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................................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................iii
Table of Contents................................................................................................................iv
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................vii
List of Figures...................................................................................................................viii
1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................9
2.0 Materials and Methods.................................................................................................14
2.1 Site Description........................................................................................................14
2.3 Soil Analysis............................................................................................................15
2.3.1 Spring 2004.......................................................................................................15
2.3.2 Soil Test Characteristics for the Garden Site in 2004, 2005 and 2006 ............15
2.3.3 Recommended Soil Improvements...................................................................16
2.3.4 Soil Status In 2005............................................................................................19
2.3.5 Soil Status in 2006............................................................................................20
2.4 Construction of Raised Beds ...................................................................................21
2.5 Irrigation System......................................................................................................21
2.6 Greenhouse..............................................................................................................22
2.7 Disease and Pest Control.........................................................................................23
2.8 Pesticide Used..........................................................................................................23
2.8.1 Carbaryl (Sevin)................................................................................................24
2.8.2 Sulfur.................................................................................................................24
2.8.3 Copper ..............................................................................................................24
2.8.4 Rodenticides......................................................................................................25
2.8.5 No Damp...........................................................................................................25
2.8.6 Slug and Snail Control......................................................................................25
2.9 Iron...........................................................................................................................25
2.10 Theft.......................................................................................................................26
2.11 Weeds.....................................................................................................................26
2.12 Crop Selection........................................................................................................26
2.13 Cultivar Selection...................................................................................................27
2.14 Plantings.................................................................................................................27
2.15 Crop Location Within the Garden..........................................................................27
2.16 Yield Analysis........................................................................................................28
2.17 Crop Pricing...........................................................................................................28
2.18 Cost Analysis.........................................................................................................29
2.19 General Crop Yield and Cost Analysis..................................................................30
3.0 Results and Discussion................................................................................................32
3.1 Weather Conditions..................................................................................................32
3.1.1 2004 Weather Data............................................................................................32
3.1.2 2005 Weather Data............................................................................................32
3.1.3 2006 Weather Data............................................................................................32
3.2 Crop Selection for Presentation in the Thesis .........................................................32
3.3 Crops Presented in the Thesis..................................................................................33
3.3.1 Apricots (Prunus armeniaca L.)........................................................................33
3.3.1.1 Introduction................................................................................................33
3.3.1.2 Trials..........................................................................................................33
3.3.1.3 Cropping Results........................................................................................34
3.3.1.3.1 2004 and 2005.....................................................................................34
3.3.1.3.2 2006.....................................................................................................34
3.3.1.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................35
3.3.2 Carrots (Daucus carota L.)................................................................................36
3.3.2.1 Introduction................................................................................................36
3.3.2.2 Trials..........................................................................................................36
3.3.2.3.1 2004.....................................................................................................37
3.3.2.3.2 2005.....................................................................................................39
3.3.2.3.3 2006.....................................................................................................39
3.3.2.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................40
3.3.3 Cauliflower (Brassica Oleraceae L.).................................................................41
3.3.3.1 Introduction................................................................................................41
3.3.3.2 Trials..........................................................................................................41
3.3.3.3.1 2004.....................................................................................................42
3.3.3.3.2 2005.....................................................................................................43
3.3.3.3.3 2006.....................................................................................................44
3.3.3.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................45
3.3.4 Cucumbers (Cucumis sativas L.)......................................................................45
3.3.4.1 Introduction................................................................................................45
3.3.4.2 Trials..........................................................................................................46
3.3.4.3.1 2004.....................................................................................................46
3.3.4.3.2 2005.....................................................................................................50
3.3.4.3.3 2006.....................................................................................................51
3.3.4.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................52
3.3.5 Grapes (Vitis saccharifera L)............................................................................53
3.3.5.1 Introduction................................................................................................53
3.3.5.2 Trials..........................................................................................................54
3.3.5.3.1 2004 and 2005.....................................................................................54
3.3.5.3.2 2006.....................................................................................................55
3.3.5.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................56
3.3.6 Oregano (Origanum vulgaro L.).......................................................................57
3.3.6.1 Introduction................................................................................................57
3.3.6.2 Trials..........................................................................................................57
3.3.6.3.1 2004.....................................................................................................58
3.3.6.3.2 2005.....................................................................................................58
3.3.6.3.3 2006.....................................................................................................59
3.3.6.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................59
3.3.7 Peppers (Capsicum annum L.)..........................................................................60
3.3.7.1 Introduction................................................................................................60
3.3.7.2 Trials..........................................................................................................60
3.3.7.3.1 2004.....................................................................................................61
3.3.7.3.2 2005.....................................................................................................65
3.3.7.3.3 2006.....................................................................................................66
3.3.7.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................67
3.3.8 Raspberries (Rubus idaeus L)...........................................................................68
3.3.8.1 Introduction................................................................................................68
3.3.8.2 Trials..........................................................................................................69
3.3.8.3.1 2004.....................................................................................................69
3.3.8.3.2 2005.....................................................................................................70
3.3.8.3.3 2006.....................................................................................................71
3.3.8.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................71
3.3.9 Spinach (Spinacia oleraceae L.)........................................................................72
3.3.9.1 Introduction................................................................................................72
3.3.9.2 Trials..........................................................................................................73
3.3.9.3.1 2004.....................................................................................................73
3.3.9.3.2 2005.....................................................................................................74
3.3.9.3.3 2006.....................................................................................................75
3.3.9.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................76
3.3.10 Tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum M.).......................................................77
3.3.10.1 Introduction..............................................................................................77
3.3.10.2 Trials........................................................................................................77
3.3.10.3 Cropping Results......................................................................................78
3.3.10.3.1 2004...................................................................................................78
3.3.10.3.2 2005...................................................................................................80
3.3.10.3.3 2006...................................................................................................81
3.3.10.4 Conclusion ..............................................................................................82
4.0 Conclusion...................................................................................................................84
4.1 Summary..................................................................................................................84
4.3 Comparisons of Crop Categories ............................................................................89
4.4 Vegetables................................................................................................................91
4.5 Fruit .........................................................................................................................93
4.6 Herbs........................................................................................................................95
4.7 Ornamentals and Aesthetics.....................................................................................97
4.8 Overall Outcomes and Future Expectations............................................................98
4.9 Importance of Home Gardens................................................................................100
5.0 References..................................................................................................................103
Appendix A......................................................................................................................106
Appendix B......................................................................................................................111
Appendix C......................................................................................................................112
Appendix D......................................................................................................................117
List of Tables
Table 1. Soil Characteristics..............................................................................................15

