be tweaked in an effort to increase efficiency while decreasing costs.

Some cost control options include; a) making the garden smaller, b) using step by step

improvements to the soil and infrastructure as finances become available, c) going cheap

and realizing the garden may not be as productive, d) save money and build the garden at

a later time.

By analyzing the factors listed above the homeowner can estimate how much they

can grow and how many months of the year the garden will be productive. With time and

experience the gardener should be able to make improvements and further increase the

productivity of the garden.

Some research has been conducted in North America and Europe examining the

productivity of hobby gardens (Bittenbender, 1985). In general, the gardens represent a

hobby and are not expected to be profitable. Not enough has been written about the

output of gardens in less developed countries, despite the greater relative importance of

small-scale gardens in food production in these regions. In many less developed

countries, problems of malnutrition may simply reflect a lack of knowledge on how to

grow food crops efficiently with the resources available. Problems with transportation

infrastructure in less developed countries means that people cannot rely on access to food

produced elsewhere, therefore, they must be self sufficient. More research and education

should be conducted in less developed countries where home gardens represent a

necessity rather than a hobby. Food grown in small gardens can also represent a valuable

source of supplemental income in less developed countries, particularly for female

members of a community.

This project sought to determine if significant quantities of fresh, high quality,

nutritious fruits, vegetables and herbs could be efficiently grown in a home-based garden.

Local food production has the potential to decrease energy consumption associated with

the transport and marketing of imported produce. Local food production also has direct

health benefits, as gardeners time outdoors participating in physical activities while

producing fruit and vegetable crops that are also generally healthy to eat. Hobby gardens

have the potential to increase diversity in ones diet, as crops can be grown in a hobby

gardens that are not consistently available in grocery stores. Gardens can also be visually

appealing and add to the biodiversity of the urban environment. These ideas are not

limited to individuals with large garden spaces, as small gardens and apartment balconies

may be used to produce edible crops.

This project attempts to answer some of the questions and concerns posed in the

above discussion using gardening practices appropriate to a “typical” hobby gardener

tending a typical North American garden. Costs, yields, total gross revenue and profits

were calculated for each crop and for the garden as a whole to determine which crops

were successful and which crops could be more efficiently purchased from local grocery

stores. Changes in productivity of the garden were monitored over time as a means for

evaluating the long-term sustainability and economic viability of the garden.

Returns after costs (profits) were based on the amount of money that was saved

by not having to purchase the same amount of product produced in the garden from

farmer’s markets.

2.0 Materials and Methods

2.1 Site Description

The garden was associated with the author’s family home at 75 Pinto Drive (legal

location 15 5 W2), in the Finch and Victoria Park area of Toronto Ontario. Refer to Fig. 1

for a detailed to: scale drawing of the site. This lot is 9.3 m wide by 41.6 m long (total

387 m2) and includes the house, driveway and yard space. The backyard of the house

faces south, the side yard faces west and the front yard faces north. The house is two

stories high and is situated in the center of the north-south axis of the site and is attached

to the neighboring house on the east. The east side of the house is situated 4.5 m away the

west side of the neighboring house. This area was classified as the side yard. The house

occupies 114.6 m2, the front entrance, sidewalk and driveway occupies 87.0 m2 leaving a

total of 184. 3 m2 of yard space. The backyard is fenced and trees or vines were

espaliered along this perimeter fence.

Fig. 1 Site Plan, Conceptual Design and Master Plan of The Garden (75 Pinto Dr. T.O. ON.)

- Refer to attached vellum paper.

The yard space was divided into three sectors: a) the backyard, which is on the

south side of the house occupies a total area of 103.4 m2, b) the side yard, which is on the

west side of the house occupies an area of 32.46 m2, and c) the front yard, which is

situated on the north side of the house occupies a total area of 48.48 m2. Of the 184.34 m2

of available yard space, 60 m2 was cultivated into herbs and vegetables, 30 m2 into fruits,

and the remaining 94.34 m2 was in grass or was used for the irrigation setup, sitting areas

and walkways.

The vegetable garden in the backyard was 2.0 m wide on average and was

situated just to the inside of the perimeter fence. The vegetable garden in the side yard

was 1.5 m wide on average and ran along the west wall of the house. The front yard was

broken into two separate vegetable beds: one was approximately 1.5 m wide and ran

along the west side of the driveway, while the second bed was circular and occupied an

area of 5.2 m2 .

The backyard received on average 10-12 hours of direct sunlight throughout the

growing season. The side yard consistently received only 5-6 hours of direct sunlight due

to shading by the house. The front yard varied from 4 hours of sunlight in early spring

and early fall to 10-12 hours in early and late summer.

Attempts to grow horticultural crops in the garden at this site over the previous

eight years had been unsuccessful. The crops were slow growing and had very low yields.

2.3 Soil Analysis

2.3.1 Spring 2004

Although the site was in the black soil climatic zone of southern Ontario,

excavation for building purposes removed the top productive layer of soil leaving a

calcareous layer behind. This calcareous layer had low nutrient and organic matter

content, was poorly drained, was susceptible to cracking during dry periods and was very

hard to work.

To determine how to improve the existing soil at the site a soil sample was taken

to a depth of 15 cm in the spring of 2004, prior to the onset of the project. The soil was

tested for texture, pH, electric conductivity (E.C.), organic matter content, cation

exchange capacity (CEC), base saturation, and nutrient levels by Enviro-Test

Laboratories (Tables 1-4). The soil was tested again in 2005 and 2006 to see how much

the soil changes made in 2004 were influencing the soil characteristics at the site in

subsequent years.

2.3.2 Soil Test Characteristics for the Garden Site in 2004, 2005 and 2006

Table 1. Soil Characteristics

Year Depth(cm)

Texture pH(1S:2W)

E.C.Calc.Sat.Extr.

(mS/cm)

E.C.1S:2W

(mS/cm)

SalinityRating

OrganicMatter

(%)

CalculatedCEC (meq/100g

2004 0-6 Clay 7.7 0.4 0.2 Non saline 4.1 21.52005 0-6 Clay

Loam7.7 0.7 0.2 Non saline 8.1 23.1

2006 0-6 Loam 7.7 0.7 0.2 Non saline 9.8 31.6Figures obtained by Enviro-Test Laboratories and the University of Saskatchewan’s Soil Science Department.

Table 2. Base Saturation

Year Base Saturation (ppm) Base Saturation (%)Ca Mg K Na Ca Mg K Na

2004 3870 164 134 110 90 6.3 1.6 2.22005 4080 216 199 100 88 7.7 2.2 1.92006 5560 272 317 180 88 7.1 2.6 2.5

Figures obtained by Enviro-Test Laboratories

Table 3. Soil Nutrient Levels

Year 2004 2005 2006Nutrient Level of Nutrient (Kg/ha)

Nitrogen (N03-) 22.0 48.4 19.8

Phosphorus (P) 10.3 152.9 237.6Potassium (K) 221.1 464.2 570.9Sulfur (S04

-) 25.3 48.4 227.7Copper 2.2 2.42 3.3Manganese (Mn) 10.9 25.7 25.7Zinc (Zn) 34.7 20.1 25.4Boron (B) 1.76 2.8 2.1Iron (Fe) 94.6 221.1 190.3Chlorine (Cl) 14.3 30.8 44.0Figures obtained by Enviro-Test Laboratories

Table 4. Nutrient Recommendation Rates (kg/ha) Based on Soil Tests

Year Vegetable Garden *

N P2O5 K2O S Cu Mn Zn B Fe Cl

2004 Wet Year 237-248 44-55 55-66 22-28 0 0 0 0 0 02005 Wet Year 193-204 0 0-33 6-11 0 0 0 0 0 02006 Wet Year 237-248 0 0-33 6-11 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figures obtained by Enviro-Test Laboratories*Since irrigation was used the nutrient recommendations were based on wet year scenarios

2.3.3 Recommended Soil Improvements

Horticultural crops thrive in well-drained muck, sandy loam, loam or clayey loam

soils with a pH of about 6.5-7.5 (Seagle et al., 1995). High soil organic matter content is

also essential for optimal growth and yield. Most horticultural crops cannot tolerate soil

salinity levels over 1.0 dS/m. Most horticultural crops have a maximum rooting depth of

between 45 and 120 cm. Shallow soils will promote lateral root development, leaving the

plants prone to nutrient and moisture deficiencies. Root crops are also susceptible to

deformities if stones or clods are present in the soil.

Several physical and chemical characteristics of soil present on site in 2004 were

less than ideal. This soil was classified as clay, with 50% clay, 30% silt and 20% sand.

The soil was very dense and tended to crust as it dried; it contained many stones and

clods and was low in nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and sulfur (Table 3). The organic

matter content of the soil was reasonable but could be increased. The pH value of 7.7 was

slightly above optimal and the CEC, while adequate, could be raised. Soil salinity levels

were acceptably low and required no further action.

To optimize yields, it was determined that the soil required modification of

certain physical and chemical properties. Ideally the soil would be a loam rather than

clay. Loams have a clay, silt and sand content of 7-27, 28-50 and <50% respectively

(Tollefson, 1997). This means the soil at the test site must have it’s clay content reduced

from the existing 50% down to 20%, and its sand content increased from 20 to 40%. By

incorporating large quantities of sand or grit or organic matter, sticky clay soils can be

improved (Tollefson, 1997). Organic matter such as peat, farmyard manure or green

crops improve soil tilth, structure, pore space and thus aeration. The addition of organic

matter is especially important as its decomposition leads to the formation of humus,

which enhances the water holding capacity and CEC of the soil (Tollefson, 1997). Humus

holds nutrients and is beneficial for the activity of certain bacteria and microorganisms.

Humus and organic matter are dark in color and have good heat retention properties,

which causes the soil to heat up quicker in the spring. As a result, crops can be planted

earlier in the spring on these soils, thereby extending the growing season. Organic matter

is constantly being consumed by soil microorganisms and must be replenished to

maintain a relatively constant soil organic matter content.

Changing the soil texture from clay to a loam would decrease the water holding

capacity of the soil; however, the corresponding improvement in drainage, nutrient levels,

structure, aeration and tilth would likely compensate for the decreased water holding

capacity. Horticultural crops are usually irrigated and consequently the water holding

capacity of the soil is not critical.

It was decided to augment the clay soil on the site with a mix containing 33.3%

peat, 33.3% manure and 33.3% loam (triple mix). Peat is a good source of organic matter

and is particularly useful for improving the structure of fine textured soils. Although this

mix contained some sand, additional sand was needed to increased soil drainage and

aeration.

Although the total area of cultivated land in the garden was 118.53 m2, only 60 m2

was amended, representing the area of the garden that was going to be used for herb and

vegetable production and the planting area for the fruit trees and vines. The remaining

58.53 m2 was allocated for fruit tree growth, the greenhouse, pots and pathways. Soil

quality was not as critical in those areas

In the 60 m2 of site area to be amended, the triple mix and sand were added at a

1:1 ratio. It was calculated that this treatment would cause the soil texture to change from

the original clay to a clay loam composed of 40% clay, 33% sand and 25% silt

(calculation 1, Appendix C). Incorporation of the triple mix and sand amendments would

double the volume of the cultivated soil.

The soil was initially deficient in nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and sulfur. It

was assumed that the manure and loam components of the triple mix being added to the

soil would have a relatively high nutrient content, while the sand and peat components

would have a relatively low nutrient content. Since the additional sand and peat make up

26.5% of the final volume and the original clay soil made up 50% of the final volume,

76.5% of the final volume would still require supplemental N, P, K and S.

The optimal N, P, K and S levels for the highest demanding horticultural crops are

275, 275, 275 and 88 kg/ha respectively (Seagle et al 1995). Prior to augmentation the

soil N, P, K and S levels were 22.0, 10.3, 221.1 and 25.3 kg/ha respectively (Table 3).

Therefore, an additional 253, 265, 54 and 62.7 kg/ha of N, P, K and S respectively had to

be added to the amended soil to achieve the desired high level of soil fertility. The

fertilizers used were a no name fertilizer (21-7-7), triple superphosophate (0-44-0),

muriate of potash (0-0-60) and sulfur fertilizer (0-0-0-11) (Calculation 2, Appendix C).

All fertilizers were incorporated to a depth of 30 cm in spring prior to planting. Fruit trees

were fertilized using 10-13-13 Jole’s Fruit Tree Spikes. Spikes were tapped five

centimeters into moistened soil along the trees drip line at a rate of 3 spikes per 5 cm of

trunk diameter. The spikes were replaced at 60-day intervals for best results.

The soil pH initially was about 7.6, which is higher than optimal for most

horticultural crops. Since peat commonly has a pH of 5.5 and some supplemental sulfur

was used as an acidifying agent, the soil pH was expected to decrease substantially.

The addition of the triple mix was also expected to increase the organic matter

content of the soil from about 4% to about 28.5% (Calculation 3, Appendix C). The CEC

of the soil was also expected to increase due to the addition of organic matter. Soil

micronutrient levels were expected to decline as a function of the addition of peat and

sand, but micronutrient levels associated with organic matter might compensate for this

decline. Thus, fertilizers containing micronutrients were not added.

2.3.4 Soil Status In 2005

A soil test sample was collected on March 14, 2005 prior to planting the garden.

The same soil properties were tested as in 2004 (Table 1). Augmentation of the soil in

through 2004 significantly altered the soil properties in spring 2005. The soil tested as a

clay loam in 2005 and contained higher levels of macronutrients, lower levels of

micronutrients with a higher E.C. and CEC than the original soil at the site (Table 1). The

soil organic matter was doubled from 2004, but still contained far less organic matter

than expected. This suggests that either the added triple mix was not as high in organic

matter as expected or that a percentage of the organic matter added had decomposed over

the previous season. The soil was less dense than in 2004, however, large clods of clay

still remained in many areas. The proportion of stones was greatly reduced as soil volume

was doubled.

Since the 2005 soil analysis was taken in the spring, the soil was depleted of

nitrogen. A total of 204 kg/ha of supplemental nitrogen was required to meet anticipated

crop requirement (Table 4). Fifty percent of the nitrogen was added before planting in the

spring and the other 50% was added in mid-summer. The preplant nitrogen was

incorporated to a depth of 30 cm while the mid-season nitrogen was applied to the soil

surface and then was hoed into the soil. The 2005 soil tested indicated that phosphorus

was sufficient while potassium and sulfur were marginally sufficient and only small

amounts of these nutrients were required.

Soil pH in 2005 was 7.7 representing no real change from the initial soil pH in

2004. The addition of sulfur and peat in 2004 did not decrease the soil pH as expected.

Clay soils have a high buffering capacity and a great ability to stabilize pH. An additional

50 kg of 11.5% elemental sulfur was added as an acidifying agent in the spring of 2005.

Soil salinity levels remained low and required no further action. By the spring of 2005 the

soil had become much darker, was lighter to work with and was much better drained than

in 2004. Increased soil aeration and drainage caused the soil to dry more quickly, which

was desirable from a crop management perspective, but it increased irrigation

requirements.

After a single year of intensive management the soil at the site was altered to

produce a more suitable medium for horticultural crops. The changes observed were

close to what were desired. Soil characteristics could move closer to the expected

characteristics in subsequent years as a function of weathering, soil microorganisms and

intensive horticultural practices.

2.3.5 Soil Status in 2006

A soil test sample was collected on March 27, 2006 prior to planting out the garden. The

same soil properties were tested as in 2004 and 2005 (Table 1). As a result of weathering,

soil microorganisms and intensive horticultural practices, the soil in spring 2006 was now

a loam, with adequate levels of most macro and micronutrients and a high CEC (Table 1).

There was an increase in organic matter content relative to the previous year, reflecting

the incorporation of crop residues at the end of the 2005 growing season. The soil was

more consistent in density with few clods.

As expected, the soil was depleted of nitrogen and thus nitrogen was again added

in the spring and summer of 2006. Nitrogen was applied at the rate of 248 kg/ha, again in

a 50:50 pre-plant: mid-season split (Table 4). The nitrogen source was 21-7-7 because it

was the only fertilizer with low phosphorus and potassium percentages available in local

garden outlets. Phosphorus levels increased from 2005 and phosphorus was available in

sufficient quantities to meet all crop needs. Potassium and sulfur were still marginally

sufficient in the soil and only small amounts of these nutrients were added. Increases in

soil micronutrients seen in 2006 may reflect the incorporation of the residues from the

2005 cropping season.

Soil pH in 2006 was 7.7. The addition of 50 kg of 11.5% elemental sulfur as an

acidifying agent in 2005 did not decrease soil pH. This supports the conclusion that soil

pH is difficult and expensive to change. Soil salinity levels remained low and required no

further action. Soil color, workability, E.C. and drainage remained consistent in 2006

relative to 2005.

2.4 Construction of Raised Beds

Raised beds were built to; a) eliminate the need for the labor and costs associated

with removing the excess soil from the garden after the soil volume was doubled by

adding the triple mix, b) to increase the soil’s ability to absorb and retain heat , which

would allow earlier planting in the spring and would extend the harvest period in the fall,

c) to increase the depth of soil to accommodate the extensive root systems of most

horticultural crops, d) to reduce the amount of bending associated with planting,

harvesting and maintaining the garden and e) to physically separate grassed areas of the

garden from cultivated areas thereby slowing the spread of grass and weed seeds and tree

roots into the vegetable and herb plots.

Raised beds were constructed using plywood supported by spruce struts. Beds

were typically 1.5 m wide by 0.6 m deep. Each bed was raised 30 cm above the general

garden surface.

2.5 Irrigation System

In 2004 the garden was hand watered using a hose and a hand held sprayer. This

manual irrigation was very time consuming and did not produce consistent results. As a

result, it was decided to install an automatic irrigation system for subsequent years.

The automatic irrigation system installed in 2005 consisted of a timer attached to

a series of manifolds that were connected to the main water system of the house. Pipes

extending from the manifolds led various sprinkler heads and drip tubes. Drip irrigation

tubes extended from the sprinkler heads via an adaptor. There were six manifolds in total

and each manifold connected to two sprinkler heads (Fig. 1). Manifolds and pipes were

buried 0.3m underground. The sprinkler heads projected 0.15-0.9 m above ground,

depending on the area that had to be covered by each sprinkler head. A length of the tube

positioned above a series of pots represented the water source for these pots. A series of

drip tubes also irrigated areas of the garden that were outside the range of the sprinkler

heads or areas where the canopy prevented the sprinklers from supplying sufficient water.

The automatic irrigation system allowed spraying of water for frost protection in

both the spring and fall. This practice extended the growing season. The irrigation system

was also used to apply pesticides and fertilizers, again, reducing labor costs

Irrigation using spray heads deposits water on the crop foliage, thereby potentially

increasing problems with fungal diseases. The automatic irrigation system’s pipes were

also not buried deep enough to prevent water from freezing in the pipes, therefore, a

compressor had to be rented in the fall to blow the pipes free of water to prevent freezing

and potential damage to the pipes over winter. Each sprinkler head irrigated a section of

the garden containing several types of crops. If these crops had different irrigation

requirements some manual hand irrigation was necessary.

On average, the irrigation system was used 6 hours a week. A rain gauge switched

the irrigation system off if rainfall alone was sufficient to meet crop needs.

The total cost of the irrigation system was $1070.58 and water costs were $314.19

per year (Calculation 11, Appendix C), (Table 5).

2.6 Greenhouse

A greenhouse was built to; a) to grow seedling that were not available or would

be too costly if purchased at local garden outlets and b) to grow yellow bell peppers

throughout the summer and fall months. Seedlings grown in the greenhouse and then

transplanted into the garden included lettuce, cauliflower, broccoli, cucumbers, zucchini,

and hot peppers.

The greenhouse (1.2 m x 2.4 m) was constructed using spruce and PVC tube

framing covered with polyethylene. The greenhouse was placed against the east fence of

the yard and the house to reduce heat loss. The irrigation system was extended into the

greenhouse and connected to two sprinklers and two misters. The greenhouse crops were

fertilized using the irrigation system. A thermostated heater placed at the back of the

greenhouse next to a fan was used to keep greenhouse temperatures above 20 ºC. A 400-

Watt outdoor metal halide lamp connected to a timer was placed 0.3 m above the

greenhouse to provide supplemental light during low light periods or to extend day length

in spring and fall.

All greenhouse plants were grown in pots containing soil from the garden. During

hot periods the polyethylene cover was removed from the greenhouse to prevent

overheating. A thermometer and a capacitance hygrometer were used to monitor

temperature and humidity levels in the greenhouse.

The greenhouse crops were very susceptible to insect infestation and were

sprayed regularly.

Total greenhouse construction costs were $280.21 (Appendix A), (Table 5).

Heating water and lighting costs were $41.11 over the period the greenhouse was

operated each year (March-November) (Table 5).

2.7 Disease and Pest Control

A list of the insect pests, diseases and physiological disorders observed over the

three years of the study are presented in appendix B. Aphids and spider mites were not

problematic in 2004 because of cool, wet growing conditions. However, these pests were

problematic on most crops in 2005 and 2006 as those years were hotter than 2004.

Several applications of carbaryl (Sevin) were necessary to keep these pests under control.

Aphids were more readily controlled with carbaryl than spider mites. Spider mites

became especially problematic during the warm dry conditions in August. Some degree

of spider mite control could be achieved through irrigation of the foliage because spider

mites cannot survive or reproduce in humid conditions. Neither spider mites nor aphids

caused significant losses to any crops, in large part because the pesticides worked well.

Herbs, snow peas and asparagus were resistant to spider mites and aphids and these crops

were not sprayed. Additional diseases and pests are discussed in the section dealing with

each specific crop.

2.8 Pesticide Used

All of the information in this section was obtained from the product labels.

2.8.1 Carbaryl (Sevin)

Carbaryl is a contact insecticide registered for use in backyard gardens for the

control of a range of insects that damage fruit and vegetable crops. Carbaryl was applied

once every two weeks from about the 15th of June until about the 15th of September for a

total of 6 applications. In some cases the product was applied even if insects were not

detected. The typical gardener has limited pest knowledge and/or lacks the time to do

proper crop scouting. In these situations spraying at regular intervals represents a

dependable method of pest control. The pre-harvest interval for carbaryl varies from one

day for lettuce to over one week for other crops.

2.8.2 Sulfur

Sulfur was used to control powdery mildew, rust, blackspot, scab, black knot and

certain mites. It is registered for use on fruits, vegetables and flowers. Sulfur may be

applied as a powder to the foliage and soil or it can be dissolved in water and sprayed

onto plants. Application should be immediate upon first visible signs of fungus and

during wet periods or periods with cool nights and high condensation or rainfall. If a

disease has proven problematic in the past, sulfur should be applied as a preventative

measure before disease problems are observed. The pre-harvest interval for sulfur is one

day for all crops except for grapes, which require 21 days. Sulfur does not cure disease

infections, but rather it prevents disease from spreading and damaging uninfected tissue

(Ronald, 1994). Sulfur should not be applied to crops if temperatures exceed 24 ºC and

should never be applied on Cucurbits.

2.8.3 Copper

Copper can be used to control a wide range of fungal and bacterial diseases on

vegetables, flowers, ornamentals and fruits in this project. Copper was primarily used to

control leaf curl on the nectarines and peaches. The pre-harvest interval for copper is one

day. Copper should be applied at the first visible signs of disease and during periods

causing persistent dampness on the foliage. Although damaged foliage falls off a few

days after copper application, new leaves grow back quickly.

2.8.4 Rodenticides

Because mice were problematic in the 2004 growing season, a rodenticide

(Wilson’s Tom Cat) was used in 2005 and 2006. The active ingredient in this product is

bromadioline, which kills rats and mice by interrupting their nervous system and causing

internal bleeding. This product is toxic to fish and wildlife. Cats, dogs and birds may die

if they ingest this poison.

2.8.5 No Damp

No Damp is a fungicide used to control damping-off of seedlings. No Damp

applied to the soil, seeds and seedlings proved effective for preventing or curing

damping-off. The active ingredient in No Damp is oxine benzoate.

2.8.6 Slug and Snail Control

Slugs were problematic on the turnips. The active ingredient in the Slug and Snail

Killer used is a bacterium (Bacillus thuringiensis). This bacteria is environmentally

friendly and effectively controlled slugs and snails in the garden.

2.9 IronIron deficiencies had been a problem at this site in past years. Although iron is

usually abundant in the soil, it is present in the wrong chemical form when the soil pH is

greater than 7.0. Plants take up iron as Fe2+, however, at a soil pH greater than 7.0 iron is

present in the Fe3+ form, which cannot be taken up by roots. The symptoms of iron

deficiency are known as iron-induced chlorosis or lime chlorosis. Foliar applications of

iron were used to control lime-induced iron chlorosis. Applications were made once a

week on blueberries, peaches and nectarines for several weeks until symptoms

disappeared. This process only temporarily solves the iron problem in the long run. Soil

pH must be changed to minimize the conversion of Fe2+ to Fe3+.

2.10 Theft

Theft is a concern in any garden; this garden was particularly susceptible to theft

as no there were no fences in the front yard and the backyard faced a schoolyard.

However, the garden was located in a relatively crime free area of Toronto. Members of

the community kept the gardener informed if any theft was observed. Losses to theft were

minimal.

2.11 Weeds

All weed control was by manual removal or by cultivation using a hoe. Manual

weed removal was necessary because there were no herbicides available that would not

damage at least a few of the diverse array of crops grown in the garden. Weed removal

commenced at the beginning of June and was repeated every two weeks until September.

Weeds germinated continuously throughout the growing season, however, they were

removed before they ever posed a threat to the crops and before they had a chance to re-

seed. Weed problems declined as the season progressed as the crops shaded out the weed

seedlings.

It appeared that weed populations were lower in 2005 and 2006 when compared

to 2004. This suggests some progress towards the objective of a “weed-free” garden, but

because of long-term dormancy of weed seeds and/or potential for weeds to be

introduced from neighboring properties some weed control will always be required in the

garden.

2.12 Crop Selection

The crops grown were selected based on their ability to sustain an average North

American family both during the growing season with fresh produce and after the

growing season with stored, died or preserved products. Although some crops were

expected to out-yield and/or be more profitable than some crops, an variety of crops were

grown to provide a balanced diet of the family.

2.13 Cultivar Selection

In 2004, the cultivars of the various crops grown were chosen primarily on the

basis of their availability from local garden supply outlets. Personal preference,

recommendations by nursery persons, anticipated earliness of maturity and market price

formed the basis of choice of cultivar for those crops that had more than one cultivar

available. Cultivar recommendations from the University of Saskatchewan’s Vegetable

Cultivar and Cultural Trials were also used when making choices.

Decisions on whether a cultivar was replaced with another cultivar in subsequent

growing seasons were based on yield, disease, quality and flavor characteristics in

previous years. If a cultivar was higher yielding than other cultivars it was re-tried, even

if it had inferior disease, quality or flavor characteristics. However, if a cultivar had

serious disease problems, it was usually not a good yielder. Although quality and flavor

were important, cultivars with inferior quality or flavor were still retained if their yields

were significantly higher than other cultivars. In essence, a combination of yield, disease

resistance, quality and flavor were all considered when determining whether a cultivar

was retained or replaced.

2.14 Plantings

Seeds of cool season crops were planted in the first week of May and usually

emerged by mid to late May. Warm season crops and peas were seeded in mid to late

May when soil moisture was reduced to prevent damping off and when frost was no

longer likely to damage the young seedlings. In the case of fast maturing crops like

lettuce and spinach, multiple plantings occurred throughout the growing season. All

transplants were planted on the May 24 long weekend after the risk of spring frost had

passed

2.15 Crop Location Within the Garden

The garden was divided into four main sections, based on the growing conditions

prevailing in that area. The north side of the house and the area between the neighboring

houses experienced cooler conditions and less intense sunlight and/or less hours of

daylight during hot summer months than other areas of the garden. This area was planted

to cool season crops. The south side of the house where sunlight was intense and days

were long represented the warmest area of the garden. This area was planted to the warm

season crops. Herbs and perennial crops also require intense sunlight and long days for

good production; thus, those crops were also planted on the south side of the house. Fruit

crops were planted in grassed areas or along fences or railing. These spots were exposed

to full sunlight or partial shade depending on the requirements of the species.

2.16 Yield Analysis

Yields were calculated using differing techniques depending on the crop. Crops in

which yields are traditionally calculated using mass were weighed. Crops in which yields

are traditionally calculated based on volume were measured using appropriate sized

containers (ex. pints, quarts). Crops in which yields are traditionally calculated based on

numbers were simply counted (ex. six plants per bunch). Yields were recorded for each

cultivar. All plant material that was not significantly damaged by pests, disease or

physiological disorders was included in the yield analyses. Plant material that was

significantly damaged was used as compost. Yields for each cultivar were used to

calculate yields per square meter (Calculation 5, Appendix C). This allowed for

comparisons of yields and profitability of crops grown in different amounts in the garden.

Each cultivar tested was also evaluated for earliness of yield and consistancy of

yield over the growing season. Flavor characteristics were analyzed using a scale of poor,

fair, good and excellent, based on the opinion of the household. When members of the

household did not agree upon flavor, an average was taken.

2.17 Crop Pricing

All crops were priced based on prices at the nearby Canal Roads Farmer’s Market

in the Holland Marsh near Bradford Ontario. Prices were recorded several times each

growing season. The prices used in all calculations were the lowest price observed

between 2004 and 2006. This price was used as; a) the produce from the garden was not

always in as good condition as the produce at the Holland Marsh market and b) this

pricing method insured that the revenue calculations were quite conservative. Farmer’s

market prices were used instead of grocery store prices because quality and flavor of the

produce from the test garden more closely resembled that of farmer’s markets and was

often superior to grocery store produce.

2.18 Cost Analysis

Costs were calculated separately for each year. Costs were subdivided into

variable and fixed costs within each sector of the garden. Fixed costs were amortized

based on a 10, 25 or 50 years depending on the anticipated longevity of the item

(Calculation 5, Appendix C) showed how cost analyses were conducted. Total costs per

garden section, total costs per year, average total costs per year and costs per square

meter per year are presented in Table (Table 5). For the individual distribution of

expenses within the various sections of the garden refer to Appendix A.

Table 5. Costs of Various Aspects of the Garden, Total costs and Costs Per Meter in 2004 - 2006

Type of Expense Year 1 (2004) ($) Year 2 (2005) ($) Year 3 (2006) ($)Soil purchase 1461.30 40.00 40.00Site prep 710.90 10.00 10.00Irrigation Materials Water Total

1070.58314.19

1384.77

10.00314.19324.19

10.00314.19324.19

Chemicals 159.49 72.81 72.81Planting material 163.16 10.00 10.00Fruit trees 1037.17 36.77 36.77Vegetable seeds 77.02 77.02 77.02Vegetable transplants 38.75 38.75 38.75Herbs 60.11 5.00 5.00Greenhouse Construction Operational Total

239.1041.11

280.21

0.0041.1141.11

0.0041.1141.11

Labor ($8.00/h) Irrigation setup Landscaping Greenhouse setup Time in Transportation Variable Total

320.001,120.00

64.00120.00840.00

2,752.00 840.00 840.00

Miscellaneous 178.81 10.00 10.00Ornamentals 345.17 30.00 30.00Total costs 8497.17 1535.65 1535.65Total costs/10 years (based on ten year amortization)

1896.54 1896.54 1896.54

Total costs/m2/year

(based on ten year amortization)

16.00 16.00 16.00

-All total variable costs after year four maintained at $1900.00-Total productive garden area 118.53 m2

2.19 General Crop Yield and Cost Analysis

Net revenue was analyzed for each cultivar to determine the over all worth of that

cultivar (Calculation 6, Appendix C). Net revenue per square meter was also determined

for each cultivar to compare the relative yields of each cultivar (Calculation 7, Appendix

C). Total net revenue was determined for the crop, which included the net revenues of

each individual cultivar for that crop (Calculation 8, Appendix C). Total costs were

determined for each crop by multiplying the amount of land used by the crop by the costs

per square meter of the garden (Calculation 9, Appendix C). Calculation 8 was divided by

two for those crops that were only cultivated in an area for half of the growing season and

replaced by other crops later that same growing season. Profits were determined and

analyzed for each crop (Calculation 10, Appendix C).

3.0 Results and Discussion

3.1 Weather Conditions

3.1.1 2004 Weather Data

The 2004 growing season was cool and wet. Temperatures rarely exceeded 25 ºC

and rain was persistent throughout the entire growing season. Sunshine hours were also

well below normal. The last spring frost occurred on May 25th and the first autumn frost

occurred around October 21st for a total of 149 frost-free days, which was 11 days shorter

than the average frost-free day season of 160 days (The Green Lane TM, 2004)


The 2005 growing season was hot and humid, especially in July, August and

September, with temperatures exceeding 25 ºC almost every day. October was cooler, but

temperatures still exceeded 20 ºC on most days. The last spring frost in 2005 occurred in

mid May and the first autumn frost occurred in late October for a total of approximately

169 frost-free days, which was 9 days longer than the long term frost-free day period.


The 2006 growing season was also hot and humid. Temperatures exceeded 25 ºC

on average from May till September. July and August were particularly hot; with some

days exceeding 40 ºC and most days exceeding 30 ºC. On average, temperatures in

October and November still exceeded 15-20 ºC. The last spring frost occurred in early

May and the first fall frost occurred in late November for a total of approximately 214

frost-free days, which was 54 days longer than the long term frost-free season.

3.2 Crop Selection for Presentation in the Thesis

All of the crops grown in the backyard garden were assessed for their suitability,

optimum cultural practices, harvest duration, cultivar selection, susceptibility to disease,

pests and physiological disorders, pricing, costs, yields and revenues. However, only ten

of the fifty-one crops grown were chosen for discussion in the thesis (apricots, carrots,

cauliflower, cucumber, grapes, oregano, pepper, raspberry, spinach and tomatoes). These

crops were chosen because they represented a variety of types of fruits and vegetables,

early vs. late season, roots vs. foliage harvested, growth habit, and contributions to the

sustainability of the garden. For a detailed analysis of the other forty-one crops cultivated

in the garden refer to appendix D.

3.3 Crops Presented in the Thesis

3.3.1 Apricots (Prunus armeniaca L.)

3.3.1.1 Introduction

Apricot is a frost sensitive perennial member of the Rosaceae family. Apricot

trees require a chilling period of at least 25-42 days to induce flower production (Biggs et

al., 1997; Janick, 1982). Apricot plants can tolerate cold winter temperatures, but the

flower buds are less cold hardy. Spring frosts will cause flower drop and the tree will not

be productive that growing season. Apricots are somewhat drought tolerant but require

irrigation during extensive periods of heat. Apricot cultivars have varying hardiness

zones and choosing the right cultivar for an area is essential (Biggs et al., 1997; Janick,

1982). Apricots have a main taproot extending several feet deep and a fibrous root system

near the soil surface (Biggs et al., 1997; Janick, 1982). Apricots grow best in loamy well-

drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 6.0 and 7.5 (Biggs et al., 1997;

Janick, 1982).

Apricot trees may begin fruiting after 3 years if a precocious rootstock is used and

may continue fruiting for over 40 years. Apricot trees can be pruned from fall until

spring. Spurs do not usually fruit for more than 3 years. Thus, pruning is aimed at

renewing spur growth and producing new wood. Apricot cultivars are usually self-sterile

and thus two trees of different cultivars are required in close proximity for pollination.

3.3.1.2 Trials

There was only enough space in the garden for a single apricot tree. Neighboring

properties had apricot trees in their yards and thus pollination was possible. ‘Viva Gold’

was the cultivar chosen as it was recommended by local nursery persons as a cold hardy,

high yielding cultivar with excellent flavor. The ‘Viva Gold’ tree was purchased as a

three-year-old rootstock that was about 1.8 m tall. The apricot tree was planted in the

backyard in full sunlight, as apricots yield best when exposed to full sunlight. The tree

occupied a space of 1.26 m2

Pruning in early spring was used to maintain tree vigor and shape, while a

summer pruning removed diseased or dying branches. Pruning was aimed at renewing

spur growth and promoting new wood. An open center tree was formed that was short

and dense. It was hoped that this training/pruning regime would protect the tree from cold

windy weather while minimizing shading of other areas of the garden by the developing

apricot tree.

Apricots were harvested at full maturity when the fruit were soft, but before they

began to rot. Apricots were priced at $6.58/kg.

3.3.1.3 Cropping Results

3.3.1.3.1 2004 and 2005

As expected, the apricot tree did not yield in 2004 or 2005 as it was still in a

juvenile growth phase. The tree was very vigorous and showed no symptoms of disease.

Although insects did not seem to affect this tree, carbaryl was used anyways to prevent

damage by insects. A loss of $20.16 was realized in both 2004 and 2005 for the space and

labor requirements associated with the apricot tree Table 6.

3.3.1.3.2 2006

The apricot tree grew vigorously in 2006, but showed some symptoms of foliar

and fruit disease. Coryneum fruit-spot (Coryneum blight) induced by the fungus,

Coryneium Beijerinckii, was observed on 25% of the fruit and foliage. Symptoms of this

disease include a gumming of buds on fruiting wood accompanied by splitting of the bark

on branches of the current year’s growth (Hesler et al., 1920). Spotting of twigs causes an

exudation of gum and can cause the tree to die. Leaf lesions were also common; infected

leaves exhibit circular, brownish spots with dark red margins. The fruit may also have

lesions, which at first are small and purplish-red, but become brown and deep with time

(Hesler et al., 1920). In severe cases the fruit cracks and releases gums. Spraying trees

with sulfur or copper is the best method for control of Coryneum blight (Hesler et al.,

1920). Sprays should be applied once before flower bud break and a second time during

initial fruit expansion (Hesler et al., 1920). This treatment will be used in future years to

reduce the occurrence of Coryneum blight, as this disease may affect yields in subsequent

years.

Although insects did not seem to affect the tree in 2006, carbaryl was again used

to prevent any potential damage by insects.

Apricot harvest commenced on July 21st 2006 and continued until July 30th for a

total of 10 days of harvest. Yields, costs, revenue and profit for the apricot tree in 2006

are presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Yields and Economics of the Apricot Tree in 2006

Year Cultivar Yield(kg/tree)

Yield(kg/m2)

Gross Revenue($/tree)

Total Costs ($)

Profit ($) ($/m2)

2004 Viva Gold 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.16 -20.16 0.02005 Viva Gold 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.16 -20.16 0.02006 Viva Gold 8.5 3.9 55.91 20.16 35.75 25.42

The apricot fruit were of excellent quality and flavor. The apricot tree produced

total revenue of $55.91 in 2006 resulting in a profit of $20.70.

3.3.1.4 Conclusion

The apricot tree performed well in growing conditions typical of Toronto. The

tree did not yield at all during the first two years, however, by the third year significant

yields were obtained. This early yielding indicates that good management practices were

used on this tree between 2004 and 2006. The apricot tree required pruning, staking and

training, all of which were labor demanding. Foliar and fruit disease did not cause

significant losses over the three years of the study. No fruit was discarded as Coryneum

blight was only a cosmetic defect and did not alter the flavor or texture of the fruit.

However, Coryneum blight showed up in 2006 and fungicide applications will be

required in successive years to prevent further spread of this potentially fatal disease.

A cumulative loss of $49.70 was concurred over the three years for the space

dedicated to the apricot tree. This reflects the substantial purchase cost for the tree, the

labor costs associated with pruning and the fact that the apricot tree did not yield in 2004

and 2005 and had only low yields in 2006. It is expected that fruit production should

increase in the following years and should more than cover all past and future expenses.

The tree must be kept well pruned to maintain its size and the tree will never reach its

maximum yield potential because it must be kept smaller than normal to reduce shading

of other crops in the garden. The fruit were of exceptional quality and flavor compared to

store purchased fruit because they were harvested when they were fully ripe.

3.3.2 Carrots (Daucus carota L.)


Carrots are hardy cool season biennial members of the Apiacea cultivated as

annuals for their edible roots. Carrots are relatively deep rooted, with a maximum rooting

depth of 90-120 cm (Lorenz et al., 1997). Carrots grow best in well-drained muck, peat or

sandy loam soils with high organic matter and a pH between 6.0 and 7.0 (Biggs et al.,

1997.). Root deformities may result if the soil is not free of stones and clods, if the soil is

not friable to a depth of 30-45 cm, or if soil nitrogen levels exceed 275 kg/ha (Biggs et

al., 1997.). Carrots require 55-165, 55-165 and 55-220 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O

respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Carrots are only moderately drought tolerant and require

irrigation during extended hot dry periods (Biggs et al., 1997.). Deformities and cracking

of carrot roots may result if the crop is not irrigated adequately, especially during

germination and root expansion (Biggs et al., 1997.). Carrots will produce poor yields at

soil salinity levels higher than 1.0 dS/m (Lorenz et al., 1997).

3.3.2.2 Trials

Carrots were planted from 2004-2006 within a 3.35 m² area of the front yard of

the garden that was exposed to full sunlight. This location was chosen because carrot

yields and root quality are dependent on high levels of light. Four cultivars were tested in

2004; ‘Chantenay Red’, ‘Chantenay Royal’, ‘Scarlett Nantes’ and an unknown cultivar

from Egypt. Each cultivar occupied a quarter of the 3.35 m2 of the garden in 2004. Better

yielding and higher quality cultivars were allocated larger areas of the carrot plot in

successive years. Carrots were seeded 1.5 cm apart in rows that were 30 cm apart.

Carrots were harvested from August to November before and after several light

frosts. Although late harvests produce the maximum yields and highest root quality,

earlier harvested carrots command a price premium. Only the largest carrots were

harvested in August, the smaller ones were left to grow. All remaining carrots were taken

in a once-over final harvest in November.

Carrots were priced at $1.99/bunch; each bunch consisted of six carrots with the

tops attached.


3.3.2.3.1 2004

Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer of

2004 slowed plant growth, limited yields and also created conditions suitable for fungal

diseases.

Crown rot was observed on a few carrots of each cultivar. This disease tended to

appear towards the latter half of the growing season when leaves were dense. Crown rot

only appeared to affect the outer few leaves of the infected plants and did not cause

significant damage to the edible roots and thus no attempts were made to control this

disease in 2004. For more information on crown rot and its controls, refer to the section

on asparagus in Appendix D.

Pythium root dieback was also observed on a few carrots of each cultivar. This

disease caused a ten percent grade out of the carrot crop. Pythium root dieback also

known as rusty root, lateral root dieback, and forked root is caused by the fungi Pythium

spp. Symptoms of this disease include rusty-brown lateral roots, stunted tap roots with

long lateral roots and highly forked tap roots (Ronald et al., 2004). Foliage affected by

Pythium usually appears normal (Ronald et al., 2004). Roots are almost always affected

during the first few weeks of growth and have root tip necrosis after the two-leaf stage

(Ronald et al., 2004). Lateral roots on diseased plants are larger than normal because

apical dominance of the main taproot is lost (Ronald et al., 2004). Control measures for

Pythium include; a) avoiding seeding in poorly drained soils, b) avoiding over irrigation,

c) appropriate spacing of carrots, d) crop rotations with cabbage, corn, mint, onion and

potato, and e) growing resistant cultivars (Ronald et al, 2004). Pythium root dieback

should not be confused with similar looking root disorders caused by taproot damage due

to obstructions in the soil or damage caused from transplanting carrots (Ronald et al.,

2004). No attempt was made to control this disease in 2004 because this disease was

noticed late in the growing season.

Insect damage was minimal in the carrot crop in 2004 and any insects seen in the

crop were easily controlled through sprays with carbaryl.

Carrot harvest in 2004 commenced on July 28th and continued till October 11th

2004 for a total of 76 days of harvest. Yields, production costs, revenue and profit for the

various carrot cultivars tested in 2004 are presented in Table 7.

Table 7. Yields and Economics of Carrots in 2004 - 2006

Year Cultivar Yield(bunches)

Yield(bunches/m2)

Gross Revenue

($)

Total Costs

($)

Profit ($) ($/m2)

2004 53.60 26.98Chantenay Red 7 8.3 13.93 0.50

Chantenay Royal 5 6.0 9.50 -4.06

Scarlet Nantes 12 14.3 23.88 12.46

Unknown (Egypt) 10 11.9 19.90 7.682005 53.60 45.90

Nantes Coreless 11.0 13.1 21.89 10.07

Scarlet Nantes 25.0 14.9 49.75 13.65

Danvers Half Long 14.0 16.7 27.86 17.232006 53.60 61.82

Scarlet Nantes 58 17.3 115.42 18.43

‘Scarlet Nantes’ was the smallest carrot tested in 2004, but it was a good yielder

and had excellent flavor. ‘Chantenay Royal’ and ‘Chantenay Red’ were medium in size,

had poor yields and fair flavor while the Egyptian variety was the largest carrot with the

highest yields, but it also had poor flavor. All the cultivars yielded consistently through

the harvest season, but carrots harvested later in the growing season had better flavor

regardless of the cultivar. The carrot plot produced a total revenue of $80.58 and a profit

of $26.98 ($8.05/m2) in 2004.

3.3.2.3.2 2005

‘Scarlet Nantes’ was planted again in 2005 because of its good yields and flavor

characteristics in 2004. ‘Nantes Coreless’ and ‘Danver Half Long’ recommended by Dr.

Doug Waterer of the University of Saskatchewan were tried in 2005. These cultivars

replaced the low yielding and/or poor flavored Chantenay and Egyptian type varieties.

Thus, three rows each of the Nantes and Danver type cultivars were planted in 2005.

Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the summer of 2005 and

better choice of cultivars lead to higher average yields than in 2004. Rainfall was

adequate but not excessive, thus, crown rot was not a problem in 2005. Ten to Fifteen

percent of the carrots again had Pythium root dieback. Yield losses are expected in

subsequent years from Pythium root dieback because carrots will not be rotated with

other crops and this disease has no alternative control measure. Insects were not a

problem in 2005.

Carrot harvest in 2005 commenced on August 7th and continued until October 21st

2005 for a total of 77 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs,

revenue and profit for the various carrot cultivars tested in 2005 are presented in Table 7.

Nantes type carrots were of excellent flavor, however, ‘Danver Half Longs’ were

bland and of only fair flavor. ‘Scarlet Nantes’ had superior yields in 2005 compared to

‘Nantes Coreless’. ‘Danver Half Long’ had lower bunch yields than ‘Scarlet Nantes’,

however, weight yields were similar for these two cultivars. All three cultivars yielded

consistently through the harvest season, but carrots harvested later in the growing season

again had better flavor, regardless of the cultivar.

The Carrot plot produced a total revenue of $99.50 and a profit of $45.90

($13.70/m2) in 2005.

3.3.2.3.3 2006

As a function of its high yields, greater revenue and better flavor characteristics

seen in previous years ‘Scarlet Nantes’ was the sole cultivar used in 2006.

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Crown rot

was not a significant problem in 2006, although many carrots did show minor signs of

this disease. Again about ten percent of the carrots showed symptoms of Pythium root

dieback.

Carrot harvest in 2006 commenced on August 6th and continued until November

30th for a total of 117 days of harvest. Yields, production costs, revenue and profit for

‘Scarlet Nantes’ in 2006 are presented in Table 7.

Yields were higher in 2006 compared to 2005. As in 2004 and 2005, ‘Scarlet

Nantes’ had excellent quality and flavor.

The carrot plot produced a total revenue of $115.42 and a profit of $61.82

($18.45/m2) in 2006.

3.3.2.4 Conclusion

Carrots performed well in all years, but warmer sunnier weather in 2005 and 2006

tended to favor carrot production over the cooler weather experienced in 2004.