Table 2. Base Saturation....................................................................................................16
Table 3. Soil Nutrient Levels.............................................................................................16
Table 4. Nutrient Recommendation Rates (kg/ha) Based on Soil Tests............................16
Table 5. Costs of Various Aspects of the Garden, Total costs and Costs Per Meter in 2004
- 2006 ................................................................................................................................30
Table 6. Yields and Economics of the Apricot Tree in 2006..............................................35
Table 7. Yields and Economics of Carrots in 2004 - 2006.................................................38
Table 8. Yields and Economics of Cauliflower in 2004 - 2006.........................................42
Table 9. Yields and Economics of Cucumbers in 2004 - 2006..........................................50
Table 10. Yields and Economics of Grapes in 2004 - 2006...............................................56
Table 11. Yields and Economics of Oregano in 2004 - 2006.............................................58
Table 12. Yields and Economics of Pepper in 2004 - 2006...............................................64
Table 13. Yields and Economics of Raspberries in 2004-2006.........................................70
Table 14. Yields and Economics of Spinach in 2004 - 2006.............................................74
Table 15. Yields and Economics of Tomatoes in 2004 - 2006...........................................79
List of Figures
Fig. 1 Site Plan, Conceptual Design and Master Plan of The Garden (75 Pinto Dr. T.O.
ON.)...................................................................................................................................14
Fig. 2 Total Profits for Various Crop Categories in 2004 - 2006.......................................90
Fig. 3 Per Unit Area Profits of Various Crop Categories in 2004 - 2006..........................91
Fig. 4 Vegetable Profits/m2 in 2004 - 2006.......................................................................93
Fig. 5 Fruit Profits/m2 in 2004 - 2006...............................................................................94
Fig. 6 Herb Profits/m2 in 2004 - 2006...............................................................................96
Fig. 7 Total Profits for Different Commodity Categories in the Home Garden in 2004,
2005 and 2006....................................................................................................................98
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 Texture pH E.C. E.C. Salinity Organic Calculated
(cm) (1S:2W) Calc.Sat.Extr. 1S:2W Rating Matter CEC
(mS/cm) (mS/cm) (%) (meq/100g
2004 0-6 Clay 7.7 0.4 0.2 Non saline 4.1 21.5
2005 0-6 Clay 7.7 0.7 0.2 Non saline 8.1 23.1
Loam
2006 0-6 Loam 7.7 0.7 0.2 Non saline 9.8 31.6
Figures 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 2.2
2005 4080 216 199 100 88 7.7 2.2 1.9
2006 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 2006
Nutrient Level of Nutrient (Kg/ha)
Nitrogen (N03-) 22.0 48.4 19.8
Phosphorus (P) 10.3 152.9 237.6
Potassium (K) 221.1 464.2 570.9
-
Sulfur (S04 ) 25.3 48.4 227.7
Copper 2.2 2.42 3.3
Manganese (Mn) 10.9 25.7 25.7
Zinc (Zn) 34.7 20.1 25.4
Boron (B) 1.76 2.8 2.1
Iron (Fe) 94.6 221.1 190.3
Chlorine (Cl) 14.3 30.8 44.0
Table 4. Nutrient Recommendation Rates (kg/ha) Based on Soil Tests

Year Vegetable N P2O5 K2O S Cu Mn Zn B Fe Cl
Garden *
2004 Wet Year 237-248 44-55 55-66 22-28 0 0 0 0 0 0
2005 Wet Year 193-204 0 0-33 6-11 0 0 0 0 0 0
2006 Wet Year 237-248 0 0-33 6-11 0 0 0 0 0 0
*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 Iron
Iron 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 40.00
Site prep 710.90 10.00 10.00
Irrigation
Materials 1070.58 10.00 10.00
Water 314.19 314.19 314.19
Total 1384.77 324.19 324.19
Chemicals 159.49 72.81 72.81
Planting material 163.16 10.00 10.00
Fruit trees 1037.17 36.77 36.77
Vegetable seeds 77.02 77.02 77.02
Vegetable transplants 38.75 38.75 38.75
Herbs 60.11 5.00 5.00
Greenhouse
Construction 239.10 0.00 0.00
Operational 41.11 41.11 41.11
Total 280.21 41.11 41.11
Labor ($8.00/h)
Irrigation setup 320.00
Landscaping 1,120.00
Greenhouse setup 64.00
Time in Transportation 120.00
Variable 840.00
Total 2,752.00 840.00 840.00
Miscellaneous 178.81 10.00 10.00
Ornamentals 345.17 30.00 30.00
Total costs 8497.17 1535.65 1535.65
Total costs/10 years 1896.54 1896.54 1896.54
(based on ten year
amortization)
Total costs/m2/year 16.00 16.00 16.00
(based on ten year
amortization)
-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 Yield Gross Revenue Total Costs Profit
(kg/tree) (kg/m2) ($/tree) ($) ($) ($/m2)
2004 Viva Gold 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.16 -20.16 0.0
2005 Viva Gold 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.16 -20.16 0.0
2006 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 Yield Gross Total Profit
(bunches) (bunches/m2) Revenue Costs ($) ($/m2)
($) ($)
2004 53.60 26.98
Chantenay Red 7 8.3 13.93 0.50
Chantenay Royal 5 6.0 9.50
Scarlet Nantes 12 14.3 23.88 -4.06
Unknown (Egypt) 10 11.9 19.90
12.46
7.68
2005 53.60 45.90
Nantes Coreless 11.0 13.1 21.89 10.07
Scarlet Nantes 25.0 14.9 49.75
Danvers Half Long 14.0 16.7 27.86 13.65
17.23
2006 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 Yield Gross Total Costs Profit
(kg) (kg/m2) Revenue ($) ($) ($/m2)
($)
2004 Snow Crop 11.2 5.49 49.03 32.64 16.39 8.05
2005 Snow Crop
(Spring Crop) 7.0 3.4 30.66 32.64 -1.98 -1.11
(Fall Crop) 64.0 12.9 280.32 111.36 168.96 40.5
2006 Snow Crop
(Spring Crop) 10.0 4.9 43.80 32.64 11.16 5.46
(Fall Crop) 57.0 18.03 249.66 50.56 199.10 62.97
‘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
($) ($)
2004 65.44 69.88
Pickling 41.6 15.2 118.14 27.17
Slicing 2.7 3.9 8.86 -3.21
English 1.9 2.79 8.32 -3.78
2005 65.44 48.60
Pickling 26.4 9.7 74.98 11.55
Slicing 7.1 10.4 23.29 18.11
English 3.6 5.3 15.77 7.21
2006 65.44 120.78
Amira (pickling) 7.9 11.6 34.60 34.80
Pickling 38.4 18.8 109.06 37.39
Marketmore 8.7 12.8 28.54 25.98
(Slicing) 4.59
Sweet Success 3.2 4.7 14.02
(English)
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 $29.60 was realized each year for the space and labor requirements associated
with grapes in 2004 and 2005 (Table 10).
3.3.5.3.2 2006
Grapes grew vigorously in 2006 and showed no signs of disease or insect damage.
Harvest in 2006 commenced on August 13th and continued until October 15th for a total of
64 days of harvest. ‘Interlaken’ was the first cultivar to ripen followed one month later by
‘Niagara’, ‘Himrod’ and ‘Concord’. Yields, costs, revenue and profit for the various grape
cultivars tested in 2006 are presented in Table 10.
Table 10. Yields and Economics of Grapes in 2004 - 2006
(kg/vine) (kg/m2) ($) ($) ($) ($/m2)
2004 29.60 -29.60 -16.00
Concord 0.0 0.0 0.0
Himrod
Interlaken
Niagara
2005 29.60 -29.60 -16.00
Concord 0.0 0.0 0.00
Himrod
Interlaken
Niagara
2006 29.60 75.01
Concord 3.8 10.2 25.00 51.12
Himrod 2.9 7.8 19.08
Interlaken 3.4 9.2 22.37 35.32
Niagara 5.8 8.1 19.74
44.54
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

(bunches) (bunches/m2) ($) ($) ($) ($/m2)
2004 Italian 10 26.3 19.94 6.13 13.81 36.45
2005 Italian 39 102.6 77.79 6.13 71.66 188.63
2006 Italian 51 133.2 101.72 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
(kg) (kg/m2) ($) ($) ($) ($/m2)
2004 95.14 19.01
Big Bertha 2.8 3.1 15.34 0.99
California 1.4 1.6 7.67 -7.23
Wonder -10.74
Cayenne Long 0.6 0.8 3.95 -0.66
Slim Hot 5.06
Cubanelle 2.2 2.8 12.06 14.27
Sweet -8.76
Egyptian Hot 1.9 3.2 12.50 -4.49
Hot Banana 3.7 4.6 24.35 -1.95
Jalapeno 0.9 1.1 5.92 -5.46
North Star 1.9 2.1 10.41
Red Belle 1.4 1.6 12.29
Yellow Belle 1.1 1.2 9.66
2005 157.60 287.75
Big Bertha 14.0 8.3 76.72 29.48
Cubanelle 4.4 5.8 28.95 22.16
Sweet 20.85
Egyptian Hot 4.2 5.6 27.64 50.46
Hot Banana 12.1 10.1 79.62 41.90
Hungarian 4.4 8.8 28.95 32.69
Wax 36.68
Fooled You 3.7 7.4 24.35 63.62
Shepherd 3.0 6.0 26.34 12.50
Sweet -3.71
Sweet Banana 14.5 12.1 95.41
**Red Belle 3.9 5.2 21.37
4
Yellow Belle 4.1 1.4 36.00
2006 146.40 278.25
Big Birtha 12.5 7.35 76.72 24.27
Egyptian Hot 3.8 5.1 25.04 17.47
Hot Banana 11.2 9.3 73.70 45.19
Hungarian 12.9 10.8 84.88 55.06
Wax 30.06
Fooled You 3.5 7.0 23.03 48.09
Shepherd 4.4 7.3 38.63 69.54
Sweet -13.37
Sweet Banana 15.6 13.0 102.65
Yellow Belle 1 0.3 8.78
**Peppers were harvested green
4
Peppers 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 Yield Gross Revenue Total Costs Profit
(kg) (kg/m2) ($) ($) ($) ($/m2)
2004 9 2.7 71.91 54.40 17.51 5.57

Latham
Heritage
Full Gold
2005 23 6.8 183.77 54.40 129.37 38.33
Latham
Heritage
Full Gold
2006 34 10 271.66 54.40 217.26 63.90
Latham
Heritage
Full 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
Warm temperatures and intense sunlight throughout the summer of 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
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
presented in Table 14.
Table 14. Yields and Economics of Spinach in 2004 - 2006

($) ($)
2004 8 2.84 11.92 44.96 -33.04 -11.77

King of Denmark
Long Standing
Bloomsdale
2005 13 4.62 19.37 44.96 -25.59 -9.12
King of Denmark
Long 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
presented in Table 14.
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.
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
Year Cultivar Yield Yield Gross Total Costs Profit
(kg) (kg/m2) Revenue ($) ($) ($) ($/m2)
2004 91.20 203.79

Sweet 6.6 9.2 56.38 62.59
Million 69.43
Sweet 7.2 10.0 61.51 42.03
Hundred 24.93
Lemon Boy 11.2 15.6 41.60 37.94
**Early Girl 7.9 11 29.40 30.50
Balls 10.4 14.5 38.70 15.62
Beefsteak -0.38
**La Roma 9 12.5 33.50
Gold
Health Kick 6.1 8.5 22.70
Big Bite 3 4.2 11.20
2005 91.20 455.80
Sweet 13.4 18.7 114.47 143.75
Million 172.79
Sweet 15.9 22.1 135.83 86.30
Hundred 39.80
Lemon Boy 19.9 27.5 74.00 38.31
**Early Girl 7.2 15.0 26.80 55.42
Balls 16.2 14.6 60.20 203.85
Beefsteak 27.52
**La Roma 13.9 19.2 51.70
Gold
Yellow Pear 14.2 59.1 52.80
Celebrity 8.4 11.7 31.20
2006 91.20 635.73
Sweet 52 16.6 444.23 125.81
Million 50.08
Lemon Boy 21.2 22.1 78.90 180.35
Yellow Pear 39.6 55.0 147.30 118.98
Jet Star 15.2 15.8 56.50
**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
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.
2,500.00
2,000.00
1,500.00
2004
profit ($)
1,000.00 2005
2006
500.00
0.00
Vegetables Fruits Herbs
-500.00
Crop Catagory
Fig. 2 Total Profits for Various Crop Categories in 2004 - 2006

140
120
100
80
Profit ($/m2)
2004
60
2005
40
2006
20
0
-20
-40
Crop Catagory
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
($30.28/m2) was realized from the vegetable plot in 2004, 2005 and 2006 respectively
(Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). The increase in profits with time reflected better cultivar choice,
elimination of inferior crops and because the author became better at growing the crops.
It is expected that both vegetable production and the profitability of the vegetable
component of the garden should increase in subsequent years due to better management
practices, better choice of cultivars, an enhanced mix of vegetable crops and gardener
determination.
The quality of the vegetables produced in this project were mixed. Vegetables
could be harvested at optimal maturity, so they are fresher and have superior flavor
characteristics when compared to most vegetables that are available through the
wholesale food distribution chain. However, they were often less cosmetically perfect
then commercial products. This is probably due to more limited use of pesticides.
Cosmetic perfection is hopefully not an issue for the typical home gardener as vegetables
from the home garden have a longer usable lifespan after harvest compared to vegetables
250.00
2004
200.00 2005
2006
150.00
Profit ($/m2)
100.00
50.00
0.00
-50.00
Asparagus
Bean
Beet
Broccolli
Cabbage
Carrot
Cauliflow er
Corn
Cucumber
Eggplant
Fava Bean
Lettuce
Okra
Onion
Pea
Pepper
Potato
Radish
Rhubarb
Rocket
Spinach
Sw iss
Tomato
Turnips
Zucchini
Vegetable Crop
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.
450.00
400.00
350.00
300.00
Profit ($/m2)
250.00 2004
200.00 2005
150.00 2006
100.00
50.00
0.00
-50.00
Apple
Apricot
Blackberry
Blueberry
Cherry
Current
Grape
Kiw i
Mullberry
Nectarine
Peach
Pear
Plum
Raspberry
Straw berry
Fruit Crop
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).
300.00
250.00
200.00
Profit ($/m2)
2004
150.00 2005
100.00 2006
50.00
0.00
Basil
Chive
Flow er
Mint
Oregano
Parsley
Sage
Thyme
Herb Crop
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 $5536.04 could have been realized. These figures would be
significantly larger if the author took into consideration the time and money saved by
eliminating trips to the supermarket to purchase produce. The environmental “savings”
associated with home gardens are more difficult to quantify, but are nonetheless
important.
2,500.00
2,000.00
1,500.00
2004
profit ($)
1,000.00 2005
2006
500.00
0.00
-500.00
Crop Catagory
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 Costs
30 yd3 Soil $1200.00
Peat moss (17) $125.68
Rotary hammer rental $40.70
2004 soil test (free)
2005 soil test $74.90
2006 soil test $77.04
Fertilizer (NPK) $106.81
Soil acidifier (sulfur) $50.94
Super phosphate $20.38
Muriate Of potash $6.79
Miracle grow (3) $59.97
Raised Bed/Site Prep Costs