Carrot cultivars vary in size and flavor, and thus, choosing suitable cultivars is

important. Choosing cultivars with better flavor and yields helped increase production of

the carrot plot over the three years of the trial. Although ‘Danver Half Long’ carrots

produce higher yields in terms of weight because of their larger roots, they appeared to be

lower yielding in this study because carrot yields were measured based on numbers of

plants rather than by mass. ‘Scarlet Nantes’ carrots were much smaller and had better

flavor and yields in this study when compared to the Danver type carrots.

Disease problems in the carrots tended to appear towards the latter half of the

growing season as temperatures rose, air circulation in the canopy was reduced and

condensation became more common. Crown rot and Pythium root die back did not cause

excessive losses, but these diseases are a concern, especially because they are hard to

control. Carrots should be rotated with other crops if crown rot and Pythium root die back

become more problematic in successive years. Insects were not a significant problem in

the carrots.

Carrots had very low maintenance requirements once seeded. A total profit of

$134.70 was realized for the carrot patch over the three years of trials. This corresponded

to an average profit of $13.40/m2. Future profits should be consistent with the higher

profits seen in 2006 because appropriate management practices and cultivars were well

established by the third year of production.

Carrots grown in home gardens have the potential to produce superior flavored

and better quality roots than those purchased in grocery stores. This is because the carrot

cultivars that have been selected to withstand marketing through the wholesale food

distribution chain have inferior quality characteristics compared to the cultivars available

to home gardeners. Carrots from the home garden are also far fresher than carrots

available from retail stores.

3.3.3 Cauliflower (Brassica Oleraceae L.)


Cauliflower is a hardy cool season biennial member of the Brassicaceae. It is

cultivated as an annual for its edible immature floral stock. Cauliflower is shallow rooted

and grows best in deep muck or loam soils which are well drained, well tilled, are high in

organic matter and have a pH between 5.0 and 7.0 (Biggs et al., 1997). Cauliflower

requires 110-220, 55-220, and 55-220 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et

al, 1995). Cauliflower is susceptible to drought and requires frequent irrigation,

particularly during hot dry periods (Biggs et al., 1997). Soil should be banked around the

lower stems of maturing cauliflower plants to protect them from falling over in strong

winds. Cauliflower will produce poor yields at soil salinity levels higher than 2.0 dS/m

(Lorenz et al., 1997).

There are two main types of cauliflower; self-blanching and non-self-blanching.

The leaves must be tied over the developing heads of cultivars that do not have the trait

of self-blanching or else the cauliflower head will turn yellow-green when exposed to

sunlight. The leaves of self-blanching cultivars naturally cover the developing

cauliflower heads.

3.3.3.2 Trials

Cauliflower was planted within a 2.04 m², 7.0 m2 and a 5.20 m2 area of the garden

in 2004, 2005 and 2006 respectively. The plants were exposed to full sunlight to promote

quick development. Cauliflower was purchased as transplants that were about 6 cm tall.

A spring crop was planted out in late May in 2004-2006 while the fall crop was planted

out in early August in 2005 and 2006. A fall crop was not planted out in 2004 because the

spring crop was late to mature. A summer crop was not planted because the cauliflower

crop would not develop properly in the hot humid conditions typical of Toronto summers.

Plants were spaced 46 cm apart at each planting.

The crop was harvested a few days prior to flower bud opening. Cauliflower was

priced at $4.38/kg.


3.3.3.3.1 2004

‘Snow Crop’ was the only cultivar available as transplants in 2004. It is a self-

blanching type.

Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer of

2004 delayed harvest but permitted a prolonged harvest and resulted in very large heads.

No diseases occurred in 2004. Insects caused insignificant damage to either the heads or

foliage.

Cauliflower harvest in 2004 commenced on July 29th and continued till August

10th for a total of 12 days of harvest. Yields, production costs, revenue and profit for

‘Snow Crop’ in 2004 are presented in table

Table 8. Yields and Economics of Cauliflower in 2004 - 2006

Year Cultivar Yield(kg)

Yield(kg/m2)

Gross Revenue

($)

Total Costs ($)

Profit ($) ($/m2)

2004 Snow Crop 11.2 5.49 49.03 32.64 16.39 8.052005 Snow Crop

(Spring Crop)(Fall Crop)

7.064.0

3.412.9

30.66280.32

32.64111.36

-1.98168.96

-1.1140.5

2006 Snow Crop (Spring Crop)(Fall Crop)

10.057.0

4.918.03

43.80249.66

32.6450.56

11.16199.10

5.4662.97

‘Snow Crop’ was of excellent flavor, providing the heads were harvested before

temperatures exceeded 25-30 ºC, otherwise the heads were bitter.

The cauliflower plot produced a total revenue of $49.03 and a profit of $16.39

($8.03/m2) in 2004.

3.3.3.3.2 2005

‘Snow Crop’ had excellent flavor and head characteristics in 2004 and thus was

tried again in 2005.

Cauliflower plants grew vigorously throughout the entire season; however,

Alternaria disease was prevalent throughout the 2005 growing season. Alternaria disease

caused approximately ten percent of the cauliflower heads in the fall crop to turn light

gray, however, heads were still of acceptable quality for consumption; thus no yields

were lost in 2005 due to Alternaria. Alternaria did not affect the spring crop. Alternaria

disease is a fungus caused by Alternaria spp. that causes black leaf spot and gray leaf

spot on Crucifers (Ronald et al., 1994). Symptoms can appear as damping off in pre or

post-emergences of seedlings or as rots as late as head formation, development and

senescence (Ronald et al., 1994). Small circular yellow-brown lesions with concentric

rings form on leaves (Ronald et al., 1994). These lesions grow to become several

centimeters in diameter and finally the lesions cover the entire leaf, eventually leading to

leaf drop (Ronald et al., 1994). Lesions caused by A. brassicae are brownish gray in color

and are usually smaller than the A. brassicicola lesions, which are usually olive-gray to

grayish black (Ronald et al., 1994). The first is referred to, as gray leaf spot while the

latter is known as black leaf spot (Ronald et al., 1994). Affected Cauliflower heads turn

blackish gray in color from the outside in as the head develops (Ronald et al., 1994).

Alternaria disease should be controlled by using disease free seeds or by treating seeds

with a hot water treatment before planting to kill any infection present on the seeds

(Ronald et al., 1994). “Long rotations with non-cruciferous crops, incorporation of

diseased crop residues into the soil, elimination of cull piles, eradication of cruciferous

weeds, and avoidance of overhead irrigation during head development all will reduced

inoculum levels” (Ronald et al., 1994). Fungicides can control Alternaria disease on

seeds, growing plants and developing heads (Ronald et al., 1994).

Diseased leaves were disposed of at the end of the 2005 growing season to

prevent accumulation of Alternaria in successive years. In 2006 overhead irrigation will

not be used on the cauliflower crop during head development to reduce the spread of

Alternaria and sulfur will be used at the first appearance of symptoms of this disease. If

Alternaria disease continues to be a problem in successive years, cauliflower will be

rotated with non-crucifer crops.

Insects caused insignificant damage to cauliflower heads and foliage. Cauliflower

heads were slightly bitter and expanded rapidly in 2005.

Harvest of the summer crop commenced on August 1st and continued until August

8th for a total of 9 days of harvest. The fall crop was harvested from October 10th till

November 5th for a total of 26 days of harvest. Yields, production costs, revenue and

profit for ‘Snow Crop’ in 2005 are presented in Table 8.

Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the spring and early summer

of 2005 permitted only 9 days of harvest and lead to lower yields and quality for the

spring crop compared to 2005. However, the fall crop was harvested for 26 days resulting

in good yields or large heads with better flavor.

The spring cauliflower crop produced a total revenue of $30.66 resulting in a loss

of $1.98 ($0.97 m2) in 2005. The fall cauliflower crop produced a total revenue of

$280.32 and a profit of $168.96 ($34.06/m2) in 2005.

3.3.3.3.3 2006

‘Snow Crop’ had excellent flavor and head characteristics in 2004 and 2005 and

thus it was planted again in 2005.

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005, which lead

to similar harvest periods, yields, head sizes and flavor characteristics in 2006 as in 2005.

The same diseases were prevalent in 2006 as were observed in 2005. Diseases caused

insignificant damage to cauliflower heads, thus, fungicides were not used to control these

diseases. Cauliflower leaves had some insect damage, however, carbaryl was affective at

controlling these insects.

The spring harvest commenced on August 6th and continued until August 10th for

a total of 5 days of harvest. The fall harvest commenced on October 15th and continued

until November 30th for a total of 46 days of harvest. Yields, production costs, revenue

and profit for ‘Snow Crop’ in 2006 are presented in Table 8.

Weather conditions in 2006 were similare to that of 2005, thus, the spring and fall

cauliflower crops were of similare quality compared to the crop of 2005.

The spring cauliflower crop produced a total revenue of $43.80 and a profit of

$11.16 ($5.47/m2) in 2006. The fall cauliflower crop produced a total revenue of $249.66

and a profit of $199.10 ($63.01/m2) in 2006.

3.3.3.4 Conclusion

Cauliflower performed well in the spring of 2004 due to cooler temperatures and

consistent cloud cover. However, warmer sunnier conditions in 2005 and 2006 reduced

yields, degraded flavor, and reduced head size and quality of the spring plantings. Fall

crops, however, had good yields, flavor characteristics and head size and quality.

Cauliflower should be solely cultivated as a fall crop in subsequent years because this

cool season crop does not do well in the heat that occurs in early summer in Toronto.

Insect problems were insignificant permitting carbaryl was used every other week

of the growing season.

Cauliflower required few labor inputs. A total profit of $393.63 was realized for

the cauliflower patch over the three years of trials. This corresponds to an average profit

of $27.64/m2. Profits should remain consistent or should increase in subsequent years

especially if efforts focus on a fall crop due to consistent autumn temperatures, well-

established management practices and low maintenance requirements.

Homegrown cauliflower is fresher and of better flavor than cauliflower purchased

from the food distribution chain.

3.3.4 Cucumbers (Cucumis sativas L.)


Cucumbers are frost sensitive warm season annual members of the Cucurbitaceae

family. Cucumbers are deep rooted and grow best in loam to clay loam soils with high

organic matter content and a soil pH between 5.8 and 7.0 (Biggs et al., 1997). Cucumbers

require 83-165, 55-165 and 55-165 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al.,

1995). Cucumbers do not tolerate drought and require consistent irrigation throughout the

entire growing season (Biggs et al., 1997). Three main types of cucumbers exist; English,

slicing and pickling arranged in order of decreasing fruit size. English cucumbers should

be seedless therefore pollination can be avoided. Slicing and pickling cucumbers require

cross-pollination.

Cucumbers can be trellised or may be left to sprawl along the ground. Trellised

cucumbers require more labor inputs, but more plants can be grown per unit area and

plants and the trellised fruit are less susceptible to diseases and rots.

3.3.4.2 Trials

Cucumbers were planted from 2004-2006 within a 4.09 m² area of the garden that

was exposed to full sunlight. This location was chosen because cucumber yields are

dependent on high levels of light. Cucumbers were seeded in late May with three seeds

per hill and the hills were spaced 45 cm apart in rows spaced 60 cm apart. The cultivars

changed yearly to conform to the objective of maximizing productivity and value.

Trellises were used to keep the vines upright, thereby improving light penetration

and air circulation within the canopy and maximizing the number of plants that could be

grown per unit area. English, slicing and pickling cucumbers were grown every year.

English, slicing and pickling cucumbers were harvested at about 30, 20 and 10 cm

in length respectively. However these sizes are only guidelines, as each fruit varies

greatly in size with respect to preferred quality. Cucumbers are best harvested when the

seeds are small and the fruit is firm and crunchy.

Cucumbers were priced as follows: English at $4.38/kg, slicing at $3.28/kg and

pickling at $2.84/kg.


3.3.4.3.1 2004

Three cucumber cultivars reflecting different cucumber types, colors, yields and

flavors were grown in 2004. The cultivars represented pickling, slicing and English type

cucumbers.

Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer

delayed cucumber harvest in 2004 and also created conditions suitable for diseases.

Bacterial wilt caused by the bacteria Erwinia trachepihila was a major problem in

2004. Bacterial wilt caused the plants to die by late summer, however, this disease did not

directly affect the fruit. This disease first appears as dull green patches on leaves. The

patches rapidly increased in size causing the leaf to wilt followed by the wilting of the

entire stem and plant. The bacteria build up within the vascular system of cucumber

tissue causing a blockage of water transport resulting in these wilting symptoms (Ronald

et al., 2004). Bacterial wilt moves from leaf to leaf on a daily or weekly basis until the

tissue becomes yellow and dried (Ronald et al., 2004). Bacterial wilt is entirely dependant

on the spotted and striped cucumber beetle for transmission (Ronald et al., 2004).

Therefore, control of this disease relies on reducing or eliminating these beetles. Once the

beetle has transmitted the disease into cucumber tissue, control is impossible (Ronald et

al., 2004). Cultivars that flower later in the season tend to be the least susceptible to

bacterial wilt, however, no cultivars are highly resistant to bacterial wilt (Ronald et al.,

2004). Carbaryl will be used to control spotted and striped cucumber beetles in

subsequent years.

Anthracnose was another major disease problem in 2004. Like bacterial wilt,

Anthracnose caused the plants to die by late summer, but it did not directly affect the

fruit. Anthracnose is caused by a soil born fungus, Colletotrichum spp. or Glomerella

lagenaria. This disease has the potential to cause extensive yield losses in wet summers

(Ronald et al., 2004). All parts of the plant are affected; dry lesions appear on veins and

become angular and red-brown with a yellowish translucent border (Ronald et al., 2004).

Affected tissue may senesce from the centers of leaves and younger leaves become

crinkled and distorted (Ronald et al., 2004). Stems exhibit elongated, shrunken,

yellowish, water-soaked lesions, which eventually cause the stem to appear dry and

chalky (Ronald et al., 2004). Affected stems can be easily broken (Ronald et al., 2004).

Fruit may also have lesions along their veins that appear grayish black, circular, sunken

and water-soaked (Ronald et al., 2004). Anthracnose usually appears later in the season

and spreads from water splashing from the soil onto plant tissue (Ronald et al., 2004).

Thus, overhead irrigation should be avoided and heavy rainstorms are a major concern.

Crop rotation, and planting disease free seeds are the best forms of control for

Anthracnose (Ronald et al., 2004). Removing diseased leaves from the ground or from

growing plants also reduces the spread of this disease (Ronald et al., 2004). Growers

should not handle cucumber plants when the plants are wet (Ronald et al., 2004).

Resistant cultivars are available, but there are many different races of this fungus and

thus cultivars should be chosen on the basis of the type of race found in the garden

(Ronald et al., 2004). Application of precipitated sulfur can be affective if proper

coverage of the leaves and fruit is maintained (Ronald et al., 2004). Precipitated sulfur

should be applied to the cucumber patch as soon as the first symptoms of anthracnose are

observed.

Downy mildew, although not a very severe problem was also observed throughout

the cucumber patch. This disease also caused the cucumber patch to die by late summer,

but did not directly damage the cucumber fruit. A fungus, Pseudoperonospora cubensis,

which only affects leaf tissue, causes downy mildew (Ronald et al., 2004). This disease

usually occurs toward the end of the growing season and can cause complete foliar

destruction (Ronald et al., 2004). Symptoms include angular, pale green lesions on the

surfaces of leaves (Ronald et al, 2004). These lesions are bordered by leaf veins and

become yellow on the upper leaf surface and brown on the lower leaf surface (Ronald et

al., 2004). If conditions are humid, purplish brown specking can be seen on lesions found

on the underside of leaves (Ronald et al., 2004). Leaves may eventually wilt and die

(Ronald et al., 2004). Fruit is indirectly affected by downy mildew because damaged

leaves cannot photosynthesize to support the developing cucumbers. P. cubensis is not

soil born, but spores can be found on structures including walls, fences and plants

(Ronald et al., 2004). Applying precipitated sulfur will control this disease if it is applied

on a preventative basis (Ronald et al., 2004). Removal of infected leaves from the soil

surface and from growing plants will reduce the spread of P. cubensis (Ronald et al.,

2004). Methods of increasing air movement and decreasing humidity such as ventilation,

wider plant spacing, trellising and using flood irrigation or leaf thinning will also help

reduce the spread of this fungus (Ronald et al., 2004). Some resistant cultivars are

available (Ronald et al., 2004). Sulfur should be applied in subsequent years before the

first symptoms of powdery mildew are observed.

Verticillium wilt caused by the fungus Verticillium spp. was another problematic

disease. This fungus also did not directly affect the cucumber fruit, but caused the plants

to die by late summer. Verticillium wilt causes lower cucumber leaves to wilt during the

day but they recover at night. Affected leaves show marginal and interveinal chlorosis

(Ronald et al., 2004). The vascular tissue becomes brown and damage can be seen easily

by cross sectioning the xylem tissue (Ronald et al., 2004). Premature death of plants

usually results (Ronald et al., 2004). V. spp. Over-winters on plant debris in the soil

(Ronald et al., 2004). The best form of control is to completely remove infected plants

and to use plastic mulch as a barrier between soil and plants (Ronald et al., 2004).

Alternaria leaf blight was also observed in 2004. For more information on this

disease refer to the section on cauliflower. Sulfur should be applied in subsequent years

to control this disease when symptoms of leaf blight are observed.

In general, cucumbers grew vigorously in spring and early to mid summer.

Diseases did not appear till late summer, but when they appeared they caused the entire

cucumber patch to die by mid-September. Fungicide applications and better management

practices should be used in subsequent years to control disease. Aphids and spider mites

were easily controlled by the use of carbaryl and thus these insects were not a significant

problem.

Cucumber harvest in 2004 commenced on July 26th and continued till September

9th for a total of 47 days of harvest. Pickling cucumbers were the first to ripen followed

by slicing and English cucumbers. Yields, production costs, revenue and profit for the

cucumber cultivars in 2004 are presented in Table 9.

Table 9. Yields and Economics of Cucumbers in 2004 - 2006


Yield(bunches/m2)

Gross Revenue

($)

Total Costs

($)

Profit ($) ($/m2)

2004 65.44 69.88Pickling 41.6 15.2 118.14 27.17Slicing 2.7 3.9 8.86 -3.21English 1.9 2.79 8.32 -3.78

2005 65.44 48.60Pickling 26.4 9.7 74.98 11.55Slicing 7.1 10.4 23.29 18.11English 3.6 5.3 15.77 7.21

2006 65.44 120.78Amira (pickling) 7.9 11.6 34.60 34.80Pickling 38.4 18.8 109.06 37.39Marketmore (Slicing)

8.7 12.8 28.54 25.98

Sweet Success (English)

3.2 4.7 14.02 4.59

Pickling cucumbers were succulent, crunchy and had excellent flavor if harvested

at an appropriate growth stage. Slicing and English cucumbers were not as succulent,

crunchy or flavorful as the pickling cucumbers. Pickling cucumbers yielded much more

consistently throughout the growing season and had better yields than the other two

cucumber types tried in 2004. The cucumber patch produced a total revenue of $135.32

and a profit of $69.88 ($17.10/m2) in 2004.

3.3.4.3.2 2005

To validate the yield and revenue data collected in 2004 all of the cucumber

cultivars tested in 2004 were used again in 2005.

Cucumber plants grew vigorously throughout the warm weather of June and July,

which led to earlier harvests. All of the diseases discussed in the 2004 analysis were

observed again at the beginning of August in 2005. Sulfur was not effective for

controlling these diseases, perhaps because the sulfur was applied after the diseases had

already established. Sulfur should be applied at regular intervals throughout the entire

growing season in subsequent years if these diseases are to be effectively controlled.

Carbaryl was applied once every two weeks as a means of controlling insect pests

throughout the growing season; however, pests did not directly affect the fruit. All

cultivars were equally susceptible to the diseases and pests that were discussed in the

2004 analysis.

Cucumber harvest in 2005 commenced on July 7th and continued until August 19th

for a total of 44 days of harvest. Because disease caused the death of the entire cucumber

patch by late August in 2005 yields in 2005 were lower than in 2004. As in 2004,

pickling cucumbers were the first to ripen followed by slicing and English cucumbers.

Yields, production costs, revenue and profit for the cucumber cultivars in 2005 are

presented in Table 9.

As in 2004, the pickling cucumbers were succulent, crunchy and had excellent

flavor if harvested at an appropriate growth stage. Slicing and English cucumbers were

not as succulent, crunchy or flavorful as the pickling cucumbers. Pickling cucumber

yielded much more consistently throughout the growing season than the other cucumber

types, however, slicing cucumbers had better yields/m2 than the other types. The

cucumber patch produced a total revenue of $114.04 and a profit of $48.60 ($11.97/m2)

in 2005.

3.3.4.3.3 2006

As a function of their lower yields, lower revenue and/or inferior flavor

characteristics seen in previous years, English and slicing cucumbers were replaced with

‘Sweet Success’ (English cucumber) and ‘Marketmore’ (slicing cucumber) respectively

in 2006. ‘Amira’ was a pickling cucumber that was added to the cucumber patch in 2006.

‘Amira’ was recommended by Dr. Doug Waterer of the University of Saskatchewan and

resembled a cucumber type that was purchased by members of the household at a nearby

Arabic food stores.

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Cucumber

plants grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Precipitated sulfur applied weekly

starting in mid-June effectively delayed disease outbreaks. However, by early September

the same diseases discussed in the 2004 analysis were observed and quickly killed the

entire cucumber patch. More consistent and uniform applications of sulfur should be

conducted in successive years to further delay disease outbreaks. Fruit were not directly

affected by disease in 2006.

Aphid and spider mite problems were similar in 2006 compared to 2005 and

several applications of carbaryl were necessary to keep these pests under control.

Cucumber harvest in 2006 commenced on July 7th and continued until September

21st for a total of 76 days of harvest. Pickling cucumbers were the first to ripen followed

by ‘Amira’ ‘Marketmore’ and ‘Sweet Success’. Yields, production costs, revenue and

profit for the various cucumber cultivars tested in 2006 are presented in Table 9.

Yields in 2006 were higher than in 2004 and 2005. As in 2004 and 2005, pickling

cucumbers were succulent, crunchy and had excellent flavor if harvested at an

appropriate growth stage. The flavor of the cultivar ‘Amira’ was preferred by family

member compared to the pickling type cucumber tried in previous years, however,

‘Amira’ had lower yields than the pickling cucumbers tried in 2004 and 2005.

‘Marketmore’ had much better flavor and yields than the slicing type cucumber tried in

previous years. ‘Sweet Success’ had lower yield than the English type cucumber tried in

2004 and 2005, however, ‘Sweet Success’ had better flavor. The cucumber patch

produced a total revenue of $186.22 and a profit of $120.78 ($29.75/m2) in 2006.

3.3.4.4 Conclusion

Cucumbers were expected to perform well in typical hot Toronto summer

conditions-but if wet weather occurred yields were drastically reduced as a function of

losses to disease. Disease and insect problems appeared towards the latter half of the

growing season when temperatures rose, air circulation in the canopy was reduced and

condensation became more common. Insects were not a significant problem because they

did not directly affect the fruit or damage the foliage and they were effectively controlled

with pesticides available to the typical gardener. No one disease appeared to be more

prominent, rather, a combination of diseases seemed to collectively destroy the cucumber

plants. It appears that sulfur may be useful if applied at regularly throughout the growing

season. Removing infected leaves also appeared to reduce the amount of inoculum within

the cucumber patch, thereby, delaying disease outbreaks. The cultivars tested were all

equivalently susceptible to disease. In subsequent years cucumber plantings should be

tried in rows facing east and west rather than facing north and south to increase air

circulation and sun interception by the canopy. This cultural practice should increase

plant growth and reduce moisture within the canopy thereby protecting the plants against

disease.

Cucumbers required considerable labor for pruning, staking, disease control and

harvesting. However, because of their high yields and good revenue cucumbers were

quite profitable. Cucumbers accounted for a total profit of $239.26 in the three years of

trials. This corresponded to an average profit of $19.64/m2. There was a progressive

increase in yields and returns from 2004 to 2006 as a function of better cultivar choices

and more sustainable management practices. Cucumbers grown in home gardens are

fresher than store bought cucumbers and are crisper and more flavorful.

3.3.5 Grapes (Vitis saccharifera L)


Grape is a semi-hardy viney perennial member of the Vitaceae family. Grapes

require a chilling period to induce flower production (Biggs et al., 1997). Grapes have

deep fibrous root systems and prefer sandy to loamy soils with high organic matter

content and a soil pH between 5.5-7.5 (Biggs et al., 1997). Grapes are quite tolerant to

drought conditions; however, for good fruit and leaf yields and consistent fruit quality,

irrigation is necessary for most of the growing season (Biggs et al., 1997). During fruit

ripening, it is best to minimize irrigation to encourage the fruits to ripen and acquire

better flavor (Biggs et al., 1997).

Grapes grow in bunches of 5-30 or more single berries. Berry bunches arise on

new growth from nodes on one year old wood. The berries vary in size, shape and flavor

between cultivars. Grapes are pruned from late spring till late fall. Pruning is designed to

renew branches so that they will produce one-year-old wood for the successive year’s

fruit production. There are many different types of training methods for grapes. Knowing

the growing conditions and lay out of the growing area will help determine the type of

training that best fits the garden. Grape vines require trellising to reduce diseases and rots

and to keep the berries free of soil. Vines may begin fruiting after the second year of

establishment and continue fruiting for 20 years.

Some grape cultivars are self-sterile; therefore, understanding the type of

pollination required is essential to knowing the number of cultivars that should be planted

in an area. Grapes must be netted during fruit ripening to prevent bird damage.

3.3.5.2 Trials

Four cultivars were planted in 2004 in full sunlight along the south perimeter

fence of the garden because grapes yield best in sunny conditions. The back perimeter

fence was also used to grow grapes because the large grape leaves provided privacy from

the schoolyard on the south side of the property. One vine each of ‘Concord’, ‘Himrod’

and ‘Interlaken’ and 2 vines of ‘Niagara’ were planted. ‘Himrod’ is a large black seedless

table cultivar, ‘Interlaken’ is a small white seedless table cultivar, ‘Niagara’ is a medium

white seedless table cultivar and ‘Concord’ is a medium black wine type; however,

‘Concord’ was used as a table grape rather than for making wine. Each vine occupied

0.32 m2 of space, thus, a total area of 1.6m2 was used for the grape production. The vines

were one-year-old rooted cuttings when purchased and were about 20 cm tall.

Grapes were trained using the Guyot system. Nylon rope was used to train the

vines along the fence. Pruning occurred in summer to remove diseased or dying branches.

And in late fall after the grapes were harvested to promote new growth for successive

year’s berry production. Pruning should only commence in spring, once leaves are fully

expanded, and should be completed by fall because grape vines are susceptible to

bleeding. Bleeding is a phenomenon where vascular fluids continue to exude out of the

pruned tip long after pruning is completed. Once grape leaves are fully expanded in the

spring they direct the vascular fluids away from the pruned sections of the vines.

Grapes were harvested at full maturity when they were plump, juicy and flavorful.

Grapes were priced at $6.58/kg.


3.3.5.3.1 2004 and 2005

As expected, the grapes did not yield in their first or second year in the field

(2004 and 2005) as they were still in their juvenile growth phase. The vines were very

vigorous and showed no symptoms of disease. Although insects did not seem to affect the

vines in 2004 and 2005, carbaryl was used to prevent any potential damage by insects. A

loss of $29.60 was realized each year for the space and labor requirements associated

with grapes in 2004 and 2005 (Table 10).

3.3.5.3.2 2006

Grapes grew vigorously in 2006 and showed no signs of disease or insect damage.

Harvest in 2006 commenced on August 13th and continued until October 15th for a total of

64 days of harvest. ‘Interlaken’ was the first cultivar to ripen followed one month later by

‘Niagara’, ‘Himrod’ and ‘Concord’. Yields, costs, revenue and profit for the various

grape cultivars tested in 2006 are presented in Table 10.

Table 10. Yields and Economics of Grapes in 2004 - 2006

Year Cultivar Yield(kg/vine)

Yield(kg/m2)

Gross Revenue($)

Total Costs ($)

Profit ($) ($/m2)

2004 29.60 -29.60 -16.00Concord 0.0 0.0 0.0HimrodInterlakenNiagara

2005 29.60 -29.60 -16.00Concord 0.0 0.0 0.00HimrodInterlakenNiagara

2006 29.60 75.01Concord 3.8 10.2 25.00 51.12

Himrod 2.9 7.8 19.08 35.32

Interlaken 3.4 9.2 22.37 44.54

Niagara 5.8 8.1 19.74 37.30

‘Interlaken’ was the smallest grape but was of excellent quality and flavor.

‘Concord’ and ‘Niagara’ produced medium sized grapes, which were of good quality, but

sour tasting. ‘Himrod’ produced the largest grapes which were of excellent quality and

good flavor.

The grapes produced a total revenue of $104.61 and a profit of $75.01

($46.88/m2) in 2006.

3.3.5.4 Conclusion

Grapes performed well in typical Toronto conditions. Diseases and insects were

not problematic. No fruit was discarded, as diseases were not prevalent. The vines must

be kept well pruned to maintain their size. The vines should reach their maximum yield

potential by 2008. Grape vines required extensive pruning and training throughout the

growing season and the associated labor demands were higher than many other crops.

Grapes did not yield in the first two years, however, yields produced on the third year

compensated for the $59.20 losses realized in 2004 and 2005.

A cumulative profit of $13.79 ($2.87/m2) occurred over the three years.

Profitablity was affected by the substantial purchase cost for the vines, the labor costs

associated with pruning and the fact that the grape vine did not yield in 2004 and 2005

and had only low yields in 2006. It is expected that fruit production should increase in the

following years and should more than cover all past and future expenses.

The fruit were of exceptional quality compared to store purchased fruit because

grapes were harvested when they were fully ripe, however, some cultivars were of only

fair flavor. This may simply be a function of family taste preferences.

3.3.6 Oregano (Origanum vulgaro L.)


Oregano, a hardy perennial herb member of the Lamiaceae family is usually

grown as an annual, however, oregano can over-winter in Toronto. Oregano is

moderately deep rooted and grows best in loamy well-drained soils with high organic

matter and a soil pH between 6.0 and 7.5 (Biggs et al., 1997). Oregano is drought tolerant

and only needs to be irrigated during extended hot dry periods (Biggs et al., 1997). If too

much water is available to the plants, the leaves will be diluted of their essential oils.

3.3.6.2 Trials

Oregano trials were conducted from 2004-2006 within a 0.38 m² area of the

garden that was exposed to full sunlight. This location was chosen because oregano is

grown for its spicy, fragrant leaf biomass that expands quickly when exposed to high

levels of light. This location is also desired because it has large diurnal temperature

fluctuations, which enhances the oil content in the leaves. Oregano was purchased as

transplants that were about 10 cm tall. The transplants were spaced 30 cm apart in late

May of 2004 and survived the winters of 2004 and 2006.

The cultivar ‘Italian’ was used in all three years because it was recommended for

it’s excellent flavored leaves. Oregano was harvested several times per growing season

close to ground level in order to obtain maximum biomass, to prevent undesirable flower

formation and to prevent the leaves from toughening. On average, harvest commenced in

mid-June and finished just after the first light frosts in October. Four to five harvests were

possible in one growing season.

Fresh and frozen oregano was priced at $2.99/bunch; each bunch consisted of

about 50 g of leaf tissue. Dried oregano was priced at $9.99/50 g. Twenty-five percent of

the harvest was used fresh, twenty-five percent was frozen and the remaining 50% was

dried.


3.3.6.3.1 2004

Oregano grew well throughout the summer of 2004. Oregano was resistant to

disease and pests; therefore, fungicides and pesticides were not used on this crop.

Oregano harvest in 2004 commenced on June 8th and continued till September 23rd

for a total of 107 days of harvest. Oregano yielded consistently throughout most of the

growing season. Yields, production costs, revenue and profit for ‘Italian’ tested in 2004

are presented in Table 11. Profits were low because 2004 was an establishment year for

the plants.

Table 11. Yields and Economics of Oregano in 2004 - 2006


Yield(bunches/m2)

Gross Revenue($)

Total Costs ($)

Profit ($) ($/m2)

2004 Italian 10 26.3 19.9477.79101.72

6.13 13.81 36.452005 Italian 39 102.6 6.13 71.66 188.632006 Italian 51 133.2 6.13 95.59 249.66

The oregano leaves tasted bland and were neither liked or disliked by household

members, thus, flavor was rated fair.

The oregano patch produced a total revenue of $29.90 and a profit of $23.77

($62.55/m2) in 2004.

3.3.6.3.2 2005

There were no signs of winter damage in the spring of 2005. Oregano grew more

vigorously and had much higher yields throughout the summer of 2005 compared to 2004

because of warmer sunnier conditions in 2005 and because the plants were well

established. Oregano was resistant to disease and pests and again pesticides were not used

on this crop. Oregano leaves were again of only fair flavor in 2005.

Oregano harvest in 2005 commenced on June 8th and continued until October 21st

for a total of 136 days of harvest. Oregano yielded consistently throughout most of the

growing season. Yields, production costs, revenue and profit for the ‘Italian’ tested in

2005 are presented in Table 11.


($290.74/m2) in 2005.

3.3.6.3.3 2006

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Oregano

plants grew even more vigorously throughout the entire season compared to 2005

because the plants were better established. As in previous years, oregano leaves were of

only fair flavor in 2006.

Oregano harvest in 2006 commenced on June 10th and continued until November

15th for a total of 127 days of harvest. Oregano yielded consistently throughout most of

the growing season. Yields, production costs, revenue and profit for ‘Italian’ tested in

2006 are presented in Table 11.


($385.16/m2) in 2006.

3.3.6.4 Conclusion

Oregano performed well in typical hot Toronto summers, especially once

established. Thus age is the confounding factor of oregano production. The cultivar

‘Italian’ took one year to establish before producing significant yields of bland flavored

leaves that were numerous but small. A new cultivar should be tried in successive years.

‘Italian’ was resistant to disease and pests; thus, pesticides are not required for this

cultivar.

Oregano requires little labor inputs except for harvesting and is not a heavy user

of water, but produces excellent yields and profits. A total profit of $280.61 was realized

for the oregano patch over the three years of trials. This corresponded to an average profit

of $246.15/m2. Oregano grown in the garden was not as flavorful as store bought

oregano, which may be a function of poor cultivar selection.

Yields and profits are expected to decrease in 2007 and then increase again as a

function of changing the oregano cultivar to a better-flavored cultivar in 2007.

3.3.7 Peppers (Capsicum annum L.)


Peppers are frost sensitive warm season members of the Solanaceae family.

Peppers are shallow rooted and grow best in loamy well-drained soils with high organic

matter and a soil pH between 6.5 and 7.5 (Biggs et al., 1997). Peppers require 83-275, 55-

175, and 55-220 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al., 1995). Peppers do

not tolerate drought and require consistent irrigation, particularly during hot dry periods

(Biggs et al., 1997). Peppers are available in many different types ranging from sweet to

hot types, red, yellow, orange and green types, and long vs. round types. The type of

pepper chosen for cultivation is based on personal preference or market demand. Peppers

grow best in warm soils, thus, container plantings can be used as a means to maximize

heat absorption by the soil and roots (Biggs et al., 1997). Peppers are sensitive to heat

and will not set fruit if temperatures exceed 30-35˚C (Biggs et al., 1997). Hot peppers

tend to tolerate hotter weather. Yellow, red and orange bell peppers are susceptible to

fungal attack at the time of color change, and thus, yield losses are expected during

outdoor production of these types of peppers (Waterer, 2006). Fungal introduction and

dispersal at crop maturity can be better controlled in greenhouse grown peppers, therefore

most yellow, red and orange bell peppers are grown in greenhouses.

3.3.7.2 Trials

Peppers were planted in 2004 within a 5.9 m² area of the garden, in 2005 within a

9.8 m2 area and in 2006 within a 7.1 m2 area. The plots were exposed to full sunlight as

pepper yields and fruit quality are dependent on high levels of light. Peppers were

purchased as 10 cm transplants. The transplants were planted in late May 30 cm apart.

The cultivars changed yearly to conform to the objective of maximizing productivity and

value.

Pepper fruit are heavy and may be unevenly distributed throughout the plant, thus,

one side of the plant usually has more fruit than the other and the plant wants to lean

toward that side. For this reason stakes were used to keep the plants. Staking also

improved light penetration and air circulation within the canopy.

Peppers were harvested before they lost their glossy appearance, but when they

felt hollow. Fruit size was variable depending on the climate and cultivar. Peppers that

were not ripe at the first frost were taken in a once-over final harvest.

Green bell peppers including ‘Big Bertha’, ‘California Wonder’, and ‘North Star’

were priced at $5.48/kg, yellow and red bell peppers including ‘Red Belle’ and ‘Yellow

Belle’ were priced at $8.78/kg and sweet and hot elongated type peppers including

‘Jalapeno’, ‘Cayenne Long Slim Hot’, Egyptian hot, ‘Fooled you’, ‘Cubannelle’, ‘Sweet

Banana’, ‘Hot Banana’, ‘Hungarian Wax’, and ‘Shepherd’s Sweet’ were priced at

$6.58/kg.


3.3.7.3.1 2004

Ten pepper cultivars reflecting different pepper types, colors, yields and flavors

(‘Big Bertha’, ‘California Wonder’, ‘North Star’, ‘Red Belle’, ‘Yellow Belle’, ‘Cubanelle

Sweet’, ‘Hot Banana’, ‘Jalapeno’ and ‘Cayenne Hot Slim’) were grown in 2004. Hot

peppers from Egypt were also tried.


delayed pepper harvest and caused very low pepper yields in 2004.

Blossom-end-rot (bottom rot) was a problem in bell peppers and resulted in a

grade out of about 20% of the crop. Blossom-end-rot may be caused from a localized

deficiency of calcium due to rapid plant growth, low potassium and calcium levels in

plant tissue, large quantities of magnesium and nitrogen in the soil, high soil salinity, root

damage and high relative humidity (Ronald et al., 2004). The most common cause of

blossom-end-rot is fluctuations in water supplies, which may result from long periods of

hot dry weather followed by irrigation (Ronald et al., 2004). The earliest symptoms of

blossom-end-rot may be observed on young fruit that are about one-third of their mature

size, however, symptoms may appear at later fruit stages (Ronald et al., 2004). Affected

fruit form light brown patches at their blossom ends or on their sides (Ronald et al.,

2004). These patches become sunken and black and may eventually affect half of the fruit

(Ronald et al., 2004). Secondary organisms often infect the damaged patches, causing

further damage to the fruit (Ronald et al., 2004). The best form of control for blossom-

end-rot is to ensure steady plant growth through careful irrigation. This promotes uptake

and assimilation of calcium by the plant (Ronald et al., 2004). Applying calcium based

fertilizers to the soil or foliage before the onset of disease may also prevent blossom end

rot if growing conditions are adequate (Ronald et al., 2004). Only bell type peppers

appeared to be susceptible to blossom-end-rot, particularly the yellow and red bell

peppers.

The pepper maggot (Zonosemata electa) also was problematic in 2004 and it

caused about a 5% grade out of the crop. Pepper maggots develop inside the fruit. Female

flies usually puncture fruit that is 1 to 3 cm in diameter (Ronald et al., 2004). The

punctured area becomes depressed, forming a noticeable dimple when the fruit increases

in size (Ronald et al., 2004). The larvae eat away and cause decomposition of the

placental tissue or the core of pepper fruit (Ronald et al., 2004). In cross section, the fruit

appear to have brown, mined areas (Ronald et al., 2004). Pepper maggots do not produce

dropping, thus, fruit damage can be distinguished from damage made by the corn borer,

which produce droppings (Ronald et al., 2004). Removing horse nettle near pepper plants

can greatly interfere with the pepper maggot’s life cycle, as horse nettle is a reservoir and

a source of pepper maggots (Ronald et al., 2004). Fruit that are infected with pepper

maggots should be removed from the plants as early as possible and buried deep to

prevent larvae from completing their reproductive cycle (Ronald et al., 2004). Late

maturing cultivars sustain less damage because few flies are present after early August

(Ronald et al., 2004). Dark green, thick-walled peppers such as bell peppers are more

susceptible; therefore growing cultivars such as hot and sweet banana peppers may be

effective at reducing yield losses to pepper maggots (Ronald et al., 2004). A wasp, Opius

sanguineus and some types of predatory beetles may cause some pepper maggot

mortality (Ronald et al., 2004). The most effective method of control of pepper maggots

is spraying with chemical insecticides, however, these chemicals only kill the adult flies

of the pepper maggot and do not affect eggs and larvae that are protected in the inside of

the fruit (Ronald et al., 2004). Pepper maggots affected only bell type peppers and

infected fruit were few and far between, probably because regular applications of

carbaryl were maintained throughout the growing season.

Red and yellow bell peppers were very susceptible to fungal diseases as they

begin ripening. The only reliable way of reducing this problem is through greenhouse

production because the greenhouse acts as a barrier to fungal colonization.

Aphids were the most prominent insect problem for peppers in 2004 and were

easily controlled through sprays with carbaryl.

Pepper harvest in 2004 commenced on July 17th and continued till September 30th

for a total of 75 days of harvest. ‘Hot Banana’ was the first to ripen, followed by

‘Cayenne Hot Slim’, hot Egyptian peppers, ‘Big Bertha’, ‘Cubanelle Sweet’, ‘Jalapeno’,

‘California Wonder’, ‘North Star’, ‘Red Belle’, and finally ‘Yellow Belle’. Yields,

production costs, revenue and profit for the pepper cultivars tested in 2004 are presented

in Table 12.

Table 12. Yields and Economics of Pepper in 2004 - 2006


Yield(kg/m2)

Gross Revenue($)

Total Costs ($)

Profit ($) ($/m2)

2004 95.14 19.01Big Bertha 2.8 3.1 15.34 0.99California Wonder

1.4 1.6 7.67 -7.23

Cayenne Long Slim Hot

0.6 0.8 3.95 -10.74

Cubanelle Sweet

2.2 2.8 12.06 -0.66

Egyptian Hot 1.9 3.2 12.50 5.06Hot Banana 3.7 4.6 24.35 14.27Jalapeno 0.9 1.1 5.92 -8.76North Star 1.9 2.1 10.41 -4.49Red Belle 1.4 1.6 12.29 -1.95Yellow Belle 1.1 1.2 9.66 -5.46

2005 157.60 287.75Big Bertha 14.0 8.3 76.72 29.48Cubanelle Sweet

4.4 5.8 28.95 22.16

Egyptian Hot 4.2 5.6 27.64 20.85Hot Banana 12.1 10.1 79.62 50.46Hungarian Wax

4.4 8.8 28.95 41.90

Fooled You 3.7 7.4 24.35 32.69Shepherd Sweet

3.0 6.0 26.34 36.68

Sweet Banana 14.5 12.1 95.41 63.62**Red Belle 3.9 5.2 21.37 12.504Yellow Belle 4.1 1.4 36.00 -3.71

2006 146.40 278.25Big Birtha 12.5 7.35 76.72 24.27Egyptian Hot 3.8 5.1 25.04 17.47Hot Banana 11.2 9.3 73.70 45.19Hungarian Wax

12.9 10.8 84.88 55.06

Fooled You 3.5 7.0 23.03 30.06Shepherd Sweet

4.4 7.3 38.63 48.09

Sweet Banana 15.6 13.0 102.65 69.54Yellow Belle 1 0.3 8.78 -13.37

**Peppers were harvested green4Peppers grown in the Greenhouse

‘Big Bertha’, ‘Yellow Belle’, ‘Red Belle’, ‘Cayenne Hot Slim’, ‘Hot Banana’ and

hot Egyptian cultivars were of excellent flavor; all other cultivars had good flavor. Hot

Banana peppers had the best yields, however, no one pepper cultivar had good yields

because of cool wet weather. Peppers did not consistently yield throughout the growing

season and would therefore not significantly satisfy the needs of an average family.

The pepper patch produced a total revenue of $114.15 and a profit of $19.01

($3.22/m2) in 2004.

3.3.7.3.2 2005

To validate the yield and revenue data collected in 2004, most of the pepper

cultivars tested in 2004 were used again in 2005. ‘California Wonder’, ‘North Star’,

‘Jalapeno’ and ‘Cayenne Long Slim’ were discarded as they were very late maturing

and/or had poor yields in 2004. These lines were replaced with earlier maturing and/or

hopefully better yielding ‘Sweet Banana’, ‘Hungarian Wax’, ‘Shepherd Sweet’ and

‘Fooled You’. Peppers were tried in both raised beds and pots in 2005.

Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the summer of 2005

permitted 40 extra days of harvest compared to 2004, leading too much higher average

yields. The pepper plants grew vigorously throughout the entire season. ‘Red Belle’

peppers were harvested green to reduce losses from fungal infection as the fruit ripened.

‘Yellow Belle’ was grown in the greenhouse; their fruit were not affected by fungus,

however, very hot temperatures in the greenhouse led to poor fruit set, and thus, low

yields. Pepper maggots appeared in approximately five percent of bell type peppers and

in ‘Shepherds Sweet’, but maggots were not observed in the other pepper cultivars.

Consistent irrigation and lower humidity levels in 2005 decreased the occurrence of

blossom-end-rot in all pepper cultivars compared to 2004. Aphids and spider mites were

much more prominent in 2005 than in 2004 and several applications of carbaryl were

necessary to keep these pests under control.

Pepper harvest in 2005 commenced on June 29th and continued until October 21st

for a total of 115 days of harvest. ‘Hot Banana’, ‘Sweet Banana’ and ‘Hungarian Wax’

were the first to ripen, followed by Egyptian hot, ‘Cubanelle Sweet’, ‘Big Bertha’,

‘Fooled You’, ‘Shepherd Sweet’ and ‘Yellow Belle’ and ’Red Belle’. Yields production

costs, revenue and profit for the pepper cultivars tested in 2005 are presented in Table 12.

As in 2004, ‘Big Bertha’, ‘Yellow Belle’, ‘Red Belle’, ‘Hot Banana’ and the hot

Egyptian cultivars were of excellent flavor; ‘Sweet Banana’, ‘Hungarian Wax’ and

‘Shepherds Sweet’ were also of excellent flavor. ‘Fooled You’ had good flavor and

‘Cubanelle’ was rated as only fair tasting because of its bland flavor. ‘Sweet Banana’

peppers had the best yields followed by ‘Hot Banana’, ‘Hungarian Wax’, ‘Big Bertha’,

‘Fooled You’, ‘Shepherd Sweet’, ‘Cubanelle Sweet’, hot Egyptian, ‘Red Belle’ and

finally ‘Yellow Belle’. These observations were based on yields expressed as mass per

unit area. Peppers yielded much more consistently throughout the growing season in

2005 when compared to 2004 and therefore better satisfied the needs of the household in

2005.

The pepper patch produced a total revenue of $445.35 and a profit $287.75

($29.36/m2) in 2005.

3.3.7.3.3 2006

As a function of their higher yields, greater revenue and/or better flavor

characteristics seen in previous years, ‘Big Bertha’, ‘Hot Banana’, ‘Sweet Banana’,

‘Hungarian Wax’, ‘Shepherd Sweet’, ‘Yellow Belle’ and ‘Fooled You’ were tried again

in 2006. ‘Red Belle’ was dropped because its fruit rarely ripened before becoming

diseased and ‘Cubanelle Sweet’ was dropped because of its inferior flavor.

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Pepper

plants grew vigorously throughout the entire season. As in 2005, ‘Yellow Belle’ was

grown in the greenhouse and their fruit were not affected by fungus, however, very hot

temperatures in the greenhouse again led to poor fruit set, and thus, very low yields.