Plywood (15) $399.00
2 X 4 X 12 spruce (12) $70.56
Screws (4) $16.49
Irrigation Costs
(Fixed Costs)
Assorted Irrigation fittings (59) $74.64
Irrigation cap (17) $13.94
Irrigation nipple (3) $4.92
Irrigation riser (18) $18.66
Irrigation adaptor (20) $18.80
Assorted Irrigation heads (13) $45.11
Irrigation connector (2) $10.98
Hose clamps (93) $76.26
Barb stake $2.29
Flexaspout $11.47
Assorted Tee’s (16) $25.28
Coupling (14) $14.88
Stakes (3) $7.47
Valve (3) $22.65
Manifold (2) $179.56
Quad manifold (2) $17.92
Manifold box $19.96
Garden hoses $100.67
Hose repair (3) $22.27
Irrigation timer $46.86
Irrigation tubing (3) $60.36
Bushings (2) $3.18
Pressure gauge $13.86
Soaker Tube (2) $17.92
Gear sprinkler (2) $8.58
Garden Hose $36.99
Teflon tape (5) $3.20
Bushing (1) $2.67
Hose connector (2) $12.98
Fertilizer siphon $24.99
Elbow (10) $11.62
(Variable Costs)
- Water - $314.19/growing season
Chemical
(Fixed Costs)
Garden sulfur (fungicide) $5.47
Chemical spray tub $19.99
Copper spray $7.99
Powdery mildew spray (2) $14.98
Insecticidal soap (2) $14.98
Other sprays $21.97
(Variable Costs)
Sevin (8) $159.92
Fruiting Plant Costs

(Fixed Costs)
Royal Gala apple $34.97
Yellow Delicious apple $33.99
McIntosh apple tree $35.99
Dwarf nectarine $42.49
Dwarf peach $46.74
Arctic Kiwi-female $18.69
Arctic kiwi-hermaphrodite $25.50
Raspberry (5) $75.61
Blackberry (7) $29.80
Currant $12.74
Blueberry (7) $127.68
Napoleon cherry $42.49
Strawberries (3 trays) $17.83
Mulberry $76.50
Pear (2) $84.98
Apricot $42.49
Grape (Concord, 2-Niagara, Interlaken, Himrod, Vanessa) (6) $66.91
(Variable Costs)
Tree fertilizer stakes (12) $54.08
Tree tie $5.25
Tree stakes (18) $53.34
Screws $5.18
Nylon rope (3) $14.23
Bike tire tubing $2.74
Twine $3.96
Pruning paint $6.27
Velcro tree ties $7.99
Screws $6.46
Pruning sealer $12.99
Vegetable Costs
(Fixed Costs)
Tomato cages (30) $30.00
Assorted pots $100.00
Herbs $52.27
(Variable Costs)
Assorted seeds $66.97
Twine (3) $11.88
Vegetable transplants (over 3 years) $116.25
Herbs $5.00
Greenhouse Costs
(Fixed costs)
Barb stake (2) $4.58
Plywood $15.67
Electric extension $19.98
Pl premium $4.17
PVC (3) $47.94
Timer $4.38
Power bar $14.98
Pressure treated 6 X 6 (2) $22.98
Screws (3) $2.91
Spiral nails $6.98
Ceramic heater $20.99
Electric Extension $33.09
Thermostat $6.99
(Variable Costs over 4 years)
Heating costs (4 years) $80.00
Soil mix $48.00
Polyethylene $14.99
Ornamental Costs
(Fixed Costs)
Assorted flower bulbs $21.70
Red cedar mulch (42) $135.38
Iron torch $9.97
Push broom $22.98
Roses (10) $129.70
Behr stain (2) $59.94
Gravel (10) $38.80
Torch (4) $15.92
Paint $4.29
Grass seed $30.98
Gravel (2) $9.98
Clematis (2) $28.03
(Variable Costs)
Weed n feed $15.47
Torch wick (2) $7.78
Lawnmower gas $10.00
Kerosene (3) $44.97
Wipe out (2) $10.94
Trimmer line $6.97
Red Cedar Mulch (18) $101.53
Assorted 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) $40.00
Greenhouse setup (8 h) $64.00
Time in transportation (15 h) $120.00
Total labor (344 h) $2, 752.00
Other
(Fixed Costs)
Lumber cut $4.00
Strap (7) $5.39
Roof down pipe (2) $21.94
Drill bits $6.29
Wood Auger $13.49
Screws (2) $3.98
Anchors (3) $9.54
Splash back $6.97
Weather station $39.97
Reiger $3.97
Feeder $6.77
Boiler $4.96
Adjustable sprayer $4.98
Chainsaw rental $34.10
Roofing nails $9.27
Caulking gun $2.97
Caulking (4) $14.60
Shovel (2) $48.35
Edger (2) $21.76
(Variable Costs)
Gasoline during transportation $120.00
Mousetrap (4) $17.70
Appendix B
Pests, Diseases and Physiological Disorders that were Problematic in 2004, 2005
and/or 2006.
Insects
Fruitflies (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

= $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

= $97.11
Conversion Calculations
Converting 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.
Trials
Trials 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 $3.28/kg.
2004
Four cultivars were planted in full sunlight; ‘McIntosh’ and ‘Royal Gala’ were
espaliered in the backyard on the garden’s east perimeter fence and occupied a space of
0.32 m2 each, Red and ‘Yellow Delicious’ apples occupied a space of 2.2 m2 each and
were trained as central leaders.
‘Red delicious’ apples were harvested on October 10th, no other apple cultivars yielded in
2004. Yields, flavor, and fruiting characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit for
the various apple cultivars tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).
Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Apple Cultivars Grown in 2004
Cultivar Yield Yield Earliness Flavor Total Net
(kg/m2) of Characteristics² Revenue/ Revenue
(kg/tree) Fruiting* Cultivar ($/m2)
($)
Red Delicious 1.2 0.6 1 Fair 3.93 1.96
Yellow Delicious 0.0 0.0 0.0 ? 0 0
McIntosh 0.0 0.0 0.0 ? 0 0
Royal Gala 0.0 0.0 0.0 ? 0 0
Total Revenue ($) 3.93
Total Costs ($) 80.64
Profit ($) -76.71
2
Flavor 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 2005

Cultivar Yield Yield Earliness Flavor Total Net
2
(kg/m ) of Characteristics² Revenue/ Revenue
(kg/tree) Fruiting* Cultivar ($/m2)
($)
Red Delicious 2.72 1.2 2 Fair 8.92 2.62
Yellow Delicious 0.00 0.00 0.00 ? 0.00 0.00
McIntosh 0.6 1.86 1 Good 1.96 6.10
Royal Gala 0.00 0.00 0.00 ? 0.00 0.00
Profit ($) -69.76
2
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.
2006
Apples 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).
Trials
Asparagus 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.
2004
Asparagus 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.
2005
Asparagus 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 2006

Cultivar Yield Yield Flavor Total Net
2
(bunches) (bunches/m ) Characteristics² Revenue/ Revenue
Cultivar ($/m2)
($)
Argenteuil 4.0 2.5 Excellent 15.96 9.97
Total Revenue ($) $ 15.96
Profit ($) -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)
Introduction
Basil 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.
2004
Spicy 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 2004

(bunches) Characteristics² Revenue/ Revenue
(Bunches/m2) Cultivar ($/m2)
($)
Spicy Globe 40 160 Excellent 79.60 318.40
Profit ($) 72.24
2

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 #).

($)
Small Leaf 8 34.7 Good 15.92 69.05
Purple 6 26.1 Fair 11.96 51.94
Profit ($) 20.52
2
‘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 2005
Wirestem 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.
2006
As 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) Characteristics² Revenue/ Revenue
($)
Spicy Globe 20 80 Excellent 39.80 159.20
Profit ($) 32.44
2
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
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.
Trials
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 2004

Cultivar Total Yield/m2 Flavor Total Net Revenue
Yield Characteristics² Revenue/ ($/m2)
(kg) (kg/m2) Cultivar
($)
Blue Lake Nano 4.90 4.10 Good 21.46 17.96
Profit ($) 2.26
2
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
2005
Due 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 2005

($)
Blue Lake Bush 3.1 2.6 Excellent 16.98 14.25
1
Pencil Pod Bush 5.1 4.25 Excellent 22.38 18.62
*Scarlet Runner 8.2 17.1 Fair 35.92 82.08
Profit ($) 48.40
1
Yellow fruiting cultivars
2
*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.
2006
As 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 2006

Cultivar Total Yield/m2 Flavor Total Net
Yield Characteristics² Revenue/ Revenue
(kg) (kg/m2) Cultivar ($/m2)
($)
Blue Lake Bush 9.30 3.90 Excellent 40.73 17.08
*Scarlet Runner 4.30 8.95 Fair 18.83 39.20
Profit ($) 32.68
2
*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
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.
Trials
Trials 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
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 2004

(Bunches) (Bunches/m2) Cultivar
($)
Detroit Dark Red 2 6 6 Fair 14.94 14.94
Profit ($) -1.22
2

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.
2005
Advices from Dr. Doug Waterer lead to the change of cultivar from ‘Detroit Dark
Red 2’ grown in 2004 to ‘Early Wonder’ in 2005.
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 #).

(Bunches) (Bunches/m2) Cultivar ($/m2)
($)
Early Wonder 15 7.5 Good 37.35 37.35
Total Revenue 37.35
($)
Profit ($) 21.19
2
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.
2006
Advice 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
and profit for ‘Red Ace’ tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).

(bunches) (bunches/m2) Cultivar
($)
Red Ace 21 10.5 Excellent 52.29 52.29
Profit ($) 36.13
2
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.
Trials
Trials 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.
2004
Blackberries 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.
2005
Harvest 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 2005

(Pints) (Pints/m2) Cultivar ($/m2)
($)
B.C. Blackberry 4.0 8.5 Poor 31.92 67.83
Profit ($) 24.40
2
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.
2006
Harvest in 2006 commenced on July 25th and continued until October 1st for a
‘BC Blackberry’ tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).
Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Blackberry Cultivars Grown in 2006

(Pints) (Pints/m2) Cultivar
($)
B.C. Blackberry 26.0 55.3 Fair (sour) 207.74 441.84
Profit ($) 200.22
2
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.
Trials
Trials 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.
2004
Blueberries 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.
2005
Blueberry 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
Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Blueberry Cultivars Grown in 2005

Cultivar Total Yield Yield/m2 Flavor Total Net Revenue
(pints) Characteristics² Revenue/ ($/m2)
(kg/m2) Cultivar ($)
Blue Crop (2) (Cumulative (Cumulative Excellent (Cumulative (Cumulative
Blue Jay (2) Average) Average) Good Average) Average)
Northland Fair
Northcountry 6.0 2.15 ? 20.94 7.50
Spartan Fair
Profit ($) -23.70
2

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.
2006
Harvest 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 2006

Cultivar Total Yield Yield/m2 Flavor Total Net Revenue
(pints) Characteristics² Revenue/ ($/m2)
(kg/m2) Cultivar ($)
Blue Crop (2) (Cumulative (Cumulative Dead (Cumulative (Cumulative
Blue Jay (2) Average) Average) Good Average) Average)
Northland Fair
Northcountry 9.0 3.2 Dead 31.41 11.68
Spartan Fair
Profit ($) -13.15
2
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.
Trials
Trials 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. 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 2004

($)
Premium Crop 7.2 3.4 Excellent 23.62 11.15
Profit ($) 6.02
2

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’

2
(kg) (kg/m ) Cultivar ($/m2)
($)
Premium Crop 3.6 3.3 Good 11.81 10.73
Profit ($) -5.79
2
Flavor based on preference by family member

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.
2006
As 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 #).

2
($)
Premium Crop 3.9 3.6 Good 12.79 11.81
Profit ($) -4.81
2
Flavor 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.
Trials
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
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 2004

($)
Discovery 3.1 3.3 Poor 10.17 10.82
Ruby Perfection 2.0 2.2 Good 6.56 7.22
Profit ($) -13.03
2

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.
2005
Because ‘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 2005

2
($)
Ruby Perfection 3.8 4.2 Fair 12.46 13.78
Profit ($) -17.30
2
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.
2006
As 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.
Trials
Trials 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.
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 2004

($)
Bing 2.1 1.0 Excellent 16.13 7.68
Napoleon 0.0 0.0 ? 0.0 0.0
Profit ($) -19.07
2
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.
2005
Harvest 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 #).