Pepper maggots appeared in approximately five percent of the bell type peppers and

‘Shepherds Sweet’. Pepper maggots should be controlled with carbaryl in late spring and

early summer in subsequent years. Consistent irrigation and lower humidity levels in

2006 decreased the occurrence of blossom-end-rot in all pepper cultivars compared to

2004 and 2005 and thus fewer peppers were graded out due to this disorder. Insects were

again readily controlled with applications of carbaryl.

Pepper harvest in 2006 commenced on July 7th and continued until November 19th

for a total of 135 days of harvest. ‘Hot Banana’, ‘Sweet Banana’ and ‘Hungarian Wax’

ripened simultaneously and were the first to ripen, followed by Egyptian Hot, ‘Big

Bertha’, ‘Fooled You’, ‘Shepherd Sweet’ and ‘Yellow Belle’. Yields, production costs,

revenue and profit for the various pepper cultivars tested in 2006 are presented in Table

12.

As in 2005, ‘Big Bertha’, ‘Yellow Belle’, ‘Hot Banana’, ‘Sweet Banana’,

‘Hungarian Wax’, ‘Shepherd Sweet’ and hot Egyptian cultivars were of excellent flavor;

‘Fooled You’ had good flavor. ‘Sweet Banana’ peppers had the best yields followed by

‘Hungarian Wax’, ‘Hot Banana’, ‘Big Bertha’, ‘Shepherd Sweet’, ‘Fooled You’, hot

Egyptian and finally ‘Yellow Belle’. These observations were based on yields expressed

as mass per unit area. Peppers yielded even more consistently throughout the 2006

growing season when compared to 2004 and 2005 and fully satisfied the needs of the

household. Peppers produced a total revenue of $424.64 and a profit of $278.25

($39.19/m2) in 2006.

3.3.7.4 Conclusion

Peppers tended to perform well in typical Toronto summer conditions, but if cool

wet weather or excessive heat occurred yields were drastically reduced. Foliar diseases

were not evident in peppers; however, fruit diseases were common. These diseases

caused relatively insignificant yield losses except for fungal attacks in ‘Red Belle’

peppers, which caused over half of the fruit to rot before ripening. Yields should remain

consistent in successive years assuming that climatic conditions remain comparable to the

2005 and 2006 summer weather.

Disease and insect problems appeared towards the latter half of the growing

season when temperatures rose, air circulation in the canopy was reduced and

condensation became more common. Aphids and spider mites were not a significant

problem because they did not directly affect the fruit or damage the foliage. They were

also relatively effectively controlled with pesticides available to the typical gardener.

The cultivars tested showed significant variability in disease and pest sensitivity,

with bell type peppers being the least resistant and all other peppers being almost entirely

resistant. ‘Red Belle’ and ‘Yellow Belle’ were the only bell type peppers that were

susceptible to fungal attacks. ‘Yellow Belle’ grown in the greenhouse did not appear to

be affected by fungus.

Peppers utilized more water than most other crops grown in the garden. Peppers

also required substantial labor inputs, particularly for pruning, staking, disease control

and harvesting. However, because of their high yields and good revenue peppers were

quite profitable. Total profits of $585.01 were realized for the pepper patch in the three

years of trials. This corresponded to an average profit of $25.60/m2.

Homegrown peppers are more flavorful than store purchased peppers, however,

peppers purchased through the wholesale food distribution chain are larger and do not

have imperfections such as pepper maggot damage and rotted sections of their fruit walls.

3.3.8 Raspberries (Rubus idaeus L)


Raspberries are hardy perennial members of the Rosaceae. Raspberries require a

chilling period to induce flower production. Raspberries have moderately deep fibrous

root systems (Biggs et al., 1997). The plants tolerate adverse site and soil conditions;

however, loamy soils with a pH of 5.5-7.0 are preferred (Biggs et al., 1997).

Raspberries have very high rates of transpiration and therefore require frequent

irrigation throughout the growing season (Biggs et al., 1997). Raspberry fruit are borne

on the side branches of primocanes and floricanes (Biggs et al., 1997). In the long

growing season available in southern Ontario two harvests are produced, one from late

June and July on floricanes and the second from late September into October on

primocanes.

Canes are pruned when dormant in fall or early spring and a second time in mid

summer. Fall and spring pruning is directed to reduce cane size to about 1-2 meters above

the soil for spring production. Mid-summer pruning is directed to remove floricanes and

to renew branches that will produce primocanes, which will be floricanes in the following

spring. Raspberries require support to prevent the canes from breaking due to heavy fruit

loads. Vines may begin fruiting after the first year of establishment and continue fruiting

for 20-30 years.

Some raspberry cultivars are self-sterile, therefore, knowing the type of

pollination required is essential to knowing the number of cultivars planted in an area.

3.3.8.2 Trials

Raspberries trials were conducted between 2004 and 2006. ‘Letham’, ‘Heritage’

and ‘Full Gold’ were the only cultivars available at local garden outlets. These raspberry

cultivars were all tried as they reflected different raspberry types, colors, yields and

flavors. Each cultivar was grown in a 1.1 m2 of the garden; thus, raspberries occupied a

total area of 3.3 m2. Raspberry canes were purchased as one-year-old cuttings that were

about 10 cm tall. The canes were planted 60 cm apart in late May of 2004.

A support system was produced by wrapping twine around and between 60 cm x

120 cm x 180 cm wood posts hammered 90 cm into the ground. The twine was removed

at the end of the growing season and replaced by new twine the following spring. Pruning

commenced in early spring and was repeated in mid summer in a manner described in the

introduction of this section.

Raspberry fruit were harvested at full maturity, when they were easily removed

from the receptacle.

Fruit were priced at $7.99/pint; each pint consisted of about 400 g of brambles.


3.3.8.3.1 2004

Unseasonably cool temperatures, heavy rainfall and the fact that the plants werwe

in their establishment year delayed raspberry harvest in 2004. Diseases were not observed

in the raspberry patch. Carbaryl was sprayed every other week throughout the growing

season as a means of preventing potential insect pest damage.

The first raspberry harvest, taken from floricanes, commenced on July 14th and

continued till August 15th for a total of 32 days of harvest. A second harvest, taken from

primocanes, commenced on September 12th and continued till October 13th for a total of

31 days of harvest. Raspberries of ‘Heritage’ were the first to ripen followed by ‘Full

Gold’ and finally ‘Letham’. Yields, production costs, revenue and profit for the raspberry

cultivars tested in 2004 are presented in Table 13.

Table 13. Yields and Economics of Raspberries in 2004-2006

Year Cultivar1 Yield(kg)

Yield(kg/m2)

Gross Revenue ($)

Total Costs ($)

Profit ($) ($/m2)

2004 9 2.7 71.91 54.40 17.51 5.57LathamHeritageFull Gold

2005 23 6.8 183.77 54.40 129.37 38.33LathamHeritageFull Gold

2006 34 10 271.66 54.40 217.26 63.90LathamHeritageFull Gold

¹All cultivars produced raspberries on primocanes and floricanes

‘Full Gold’ produced very sweet medium sized yellow-orange raspberries, but

this cultivar had the lowest yields in 2004. ‘Heritage’ produced medium sized sweet to

sour tasting red raspberries and had moderate yields. ‘Letham’ produced large bland

flavored raspberries, but had the highest yields of the three cultivars.

The raspberry patch produced a total revenue of $71.91and a profit of $17.51

($5.31/m2) in 2004.

3.3.8.3.2 2005


produced better growth earlier harvests and higher average yields than in 2004.

Several applications of carbaryl were necessary to keep aphids and spider mites

under control.

The first raspberry harvest in 2005, taken from floricanes, commenced on July 7th

and continued till July 23rd for a total of 16 days of harvest. The pimocane harvest

commenced on August 25th and continued till October 21st for a total of 57 days of

harvest. As in 2004, raspberries of ‘Heritage’ were the first to ripen followed by ‘Full

Gold’ and finally ‘Letham’. Yields, production costs, revenue and profit for the various

raspberry cultivars tested in 2005 are presented in Table 13.

Flavor, yield and size characteristics of the raspberry cultivars in 2005 remained

consistent with the 2004 analysis.

The raspberry patch produced a total revenue of $183.77 and a profit $129.37

($39.20/m2).

3.3.8.3.3 2006

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005; however,

because the plants were more established, the raspberry patch produced higher yields

than in 2005.


under control.

The first raspberry harvest in 2006, taken from floricanes, commenced on July 7th

and continued till August 5th for a total of 29 days of harvest. The primocane harvest

commenced on August 20th and continued till November 2nd for a total of 74 days of

harvest. Raspberries of ‘Heritage’ were the first to ripen followed ‘Full Gold’ and finally

‘Letham’. Yields production costs, revenue and profit for the various raspberry cultivars

tested in 2006 are presented in Table 13

Variations in flavor, yield and size between the raspberry cultivars in 2006

remained consistent with the 2004 and 2005 analyses.

The raspberry patch produced a total revenue of $271.66 and a profit of $217.26

($65.84/m2) in 2006.

3.3.8.4 Conclusion

Raspberries performed well in typical Toronto summer conditions. Yields were

relatively low in the year of plant establishment, however, by the third year of trials

yields were much higher. Raspberries were profitable in all years of production. No

disease problems were observed, however, insect pests (particularly aphids and spider

mites) were constantly problematic. Several applications of pesticides available to hobby

gardeners effectively controlled these pests. Insect problems tended to appear towards the

latter half of the growing season when temperatures rose, air circulation in the canopy

was reduced and condensation became more common. All three cultivars were equally

susceptible to aphids and spider mites. Fruit yields were not lost due to disease and insect

pests.

‘Full Gold’ produced inconsistent low yields of sweet medium sized yellow-

orange raspberries. ‘Heritage’ produced modest yields of medium sized sweet to sour

tasting red raspberries. ‘Letham’ produced consistent high yields of large bland flavored

raspberries. Raspberry fruit produced on primocanes were of better quality and flavor and

out yielded the floricanes.

Raspberries utilized more water than many other crops grown in the garden.

Raspberries also required considerable labor, particularly for harvesting and plant support

and harvest.

A total profit of $364.14 was realized for the raspberry patch in the three years of

trials. This corresponded to an average profit of $36.79/m2. These relatively high profits

reflected good yields and the high value of the fruit. Production in subsequent years

should be similar to that observed in 2006 because raspberry plants were established and

healthy by 2006. The fact that pests and disease were not problematic for the raspberry

patch further supports this idea.

Homegrown raspberry fruit were more flavorful, firm and of better quality than

raspberries purchased from local retail stores. This is because the raspberry cultivars that

have been selected to withstand marketing through the wholesale food distribution chain

have inferior quality characteristics compared to the cultivars available to home

gardeners. Raspberry fruit from the home garden are also far fresher than raspberries


3.3.9 Spinach (Spinacia oleraceae L.)


Spinach is a frost tolerant, hardy cool season herbaceous annual member of the

Amaranthaceae. Spinach is shallow rooted and grows best in muck, peat or loamy well-

drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 6.0 and 7.5 (Biggs et al., 1997).

Spinach requires 66-132, 55-175, and 55-175 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively

(Seagle et al., 1995). Spinach is not drought tolerant and requires consistent irrigation

throughout the growing season, particularly during hot dry periods (Biggs et al., 1997).

Many different spinach cultivars exist, ranging from early maturing smaller leaf types to

late maturing large leaf types. Spinach seeds require light and cool conditions to

germinate and consequently seeds should be planted shallow in early spring or late

summer. If spinach is exposed to long hot days they will begin to bolt and form flowers

and develop an undesirable bitter flavor. Thus, harvest should commence and finish

during the cool months of early summer and late fall.

3.3.9.2 Trials

Spinach was grown from 2004-2006 within a 2.81 m² area of the garden that was

exposed to partial sunlight. This location was chosen because spinach yield and quality is

dependant on short, cool days. Spinach was seeded approximately 4 cm apart in rows

spaced 30 cm apart in the spring and late summer. A much closer spacing was used for

the mid-summer planting (2-3 cm in rows spaced 15 cm apart) because spinach does not

get a chance to grow to it’s full potential, as it bolts in mid-summer heat. The cultivars

changed yearly to conform to the objective of maximizing productivity and value.

Entire spinach plants were harvested just prior to bolting. Harvest typically

commenced when the plants were at their 8-10 leaf stage and continued until the last

plant was harvested at which point the next planting was made. The first and last harvest

consisted of full sized spinach plants. The mid summer harvest consisted of spinach

plants that were half the size of the spinach harvested in the spring and fall because these

plants bolted quickly in the summer heat. This harvesting strategy minimized the bitter

flavor associated with bolting plants. Spinach was taken in a once-over final harvest a

few days after the first light frosts in October or November.

Spinach was priced at $1.49/bunch; each bunch consisted of approximately 5-10

larger plants or 15-20 smaller plants.


3.3.9.3.1 2004

‘King of Denmark’ and ‘Long Standing Bloomsdale’ were the cultivars chosen in

2004 because they were the only cultivars available at garden outlets.

The spring and summer planted crops were slow to emerge in 2004 and bolted shortly

after germination. The fall planted crop emerged quickly, but also bolted shortly after

germination. Disease and insect pests were not observed in 2004.

The first spinach harvest in 2004 commenced on June 24th and continued till July

4th for a total of 10 days of harvest. Harvest of the second planting commenced on August

7th and continued till August 12th for a total of 6 days of harvest. A harvest of the third

planting commenced on September 19th and continued till October 21st for a total of 32

days of harvest. Both cultivars of spinach matured and were harvested simultaneously.

Yields, production costs, revenue and profit for the spinach cultivars tested in 2004 are


Table 14. Yields and Economics of Spinach in 2004 - 2006


Yield(bunches/m2)

Gross Revenue

($)

Total Costs

($)

Profit ($) ($/m2)

2004 8 2.84 11.92 44.96 -33.04 -11.77King of DenmarkLong Standing Bloomsdale

2005 13 4.62 19.37 44.96 -25.59 -9.12King of DenmarkLong Standing Bloomsdale

2006 Tyee 94 33.5 140.06 44.96 95.10 33.92

Both ‘King of Denmark’ and ‘Long Standing Bloomsdale’ were of poor flavor

and produced inconsistent and unprofitable yields in 2004.

The spinach patch produced a total revenue of $11.92 in 2004 and a loss of

$33.04 (11.75/m2).

3.3.9.3.2 2005

‘King of Denmark’ and ‘Long Standing Bloomsdale’ were once again the only

cultivars available at garden outlets, and thus, were planted again in 2005 despite their

poor flavor and yields in 2004.

Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the spring and summer of

2005 allowed an earlier spring harvest and a later fall harvest compared to 2004. Spinach

plants grew slowly and bolted shortly after seeding at all planting dates. Warm humid

temperatures throughout the summer were also suited to damage to foliage due to leaf

miners. For more information on leaf miner and their control refer to the section on

beans.

Several applications of carbaryl were necessary to keep aphids under control in

2005. Spider mites were not a problematic insect for spinach because spinach is irrigated

on a regular basis to maintain desired flavor and spider mites require dry conditions to

reproduce.

The first spinach harvest in 2005 commenced on June 17th and continued till July

6th for a total of 19 days of harvest. Harvest of the second crop commenced on August 5th

and continued till August 11th for a total of 6 days of harvest. Harvest of the third crop

commenced on October 3rd and continued till October 21st for a total of 18 days of

harvest. Both cultivars of spinach matured and were harvested simultaneously. Yields,

production costs, revenue and profit for the spinach cultivars tested in 2005 are presented

in Table 14.

As in 2004, flavor and yields were poor for both ‘King of Denmark’ and ‘Long

Standing Bloomsdale’ in 2005.

The spinach patch produced a total revenue of 19.37 and a loss of 25.59

($9.10/m2) in 2005.

3.3.9.3.3 2006

As a function of poor yields and poor flavor characteristics seen in previous years

‘King of Denmark’ and ‘Long Standing Bloomsdale’ were replaced with ‘Tyee’. ‘Tyee’

is a cultivar recommended by Dr. Doug Waterer for its resistance to bolting during

extended hot weather.

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Spinach

plants grew vigorously throughout the entire season and resisted bolting throughout most

of the growing season. Leaf miner damage was observed, but was quickly controlled by

removing infected leaves from growing plants. A ten percent grade out was realized due

to this pest.

Aphids were abundant in 2006; however, several applications of carbaryl kept this

pest under control. Spider mites were not a problematic insect for the same reasons

explained in the 2005 analysis.

The first spinach harvest in 2006 commenced on May 31st and continued till July

11th for a total of 41 days of harvest. Harvest of the second crop commenced on August

1st and continued till August 12th for a total of 13 days of harvest. Harvest of the third crop

commenced on September 25th and continued till November 18th for a total of 54 days of

harvest. Yields, production costs, revenue and profit for ‘Tyee’ tested in 2006 are


Yields were much higher than in 2005 due to a better choice of cultivar. ‘Tyee’

resisted bolting even in hot summer months and had excellent flavor. In extremely hot

conditions ‘Tyee’ did bolt, but still continue producing large excellent tasting leaves.

The spinach patch produced a total revenue of $140.06 and a profit of $95.10

($33.84/m2) in 2006.

3.3.9.4 Conclusion

Spinach tended to perform well in typical Toronto springs and summers only if

suitable cultivars are used. ‘King of Denmark’ and ‘Long Standing Bloomsdale’ were

very susceptible to bolting even during cool spring and autumn conditions. These two

cultivars were of poor flavor and unprofitable, thus, should not be cultivated in Toronto.

However, ‘Tyee’ resisted bolting until temperatures exceeded 30-35 ˚C. ‘Tyee’ was also

very early maturing and could withstand considerable frosts without damage to the

foliage. Removing infested leaves from growing plants easily controlled leafminers,

however, leafminers caused a 10 percent grade out of the crop.

Aphids were not a significant problem because carbaryl was an affective pesticide

used to control this pest

Spinach used more water than most other crops in the garden, but it required very

little labor inputs except during planting and harvesting. Thus, spinach is quite profitable

as long as the cultivar ‘Tyee’ is cultivated. Spinach yields should remain consistent with

2006 yields in successive years as long as suitable cultivars are used. A profit of $36.47

was realized for spinach in the three years of trials. This corresponds to an average profit

of $4.32/m2. Choosing the correct spinach cultivar(s) suited for a particular geographic

location is essential for successful production.

If the correct cultivar(s) is chosen and proper management practices are used,

spinach leaves are of better quality and flavor than spinach purchased in grocery stores.

This is because wholesale food distribution chains do not supply spinach that is as fresh

as homegrown spinach.

3.3.10 Tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum M.)


Tomatoes are frost sensitive warm season members of the Solanaceae family.

Tomatoes are deep rooted and grow best in loamy well-drained soils with high organic

matter and a pH between 5.5 and 7.5 (Biggs et al., 1997). Tomatoes require 33-193, 55-

220, and 55-220 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al., 1995). Tomatoes

are not drought tolerant and require consistent irrigation, particularly during hot dry

periods (Biggs et al., 1997). Tomatoes can be determinate or indeterminate. Axillary buds

of indeterminate tomatoes should be removed to prevent over-production of undesirable

stems and leaves, which divert energy from the fruit while also increasing disease.

3.3.10.2 Trials

Tomatoes were grown from 2004-2006 within a 5.7 m² area of the garden that

was exposed to full sunlight. This location was chosen as tomato yields and fruit quality

are dependent on high levels of light. Tomatoes were purchased as transplants that were

about 10 cm tall. The transplants were planted in late May and were spaced 46 cm apart.

The cultivars changed yearly to conform to the objective of maximizing productivity and

value.

Cages were used to keep the tomato plants upright, thereby improving light

penetration and air circulation within the canopy and maximizing the number of plants

that could be grown per unit area. Indeterminate cultivars were pruned once a week by

removing all axillary buds. ‘La Roma Gold’, ‘Early Girl’ and ‘Jet Star’ were the only

determinate tomato cultivars tested.

Tomato fruit were harvested at the mature red ripe stage through until the first

frost. Tomatoes that were not ripe at the first frost were taken in a once-over final harvest.

Cherry tomatoes were priced at $2.99/pint and all others at $3.72/kg.


3.3.10.3.1 2004

Eight tomato cultivars reflecting different tomato types, colors, yields and flavors

were grown in 2004. ‘Sweet Million’ (cherry tomato), ‘Sweet Hundred’ (cherry tomato),

‘Lemon Boy’ (yellow), ‘Early Girl’, ‘Balls Beefsteak’, ‘La Roma Gold’, ‘Health Kick’

and ‘Big Bite’ were the cultivars chosen. Three plants of each cultivar were transplanted

into the garden.


delayed tomato harvest in 2004 and also created conditions suitable for fungal diseases.

Leaf mold (Cladosporium fulvum) was the most prominent disease. It caused

discoloration of the leaves and reduced photosynthetic output and thus lowered yields.

The fruit were not affected directly by this disease. La Roma Gold tomatoes suffered

from more diseases than any other cultivar, while cherry tomatoes were the most

resistant. Sulfur or copper based fungicide should have been used to reduce the growth

of this disease. Root rot was also a problem, as the ground remained saturated for

extended periods. Root rot was evident as entire sections of the stem rapidly wilted and

died.

Insect damage was minimal in 2004. Aphids were the most prominent insect

problem and were easily controlled through sprays with carbaryl. Tomato fruit were not

directly affected by diseases or pests and thus no fruit was graded out.

Tomato harvest in 2004 commenced on August 12th and continued till October 7th

for a total of 57 days of harvest. The cherry tomatoes were the first to ripen, followed by

‘Lemon Boy’, ‘La Roma Gold’, ‘Ball’s Beefsteak’, ‘Big Bite’, ‘Early Girl’ and finally

‘Health Kick’. Yields production costs, revenue and profit for the tomato cultivars tested

in 2004 are presented in Table 15.

Table 15. Yields and Economics of Tomatoes in 2004 - 2006


Yield(kg/m2)

Gross Revenue ($)

Total Costs ($)

Profit ($) ($/m2)

2004 91.20 203.79Sweet Million

6.6 9.2 56.38 62.59

Sweet Hundred

7.2 10.0 61.51 69.43

Lemon Boy 11.2 15.6 41.60 42.03**Early Girl 7.9 11 29.40 24.93Balls Beefsteak

10.4 14.5 38.70 37.94

**La Roma Gold

9 12.5 33.50 30.50

Health Kick 6.1 8.5 22.70 15.62Big Bite 3 4.2 11.20 -0.38


13.4 18.7 114.47 143.75

Sweet Hundred

15.9 22.1 135.83 172.79

Lemon Boy 19.9 27.5 74.00 86.30**Early Girl 7.2 15.0 26.80 39.80Balls Beefsteak

16.2 14.6 60.20 38.31

**La Roma Gold

13.9 19.2 51.70 55.42

Yellow Pear 14.2 59.1 52.80 203.85Celebrity 8.4 11.7 31.20 27.52


52 16.6 444.23 125.81

Lemon Boy 21.2 22.1 78.90 50.08Yellow Pear 39.6 55.0 147.30 180.35Jet Star 15.2 15.8 56.50 118.98

**Determinate cultivars

‘Sweet Million’ and ‘Sweet Hundred’ cherry tomato cultivars were both high

yielding and of excellent flavor and produced greater net revenues than any other

cultivar. ‘Lemon Boy’ also had excellent net revenue, although its flavor was rated as

poor. ‘Ball’s Beefsteak’ tomatoes were very large and also had good yields, however the

fruit were mealy and had a mild flavor. ‘Health Kick’ and ‘Big Bite’ had fair and

excellent flavor respectively, but produced the lowest net revenues.

The tomato patch produced a total revenue of $294.99 and a profit of $203.79

($35.75/m2) in 2004.

3.3.10.3.2 2005

To validate the yield and revenue data collected in 2004, most of the tomato

cultivars tested in 2004 were used again in 2005. ‘Health Kick’ and ‘Big Bite’ were

discarded as they were very late maturing in 2004, resulting in poor yields. These lines

were replaced with earlier maturing ‘Celebrity’ and ‘Yellow Pear’ tomatoes. Three plants

from each cultivar were planted except for a single ‘Yellow Pear’ tomato.


permitted 29 extra days of harvest compared to 2004, leading to much higher average

yields. The tomato plants grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Rainfall was

adequate but not excessive, thus, root rot was not a problem as in 2004. Foliar disease did

not appear until mid-September, however, when leaf mold appeared, it took over rapidly

and foliar applied sulfur was not effective as a means of controlling this disease.

However, by that point in the season, most tomatoes had already been harvested. The

fruit were again not directly affected by this disease. ‘La Roma Gold’ tomatoes suffered

from more leaf mold than any other cultivar, followed by ‘Lemon Boy’. Cherry tomatoes

and ‘Yellow Pear’ tomatoes were the most disease resistant.


under control. As in 2004, diseases and pests did not directly affect tomato fruit and thus

no fruit were graded out.

Tomato harvest in 2005 commenced on July 28th and continued until October 21st

for a total of 86 days of harvest. Cherry tomatoes were the first to ripen followed by

‘Lemon Boy’, ‘La Roma Gold’, ‘Ball’s Beefsteak’, ‘Celebrity’, ‘Early Girl’ and finally

‘Yellow Pear’. Yields, production costs, revenue and profit for the tomato cultivars tested

in 2005 are presented in Table 15.

As in 2004, the ‘Sweet Million’ and ‘Sweet Hundred’ cherry tomato cultivars

were of excellent flavor. Tomatoes from these cultivars yielded consistently through the

harvest season and produced the second largest net revenues. The ‘Yellow Pear’ tomato

had the highest total revenue, but the fruit were mealy with poor flavor. ‘Lemon Boy’

also had excellent yields, but its flavor was poor. ‘La Roma Gold’ had average net

revenue and good flavor, but died early in the fall due to leaf mold. ‘Early Girl’ and

‘Celebrity’ had good and excellent flavor, respectively, but produced the lowest net

revenues.


($79.97/m2) in 2005.

3.3.10.3.3 2006

As a function of their higher yields, greater revenue and/or better flavor

characteristics seen in previous years, ‘Sweet Million’ Cherry, ‘Yellow Pear’, and

‘Lemon Boy’ tomatoes replaced other cultivars in the 2006 trial. ‘Jet Star’ was the only

large red tomato included in the 2006 trial. ‘Celebrity’, ‘Early Girl’ and ‘Balls Beefsteak’

were dropped due to their relatively low yields and/or inferior flavor in previous trials.

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Tomato

plants grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Rainfall was adequate but not

excessive, thus, root rot was not a problem in 2006. Foliar disease started to appear by

mid-August. Based on experience obtained in 2004 and 2005, all infected leaves were

removed and sulfur was applied to the foliage to reduce disease. This treatment appeared

effective, as the tomato plants remained healthy and relatively disease free compared to

2004 and 2005. Fruit were not directly affected by disease in 2006.

As in 2005, several applications of carbaryl were necessary to keep aphids and

spider mites under control. As in 2004 and 2005, insect pests did not directly affect

tomato fruit and thus no fruit was graded out due to insect damage.

Tomato harvest in 2006 commenced on August 2nd and continued until October

30th for a total of 89 days of harvest. Cherry tomatoes were the first to ripen followed by

‘Yellow Pear’, ‘Lemon Boy’ and finally ‘Jet Star’. Yields, flavor, and fruiting

characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for the various tomato cultivars tested in 2006

are presented in Table 15.

Yields were slightly higher than in 2005, however, because cherry tomato plants

occupied most of the tomato patch in 2006 and cherry tomatoes commanded a price

premium, profits in 2006 were much higher than in 2005. As in 2004 and 2005, ‘Sweet

Million’ and ‘Sweet Hundred’ cherry tomato cultivars were of excellent flavor. Tomatoes

from these cultivars yielded consistently through the harvest season and produced the

second largest net revenue. The ‘Yellow Pear’ tomato had the highest total revenue, but

its flavor was poor. ‘Lemon Boy’ had excellent total revenue, although its flavor was also

poor. ‘Jet Star’ had the lowest total revenue in 2006, however compared to other round

red tomatoes tried in 2004 and 2005 ‘Jet Star’ had good yields. ‘Jet Star’ appeared to be

more resistant to leaf mold than any other round red tomato.


($111.53/m2) in 2006.

3.3.10.4 Conclusion

Tomatoes tended to perform well in typical Toronto summer conditions, but if

unfavorable weather occurred or if non-adapted cultivars were selected yields were

drastically reduced. Foliar disease and root rots caused significant losses during extended

wet periods, especially in susceptible cultivars. Disease and insect problems tended to

appear towards the latter half of the growing season when temperatures rose, air

circulation in the canopy was reduced and condensation became more common. Aphids

and spider mites were not a significant problem because they did not directly affect the

fruit or damage the foliage. They were also relatively easily controlled with pesticides

available to the typical gardener. The most prominent disease was leaf mold, which was

not readily controlled by the application of the fungicides available to backyard

gardeners. It appears that the sulfur must be applied at or even prior to the very first signs

of leaf mold. Since leaf mold is very prolific in wet cool conditions, sulfur should be

applied during these periods even if leaf mold is not obviously apparent. This will act as a

preventative for the control of the spread of leaf mold. Removing all infected leaves

appeared to reduce the amount of inoculum within the tomato patch, thereby reducing

leaf mold. Tomato fruit were not directly affected by diseases or pests and thus no fruit

was graded out.

The cultivars tested showed significant variability in disease sensitivity, with

Cherry tomatoes and ‘Yellow Pear’ tomatoes being the most resistant. ‘Jet Star’ was the

only large red tomato that showed an acceptable level of resistance to disease.

Determinate type tomatoes are more popular with hobby gardeners as they require

relatively little pruning. The determinate types, ‘La Roma Gold’ and ‘Early Girl’ tended

to form dense bushes that greatly reduced air circulation. This may explain their high rate

of disease. ‘Jet Star’ produced a less dense plant and showed lower rates of disease. It

would be anticipated that disease problems would be even worse if tomato cages were not

used.

Tomatoes utilized more water than most of the other crops grown in the garden.

Tomatoes also required labor for pruning, staking, disease control and harvesting.

However, because of their high yields and good price, tomatoes had the highest profit of

any vegetable crop grown in this home garden. A profit of $1295.32 was realized for

tomatoes in the three years of trials. This corresponds to an average profit of $75.75/m2.

Tomato fruit were of superior quality and flavor compared to store bought

tomatoes because homegrown tomatoes were harvested when they were fully ripe.

Tomatoes from the home garden are also far fresher than tomatoes available at retail

stores.

4.0 Conclusion

4.1 Summary

This study showed that home gardens can be designed and implemented to make

significant contributions to family nutritional and economic well-being while still being

visually attractive and environmentally acceptable. There is a potential for home

gardens to produce a bio-diverse array of environmentally friendly

locally grown food that is both healthy and flavorful.

Home gardens also make ecological sense. In times of rising energy costs and

growing concerns about climate change, consumers need to examine the environmental

footprint of the food they consume. On average, the fruits and vegetables sold in

Canadian supermarkets are transported more than 3000 km (Waterer, 2007). The amount

of actual food energy in lettuce is only a thirty-eighth of the amount of energy required to

transport that lettuce from a field in California to a supermarket in Canada (Waterer,

2007). Eating local produce has the potential to decrease the environmental impact of

shipping while keeping money within the country. Home gardens represent a means in

decreasing shipping costs and does make economic and/or environmental sense if it is

done right.

This study also indicated that the efficiency of gardening efforts can be improved

by using appropriate management practices including; a) soil amendments, b) selecting

sites within the garden best suited to each crop, c) selection of appropriate cultivars, d)

irrigation, E) proper pruning, training and harvesting techniques, and F) effective disease

and insect control methods.

At considerable cost and with much hard work, the soil at the garden site, which

had previously been of very poor quality, was modified into a loam with sufficient

nutrients and an acceptable pH for most horticultural crops. Changing the soil pH proved

to be difficult and expensive. Soil tests taken yearly showed that once adequate levels of

potassium, phosphorus, sulfur and all micronutrients had been achieved, limited

additional input of these nutrients would be needed in successive years to maintain

productivity. These nutrients are relatively immobile in the soil and are not subject to

leaching. Removal of the harvested portions of the crops will delete levels of these soil

nutrients, especially under intensively cropped conditions such as this home garden. By

contrast nitrogen was rapidly depleted in the garden. This reflects leaching and heavy

nitrogen use by many crops. Repeated heavy applications of nitrogen fertilizers are costly

to both the environment and the gardener’s pocket. In theory, using crops that are not

heavy users of nitrogen can decrease the need to use this fertilizer. Irrigation could be

timed to reduce leaching. However, it is unlikely these objectives could be met without

severely compromising the objective of having a highly productive garden capable of

producing a diversity of horticultural crops. Another method to reduce nitrogen

consumption is to total on the nitrogen rate applied to only meet the specific needs of the

crop growing in that area based on an average soil sample taken from various sections of

the garden. Some areas of the garden are cultivated to crops that use far less nitrogen than

other areas; therefore, individual soil samples should be made for the various sections of

the garden. However, variable rate applications of fertilizers are cumbersome on a small

scale.

Once the desired soil composition was reached in the garden merely only minor

maintenance should be necessary in the future. The major modifications to the soil that

occurred in the first year involved a substantial increase in the soil organic matter

content. As some of this organic matter will decompose during subsequent growing

seasons it may be necessary to add organic matter to the soil in the future, especially

since this garden is heavily tilled and intensively cropped. However, much of the required

organic matter could be supplied by incorporating non-harvested plant materials at the

end of the growing season. Kitchen waste can also be compost.

Organization of plants within the garden in a space efficient manner is essential

for maximizing productivity. Similarly, the ideal garden site offers a range of

microclimates over the day and duration of the growing season. In determining crop

placement within the garden, the overall orientation and microclimates of the entire

garden must be considered. Warm season crops should be placed in warm sunny areas of

the garden while cool season crops should be placed in cooler, shady areas. By proper

site selection within the garden it was possible to grow a range of cool and warm season

crops during a typical Toronto growing season. By strategic placement of crops, plantings

and harvest dates could be staggered, allowing fast growing crops like spinach and lettuce

to be enjoyed throughout the growing season. Positioning of crops within the garden

could also be used to manage pests i.e.; crops that have problems with foliar disease were

shifted to areas with more sun and better airflow. All home gardens have some vertical

space. As Fallow areas are wasteful, this project sought to use available vertical space to

grow trees, vines and climbing vegetable crops. Some crops, such as grapes, tomatoes

and pole type beans do best when supported. Once the gardener becomes familiar with

the garden site and the relative success of the crops, he or she can tailor the site to meet

crop needs and achieve efficiency.

The types of crops that can be grown successfully in the garden will be in part

determined by the size and location of the site. A sprawling crop like giant pumpkin is

clearly not suited. Individual gardeners will have personal crop preferences. Crops that

required relatively little effort to grow and produced superior yields of high quality and

high value product were clearly desirable. Greater area should be granted to favored

crops. However, some crops that are more difficult to grow might be necessary to add

diversity to the site and gardeners diet.

This project showed the importance of cultivar choice in determining the

productivity and/or sustainability of a garden. Before deciding to grow a cultivar, the

gardener must get reliable information as to the yield, flavor, pest and disease resistance

and growth habits of the cultivar and determine if those characteristics match their needs.

Ideally gardeners should consider several sources of cultivar recommendations, otherwise

they may end up with cultivars which are not adapted or suited for the geographic area on

the garden site or which have yield and quality characteristics that are not preferred by

the gardener. If space permits, a range of cultivars should be tried for each crop.

Unsuitable cultivars can be dropped, but having some diversity of cultivars increases the

range in color, size, shape and flavor, decreases the risks of losses due to pests, diseases

or unfavorable weather conditions and also spreads out the harvest. After several years of

cultivar testing a home garden can settle on a few lines that work best in the specific

situation. Home gardeners still should be encouraged to try new cultivars each year. This

project clearly showed that imported cultivars were often more productive than cultivars

available at local garden outlets. However, in many cases if seed must be imported, a

growing strategy must be determined to produce transplants before the spring planting

date.

Home gardens require a lot of time and care, especially if the objective is to make

the garden productive. Gardeners must be willing to spend several hours a week in

maintaining the garden. The more time spent, the more productive the garden will be.

Although rainfall is generally plentiful in Toronto’s growing season, it’s timing is

unpredictable and it often arrives when it is not needed. For this reason irrigation is a

necessity for almost all home gardens. Because of its labor requirements manual watering

is only recommended for very small gardens. Although an automated irrigation systems

proved costly up front for installation it paid for itself relatively quickly, as it allowed the

gardener to spend his or her time in more productive activities. Automated irrigation also

ensured that the plants were kept watered even when the gardener was not available. This

both increased the productivity of the garden and also decreased hassles for the gardener.

Crops that are susceptible to fungal attacks or which are grown in pots should be irrigated

using flood or drip irrigation systems, as drip irrigation systems do not wet crop foliage.

Crops that are cultivated directly in the earth and are not susceptible to fungal attack

could be irrigated using sprinklers. Sprinkler irrigation could also be used to protect the

garden against frost thereby extending the growing season. Irrigation was also used to

control pests such as spider mites.

Pest control was critical in the confined area of the test garden. Starting the

garden off free of pests and diseases, using appropriate cultural practices and keeping the

garden clean is essential for preventing and controlling pests and disease. Changing the

microenvironment of the garden (i.e. staking and irrigation) decreased the amount and

range of pests and diseases that caused problems. However, in some cases using

pesticides was the only workable control option. There are many pest and disease control

products available to typical home gardeners that are both relatively effective and safe.

Of greater importance is crop selection, cleanliness and microclimate modification. Some

important issues regarding effective pesticide use in the garden were; a) reading the

labels of each product to ensure that the chemicals were safe and effective and b)

knowing the pre-harvest interval associated with any chemicals used in the garden.

In some cases (i.e. bacterial wilt of cucumbers) there were no chemical control

agents available. In those situations the gardener only has limited options; a) quit growing

the problematic crops, b) rely on cultural practices to control the problem, c) accept the

losses and plant more to compensate for yield and grade losses.

Carbaryl (Sevin) was used in a calendar-based spray program for insect control.

In the test garden the decision was based on extensive crop losses experienced in

previous cropping years at this site. If insects had an opportunity to establish and spread

reactive spray programs were inadequate. However, calendar-based spraying is not ideal

because carbaryl is a contact product and is therefore useless if insects are not present at

the time of application. Ideally products other than carbaryl should have been used both

to increase the efficiency of the applications and to decrease resistance. An attempt

should be made in subsequent years to; a) scout for pests more frequently and only spray

when pests become a problem, b) know the economic damage threshold for various pests,

c) use softer more environmentally friendly products and/or d) change crops if it becomes

apparent that pests cannot be controlled without extensive applications of pesticides.

It is expected that some difficult to control diseases and insects may accumulate

in the garden over time. Crop rotation is not really an option within the confined area of

home gardens and most pests and disease will be present throughout the entire area of the

garden. Thus, gardeners must either accept that some problems will become endemic. In

response the grower can learn to cope with eating cosmetically defective produce or, if

necessary, stop growing problematic crops.

Mice caused significant losses to the young fruit trees, as they chewed around the

trunk of the tree in the winter. Most of the trees were salvaged using bridge grafts.

Placing white plastic covers around the trunk of the young trees would have prevented

this problem.

The project showed how dramatically weather can affect productivity of a garden.

Temperature, precipitation, frost-free days, wind patterns and sun intensity will vary

daily, monthly and yearly in a given location. During cooler years, cool season crops

flourished while warmer years should sustain good yields of warm season crops. Years

with a long frost-free season will expand both the range of crops that can be grown and

will also increase total yields. Heavy rain events leading to anaerobic soil conditions

cause root rots while flowing water causes uprooting and shifting of plants. The amount

of cloud cover in a particular year will affect pests and diseases as well as growth and

yield. Careful observations of the weather at the site can help the gardener determine

appropriate management practices that may save a crop. For example, during hot

weather, shade covers can be placed above cool season crops to reduce the amount of

sunlight and heat intercepted by crops (Waterer, 2005). Shorts bursts of irrigation in mid-

day can also help to cool down crops, however, this cultural practice may encourage

disease development. A diverse array of crops should be grown every year to ensure that

at least some crops would be productive, irrespective of the weather conditions.

Theft and vandalism is a concern in any urban garden situation. Home gardens

provide a quick and easy source of good quality produce that can be hard to come by for

some members of society. Individuals living in apartment buildings or houses with tiny

yards do not have the space to produce quality produce and may be tempted by products

in a nearby garden. Garden raiding is also a traditional recreation activity for Canadian

kids. The gardener must be ready to deal with unwanted visitors. The best method is to

become familiar with the members of the community. This will both reduce theft and

may also act as a security web. A second option is to share with the community. A

potential thief is less likely to steal if they know that they can get free or cheap produce

by making friends or working with the gardener. A third option is attained through

management practices. High fences and vines can be used to prevent strangers from

seeing into the garden. A guard dog is another option, however the dog must be leashed

in an area away from the crops or else the garden will be trampled, destroyed or fouled by

the dog’s activities. In any case, gardeners should be aware that theft is likely to occur at

some point and should stay calm and decide which type of method is appropriate to stop

thieves from ruining a harvest and the gardening experience.

4.3 Comparisons of Crop Categories

A general increase in total and per unit area profits was attained within the test

garden from 2004 to 2006 (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3).

Vegetables produced the highest total yields as a function of the large area of the

garden devoted to their production. (Fig. 2). However, vegetables produced relatively low

per unit area profits as a function of the low prices, high costs and high labor demands

associated with vegetable production (Fig. 3). By contrast the herb and flower plots

produced relatively low total profits, but this reflects the limited size of these plots (Fig.

2). In actuality herbs and flowers produced the highest per unit area profits as a function

of their compact size and high value (Fig. 3). Fruit crops had the lowest total and per unit

area profits, largely as a function of the time required for these perennials to become

established (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). It is expected that fruit crops should out-perform

vegetable crops in subsequent years as a function of their lower maintenance costs once

they have become established.

Fig. 2 Total Profits for Various Crop Categories in 2004 - 2006

Fig. 3 Per Unit Area Profits of Various Crop Categories in 2004 - 2006

4.4 Vegetables

Vegetables were the least expensive crops to produce in this home garden in

terms of material inputs, but on average, they were also the most labor demanding.

Vegetables used up the most horizontal space in the garden because of their sprawling

growth habit and because they are consumed in greater amounts than any other crops.

Some vegetables, such as peppers and eggplants can be cultivated in pots and therefore

they can be grown outside the traditional garden (i.e. on patios and planters). This

increases the usable space in a garden. However, crops grown in pots required more

frequent irrigation than crops cultivated directly into the earth. Thus, a different irrigation

regime is required for potted plants than for plants grown directly in the earth. Some

vegetable crops such as pole beans, snow peas and cucumbers can be grown on fences

and walls, further increasing space use efficiency. If the garden is situated in a north-

south direction larger growing vegetables should be planted on the north end of the

planting beds to reduce shading of smaller crops.

Choosing the right vegetable cultivars is important, as is choosing where you get

your cultivar information. For many crops, like spinach and tomatoes, cultivars available

at local garden outlets were undesirable.

Individual vegetable crops produced varied total and per unit area profits from

year to year (Fig. 3). In large part this was reflected by a change in climatic conditions, an

increase in pest problems and cultivar modifications. In general, there was an increase in

profits as a function of better weather conditions, cultivar choice and growing practices

moving from 2004 – 2006.

Profits were made from beans, beets, carrots, cauliflower, cucumbers, eggplants,

lettuce, okra, onions, peas, peppers, radish, raspberries, rocket, Swiss chard, tomatoes,

turnips and zucchini in 2004, 2005 and/or 2006 (Fig. 4). Green onions, Swiss chard,

tomatoes, cauliflower and beans were the most profitable because they had both good

yields and good prices (Fig. 4). Asparagus, broccoli, cabbage, corn and fava beans failed

to generate positive returns in any of the three test years because they had either poor

yields and/or did not command a price premium (Fig. 4). The Potato patch produced a

total loss in 2004, however, due to better weather conditions in 2005 the potato patch

produced a small profit (Fig. 4). Spinach was not profitable in 2004 and 2005; however,

in 2006 profit was realized as a function of planting a better-adapted cultivar (Fig. 4).

Rhubarb and asparagus required time to establish and thus these crops did not produce

profits in the three years covered in this report (Fig. 4).

A total profit of $380.60 ($5.79/m2), $1397.68 ($21.26/m2) and $1990.33

($30.28/m2) was realized from the vegetable plot in 2004, 2005 and 2006 respectively

(Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). The increase in profits with time reflected better cultivar choice,

elimination of inferior crops and because the author became better at growing the crops.

It is expected that both vegetable production and the profitability of the vegetable

component of the garden should increase in subsequent years due to better management

practices, better choice of cultivars, an enhanced mix of vegetable crops and gardener

determination.

The quality of the vegetables produced in this project were mixed. Vegetables

could be harvested at optimal maturity, so they are fresher and have superior flavor

characteristics when compared to most vegetables that are available through the

wholesale food distribution chain. However, they were often less cosmetically perfect

then commercial products. This is probably due to more limited use of pesticides.

Cosmetic perfection is hopefully not an issue for the typical home gardener as vegetables

from the home garden have a longer usable lifespan after harvest compared to vegetables


Fig. 4 Vegetable Profits/m2 in 2004 - 2006

4.5 Fruit

Fruit trees, bushes and vines were the most expensive crops to produce in this

home garden largely because of the cost of purchasing well established planting stock.

Once established, fruit crops only required moderate labor inputs. Fruit crops did not

produce in the first few years of establishment, but once established they began

producing substantial profits. This trend should continue in the future.

Fruit trees and vines can be grown on fences and walls, thus, enhancing garden

space efficiency. To minimize shading associated with larger fruit trees smaller home

gardens must use dwarfed fruit tree cultivars.

Some fruit crops such as blackberries and raspberries established quickly and

profits were made after just one growing season (Fig. 5). Blueberries, sweet cherries and

currents incurred losses in all three years; but the rate of losses decreased as yields

increased in 2005 and 2006 (Fig. 5). These crops should be profitable in the future.

Apricots, grapes, mulberries and strawberries incurred losses between 2004 and 2005, but

by 2006 these crops produced a profit (Fig. 5). Apple, peach and nectarine yields actually

declined from 2004 to 2006 as a function of adverse climatic conditions and disease

and/or pest problems (Fig. 5). More scouting and better insect and disease control in these

trees will be required. Yields were not realized for kiwi or plum between 2004 and 2006;

thus, these crops incurred consistent losses for the three years of trials in this experiment

(Fig. 5). These losses were a function of the fact that these crops had yet to mature to the

point that they could produce fruit.

Fig. 5 Fruit Profits/m2 in 2004 - 2006

Overall the test garden realized a loss from the fruiting section of $294.71

($13.70/m2) and $113.14 ($5.26/m2) in 2004 and 2005 respectively and a profit of

$379.06 ($17.62/m2) in 2006 (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). Thus, home gardeners will not realize

profits from the average fruit crop at least until the fourth year of plant establishment,

unless fruit trees can be purchased at decreased costs or can be purchased in a more

mature state. It is expected that fruit production should increase in the following years

and should more than cover all past and future expenses.

Like vegetables, the quality of the fruit produced in this project was mixed. The

fruit could be harvested at optimal maturity so they had better quality and flavor

characteristics compared to most fruit available through the wholesale food distribution

chain. However, they were again less cosmetically perfect due to more limited use of

pesticides in the garden. Fruit from the home garden were also fresher and had a longer

usable lifespan after harvest compared to fruits available from retail stores.

The shaded area below trees could be used to grow shade tolerant crops such as

rhubarb or lettuce. In subsequent years other shade loving organisms, such as

mushrooms, should be tested in the area below the fruit tree canopy to further increase

space use efficiency in the garden.