($)
Bing 3.0 1.4 Excellent 23.04 10.75
Napoleon 0.0 0.0 ? 0.0 0.0
Profit ($) -12.16
2
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.
2006
Harvest 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 #).

($)
Bing 4.1 1.2 Excellent 31.48 9.21
Napoleon 0.0 0.0 ? 0.0 0.0
Profit ($) -3.72
2
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.
Trials
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.
2004
Garlic 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 2004

(bunches) (bunches/m2) Cultivar ($/m2)
($)
Garlic Chives 19 38 Excellent 56.81 113.62
Profit ($) 48.81
2
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.
2005
Harvest 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 #).

($)
Garlic Chives 47 94 Excellent 140.53 281.06
Profit ($) 132.53
2
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.
2006
Harvest in 2006 commenced on June 24th and continued until September 12th for a
garlic chives tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).

($)
Garlic Chives 8 16 Good 23.92 47.84
Profit ($) 15.92
2
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
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.
Trials
Trials 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
Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Corn Cultivars Grown in 2004

(ears) (ears/m2) Cultivar ($/m2)
($)
Honey and Cream 9 19.6 Excellent 2.99 6.52
Sweet Corn 8 17.4 Good 2.66 5.79
Profit ($) -1.87
2

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.
2005
To 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
Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Corn Cultivars Grown in 2005

(ears) (ears/m2) Cultivar ($/m2)
($)
Peaches and Cream 6 13.0 Excellent 2.00 4.32
Sweet Corn 9 19.6 Good 2.99 6.52
Profit ($) -2.53
2
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.
2006
As 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)
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.
Trials
Trials 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.
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
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 2005

2
(pints) (pints/m ) Cultivar ($/m2)
($)
Wellington Black 3.0 3.0 Fair 8.97 8.97
Current
Profit ($) -7.03
2
‘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.
2006
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 2006

($)
Wellington Black 5 3.0 Good 14.95 8.97
Current
Profit ($) -1.05
2
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.
Trials
Trials 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
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’.
2004
Four 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 2004

Cultivar Total Yield/m2 Earliness of Flavor Total Net
Yield Fruiting* Characteristics² Revenue/ Revenue
($)
Black Beauty 5.4 4.6 2 Excellent 29.59 25.21
Dusky 12.8 3.4 1 Excellent 70.14 18.63
Italian Bicolor 2.7 1.6 4 Good 20.73 12.29
Sicilian 2.9 2.1 3 Excellent 22.27 16.13
Profit ($) 14.29
2
* Based on rank of 1-4, 1 being earliest and 4 being latest

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.
2005
To 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 #).

($)
Black Beauty 9.1 7.8 2 Excellent 49.87 42.74
Dusky 13.3 3.5 1 Excellent 72.88 19.18
Italian Bicolor 2.9 1.7 4 Good 22.27 13.06
Sicilian 5.8 4.2 3 Excellent 44.54 32.26
Profit ($) 61.12
2
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.
2006
As 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 #).

Cultivar Total Yield Yield/m2 Earliness Flavor Total Net
(kg) of Characteristics² Revenue/ Revenue
(kg/m2) Fruiting* Cultivar ($/m2)
($)
Black Beauty 8.2 7.0 2 Excellent 44.94
Dusky 4.6 1 Excellent 95.35
17.4
Italian Bicolor 1.3 0.8 4 Good 9.98
Sicilian 5.5 4.0 3 Excellent 42.24
Profit ($) 64.07
2
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
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.
Flowers
Roses (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.
Trials
Rose 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.
2004
Ten 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 2004

Cultivar *Total Yield/m2 Total Net Revenue
Yield Revenue/ ($/m2)
2
(stems) (stems/m ) Cultivar
($)
Oh Canada 40 43.5 79.60 86.57
Country Dancer
Pearl Meidiland
Fire Meidiland
Scarlet Meidiland
Sunny Delight
? (Red type)
? (Large pink type)
? (Small yellow type)
? (Large white type)
Profit ($) 64.88
*Only half of flower stems were taken as cuttings, the other half were left for garden
aesthetics

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.
2005
Assorted 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

Cultivar Total Yield/m2 Total Net Revenue
2
($)
Oh Canada 75 69 149.25 137.31
Country Dancer
Pearl Meidiland
Fire Meidiland
Scarlet Meidiland
Sunny Delight
? (Red type)
? (Large pink type)
Columbines 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00
Profit ($) 126.53
aesthetics

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.
2006
Harvest 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 #).

Cultivar *Total Yield/m2 Total Net Revenue
2
($)
Oh Canada 100 108.70 199.00 216.31
Country Dancer
Pearl Meidiland
Fire Meidiland
Scarlet Meidiland
Sunny Delight
? (Red type)
? (Large pink type)
Columbines 101 20 19.90 39.80
Profit ($) 196.18
aesthetics
1
1 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.
Trials
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, 2006

Kiwi 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.
Trials
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
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.
2004
Four 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 2004

1
Yield Harvest* Characteristics² Revenue/ Revenue
(heads) (heads/m2) Cultivar ($/m2)
($)
Special White 46 11.4 1 Excellent 59.34 14.71
Boston
Garden Leader 8 11.4 2 Good 11.92 16.99
Romaine
Radicchio 4 5.7 4 Fair (bitter) 11.96 17.04
Ruby Leaf 4 5.7 3 Good 5.16 7.35
Profit ($) 5.18
1
Boston 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 Radicchio
2
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.
2005
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

Yield Harvest* Characteristics² Revenue/ Revenue
($)
Special White 67 14.9 1 Excellent 86.43 19.22
Boston
Garden Leader 8 11.4 2 Fair (bitter) 11.92 16.99
Romaine
Profit ($) 15.15
2
* 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.
2006
As 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 #).

($)
Special White 132 16.9 Excellent 170.28 21.80
Boston
Profit ($) 87.08
2
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.
Trials
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.
2004
Three 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
Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Mint Cultivars Grown in 2004

($)
Chocolate 16 53.3 Poor 47.84 159.37
Lemon 18 60.0 Fair 53.82 179.40
Traditional 24 80.0 Excellent 71.76 239.20
Profit ($) 159.11
2

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.
2005
Because 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

($)
Chocolate 29 97.29 Poor 86.71 290.90
Lemon 36 120.0 Fair 77.74 358.80
Profit ($) 332.54
2
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.
2006
Because 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 #).