4.6 Herbs

Most herbs were moderately expensive to start because they usually started as

transplants. Herb transplants are expensive when purchased from local retail outlets.

However, once the herbs were established, little time and effort was needed to maintain

herb production. Chives, mint, thyme, sage, and oregano are perennials while parsley and

basil did not over winter in Toronto and thus had to be planted annually. There are no

significant yield differences between annually grown herbs versus perennial herbs;

however, annual herbs are generally cheaper to purchase as transplants.

As herb plants are compact and are only required in small amounts by an average

family, they do not require a lot of space in a garden. Different herb types and cultivars

should be chosen on the basis of yield potential, the gardener’s taste preferences and the

ability of the herb species to grow well in the garden location. All of the herbs tried in the

test garden could be harvested throughout the growing season as needed. However, it

proved to be most efficient to harvest the plants to the ground when they reached peak

size and quality and to let them re-grow before harvesting again. This harvesting

technique ensured maximum productivity, but also tended to result in peaks and valleys

in the herb supply. Consequently some means of preserving is required. The excess yield

can be frozen or dried for later use.

Overall, every type of herb grown in this garden realized profits in 2004 to 2006

as a function of the minimal efforts associated with herb production and because herbs

have a price premium in farmer’s markets. Oregano, parsley and thyme showed

successive increases in profits from 2004 to 2006 (Fig. 6). The increase in profits

reflected increased yields as the plants became better established. Basil produced higher

profits in 2004 compared to 2005 and 2006, as a function of poor cultivar choice in 2005

and unfavorable weather conditions in 2005 and 2006 respectively (Fig. 6). Chives

yielded well in 2004 and 2005, however, by 2006 shading by other crops in the garden

caused the chive patch to almost disappear (Fig. 6). This illustrates the importance of

placing herbs in appropriate spots in the garden. Profits increased substantially for mint

from 2004 to 2005, however, in 2006 profits declined as a function of unseasonable

conditions (Fig. 6). Sage profits decreased from 2004 to 2005 due to winter damage (Fig.

6). Crop covers and warmer winter conditions in 2005 and 2006 reduced winter damage

to the sage and thus profits increased in the 2006-growing season (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6 Herb Profits/m2 in 2004 - 2006

The herb patch produced profits of $319.28 ($71.59/m2) $543.08 ($110.38/m2)

and $545.82 ($110.94/m2) in 2004, 2005 and 2006 respectively (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3).

It is expected that productivity and profitability of the herb patch should remain

consistent with the results obtained in 2006 because the perennial herb plants have

increased to their maximum size. The herbs appeared healthy and seem to be resistant to

pests and disease.

The herbs in this home garden were generally over watered as the automated

irrigation system was set to meet the water needs of the larger adjacent crops. Over-

watered herbs have lower oil: water content within their leaves, thus, the herbs did not

taste as pleasant as herbs purchased through the wholesale food distribution chain. Re-

arranging the irrigation system so that the herbs are not watered using the same manifold

as that used for the more water demanding nearby vegetables could rectify this problem.

Another way of rectifying the problems is to use different cultivars or less irrigation. The

herbs from the garden were fresher than the herbs available from retail stores and could

be stored longer before they spoiled. There is also a more diverse array of herb cultivars

with different flavor characteristics available to home gardeners, another reason

supporting herb production in the home garden.

4.7 Ornamentals and Aesthetics

Incorporation of ornamentals in home gardens helps produce an aesthetically

appealing site. Ornamentals increase the value of the property and may assist in

developing and maintaining good relationships with neighbors. Gardens should be kept

clean, grass should be cut and compost should be well covered and aerated to prevent

conflicts with neighbors and society in general. If winter and summer color is desired

ornamental plants can be incorporated into the planting plan (Fig. 1). Although fruit,

vegetable and herb crops are not usually considered to be aesthetically appealing by most

members of modern society, they actually can make the garden beautiful. Fruit crops

produce beautiful and fragrant flowers in early spring to early summer and produce

colorful fruit throughout the summer months. Most fruit trees require mulching to control

water losses, to prevent weed emergence, to stop proliferous suckering and or to protect

over-wintering crops from winter damage. Colorful and fragrant mulch can be used at the

base of fruit trees to beautify the landscape. Herbs provide scent, variegation and texture

to a garden. Vegetables can also be aesthetically pleasing. Although vegetables are

usually considered to be green and plain, a closer look at different vegetable crops will

demonstrate that each crop is a slightly different shade of green. Some vegetables also

produce colorful fruit. Tomatoes ripen red, peppers can be yellow, orange or red,

eggplants are purple, white or black, and cauliflower produced white heads.

Ornamental crops such as Roses, columbines, bleeding hearts, smoke bush,

forsythia and lilies all produce colorful leaves or flowers, which add beauty to the garden.

Roses and Columbines were used as cut flowers to add indoor beauty and thus were

considered as profitable products of the garden (Fig. 6).

4.8 Overall Outcomes and Future Expectations

The research conducted throughout this project has demonstrated that home

gardens can be productive and economically sustainable. By using good management

practices and good cultivar selection, the garden realized a successive increase in yields,

overall productivity and profits. Total profits for the entire garden rose from $470.50 in

2004 to $1954.15 in 2005 and finally to $3111.39 in 2006 (Fig. 7). Over the three years

of trials a total profit of $5536.04 could have been realized. These figures would be

significantly larger if the author took into consideration the time and money saved by

eliminating trips to the supermarket to purchase produce. The environmental “savings”

associated with home gardens are more difficult to quantify, but are nonetheless

important.

Fig. 7 Total Profits for Different Commodity Categories in the Home Garden in 2004, 2005 and 2006

Yields and profits should increase in subsequent years as a function of better

cultivar selection, more sustainable cultural practices, elimination of less productive

crops, increased fruiting and leaf production of perennial fruit and herb species and better

knowledge of techniques for pest and disease control.

Many additional changes could be made in future years to improve productivity and

or quality. Cultivars with inferior flavors should be replaced with superior flavored

cultivars. For example, bland flavored oregano of the cultivar ‘Italian’ should be replaced

with a more flavorful cultivar. Cool season crops such as broccoli and cauliflower that do

not mature before the onset of summer heat should only be planted as fall crops.

However, if a spring crop is necessary to maintain the diversity of food throughout the

year, earlier maturing and heat tolerant cultivars should be planted. The greenhouse can

be used more efficiently; for example, it should be used to grow hot peppers, which are

more adapted to the hot conditions that occur in the greenhouse in the summer months.

More transplants, such as tomatoes, cauliflower, broccoli, eggplants, peppers and parsley,

can be grown in the greenhouse prior to the spring garden planting. This will result in

substantial savings, as transplants are expensive to purchase. Cultivars of some crops

such as zucchini and spinach that are sensitive to temperature fluctuations should be

eliminated or replaced with better-adapted cultivars. Crops or cultivars with lower yields

should be replaced with better yielding options. For example, English cucumbers could

be replaced with better yielding slicing and pickling cucumbers. Crops, such as tomatoes,

cucumbers, nectarines and peaches that are susceptible to diseases should be sprayed with

fungicides prior to fungal attack as a preventative means of controlling disease. Trying to

cure a disease once it is established is not feasible. More regular scouting for pests and

disease will help reduce yield and profit losses due to pests and diseases. Carbaryl

(Sevin) and other insecticides should only be applied when pests are apparent, as most of

these insecticides are only contact products and are rendered ineffective and inefficient if

insects are not present at the time of spraying.

Crop rotation in time and space can be implemented for crops, such as crucifers,

cucurbits and tomatoes, if and when disease buildup becomes a concern. Although

overhead irrigation is useful for cooling crops in mid-summer heat, this cultural practice

also increases disease establishment and buildup. Potted plants such as peppers and

eggplants should be irrigated more frequently to reduce losses from water stress. Potted

plants are irrigated with a drip system and thus disease issues from excess moisture or not

so problematic for these crops.

Some crops such as fava beans, corn and potatoes were inexpensive to purchase

through the wholesale food distribution chain that it was not efficient to utilize the garden

space to grow these low value crops. By contrast, some plants like tomatoes and peppers

are relatively expensive in grocery stores and thus more space should be allocated to

these types of crops.

The garden should be monitored carefully and records should continue to be kept

to see if profits can increase in subsequent years. It is expected that within a few years of

production, profits will plateau as the perennials fully utilize the available space, as the

rate improvements achieved by cultivar selection and better production practices slows

and as pests and diseases build up. It is important to note that while some crops

(tomatoes, blackberries and herbs) produce far greater profits than other crops, a typical

family requires a diversity of food to keep them happy and healthy. Thus, it makes sense

to grow some crops that do not produce significant profits.

4.9 Importance of Home Gardens

The importance of home gardens is largely overlooked in the research literature,

however, the value is clear. Home gardens give the consumer an opportunity to

appreciate produce harvested at peak maturity. Home gardeners can choose to grow

cultivars for their superior flavor while commercial production must focus on cultivars

that have superior yields.

The produce generated in home gardens tends to be more flavorful and healthy than store

bought produce. When eating homegrown produce, the consumer knows exactly which

types and amounts of inputs (i.e. fertilizers, pesticides and efforts) that went into the crop.

By contrast, inputs into the wholesale food distribution chain are largely unknown.

In addition to the direct gain of profit from producing high quality produce,

gardening also has indirect benefits. Gardening is both good exercise and excellent for

mental health. Producing ones own food brings a feeling of accomplishment, control,

recreation, importance, efficiency, stress relief, relaxation, creativity and co-operation

(Waterer 2002). Home gardens can also be a forum for education. Many members of

urban communities have little knowledge about where their food comes from. An urban

garden serves as a concrete example. Kids heading to school and other members of the

community who passed the research garden were usually interested in learning about the

crops. Throughout the experiment the author took friends, family, students and other

members of the community on tours of the garden and encouraged the idea of sustainable

gardening. His efforts encouraged some of these people to start looking into making their

own home gardens more productive. The garden was also a form of advertising for urban

landscape development. After seeing the garden, many members of the author’s

community paid for his services in making their gardens more productive and/or

aesthetically appealing.

Home gardens can also provide a source of income. As an experiment, the author

placed a stand in front of his home (75 Pinto Dr.) and arranged a nice harvest display.

Many passing members of the community expressed interest in purchasing the produce,

especially since they appreciated that it was all produced locally. They were not,

however, willing to pay a price premium for the garden produce relative to supermarket

prices. The clients will require experience and education to realize the quality associated

with home grown produce. Members of the community may also eventually realize that it

is more enjoyable and cost effective to walk to a nearby home garden than to drive to a

grocery store. Crops could be traded for other goods and services. In successive years the

author may develop marketing strategies that will actually generate money from the

garden, as the garden already produces more than an average family can consume.

Centuries ago Canadians would face starvation if they couldn’t produce their own

food (Waterer, 2007). As recently as a few decades ago most Canadian homes still had

some form of fruit and/or vegetable garden (Waterer, 2007). Today the average Canadian

is largely disconnected from their food supply. In large part this reflects the fact that

eighty percent of the Canadian population resides in cities far removed from food

production (Waterer, 2007). Access to low cost energy used to move food vast distances

makes this type of disconnect possible. However, fossil fuels are finite. When this

important resource becomes too expensive many horticultural commodities that are

presently shipped from abroad will become rarities unless individuals can grow their own

produce. Home gardening can be economically and environmentally sustainable thorough

use of certain management practices. There is an indisputable need to re-introduce the

idea of producing sustainable crops in home gardens. The joy, satisfaction and

environmental and health benefits associated with home gardening has largely been

forgotten; these facts need to be revived in the hearts of members of society, then shared

with the struggling economies of the world. The implications of this paper hinted at

resolutions for global warming and global starvation. Harmony is in sight for this

macrocosm. Let’s make it happen.

5.0 References

Ajaegbu H.I. (June, 1999). Small-Scale Gardening in the Jos Region, Nigeria; Partial Findings. Urban and peri-Urban Agriculture in Africa: Proceedings of a workshop, Netanya, Israel: pp. 23-27.

Alford D.V. (1984). A Colour Atlas of Fruit Pests; their Recognition, Biology and Control. London: Wolfe Publishing Ltd. pp. 320.

Atkinson, H. (1971). A Bibliography of Canadian Soil Science. Canada: Canada Department of Agriculture. pp. 826.

Biggs A., Healy A., Caroline E. (1997). Encyclopedia of Vegetable Gardening. London: Octopus Books Limited. pp. 255.

Bittenbender H.C. (August 1985). Home Gardens in Less Developed Countries. HortScience,Vol 20(4) pp. 645-648.

Bors B. 2004-2005. Personal Interview. Saskatoon Saskatchewan.

Breugnot C., Hutin C. (2001). Family Gardening: Cultivating Enjoyment. Les Jardins Familiaux: L’art de Culiver son Plasir. Infos-Ctifl (No.173): 20-23.

Garland J.A., Howard R.J., Seaman W.L. (1994). Diseases and Pests of Vegetable Crops in Canada, An Illustrated Compendium. Ottawa, Ontario: The Canadian Phytopathological Society and the Entomological Society of Canada. pp. 554.

Gojard S., Weber F. (1995). Gardens, Gardening and Home-Grown Food. INRA Sciences (No. 2): pp. 4.

Green Lane TM. Environment Canada, 2004. Last reviewed 2007-01-22.< http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/index_e.html>.

Hesler R. L., Whetzel H.H. (1920). Manual of Fruit Diseases. New York: The Mackmillan Company. pp. 462.

Janick J. (1982). Horticultural Science. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. pp. 608.

Khammounheuang K., Saleumsy P., Kirjavainen L. et al. (2004). Sustainable livelihood for human security in Lao PDR – Home Gardens For Food Security, Rural Livihoods, and Nutritional Well-Being. Regional Development Dialoge 25 (2): pp. 203-228.

Knott A., James E. (1957). Knotts Handbook for Vegetable Growers. Philidelphia: Lea and Febiger. pp. 238.

Lorenz S., Maynard D. (1997). Knotts Handbook for Vegetable Growers, fourth edition. New york: John wiley and Sons. pp. 582.

Marsh R. (1998). Building on Traditional Gardening to Improve Household Food Security. Nutrition and Agriculture (No. 22): pp. 4-14.

Munro D., Small E. (1997). Vegetables of Canada. Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada. pp. 416.

Nell W., Wessels B., Mokoka J., et al. (2000). Development Debate and Practice: A Creative Multidisciplinary Approach Towards The Development of Food Gardening. Development of Southern Africa 17 (5): 807-819.

Ojeifo I.M., Emuh F.N., Denton O.A. (2006). Crop Production Systems of Market Gardens in Nigeria. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment 4 (2): 246-250.

Poincelot, Raymond F. (2004). Sustainable Horticulture “Today and Tomorrow”. New Jersey: Pearson Education. pp. 870.

Seagle S., Ruter F., Krewer K. (1995). Introduction to Horticulture Science and Terminology. Illinois: interstate publishers. pp. 660.

Sherf A.F., Macnab A.A. (1986). Vegetable Diseases and their Controls (second edition). United States: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. pp. 728

Tollefson T.S. (1997). Soil Science 240 Fundamentals of Soil Science. Class Notes. pp. 50.

Valstar A. (1999). Home-Based Food Production in Urban Jamaica. Food, Nutrition and Agriculture (N0. 22): pp. 4-14.

Walter E. Splittstoesser. (1979). Vegetable Growers Handbood. Illinoise: The AVI Publishing company. pp. 456.

Ware and McCollum. (1959). Raising Vegetables. Illinoise: The Interstate Printers and Publishers. pp. 460.

Waterer D., Bantle J., Hrycan W. (2005). Vegetable Cultivar and Cultural Trial 2005. Saskatoon Saskatchewan: Department of Plant Sciences University of Saskatchewan.

Waterer D. 2004-2006. Personal Interview. Saskatoon Saskatchewan.

Wien. H.C. (1997). The Physiology of Vegetable Crops. New York: Cab International pp. 662.

Zemede A., Ayele N. (1995). Home-Gardens in Ethiopia: Characteristics and Plant Diversity. Sinet, An Ethiopian Journal of Science 18 (2): pp. 235-266.

Appendix A

Distribution of Expenses for sectors within the garden

Soil Costs30 yd3 Soil $1200.00Peat moss (17) $125.68Rotary hammer rental $40.702004 soil test (free) 2005 soil test $74.902006 soil test $77.04Fertilizer (NPK) $106.81Soil acidifier (sulfur) $50.94Super phosphate $20.38Muriate Of potash $6.79Miracle grow (3) $59.97

Raised Bed/Site Prep CostsPlywood (15) $399.002 X 4 X 12 spruce (12) $70.56Screws (4) $16.49

Irrigation Costs(Fixed Costs)Assorted Irrigation fittings (59) $74.64 Irrigation cap (17) $13.94Irrigation nipple (3) $4.92Irrigation riser (18) $18.66Irrigation adaptor (20) $18.80Assorted Irrigation heads (13) $45.11Irrigation connector (2) $10.98Hose clamps (93) $76.26Barb stake $2.29Flexaspout $11.47Assorted Tee’s (16) $25.28 Coupling (14) $14.88Stakes (3) $7.47Valve (3) $22.65Manifold (2) $179.56Quad manifold (2) $17.92Manifold box $19.96Garden hoses $100.67Hose repair (3) $22.27Irrigation timer $46.86Irrigation tubing (3) $60.36Bushings (2) $3.18

Pressure gauge $13.86Soaker Tube (2) $17.92Gear sprinkler (2) $8.58Garden Hose $36.99Teflon tape (5) $3.20Bushing (1) $2.67Hose connector (2) $12.98Fertilizer siphon $24.99 Elbow (10) $11.62(Variable Costs)- Water - $314.19/growing season

Chemical(Fixed Costs)Garden sulfur (fungicide) $5.47Chemical spray tub $19.99Copper spray $7.99Powdery mildew spray (2) $14.98Insecticidal soap (2) $14.98Other sprays $21.97(Variable Costs)Sevin (8) $159.92

Fruiting Plant Costs(Fixed Costs)Royal Gala apple $34.97Yellow Delicious apple $33.99McIntosh apple tree $35.99Dwarf nectarine $42.49Dwarf peach $46.74Arctic Kiwi-female $18.69Arctic kiwi-hermaphrodite $25.50Raspberry (5) $75.61Blackberry (7) $29.80Currant $12.74Blueberry (7) $127.68Napoleon cherry $42.49Strawberries (3 trays) $17.83Mulberry $76.50Pear (2) $84.98Apricot $42.49Grape (Concord, 2-Niagara, Interlaken, Himrod, Vanessa) (6) $66.91(Variable Costs)Tree fertilizer stakes (12) $54.08Tree tie $5.25Tree stakes (18) $53.34

Screws $5.18Nylon rope (3) $14.23Bike tire tubing $2.74Twine $3.96Pruning paint $6.27Velcro tree ties $7.99Screws $6.46Pruning sealer $12.99

Vegetable Costs(Fixed Costs)Tomato cages (30) $30.00Assorted pots $100.00Herbs $52.27(Variable Costs)Assorted seeds $66.97Twine (3) $11.88Vegetable transplants (over 3 years) $116.25Herbs $5.00

Greenhouse Costs(Fixed costs)Barb stake (2) $4.58Plywood $15.67Electric extension $19.98Pl premium $4.17PVC (3) $47.94Timer $4.38Power bar $14.98Pressure treated 6 X 6 (2) $22.98Screws (3) $2.91Spiral nails $6.98Ceramic heater $20.99Electric Extension $33.09Thermostat $6.99(Variable Costs over 4 years)Heating costs (4 years) $80.00Soil mix $48.00Polyethylene $14.99

Ornamental Costs(Fixed Costs)Assorted flower bulbs $21.70Red cedar mulch (42) $135.38 Iron torch $9.97Push broom $22.98

Roses (10) $129.70Behr stain (2) $59.94Gravel (10) $38.80Torch (4) $15.92Paint $4.29Grass seed $30.98Gravel (2) $9.98Clematis (2) $28.03(Variable Costs)Weed n feed $15.47Torch wick (2) $7.78Lawnmower gas $10.00Kerosene (3) $44.97Wipe out (2) $10.94Trimmer line $6.97Red Cedar Mulch (18) $101.53Assorted Flowers $91.34

Labor Costs (at $8.00/hour)Irrigation setup (40 h) $320.0 Landscape, raised bed, soil setup (180 h) $1,120.00 Avg. weekly labor (include. harvesting, cultivating, irrigating, maintenance) (5 h) $40.00Greenhouse setup (8 h) $64.00Time in transportation (15 h) $120.00Total labor (344 h) $2, 752.00

Other(Fixed Costs)Lumber cut $4.00Strap (7) $5.39Roof down pipe (2) $21.94Drill bits $6.29Wood Auger $13.49Screws (2) $3.98Anchors (3) $9.54Splash back $6.97Weather station $39.97Reiger $3.97Feeder $6.77Boiler $4.96Adjustable sprayer $4.98Chainsaw rental $34.10Roofing nails $9.27Caulking gun $2.97Caulking (4) $14.60Shovel (2) $48.35

Edger (2) $21.76(Variable Costs)Gasoline during transportation $120.00Mousetrap (4) $17.70

Appendix B

Pests, Diseases and Physiological Disorders that were Problematic in 2004, 2005 and/or 2006.

InsectsFruitflies (Drosophila spp.)Aphids (Aphis spp.)Spidermites (Tenuipalpidaee spp. Tetranychus spp.)-Leafminer (Pegomya spp.)-Cherry blackfly (Myzus cerasi)-Plum leaf gall mite (phytoptus similes)-Pepper maggot (Zonosemata electa)-Flea beetle (Apthona nigriscutis)-Slugs (Arion distinctus)

Fungi-Rust (Gymnosporagnium globosum)-Powdery mildew (Podosphoera leucotricha)-Coryneum fruit-spot (Coryneum blight) (Coryneium Beijerinckii)-Fusarium crown and root rot (Fusarium oxysporum sp. Asparagi and Fusarium moniliforme)-Damping off-Rhizoctonia disease (Rhizoctonia solani)- Pythium root dieback also known as rusty root, lateral root dieback, and forked root (Pythium spp.)-Alternaria disease (Alternaria spp)-Leaf blight also (yellow leaf) (Coccomyces hiemalis and C. lutescens)-Anthracnose (Colletotrichum spp. or Glomerella lagenaria)-Downy mildew (Pseudoperonospora cubensis)-Verticillium wilt (Verticillium spp.)- Leaf mold (Cladosporium fulvum)- Gray mold (Botrytis cinerea)- Leaf-curl (Exoascus deforman),- Leaf Scorch (Alternaria radicina)- Botrytis rot (Botrytis sp.)

Bacteria- Bacterial wilt (Erwinia trachepihila)- Fire Blight (Erwinia amylovora)- Slime rot (Erwinia carotovor)

Physiological Disorders-Stippen- Blossom-end-rot-Growth cracks

Appendix C

Calculations

Calculation #1 (Calculation of Soil Texture Amendments)If one kilogram of soil contains 0.5 kg of clay, 0.2 kg of sand and 0.3 kg of silt it has 50% clay, 20% sand, and 30% silt. Therefore, if 0.2 kg of sand was added to the soil the total soil weight would be 1.2 kg and the clay and silt composition would be 0.5 kg, 0.4 and 0.3 kg respectively. Dividing the mass of each individual soil separate by the total mass of the soil will give clay sand and silt composition of 40, 33 and 25% respectively making the soil a clay loam.

Calculation #2 (Calculation for Soil Nutrient Amendments)- Amounts of nutrients present in the initial soil are N (20lb/acre), P (>51 lb/acre), K (201 lb/acre) and S (23 lb/acre).

- Amount of nutrients to be added to initial soil volume= Optimal soil nutrient levels for crops (lb/acre) – Initial nutrients present in soil (lb/acre)

- Amount of nutrients to be added to final soil volume = (Amount of each nutrient to be added to initial soil volume)(Total soil volume lacking nutrients)

Calculation #3 (Calculation of Soil Organic Matter Amendments)- Amount of organic matter present in initial soil= 4%

-Amount of OM present in final soil before addition of peat and manure = 2%

-Amount of OM present in added soil = [(% Peat and manure in triple mix)(66% of the 80% triple mix to be added)] /(2 times the soil volume + amount of organic matter of initial soil)= [(0.66)(0.80)(100%)]/(2 + 2%) = 28.5%

Calculation #4 (Calculation of Amount of N, P, K Amendments)-Mass of N required for 60 m2

= (Mass of N required/m2)(soil volume)= (0.0253 kg/m2)(60 m2)= 1.52 kg

-Mass of P required for 60 m2

= (Mass of P required/m2)(soil volume)= (0.0265 kg/m2)(60m2)= 1.59 kg

-Mass of K required for 60 m2

= (Mass of K required/m2)(soil volume)= (0.0054 kg/m2)(60 m2)= 0.32 kg

-Mass of S required for 60 m2

= (Mass of S required/m2)(soil volume)= (0.00627 kg/m2)(60 m2)=0.38 kg

(21-7-7) Lawn fertilizer is composed of 21, 7, and 7% of N, P and K respectively by weight. Thus, one kilogram of lawn fertilizer contains 0.210, 0.07 and 0.07 kg of N, P, and K respectively(0-20-20) Sulfur fertilizer is composed of 0, 20, 20 and 11.5% of N, P, K and S respectively by weight. Thus, one kilogram of (0-20-20) contains 0.00, 0.20, 0.20 and 0.115 kg of N, P, K and S respectively.(0-44-0) Treble super phosphate is composed of 0, 44, and 0% of N, P and K respectively by weight. Thus, one kilogram of lawn fertilizer contains 0.00, 0.40 and 0.00 kg of N, P, and K respectively.

(0-0-60) Muriate of potash is composed of 0, 0, and 60% of N, P and K respectively by weight. Thus, one kilogram of lawn fertilizer contains 0.00, 0.00 and 0.60 kg of N, P, and K respectively.

-Mass of lawn fertilizer to add to fulfill soil N requirements= (Mass of N required/60m2)/(mass of N in 1 kg of lawn fertilizer)= (1.52 kg)(1kg bag/0.210 kg)= 7.24 kg

- Amount of P added from 7.24 kg of lawn fertilizer = (Mass of lawn fertilizer added)(mass of P in 1 kg of lawn fertilizer)= (7.24 kg)(0.07 kg/1 kg bag)=0.51 kg

- Amount of K added from 7.24 kg of lawn fertilizer= (Mass of lawn fertilizer added)(mass of K in 1 kg of lawn fertilizer)= (7.24 kg)(0.07 kg/1 kg bag)= 0.51 kg

-Mass of (0-20-20) to add to fulfill soil S requirements= (Mass of S required/60m2)/(mass of S in 1 kg of 0-20-20)= (0.38 kg)/(1kg bag/0.115 kg of sulfur)= 3.30 kg

- Amount of P added from 3.30 kg of (0-20-20)= (Mass of 0-20-20 added)(amount of 0-20-20 added to fulfill soil S requirements)

= (3.30 kg)(.20 kg of P/1 kg bag)= 0.66 kg

- Amount of K added from 3.30 kg of (0-20-20)= (Mass of 0-20-20 added)(amount of 0-20-20 added to fulfill soil S requirements)= (3.30 kg)(0.20 kg of P/1 kg bag)= 0.66 kg

- Mass of (0-44-0) to add to fulfill remaining soil P requirements= (Remaining mass of P required/60m2)(mass of P in 1 kg of 0-44-0)= (1.59 kg - 0.51 kg - 0.66 kg)(1 kg bag/0.44 kg of P)= 0.42 kg of P required/0.44 kg of P in 1 kg bag= 0.95 kg

- Mass of (0-0-60) to add to fulfill remaining soil K requirements= (Remaining mass of K required/60m2)/(mass of K in 1 kg of 0-0-66)= (0.32 kg - 0.51 kg - 0.66 kg)(0.66 kg of K/1 kg bag)= (-0.85 kg)/0.66 kg= -1.28 kg (therefore no need for 0-0-60 because K already sufficient from lawn fertilizer, 0-20-20 and 0-44-0.

Calculation #5 (Yields per square meter per cultivar calculations)= Total yields per cultivar/ amount of land occupied by each cultivar

Calculation #6 (Net revenue per cultivar calculations)= (Total yields per cultivar)(price per unit yield for that cultivar)

Calculation #7 (Net revenue per square meter per cultivar calculations)= (Total yields per square meter of a cultivar)(price per unit yield for that cultivar)

Calculation #8(Net revenue for the entire crop calculations)= ∑ net revenue per cultivar

Calculation #9 (Total costs per crop)= (total costs of one square meter of land)(number of square meters occupied by crop)

Calculation #10 (Profit per crop)= Net revenue for the entire crop – Total costs per crop

Calculation #11 (Water Calculations)- Based on worse case scenario (i.e. water coming directly out of tap)- It took 72 seconds to fill a 22L bucket- 22L = 0.022 m3

- Therefore it took 72 seconds to fill 0.022 m3

- 0.022 m3 /72 seconds = 0.000305556 m3 is filled up in one second.- (0.000305556 m3/sec)(3600 s/h) = 1.1000016 m3/h

- (1.1000016 m3/h)(11 sprinkler heads per week) = 12.1000176 m3/h/week- (12.1000176m3/h/week)($1.5456 per cubic meter of water) = $18.7017872/week- ($18.7017872/week)(16.8 weeks from June-September) = $314.190025/growing season- Therefore the water costs for the garden in one growing season is $314.19

Calculation #12 (Calculations for Total and Average Costs)-Total costs/year average (based on ten-year average calculation) = [1785.91 + ($1926.49 x 3) + ($1900 x 6)]/10 = $1896.54

-Total Costs/year/m2 average (based on ten-year average calculation)= $1896.54 per year/118.53m2 = $16.00/m2/year

-Total costs over three years = Total costs of 2004 + total costs of 2005 + total costs of 2006 = $8497.17 + $1535.65 + $1535.65 = $12040.24

-Total costs over three years “without labor”= Total costs over three years – cumulative total for labor costs between 2004 and 2006 = $7608.24

-Total fixed costs for costs that will last for 10 years (Site Prep, 50% of chemicals, planting material, greenhouse construction, 50% of landscaping setup, greenhouse setup, ornamentals, herbs, miscellaneous, transportation) = $2531.00

-Average Fixed costs per year over 10 years = Total fixed costs for costs that will last for 10 years/10 = $2531.00/10 = $253.10

-Total Fixed costs for costs that will last for 50 years (soil costs + 50 % of Landscaping) = $2031.30

-Average Fixed costs per year over 50 years = Total fixed costs for costs that will last for 50 years/50 = $2031.30/50 = $40.63

-Total Fixed costs per year that will last for 25 years (irrigation system + irrigation setup, fruit tree costs) = $2427.75

Average Fixed costs per year over 25 years

= Total fixed costs for costs that will last for 25 years/25 = $97.11

Conversion CalculationsConverting lb/acre to kg/ha= (lb/acre)(1.1 kg/ha)

Converting lb to kg= (number of lb)(0.45359 kg)

Converting g to kg= number of g/1000 g per kg

Converting kg/ha to kg/m2

= (kg/ha)(1ha/10,000m2)

Appendix D

Analysis of Fruits, Vegetables and Herbs tried in the garden and used in the overall Thesis Project for Analysis, But not Discussed in the Results and Discussion.

Apples (Malus domestica)Introduction

Apples are a hardy tree perennial of the Rosaceae family. Apples have a main taproot extending several feet deep and a fibrous root system near the soil surface. Apples grow best in loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 6.0 and 7.5. Apples require 200, 22-224, and 132-165 kg/ha of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P2O5) and potassium (K2O) respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Apples are somewhat drought tolerant but require irrigation during extensive hot dry periods. Apple cultivars have varying hardiness zones and choosing the right cultivar for an area is essential. Fruit grow off of spurs that are produced on two or three-year wood. Spurs may last from 2-5 years and still produce sufficient yields. Apples are self-sterile, and thus, two trees of different cultivars are required in close proximity for pollination. Apple trees require a chilling period to induce flower production. Apple trees are pruned from fall until spring. Lateral branches should be promoted, while shoots should be removed because laterals bear most of the fruit. Apple trees may begin fruiting after 3 years if a rootstock is used and may continue fruiting for over 40 years.

TrialsTrials were conducted from 2004-2006 in a 5.04 m2 area of the garden. Apple

trees yield best when exposed to full sunlight and espaliers were used for some cultivars to maximize garden space. Apple trees were purchased as three-year-old rootstocks that were about 1.8 m tall. 8.9 cm screws and nylon rope were used to train lateral branches of espaliered trees along the fence. At the top of the fence several main leaders were left to extend above the fence to increase productive area. Pruning commenced in early spring to maintain tree vigor and shape and in summer to remove diseased or dying branches. Apples were harvested at full maturity. McIntosh apples ripened first followed by Red Delicious. Yellow Delicious and Royal Gala did not produce fruit in the three years, therefore, ripening sequences are not assumed for these two cultivars. Apples were priced at $3.28/kg.

2004Four cultivars were planted in full sunlight; ‘McIntosh’ and ‘Royal Gala’ were

espaliered in the backyard on the garden’s east perimeter fence and occupied a space of 0.32 m2 each, Red and ‘Yellow Delicious’ apples occupied a space of 2.2 m2 each and were trained as central leaders.‘Red delicious’ apples were harvested on October 10th, no other apple cultivars yielded in 2004. Yields, flavor, and fruiting characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various apple cultivars tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Apple Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Yield

(kg/tree)

Yield(kg/m2)

Earliness of Fruiting*

Flavor Characteristics²

Total Revenue/Cultivar ($)

Net Revenue($/m2)

Red Delicious 1.2 0.6 1 Fair 3.93 1.96Yellow Delicious 0.0 0.0 0.0 ? 0 0McIntosh 0.0 0.0 0.0 ? 0 0Royal Gala 0.0 0.0 0.0 ? 0 0Total Revenue ($) 3.93Total Costs ($) 80.64Profit ($) -76.712Flavor based on preference by family members*Based on rank of 1-3, 1 being earliest and 3 being latest

Stippen (bitter-pit) was prominent on harvested ‘Red Delicious’ apples. Stippen is a non-parasitic disease, which is thought to be caused by fluctuating water supplies and only affects fruit. Stippen is usually only observed towards the end of the growing season when apples are half grown. In some cases stippen is not seen until the apples are placed in storage. The disease appears as slightly sunken spots that look like hail bruising on the fruits surface; usually the blossom end is most affected. Theses spots are circular and measure 2 or more centimeters across. Stippen is distinguished from bruising, as stippen does not cause the skin to rupture nor to be pushed inwards. Instead, stippen causes the skin lesions to appear shrunken. There are no definite answers for methods of controlling bitter-pit; however, there are some theories that may explain how to reduce the occurrence of this disease. All of the theories involve equalizing the distribution of water within the tree. Pruning excessive vegetative growth and thinning apples may reduce stippen. Keeping soil moisture uniform throughout the growing season may also reduce stippen. Stippen is strictly a cosmetic defect.

Rust was relevant, but minimal and only occurred on leaves. Rust first appears on apple leaves as small pale-yellow areas, which enlarge and harden and finally turn orange in color. The causal organism is a fungus, Gymnosporagnium Globosum, which is carried from red cedars by wind or living organisms and infects apple and pear leaves. Germination and infection by this fungus is most problematic when temperatures are cool and humidity is high. The best form of control lies in removing all red cedar trees within a one-mile radius of the trees; however, this method is not possible in urban settings. Lime-sulfur can be applied to trees in weekly intervals throughout the growing season as leaves are unfolding. The best control involves planting resistant varieties of apples.

Powdery mildew caused by the fungus, Podosphoera leucotricha or other closely related species, was very prominent on apple trees. Powdery mildew can affect fruit yield indirectly by reducing the trees ability to photosynthesis, thus the tree cannot properly produce the necessary cellular components required for growth. Therefore, flower buds may not develop, trees may be stunted and terminal shoots and leaves can die. Symptoms usually appear on twigs and leaves in early summer, but symptoms may be seen throughout the growing season. Leaves tend to turn whitish gray in color on their lower surface first followed by this same coloration on the upper leaf surface. The leaves then

become crinkled, stunted and narrower than normal leaves. Twigs also turn whitish gray, are stunted and tend to die back the following spring. If floral parts are affected they are dwarfed and deformed. Precipitated sulfur is the best form of control of powdery mildew in apples. Copper can be affective, however, copper may cause other damages to apples and thus should be avoided. These fungicides do not cure disease, but rather prevent further spread of powdery mildew.

Red delicious apples were mealy, soft and bland. These characteristics may be because the tree did not have a chance to develop properly after transplanting or do to its young age. Apples produced net revenue of $3.93 and caused losses of $76.71 in 2004.

2005‘McIntosh’ apples ripened first and were harvested in late September followed by

‘Red Delicious’, which were harvested in mid October. Yields, flavor, and fruiting characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for the various apple cultivars tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Apple Cultivars Grown in 2005Cultivar Yield

(kg/tree)

Yield(kg/m2)




Net Revenue($/m2)

Red Delicious 2.72 1.2 2 Fair 8.92 2.62Yellow Delicious 0.00 0.00 0.00 ? 0.00 0.00McIntosh 0.6 1.86 1 Good 1.96 6.10Royal Gala 0.00 0.00 0.00 ? 0.00 0.00Total Revenue ($) 10.88Total Costs ($) 80.64Profit ($) -69.762Flavor based on preference by family members*Based on rank of 1-3, 1 being earliest and 3 being latest

Foliar diseases were the same as those apparent in 2004 and appeared in late July, however, sulfur was moderately effective as a means of controlling the diseases. The diseases were strictly foliar and did not directly affect the fruit. The ‘Yellow delicious’ apple was most affected followed by ‘McIntosh’, ‘Red Delicious’ and ‘Royal Gala’. Aphids and spider mites were much more prominent in 2005 than in 2004 and several applications of Sevin were necessary to keep these pests under control. Aphids were more readily controlled than spider mites.As in 2004, ‘Red delicious’ apples were mealy, soft and bland. Red delicious had the highest net revenue followed by ‘McIntosh’. Apples produced net revenue of $10.88 and caused losses of $69.76 in 2005.

2006Apples did not yield any fruit and thus no harvests occurred in 2006; thus a loss of

$80.64 was realized for the space and maintenance required by apple trees.

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Apple trees grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Foliar disease started to appear by mid August. Based on experience obtained in 2004 and 2005, sulfur was applied to the foliage in mid July to reduce disease. This treatment appeared effective, as apple trees remained healthy and relatively disease free compared to 2004 and 2005. Aphid and spider mite problems were similar to 2005 and several applications of Sevin were necessary to keep these pests under control. Aphids were again more readily controlled than spider mites.

Conclusion Apples need at least three years of establishment before any significant yields are

observed. Foliar diseases were controlled through management practices and did not significantly affect apple trees.Disease and insect problems tended to appear towards the latter half of the growing season when temperatures rise, air circulation in the canopy is reduced and condensation is more common. Aphids and spider mites were not a significant problem because they did not directly affect the fruit or damage the foliage. They are relatively effectively controlled with pesticides available to the typical gardener. The most prominent disease was powdery mildew, which was easily controlled by sulfur-based fungicides. It appears that the sulfur must be applied before disease symptoms appear to act as a form of prevention.

The cultivars tested showed significant variability in disease susceptibility, with ‘Yellow Delicious’ being most susceptible, followed by ‘McIntosh’, ‘Red Delicious’ and ‘Royal Gala’.

Apples required pruning, staking, training and disease control measures all of which were labor demanding. Apples had very low to no yields in all three years, and thus, a total economic loss of $227.11 was concurred. It is expected that production should increase in the following years and will make up for the initial losses between 2004 and 2006.

Asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.)Introduction

Asparagus is a hardy cool season perennial of the Liliaceae family. Asparagus thrives in deep loose, well-drained sandy loams with at least 2% organic matter and pH of between 6.5 and 7.5. Growing plants require 55-165, 55-330, and 55-275 kg/ha of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P2O5) and potassium (K2O) respectively (Seagle et al, 1995).

TrialsAsparagus seeds of the cultivar ‘Argenteuil’ were planted at the beginning of May

in 2004. The seeds were planted 1.5 cm deep and were spaced 15 cm apart in furrows extending 15 cm deep. Furrows were spaced 30 cm apart and seedlings were thinned to 30 cm apart at the end of May in 2005. Each seed gave rise to underground crowns, which gave rise to edible spears 3 years after germination; harvest can continue for 40 years afterwards. For this reason, there was no yield from asparagus in 2004 and 2005 and thus a loss of $25.60 was the case for each of the first two years.

Spears were harvested at ground level from mid April through mid May in 2006 after being heaved with soil to promote blanching which is desirable for flavor. From mid

May onwards newly emerging spears were left to grow to about 1.80 m tall and were supported by trellises to prevent them from falling and crowding other crops. This process promotes nutrient uptake and sugar assimilation by leaves. These products are essential for the survival of the underground crowns. By fall, all shoots were cut at ground level and composted. Asparagus was priced at $3.99/bunch; each bunch consisted of 12 large spears or 22 small spears.

2004Asparagus seedlings were very slow growing throughout the year. Spears were

very thin and leaves were few and far between. Asparagus was rigid and did not require support by trellises. No symptoms of disease were observed and insects did not seem to affect the asparagus, Sevin was used to prevent any potential damage by insects. Asparagus did not yield in 2004 and thus, a loss of $25.60 was realized for the space, labor and planting costs associated with asparagus. Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer may have caused the very slow development of seedlings and the yellowish appearance of the stems and leaves observed in 2004.

2005Asparagus spears were thicker than in 2005, no spears were harvested in order to

allow crowns to develop properly. Asparagus grew much taller than in 2004 and required supporting by a twine trellising system. Disease was very minimal, but present. Fusarium crown and root rot caused by the fungus, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Asparagi and Fusarium moniliforme, was observed on a few asparagus spears in 2005. Some spears turned yellow, wilted and died or appeared to be almost dead by the end of the growing season. Fusarium crown and root rot can cause reddish-brown elliptical lesion at the center of thicker portions of stems near the soil surface. The cortex of roots may also appear damaged with a hollow root hypodermis and brown lesions are often found at the sites of lateral root emergence. Choosing fusarium resistant asparagus cultivars is the best defense against this disease. Ensuring that the seed source is not infected is another equally important prevention method. There are very limited fungicides available for the control of fusarium rots in asparagus and those that are available are not very effective in the long run.

Although insects were much more prominent in the garden compared to 2004, they did not seem to affect asparagus; however, Sevin was used to prevent any potential damage by insects. Asparagus did not yield in 2004 and thus, a loss of $25.60 was realized for the space, labor and planting costs associated with asparagus in 2005.

2006 Harvest in 2006 commenced on April 20th and continued until May 5th for a total of 16 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for the asparagus tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).

Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Asparagus Grown in 2006Cultivar Yield Yield Flavor Total Net

(bunches) (bunches/m2) Characteristics² Revenue/Cultivar ($)

Revenue($/m2)

Argenteuil 4.0 2.5 Excellent 15.96 9.97Total Revenue ($) $ 15.96Total Costs ($) 25.60Profit ($) -9.64*Flavor based on preference by family members

Asparagus grew vigorously from May to July and then growth slowed for the rest of the growing season. Fusarium rots were more severe than in 2005 and caused a few crowns to die. Insects did not affect asparagus in 2006, but Sevin was continuously sprayed as in 2004 and 2005 to prevent any potential damage to spears and leaves. Asparagus had excellent flavor and texture. Asparagus produced net revenue of $15.96 in 2006; however a loss of $9.64 was realized.

Conclusion Asparagus tended to grow fairly well in Toronto summers; however, seedling

establishment was slow in 2004 because of cool wet weather throughout the summer. Foliar disease and root rots caused some spears and crowns to die in 2005 and 2006, particularly during extended warm wet periods. Disease problems tended to appear towards the latter half of the growing season when temperatures rise, air circulation in the canopy is reduced and condensation is more common. Insects were not a significant problem because they did not damage the foliage. Insects are relatively effectively controlled with pesticides available to the typical gardener. The most prominent disease was fusarium crown and root rot, which are not controlled by the application of any fungicides available to backyard gardeners. It appears that resistant cultivars should be planted the next time around and seed should be disease free. Removing all infected spears may help to reduce the amount of inoculum within the asparagus patch, thereby reducing fusarium rot. Asparagus required less labor inputs than most other crops and was the first crop to be harvested in the garden. An economic loss of $60.84 was realized over the three years of trials. However, this loss should be compensated for through yields in successive years.

Basil (Ocinium basilicum)

IntroductionBasil is a frost sensitive warm season member of the Lamiaceae family. Basil is

relatively shallow rooted and grows best in loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 5.5 and 7.5. Basil requires 37-195, 22-224, and 22-224 kg/ha of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P2O5) and potassium (K2O) respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Basil is not drought tolerant and requires consistent irrigation, particularly during hot dry periods. Flower buds should be removed to promote desirable leaf formation, which represent the main harvest from basil.

Trials

Trials were conducted from 2004-2006 within a 0.46 m² area of the garden that was exposed to full sunlight. This location was chosen because yields and quality of basil leaves are dependent on high levels of light. Basil was purchased as transplants that were about 5 cm tall. The transplants were spaced 30 cm apart. The cultivars changed yearly to conform to the objective of maximizing productivity and value. Basil plants were allowed to spread until they came into contact with neighboring crops, at which time harvest commenced. Basil was harvested as 10-20 cm long stem sections that consisted of leaves, auxiliary buds and sometimes-undeveloped flowers. The stems were cut at about 1 cm above two auxiliary buds to promote quick growth. Prior to the first frost the entire basil plants were harvested once-over from ground level. Basil was priced at $2.99/bunch; each bunch consisted of approximately 50 g of leaf and stem tissue.

2004Spicy globe basil was chosen because past experiences of using this cultivar

proved to be successful. ‘Spicy globe’ is strong flavored basil with small leaves and a strong aroma that is preferred for cooking purposes.Harvest commenced on June 8th and continued till October 10th for a total of 124 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for basil tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Basil Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Yield

(bunches)Yield

(Bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Spicy Globe 40 160 Excellent 79.60 318.40Total Revenue ($) 79.60Total Costs ($) 7.36Profit ($) 72.242Flavor based on preference by family members

Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer seemed to be favored by ‘Spicy globe’. No diseases were observed in 2004 and insects did not affect basil at all, thus Sevin was not applied to basil. ‘Spicy globe’ had excellent aroma and flavor and yielded consistently throughout the 2004 growing season. Basil produced net revenue of $79.60 and a profit of $72.24 in 2004.

2005‘Spicy Globe’ was not available in local nurseries in 2005; therefore, two new

cultivars, ‘Small leaf’ and ‘Purple leaf’ basil, were tried instead of ‘Spicy Globe’. Harvest commenced on June 15th and continued until October 28th for a total of

125 days of harvest. ‘Small leaf’ basil was the first to mature followed by ‘Purple leaf’ basil. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for the various basil cultivars tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).


(bunches)Yield

(Bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Small Leaf 8 34.7 Good 15.92 69.05Purple 6 26.1 Fair 11.96 51.94Total Revenue ($) 27.88Total Costs ($) 7.36Profit ($) 20.522Flavor based on preference by family members

‘Small leaf’ and ‘Purple leaf’ basil were much lower yielding than ‘Spicy globe’ basil grown in 2004. Although summer temperatures were much higher and humidity was greater than in 2004, basil yields declined drastically, thus, selection of inferior cultivars compared to 2004 are thought to be the cause of lower yields in 2005Wirestem was prominent in ‘Small leaf’ basil throughout the entire growing season. ‘Purple leaf’ basil was not affected by disease, but was very slow growing and had lower yields than the small leaf cultivar. . For more information on wirestem and its controls refer to the section on rocket.Sevin was not applied to basil in 2005 because insects did not affect basil.

‘Small leaf’ and ‘Purple leaf’ basil flavor and aroma were much milder than the cultivar grown in 2004 and yields were not consistent throughout the growing season. Basil produced net revenue of $27.88 and a profit of $20.52 in 2005.

2006As a function of higher yields, greater revenue and better flavor and aromatic

characteristics seen in 2004, ‘Spicy globe’ was re-tried as the sole basil cultivar in 2006. Harvest in 2006 commenced on June 10th and continued until November 14th for a

total of 163 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for ‘Spicy Globe’ tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).


(Bunches)Yield

(Bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Spicy Globe 20 80 Excellent 39.80 159.20Total Revenue ($) 39.80Total Costs ($) 7.36Profit ($) 32.442Flavor based on preference by family members

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005, but were much warmer and more humid than in 2004. ‘Spicy globe’ basil did not grow as well in these conditions, and thus, yields were almost halved from those observed in 2004. Wirestem was prominent in 2006 due to the warm humid conditions that are preferred by the infecting organism. Diseased plant organs were removed as soon as they were observed; this practice seemed to reduce the spread and vigor of the disease. Insects were not a problem for basil in 2006, and thus, Sevin was not used on basil. ‘Spicy globe’ had excellent flavor and aroma in 2006; however, yields were not as consistent due to disease outbreaks at various times throughout the growing season. Basil produced net revenue of $39.80 and a profit of $32.44 in 2006.

Conclusion Basil tended to perform well in the cooler conditions of 2004; however, foliar

disease caused a reduction of yields in years that were warmer and more humid. ‘Spicy Globe’ basil had better flavor, yield and aroma than ‘Small Leaf’ and ‘Purple Leaf’ basil. Disease problems tended to appear towards the latter half of the growing season when temperatures rise, air circulation in the canopy is reduced and condensation is more common. Insects were not a problem and Sevin was not applied. Removing all infected leaves appeared to reduce the amount of inoculum within the basil patch thereby reducing wirestem.

The cultivars tested showed significant variability in disease sensitivity; ‘Small Leaf’ basil being most susceptible followed by ‘Spicy Globe’ and ‘Purple Leaf’ basil. However, even though ‘Spicy Globe’ was more susceptible to wirestem than ‘Purple leaf’, greater yields, and flavor and aroma characteristics of ‘Spicy Globe’ is more desirable for hobby gardeners. Basil required very few labor inputs, and thus, further proves its economic feasibility in hobby gardens. Basil accounted for a total profit of $125.20 between 2004 and 2006.

Beans [common] (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)Introduction

Beans are frost sensitive herbaceous warm season annuals of the Fabaceae family. Bacterial nodules, called Rhizobium, form a symbiotic relationship with all legumes. Plants provide carbohydrates for the Rhizobium and the Rhizobium breaks down atmospheric nitrogen (N), not usable by plants, into its plant available form nitrate (N03

-). As a result, both the plant and the soil receive more nitrogen. Plants can be infected further by store bought Rhizobial inoculants. The roots of leguminous crops should be cultivate into the soil in the fall, as they well continue to produce plant available nitrogen and will become dormant until other legumes are planted again. Beans are moderately deep-rooted reaching a maximum rooting depth of 3-4 feet and prefer well-drained light sandy soils or clay loams. However, seeds are susceptible to rot during germination if there is excess water in the soil. Plants have low to moderated drought tolerance, prefer soils high in organic matter, prefer shallow cultivation and can tolerate a pH of 5.5-7.0, but grow best at a pH of 6.5. Legumes should be inoculated with the correct Rhizobium species in order to increase nitrogen fixation. Common beans are susceptible to nutrient deficiencies and require 44-110, 44-165, and 44-165 kg/ha of nitrogen (N), phosphorus

(P2O5) and potassium (K2O) respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Common beans cannot tolerate salinity levels below (salinity threshold).Beans have two main types of growth habits, bush and pole type. Bush type beans grow to about 30 cm in height; pole type beans can grow several meters high and usually require trellising for support.

TrialsTrials were conducted from 2004-2006 within a 1.68 m² area of the garden that

was exposed to full sunlight. 1.2 m2 was used to grow bush type cultivars and 0.48 m2 was used to grow pole type cultivars. This location was chosen, as bean yield and fruit quality are dependent on high levels of light. Beans were seeded 6 centimeters apart in rows that were spaced 30 cm apart. The cultivars changed yearly to conform to the objective of maximizing productivity and value.

Meshing was attached to the walls of the house using concrete screws to support the pole type cultivars. Allowing the pole type beans to grow on the wall functioned to maximize space. Bush beans were planted directly in front of the pole beans, as to not shade the much larger pole beans.

Bush beans were harvested once after about 50 days after seeding, a second time after 60 days and a third time after 70 days. The plants were than composted and another planting was made. Pole beans were planted only once during the growing season and were continually harvested as they matured. Beans were harvested while they were succulent and firm to attain quality.

Pole beans and bush beans were priced equally at $4.38/kg and $5.48/kg for green and yellow type beans respectively.

2004‘Blue Lake Nano’ yellow and green beans were tried in 2004 because nursery persons recommended this cultivar.

Harvest commenced on July 15th and continued till July 30th for a total of 16 days of harvest and then again from September 20th till October 20th for a total of 30 days of harvest in a second planting. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for ‘Blue Lake Nano’ tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Bean Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Blue Lake Nano 4.90 4.10 Good 21.46 17.96Total Revenue ($) 21.46Total Costs ($) 19.2Profit ($) 2.262Flavor based on preference by family members

Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer delayed bean harvest in 2004 and also created conditions suitable for damping off of seedlings.

Damping off is a fungus caused from several soil born fungi that occur singly or act together. Each fungus can cause roots and hypocotyls to rot and quickly cause seeds or seedlings to die. Delayed or uneven emergence of seedlings, reduced growth, accelerated maturation, and reduced yields may result. The causal organism is inevitably present in almost all soils; however, infection only occurs if soil conditions are cool and/or wet for several days at a time. Damping off can be controlled by allowing the soil to somewhat dry off before irrigation is used, or by eliminating irrigation completely between seeding and a few days after germination. If precipitation cannot be controlled, a product called No Damp may be applied during irrigation or as a spray onto seeds or seedlings and is very effective at reducing damping off.

Insect damage was minimal; leaf miners were the most prominent insect problem and were not easily controlled through sprays with Sevin. Adult Leafminers (Pegomya spp.) are in the form of a flying insect and lay their eggs on the underside of leaves of beans and other species. Larvae emerge from the eggs and begin mining their way through the inside of the leaf. The damage is strictly cosmetic and does not affect bean yields. However, yields of crops such as beets, Swiss chard and spinach, which are harvested for their leaves and/or roots are affected as the average consumer sees this cosmetic deformity visual detracting. The only pesticides that can kill the leafminer are systemic in action, expensive, unavailable to hobby gardeners and may be harmful to human health. Thus, the only form of control is removing leaves as soon as damage in observed. This method seems to work very well if consistency is achieved.‘Blue Lake Nano’ beans were of good flavor but produced low yields in 2004. Beans produced net revenue of $21.46 and a profit of $2.26 in 2004.

2005Due to further consultation with neighbors, Dr. Doug Waterer and nursery persons ‘Blue Lake Bush’ and ‘Pencil Lake Bush’ were grown in 2005 instead of the low yielding ‘Blue Lake Nano’. Each of these cultivars occupied half of the space used to grow ‘Blue Lake Nano’ in 2004. ‘Scarlet Runner’ pole bean was grown in 2005 to maximize the space use efficiency of the garden by using wall sections of the house that otherwise would be useless for crop production. Harvest of bush type beans commenced on July 25th and continued till August 15th for a total of 21 days of harvest and then again from September 30th till October 23rd for a total of 25 days of harvest in a second planting. Pole beans were harvested from late August through too first frost. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various bean cultivars tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Bean Cultivars Grown in 2005Cultivar Total

Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Blue Lake Bush 3.1 2.6 Excellent 16.98 14.251Pencil Pod Bush 5.1 4.25 Excellent 22.38 18.62*Scarlet Runner 8.2 17.1 Fair 35.92 82.08Total Revenue ($) 75.28

Total Costs ($) 26.88Profit ($) 48.401Yellow fruiting cultivars2Flavor based on preference by family members*Pole type bean

The bean plants grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Warm temperatures, intense sunlight and adequate but no excessive precipitation reduced seedling losses due to damping off, thus, higher average yields were attained in 2005. Leafminer damage did not appear until mid to late summer, at which time harvest of the first bean crop was almost over. The second bean crop was not significantly affected by leafminers. Sevin was used to control aphid, which were more prominent than in 2004, populations throughout the year. ‘Blue Lake Bush’ and ‘Pencil Pod Bush’ had excellent flavor and ‘Scarlett Runner’ had good flavor. ‘Scarlett Runner’ did not yield throughout the mid summer months do to excessively hot conditions from the warm microclimate of the sheltered house wall; however, yields were compensated for the in late summer and autumn when temperatures cooled. Otherwise, the bush type cultivars yielded as expected. ‘Pencil Pod Bush’ had higher yields than ‘Blue Lake Bush’, however, ‘Blue Lake Bush’ had slightly better flavor. Beans produced net revenue of $75.28 and a profit of $48.40 in 2005.

2006As a function of their higher yields, greater revenue and/or better flavor characteristics seen in previous years, ‘Blue Lake Bush’ and ‘Scarlett Runner’ beans were the sole bush and pole type bean cultivars grown in 2006 trials.

Harvest of bush type beans commenced on July 15th and continued till August 1st for a total of 17 days of harvest and then again from September 18th till October 23rd for a total of 35 days of harvest in a second planting. Pole beans were harvested from late August through too first frost. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various bean cultivars tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Bean Cultivars Grown in 2006Cultivar Total

Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Blue Lake Bush 9.30 3.90 Excellent 40.73 17.08*Scarlet Runner 4.30 8.95 Fair 18.83 39.20Total Revenue ($) 59.56Total Costs ($) 26.88Profit ($) 32.682Flavor based on preference by family members*Pole type beans

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Bean plants grew vigorously throughout the entire season. However, early spring rains caused excessive soil moisture, thus, damping off killed the first seedlings planted in 2006. A second planting was made soon after and was not affected by damping off because soil moisture was reduced by this time. Leafminer damage was sever in 2006 and was observed as excessive summer heat began in late July. Based on experience obtained in 2004 and 2005 severely infected leaves were removed. This cultural practice reduced leaf damage due to leafminers and protected neighboring Swiss chard from yield losses to leafminers. Aphids were easily controlled by the application of Sevin once every two weeks. Yields were slightly lower than in 2005. As in 2005, ‘Blue Lake Bush’ and ‘Scarlett Runner’ cultivars were of excellent and good flavor respectively. Beans produced net revenue of $59.56 and a profit of $32.68.

Conclusion Beans tended to perform well in a typical hot Toronto summer-but if cool wet

weather occurred yields were drastically reduced due to damping off and slow growth. Insect problems tended to appear towards the latter half of the growing season when temperatures rise, air circulation in the canopy is reduced and condensation is more common. Removing all damaged leaves caused by leafminer appeared to reduce the spread of leafminer within the bean plot and across to neighboring crops. Aphids were not a significant problem because they did not directly affect the fruit or damage the foliage. They are relatively effectively controlled with pesticides available to the typical gardener. The most prominent disease was damping off, which was easily controlled by the application of fungicides available to backyard gardeners.

Beans use a lot of water compared to many other crops grown in the garden; otherwise labor inputs are minimal. A total profit of $ 80.34 was realized over the three years of trials. Profits should increase in successive years due to better management practices.

Beets (Beta vulgraris L.)Introduction

The beet, a half hardy cool season perennial Chenopodiaceae, is cultivated as an annual. Two forms of this root crop are available, long rooted and globe (rounded) varieties. Beetroots grow best in well-drained loamy soils with well-rotted manure and a pH between 6 and 7. Plants are moderately deep rooted having a maximum rooting depth of 91-121 cm; therefore, deep cultivation for weed control is necessary. This root crop is best grown in areas with no stones or flints, as these obstructions will cause root deformities. Beets are intolerant of soil acidity and will produce greater yields in very fertile soils. Beets require 82.5-220, 55-165 and 66-165 kg/ha of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P2O5) and potassium (K2O) respectively for optimal vegetative and root growth (Seagle et al, 1995). beets can grow well at soil salinities as high as 4.0 dS/m. Beets are highly sensitive to boron deficiencies and require at least 1.4 ppm of soil boron.

TrialsTrials were conducted from 2004-2006 within a 1 m² area on the north end of the

garden that was exposed to full-partial sunlight. This location was chosen because

beetroot yields and quality are dependent on high levels of light, but cooler conditions. Beets were seeded 3.5 cm apart in rows that were spaced 30 cm apart. The cultivars changed yearly to conform to the objective of maximizing productivity and value. Beetroots and leaves were harvested in mid July, 60 days after seeding. A second harvest commenced after the first autumb frost and continued until temperatures dropped below –4˚C. Beets harvested in the fall were sweeter and more succulent than summer harvested beets because beetroots become mealy, dry and lose sugars during hot conditions.Beets were priced at $2.49/bunch; each bunch consisted of 3 roots that were 6-7 cm in diameter or 4 roots that were 4-5 cm in diameter.

2004‘Detroit Dark Red 2’ beets were tried in 2004 because there were only 2 cultivars

of beets available as seeds at the time and nursery persons recommended this cultivar in particular.

Harvest commenced on July 24th and continued till August 13th for a total of 20 days of harvest and then again from September 20th till October 15th for a total of 26 days of harvest in a second planting. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various beet cultivars tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Beet Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(Bunches)

Yield/m2

(Bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Detroit Dark Red 2 6 6 Fair 14.94 14.94Total Revenue ($) 14.94Total Costs ($) 16.16Profit ($) -1.222Flavor based on preference by family members

Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer caused slow growth. However, large sweet beets that were firm and crisp accompanied slow growth. Beet leaves were not affected by leafminers in 2004, as leafminers favor warmer conditions. Insect damage was insignificant because Sevin was sprayed once every two weeks throughout the entire garden. No other diseases were prevalent in 2004. Beets produced net revenue of $14.94; however, a loss of $1.22 was realized in 2004 due to improper management techniques such as false spacing of seeds and poor choice of cultivars and poor climatic conditions.

2005Advices from Dr. Doug Waterer lead to the change of cultivar from ‘Detroit Dark

Red 2’ grown in 2004 to ‘Early Wonder’ in 2005. Harvest commenced on July 15th and continued till August 30th for a total of 16

days of harvest and then again from September 15th till October 21st for a total of 37 days

of harvest in a second planting. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for ‘Early Wonder’ tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(Bunches)

Yield/m2

(Bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Early Wonder 15 7.5 Good 37.35 37.35Total Revenue ($)

37.35

Total Costs ($) 16.16Profit ($) 21.192Flavor based on preference by family members

Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the summer most likely reduced beet quality and flavor. However, ‘Early Wonder’ still had good flavor, was crisp and fairly sweet. Changes in cultivar and increased sun intensity in 2005 lead too higher average yields. The beet plants grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Rainfall was adequate but not excessive; damping off was not a problem in 2005. Unlike beans, beets are sold with leaves attached, and thus, any leaf damage due to leafminers would severely affect yields. Leafminers were more prominent in 2005 than in 2004 due to warmer conditions in 2005. Leaf damage from leafminers appeared in early July, but infected leaves were removed quickly, thus, leafminers did not spread significantly or cause yield losses. Beets were sprayed twice a week with Sevin to control aphids and other insects that did not pose a problem in 2005. Beets produced net revenue of $37.35 and a profit of $21.19 in 2005 due to better management techniques such as closer spacing of seeds and better choice of cultivars and more productive climatic conditions.

2006Advice from Dr. Doug Waterer lead to changes in cultivar from ‘Early Wonder’

grown in 2005 to ‘Red Ace’ in 2006. Red ace was chosen for its larger roots and because it is potentially better adapted to warmer climates. Harvest commenced on July 20th and continued till August 28th for a total of 9 days of harvest and then again from September 10th till October 30th for a total of 50 days of harvest in a second planting. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for ‘Red Ace’ tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(bunches)

Yield/m2

(bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Red Ace 21 10.5 Excellent 52.29 52.29Total Revenue ($) 52.29


Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Beets grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Rainfall was adequate but not excessive, thus, damping off was not a problem in 2006. Leafminer damage started to appear by Early July, however, removal of damaged leaves proved effective at keeping yield losses to a minimum. Beets were sprayed every other week with Sevin to control aphids and other insects that did not pose a problem in 2006. Beets produced net revenue of $52.29 and a profit of $36.13 in 2006 due to a better cultivar choice.

Conclusion Beets tended to perform well in Toronto permitting plantings were conducted in

early spring and late summer-but if continuous cloudy days occurred yields were drastically reduced. Foliar disease, damping off and insect problems did not cause significant losses from 2004 to 2006 permitting proper management practices were used. Disease and insect problems tended to appear towards the first half of the growing season when temperatures were rising and plants were not vigorous enough to compete with disease. Removing all infected leaves appeared to reduce the amount of leafminer damage on beet leaves.

The cultivars tested showed significant variability in yield and flavor. ‘Detroit Dark Red 2’ had the lowest yield and least favorable flavor followed by ‘Early Wonder’ and ‘Red Ace’.

Beets use a lot of water compared to many other crops grown in the garden to maintain root flavor and texture. Otherwise labor inputs are minimal. A total profit of $ 56.10 was realized over the three years of trials. Profits should increase in successive years due to better management practices.

Blackberries (Rubus fruticosus)Introduction

Blackberries are a semi-hardy vine perennial of the Rosaceae family. Blackberries have moderately deep fibrous root systems. Blackberries tolerate adverse site and soil conditions. Blackberries require 55-66, 22-224, and 22-224 kg/ha of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P2O5) and potassium (K2O) respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Blackberries have very high rates of transpiration and thus are not tolerant to drought conditions. Therefore blackberries require frequent irrigation throughout the growing season. Blackberries grow in bunches of about 10-11 brambles, bunches arise from new growth at the nodes of one year old wood. The brambles are consistently 2.5-3.0 cm in length and ripen from mid July till frost.

Some blackberry cultivars are self-sterile; therefore, knowing the type of pollination required is essential to knowing the number of cultivars planted in an area. Blackberries require a chilling period to induce flower production. Blackberries are pruned from fall until spring. Pruning is directed to renew branches that will produce new wood for the successive year’s fruit production. Blackberry vines require trellising to

reduce diseases and rots and particularly to keep the brambles free of soil because washing the berries greatly degrades fruit flavor. Vines may begin fruiting after the first year of establishment and should continue fruiting for at least 30-40 years afterwards.

TrialsTrials were conducted from 2004-2006. ‘BC Blackberry’ was chosen as it was

one of the few that were thornless, for harvest convenience, and was planted in a shaded area of the garden that covered an area of 0.47 m2. A Shaded area was chosen because Blackberries do not require a lot of sun to produce large amounts of good quality brambles. No other crop could do as well in such shaded conditions. Vines were allowed to grow on the railing of the front staircase to maximize space and to add to the aesthetic appeal, in terms of leaf texture and shape and flower color, of the front yard. Blackberry vines were purchased as one-year-old cuttings that were about 10 cm tall.

Nylon rope was used to train the vines along the railing. At the top of the railing the vines were allowed to form an arc to increase production area and to add to the aesthetic appeal of the garden. Pruning commenced in early spring to maintain and promote new growth for successive year’s berry production and during the summer to remove diseased or dying branches.

Blackberries were harvested at full maturity; just before falling off from the vine. Unlike raspberries, the brambles of the blackberry are attached to the receptacle and both the fruit and the receptacle are eaten together. ‘BC Blackberry’ did not fruit during its first year of growth, and thus, an economic loss of $7.52 was realized for space and labor requirements in 2004.

Brambles were priced at $7.99/pint; each pint consisted of about 350 g of brambles.

2004Blackberries did not yield in 2004 as was expected. The tree was very vigorous

and showed no symptoms of disease. Although insects did not seem to affect this vine, Sevin was used anyways to prevent any potential damage by insects. A loss of $7.52 was realized for the space and labor requirements associated with blackberries.

2005Harvest in 2005 commenced on August 10th and continued until September 15th

for a total of 36 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for ‘BC Blackberry’ tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).

Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Blackberry Cultivars Grown in 2005Cultivar Total

Yield(Pints)

Yield/m2

(Pints/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

B.C. Blackberry 4.0 8.5 Poor 31.92 67.83Total Revenue ($) 31.92Total Costs ($) 7.52Profit ($) 24.40

2Flavor based on preference by family members

Blackberries grew vigorously throughout the entire season and showed absolutely no signs of disease or insect damage. Although insects did not seem to affect this vine, Sevin was used to prevent any potential damage from insects.Blackberries had net revenue of $31.92 and a profit of $24.40 in 2005.

2006Harvest in 2006 commenced on July 25th and continued until October 1st for a

total of 68 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for ‘BC Blackberry’ tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).

Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Blackberry Cultivars Grown in 2006Cultivar Total

Yield(Pints)

Yield/m2

(Pints/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

B.C. Blackberry 26.0 55.3 Fair (sour) 207.74 441.84Total Revenue ($) 207.74Total Costs ($) 7.52Profit ($) 200.222Flavor based on preference by family members

Blackberries grew vigorously throughout the entire season and showed absolutely no signs of disease or insect damage. Although insects did not seem to affect this vine, Sevin was used to prevent any potential damage by insects.Blackberries had net revenue of $207.74 and a profit of $200.22 in 2005.

Conclusion Blackberries tended to perform well in typical Toronto conditions, provided they

were placed in a shady area. Disease and insect problems were not observed in ‘BC Blackberry’ between 2004 and 2006 permitted that the brambles were harvested before they began fermenting.

Blackberries required extensive pruning and training throughout the growing season and thus labor demands were higher than many other crops. Blackberries did not yield in the first year, however, yields produced on the second and third year compensated for the $7.52 loss realized in 2004. A total profit of $217.10 was made from blackberries between 2004 and 2006. It is expected that production should be maintained close to those attained in 2006 provided proper pruning techniques are practiced.

Blueberries (Vaccinium corymbosum)Introduction

Blueberries are a temperate semi-hardy to hardy bush perennial of the Ericaceae family. Fungal nodules, called Mycorhiza, form a symbiotic relationship with blueberries. Plants provide carbohydrates and organic matter for the Mycorhiza and the Mycorhiza increases the nutrient and water use efficiency of blueberry roots. As a result, both the

plant and the soil receive more humus. Blueberries have a shallow fibrous root system that is usually limited to 45 cm below the soil surface. For this reason, constant irrigation is required during the entire growing season. Irrigation is particularly important during fruit expansion, as fruit require lots of water to grow and because the following seasons flower buds develop during fruit expansion. Blueberries grow best in loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 4.0 and 5.0. Blueberries require 37-195, 22-224, and 22-224 kg/ha of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P2O5) and potassium (K2O) respectively (Seagle et al, 1995).

Blueberry cultivars have varying hardiness zones and choosing the right cultivar for an area is essential for production. Blueberries arise from the ends of one-year-old wood. There are two types of blueberries; high and low bush types. Low bush blueberries are strictly natural varieties, whereas almost all cultivated types are high bush blueberries. Low bush blueberries grow to 30-60 cm in height, while high bush blueberries grow to 120-240 cm in height.

Most blueberry cultivars are self-sterile, thus, two bushes of different cultivars are required in close proximity for pollination. Blueberry bushes require a chilling period to induce flower production. Blueberries are pruned from fall until spring. Pruning is aimed at promoting new growth for the first 3 years, followed by pruning to promote new growth and to remove older shoots. The latter process is called renewal pruning and is essential to maintain good yield because older shoots do not yield as well as newer shoots. Blueberry bushes may begin fruiting after 1 year if bought from a reputable nursery and may continue fruiting for over 30 years.

TrialsTrials were conducted from 2004-2006. Five high bush cultivars were planted in

full sunlight; two bushes each of ‘Blue Crop’, ‘Blue Jay’, ‘North Land’, ‘Northcountry’, and ‘Spartan’. Each cultivar occupied a space of 0.56 m2. Five cultivars were tried to test flavor, growth and yield characteristics of blueberries in a typical hobby garden and to ensure proper cross-pollination. High bush blueberries yield best when exposed to full sunlight. Blueberry bushes were three-years-old when purchased and were about 30 cm tall. Pruning commenced in early spring to maintain tree vigor and shape and in summer to remove diseased or dying branches. Recomendded amounts of elemental sulfur and acidic peat were added to the pre-existing soil that blueberries were to be grown in to reduce soil pH to 4.0-5.0.

Blueberries were harvested at full maturity from early July through to late July. All five cultivars ripened at approximately the same time. Blueberries were priced at $3.99/pint; each pint consisted of about 350 grams of blueberries.

2004Blueberries did not yield in 2004 as was expected. The bushes were very slow

growing, but showed no symptoms of disease. Although insects did not seem to affect blueberry bushes, Sevin was used to prevent any potential damage by insects. A loss of $44.64 was realized for the space and labor requirements associated with blueberry bushes in 2004.

2005Blueberry bushes were stunted in 2004 due to improper soil pH. Blueberry soil

was tested in the winter of 2004 and was found to have a pH of 7.8. For this reason blueberry bushes were dug up and large amounts of peat, having a pH of 5.0, was added with lots of sulfur to reduce soil pH.

Harvest commenced on July 7th and continued till July 29th for a total of 23 days of harvest. All blueberry cultivars except for ‘Northcountry’ ripened at approximately the same time. ‘Northcountry’ was stunted and did no yield at all. Yields, flavor, and fruiting characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various blueberry cultivars tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Blueberry Cultivars Grown in 2005Cultivar Total Yield

(pints)Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Blue Crop (2) (CumulativeAverage)

6.0

(CumulativeAverage)

2.15

Excellent (CumulativeAverage)

20.94

(CumulativeAverage)

7.50

Blue Jay (2) GoodNorthland FairNorthcountry ?Spartan FairTotal Revenue ($) 20.94Total Costs ($) 44.64Profit ($) -23.702Flavor based on preference by family members

Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the summer of 2005 permitted a small harvest in 2005. However, blueberries were extremely slow growing and some cultivars were very susceptible to certain diseases. Foliar disease appeared in mid to late June and continued accumulating until late August.

The most prominent disease was iron-induced chlorosis (lime chlorosis) caused from improper nutrient uptake due to high soil pH. Lime chlorosis occurs in leaves and roots when heavy clay soils accumulate nitrates and bicarbonates due to their calcareous nature and/or high pH. Accumulated nitrates reduce the ability for roots to transport iron to leaf tissue, thus, leaves appear to be mottled with pale yellow lesion that eventually cover the entire leaf. It is important to note that lime chlorosis is not caused from the plants inability to uptake iron from the soil, but rather to transport this iron throughout the plant. Thus, roots usually have sufficient amounts of iron, but leaves do not. Controlling lime chlorosis can be achieved quickly using iron in the form of a precipitate; however, reading the rates of mixing and application is essential as plants may be greatly harmed if concentrated forms of precipitated iron are applied. Applications should be made once a week for several weeks until symptoms disappear. This process will only temporarily solve the problem. Soil pH must be reduced to minimize the conversion of ammonium nitrate into nitrate, which is a costly and labor-intensive process.The second most prominent disease is (I Have NO IDEA)

Insect damage was not observed, thus, Sevin was not applied to blueberry bushes in 2005. Blueberries produced net revenue of $20.94 but caused losses of $23.70 in 2005.

2006Harvest in 2006 commenced on July 15th and continued until August 4th for a total

of 20 days of harvest. All blueberry cultivars except for ‘Northcountry’ ripened at approximately the same time. ‘Northcountry’ was very stunted and did not yield at all. Yields, flavor, and fruiting characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for the various blueberry cultivars tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Blueberry Cultivars Grown in 2006Cultivar Total Yield

(pints)Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Blue Crop (2) (CumulativeAverage)

9.0

(CumulativeAverage)

3.2

Dead (CumulativeAverage)

31.41

(CumulativeAverage)

11.68

Blue Jay (2) GoodNorthland FairNorthcountry DeadSpartan FairTotal Revenue ($) 31.49Total Costs ($) 44.64Profit ($) -13.152Flavor based on preference by family members

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Blueberry bushes grew very slowly throughout the entire season. Some cultivars did not grow at all due to disease problems discussed in the 2005 analysis. The same diseases observed in 2005 caused significant problems in 2006. Soil pH was not tested after the 2005 growing season, thus, conclusions cannot be made based on blueberries responses to soil pH. Based on experience obtained in 2005 iron and sulfur were applied to the foliage to prevent and/or reduce the spread of lime chlorosis and disease. These treatments appeared effective because the blueberry plants stopped accumulating disease and pale yellow lesion on leaves caused from chlorosis turned a healthy green. However, growth rate and yield were not improved. Insect damage was not observed in 2006, thus, Sevin was not applied to the blueberry patch.

Yields were higher than in 2005, probably because of increased bush age and establishment. Flavor characteristics between cultivars were the same as those sampled in 2005. Blueberries produced net revenue of $31.49 but caused losses of $13.15 in 2006.

Conclusion Blueberries did not perform well in this garden, probably because of the inability

of clayey soils to lower pH due to clay’s high buffering capacity.Disease appeared and continued accumulating from early spring to late summer, however, chemicals available to backyard gardeners can reduce the occurrence of these diseases. It appears that the sulfur must be applied at the very first signs of (disease name). Since (disease name) is very prolific in wet warm conditions, sulfur should be applied during these periods even if (disease name) is not obviously apparent. This

cultural practice will act as a preventative form of control to reduce the occurrence of (disease name).

The cultivars tested showed significant variability in disease sensitivity. ‘Blue Jay’ showed no signs of disease and was the most vigorous and highest yielder of all the cultivars permitted it was exposed to full sunlight. ‘Blue Crop’ had the second highest yields and was fairly resistant to (disease name) and did not show symptoms of lime chlorosis permitted it were exposed to full sunlight. ‘North Land’ was slightly damaged by (disease name) and lime chlorosis, however, this cultivar was only tried in partial sun to partial shade. Spartan had good yields and excellent flavor but was extremely susceptible to (disease name) and lime chlorosis, however, this cultivar was subject to partial shade. ‘Northcountry’ was the slowest growing and most susceptible to (disease name) and lime chlorosis. ‘Spartan’ and ‘Northcountry’ died in 2006. It would be anticipated that all blueberry cultivars except for ‘Blue jay’ and possibly ‘Blue crop’ would have died if not treated with precipitated sulfur and iron.

Blueberries should be avoided in typical hobby gardens unless soil is completely amended to maintain lower pH. Completely amending soil is an expensive process and blueberries will probably never be economically feasible for at least 7-10 years of production. Blueberries did so poorly in this garden because they were not vigorous enough to overcome disease or to produce significant yields due to soil texture and high pH. Blueberries caused losses of $81.49 between 2004 and 2006.

Broccoli (Brassica oleraceae L.)Introduction

Broccoli is a hardy cool season perennial of the Brassicaceae family that is cultivated as an annual for its immature floral buds and stock. Broccoli grows best in clay-clay loam soils with high organic matter and a pH between 6.0 and 7.0. Broccoli requires 110 -220, 55-220, and 55-220 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Broccoli does not tolerate drought and is a heavy user of soil moisture, therefore, sufficient irrigation is essential throughout the growing season and especially during head development. If irrigation is not adequate during head development, broccoli heads will not develop or a strong flavored head may result. Plants are moderately tolerant to soil salinity but will grow well if soil salinity levels are below 2.8dS/m. A boron requirement of at least 0.5 ppm is essential in the soil for broccoli growth and development. Broccoli has a narrow harvest period; usually there is only a week or less to harvest the entire broccoli crop before flowers begin to open; this is especially true during warmer conditions.

TrialsTrials were conducted from 2004-2006 within a 1.1 m² area of the garden that was

exposed to full sunlight. This location was chosen because broccoli yields and quality are dependent on high levels of light. Although broccoli are a cool season crop and prefer to be in a cooler area of the garden, the full sunlight area they were planted in should allow for quick growth before summer heat becomes an issue. Broccoli was purchased as transplants that were about 6 cm tall. The transplants were spaced 46 cm apart. Broccoli was harvested in mid July; a few days prior to flower bud opening. After summer harvest,

Cauliflower plants replaced the growing area of broccoli to achieve an autumn harvest. Broccoli was priced at $3.28/kg.

2004‘Premium Crop’ was the only cultivar available as transplants in local nurseries

during 2004, and thus, was the only cultivar tried. Harvest commenced on July 26th and continued till August 9th for a total of 15 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for ‘Premium Crop’ tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Broccoli Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Premium Crop 7.2 3.4 Excellent 23.62 11.15Total Revenue ($) 23.62Total Costs ($) 17.60Profit ($) 6.022Flavor based on preference by family members

Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer delayed broccoli harvest in 2004 and permitted for a prolonged harvest and very large heads. No diseases were observed throughout the growing season. Sevin was used to control insect pests; however, insects caused insignificant damage to broccoli heads and foliage.

‘Premium Crop’ was of excellent flavor, permitted the heads were harvested before hot weather.

Broccoli produced net revenue of $23.62 and a profit of $6.02 in 2004.

2005‘Premium Crop’ was re-tried again in 2005 because it had excellent flavor and

head characteristics in 2004. Harvest commenced on July 22nd and continued until July 26th for a total of 5 days

of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for ‘Premium Crop’ tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Premium Crop 3.6 3.3 Good 11.81 10.73Total Revenue ($) 11.81Total Costs ($) 17.60

Profit ($) -5.792Flavor based on preference by family member

Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the summer of 2005 permitted only 5 days of harvest and lead to lower yields, smaller head size and poor head flavor compared to 2004. Broccoli plants grew vigorously throughout the spring and early summer. No diseases were observed throughout the growing season. Sevin was used to control insect pests; however, insects caused insignificant damage to broccoli heads and foliage. Broccoli heads were slightly bitter and expanded rapidly in 2005.Broccoli produced net revenue of 11.81 and caused losses of $5.79 in 2005.

2006As a function of hot spring and summer conditions in 2005, ‘Premium crop’ was

re-tried in 2006. Harvest in 2006 commenced on July 12th and continued until July 20th for a total

of 9 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit ‘Premium Crop in 2006 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Premium Crop 3.9 3.6 Good 12.79 11.81Total Revenue ($) 12.79Total Costs ($) 17.60Profit ($) -4.812Flavor based on preference by family member

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005, and thus, lead to similar harvest periods, yields, head sizes and flavor characteristics as in 2005. Diseases were not observed throughout the growing season. Broccoli leaves had some insect damage; however, Sevin was affective at controlling these insects. Broccoli produced net revenue of $12.79 and caused losses of $4.81 in 2006.

Conclusion Broccoli tended to perform well in 2004 due to cooler temperatures and

consistent cloud cover. However, warmer sunnier conditions in 2005 and 2006 reduced yields, flavor characteristics, and head size and quality. Broccoli should be tried in a fall planting in successive years if production is to be successful because typical Toronto springs are to warm for this cool season crop. Disease and insect problems were insignificant permitting Sevin was applied to broccoli every other week of the growing season. Broccoli tend to produce small, bitter heads if spring and summer conditions are to hot. Broccoli requires few labor inputs; however, because of their large green biomass broccoli is a heavy nitrogen user and occupies a lot of garden space while producing low yields.

Broccoli caused losses of $4.58 between 2004 and 2006.

Cabbage (Brassica oleraceae L.)Introduction

Cabbage is a hardy, cool season biennial that produces edible heads the first year of growth and flowers the second year. Cabbage is cultivated as an annual. Plants are not tolerant to drought, but yield well when grown in a deep well-drained muck (oxidized peat), loam, or heavy loam soil rich in organic matter with pH between 6.0 and 7.0. Seasonal nutrient requirements for Cabbage are 88-138, 55-220, and 55-220 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Cabbage is shallow rooted reaching a maximum rooting depth of 45-60 cm, thus, shallow cultivation throughout the growing season is necessary for weed control. Cultivation of the soil should stop when heads form to avoid damaging roots and heads.


was exposed to partial sunlight. This location was chosen, as cabbage grows best in cooler conditions. Cabbage was purchased as transplants that were about 6 cm tall. The transplants were spaced 46 cm apart. The cultivars changed yearly to conform to the objective of maximizing productivity and value. Cabbage was harvested in October upon the first arrival of frost when their heads were firm and compact. Due to poor flavor and yield characteristics of cabbage grown in 2004 and 2005, Cabbage was not grown in 2006. Instead the land was used to grow more productive crops. Cabbage was priced at $3.28/kg

2004‘Discovery’ and ‘Ruby Perfection were the only cultivars available as transplants

in 2004, and thus, were both tried. Cabbage was harvested on September 3rd. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for a variety of cabbage cultivar tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Cabbage Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Discovery 3.1 3.3 Poor 10.17 10.82Ruby Perfection 2.0 2.2 Good 6.56 7.22Total Revenue ($) 16.73Total Costs ($) 29.76Profit ($) -13.032Flavor based on preference by family members

Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer caused slow growth and poor head development in 2004. Diseases were not observed

throughout the growing season. Sevin was used to control insect pests; however, insects caused insignificant damage to cabbage heads and foliage. Necrotic spot was the only disease seen in cabbage. There are two types of necrotic spot named type 1 and type 2. Type 1 appears as uniformly spaced, dark lesions that range from 1 to 5 mm diameter on leaves or midribs. Lesions begin to appear towards the end of the growing season as small specks that become larger and sunken as cells collapse just prior or after harvest. The difference between type 1 and 2 is the location of disease. Type 2 is found in the pith of the main stem of the head. Cabbage in 2004 trials showed both type 1 and type 2 necrotic spot. Necrotic spot is often confused with black speck and black spot; however, the lesions of black speck are larger than necrotic spot and the lesions of black spot are smaller than necrotic spot. Both type one and type two necrotic spot are caused from the (type of organism and name of disease)‘Discovery’ had poor flavor and ‘Ruby Perfection’ had good flavor in 2004. Cabbage produced net revenue of $16.73 and caused losses of $13.03 in 2004.

2005Because ‘Ruby perfection’ had better flavor than ‘Discovery’, ‘Ruby Perfection’

replaced ‘Discovery’ in 2005. Cabbage was harvested on September 15th. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for ‘Ruby Perfection’ tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Cabbage Cultivars Grown in 2005Cultivar Total

Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Ruby Perfection 3.8 4.2 Fair 12.46 13.78Total Revenue ($) 12.46Total Costs ($) 29.76Profit ($) -17.302Flavor based on preference by family members

Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the summer of 2005 caused plants to grow more rapidly compared to 2004; however, heads were smaller, leaves were tougher and flavor was not as good when compared to 2004. Necrotic spot was visible towards the latter half of the growing season and head rot due to rhizoctonia disease was prevalent.

Rhizoctonia disease is a fungus caused from, Rhizoctonia solani, can cause damping-off, wirestem, root rot, bottom rot and head rot depending on when the disease occurs. In this situation, the disease occurred towards the end of the growing season, and thus, head rot was the only symptom. Head rot is characterized by rotting of lower portions of the wrapper leaves that typically fall off of the plant. The rot then spreads to the lower portions of inner leaves and causes yellowing and drying of the upper portion of the inner leaves. A web-like mycelium may develop between leaves. The disease may then continue spreading onto entire leaf sections several layers deep within the head. The

decay is usually firm, but soft-rotting bacteria may invade. Head rot usually results during damp weather especially when the plants are weak due to deficiencies of calcium potassium and nitrogen or excessive nitrogen. The best line of defense against any rhizoctonia disease is to choose resistant cultivars. Irrigating in early morning can greatly reduce the occurrence of this disease because water is quickly evaporated during the day. Crop rotation is also an affective control; Crucifers should be rotated with other crops for two years after one season of growth. Sterilization of tools after they have been in contact with other crucifers will also reduce the spread of this disease and soaking the soil with fungicides after seeding may also be affective.

Cabbage produced net revenue of $12.46 and caused losses of $17.30 in 2004.

2006As a function of low yields, low profits, poor flavor and disease susceptibility

cabbage was replaced with rocket in 2006.

Conclusion Cabbage has poor yields, flavor and disease resistance in Toronto based hobby

gardens. Insect problems were quite extensive at times, however, Sevin can reduce insect pests.

Cabbage requires few labor inputs; however, because of their large green biomass and relatively small root systems cabbage is inefficient at using nutrients and occupies a lot of garden space while producing low yields.Cabbage caused losses of $30.33 between 2004 and 2006.

Sweet Cherries (Prunus pumila)Introduction

Sweet cherries are a tender perennial tree of the Rosaceae family. Sweet cherries can tolerate temperatures in the low negative teens without severe damage to branches or flower buds. Sweet Cherries are deep rooted, with a main taproot and a fibrous root system near the soil surface, and grow best in loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 6.0 and 7.5. Cherries require 37-195, 22-224, and 22-224 kg/ha of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P2O5) and potassium (K2O) respectively (Seagle et al, 1995).

Sweet Cherries are quite drought tolerant due to their extensive root system but require irrigation during extensive hot dry periods. Sweet cherry cultivars have varying hardiness zones and choosing the right cultivar for an area is essential for production. Cherries grow off of young shoots and spurs. Spurs do not usually fruit for more than 3 years. Thus, pruning is aimed at renewing spur growth, promoting new shoot growth for the successive year’s fruit production, for training purposes and to remove diseased branches.

Sweet cherry cultivars are usually self-sterile and thus, two trees of different cultivars are required in close proximity for pollination. Cherry trees require a chilling period of at least 50 days below 7.5˚C to induce flower production. Cherry trees can be pruned from fall until spring. Lateral branches should be promoted, while sprouts should be removed because laterals bear most of the fruit. Sweet cherry trees may begin fruiting after 5 years if a rootstock is used and may continue fruiting for over 40 years with peak production occurring after 14 years.

Sweet cherries are susceptible to cracking during extended wet periods. Cracking is a phenomenon where to much moisture enters cherry tissue and causes the epidermis to break open, thus, leaving the cherries susceptible to diseases and rots. To prevent such incidence, do not use overhead irrigation during cherry ripening and make sure harvest is complete before rain is expected.

TrialsTrials were conducted from 2004-2006. ‘Bing’ was planted in full sunlight in

1999, occupied a space of 2.2 m2 and began producing cherries in 2004. Sweet cherries yield best when exposed to full sunlight. Both cultivars were purchased as three-year-old rootstocks that were about 1.8 m tall. Pruning commenced in early spring to maintain tree vigor and shape and in summer to remove diseased or dying branches. Pruning was aimed at renewing spur and new shoot growth to attain good yields and to form an open center tree that was short and dense in order to prevent shading of other sections of the garden. ‘Bing’ cherries were harvested at full maturity when they were dark red. ‘Napolean’ and ‘Bing’ cherries were priced at $7.68/kg.

2004‘Bing’ cherry was already established since 1999 and ‘Napoleon’ cherry was

planted in 2004. Both cultivars were chosen for their large sweet fruit and to establish cross-pollination, which is required if these two cultivars are to be productive. ‘Bing’ cherry was grown as an open center tree while ‘Napoleon’ was grown as a semi-espalier on the south wall of the residence.Harvest commenced on June 24th and continued till June 27th for a total of 4 days of harvest. Only ‘Bing’ cherry produced cherries in 2004. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for ‘Bing’ in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Cherry Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Bing 2.1 1.0 Excellent 16.13 7.68Napoleon 0.0 0.0 ? 0.0 0.0Total Revenue ($) 16.13Total Costs ($) 35.20Profit ($) -19.072Flavor based on preference by family members

Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer did not seem to delayed cherry harvest in 2004 and disease and insect pests did not affect cherry trees. However, Sevin was applied every other week to prevent the establishment of potential insect pests. ‘Bing’ cherries were large, dark red to black, succulent and had excellent flavor.

Cherries produced net revenue of $16.13 and caused losses of $19.07 in 2004.

2005Harvest commenced on July 4th and continued until July 12th for a total of 9 days

of harvest. Only ‘Bing’ cherry produced cherries in 2005. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for ‘Bing’ in 2005 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Bing 3.0 1.4 Excellent 23.04 10.75Napoleon 0.0 0.0 ? 0.0 0.0Total Revenue ($) 23.04Total Costs ($) 35.20 Profit ($) -12.162Flavor based on preference by family members

Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the summer of 2005 allowed for vigorous tree growth and caused significant disease and pest problems. Foliar disease did not appear until mid-July at which time cherries were already harvested. The most prominent disease was powdery mildew, which spread across the foliage rapidly from mid July onwards. The use of Precipitated sulfur was affective at reducing future outbreaks, but was not a cure for already damaged foliage. Once Sulfur was applied, new growth was quickly established, however, several applications of sulfur were required to control further disease outbreaks. For more information on Powdery mildew and it’s control refer to apples.

Leaf blight also known as yellow leaf in cherries caused by the fungus Coccomyces hiemalis and C. lutescens was also observed throughout the growing season. This fungus causes small circular (one-eighth of an inch in diameter) discolored, dark-blue areas on the upper surface of fruit, leaves and pedicels towards late May and early June. Lesions may be spread across entire leaves or may be confined to certain portions of the leaf blade. Tissue becomes dark-red or reddish brown in color a week or two after infection followed by the entire yellowing of the leaf or the dropping out of affected portions of the leaf. If wet conditions persist whitish masses appear on the lower surfaces of the leaf-lesions and sometimes may appear on the upper leaf surface. Pedicels tend to show larger spots (one quarter of an inch in length) that extend one-third or more of the way around the pedicel. These spots often girdle the pedicel, thus, causing uneven ripening of fruit. Lesions on fruit are seldom a problem. Removing infected leaves from the tree and dead leaves that have fallen to the ground are the best forms of controlling the spread of inoculum. Healthy leaves can be protected by the application of precipitated sulfur. The first application of sulfur should be made when the fruit is free from the calyx, again two weeks later, again just after the fruit has been picked and a last time three weeks later (Heslar et al, 1920).

Cherry blackfly (Myzus cerasi) is a shiny dark brown to black moderately long and slightly tapered fly which lays it’s eggs in autumn at the bases of buds and in bud axils of spurs and young shoots (Alford, 1984). Eggs hatch in March or early April and colonies of wingless aphids begin forming on the underside of leaves. By June these colonies can be very large. By mid summer some aphids form wings and fly off of cherry leaves to other plants, but come back in autumn for reproductive purposes. By late July or August most wingless aphids still present on cherry leaves die out. Infested leaves are severely curled, thus, causing extensive damage to young shoots. Infected shoots may eventually die if damage is severe enough. Spraying with suitable insecticides such as dimehoate, malathion, nicotine or Sevin (Seems to work, but not listed as control on bottle of sevin) in the spring at the white-bud stage is an effective method of control. Tar oil can be applied from December to January and DNOC or DNOC-petroleum oil can be applied throughout the winter and into March (Alford, 1984). Cherry blackflies were a very significant problem for cherries.

Damage from plum leaf gall mite (phytoptus similes) was observed but was not a significant problem in cherries. Female mites overwinter under bud scales or in bark crevices and hatch in spring. Hatched mites feed on young leaves, flowers or young fruit. Yellowish, whitish or pinkish pouch shaped galls form in clusters along main veins and at the edges of infested leaves (Alford, 1984). These galls act as breeding grounds for the mites. Several generations of mites can form in one growing season, as the lifecycle of these mites is completed in two to five weeks (Alford, 1984). All stages and both sexes occur together in any given gall. Leaf damage is fairly insignificant, but fruit damage causes unmarketable cherries. Control is not usually necessary unless fruit is severely affected at which time a post-flowering spray against plum rust mite may be effective to prevent fruit damage (Alford, 1984).