Cultivar Total Yield Yield/m2 Flavor Total Net
(bunches/m2) Cultivar ($) ($/m2)
Chocolate Insignificant Insignificant Poor Insignificant Insignificant
Lemon Insignificant Insignificant Fair Insignificant Insignificant
Profit ($) 305.63
2
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.
Trials
Trials 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.
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 2004

(pints) (pints/m2) Cultivar
($)
Weeping Fruiting 1 1 Good 4.99 1.50
Profit ($) -11.01
2
‘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.
2005
Harvest in 2005 commenced on June 23rd and continued until July 22nd for a total

($)
Profit ($) 3.96
2
‘Weeping Fruiting grew vigorously throughout the entire season and no diseases
‘Weeping Fruiting’ had net revenue of $19.96 and a profit of $3.96 in 2006.
2006

($)
Profit ($) 28.91
2
‘Weeping Fruiting grew vigorously throughout the entire season and no diseases
‘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)
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.
Trials
Trials 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
‘Fantasia’ tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).
Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Nectarine Cultivars Grown in 2004
($)
Fantasia 2.8 1.3 Excellent 15.34 8.55
Profit ($) -16.86
2
‘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)

Introduction
Okra 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.
Trials
Trials 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 $6.58/kg.
2004
‘Clemson Spineless’ was the only cultivar available in local nurseries in 2004, and
thus, it was the sole okra cultivar tried in 2004.
Harvest commenced on August 19th and continued till October 17th for a total of
60 days of harvest. Yields and flavor characteristics, production costs, revenue and profit
‘Clemson Spineless’ tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).
Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Okra Cultivars Grown in 2004
($)
Clemson Spineless 2.5 1.25 Fair 16.45 8.50
Profit ($) -15.55
2

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.
2005
To 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 2005

($)
Clemson Spineless 3.3 1.65 Fair 21.71 10.86
Profit ($) -10.29
2

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.
2006
As 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
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 2004

($)
Southport White 19 82.61 Good 15.01 65.26
Globe
Total Revenue 15.01
($)
Profit ($) 11.33
2

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.
2005
As 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 #).

(bunches) (kg/m2) Cultivar
($)
Globe
Profit ($) 30.29
2

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.
2006
As 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

(bunches) (kg/m2) Cultivar
($)
Globe
Profit ($) 48.46
2
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.
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.
Trials
Trials 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
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 $1.49/bunch; each bunch consisted of about 10-15 leaves
with petioles attached depending on leaf size.
2004
‘Curly Leaf’ and ‘Plain Leaf’ parsley were grown in 2004 reflecting the yields
and flavor of the two main marketable types of parsley.
Harvest commenced on July 8th and continued till October 12th for a total of 96
days of harvest. ‘Plain Leaf’ parsley was the first to produce enough foliage to harvest
followed by ‘Curly Leaf’ parsley two weeks later. Yields and flavor characteristics,
production costs, revenue and profit for the various parsley cultivars tested in 2004 are
Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Parsley Cultivars Grown in 2004
($)
Curled 9 19.5 Excellent 13.41 29.06
Plain 14 30.4 Excellent 20.86 45.30
Profit ($) 19.55
2

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.
2005
To 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

($)
Hamburg 14 30.1 Excellent 20.86 44.85
Profit ($) 41.99
2

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.
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

($)
Hamburg 19 40.9 Excellent 28.31 60.94
Profit ($) 73.28
2
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.
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.
Trials
Trials 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 2004

($)
Red Haven 2.4 6.5 Excellent 13.10 35.62
Profit ($) 7.18
2
‘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.
Trials
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.
2004
Two 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. 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
Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Pea Cultivars Grown in 2004

($)
Oregon Sugar Pod 2 2.1 3 Excellent 13.82 19.74
Edible Podded Snow 1.2 1.7 Good 7.90 11.19
Profit ($) 10.52
2

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.
2005
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
‘Oregano Sugar Pod 2’ tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).
Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Snow Pea Cultivars Grown in 2005

($)
Oregon Sugar Pod 2 3.2 2.3 Excellent 21.06 15.13
Profit ($) 9.86
2
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.
2006
As 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
‘Oregano Sugar Pod 2’ tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).
Yield and Flavor Characteristics of Snow Pea Cultivars Grown in 2006

($)
Oregon Sugar Pod 2 2.9 2.1 Excellent 19.08 13.82
Profit ($) 7.88
2
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
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.
Trials
Trials 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, 2006

Pears 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
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.
Trials
Trials 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
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
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 $5.48/kg; this price was based on new potato pricing at the
farmers market because the potatoes grown in this garden were much like new potatoes.
2004
Two potato cultivars reflecting different potato types, colors, yields and flavors
were grown in 2004; ‘Blue’ and ‘Yukon’ were the cultivars chosen. Two rows of each
cultivar extended 1.05 m across were seeded.
Both cultivars were taken in a once-over final harvested on August 23rd. ‘Blue’ had
smaller tubers on average than ‘Yukon’, and thus, was placed second in terms of earliness
of fruiting because ‘Blue’ could have grown larger given more time.
various potato cultivars tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).
Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of potato Cultivars Grown in 2004
($)
Blue 1.4 1.8 2 Good 7.67 9.86
Yukon 1.1 1.4 1 Excellent 6.03 7.67
Profit ($) -7.75
2

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.
various potato cultivars tested in 2005 are presented in table (table #).
Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of potato Cultivars Grown in 2005

($)
1
Red 2.4 3.3 1 Excellent 13.15 18.08
Yukon 2.2 2.8 11 Excellent 12.06 15.34
Profit ($) 3.21
1
Both cultivars harvested and ripened at the same time
2
*
Based on rank of 1-2, 1 being earliest and 2 being latest
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.
2006
As 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.
Trials
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
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
and profit for ‘Cherry Belle’ tested in 2004 are presented in table (table #).
Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Radish Cultivars Grown in 2004

($)
Cherry Belle 22 15.0 Good 32.78 22.35
Profit ($) 9.42
¹ Cherry Belle and Crimson Giant Champion ripened at the same time
2

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.
2005
Due 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 #).

Cultivar Total Yield/m2 Earliness Flavor Total Net
Yield of Fruiting Characteristics² Revenue/ Revenue
($)
Cherry Belle 12 16 11 Good 17.88 23.84
1
Crimson Giant 15 20.5 1 Good 22.35 30.55
Champion
Profit ($) 16.87
¹ Cherry Belle and Crimson Giant Champion ripened at the same time
2
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.
2006
Advise 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
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 #).

Cultivar Total Yield/m2 Earliness Flavor Total Net
Yield of Fruiting Characteristics² Revenue/ Revenue
($)
Crimson Giant 13 17.8 2 Good 19.37 26.522
Champion
French Breakfast 22 30.1 1 Excellent 32.78 44.85
Profit ($) 28.79
2
*
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.
Trials
Trials 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.
2004
Rhubarb 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.
2005
Harvest in 2006 commenced on August 21st and continued until October 2nd for a
rhubarb tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).
Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Rhubarb Cultivars Grown in 2005

Yield Characteristics² Revenue Revenue
(bunches) (bunches/m2) ($) ($/m2)
N/A 4 4 Good 11.96 11.96
Profit ($) -4.04
2
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.
2006
Harvest in 2006 commenced on June 10th and continued until August 1st for a total
rhubarb tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).
Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Rhubarb Cultivars Grown in 2006

($)
N/A 10 10 Good 29.90 29.90
Total Costs 16.00
Profit 13.90
2
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.
Trials
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 2004

($)
Eruca Sativa 57 17.3 Excellent 141.93 43.10
Coltivata Excellent
Profit ($) 89.13
2

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.
2005
Due 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

($)
Coltivata Excellent
Profit ($) 119.01
2
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.
revenue of $171.81 and a profit of $119.01 in 2005. 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.
2006
Due 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

($)
Coltivata Excellent
Profit ($) 66.72
2
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.
revenue of $119.52 and a profit of $66.72 in 2006. 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.
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.
Trials
Trials 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.
Trials
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
Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Sage Cultivars Grown in 2004

($)
Berggarten Good
Greek 40 61.6 Good 119.60 184.18
Salvia Good
Profit ($) 109.20
2
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.
2005
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

($)
Berggarten Good
Greek 33.5 51.5 Good 100.17 153.99
Salvia Good
Profit ($) 89.77
2
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.
2006
Harvest 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 #).