Aphids and spider mites were much more prominent in 2005 than in 2004 and several applications of Sevin were necessary to keep these pests under control. Aphids were more readily controlled than spider mites.

As in 2004, ‘Bing’ cherry was dark red to black, succulent and had excellent flavor. Cherries produced net revenue of $23.04 and caused losses of $12.16 in 2005.

2006Harvest in 2006 commenced on July 5th and continued until July 11th for a total of

7 days of harvest. Only ‘Bing’ cherry produced cherries in 2006. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for ‘Bing’ in 2006 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Bing 4.1 1.2 Excellent 31.48 9.21Napoleon 0.0 0.0 ? 0.0 0.0Total Revenue ($) 31.48

Total Costs ($) 35.20Profit ($) -3.722Flavor based on preference by family members

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Cherry trees grew vigorously throughout the entire season. All of the diseases discussed in 2005 were present and affected the tree with similar severities as in 2005. Based on experience obtained in 2005, all infected leaves were removed and sulfur and Sevin was applied to the foliage to reduce disease. This treatment appeared effective, as the Cherry trees remained healthy and relatively disease free compared to 2005. Fruit were not directly affected by disease in 2006.

Yields were slightly higher than in 2005. As in 2004 and 2005, ‘Bing’ cherries were dark red to black, succulent and had excellent flavor. Cherries produced net revenue of $31.48 and caused losses of $3.72 in 2006.

Conclusion Cherries take several years to become established and several years after that to

produce profitable yields. Cool wet weather reduced disease occurrences while typical Toronto hot summers caused disease buildup. Diseases and insect problems were readily controlled with fungicides and pesticides available to the typical gardener. Disease and insect problems tended to appear throughout the growing season depending on the type of disease or insect that was prevalent. These diseases and insects did not directly affect fruit yield or quality. Diseases and insects equally affected both ‘Bing’ and ‘Napoleon’.Cherries require extensive labor particularly for pruning, staking, disease control and harvesting. However, because of their low nutrient requirements and expected good yields in successive years, cherries may prove to be profitable from 2007 onwards. A total loss of $35.95 was realized over the three years of trials.

Chives (Allium schoenoprasum L.)Introduction

Chives are hardy perennial herbs of the Amaryllidaceae family that are moderately deep rooted and grow best in loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 6.0 and 7.5. Chives require 37-195, 22-224, and 22-224 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Chives require consistent irrigation, particularly during hot dry periods in order to maintain leaf tenderness.


was exposed to full sunlight. This location was chosen as chives are grown for their spicy, fragrant leaf biomass that expands quickly when exposed to high levels of light Chives were purchased as transplants that were about 10 cm tall. The transplants were spaced 30 cm apart.

Chives were harvested at ground level in order to obtain maximum biomass, to allow new bulb formation, prevent undesirable flower formation and to prevent the leaves form toughening. Harvest commenced in mid June and finished just after the first light frosts in October. Four to five harvests were possible in one growing season.

Chives were priced at $2.99/bunch; each bunch consisted of 50 g of leaf tissue.

2004Garlic chives were chosen as past experiences of observing and tasting this

cultivar from other gardens were pleasant. Garlic chives are strong flavored chives with long thin leaves and a strong aroma that is preferred for cooking, spicing and culinary purposes.

Harvest commenced on June 13th and continued till August 2nd for a total of 51 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for garlic chives tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Chive Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(bunches)

Yield/m2

(bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Garlic Chives 19 38 Excellent 56.81 113.62Total Revenue ($) 56.81Total Costs ($) 8.00Profit ($) 48.812Flavor based on preference by family members

2004 was a year of establishment for chives, thus, harvest was only conducted for a short period of time when leaves were abundant and plants were vigorously growing. Chive vigor did not seem to be greatly affected by cool temperatures and heavy rainfall. Disease and insects did not affect chives, thus, pesticides and fungicides were not applied to chives.

Garlic chives had excellent aroma and flavor in 2004 and yielded for most of the summer. Chives produced net revenue of $56.81 and a profit of $48.81 in 2004.

2005Harvest commenced on May 25th and continued until October 21st for a total of

151 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for garlic chives tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Garlic Chives 47 94 Excellent 140.53 281.06Total Revenue ($) 140.53Total Costs ($) 8.00Profit ($) 132.532Flavor based on preference by family members

Garlic chives had much higher yields compared to 2004 due to better plant establishment and warmer sunnier spring and summer conditions. Disease and insects did not affect chives, thus, pesticides and fungicides were not applied to chives. Garlic chives consistently yielded throughout the growing season and had better aroma and flavor compared to 2004. Chives produced net revenue of $140.53 and a profit of $132.53 in 2005.

2006Harvest in 2006 commenced on June 24th and continued until September 12th for a

total of 82 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for garlic chives tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Garlic Chives 8 16 Good 23.92 47.84Total Revenue ($) 23.92Total Costs ($) 8.00Profit ($) 15.922Flavor based on preference by family members

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005, but were much warmer and more humid than in 2004. Chives did not grow or yield as well in 2006 because neighboring asparagus plants became well established and grew vigorously causing chives to be shaded. Asparagus plants should have been spaced further away from chives or better structural support must be put in place for asparagus in successive years to reduce shading. Garlic chives had excellent flavor and aroma in 2006, however, yields were not as consistent due to shading from asparagus during the latter half of the growing season. Almost all yields were taken in early summer. Disease and insects did not affect chives, thus, pesticides and fungicides were not applied to chives. Chives produced net revenue of $23.92 and a profit of $15.92 in 2006.

Conclusion Chives performed well in Toronto conditions permitting that proper sunlight was

available. Disease and pest problems were not observed from 2004-2006, thus, pesticides and fungicides need not be used for chives in backyard gardens.The aroma and flavor of chive leaves declined throughout the growing season and leaves became tougher in late summer. Chives required very few labor inputs, which thus, further proves it’s economic feasibility in hobby gardens. Chives accounted for a total profit of $197.26.

Corn (Zea mays L.)Introduction

Corn is a frost sensitive warm season member of the Poaceae family. Corn is shallow rooted and grows best in loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 5.5 and 7.5. Corn requires 83-330, 55-240, and 55-240 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Corn has moderate drought tolerance and requires consistent irrigation, particularly during hot dry periods and during pollination and silking to allow maximum ear fill. Corn is normally cross-pollinated and each plant can carry up to 2 cobs. Foliage should be kept dry during pollination, as moisture impedes pollen dispersion, and thus, reduces yield.

TrialsTrials were conducted from 2004 to 2005 within a 0.47 m² area of the garden that

was exposed to full sunlight. This location was chosen because corn requires bright hot days for good yields and cob quality. Corn was seeded 20 cm apart in rows that were spaced 45 cm apart. The cultivars changed yearly to conform to the objective of maximizing productivity and value. Corn was harvested in mid to late July, approximately three to four weeks after silks began to wither. Cauliflower replaced corn in late July to early August for an autumn harvest.Corn was priced at $3.99/dozen cobs.

2004‘Honey and Cream’ and ‘Sweet Corn’ were the two corn cultivars tried in 2004.

These cultivars were chosen to reflect the two main types of sweet corn in terms of color, yield and flavor characteristics. One row, extending 1.5 m, of each cultivar was seeded.Harvest commenced on August 3rd and continued till August 9th for a total of 7 days of harvest. Both cultivars matured at approximately the same time. Corn could have been taken in a once-over harvest on July 30th, however, seven days of harvest took place because the family preferred continuous fresh corn. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various corn cultivars tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Corn Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(ears)

Yield/m2

(ears/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Honey and Cream 9 19.6 Excellent 2.99 6.52Sweet Corn 8 17.4 Good 2.66 5.79Total Revenue ($) 5.65Total Costs ($) 7.52Profit ($) -1.872Flavor based on preference by family members

Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer delayed corn harvest in 2004 and also created conditions suitable for fungal diseases. Damping off was the main disease issue in 2004 and a second planting was required two

weeks after the initial one to compensate for previously damaged seedlings. Once seedlings became established, disease problems were insignificant. Upon maturation, mice ate some of the corncobs, thus, some losses resulted. Mice were controlled by covering corn plants with a net and by applying mouse poison throughout the garden. Insect problems were insignificant, but Sevin was used as a preventative control. Corn produced net revenue of $5.65 and caused losses of $1.87 in 2004.

2005To validate the yield and revenue data collected in 2004 ‘Sweet Corn’ was used

again in 2005; however, ‘Honey and Cream’ was not available in local nurseries in 2005, and thus, was replaced with ‘Peaches and Cream’. One row, extending 1.5 m, of each cultivar was seeded.

Harvest commenced on July 28th and continued until August 4th for a total of 8 days of harvest. Both cultivars matured at approximately the same time. Harvest continued for 8 days to satisfy family consumption needs. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for the various corn cultivars tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Corn Cultivars Grown in 2005Cultivar Total

Yield(ears)

Yield/m2

(ears/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Peaches and Cream 6 13.0 Excellent 2.00 4.32Sweet Corn 9 19.6 Good 2.99 6.52Total Revenue ($) 4.99Total Costs ($) 7.52Profit ($) -2.532Flavor based on preference by family members

Warm temperatures, intense sunlight and less moisture throughout the summer of 2005 permitted harvest to commence a few days earlier compared to 2004. Diseases were not apparent and mice were affectively killed in 2004. ‘Peaches and Cream’ only produced one cob per plant, and thus, did not yield as well as ‘Honey and Cream’ tried in 2004, which produced two cobs per plant. Corn plants grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Sevin was applied as a preventative control for insect pests. As in 2004, ‘Sweet Corn’ had good flavor; ‘Peaches and Cream’ had excellent flavor. Corn produced net revenue of $4.99 and caused losses of $2.53 in 2005.

2006As a function of poor yields, high land utilization per plant and negative profits

corn was replaced with other crops in 2006.

Conclusion Corn grew vigorously and had good yields and low disease and pest problems in

typical hot Toronto summers. However, because of high input costs per unit area in this

garden corn was not profitable. Mice are easily controlled via netting and mice poison. Damping off is only a significant problem during wet spring conditions. ‘Honey and Cream’ produced two cobs per plant and yielded better than the one-cobed plants of ‘Peaches and Cream’.Corn required almost no labor inputs, however, corn uses a lot of fertilizer. Corn caused total losses of $4.40 between 2004 and 2005.

Black Current (Ribes nigrum)Introduction

Currents are temperate semi-hardy to hardy bush perennial of the Grossularieacea/Rosaceae family. Currents have a shallow fibrous root system that usually does not extend lower than 60 cm below the soil surface. For this reason, constant irrigation is required during the entire growing season to keep plants vigorous. Irrigation is particularly important during fruit expansion, as fruit require lots of water to grow, and as the following seasons flower buds develop during fruit expansion. Currents grow best in loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 5.5 and 7.0. Currents require 37-195, 22-224, and 22-224 kg/ha of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P2O5) and potassium (K2O) respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Currents arise from nodes at the ends of one-year-old wood. There are three main types of currents white, red, and yellow fruiting cultivars.Currents are predominantly self-fertile, and thus, only one plant is required for production. Current bushes require a chilling period to induce flower production. Currents are pruned from fall until spring. Pruning is aimed at promoting new growth for the first 3 years, followed by renewal pruning to maintain good yields because older shoots do not yield as well as newer shoots. Current bushes may begin fruiting after 1 year if bought from a reputable nursery and may continue fruiting for over 20 years.

TrialsTrials were conducted from 2004-2006. ‘Wellington Black’ was planted in full

sunlight, as yields are maximized when plants are exposed to full sunlight. ‘Wellington Black’ current occupied a total area of 1 m2. Current bushes were two-years-old when purchased and were about 30 cm tall. Pruning commenced in early spring to maintain tree vigor and shape and in summer to remove diseased or dying branches. Currents were harvested at full maturity, black and soft, from early July through to late July. Currents were priced at $2.99/pint; each pint consisted of about 350 grams of current berries.

2004‘Wellington Black’ did not yield in 2004 as was expected. The tree was very

vigorous and showed no symptoms of disease. Although insects did not seem to affect this tree, Sevin was used anyways to prevent any potential damage by insects. A loss of $16.00 was realized for the space and labor requirements associated with ‘Wellington Black’.

2005

Harvest in 2005 commenced on July 8th and continued until July 15th for a total of 8 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for ‘Wellington Black’ tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Current Cultivars Grown in 2005Cultivar Total

Yield(pints)

Yield/m2

(pints/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Wellington Black Current

3.0 3.0 Fair 8.97 8.97

Total Revenue ($) 8.97Total Costs ($) 16.00Profit ($) -7.032Flavor based on preference by family members

‘Wellington Black’ grew vigorously throughout the entire season. However, due to warmer summer conditions the bush showed severe symptoms of foliar disease.Powdery mildew was extremely problematic in 2005. The entire bush was affected by powdery mildew and treatment with precipitated sulfur was not very affective at eliminating this disease. Sulfur should be applied at regular intervals before any visible signs of powdery mildew are observed to act as a measure of prevention. For more information on Powdery mildew and it’s control refer the section on apples.Insects, particularly aphids and spider mites were a serious problem in 2005. Aphids would infest the tree from mid June onwards while spider mites were more prevalent from mid July to late September. Both pests caused younger leaves to curl and shoots to be stunted. Spider mites left a white residue on leaves, which the leaves ability to synthesis sugars. Sevin was sprayed every other week to control aphids and spidermites, however, aphids were still problematic and spider mites were even more of a problem species.

‘Wellington Black’ had good flavor and had net revenue of $8.97, but caused losses of $7.03 in 2006.

2006Harvest in 2006 commenced on July 14th and continued until July 20th for a total

of 7 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for ‘Wellington Black’ tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Current Cultivars Grown in 2006Cultivar Total

Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Wellington Black Current

5 3.0 Good 14.95 8.97

Total Revenue ($) 14.95

Total Costs ($) 16.00Profit ($) -1.052Flavor based on preference by family members

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. ‘Wellington Black’ grew vigorously in early spring; however, growth came to a halt upon arrival of warmer summer conditions due to diseases and pests. Powdery mildew, aphids and spider mites were as much of a problem in 2006 as they were in 2005. Sulfur was applied too late in the growing season to protect the current bush from fungus. Applications of sulfur should start at the beginning of June in successive years and application should continue until September to maintain bush vigor. Sevin was relatively effective at reducing aphids and spidermites; however, a more affective pesticide must be used in successive years because insect pests were still a problem even after several applications of Sevin.

‘Wellington Black’ had good flavor and had net revenue of $14.95, but caused losses of $1.05 in 2006.

Conclusion ‘Wellington Black’ tended to perform poorly in typical hot Toronto conditions.

Foliar disease and pest problems significantly reduced plant vigor and size, which ultimately lead to fruit drop and poor yields. Disease and pest problems only appeared in 2005 and 2006 because of warmer conditions that are favored by powdery mildew, aphids and spidermites. These disease and pest problems were persistent throughout the growing seasons. Fungicides should be applied throughout the entire growing season to act as a preventative means of disease control. Stronger pesticides must be used in successive years to reduce aphid and spidermite infestations.

‘Wellington Black’ required very little pruning and training, however, chemical control was extensive, and thus, labor demands were quite extensive at certain times of the year. ‘Wellington Black did not yield in the first year and had non-profitable yields in 2005 and 2006. However, yields did increase from 2005 to 2006. It is expected that production should increase in the following years and will make up for the initial losses between 2004 and 2006 assuming that disease and pest problems can be efficiently controlled. ‘Wellington Black’ accounted for losses of $24.08 in the three years of trials.

Eggplants (solanum melongenea L)Introduction

Eggplants are frost sensitive warm season member of the Solanaceae family. Eggplants are deep rooted and grow best in loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 5.0 and 6.5. Eggplants require 83-138, 110-275, and 55-275 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Eggplants are moderately drought tolerant and require consistent irrigation, particularly during hot dry periods and during flower and fruit production. Eggplants come in many different shapes and sizes from long skinny black varieties to large round purple or white varieties. The type of eggplant chosen for cultivation is based on personal preference or market demand in the locality it is grown. Eggplants grow best in warm soils, and thus, black containerized

plantings are preferred when resources are available to allow maximum heat absorption by soil and roots. Eggplants also grow best when exposed to high humidity, thus, overhead irrigation may be beneficial.

TrialsTrials were conducted from 2004-2006 within an 8.0 m² area of the garden that

was exposed to full sunlight. This location was chosen because eggplant yields and fruit quality are dependent on high levels of light. Eggplants were purchased as transplants that were about 8 cm tall. The transplants were placed either individually in 2-gallon containers, in pairs when using 10-gallon containers or in groups of threes when planted in 15-gallon containers. The cultivars changed yearly to conform to the objective of maximizing productivity and value.

Fruit is heavy and may be unevenly distributed throughout the plant, thus, one side of the plant usually has more fruit than the other and the plant wants to lean toward that side. For this reason stakes were used to keep eggplants upright, thereby reducing the chance of breaking the main stem during fruit expansion. Stakes also allowed improved light penetration and air circulation within the canopy.

Eggplants were watered more than most other crops, especially when fruiting, because eggplants wilt very quickly due to their large leaf surface and high rates of transpiration. Once the eggplants had wilted the fruit would shrivel and fruit growth would be impeded. In addition fruit would turn mealy and dry.

Eggplants were harvested throughout the growing season. Harvesting individual fruit occurred when fruit growth slowed, but before the shiny gloss on the fruit became matted. Once the fruit were harvested the eggplants began re-fruiting. Eggplants that were not ripe at the first frost were taken in a once-over final harvest.Eggplants were priced at $5.48/kg for ‘Black beauty’ and ‘Dusky’ and $7.68/kg for ‘Italian bicolor’ and ‘Sicilian’.

2004Four Eggplant cultivars reflecting different eggplant types, colors, yields and

flavors were grown in 2004. ‘Black Beauty’, ‘Dusky’, ‘Italian Bicolor’ and ‘Sicilian’ were the cultivars chosen.

Harvest commenced on August 5th and continued till September 23rd for a total of 50 days of harvest. ‘Dusky’ was the first to ripen followed by ‘Black Beauty’, ‘Sicilian’ and ‘Italian Bicolor’. Yields, flavor, and fruiting characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various eggplant cultivars tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Eggplant Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)




Net Revenue($/m2)

Black Beauty 5.4 4.6 2 Excellent 29.59 25.21Dusky 12.8 3.4 1 Excellent 70.14 18.63

Italian Bicolor 2.7 1.6 4 Good 20.73 12.29Sicilian 2.9 2.1 3 Excellent 22.27 16.13Total Revenue ($) 142.73Total Costs ($) 128.44Profit ($) 14.292Flavor based on preference by family members* Based on rank of 1-4, 1 being earliest and 4 being latest

Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer delayed eggplant harvest in 2004 and also created conditions suitable for fungal diseases. Leaf mold (Cladosporium fulvum) was the most prominent disease. It caused discoloration of the leaves and reduced photosynthetic output, and thus, lowered yields. The fruit were not affected directly by disease. ‘Sicilian’ and ‘Italian bicolor’ eggplants were more susceptible to leaf mold than ‘Dusky’ and ‘Black Beauty’.Insect pests were not a significant problem for eggplants in 2004; however, Sevin was sprayed every other week to act as a preventative control.

‘Black Beauty’ ‘Dusky’ and ‘Sicilian’ eggplants had excellent flavor while ‘Italian bicolor’ had good flavor. Fruit of ‘Black Beauty’ and ‘Dusky’ were black to blackish purple in color, had consistent yields throughout the harvest season and produced greater net revenues than any other cultivar. Fruit of ‘Sicilian’ and ‘Italian bicolor’ were purplish-white to purplish in color. Eggplants produced net revenue of $142.73 and a profit of $14.29 in 2004.

2005To validate the yield and revenue data collected in 2004, eggplant cultivars tested

in 2004 were used again in 2005. Harvest commenced on July 15th and continued until October 11th for a total of 89

days of harvest. The order of harvest of the various cultivars was the same as 2004. Yields, flavor, and fruiting characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for the various eggplant cultivars tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Eggplant Cultivars Grown in 2005Cultivar Total

Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)




Net Revenue($/m2)

Black Beauty 9.1 7.8 2 Excellent 49.87 42.74Dusky 13.3 3.5 1 Excellent 72.88 19.18Italian Bicolor 2.9 1.7 4 Good 22.27 13.06Sicilian 5.8 4.2 3 Excellent 44.54 32.26Total Revenue ($) 189.56Total Costs ($) 128.44Profit ($) 61.122Flavor based on preference by family members* Based on rank of 1-4, 1 being earliest and 4 being latest

Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the summer of 2005 permitted 39 extra days of harvest compared to 2004, leading too much higher average yields. The eggplants grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Rainfall was adequate but not excessive, thus, leaf mold was not a problem in 2004. However several other foliar diseases were evident in 2005.

Powdery mildew was the most problematic disease in 2005 followed by Downy mildew and early blight. For more information on these diseases and their controls refer to the section on apples, cucumbers and asparagus respectively. These diseases did not directly affect the fruit, however, these diseases caused foliar damage, and thus, fruit were indirectly affected. All three diseases appeared towards the latter half of the growing season. Precipitated sulfur and/or copper should be applied in successive years to reduce or delay disease outbreaks.

Aphids and spider mites were both problematic in 2005, but were easily controlled using Sevin. Aphids were more readily controlled than spidermites.Variations in fruit flavor and disease resistance were consistent with the eggplant cultivars tested in 2004. Eggplants produced net revenue of $189.56 and a profit of $61.12 in 2005.

2006As a function of their high yields, adequate revenues and/or good to excellent

flavor characteristics seen in previous years all eggplant cultivars tried in 2004 and 2005 were re-tried in 2006.

Harvest in 2006 commenced on July 25th and continued until October 30th for a total of 98 days of harvest. The order of harvest of the various cultivars was the same as 2004 and 2005. Yields, flavor, and fruiting characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for the various eggplant cultivars tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Eggplant Cultivars Grown in 2006Cultivar Total Yield

(kg)Yield/m2

(kg/m2)




Net Revenue($/m2)

Black Beauty 8.2 7.0 2 Excellent 44.94Dusky 17.4 4.6 1 Excellent 95.35Italian Bicolor 1.3 0.8 4 Good 9.98Sicilian 5.5 4.0 3 Excellent 42.24Total Revenue ($) 192.51Total Costs ($) 128.44Profit ($) 64.072Flavor based on preference by family members*Based on rank of 1-4, 1 being earliest and 4 being latest

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Eggplants grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Rainfall was adequate but not excessive, thus, leaf mold was not problematic in 2006. All of the foliar diseases discussed in the

2004 and 2005 analysis reappeared in 2006 between mid August and late September. Based on experience from 2004 and 2005, all infected leaves were removed and sulfur was applied to the foliage to reduce disease. This treatment appeared partially effective, as the eggplants remained healthy and relatively disease free compared to 2004 and 2005. However, sulfur and copper only acted as preventative controls from further outbreaks, but diseased foliage did not recover when fungicides were applied. Fruit were not directly affected by disease in 2006. Aphid and spider mite problems were similar to 2005 and several applications of Sevin were necessary to keep these pests under control. Aphids were again more readily controlled than spider mites.

Yields were slightly higher than in 2005. Flavor and disease resistance of the various eggplant cultivars were the same as in 2004 and 2005. Eggplants produced net revenue of $192.51 and profits of $64.07 in 2006.

Conclusion Eggplants tended to perform well in a typical hot Toronto summer-but if cool wet

weather occurred yields were drastically reduced. Foliar disease and root rots caused significant losses during extended wet periods. Spider mites were problematic during the hot dry months of August.

Disease and insect problems tended to appear towards the latter half of the growing season when temperatures rise, air circulation in the canopy is reduced and condensation is more common. Aphids and spider mites were not a significant problem because they did not directly affect the fruit or damage the foliage. They are relatively effectively controlled with pesticides available to the typical gardener. Leaf mold, powdery mildew, downy mildew and early blight were the most prominent diseases and were not easily controlled by the application of the fungicides available to backyard gardeners. These fungicides must be applied throughout the growing season at regular intervals as preventative forms of control. Since leaf mold is very prolific in wet cool conditions, sulfur should be applied during these periods even if leaf mold is not obviously apparent. This practice will act as a preventative for the control of the spread of leaf mold. Removing all infected leaves appeared to reduce the amount of inoculum within eggplants thereby reducing diseases.

The cultivars tested showed significant variability in disease sensitivity, with ‘Black Beauty’ and ‘Dusky’ being the most resistant.

Eggplants utilized more water than most of the other crops grown in the garden. Eggplants also required more labor particularly for pruning, staking, disease control and harvesting. However, because of their good yields and good revenue eggplants were profitable in this backyard garden. Eggplants accounted for a profit of $139.48 between 2004 and 2006.

FlowersRoses (Rosa arkansana) and Columbines (Aquilegia flavescens) Introduction

Roses are hardy warm season woody perennial of the Rosaceae family and Columbines are a hardy cool season herbaceous perennial of the Ranunculaceae family. Roses are shallow rooted while columbines are deep rooted, however, both grow best in

loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 5.5 and 7.5. Roses require 37-195, 22-224, and 22-224 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively, while columbines require 37-195, 22-224, and 22-224 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Roses and columbines are moderately drought tolerant, but require consistent irrigation, particularly during hot dry periods for good flower production. Columbines and roses come in many different shapes, sizes and colors. Roses and columbines should be deadheaded to encourage more flower production throughout the year. Both of these crops are predominantly used for their aesthetic appeal, however, rose hips can be used to make jams, breads, flavored water and an array of other products.

TrialsRose Trials were conducted from 2004 to 2006 within a 0.92 m² area of the

garden that was exposed to full sunlight. This location was chosen because flower yields, fragrance and color are dependent on high levels of light. Roses were purchased as rooted cuttings that were about 20 cm tall; the cuttings were spaced 60 cm apart.

Columbine Trials were conducted from 2005 to 2006 within a 0.50 m2 area of the garden that was exposed to partial sunlight. This location was chosen because columbines do not require high levels of light for good flower production. Thus, columbines were located where many other crops could not grow in order to maximize space use efficiency. The roses and columbine cultivars that were chosen flowered all summer long in order to attain maximum yields and beauty throughout the growing season.

Half of the rose and columbine flowers were harvested at about 30 cm below their inflorescence when their flowers just began opening to attain maximum flower life. The harvested flower shoots were taken indoors and placed in a vase with a nutrified solution to further increase the life expectancy and quality of flowers. The remaining half of the flowers were left attached to the plants to give the garden and aesthetic appeal.

Roses were priced at $1.99/flower stem and columbines were priced at $1.99/10 flower stems.

2004Ten rose cultivars reflecting different rose types, colors and yields were grown in

2004. ‘Oh Canada’, ‘Country Dancer’, ‘Pearl Meidiland’, ‘Fire Meidiland’, ‘Scarlet Meidiland’, ‘Sunny Delight’ and four others were the cultivars chosen. One plant of each cultivar was transplanted into the garden.

Harvest commenced in late June and continued till mid October. All cultivars were equally as aesthetically pleasing, as each contributed to the bouquets through its unique color(s), fragrance, and size. Yiels, production costs, revenue and profit for the various rose cultivars tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Flower Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar *Total

Yield(stems)

Yield/m2

(stems/m2)


Net Revenue($/m2)

Oh Canada 40 43.5 79.60 86.57Country Dancer

Pearl MeidilandFire MeidilandScarlet MeidilandSunny Delight? (Red type)? (Large pink type)? (Small yellow type)? (Large white type)Total Revenue ($) 79.60Total Costs ($) 14.72Profit ($) 64.88*Only half of flower stems were taken as cuttings, the other half were left for garden aesthetics

Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer increased the time required for the plants to become established, thus, delaying harvest in 2004. Disease and pest problems were insignificant in 2004; however, Sevin was applied every other week to act as a preventative means of control for potential insect pests. Roses produced net revenue of $79.60 and a profit of $64.88 in 2004.

2005Assorted columbine cultivars were seeded in 2005 to contribute to the aesthetic

appeal of the garden and the harvested bouquets. However, columbines take one full year from seed to begin flowering, thus, there were no yields for columbines in 2005.Harvest commenced in early June and continued until late October. Yield characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various rose cultivars tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Flower Cultivars Grown in 2005Cultivar Total

Yield(stems)

Yield/m2

(stems/m2)


Net Revenue($/m2)

Oh Canada 75 69 149.25 137.31Country DancerPearl MeidilandFire MeidilandScarlet MeidilandSunny Delight? (Red type)? (Large pink type)? (Small yellow type)? (Large white type)Columbines 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00

Total Revenue ($) 149.25Total Costs ($) 22.72Profit ($) 126.53*Only half of flower stems were taken as cuttings, the other half were left for garden aesthetics

Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the summer of 2005 permitted earlier flower harvests leading too much higher average yields. The rose plants grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Disease was not evident in 2005, however, warmer summer temperatures caused extensive pest problems. Aphids were the main pests and caused shoot tip deformities and slowed growth, which reduced flower quality. Aphids were easily controlled through several application of Sevin throughout the growing season. Flower yields were much more consistent in 2005 compared to 2004 due to better plant establishment and better climatic conditions. Roses produced net revenue of $149.25 and a profit of $126.53 in 2005.

2006Harvest in 2006 commenced in early June and continued until late October.

Yields, costs, revenue and profit for the various rose and columbine cultivars tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Flower Cultivars Grown in 2006Cultivar *Total

Yield(stems)

Yield/m2

(stems/m2)


Net Revenue($/m2)

Oh Canada 100 108.70 199.00 216.31Country DancerPearl MeidilandFire MeidilandScarlet MeidilandSunny Delight? (Red type)? (Large pink type)? (Small yellow type)? (Large white type)Columbines 101 20 19.90 39.80Total Revenue ($) 218.90Total Costs ($) 22.72Profit ($) 196.18*Only half of flower stems were taken as cuttings, the other half were left for garden aesthetics11 rose stem represents 10 columbine stems

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Rose plants and columbines grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Disease and pests were not observed on columbines. Roses, however, had several disease and pest problems. Aphids were a significant problem in 2006; however, the use of Sevin reduced aphid colonies and prevented any distortions to rose foliage and inflorescence. Fire Blight was a significant problem during wet periods of the summer. Fire Blight is caused by the bacteria Erwinia amylovora and causes leaves to have a red, fire-scorched appearance and may cause infected shoots to wilt. E. amylovora spores cover diseased tissue and if diseased tissue comes into contact with any other tissue of most members of the Rosaceae family, spread is almost certain. Any agent capable of transporting this bacteria including wind, rain, insects and garden tools may lead to the spread of fire blight. The best means of control is to prune affected tissue 25 cm below the lowest point of infection to ensure all of the bacteria is removed. Precipitated sulfur can be sprayed on foliage as a means of preventative control; however, sulfur will not cure infected tissue. Fire blight caused significant losses to roses in 2006 because infected shoots directly contribute to yield losses because roses would have arose from those shoots.Roses and columbines produced net revenue of $218.90 and a profit of $196.18 in 2006.

Conclusion Roses and Columbines tended to perform well in typical hot Toronto summers-

but if cool wet weather occurred yields were drastically reduced. Foliar disease and insects were not observed in columbines; however, disease and insects caused significant losses to roses during extended warm and/or wet periods.

Disease and insect problems tended to appear towards the latter half of the growing season when temperatures rise, air circulation in the canopy is reduced and condensation is more common. Aphids were a significant problem to roses because they directly affected stem, leaf and flower quality. Aphids are relatively effectively controlled with pesticides available to the typical gardener. The most prominent disease was fire blight, which was not controlled by the application of the fungicides available to backyard gardeners. It appears that the sulfur must be applied before the first signs of fire blight. Since fire blight is very prolific in wet conditions, sulfur should be applied during these periods even if symptoms are not obviously apparent. This practice will act as a form of prevention for the control of the spread of fire blight. Removing all infected stems appeared to reduce the amount of inoculum within roses thereby reducing fire blight. Leaf mold, fireblight and aphids all equally affected all of the cultivars tested. Roses and columbines require very little labor inputs except when disease control is required; harvest is not time consuming. Roses and columbines accounted for a total profit of $387.58 between 2004 and 2006.

Kiwi (Actinidia deliciosa)Introduction

Kiwi is a semi-hardy perennial vine of the Actinidiaceae family. Kiwi is deep rooted and grows best in loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 5.5 and 7.5. Kiwi requires 37-195, 22-224, and 22-224 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Kiwi is relatively drought tolerant, but requires

consistent irrigation, particularly during hot dry periods. Kiwi cultivars have different zones of hardiness and come in many different shapes, sizes, colors and flavors. Choosing the right cultivar is essential if productivity is to be successful. Kiwi requires trellising for support and fruits are bared on new growth at nodes of one-year-old wood. Kiwi is dioecious, thus, at least two plants of opposite sexes are required for pollination and fruit production. One male can pollinate up to 15 vines in a given area.


was exposed to full sunlight. This location was not necessary, as kiwi yields and fruit quality are not dependent on high levels of light. Thus, better usage of garden space could have been made possible. Kiwi was purchased as a graft that was about 20 cm tall. The graft consisted of a male and female of ‘Hardy Combination’. This cultivar is a smooth skinned type with yellow flesh that can be eaten with the skin.The west perimeter fence was used to trellis the kiwis, thereby, improving light penetration and air circulation within the canopy and maximizing space use efficiency. If kiwis did produce fruit, the fruit would have been priced at $1.00/three kiwis.

2004, 2005, 2006Kiwi did not yield between 2004 and 2006; the vines were very vigorous and did

not show symptoms of disease. Although insects did not seem to significantly affect this vine, Sevin was used to prevent any potential damage by insects. A loss of $17.76 was realized for the space and labor requirements associated with kiwi vines between 2004 and 2006. Kiwi required few labor inputs; labor included pruning and training.

Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.)Introduction

Lettuce is a frost tolerant half-hardy cool season annual of the Asteraceae family. Lettuce is shallow rooted and grows best in muck, peat or loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 6.0 and 8.0. Lettuce requires 88-165, 55-220, and 55-220 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Lettuce is moderately drought tolerant, however, requires irrigation on a daily or every other day basis to keep leaves crisp and flavorful for eating purposes. Many different lettuce cultivars exist including; Boston, romaine, loose leaf, and ruby leaf just to name a few. Lettuce requires light and cooler conditions to germinate, thus, seeds should be planted shallow in early spring or late summer. If lettuce is exposed to long hot days it will begin to bolt and flower and retains an undesirable bitter flavor. Thus, harvest should commence and finish during the cool months of early summer and late fall.


was exposed to partial sunlight. This location was chosen because lettuce yields and quality are dependant on short, cool days. Lettuce was seeded 30 cm apart in rows that extended 30 cm in the spring and late summer and 15 cm apart in rows extending 15 cm apart in mid summer. The cultivars changed yearly to conform to the objective of maximizing productivity and value.

Lettuce was harvested just prior to bolting throughout the entire growing season. Three to four harvests were maintained every year. The first and last harvest consisted of full sized heads like those expected in grocery stores. The middle harvest(s) consisted of heads that were half the size of those expected in grocery stores. The latter harvesting strategy functioned to minimize the bitter flavor associated with long hot summer days. Lettuce was taken in a once-over final harvest a few days after the first light frosts in October or November.

Lettuce was priced at $1.29/head for Boston and ruby leaf type lettuce, at $1.49/head for romaine type cultivars and at $2.99/head for Radicchio.

2004Four lettuce cultivars reflecting different lettuce types, colors, yields and flavors

were grown in 2004. ‘Special White Boston’, ‘Garden Leader Romaine’, Radicchio (not a cultivar) and ‘Ruby Leaf’ were the cultivars chosen.The first harvest commenced on July 2nd and continued till July 12th for a total of 11 days of harvest. A second harvest commenced on August 7th and continued till August 15th for a total of 9 days of harvest. A third harvest commenced on September 16th and continued till October 21st for a total of 36 days of harvest. ‘Special White Boston’ was harvested first followed by ‘Garden Leader Romaine’, ‘Ruby Leaf’ and Radicchio respectively. Yields, flavor, and fruiting characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various lettuce cultivars tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Harvest and Flavor Characteristics of Lettuce Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(heads)

1Yield/m2

(heads/m2)

Earliness of Harvest*



Net Revenue($/m2)

Special White Boston

46 11.4 1 Excellent 59.34 14.71

Garden Leader Romaine

8 11.4 2 Good 11.92 16.99

Radicchio 4 5.7 4 Fair (bitter) 11.96 17.04Ruby Leaf 4 5.7 3 Good 5.16 7.35Total Revenue ($) 88.38Total Costs ($) 83.20Profit ($) 5.181Boston and Romaine gave 2-harvests/growing season therefore one piece of land for 2 harvests. Ruby Perfection and Radicchio only gave one harvest/growing season. Therefore Boston and Romaine are calculated using half the land as Ruby and Radicchio2Flavor based on preference by family members* Based on rank of 1-4, 1 being earliest and 4 being latest

Cool wet weather caused delayed lettuce harvest in 2004, but created conditions suitable for better than average head size, flavor and quality. Disease and insect pests were not observed in 2004; however, Sevin was applied every other week to prevent any potential damages due to insects because leaf damage directly affects yield in lettuce.

‘Special White Boston’ was of excellent flavor, ‘Garden Leader Romaine’ and ‘Ruby Leaf’ had good flavor and Radicchio had fair flavor because of its bitter taste, which was not preferred by most members of the household. ‘Special White Boston’ consistently yielded throughout the growing season and produced greater net revenues than any other cultivar. ‘Garden Leader Romaine’ grew more slowly than Boston lettuce and had less consistent yields. ‘Ruby Leaf’ and Radicchio had poor yields and were very inconsistent in terms of production. Lettuce produced net revenue of $88.38 and a profit of $5.18 in 2004.

2005As a function of their higher yields, greater revenue and/or better flavor

characteristics seen in previous years, ‘Special White Boston’ and ‘Garden Leader Romaine’ replaced other cultivars tried in 2004. ‘Ruby Perfection’ and radicchio were dropped due to their relatively low yields and inferior flavor characteristics. The first harvest commenced on June 26th and continued till July 8th for a total of 13 days of harvest. A second harvest commenced on August 1st and continued till August 12th for a total of 13 days of harvest. A third harvest commenced on September 29th and continued till October 26th for a total of 27 days of harvest. ‘Special White Boston’ was harvested first followed by ‘Garden Leader Romaine’. Yields, flavor, and fruiting characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various lettuce cultivars tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(heads)

Yield/m2

(heads/m2)

Earliness of Harvest*



Net Revenue($/m2)


67 14.9 1 Excellent 86.43 19.22

Garden Leader Romaine

8 11.4 2 Fair (bitter) 11.92 16.99

Total Revenue ($) 98.35Total Costs ($) 83.20Profit ($) 15.152Flavor based on preference by family members* Based on rank of 1-2 1 being earliest and 2 being latest

Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the spring and summer of 2005 allowed for an earlier spring harvest and later fall harvest compared to 2004. Lettuce plants grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Warm humid temperatures throughout the summer caused several disease problems.

Slime rot was a major problem in 2005 due to fairly constant irrigation with cold water in hotter summer months. Slime rot is a type of bacterial soft rot caused by the bacteria Erwinia carotovora. This bacterium causes veins of lower leaves and stems to wilt, turn blackish-brown and soften followed by the softening of entire leaves and finally the entire head. E. carotovora is a relatively weak organism and usually only infects

wounded plants, as wounds serve as a site of entry for this bacteria. Therefore, reducing injury with proper management practices is the most efficient method of control. Overhead irrigation and excess nitrogen will both likely encourage the spread of E. carotovora. Good air circulation and soil drainage are effective cultural practices used to reduce the occurrence and spread of this bacteria. Affected lower leaves were removed from lettuce plants and irrigation was reduced to prevent further spread of slime rot and to save the harvest in 2005, thus, yield was not significantly affected.

Gray mold also caused significant damage to lettuce in 2005. Gray mold is caused by the fungus Botrytis cinerea, which inhabits dead and dying plant material. Like slime rot, gray mold can only infect damaged tissue and spreads rapidly under cool humid conditions; therefore, gray mold is usually most prominent in early spring and late fall. Mold starts at the base of stems and may rapidly take over entire leaves, heads and roots. Cultural practices such as maintaining good drainage, using flood irrigation, and good ventilation are the best means of controlling this disease. Decreasing nitrogen and increasing calcium levels in the crop may reduce the susceptibility of most crops to gray mold. Removing diseased tissue is a must if this disease is to be controlled. Fungicides can be affective at controlling gray mold, however, Botrytis spp. can quickly develop fungicide tolerant races; Therefore fungicides may suppress natural competitors and make the disease even worse in successive years after the application of fungicides.Aphids were much more prominent in 2005 than in 2004 and several applications of Sevin were necessary to keep this pest under control. Spider mites were not a problematic insect for lettuce because lettuce is irrigated on a regular basis to maintain desired flavor and spider mites require dry conditions to spread.

As in 2004, ‘Special White Boston’ had excellent flavor and the greatest net revenue of all other cultivars; ‘Garden Leader Romaine’ was bitter. This fact illustrates the ability of Boston lettuce to withstand hotter conditions without flavor distortions. Lettuce produced net revenue of $98.35 and a profit of $15.15 in 2005.

2006As a function of higher yields, greater revenue and better flavor characteristics

seen in previous years ‘Special White Boston’ was the sole lettuce cultivar grown in 2006.

The first harvest commenced on June 15th and continued till July 1st for a total of 16 days of harvest. A second harvest commenced on July 28th and continued till August 8th for a total of 11 days of harvest. A third harvest commenced on September 16th and continued till November 18th for a total of 64 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various lettuce cultivars tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(heads)

Yield/m2

(heads/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)


132 16.9 Excellent 170.28 21.80

Total Revenue ($) 170.28Total Costs ($) 83.20Profit ($) 87.082Flavor based on preference by family members

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Lettuce plants grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Foliar disease discussed in the 2005 analysis were all observed and caused significant problems. Removal of diseased tissue and reducing overhead irrigation maintained good yields, however, this practice caused a delay in harvests.

Aphids were abundant in 2006; however, several applications of Sevin kept this pest under control. Spider mites were not a problematic insect for the same reasons explained in the 2005 analysis.

Yields were higher than in 2005. As in 2004 and 2005, ‘Special White Boston’ had excellent yields and flavor and yielded consistently throughout the growing season. This fact further proves the ability of Boston lettuce to withstand hot summer temperatures while still maintaining good quality heads.

Lettuce produced net revenue of $170.28 and a profit of $87.08 in 2006.

Conclusion Lettuce tended to perform well in a typical Toronto springs and summer,

however, warmer summer months caused smaller, more bitter tasting heads. Slime rot and gray mold were both problematic during warmer humid summer months because overhead irrigation was required too cool crops down to prevent bolting and bitter flavors associated with hot weather.

Disease and insect problems appeared throughout the growing season especially when temperatures rise, air circulation in the canopy was reduced and condensation was more common. Aphids were not a significant problem because Sevin was an affective pesticide used to control this pest, however, any damage made by insects could easily make this crop unmarketable.

The most prominent diseases were slime mold and gray mold, which should not be controlled by the application of the fungicides available to backyard gardeners. Removing all infected leaves and reducing overhead irrigation appeared to reduce the amount of inoculum within the lettuce patch thereby reducing slime and gray molds. ‘Special White Boston’ was much better adapted to the hotter spring and summer conditions in Toronto than any other cultivar tried in 2004 and 2005. Lettuce uses more water than any other crop in the garden; however, lettuce also required very little labor inputs. Thus, lettuce is a fairly profitable crop and yields should be maintained in successive years with those observed in 2006.

Lettuce accounted for a total profit of $107.41

Mint (Mentha,spp.)Introduction

Mints are semi-hardy warm season members of the Lamiaceae family. Mints are relatively shallow rooted and can grow well in a wide variation of soils from sands to clays with a pH between 5.0 and 8.0. Mints require 37-195, 22-224, and 22-224 kg/ha of

N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Mints are quite drought tolerant, however, frequent irrigation is necessary to attain good biomass yields. Mint flavor declines as water availability increases, and mint oils are washed off from overhead irrigation. Thus, flood irrigation is beneficial to maintain good quality yields. Mints come in many different flavors, shapes and sizes. The two main categories of mints are peppermint and spearmint, which contain menthol and carvone oils respectively. Mints can be harvested several times in a growing season at or near the ground level. However, if harvested to late in the fall essential nutrients required for underground crown survival are removed and the plants may not overwinter. Mints grow vigorously and reproduce through underground crowns that may take over an entire garden. For this reason, deep underground barriers such as thick plywood should be used to separate the mint patch from other areas of the garden.


was exposed to full sunlight. This location was chosen because mint yields and quality are dependent on high levels of light and large diurnal temperature fluctuations. Mints were purchased as crowns and were planted 15 cm apart in all directions. 2 cm thick plywood was placed to a depth of 60 cm below the soil surface to prevent the mint rhizomes from spreading into adjacent areas of the garden. Mints were taken in a once-over harvest three to four time per growing season just after flower initiation. The last harvest took place in mid to late September and mint was allowed to grow without being harvested until frost to ensure winter survival of underground crowns. Fresh mint was priced at $2.99/bunch; each bunch consisted of approximately 50 g of leaf and stem tissue.

2004Three mint cultivars reflecting different mint types, colors, yields and flavors

were grown between 2004 and 2006. ‘Chocolate Mint’ ‘Lemon Mint’ and an unknown traditional cultivar of mint were the cultivars chosen. A third of the mint patch was used to grow each cultivar.Harvest commenced on July 9th and continued till September 9th for a total of 93 days of harvest. All mint cultivars were harvested simultaneously. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various mint cultivars tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Mint Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(bunches)

Yield/m2

(bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Chocolate 16 53.3 Poor 47.84 159.37Lemon 18 60.0 Fair 53.82 179.40Traditional 24 80.0 Excellent 71.76 239.20Total Revenue ($) 173.42


Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer delayed mint establishment and harvest in 2004. Disease and pests were not observed on the mint patch, thus, pesticides and fungicides were not used on mints. Traditional type mint was most favored by members of the family. ‘Lemon Mint’ had acceptable flavor, especially in teas and some dishes. Household members disliked ‘Chocolate Mint’. Traditional mint was more vigorous than ‘Lemon Mint’ and ‘Chocolate Mint’ and slowly took over ‘Lemon Mint’ and ‘Chocolate Mint’ throughout the summer. Mints yielded consistently through the harvest season and produced better net revenues than many other crops. Mints produced net revenue of $173.42 and a profit of $159.11 in 2004.

2005Because of its higher vigor, traditional mint took over some sections of the

‘Lemon Mint’ and ‘Chocolate Mint’, and thus, yield/m2 data is not completely accurate. Harvest commenced on June 8th and continued until October 21st for a total of

136 days of harvest. All mint cultivars were harvested simultaneously. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various mint cultivars tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).

Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Mint Cultivars Grown in 2005Cultivar Total

Yield(bunches)

Yield/m2

(bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Chocolate 29 97.29 Poor 86.71 290.90Lemon 36 120.0 Fair 77.74 358.80Traditional 61 203.3 Excellent 182.39 606.97Total Revenue ($) 346.84Total Costs ($) 14.30Profit ($) 332.542Flavor based on preference by family members

Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the summer and better-established plants in 2005 permitted 43 extra days of harvest compared to 2004 leading to much higher average yields. Mint plants grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Disease and pests were not observed on the mint patch, thus, pesticides and fungicides were not used on mints. Flavor characteristics of the various mint cultivars were the same in 2005 as in 2004.