($)
Berggarten Good
Greek 50 76.9 Good 149.50 229.93
Salvia Good
Profit ($) 139.10
2
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.
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.
Trials
Trials 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.
2004
Three 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).
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 2004

Cultivar1 Total Yield/m2 Earliness of Flavor Total Net
($)
Early Maturing 1 Excellent
Late Maturing 1 0.6 3 Good 2.99 1.79
All year Maturing 2 Fair
Profit ($) -23.09
1
names are not actually cultivar names, but based on maturation time
2

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.
2005
Day 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

Cultivar1 Total Yield/m2 Earliness of Flavor Total Net
($)
Early Maturing 7.5 4.6 1 Excellent 22.42 13.75
Late Maturing 2 Good
Profit ($) -3.66
1
2
*
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
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.
2006
Late 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 #).

Cultivar1 Total Yield/m2 Flavor Total Net Revenue
(Pints) (Pints/m2) Cultivar
($)
Early Maturing 13 8 Excellent 38.87 23.92

Profit ($) 12.79
1
2
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
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.
Trials
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.
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 $2.49/bunch; each bunch consisted of about 6-12 leaves with
petioles attached depending on leaf and petiole size.
2005
‘Argentata’ and ‘Fordhook Giant’ were tried in 2004 because nursery persons
recommended them.
118 days of harvest; both cultivars matured simultaneously. Yields and flavor
characteristics, costs, revenue and profit for the various Swiss chard cultivars tested in
Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Swiss Chard Cultivars Grown in 2005
2
(bunches) (bunches/m ) Cultivar
($)
Argentata 59.5 38.8 Excellent 148.15 96.61
Fordhook Giant Good
Profit ($) 135.89
2
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 $148.15 and a profit of 135.89 in 2005.
2006
As a function of its superior flavor from the 2005 trial, ‘Argentata’ replaced
‘Fordhook Giant’ and was the sole cultivar tried in 2006.
Harvest in 2006 commenced on July 10th and continued until November 5th for a
the various Swiss chard cultivars tested in 2006 are presented in table (table #).
Yield, Fruiting and Flavor Characteristics of Swiss Chard Cultivars Grown in 2006
2
(bunches) (bunches/m ) Cultivar
($)
Argentata 52 67.9 Excellent 129.48 169.07
Red Type (not Cult.) 33 43.1 Good 82.17 107.32
Profit ($) 199.39
2
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.
Trials
Trials 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 2004

($)
English Excellent
Greek 8 1.31 Excellent 23.92 3.92
Silver Posie Excellent
Profit ($) 13.52
2
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.
2005
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 #).

($)
English Excellent
Greek 13 20 Excellent 38.87 59.80
Profit ($) 28.47
2
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.
2006
Harvest 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 #).

($)
English Excellent
Greek 22 33.9 Excellent 65.78 101.36
Profit ($) 55.38
2
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.
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.
Trials
Trials 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
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 2004

($)
Purple Top White Globe 2.6 2.6 Fair 11.39 11.39
Profit ($) -4.61
2

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.
2005
To 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

($)
Profit ($) 11.16
2
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.
2006
Seeds 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

($)
Profit ($) -0.24
2
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
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 2004

2
(kg) (kg/m ) Cultivar
($)
Lungo Bianco Di 8.3 8.3 Excellent 27.21 27.21
Palermo
Profit ($) 11.21
¹ Cultivar based on Italian name
2

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 #).

($)
Palermo
Profit ($) -3.40
2
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 #)

($)
Palermo
Profit ($) 24.67
2
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 Crops
Artichoke, 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.

Field Data For Various Crops

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Field Data For Various Crops

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Testing the Economic and Environmental Sustainability of a Home Garden

A Plant Science Paper Submitted To

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

Table 1. Soil Characteristics..............................................................................................15

2.1 Site Description

- Refer to attached vellum paper.

2.3 Soil Analysis

Table 1. Soil Characteristics

Table 3. Soil Nutrient Levels

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

2.3.3 Recommended Soil Improvements

2.3.4 Soil Status In 2005

2.3.5 Soil Status in 2006

2.4 Construction of Raised Beds

2.5 Irrigation System

2.7 Disease and Pest Control

2.8 Pesticide Used

2.8.6 Slug and Snail Control

2.12 Crop Selection

2.15 Crop Location Within the Garden

2.16 Yield Analysis

2.17 Crop Pricing

2.18 Cost Analysis

2.19 General Crop Yield and Cost Analysis

3.1 Weather Conditions

3.1.2 2005 Weather Data

3.1.3 2006 Weather Data

3.2 Crop Selection for Presentation in the Thesis

3.3 Crops Presented in the Thesis

3.3.1.3 Cropping Results

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

3.3.2 Carrots (Daucus carota L.)

3.3.2.3 Cropping Results

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

3.3.3 Cauliflower (Brassica Oleraceae L.)

3.3.3.3 Cropping Results

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

3.3.4 Cucumbers (Cucumis sativas L.)

3.3.4.3 Cropping Results

3.3.5 Grapes (Vitis saccharifera L)

3.3.5.3 Cropping Results

3.3.6 Oregano (Origanum vulgaro L.)

3.3.6.3 Cropping Results

Table 11. Yields and Economics of Oregano in 2004 - 2006

3.3.7 Peppers (Capsicum annum L.)

3.3.7.3 Cropping Results

3.3.8 Raspberries (Rubus idaeus L)

3.3.8.3 Cropping Results

2004 9 2.7 71.91 54.40 17.51 5.57

3.3.9 Spinach (Spinacia oleraceae L.)

3.3.9.3 Cropping Results

Table 14. Yields and Economics of Spinach in 2004 - 2006

2004 8 2.84 11.92 44.96 -33.04 -11.77

3.3.10 Tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum M.)

3.3.10.3 Cropping Results

2004 91.20 203.79

visually attractive and environmentally acceptable. There is a potential for home

4.3 Comparisons of Crop Categories

Fig. 2 Total Profits for Various Crop Categories in 2004 - 2006

Fig. 4 Vegetable Profits/m2 in 2004 - 2006

Fig. 5 Fruit Profits/m2 in 2004 - 2006

Fig. 6 Herb Profits/m2 in 2004 - 2006