Mints yielded consistently throughout the harvest season and produced better net revenues than many other crops. Mints produced net revenue of $346.84 and a profit of $332.54 in 2005.

2006Because of its higher vigor, traditional mint took over most of the sections of the

‘Lemon Mint’ and ‘Chocolate Mint’, thus, yield data from the latter two cultivars were insignificant.

Harvest commenced on May 21st and continued until October 29th for a total of 160 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various mint cultivars tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).

Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Mint Cultivars Grown in 2006Cultivar Total Yield

(bunches)Yield/m2

(bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Chocolate Insignificant Insignificant Poor Insignificant InsignificantLemon Insignificant Insignificant Fair Insignificant InsignificantTraditional 107 119.6 Excellent 319.93 357.60Total Revenue ($) 319.93Total Costs ($) 14.30Profit ($) 305.632Flavor based on preference by family members

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Mint plants grew vigorously throughout the entire season and had similar yield to those harvested in 2005. Disease and pests were not observed in the mint patch, thus, pesticides and fungicides were not used on mints in 2006. Traditional mint was of excellent flavor as in 2004 and 2005.

Mints yielded consistently throughout the harvest season and produced better net revenues than many other crops. Mints produced net revenue of $319.93 and a profit of $305.63 in 2006.

Conclusion Mint tended to perform well in a typical hot Toronto summer-but if cool wet

weather occurred yields were drastically reduced. Disease and pests were not observed in the mint patch, thus, pesticides and fungicides were not used on mints. Traditional mint was of excellent flavor and was more vigorous than ‘Lemon Mint’ and ‘Chocolate Mint’ therefore, traditional mint naturally replaced ‘Lemon Mint’ and ‘Chocolate Mint’. Since family members preferred traditional mint, ‘Lemon Mint’ and ‘Chocolate Mint’ were not re-planted in 2006.

Mints are easily harvested and require virtually no labor inputs, yet they produce high yields and good profits. Mint should continue producing good quality yields similar to those observed in 2005 and 2006 in successive years.

Mints accounted for total profits of $797.28

Mulberry (Morus spp.)Introduction

Mulberries are semi-hardy perennial of the Moraceae family. Mulberry trees can tolerate cold winter temperatures, and have well established flower bud hardiness, therefore, spring frosts will not cause flowers to senesce. Mulberries are deep rooted, with a main taproot and a fibrous root system near the soil surface, and grow best in loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 6.0 and 7.5. Apples require 37-195, 22-224, and 22-224 kg/ha of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P2O5) and potassium (K2O) respectively (Seagle et al, 1995).

Mulberries are drought tolerant but require irrigation during extensive hot dry periods to prevent premature fruit drop. Once the fruit has been harvested, the tree requires very little moisture. The fruit is not a berry, but rather a multiple fruit. Fruit grow from nodes of newly formed shoots in very early spring. Pruning is aimed at removing dead or diseased wood and thinning out overcrowded branches.

Mulberry cultivars are usually self-fertile, thus, only one cultivar is necessary for pollination. Mulberry trees require a dormancy period achieved through colder temperatures or droughts to induce flower production depending on the cultivar grown and the location of cultivation. Mulberry trees can be pruned at any time in the year. Older branches should be removed to encourage new productive wood. Mulberry trees may begin fruiting after 2 years if a rootstock is used and may continue fruiting for over 40 years.

TrialsTrials were conducted from 2004 to 2006. ‘Weeping fruiting’ was planted in

partial sunlight because mulberries do not require full sunlight to yield well. The tree occupied a space of 1.0 m2. ‘Weeping Fruiting’ was purchased as a five year old rootstock that was about six 1.8 m tall.

Pruning commenced in late spring, once all fruit was harvested, to maintain high yields and to allow new growth for successive year’s production. Mulberries were harvested at full maturity when they were softening, but before they began rotting. Mulberries were priced at $4.99/pint; each pint contained approximately 340 g of fruit.

2004‘Weeping Fruiting’ was chosen because it was compact in size, aesthetically

pleasing and produced good quality fruit according to nursery persons.Harvest in 2004 commenced on July 6th and continued until July 30th for a total of

25 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for ‘Weeping Fruiting’ tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Mulberry Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(pints)

Yield/m2

(pints/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Weeping Fruiting 1 1 Good 4.99 1.50Total Revenue ($) 4.99Total Costs ($) 16.00Profit ($) -11.012Flavor based on preference by family members

‘Weeping Fruiting’ grew vigorously throughout the entire season and no diseases or pests appeared throughout the growing season. Although insects did not seem to affect this tree, Sevin was used to prevent any potential damage by insects. Pruning was conducted once in early spring before bud break and again in August when branches and foliage approached the ground. ‘Weeping Fruiting’ had net revenue of $4.99 and caused losses of $11.01 in 2006.

2005Harvest in 2005 commenced on June 23rd and continued until July 22nd for a total

of 31 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for ‘Weeping Fruiting’ tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(pints)

Yield/m2

(pints/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Weeping Fruiting 4 4 Good 19.96 5.99Total Revenue ($) 19.96Total Costs ($) 16.00Profit ($) 3.962Flavor based on preference by family members

‘Weeping Fruiting grew vigorously throughout the entire season and no diseases or pests appeared throughout the growing season. Although insects did not seem to affect this tree, Sevin was used to prevent any potential damage by insects. Pruning was conducted once in early spring before bud break and again in August when branches and foliage approached the ground.

‘Weeping Fruiting’ had net revenue of $19.96 and a profit of $3.96 in 2006.

2006Harvest in 2006 commenced on July 19th and continued until July 25th for a total

of 36 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for ‘Weeping Fruiting’ tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(pints)

Yield/m2

(pints/m2)


Total Revenue/Cultivar

Net Revenue($/m2)

($)Weeping Fruiting 9 9 Good 44.91 13.57Total Revenue ($) 44.91Total Costs ($) 16.00Profit ($) 28.912Flavor based on preference by family members

‘Weeping Fruiting grew vigorously throughout the entire season and no diseases or pests appeared throughout the growing season. Although insects did not seem to affect this tree, Sevin was used to prevent any potential damage by insects. Pruning was conducted once in early spring before bud break and again in August when branches and foliage approached the ground.

‘Weeping Fruiting had net revenue of $44.91 and a profit of $28.91 in 2006.

Conclusion ‘Weeping Fruiting’ tended to perform well in typical Toronto conditions. Foliar

and fruit disease and pests were not observed between 2004 and 2006. ‘Weeping Fruiting’ required pruning and training, which were labor demanding. ‘Weeping Fruiting’ had relatively small yields in 2004 and 2005, however, on the third year a significant profit was made, therefore a total profit of $21.86 was realized between 2004 and 2006. It is expected that production should increase in the following years.

Nectarine (Prunus persica nucipersica)Introduction

Nectarines are semi-hardy perennial trees of the Rosaceae family. Nectarines can tolerate cold winter temperatures, but have limited flower bud hardiness, as spring frosts can cause flowers to senesce and the tree will not be productive for the rest of that growing season. Nectarines are deep rooted, with a fibrous root system and grow best in loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 6.0 and 7.5. Nectarines require 37-195, 22-224, and 22-224 kg/ha of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P2O5) and potassium (K2O) respectively (Seagle et al, 1995).

Nectarines are somewhat drought tolerant but require irrigation during extensive hot dry periods. Irrigation is particularly necessary during flower and fruit development, as flower buds and fruit will senesce if the tree begins to wilt. Nectarine cultivars have varying hardiness zones and choosing the right cultivar for an area is essential for production. Nectarines grow off of shoots of one-year-old wood. Therefore, pruning is aimed at maintaining new shoot growth as well as achieving a desirable tree shape and keeping tree height appropriate for harvesting purposes. Trees should be pruned just after fruit set to encourage new shoot growth on stem sections closest to trunk. Lateral branches should be promoted, while sprouts should be removed because laterals bear most of the fruit. Nectarine trees are usually trained as open centers, although espalier is a common training method as well.

Nectarine cultivars are usually self-sterile, thus, two trees of different cultivars are required in close proximity for pollination; nectarine and peach trees can cross-pollinate. Nectarine trees require a chilling period of at least 25-42 days to induce flower production. Nectarine trees differ from peaches as they posses a recessive gene that

prevents hair from forming on fruit. Nectarine trees may begin fruiting after one year if a rootstock is used, however, trees are usually short lived and usually don’t fruit for more than 15-20 years if conditions are favorable.

TrialsTrials were conducted from 2004 to 2006. ‘Fantasia’ was planted in full sunlight

because nectarines yield best when exposed to full sunlight; ‘Fantasia’ occupied a space of 2.2 m2. ‘Fantasia’ was purchased as a three-year-old rootstock that was about 1.8 m tall.

Pruning commenced in late spring to maintain tree vigor and shape and to replace older wood with new growth for successive year’s production. Pruning was also conducted throughout the summer to remove diseased or dying branches. Pruning was aimed at renewing spur growth to attain good yields and to form an open center tree that was short and dense as to protect the tree from cold windy weather at higher elevations as well as to minimize shading of other areas of the garden.Nectarines were harvested at full maturity when they were soft, but before they began rotting.

2004‘Fantasia’ was chosen, as it was a dwarf cultivar and produced abundant,

flavorful, good quality fruit according to nursery persons.Harvest in 2004 commenced on September 2nd and continued until September 7th for a total of 6 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for ‘Fantasia’ tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Nectarine Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Fantasia 2.8 1.3 Excellent 15.34 8.55Total Revenue ($) 15.34Total Costs ($) 32.20Profit ($) -16.862Flavor based on preference by family members

‘Fantasia’ grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Insect pests were readily controlled through the application of Sevin every other week, and thus, insect damage was not visible on the foliage or the fruit. Leaf-curl was the only problematic disease observed on the nectarine tree.

Leaf-curl is specific to peaches and their derivatives, such as nectarines, and is rarely observed on any other trees. The fungus Exoascus deformans, which induces the loss of leaves in the spring followed by new foliage later in the year, causes leaf-curl. This new foliage lowers tree vigor and may cause the tree to drop fruit prematurely. If leaf curl caused senescence of foliage for several seasons the tree may eventually die. Symptoms include a puffing and folding of leaves followed by a thickening and

puckering of the diseased leaves. Leaves then thicken, acquire a silvery bloom on the upper leaf surface and finally the leaves drop. Twigs become pale-green to yellow and may exude a gummy substance after defoliation. Curling may be confined to part of the leaf blade, the entire blade and/or the petioles. Symptoms are not usually observed on the fruit and the fruit often drop before ripening due to loss of tree vigor. However, fruit will sometimes survive and will have brownish rough textured sections on their epidermis. Application of precipitated fungicides such as copper or sulfur is the best lines of defense against this disease. Spraying should be done once and only once in late fall after the leaves have fallen or in early spring before buds begin to swell. Any further application of fungicides is a waste of time and may damage the tree.

Pruning was conducted once in early spring before bud break and again in September to encourage new shoot growth for 2005 fruit production. ‘Fantasia’ had net revenue of $15.34 and caused losses of $16.86 in 2006.

2005‘ Fantasia’ did not survive the winter because of damage to the base of its trunk made by mice throughout the winter months; thus, a new tree was planted in 2005. The trunk of the new tree was wrapped in white plastic to prevent damage from mice. Although insects did not seem to affect this tree, Sevin was used anyways to prevent any potential damage by insects. Copper spray was applied in late April before the buds began to swell and successfully prevented leaf curl. A loss of $35.20 was realized in 2005 for the space and labor requirements associated with ‘Fantasia’.

2006‘Fantasia’ did not yield in 2006. Although insects did not seem to affect this tree,

Sevin was used anyways to prevent any potential damage by insects. Copper spray was applied in late April before the buds began to swell and successfully prevented leaf curl. A loss of $35.20 was realized in 2006 for the space and labor requirements associated with ‘Fantasia’.

Conclusion ‘Fantasia tended to grow vigorously in typical Toronto conditions. Foliar and fruit

disease did not cause significant losses to nectarine yields.Disease problems appeared in 2004 during spring. However, good management practices prevented disease in 2005 and 2006. Leaf-curl affects almost all peach cultivars and their derivates and is easily prevented by the application of fungicides available to typical gardeners. Insects did not pose a threat and were easily controlled by the use of Sevin. ‘Fantasia’ required pruning, staking and training all of which were labor demanding. ‘Fantasia’ did not produce yields in 2005 and 2006 because the original tree planted in 2004 was replaced due to damage made in the winter by mice. A total economic loss of $81.26 was realized between 2004 and 2006. It is expected that production should increase in the following years and will make up for the initial losses between 2004 and 2006.

Okra (Abelmoschus esculentus)

IntroductionOkra is a frost sensitive warm season annual of the Malvaceae family. Okra is

moderately shallow rooted and grows best in loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 5.5 and 7.5. Okra requires 28-110, 55-110, and 28-110 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Okra is not drought tolerant and require consistent irrigation, particularly during hot dry periods.

TrialsTrials were conducted from 2004 to 2005 in eleven four-gallon pots within a 2 m²

area of the garden that was exposed to full sunlight. This location was chosen because okra yields and fruit quality are dependent on high levels of light. Okra seeds were planted in groups of threes in the four-gallon pots. Okra was harvested three to four days after pollination when the fruit was young and tender and about 3-4 cm long. Okra was taken in a once-over final harvest before the first frost in fall.

Okra was priced at $6.58/kg.

2004‘Clemson Spineless’ was the only cultivar available in local nurseries in 2004,

and thus, it was the sole okra cultivar tried in 2004.Harvest commenced on August 19th and continued till October 17th for a total of

60 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit ‘Clemson Spineless’ tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Okra Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Clemson Spineless 2.5 1.25 Fair 16.45 8.50Total Revenue ($) 16.45Total Costs ($) 32.00Profit ($) -15.552Flavor based on preference by family members

Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer delayed okra harvest in 2004. Insect damage was extensive; aphids were the most problematic insect, but were easily controlled through sprays with Sevin. No diseases were observed within the okra patch in 2004.

The fruit of ‘Clemson Spineless’ were smooth in texture, but tough and were not preferred by members of the household.

Okra produced net revenue of $16.45 and caused losses of $15.55 in 2004.

2005To validate the yield and revenue data collected in 2004 ‘Clemson Spineless’ was

used re-tried in 2005.

Harvest commenced on July 22nd and continued until October 7th for a total of 77 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for ‘Clemson Spineless’ tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).

Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Okra Cultivars Grown in 2005Cultivar Total

Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Clemson Spineless 3.3 1.65 Fair 21.71 10.86Total Revenue ($) 21.71Total Costs ($) 32.00Profit ($) -10.292Flavor based on preference by family members

Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the summer of 2005 permitted 17 extra days of harvest compared to 2004, leading to slightly higher average yields. The okra plants grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Aphids and spider mites were even more prominent in 2005 than in 2004 and several applications of Sevin were necessary to keep these pests under control. Aphids were more readily controlled than spider mites. No diseases were observed within the okra patch in 2005.

As in 2004, the fruit of ‘Clemson Spineless’ were smooth in texture, but tough and were not preferred by members of the household. Okra produced net revenue of $21.71 and caused losses of $10.29 in 2005.

2006As a function of low yields, low profits, poor flavor and susceptibility to insects

okra was replaced with peppers in 2006.

Conclusion Okra did not perform well in typical Toronto summers and was susceptible to

insect pests. These insects were readily controlled by the application of pesticides available to backyard gardeners. Okra appears to be resistant to most diseases when grown in Toronto.

Okra require very few labor inputs, however, yields were so low that this crop was unprofitable in Toronto.

Okra accounted for economic losses of $25.84 between 2004 and 2005.

Onions (Allium cepa L.)Introduction

Onions are hardy cool season member of the Alliaceae family. Onions are very shallow rooted and grow best in muck, peat or loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 7.5 and 8.0. Onions require 88-275, 55-275, and 55-220 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Onions are not drought tolerant and require consistent irrigation throughout the growing season. However, onions should not be watered for two too three weeks before harvest to increase flavor and storability of the

yield. Onions are sensitive to photoperiod and temperature and long days and warm temperatures promote leaf growth, which is directly related to bulb growth. Early varieties require 13-hour day lengths for bulb initiation while late varieties require about 16 hours. Cool spring temperatures cause onion bulbs to bolt, and thus, bulb and leaf yields are reduced.

Onions do not tolerate acid soils, and too much nitrogen causes softening of bulbs and decreased storability after harvest. Onions are poor weed competitors and are easily damaged from even shallow cultivation; therefore, it is necessary to use pre-planting herbicides or to manually remove weeds, which is a very labor demanding process. Trials

Trials were conducted from 2004-2006 within a 0.23 m² area of the garden that was exposed to full sunlight. This location was chosen because onion yields are dependent on warmer temperatures and high levels of light. Onions were grown from seeds that were spaced 1 cm apart between rows of herbs in the garden. ‘Southport White Globe’ was the cultivar of choice; this cultivar is used for its green leaves and small white bulbs.

Onions were harvested twice a year, once in July and a second time in September. Onions were harvested when there were about 3 to 4 fully established leaves per plant. Green onions were priced at $0.79/bunch; each bunch consisted of 6 onion plants.

2004‘Southport White Globe’ green onions were recommended by nursery persons and

were the sole green onion cultivar available in local nurseries in 2004. The first harvest commenced on July 27th and continued till August 6th for a total of 10 days of harvest. A second harvest commenced on October 3rd and continued until October 20th for a total of 18 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for ‘Southport White Globe’ tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Onion Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(bunches)

Yield/m2

(bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Southport White Globe

19 82.61 Good 15.01 65.26

Total Revenue ($)

15.01


Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer delayed green onion harvest in 2004. ‘Southport White Globe’ was of excellent flavor in

both spring and summer harvests, produced reasonable yields and was resistant to disease and pests.

Green onions produced net revenue of $15.01 and a profit of $11.33 in 2004.

2005As a function of its reasonable yields, adequate revenue and excellent flavor

characteristics seen in 2004, ‘Southport White Globe’ was the sole cultivar tried in 2005. The first harvest commenced on July 15th and continued till August 1st for a total of 17 days of harvest. A second harvest commenced on October 1st and continued until October 29th for a total of 30 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for ‘Southport White Globe’ tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(bunches)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)


43 93.5 Good 33.97 73.87


Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the summer of 2005 permitted several extra days of harvest and better plant vigor compared to 2004, leading to higher average yields. ‘Southport White Globe’ was of excellent flavor in both spring and summer harvests, produced good yields and was resistant to disease and pests. However, summer harvests tended to have undesirable leaves that were tough and stringy due to excessive heat.Green onions produced net revenue of $33.97 and a profit of $30.29 in 2005.

2006As a function of its reasonable yields, adequate revenue and excellent flavor

characteristics seen in past years, ‘Southport White Globe’ was the sole cultivar tried in 2006.

The first harvest commenced on July 22nd and continued till July 28th for a total of 7 days of harvest. A second harvest commenced on October 15th and continued until November 10th for a total of 26 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for ‘Southport White Globe’ tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).


YieldYield/m2 Flavor

Characteristics²Total Revenue/

Net Revenue($/m2)

(bunches) (kg/m2) Cultivar ($)


66 95.7 Good 52.14 75.60


Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Onion plants grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Due to excessive heat in late July, onion harvest was reduced to only 7 days to prevent undesirable leaf texture that was observed in 2005. ‘Southport White Globe’ was of excellent flavor in both spring and summer harvests, produced excellent yields and was resistant to disease and pests. As in 2005, summer harvests tended to have undesirable leaves that were tough and stringy due to excessive heat.

Green onions produced net revenue of $52.14 and a profit of $48.46 in 2005.

Conclusion Onions tended to perform well in typical hot Toronto summers-but if cool wet

weather occurred yields were reduced, but leaf quality was improved. ‘Southport White Globe’ onions appeared to be resistant to disease and pests; thus, pesticides and fungicides do not need to be applied to green onions.Green onions require very few labor inputs and produce reasonable yields of good quality edible leaves in summer and fall. Green onions were profitable in all three years of trials, but warmer summers allowed better yields.

Green onions accounted for a total profit of $90.08 between 2004 and 2006.

Parsley (Petroselinum crispum)Introduction

Parsley is a frost sensitive hardy warm season member of the Solanaceae family. Parsley is moderately deep rooted and grows best in loamy to clayey well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 5.5 and 7.0. Parsley requires 83-165, 55-165 and 55-165 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Parsley is not drought tolerant and requires consistent irrigation, particularly during hot dry periods. There are two main types of parsley, curly leaf parsley and flat leaved parsley the difference is strictly visual. Parsley tends to bolt and become tough and bitter when exposed to long hot days, thus, making the crop unmarketable in these conditions.

TrialsTrials were conducted from 2004-2006 within a 0.92 m² area of the garden in

2004 and within a 1.38 m2 area in 2005 and 2006. Half of the area was exposed to full sunlight while the other half was exposed to partial shade. These locations were chosen, as parsley yields and quality is dependent on high levels of light, however, areas with high light levels heat up drastically in mid summer causing plants to bolt. Thus, the partially shaded areas compensated for the loss in flavor by producing greater yields.

Parsley was purchased as transplants that were about 10 cm tall. The transplants were spaced 20 cm apart in the sunny portion of the garden and 2 plants per 2-gallon pot in the shaded area of the garden. The shaded area of the garden was chosen for potting purposes as 2-gallon pots retain moisture for longer periods of time in the shade. The cultivars changed yearly to conform to the objective of maximizing productivity and value. Parsley harvest commenced in late June and continued throughout the growing season. Outer leaves were harvested from the base of their petioles leaving 5-10 inner leaves at the center of the plant to maintain growth. Parsley plants were removed in a once-over final harvest just before the first fall frost.

Parsley was priced at $1.49/bunch; each bunch consisted of about 10-15 leaves with petioles attached depending on leaf size.

2004‘Curly Leaf’ and ‘Plain Leaf’ parsley were grown in 2004 reflecting the yields

and flavor of the two main marketable types of parsley. Harvest commenced on July 8th and continued till October 12th for a total of 96

days of harvest. ‘Plain Leaf’ parsley was the first to produce enough foliage to harvest followed by ‘Curly Leaf’ parsley two weeks later. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various parsley cultivars tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Parsley Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(bunches)

Yield/m2

(bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Curled 9 19.5 Excellent 13.41 29.06Plain 14 30.4 Excellent 20.86 45.30Total Revenue ($) 34.27Total Costs ($) 14.72Profit ($) 19.552Flavor based on preference by family members

Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer delayed Parsley harvest in 2004 and created conditions suitable for fungal diseases. Leaf scorch was the most prominent disease observed, but was not very problematic. The fungus, Alternaria radicina, which induces damping off and petiole spot phases, is what causes leaf scorch. Damping off was not observed in the parsley patch, however, petiole spot was noted. Symptoms of petiole spot include the yellowing or browning of leaf petioles from the base upwards. This discoloration spreads to the entire leaf and works its way from outer leaves inward given time. Infected tissue remains firm but is unmarketable. The best form of control is crop rotation with any crop other than parsley, carrots, parsnip, celery and celeriac; a four-five year rotation is necessary. Removing diseased leaves will reduce the spread of leaf scorch. ‘Curly Leaf’ parsley was much more susceptible to leaf scorch than ‘Plain Leaf’ parsley.

Parsley appeared to be resistant to other diseases and insect pests, thus, fungicides and pesticides were not applied to parsley in 2004.

‘Plain Leaf’ parsley had higher yields than ‘Curly Leaf’ parsley, however, both cultivars were of excellent flavor. ‘Curley Leaf’ parsley was more desirable as a garnish for presentation purposes while ‘Plain Leaf’ parsley was better for cooking purposes.Parsley produced net revenue of $34.27 and profits of $19.55 in 2004.

2005To validate the yield and revenue data collected in 2004, the two cultivars tried in

2004 were re-tried in 2005. ‘Hamburg’ was a third cultivar tried in 2005 in order to compare its flavor and yields with ‘Curly Leaf’ and ‘Plain Leaf’ parsley.

Harvest commenced on July 1st and continued until October 21st for a total of 113 days of harvest. ‘Plain Leaf’ parsley was the first to produce enough foliage to harvest followed by ‘Curly Leaf’ and ‘Hamburg’ parsley two weeks later. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various parsley cultivars tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(bunches)

Yield/m2

(bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Curled 10 21.5 Excellent 14.90 32.04Plain 19 40.9 Excellent 28.31 60.94Hamburg 14 30.1 Excellent 20.86 44.85Total Revenue ($) 64.07Total Costs ($) 22.08Profit ($) 41.992Flavor based on preference by family members

Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the summer of 2005 permitted earlier yields and 17 extra days of harvest compared to 2004, leading to higher average yields. The parsley plants grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Leaf scorch was predominantly observed in ‘Curly Leaf’ parsley in 2005 and caused more yield losses compared to 2004. ‘Plain Leaf’ and ‘Hamburg’ parsley were considerably resistant to leaf scorch. Removing diseased leaves from growing plants reduced the spread of leaf scorch. Parsley appeared to be resistant to other diseases and insect pests; thus, fungicides and pesticides were not applied to parsley in 2005.‘Plain Leaf’ parsley was the highest yielder Followed by ‘Hamburg’ and ‘Curly Leaf’ parsley respectively, however, all three cultivars were of excellent flavor. ‘Curley Leaf’ parsley was more desirable as a garnish for presentation purposes. ‘Plain Leaf’ and ‘Hamburg’ parsley were used for cooking purposes.

Parsley produced net revenue of $64.07 and profits of $41.99 in 2004.

2006

As a function of their good yields, good revenue, better flavor and/or visual appeal seen in previous years, ‘Curly Leaf’, ‘Plain Leaf’ and ‘Hamburg’ parsley were all tried again in 2006.

Harvest commenced on June 15th and continued until October 30th for a total of 137 days of harvest. ‘Plain Leaf’ parsley was the first to produce enough foliage to harvest followed by ‘Curly Leaf’ and ‘Hamburg’ parsley two weeks later. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various parsley cultivars tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(bunches)

Yield/m2

(bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Curled 17 11.4 Excellent 25.33 16.99Plain 28 60.2 Excellent 41.72 89.70Hamburg 19 40.9 Excellent 28.31 60.94Total Revenue ($) 95.36Total Costs ($) 22.08Profit ($) 73.28 2Flavor based on preference by family members

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Parsley plants grew even more vigorously throughout the entire season compared to 2005. Leaf scorch was worse in 2006 than in 2004 and 2005 and caused significant yield losses to ‘Curly Leaf’ parsley during the mid summer months. ‘Plain Leaf’ and ‘Hamburg’ parsley were considerably resistant to leaf scorch. As in 2005, removing diseased leaves from growing plants reduced the spread of leaf scorch. Parsley appeared to be resistant to other diseases and insect pests; thus, fungicides and pesticides were not applied to parsley in 2006.

As in 2005, ‘Plain Leaf’ parsley was the highest yielder Followed by ‘Hamburg’ and ‘Curly Leaf’ parsley respectively, however, all three cultivars were of excellent flavor. ‘Curley Leaf’ parsley was more desirable as a garnish for presentation purposes. ‘Plain Leaf’ and ‘Hamburg’ parsley were used for cooking purposes.Parsley produced net revenue of $95.36 and profits of $73.28 in 2004.

Conclusion Parsley performed well in typical hot Toronto summers-but if cool wet weather

occurred yields were drastically reduced. Leaf scorch caused significant losses to ‘Curly Leaf’ parsley during mid summer months due to excess heat and humidity. ‘Plain Leaf’ and ‘Hamburg Parsley’ were considerably resistant to leaf scorch. All three parsley cultivars were resistant to insect damage; pesticides do not need to be applied on parsley.Parsley utilized significant amounts of water, but require virtually no labor inputs other than planting and harvesting. ‘Plain Leaf’ and ‘Hamburg’ parsley were quite profitable while ‘Curly Leaf’ parsley had lower yields due to slower growth and susceptibility to leaf scorch.

Parsley accounted for a total profit of $134.82 between 2004 and 2006.

Peach (Prunus Persica)Introduction

Refer to nectarines for general information on cultivation, as peaches require very similar growing conditions and cultural practices as nectarines.

TrialsTrials were conducted from 2004-2006. ‘Red Haven’ was espaliered in full

sunlight because peaches yield best when exposed to full sunlight. ‘Red Haven’ occupied a space of 0.32m2. ‘Red Haven’ was purchased as a three-year-old rootstock that was about six 1.8 m tall. Pruning commenced in late spring to maintain tree vigor and shape and to replace older wood with new growth for production in the successive year. Pruning was also conducted throughout the summer to remove diseased or dying branches. Pruning was aimed at renewing spur growth to attain good yields and to form a well-established espaliered tree for winter protection and efficient use of space.Peaches were harvested at full maturity when they were soft, but before they began rotting. Peaches were priced at $6.58/kg.

2004‘Red Haven’ was chosen, as it was a dwarf cultivar and produced abundant,

flavorful, good quality fruit according to nursery persons.Harvest in 2004 commenced on August 26th and continued until September 7th for a total of 12 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for ‘Red Haven’ tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Peach Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Red Haven 2.4 6.5 Excellent 13.10 35.62Total Revenue ($) 13.10Total Costs ($) 5.92Profit ($) 7.182Flavor based on preference by family members

‘Red Haven’ grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Insect pests were readily controlled through the application of Sevin every other week, thus, insect damage was not visible on the foliage or the fruit. Leaf-curl was the only problematic disease observed on the peach tree. Leaf-curl caused significant damage to peach foliage in 2004, however, the tree recovered quickly by late summer. For more information on leaf-curl and its controls refer to the section on nectarines.

Because the tree was espaliered on a fence, peaches were readily accessible by squirrels. Squirrels consumed approximately half of the fruit on the tree, thus, yields and profits were drastically reduced. Netting must be applied in successive years to prevent squirrels from consuming the fruit.Pruning was conducted once in early spring before bud break and again in September to encourage new shoot growth for 2005 fruit production. ‘Red Haven’ had net revenue of $13.10 and profits of $7.18 in 2004.

2005‘Red Haven’ did not survive the winter because of damage to the base of its trunk

made by mice throughout the winter months; thus, a new tree was planted in 2005. The trunk of the new tree was wrapped in white plastic to prevent damage from mice. Although insects did not seem to affect this tree, Sevin was used anyways to prevent any potential damage by insects. Copper spray was applied in late April before the buds began to swell and successfully prevented leaf curl. A loss of $5.92 was realized in 2005 for the space and labor requirements associated with ‘Red Haven’.

2006‘Red Haven’ did not yield in 2006. Although insects did not seem to affect this

tree, Sevin was used anyways to prevent any potential damage by insects. Copper spray was applied in late April before the buds began to swell and successfully prevented leaf curl. A loss of $5.92 was realized in 2006 for the space and labor requirements associated with ‘Red Haven’.

Conclusion ‘Red Haven’ tended to grow vigorously in typical Toronto conditions. Foliar and

fruit diseases did not cause significant losses to peaches yields, however, squirrels caused significant yield losses in 2004.Disease problems appeared in 2004 during spring. However, good management practices prevented disease in 2005 and 2006. Leaf-curl affects almost all peach cultivars and their derivates and is easily prevented by the application of fungicides available to the backyard gardener. Insects did not pose a threat and were easily controlled by the use of Sevin. ‘Red Haven’ required pruning, staking and training all of which were labor demanding. ‘Red Haven’ did not produce yields in 2005 and 2006 because the original tree planted in 2004 was replaced due to damage made in the winter by mice. A total economic loss of $4.66 was realized between 2004 and 2006. It is expected that production should increase in the following years and will make up for the initial losses between 2004 and 2006.

Peas (Pisum sativum)Introduction

Refer to the section on beans for general information on cultivation because peas require very similar growing conditions and cultural practices as peas. However, peas are generally climbers, and thus, are more similar to pole type beans. Peas are cool season crops which may have determinate or indeterminate growth habits and do not generally

produce fruit throughout the entire season, rather they produces during the late spring and early fall if two planting are made.


exposed to full sunlight. This area was split in two in the first year, half for ‘Oregano Sugar Pod 2’ and the other half for ‘Edible Podded Snow’. However, ‘Oregano Sugar Pod 2’ was the only cultivar used in 2005 and 2006. This location was chosen, as pea yield and fruit quality are degraded during long hot summer days, thus, full sunlight allowed for quick growth so that harvest was completed before the onset of summer. Peas were seeded 4 cm apart in rows that were spaced 30 cm apart. The cultivars changed yearly to conform to the objective of maximizing productivity and value. Wooden Trellises were installed in every row to allow peas to grow upright to maximize space and allow better air circulation and light penetration within the canopy as to prevent disease. Snow peas were harvested once after about 40 days after seeding, a second time after 50 days and a third time after 60 days. The plants were than composted and another planting was made. Peas were harvested while they were succulent and firm to attain quality. Individual fruit were harvested 3-4 days after pollination.Snow peas were priced at $6.58/kg.

2004Two snow pea cultivars reflecting different snow pea yields and flavors were

grown in 2004; ‘Oregano Sugar Pod 2’ and ‘Edible Podded Snow’ were the cultivars chosen. One row of each cultivar extending 1.5 m across was seeded.Harvest commenced on July 28th and continued till August 12th for a total of 15 days of harvest. Both cultivars yielded at approximately the same time and for the same duration. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various pea cultivars tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Pea Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Oregon Sugar Pod 2 2.1 3 Excellent 13.82 19.74Edible Podded Snow 1.2 1.7 Good 7.90 11.19Total Revenue ($) 21.72Total Costs ($) 11.20Profit ($) 10.522Flavor based on preference by family members

Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer delayed pea harvest in 2004, but allowed for fair yields. Seedling establishment was a major problem because the wet spring conditions of 2004 caused significant damping off; thus, seeds had to be planted twice causing further harvest delay and land wastage. Both

cultivars appeared to be resistant to insect pests; however, Sevin was applied every other week as a means of pest prevention. ‘Oregano Sugar Pod 2’ was crisp, succulent and had excellent flavor while ‘Edible Podded Snow’ was less crisp and of good flavor. ‘Oregano Sugar Pod 2’ yielded approximately twice as much fruit than ‘Edible Podded Snow’. Snow peas yielded consistently through the two-week harvest period. Snow peas produced net revenue of 21.72 and profit of 10.52 in 2004.

2005As a function of their higher yields, greater revenue and/or better flavor

characteristics seen in previous years, ‘Oregano Sugar Pod 2’ replaced ‘Edible Podded Snow’ in the 2005 trial. Harvest commenced on July 14th and continued till July 22nd for a total of 9 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for ‘Oregano Sugar Pod 2’ tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).

Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Snow Pea Cultivars Grown in 2005Cultivar Total

Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Oregon Sugar Pod 2 3.2 2.3 Excellent 21.06 15.13Total Revenue ($) 21.06Total Costs ($) 11.20Profit ($) 9.862Flavor based on preference by family members

Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the summer of 2005 reduced yields and the harvest period compared to 2004, leading to lower average yields. Pea plants grew slowly throughout spring and early summer. Rainfall was adequate but not excessive, therefore, damping off of seedlings was not a problem in 2005 and only one planting was required. ‘Oregano Sugar Pod 2’ appeared to be resistant to insect pests; however, Sevin was applied every other week as a means of prevention. ‘Oregano Sugar Pod 2’ was crisp, succulent and had excellent flavor in 2005. Snow peas yielded consistently through the two-week harvest period. Snow peas produced net revenue of $21.06 and profit of $9.86 in 2005.

2006As a function of its good flavor seen in previous years, ‘Oregano Sugar Pod 2’

was the sole cultivar tried in 2006. Harvest commenced on July 12th and continued till July 25th for a total of 14 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for ‘Oregano Sugar Pod 2’ tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).

Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Snow Pea Cultivars Grown in 2006Cultivar Total


Characteristics²Total Revenue/

Net Revenue($/m2)

(kg) (kg/m2) Cultivar ($)

Oregon Sugar Pod 2 2.9 2.1 Excellent 19.08 13.82Total Revenue ($) 19.08Total Costs ($) 11.20Profit ($) 7.882Flavor based on preference by family members

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Snow peas were seeded three-time do damping off of seedlings during the wet spring conditions in 2006. Snow peas grew slowly throughout the spring and early summer. ‘Oregano Sugar Pod 2’ appeared to be resistant to insect pests in 2004 and 2005; thus, Sevin was not applied in 2006. Damage to pea foliage and fruit due to pests was not observed in 2006. ‘Oregano Sugar Pod 2’ was crisp, succulent and had excellent flavor in 2006. Snow peas yielded slowly, but consistently through the two-week harvest period. Snow peas produced net revenue of $19.08 and profit of $7.88 in 2006.

Conclusion Snow peas did not perform well in typical Toronto summers and was susceptible

to damping off. ‘Oregano Sugar Pod 2’ and ‘Edible Podded Snow’ were resistant to insect pests and do not need to be sprayed with pesticides. ‘Oregano Sugar Pod 2’ had better fruit quality, yield and flavor than ‘Edible Podded Snow’. Snow Peas require significant labor inputs for trellising, seeding and harvest. Yields were very low for this crop due to hot summer conditions. Spring plantings should be replaced with fall plantings of ‘Oregano Sugar Pod 2’ in successive years because autumn conditions are consistently cooler than spring conditions. Snow peas accounted for total profits of $28.26 between 2004 and 2006.

Pear (Pyrus communis sativa)Introduction

Pears are a half-hardy tree perennial of the Rosaceae family. Pears are deep rooted, with a main taproot and a fibrous root system near the soil surface. Pears grow best in loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 6.0 and 7.5. Pears require 37-195, 22-224, and 22-224 kg/ha of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P2O5) and potassium (K2O) respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Pears are somewhat drought tolerant but require irrigation during extensive hot dry periods. Pears are susceptible to water logging and fruits will drop if excess water is left stagnant. Pear cultivars have varying hardiness zones and choosing the right cultivar for an area is essential. Pears grow off of spurs that are produced on two or three-year-old wood; Spurs may last from 7-8 years.Pears are self-sterile, thus, two trees of different cultivars are required in close proximity for pollination. Pear trees require a chilling period of 38-43 days at 7.2 ˚C to induce flower production. Pear trees are pruned from fall until spring. Lateral branches should be promoted, while sprouts should be removed because laterals bear most of the fruit. Pear

trees may begin fruiting after 3 years if a rootstock is used and may continue fruiting for over 30 years.

TrialsTrials were conducted from 2004-2006. Two cultivars were espaliered full

sunlight on the west perimeter fence of the backyard. ‘Bartlett Dwarf’ and ‘Anjou Dwarf’ were planted next to one another each in a 0.32 m2 area of the garden. Pear trees yield best when exposed to full sunlight and espaliers were used to maximize garden space. Pear trees were purchased as three-year-old rootstocks that were about 1.8 m tall. 8.9 cm screws and nylon rope were used to train lateral branches along the fence. At the top of the fence several main leaders were left to extend above the fence to increase productivity. Pruning commenced in early spring to maintain tree vigor and shape and in summer to remove diseased or dying branches. Pears did not yield in the first 3 years of growth due to loss of vigor because mice ate partial sections of the base of the trunk. For this reason ripening sequences are not assumed. Bridge grafts were made and were successful, thus, the trees survived and should begin to produce in 2007 Pears were priced at $5.48/kg.

2004, 2005, 2006Pears did not yield between 2004 and 2005; the trees were vigorous in 2004 and

showed no symptoms of disease. However, both ‘Anjou’ and ‘Bartlett’ had their lower trunks eaten by mice three quarters of the way around; thus, vigor was drastically reduced in 2005 with almost no growth at all. Bridge grafts were performed on both cultivars in the spring of 2005, leading to excellent tree vigor in the 2006 growing season. Plastic covers were wrapped around the trunks of both trees to prevent future damage from mice. Mouse poison was used in the winter around the trees. Although insects did not seem to significantly affect ‘Anjou’ and ‘Bartlett’, Sevin was used to prevent any potential damage by insects. A loss of $30.72 was realized for the space and labor requirements associated with pear trees between 2004 and 2006. Pear trees required few labor inputs; labor included pruning and training.

Plum (Prunus domestica)Introduction

Plums are a hardy tree perennial of the Rosaceae family. plums are deep rooted, with a main taproot and a fibrous root system near the soil surface, and grow best in loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 6.0 and 8.0. Plums require 37-195, 22-224, and 22-224 kg/ha of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P2O5) and potassium (K2O) respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Plums are drought tolerant but require irrigation during extensive hot dry periods. Plums will tolerate wetter areas of a garden and heavier soils. Plum cultivars have varying hardiness zones and choosing the right cultivar for an area is essential. Plums grow off of nodes produced on wood of previous year’s growth and on older spurs. Plum cultivar may be self-sterile or self-fertile, and thus, two trees of different cultivars are required in close proximity for pollination of some cultivars. Plum trees require a chilling period of 34-50 days at temperatures below 7.2˚C to induce flower production.

Plum trees are pruned from mid summer to late summer. Lateral branches should be promoted, while sprouts should be removed because laterals bear most of the fruit. Plum trees may be trained using a variety of techniques depending on personal preference and the structure of the garden. Plums are prolific at suckering and suckers should be removed infinitely. Plum trees take 3-5 years to begin fruiting if a rootstock is used and may continue fruiting for over 20 years.

TrialsTrials were conducted from 2004-2006. ‘Shiro’ was planted in full sunlight and

occupied a space of 2.2 m2. This location was chosen because plums yield well when exposed to high levels of light. ‘Shiro’ was purchased as a three-year-old rootstock that was about 1.8 m tall. Bamboo shoots and nylon rope were used to train the tree to form a pyramid shape. Pyramid type training is preferred for plum trees because smaller branches can arise from the main branches, and thus, yield can be maintained from year to year. Pruning was conducted in mid August to allow for new lateral shoot growth for successive year’s production. Plums would have been priced at $5.48/kg if ‘Shiro’ had fruited.

2004, 2005, 2006‘Shiro’ did not yield between 2004 and 2006; the tree was very vigorous in all

three years. Although insects did not seem to significantly affect ‘Shiro’, Sevin was used to prevent any potential damage by insects. A loss of $96.60 was realized for the space and labor requirements associated with ‘Shiro’ between 2004 and 2006. ‘Shiro’ required few labor inputs; labor included pruning and training.

Potato (Solanum tuberosome L.)Introduction

Potatoes are half-hardy cool season member of the Solanaceae family. Potatoes are shallow rooted and grow best in sandy to loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 5.5 and 6.0. Potatoes require 132-275, 55-275, and 55-385 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Slightly acidic soils are desirable as they reduce the occurrence of scab because the causal organism of scab requires basic soils for rapid reproduction. Potatoes have low fertilizer use efficiency as a result of their relatively small root system. Potatoes are not drought tolerant and require consistent irrigation, particularly during hot dry periods. Potato cultivars vary in shape, size, color, storability and many other aspects, thus, choosing the right potato cultivar for personal use or market demand is essential. Potatoes produce underground-modified stems called tubers. Tubers take 100-180 days to mature depending on the cultivars response to photoperiod. Some cultivars will start producing tubers as day length increases while others will do the exact opposite.

Potatoes exposed to sunlight at or near the surface of the soil turn green and contain a poisonous glycoalkaloid and should not be ingested.

Trials

Trials were conducted from 2004-2005 within a 1.58 m² area of the garden that was exposed to full sunlight. This location was chosen because potato yields and root quality are dependent on high levels of light. Two potato cultivars were grown each year; each cultivar occupied an area of 0.79 m2 of the garden. Potatoes were purchased as seed tubers that were about 3-5 cm in diameter. The seed tubers were spaced 30 cm apart in rows extending 60 cm apart. The cultivars changed yearly to conform to the objective of maximizing productivity and value. Potatoes were harvested on the maximum recommended day of harvest suggested on the box which the seed tubers were purchased in. Harvest was conducted using shovels and hands.Potatoes were priced at $5.48/kg; this price was based on new potato pricing at the farmers market because the potatoes grown in this garden were much like new potatoes.

2004Two potato cultivars reflecting different potato types, colors, yields and flavors

were grown in 2004; ‘Blue’ and ‘Yukon’ were the cultivars chosen. Two rows of each cultivar extended 1.05 m across were seeded. Both cultivars were taken in a once-over final harvested on August 23rd. ‘Blue’ had smaller tubers on average than ‘Yukon’, and thus, was placed second in terms of earliness of fruiting because ‘Blue’ could have grown larger given more time.Yields, flavor, and fruiting characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various potato cultivars tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of potato Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)




Net Revenue($/m2)

Blue 1.4 1.8 2 Good 7.67 9.86Yukon 1.1 1.4 1 Excellent 6.03 7.67Total Revenue ($) 17.53Total Costs ($) 25.28Profit ($) -7.752Flavor based on preference by family members* Based on rank of 1-2, 1 being earliest and 2 being latest

Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer caused potato plants to grow slowly and tubers to remain small (approximately 7-9 cm in diameter. Potatoes remained disease and pest free throughout the growing season. Potato leaves were sprayed with Sevin as a preventative measure against insect pests.‘Yukon’ was of excellent flavor and ‘Blue’ had good flavor; however, ‘Blue’ had better yields than ‘Yukon’. Potatoes produced net revenue of #17.53 and caused losses of $7.75 in 2004.

2005

‘Blue’ was not available at local nurseries, thus, was replaced with ‘Red’. ‘Yukon’ was re-tried in 2005 because of its excellent flavor in 2004. Both cultivars were taken in a once-over final harvested on October 21st. Yields, flavor, and fruiting characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various potato cultivars tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of potato Cultivars Grown in 2005Cultivar Total

Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)




Net Revenue($/m2)

Red 2.4 3.3 11 Excellent 13.15 18.08Yukon 2.2 2.8 11 Excellent 12.06 15.34Total Revenue ($) 28.49Total Costs ($) 25.28Profit ($) 3.211Both cultivars harvested and ripened at the same time2Flavor based on preference by family members*Based on rank of 1-2, 1 being earliest and 2 being latest

Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the summer of 2005 allowed potatoes to grow more vigorously and produce larger tubers compared to 2004, leading to higher average yields. Potatoes remained disease and pest free throughout the growing season. Potato leaves were sprayed with Sevin as a preventative measure against insect pests.

‘Yukon’ and ‘Red’ were of excellent flavor and had similar yields. Potatoes produced net revenue of 28.49 and a profit of $3.21 in 2005.

2006As a function of low yields and low profits potatoes were not tried in 2006.

Conclusion Potatoes did not perform well in typical Toronto summers, but they remained disease and pest free throughout the growing season. Potatoes require relatively few labor inputs, however, yields were so low and land is expensive in this garden, thus, potatoes were unprofitable.Potatoes accounted for economic losses of $4.54 between 2004 and 2005.

Radish (Raphanus sativas L.)Introduction

Radish is a short-lived hardy cool season root crop of the Brassicaceae family. Radish are shallow rooted and grow best in loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 6.0 and 7.0. Radish requires 33-175, 55-175, and 55-220 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Radish is not drought tolerant and requires continuous irrigation on a daily or every other day basis or roots become tough and strong flavored. Radish responds to long warm days by bolting and forming

elongated, inedible roots. Thus, early spring and late fall plantings are absolutely necessary where summer temperatures exceed 23 ˚C and where day lengths exceed 15 hours. Roots are usually ready for harvest 21-28 days after seeding if conditions are favorable.


exposed to partial sunlight. This location was chosen because radish yields and root quality are dependent on cool conditions and low photoperiods. Radish was seeded 1-2 cm apart in rows spaced 15 cm apart. The cultivars changed yearly to conform to the objective of maximizing productivity and value. Radishes were harvested progressively within a two-week period. Harvest commenced when the radish were approximately 2-4 cm in diameter and continued until all radish were removed or until hot summer temperatures threatened quality. Radish was priced at $1.49/bunch; each bunch consisted of 6 large and medium sized roots with greens attached.

2004‘Cherry Belle’ radish was tried in 2004 as nursery persons recommended this

cultivar because it had good color, excellent flavor and good yields.Harvest commenced on June 6th and continued till June 28th for a total of 22 days

of harvest and then again from September 25th till October 20th for a total of 25 days of harvest in a second planting. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for ‘Cherry Belle’ tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Radish Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(bunches)

Yield/m2

(bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Cherry Belle 22 15.0 Good 32.78 22.35Total Revenue ($) 32.78Total Costs ($) 23.36Profit ($) 9.42¹ Cherry Belle and Crimson Giant Champion ripened at the same time2Flavor based on preference by family members

Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer delayed bolting, caused slow plant growth and permitted excellent root formation. Disease was not a significant problem in the radish patch, but some damping off was noted. Insect damage was significant, however, Sevin was sprayed on radish foliage once every two weeks throughout the season to prevent any potential pest damage.

Flea beetles (Apthona nigriscutis) caused a significant amount of damage to radish foliage in 2004. Since radish is marketed as bunches with leaves attached damage to foliage due to flea beetles causes significant yield and profit losses; this was the case in

2004. Flea beetles chew small holes in the leaves. Damage from beetles cause stand thinning, smaller and weaker plants, and delayed plant development. All of these losses contribute to reduced yield, especially if the weather is hot and dry. Spraying radish foliage with pesticides at regular intervals is the best form of control of flea beetles. Radishes were succulent, crunchy and of good flavor in 2004. Radish produced net revenue of $32.78 and a profit of $9.42 in 2004. these low yields resulted from improper management techniques such as false spacing of seeds and poor choice of cultivars and poor climatic conditions.

2005Due to poor yields in 2004, ‘Cherry Belle’ was only tried in half of the radish

patch in 2005 compared to 2004. ‘Crimson Giant Champion’ was tried in the other half of the radish patch because it was the second most common cultivars available in local nurseries.

Harvest commenced on June 17th and continued till July 1st for a total of 14 days of harvest and then again from October 10th till October 21st for a total of 11 days of harvest in a second planting. Both cultivars tried in 2005 matured simultaneously. Yields, flavor and fruiting characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various radish cultivars tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(bunches)

Yield/m2

(bunches/m2)

Earliness of Fruiting



Net Revenue($/m2)

Cherry Belle 12 16 11 Good 17.88 23.84Crimson Giant Champion

15 20.5 11 Good 22.35 30.55

Total Revenue ($) 40.23Total Costs ($) 23.36Profit ($) 16.87¹ Cherry Belle and Crimson Giant Champion ripened at the same time2Flavor based on preference by family members

Cool, sunny spring and fall temperatures and intense sunlight allowed radish plants to grow vigorously throughout the seasons, allowed for earlier and later harvests and better yields compared to 2004. ‘Cherry Belle’ and ‘Crimson Giant Champion’ had good flavor, but the latter variety had better yields and larger roots. Flea beetles caused some foliar damage, however, consistent applications of Sevin greatly reduced yield losses compared to 2004. Some radish were affected by downy mildew in 2005 causing irregularly shaped black swelling near the tops of radish roots, therefore, some yield loss occurred. For more information on downy mildew and its controls refer to the section on cauliflower.

Radish produced net revenue of $40.23 and a profit of $16.87 in 2005. This improved yield from 2004 was a result of better management techniques such as closer spacing of seeds and more productive climatic conditions.

2006Advise from Dr. Doug Waterer lead to the change of cultivar from ‘Cherry Belle’

to ‘French Breakfast’. ‘Crimson Giant Champion’ had good flavor and modest yields in 2005, thus, was tried again in 2006. Each cultivar was tried on half of the radish patch in 2006. ‘French Breakfast’ is an elongated form of radish, with white tops and red bottoms.

Harvest commenced on June 15th and continued till July 7th for a total of 22 days of harvest and then again from September 24th till October 15th for a total of 21 days of harvest in a second planting. Roots of ‘French Breakfast’ matured quicker and were the first and last cultivar harvested. ‘Crimson Giant Champion’ was later maturing and had a shorter harvest period. Yields, flavor and fruiting characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various radish cultivars tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(bunches)

Yield/m2

(bunches/m2)

Earliness of Fruiting



Net Revenue($/m2)

Crimson Giant Champion

13 17.8 2 Good 19.37 26.522

French Breakfast 22 30.1 1 Excellent 32.78 44.85Total Revenue ($) 52.15Total Costs ($) 23.36Profit ($) 28.792Flavor based on preference by family members*Based on rank of 1-2, 1 being earliest and 2 being latest

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Radish grew vigorously throughout the spring and fall. Rainfall was adequate but not excessive, thus, damping off was not a problem in 2006. Damage to foliage by flea beetles was very minimal. French breakfast did not appear to be affected by powdery mildew, however, some yield losses occurred due to powdery mildew on roots of ‘Crimson Giant Champion’. Radish was sprayed twice a week with Sevin to control aphids and other insects; these insects did not pose a problem in 2006. Powdery mildew damage was very minimal, thus, fungicides were not used on the radish patch. ‘French Breakfast’ had superior flavor, smaller roots, and was more resistant to bolting compared to ‘Crimson Giant Champion’. Radish produced net revenue of $52.15 and a profit of $28.79 in 2004. Improved yields in 2006 compared to 2005 were a result of better cultivar choices.

Conclusion Radish tended to perform well in Toronto permitting plantings were conducted in

early spring and late summer-but if continuous cloudy days occurred yields were drastically reduced. Foliar damage due to insect pests and damping off did not cause significant losses from 2005 to 2006 permitting proper management practices were used.

Yield losses due to damping off and foliar damage were significant in 2004 because good management practices were lacking.

The cultivars tested showed significant variability in yield and flavor. ‘Cherry Belle’ had the lowest yield and least favorable flavor followed by ‘Crimson Giant Champion’ and ‘French Breakfast’. ‘French Breakfast’ was the most resistant to powdery mildew. Radish use a lot of water compared to many other crops grown in the garden to maintain root flavor and texture. Otherwise labor inputs are minimal. A total profit of $ 55.08 was realized over the three years of trials. Profits should increase in successive years due to better management practices and better choice of cultivar(s).

Rhubarb (Rheum Rhaponticum)Introduction

Rhubarb is a hardy cool season herbaceous perennial of the Polygonaceae family. Rhubarb is moderately deep rooted and grows well in a variety of soils as long as pH is maintained between 5.0 and 8.0. Rhubarb requires 77-88, 77-88, and 154-176 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Rhubarb has moderate drought tolerance, however, requires consistent irrigation for good yields, particularly during hot dry periods. Only the petiole portions of the rhubarb leaves are consumed. These red-green succulent organs are a bit sour and make a good edition to jams, pies, soups, salads and a variety of other dishes.

TrialsTrials were conducted from 2004-2006 within a 1.0 m² area of the garden under a

cherry tree and were exposed to partial sunlight. This location was chosen as Rhubarb yields and petiole quality can be attained with lower light intensities. Therefore, garden space was saved. Rhubarb was purchased as a transplant that was about 20 cm tall. Rhubarb was harvested throughout the growing season by cutting outer leaves at the base of their petioles.

Rhubarb was priced at $2.99/bunch; each bunch consisted of 3-4 large petioles or 7-8 smaller petioles.

2004Rhubarb did not yield in 2004 as was expected. The plant was slow growing and

showed no symptoms of disease. Although insects did not seem to affect this plant, Sevin was used anyways to prevent any potential damage by insects. A loss of $16.00 was realized for the space and labor requirements associated with rhubarb in 2004.

2005Harvest in 2006 commenced on August 21st and continued until October 2nd for a

total of 42 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for rhubarb tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Rhubarb Cultivars Grown in 2005Cultivar Total


Characteristics²Total Revenue

Net Revenue

(bunches) (bunches/m2) ($) ($/m2)

N/A 4 4 Good 11.96 11.96Total Revenue ($) 11.96Total Costs ($) 16.00Profit ($) -4.042Flavor based on preference by family members

Warmer, sunnier conditions in 2005 did not increase plant vigor in 2005; thus, rhubarb grew slowly throughout the entire season. Rhubarb did not show symptoms of disease or pests. Sevin was applied throughout the growing season to prevent any pest damage. Rhubarb was of good flavor permitted it was made into pies and jams. Rhubarb had net revenue of $11.96 and incurred a loss of $4.04 in 2006.

2006Harvest in 2006 commenced on June 10th and continued until August 1st for a total

of 61 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for rhubarb tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Rhubarb Cultivars Grown in 2006Cultivar Total

Yield(bunches)

Yield/m2

(bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

N/A 10 10 Good 29.90 29.90Total Revenue ($) 29.90Total Costs 16.00Profit 13.902Flavor based on preference by family members

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Rhubarb grew vigorously in early spring; however, growth significantly slowed upon arrival of warmer summer conditions. Rhubarb did not show symptoms of disease or pests. Sevin was applied throughout the growing season to prevent any pest damage. Rhubarb had good flavor and had net revenue of $29.90 and a profit of $13.90 in 2006.

Conclusion Rhubarb tended to perform well in cool Toronto springs. Production ceased upon

the arrival of hot weather. Disease and pests did no affect rhubarb plants and pesticides and fungicides may not need to be used in successive years. Rhubarb required virtually no labor inputs and did not yield in 2004. It is expected that production should increase in the following years and will make up for the initial losses between 2004 and 2005 assuming that disease and pest problems do not affect the plant. Rhubarb accounted for losses of $25.86 in the three years of trials.

Rocket (Eruca vesicaria sativa)Introduction

Rocket is a frost tolerant half-hardy cool season annual of the brassicaceae family. Rocket is shallow rooted and grows best in muck, peat or loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 6.0 and 8.0. Rocket requires N, P2O5, and K2O in similar quantities as that of lettuce. Rocket is not drought tolerant and requires consistent irrigation throughout the growing season to maintain leaf yield and quality. Rocket requires light and cooler conditions to germinate, thus, seeds should be planted shallow in early spring. If rocket is exposed to long hot days they will begin bolting and will have an undesirable bitter flavor. However, removing flowering portions will rejuvenate the plant upon arrival of cooler conditions. Thus, harvests can be made throughout the growing season from late spring to late fall from one planting.


exposed to partial sunlight. This location was chosen because rocket yields and quality are dependant on short, cool days. Rocket was seeded 2-3 cm apart in rows that extended 15 cm apart in the spring. Rocket was harvested prior to bolting or upon the initiation of bolting throughout the entire growing season. 7-10 harvests were maintained every year. Rocket was taken in a once-over final harvest a few days after the first light frosts in October or November. Rocket was priced at $2.49/bunch, each bunch consisted of approximately 20-30 leaves.

2004‘Eruca Sativa’ and ‘Coltivata’ were the only cultivars available at local nurseries,

and thus, were the sole rocket cultivars tried in 2004. Harvest commenced on July 6th and continued till October 1st for a total of 87 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various rocket cultivars tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Rocket Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(Bunches)

Yield/m2

(Bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Eruca Sativa 57 17.3 Excellent 141.93 43.10Coltivata ExcellentTotal Revenue ($) 141.93Total Costs ($) 52.80Profit ($) 89.132Flavor based on preference by family members

Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer delayed bolting and harvest and caused slow growth in 2004. Damping off was a severe problem in the rocket patch and seeding was conducted several times to replenish dead sections of the patch. Seeds established quickly if they overcame disease. Flea beetles

also caused significant damage to the rocket patch and since it is the leaves of rocket that are consumed, severe yield and profit losses resulted. For more information on flea beetles and their control refer to the section on radish. Otherwise there were no other pests that caused damage to the rocket patch. Sevin was sprayed every other week to reduce flea beetle populations.

A second form of Rhizoctonia disease, known as wirestem, also caused significant yield losses to the rocket patch. Wirestem occurred later in the growing season once the seedlings were established and symptoms of damping off were reduced. Wirestem caused by the fungus Rhizoctonia solani causes darkening of stems above and below the soil line followed by decay of the outer cortex. Circular sections of the stem become sloughed off and wiry and slender at the point of the lesion, however, the plant usually remains erect and alive, unhealthy, stunted and poor yielding. Wirestem is controlled using the same management techniques and fungicides used for damping off. Refer to the section on beets for more information on preventing wirestem and damping off. Once wirestem or damping of was observed on sections of the rocket patch, those sections were harvested and re-planted.

Both cultivars of rocket had excellent flavor in 2004. Rocket produced net revenue of $141.93 and a profit of $89.13 in 2004. These amounts are based on damaged and undamaged rocket leaves, as wiry stems caused from wirestem were not consumed and family members did not seem to mind a few holes in the leaves caused from flea beetles.

2005Due to good yields and flavor of ‘Eruca Sativa’ and ‘Coltivata’ in 2004, these

cultivars were re-tried in 2005. Harvest commenced on June 12th and continued till October 21st for a total of 131

days of harvest; both cultivars matured simultaneously. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various rocket cultivars tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(Bunches)

Yield/m2

(Bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)


Warmer, sunnier conditions in 2005 allowed for 44 extra days of harvest compared to 2004, leading to higher average yields. However, warmer conditions and intense light caused bolting in the rocket patch. Bolted stems were removed to allow new axillary growth, and thus, rocket did not need to be replanted after bolting. However,

sections of the rocket patch had to be re-planted several times throughout the growing season due to damping off and wirestem. Damping off and wirestem were more problematic in 2005 than in 2004. Flea beetles were readily controlled by the application of Sevin at regular intervals.


2006Due to good yields and flavor of ‘Eruca Sativa’ and ‘Coltivata’ in 2004 and 2005,

these cultivars were re-tried in 2006.Harvest commenced on June 20th and continued till October 29th for a total of 131 days of harvest; both cultivars matured simultaneously. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various rocket cultivars tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(Bunches)

Yield/m2

(Bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)


Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Rocket grew vigorously throughout the spring and fall, however, growth slowed toward mid summer upon the arrival of hotter temperatures when plants began to bolt. Bolted stems were removed to allow new foliage to establish. The same disease problems observed in 2004 and 2005 caused severe yield losses in 2006. Sections of the rocket patch had to be re-seeded several times throughout the growing season due to damping off and wirestem. Flea beetles were readily controlled by several applications of Sevin throughout the growing season.


Conclusion

Rocket tended to perform well during spring, early summer, late summer and autumn in Toronto. The mid summer months caused significant yield losses to wirestem, damping off and flea beetles. Wirestem seemed to get worse every year, which may mean an accumulation of R. solani in the soil where rocket was tried. Crop rotation with non-cruciferous crops is recommended in successive years. Rocket was considered marketable even if it was damaged from disease or pests because these problems did not alter flavor and family members did not seem to mind these imperfections.

Rocket uses a lot of water compared to many other crops grown in the garden to maintain its leaf flavor and plant vigor. Otherwise labor inputs are minimal. A total profit of $274.86 was realized over the three years of trials. Profits should remain consistent with the three-year average in successive years.

Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis)Introduction

Rosemary, a tender perennial herb of the Lamiaceae family is moderately deep rooted and grows best in a variety of soils, however, loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 6.0 and 7.5 is favorable. Rosemary requires 37-195, 22-224, and 22-224 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Rosemary is drought tolerant and only needs to be irrigated during extensive hot dry periods. If too much water is available to the plants, leaves will be diluted of their essential oils that make this crop economically feasible.

TrialsTrials were conducted in 2004, however, plants of the cultivar ‘Arp’ were

removed and replaced with basil, as Rosemary grows extremely slow, is expensive as a transplant, does not over winter in Toronto and has very low yields in the first year of growth. Thus, no profits or costs were realized from 2004-2006

Sage (Saliva officinalis)Introduction

Sage, a half-hardy perennial herb of the Lamiaceae family is moderately deep rooted and grows best in loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 6.0 and 7.5. Sage requires 37-195, 22-224, and 22-224 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Sage is moderately drought tolerant and only needs to be irrigated during extensive hot dry periods. If too much water is available to the plants, leaves will be diluted of their essential oils, which make this crop economically feasible.


was exposed to full sunlight. This location was chosen because sage is grown for its spicy, fragrant leaf biomass that expands quickly when exposed to high levels of light. This location is also desired as it has large diurnal temperature fluctuations that are favorable for increased leaf oil content. Sage was purchased as transplants that were about 10 cm tall. The transplants were spaced 30 cm apart.

Sage was harvested at ground level in order to obtain maximum biomass, to prevent undesirable flower formation and to prevent the leaves form toughening. Only stem tips with leaves attached were harvested, lower stems were left to maintain plant growth. Harvest commenced in mid June and finished just after the first light frosts in October. Four to five harvests were possible in one growing season.

Sage was priced at $2.99/bunch; each bunch consisted of 50 g of leaf and stem tissue.

2004‘Berggarten’, ‘Greek’ and ‘Salvia’ were the Sage cultivar tried between 2004 and

2006 because they were recommended for their excellent flavored leaves. Harvest commenced on June 18th and continued till September 23rd for a total of 97 days of harvest. All three cultivars of sage matured and were harvested simultaneously. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various sage cultivars tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Sage Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(bunches)

Yield/m2

(bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Berggarten40 61.6

Good119.60 184.18Greek Good

Salvia GoodTotal Revenue ($) 119.60Total Costs ($) 10.40Profit ($) 109.202Flavor based on preference by family members

Sage grew well throughout the summer of 2004 and produced profitable yields. Sage leaves were very strong flavored, however, family members were not used to the taste of sage, thus, sage leaves were rated as good in terms of flavor. All three cultivars of sage were resistant to disease and pests; thus, fungicides and pesticides were not used on this crop. All three sage cultivars yielded equally and consistently throughout most of the growing season.

Sage produced net revenue of $119.60 and a profit of $109.20 in 2004.

2005Harvest commenced on June 12th and continued until October 21st for a total of

131 days of harvest. All three sage cultivars matured and were harvested simultaneously in 2005. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for the various sage cultivars tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Sage Cultivars Grown in 2005Cultivar Total Yield/m2 Flavor Total Net Revenue

Yield(bunches) (bunches/m2)

Characteristics² Revenue/Cultivar ($)

($/m2)

Berggarten33.5 51.5


Salvia GoodTotal Revenue ($) 100.17Total Costs ($) 10.40Profit ($) 89.772Flavor based on preference by family members

Sage grew less vigorously and had lower yields throughout the summer of 2005 compared to 2004. Sage leaves were of good flavor in 2005 for the same reasons they were rated good in 2004. Sage was resistant to disease and pests; thus, fungicides and pesticides were not used on this crop. All three cultivars of sage yielded equally and consistently throughout most of the growing season.Sage produced net revenue of $100.17 and a profit of $89.77 in 2005.

2006Harvest in 2006 commenced on June 10th and continued until November 15th for a

total of 127 days of harvest. As in 2004 and 2005, all three cultivars of sage matured and were harvested simultaneously. Yields and flavor, costs, revenue and profit for the various sage cultivars tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Sage Cultivars Grown in 2006Cultivar Total

Yield(bunches)

Yield/m2

(bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Berggarten50 76.9


Salvia GoodTotal Revenue ($) 149.50Total Costs ($) 10.40Profit ($) 139.10

2Flavor based on preference by family members

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Sage plants grew even more vigorously throughout the entire season compared to 2004 and 2005. As in previous years, sage leaves were of good flavor in 2006. Sage was resistant to disease and pests; thus, fungicides and pesticides were not used on this crop. All three cultivars of sage yielded consistently throughout most of the growing season.Sage produced net revenue of $149.50 and a profit of $139.10 in 2006.

Conclusion Sage performed well in typical hot Toronto summers, however, cooler cloudy

weather reduced yields. Sage established quickly and was profitable during its first growing season. Sage leaves were large, pubescent and strong flavored, but household members did not enjoy the flavor of sage. Sage produced consistent yields between 2004 and 2006. ‘Berggarten’, ‘Greek’ and ‘Salvia were resistant to disease and pests; thus, fungicides and pesticides are not required for these cultivars.

Sage requires very little labor inputs and is not a heavy user of water, but produced excellent yields and profits. However, family members disliked sage unless it was used in small amounts with other spices for meat flavoring.

Sage accounted for a total profit of $338.07 between 2004 and 2006.

Strawberries (Fragaria spp.)Introduction

Strawberries are relatively short lived, frost sensitive herbaceous perennials of the Rosaceae family. Strawberries are relatively deep rooted reaching a maximum rooting depth of 90-120 cm and grow best in loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 5.0 and 6.5. Strawberries require 33-193, 55-220, and 55-220 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Strawberries are not drought tolerant and require consistent irrigation, particularly during hot dry periods.

Strawberries are somewhat drought tolerant but require irrigation during extensive hot dry periods. Strawberry cultivars have varying hardiness zones and choosing the right cultivar for an area is essential for production. Strawberries grow directly off of crowns; crowns are the extremely compacted stems of the strawberry plant.

Strawberry cultivars are usually self-fertile, thus, only one cultivar is required for pollination. Strawberry crowns require a chilling period of at least 21 days below 7.2 ˚C to induce flower production. Strawberries can reproduce asexually using runners. Generally, One year old crowns produce the largest sized berries that are few and far between, two year old crowns produce modest numbers of medium sized berries and three year old crowns produce lots of small sized berries. After the third year, crowns quickly lose vigor, yield, quantity and quality. Strawberry crowns are not pruned, however, another process of rejuvenation is used. The process involves using runners to replace three-year-old crowns mid way through the growing season, thus, maintaining young vigorous high yielding strawberry plants. Three year old crowns should be removed after the end of the growing season.

TrialsTrials were conducted from 2004-2006. Three unknown cultivars were planted in

full sunlight because strawberries yield best when exposed to full sunlight. The strawberry patch occupied a space of 1.6 m2. Strawberries were purchased as transplants that were approximately one year old and had 4-5 attached leaves. Renewal planting commenced in mid summer when runners began forming roots. Pruning was aimed at renewing three-year-old crowns to maintain site vigor and yields. Refer to the introduction of this section for further information on how renewal planting was conducted.

Strawberries were harvested at full maturity when they were softening, but before they began rotting. Strawberries were priced at $2.99/pint; each pint consisted of 400 g of berries.

2004Three strawberry cultivars reflecting different strawberry types, sizes, yields,

fruiting periods and flavors were grown in 2004. The cultivars tried are not known, however, one cultivar yields in spring, another yields in fall and the third cultivar yields throughout the entire season (day neutral strawberry).

Harvest commenced on July 7th and continued till August 19th for a total of 43 days of harvest. Yields, flavor, and fruiting characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various strawberry cultivars tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Strawberry Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar1 Total

Yield(Pints)

Yield/m2

(Pints/m2)




Net Revenue($/m2)

Early Maturing1 0.6

1 Excellent2.99 1.79Late Maturing 3 Good

All year Maturing 2 FairTotal Revenue ($) 2.99Total Costs ($) 26.08Profit ($) -23.091names are not actually cultivar names, but based on maturation time2Flavor based on preference by family members* Based on rank of 1-3, 1 being earliest and 3 being latest

Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer delayed strawberry harvest and reduced the ability of plants to properly establish in 2004. Diseases and pests were not observed in the strawberry patch in 2004. Sevin was applied every other week to prevent any potential damage from insects.

Early maturing strawberries were of excellent flavor, late maturing strawberries were of good flavor and strawberries that matured throughout the entire growing season were fair flavored. Yields in 2004were not large enough to allow for yield or size analysis between cultivars. Strawberries produced net revenue of $2.99 and caused losses of $23.09 in 2004.

2005Day neutral strawberries did not survive the winter and left empty spaces in the

strawberry patch; thus, runners of early maturing strawberry plants were used to replace these empty spaces.

Harvest commenced on June 5th and continued until July 1st for a total of 26 days of harvest. Late maturing strawberries did not survive the 2005 growing season, and thus, did not yield in late summer. Runners of early maturing strawberries replaced the empty spaces formed from dead late maturing strawberries. Yields, flavor, and fruiting

characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for the various strawberry cultivars tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(Pints)

Yield/m2

(Pints/m2)




Net Revenue($/m2)

Early Maturing 7.5 4.6 1 Excellent 22.42 13.75Late Maturing 2 GoodTotal Revenue ($) 22.42Total Costs ($) 26.08Profit ($) -3.661names are not actually cultivar names, but based on maturation time2Flavor based on preference by family members*Based on rank of 1-2, 1 being earliest and 2 being latest

Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the spring of 2005 permitted earlier harvest compared to 2004, leading to much higher average yields. The strawberry plants grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Botrytis rot was a constant threat to fruit production throughout the strawberry patch.

Botrytis rot is caused from the fungus Botrytis sp., which is particularly damaging during wet conditions. This disease can affect all above ground plant tissue, but fruit is the most common organ affected. Fruit may be affected at any stage of development. Symptoms first appear on fruit as small, brown rotten spots followed by the rotting of the entire fruit within a matter of days and infection of the fruit-pedicel soon after. Fruit than shrivels, but retains its form and finally turns grayish-brown and moldy due to the growth of spore stalks. Brownish lesions may also be seen on infected leaves and leaf-pedicels, particularly on those leaves in close proximity to diseased fruit. The only known forms of control for botrytis rot are A) proper spacing of plants too ensure good light penetration within the canopy and good air circulation and B) removing all diseased tissue as soon as symptoms appear. Botrytis rot appeared soon after strawberries began to ripen, but was not apparent once all of the fruit were harvested. Removing infected fruit was the main form of control against botrytis rot and proved fairly affective in 2005.

Aphids and spider mites were much more prominent in 2005 than in 2004 and several applications of Sevin were necessary to keep these pests under control. Aphids were more readily controlled than spider mites.As in 2004, early maturing strawberries were of excellent flavor, but were larger than the fruit produced in 2004.

Strawberries produced net revenue of $22.42 and a profit of $3.66 in 2005.

2006Late maturing strawberries died during the growing season of 2005, and thus, the

early maturing strawberry cultivar was the only cultivar tried in 2006.

Harvest in 2006 commenced on June 2nd and continued until June 28th for a total of 20 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for the various strawberry cultivars tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(Pints)

Yield/m2

(Pints/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Early Maturing 13 8 Excellent 38.87 23.92

Total Revenue ($) 38.87Total Costs ($) 26.08Profit ($) 12.791names are not actually cultivar names, but based on maturation time2Flavor based on preference by family members

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Strawberry plants grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Botrytis rot caused more damage to fruit in 2006 than in 2005. Removing diseased fruit as early as possible after infection seemed to reduce the spread of this disease. This disease was not observed after the harvest season was over. Aphid and spider mite problems were similar to 2005 and several applications of Sevin were necessary to keep these pests under control. Aphids were again more readily controlled than spider mites.

Yields were higher than in 2005 due to better plant establishment. As in 2005, early maturing strawberries were of excellent flavor, however, berries were smaller than in 2004 and 2005.

Strawberries produced revenue of $38.87 and a profit of $12.79 in 2006.

Conclusion Early maturing strawberry cultivars tended to perform well in a typical hot

Toronto summer. Late maturing and day neutral strawberries were not as vigorous as early maturing strawberries, thus, early maturing strawberries took over the strawberry patch by 2006. Foliar disease and root rots caused some losses during extended wet periods of spring.

Botrytis rot only seemed to affect fruit and was only prominent during fruiting periods. Aphids and spider mites were not a significant problem because they did not directly affect the fruit or damage the foliage. They are relatively effectively controlled with pesticides available to typical gardeners.

Strawberries require extensive labor inputs during harvesting and runner propagation. Strawberries accounted for total losses of $13.96

Swiss Chard (Beta vulgaris flavescens)Introduction

Swiss Chard is a frost sensitive herbaceous cool season member of the Amaranthaceae family. Swiss chard is shallow rooted and grows best in loamy to clayey well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 5.5 and 7.5. Swiss chard requires 83-165, 55-165 and 55-165 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al, 1995).

Swiss chard is not drought tolerant and requires consistent irrigation, particularly during hot dry periods. There are two main types of Swiss chard, red and green petiole varieties; the difference is strictly visual. Unlike many other cool season crops, Swiss chard does not bolt or become bitter during hot summer conditions, and thus, good quality petioles and leaves can be consumed throughout the entire growing season from only one planting.


exposed to partial sunlight. In 2005 ‘Argentata’ and ‘Fordhook Giant’, both green petiole cultivars, occupied 0.75 m2 each. In 2006 ‘Argentata’ and a cultivar with red petioles occupied 0.75 m2 each. This location was chosen because Swiss chard yields and quality are not greatly degraded by low light levels; thus, space was conserved. Swiss chard was seeded 15-20 cm apart in rows that were spaced 30 cm apart. Swiss chard was not grown in 2004 because it was unfamiliar to family members until 2005.The cultivars changed yearly to conform to the objective of maximizing productivity and value.

Swiss chard harvest commenced in late June and continued throughout the growing season. Outer leaves, from the base of the petiole, were harvested leaving 5-10 inner leaves at the center of the plant to maintain growth. Swiss chard plants were removed in a once-over final harvest just before the first fall frost.Swiss chard was priced at $2.49/bunch; each bunch consisted of about 6-12 leaves with petioles attached depending on leaf and petiole size.

2005‘Argentata’ and ‘Fordhook Giant’ were tried in 2004 because nursery persons

recommended them. Harvest commenced on June 25th and continued until October 21st for a total of

118 days of harvest; both cultivars matured simultaneously. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for the various Swiss chard cultivars tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Swiss Chard Cultivars Grown in 2005Cultivar Total

Yield(bunches)

Yield/m2

(bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Argentata 59.5 38.8 Excellent 148.15 96.61Fordhook Giant GoodTotal Revenue ($) 148.15Total Costs ($) 12.26

Profit ($) 135.892Flavor based on preference by family members

Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the summer of 2005 allowed Swiss chard to grow vigorously throughout the entire growing season. The only pest problem observed in Swiss chard in 2005 was leafminer, which caused significant damage to foliage, and thus, yield losses. Removing infected leaves as soon as possible easily controlled leafminers. For more information on leafminer and it’s controls refer to the section on beans. Swiss chard was sprayed with Sevin every other week as a form of prevention from any possible insect pests. Diseases were not observed in Swiss chard at any time during the 2005 growing season.

‘Argentata’ had excellent flavor and ‘Fordhook Giant’ was of good flavor. Both cultivars yielded equally and consistently throughout the growing season.

Swiss Chard produced net revenue of $148.15 and a profit of 135.89 in 2005.

2006As a function of its superior flavor from the 2005 trial, ‘Argentata’ replaced

‘Fordhook Giant’ and was the sole cultivar tried in 2006. Harvest in 2006 commenced on July 10th and continued until November 5th for a

total of 148 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for the various Swiss chard cultivars tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Swiss Chard Cultivars Grown in 2006Cultivar Total

Yield(bunches)

Yield/m2

(bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Argentata 52 67.9 Excellent 129.48 169.07Red Type (not Cult.) 33 43.1 Good 82.17 107.32Total Revenue ($) 211.65Total Costs ($) 12.26Profit ($) 199.392Flavor based on preference by family members

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Swiss chard plants grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Damage to foliage from leafminer was more problematic in 2006 compared to 2005. Removing infected leaves as soon as possible easily controlled leafminer. Swiss chard was sprayed with Sevin every other week as a form of prevention from any possible insect pests. Diseases were not observed in Swiss chard at any time during the 2005 growing season.

As in 2005, ‘Argentata’ had excellent flavor and consistently yielded good quality leaves and petioles throughout the growing season. The cultivar with red petioles was inferior to ‘Argentata’ in both yields and flavor characteristics.

Swiss Chard produced net revenue of $211.65 and a profit of 199.39 in 2006.

Conclusion Swiss chard tended to perform well in a typical hot Toronto summer. Leafminer

caused significant damage to foliage, which directly affected yields. Leafminer is easily controlled through cultural practices that can be practiced by any hobby gardener. Otherwise, no other disease or pests affected Swiss chard. Pesticides that are readily available to hobby gardeners can be used to prevent any potential pest problem. The cultivars tested showed significant variability in flavor, with ‘Argentata’ and Swiss chard with red petioles being most flavorful and ‘Fordhook Giant’ having only good flavor. ‘Argentata’ and ‘Fordhook Giant’ produced better yields than the red petiole type Swiss chard. All cultivars were equally susceptible to leafminers. Swiss chard utilized a lot of water otherwise labor inputs are minimal, and thus, good profits were realized.

Swiss Chard accounted for a total profit of $335.25 between 2005 and 2006. Yields should remain consistent with 2005 and 2006 average yields in successive years.

Thyme (Thymus, species variable)Introduction

Thyme, a hardy, woody evergreen perennial herb of the Lamiaceae family is moderately deep rooted and grows best in loamy well-drained soils with high organic matter and a pH between 6.0 and 7.5. Oregano requires 37-195, 22-224, and 22-224 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Oregano is drought tolerant and only needs to be irrigated during extensive hot dry periods. If too much water is available to the plants, leaves will be diluted of their essential oils that make this crop economically feasible.

TrialsTrials were conducted from 2004-2006 within a 0.65m² area of the garden that

was exposed to full sunlight. This location was chosen because thyme is grown for its spicy, fragrant leaf biomass that expands quickly when exposed to high levels of light. This location is also desired as it has large diurnal temperature fluctuations that are favorable for increased oil content. Thyme was purchased as transplants that were about 10 cm tall. The transplants were spaced 30 cm apart.

Thyme was harvested at ground level in order to obtain maximum biomass, to prevent undesirable flower formation and to prevent the leaves form toughening. Harvest commenced in mid June and finished just after the first light frosts in October. Four to five harvests were possible in one growing season.

Thyme was priced at $2.99/bunch; each bunch consisted of 50 g of leaf and stem tissue.

2004‘English’, ‘Greek’ and ‘Silver Posie’ were the thyme cultivars tried between 2004

and 2006 because they were recommended by nursery persons for their excellent flavored leaves.

Harvest commenced on June 8th and continued till September 23rd for a total of 107 days of harvest. All three cultivars of thyme matured and were harvested

simultaneously. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for the various thyme cultivars tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Thyme Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(Bunches)

Yield/m2

(Bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

English8 1.31

Excellent23.92 3.92Greek Excellent

Silver Posie ExcellentTotal Revenue ($) 23.92Total Costs ($) 10.40Profit ($) 13.522Flavor based on preference by family members

Thyme grew well throughout the summer of 2004 and produced profitable yields. Thyme leaves of all three cultivars were very strong and of excellent flavor. All three cultivars of thyme were resistant to disease and pests; thus, fungicides and pesticides were not used on this crop. All three thyme cultivars yielded equally and consistently throughout most of the growing season.Thyme produced net revenue of $23.92 and a profit of $13.52 in 2004.

2005Harvest commenced on June 12th and continued until October 21st for a total of

131 days of harvest. All three thyme cultivars matured and were harvested simultaneously in 2005. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for the various thyme cultivars tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(Bunches)

Yield/m2

(Bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

English13 20



Thyme grew more vigorously and had higher yields throughout the summer of 2005 compared to 2004. As in 2004, Thyme leaves were of good flavor in 2005. Thyme was resistant to disease and pests; thus, fungicides and pesticides were not used on this

crop. All three cultivars of thyme yielded equally and consistently throughout most of the growing season.Thyme produced net revenue of $38.87 and a profit of $28.47 in 2005.

2006Harvest in 2006 commenced on June 15th and continued until October 30th for a

total of 137 days of harvest. As in 2004 and 2005, all three cultivars of thyme matured and were harvested simultaneously. Yields and flavor, costs, revenue and profit for the various thyme cultivars tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(Bunches)

Yield/m2

(Bunches/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

English22 33.9



Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Thyme plants grew even more vigorously throughout the entire season compared to 2004 and 2005. As in previous years, thyme leaves were of good flavor in 2006. Thyme was resistant to disease and pests; thus, fungicides and pesticides were not used on this crop. Thyme yielded consistently throughout most of the growing season.Thyme produced net revenue of $65.78 and a profit of $55.38 in 2006.

Conclusion Thyme performed well in typical hot Toronto summers, however, cooler cloudy

weather reduced yields. Thyme established quickly and was profitable during its first growing season. Thyme leaves were small, glabrous and of excellent flavor. ‘Berggarten’, ‘Greek’ and ‘Salvia produced consistent yields between 2004 and 2006 and were resistant to disease and pests; thus, fungicides and pesticides are not required for these cultivars.

Thyme requires very little labor inputs and is not a heavy user of water, but produced profitable yields.

Thyme accounted for a total profit of $97.37 between 2004 and 2006.

Turnips (Brassica rapa)Introduction

The turnip, a hardy cool season perennial Brassicaceae, is cultivated as an annual. Two forms of this root crop are available, flattened and globe (rounded) varieties. Turnips grow best in well-drained loamy soil with well-rotted manure and a pH between

6.0 and 7.5. Plants are moderately deep rooted having a maximum rooting depth of 91-121 cm; therefore, deep cultivation for weed control is adequate. This root crop is best grown in areas with no stones or flints, as these obstructions will cause root deformities. Turnips require 55-88, 55-165 and 55-220 kg/ha of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P2O5) and potassium (K2O) respectively for optimal vegetative and root growth (Seagle et al, 1995). Turnip leaves and roots are highly susceptible to slugs. The slugs eat holes in the leaves while the leaves are very small and these hole appear numerous and quite large as the leaves expand.

TrialsTrials were conducted from 2004-2006 within a 1 m² area on the north end of the

garden that was exposed to full-partial sunlight. This location was chosen, as turnip yields and quality are dependent on high levels of light, but cooler conditions. Turnips were seeded 3.5 cm apart in rows that were spaced 30 cm apart.

Turnips with leaves attached were harvested in mid July, Approximately 60 days after seeding. A second harvest commenced after first frost and continued until temperatures dropped below 0˚C. Turnips were priced at $2.49/bunch; each bunch consisted of 3 roots that were 7-8 cm in diameter or 4 roots that were 5-6 cm in diameter.

2004‘Purple Top Whit Globe’ turnips were tried in 2004, as there were only 2 cultivars

of turnips available as seeds in local nurseries at the time and nursery persons recommended this cultivar in particular.

Harvest commenced on July 27th and continued till August 2nd for a total of 6 days of harvest and then again from October 4th till October 15th for a total of 11 days of harvest in a second planting. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for ‘Purple Top White Globe’ tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Turnip Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar Total

Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Purple Top White Globe 2.6 2.6 Fair 11.39 11.39Total Revenue ($) 11.39Total Costs ($) 16.00Profit ($) -4.612Flavor based on preference by family members

Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer caused slow growth; however, large firm turnip roots resulted. Insects damage was significant and Sevin was sprayed once every two weeks throughout the turnip patch. Slugs and growth cracks caused extensive damage and yield losses to turnip roots. Slugs were prominent throughout the growing season and made holes to turnip foliage. Since the turnip roots are marketed with leaves attached for added value, damaged leaves represent an economic loss. Slugs were easily controlled with the use of slug killer.

Growth cracks are a physiological disorder caused from rapid growth of turnip roots. Growth crack can easily be infected by Erwinia spp., which Causes soft-rot of internal root tissue; the outer tissue usually appears unaffected. The turnip roots looked perfectly marketable before they are cross-sectioned. Slowing growth through closer spacing of plants can easily control growth cracks.

Turnips did not have good flavor and produced net revenue of $11.39, however, a loss of $4.61 was realized in 2004 due to improper management techniques such as false spacing of seeds.

2005To validate the yield and revenue data collected in 2004 ‘Purple Top Whit Globe’

was re-tried in 2005. Harvest commenced on July 15th and continued till July 22nd for a total of 7 days

of harvest and then again from September 30th till October 15th for a total of 16 days of harvest in a second planting. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for ‘Purple Top White Globe’ tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Turnip Cultivars Grown in 2005Cultivar Total

Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Purple Top White Globe 6.2 15.12 Fair 27.16 66.23Total Revenue ($) 27.16Total Costs ($) 16.00Profit ($) 11.162Flavor based on preference by family members

Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the summer allowed for better plant vigor, earlier harvests and better yields compared to 2004. Despite closer plant spacing and the use of slug killer growth cracks, soft-rot and slugs were more problematic in 2005 compared to 2004. Turnips were sprayed twice a week with Sevin to prevent damage from aphids and other insects, which did not pose a problem in 2005. Turnips did not have good flavor and produced net revenue of $27.16 and a profit of $11.16 in 2005 due to more productive climatic conditions.

2006Seeds from ‘Purple White Globe’ were not used up in 2005; thus, this cultivar

was re-tried in 2006 despite its poor yields and flavor. Harvest commenced on July 21st and continued till August 24th for a total of 3 days of harvest and then again from September 16th till October 30th for a total of 44 days of harvest in a second planting. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for ‘Purple Top White Globe’ tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Turnip Cultivars Grown in 2006

Cultivar Total Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Purple Top White Globe 3.6 8.78 Fair 15.76 38.46Total Revenue ($) 15.76Total Costs ($) 16.00Profit ($) -0.242Flavor based on preference by family members

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. Turnips grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Despite even closer plant spacing and the use of more slug killer, growth cracks, soft-rot and slugs were more problematic in 2006 compared to 2005.

Turnips were sprayed twice a week with Sevin to prevent damage from aphids and other insects, which did not pose a problem in 2006. ‘Purple Top Whit Globe’ turnips did not have good flavor and produced net revenue of $15.76 and caused losses $0.24 in 2006.

Conclusion ‘Purple Top White Globe’ turnip did not perform well in Toronto. Turnip roots

and/or foliage were severely damaged from growth cracks, soft-rot and slugs, thus, more than half of the crop was lost. Close spacing to reduce rapid root growth was not significantly affective at controlling growth cracks. Slug killer affectively controlled slugs and reduced leaf damage.Turnips use a lot of water to maintain root flavor and texture. Otherwise labor inputs are minimal. A total profit of $6.31 was realized over the three years of trials. Different turnip cultivars should be tried in successive years to improve turnip flavor, disease and pest resistance and yields.

Zucchini (Cucurbita pepo)Introduction

Zucchini is a frost sensitive warm season annual of the Cucurbitaceae family. Zucchini is moderately deep rooted and grows best in loam to clay loam soils with high organic matter and a pH between 5.8 and 7.0. Zucchini requires 83-165, 55-220 and 55-220 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O respectively (Seagle et al, 1995). Zucchini has low drought tolerance and requires consistent irrigation throughout the entire growing season. Many types of zucchini cultivars, which vary in size, shape and color, are available. Zucchini is a monoecious crop and thus cross-pollination within the same plant is sufficient for production. Therefore, only one cultivar is required for production. Lower zucchini leaves should be removed when they become shaded by higher leaves because at that point the lower leaves drain nutrients and energy from the plant, as they are no longer sufficiently photosynthesizing.

Trials

Trials were conducted from 2004-2006 within a 1.0 m² area of the garden that was exposed to full sunlight. This location was chosen, as zucchini yields are dependent on high levels of light. Zucchini were purchased as seeds that were planted in groups of threes and thinned to one plant/m2. ‘Lungo Bianco Di Palermo’ was productive and favored by family members and thus was replanted as the only cultivar in 2005 and 2006. Fully open male flowers were placed into fully open female flowers in the mornings to encourage pollination. Zucchini were harvested when they were about 30 cm long. However, this size is only a guideline as each fruit varies greatly in size with respect to preferred quality. Zucchini are best harvested when seeds are small and fruit is firm and crunchy. Zucchini were priced at $3.28/kg.

2004‘Lungo Bianco Di Palermo’ was the zucchini cultivar that most resembled the

zucchini preferred by members of the household and thus it was the sole cultivar tried in 2004.Harvest commenced on July 26th and continued till September 25th for a total of 61 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for ‘Lungo Bianco Di Palermo’ tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).

Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Zucchini Cultivars Grown in 2004Cultivar1 Total

Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)

Lungo Bianco Di Palermo

8.3 8.3 Excellent 27.21 27.21

Total Revenue ($) 27.21Total Costs ($) 16.00Profit ($) 11.21¹ Cultivar based on Italian name2Flavor based on preference by family members

Unseasonably cool temperatures and heavy rainfall throughout the summer delayed zucchini harvest in 2004. Insects and disease were not observed in Zucchini in 2004; however, Sevin was applied to the zucchini plant every other week as a preventative from of control. ‘Lungo Bianco Di Palermo’ yielded fairy consistently and fruit was succulent and of excellent flavor. Zucchini produced net revenue of $27.21 and a profit of $11.21 in 2004.

2005‘Lungo Bianco Di Palermo’ was re-tried in 2005 because extra seed was left over

from 2004. Harvest commenced on July 11th and continued until September 20th for a total of

71 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for ‘Lungo Bianco Di Palermo’ tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).


Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)


3.84 3.84 Excellent 12.60 12.60

Total Revenue ($) 12.60Total Costs ($) 16.00Profit ($) -3.40¹ Cultivar based on Italian name2Flavor based on preference by family members

Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the summer of 2005 permitted 10 extra days of harvest compared to 2004. However, zucchini plants favored male flower production during the hot summer months, thus, yield was only consistent in early and late summer. The zucchini plant grew vigorously throughout the entire season. Powdery mildew caused significant foliar damage and may have been responsible for the drop in yield from 2004. As in 2004, ‘Lungo Bianco Di Palermo’ produced succulent fruit of excellent flavor. Zucchini produced net revenue of $12.60 and caused losses of $3.40 in 2005.

2006‘Lungo Bianco Di Palermo’ was re-tried in 2006 despite its poor yields in 2004

and 2005 because extra seed was left over from 2004 and fruit was of excellent flavor.Harvest commenced on July 25th and continued until October 30th for a total of 97

days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for ‘Lungo Bianco Di Palermo’ tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #)


Yield(kg)

Yield/m2

(kg/m2)



Net Revenue($/m2)


12.4 12.4 Excellent 40.67 40.67

Total Revenue ($) 40.67Total Costs ($) 16.00Profit ($) 24.67¹ Cultivar based on Italian name2Flavor based on preference by family members

Weather conditions in 2006 were similar to those experienced in 2005. As in 2005, zucchini favored male flower production during the hot summer months, thus, yield was only consistent in early and late summer. The zucchini plant grew vigorously

throughout the entire season. Powdery mildew caused significant foliar damage and may have been responsible for yield losses in 2006. As in 2004 and 2005, ‘Lungo Bianco Di Palermo’ produced succulent fruit of excellent flavor. Zucchini produced net revenue of $40.67 and caused losses of $24.67 in 2006.

Conclusion Zucchini yields were highly variable from 2004 to 2006. For this reason precise

conclusions about the economic feasibility of zucchini cannot be made certain; however, it is certain that ‘Lungo Bianco Di Palermo’ is not tolerant to Toronto’s hot summer months. In response to these condition, ‘Lungo Bianco Di Palermo’ produces predominantly male flowers, thus, yields are insignificant throughout the mid summer months. When temperatures are not too hot in the spring, early summer and late summer, zucchini tends to yield consistently.

‘Lungo Bianco Di Palermo’ is susceptible to powdery mildew during hot, humid summer months. Powdery mildew can be prevented and controlled by the application of fungicides, which are readily available to hobby gardeners. Pests were easily controlled by the application of pesticides, which are also readily available typical gardeners. A cultivar that will produce female flowers throughout the hot summer months of Toronto should be tried in successive years if zucchini is to be reliably economically sustainable.

Zucchini uses relatively few labor inputs, however, it required consistent irrigation and requires a lot of space. Zucchini accounted for a total of $32.48 between 2004 and 2006.

Other CropsArtichoke, Celeriac, Celery, dill, garlic, fava beans, fennel and shallots were also

tried between 2004 and 2006. These crops were grown on insignificant portions of land in the garden, and thus, were not included in the cost or yield analysis. All of these crops were not productive due to disease, pest or physiological problems associated with them.

Documents

Field data for various crops