Tomato puffing is a common fruit defect causing serious annual losses in Texas. The trouble is known by several names, such as puffs/' pops, puffy tomatoes, puffs, and pockets. The term tomato puffing, as is now generally used by tomato growers wherever the defect occurs, is preferred. In 1895 Price and Ness (6) of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station gave the first clear description of tomato puffing of the variety Terra cotta in which they seem to have accepted puffing as a varietal characteristic. In 1926 Lesley and Rosa (5) recognized puffing as a defect of some tomato crosses grown at Riverside, California. Weber and Ramsey (15) found the same trouble causing serious damage in Florida-grown tomatoes. Taubenhaus (7) in 1929, reported some preliminary observations on puffed tomatoes. Since then, Traub et al. (13, 14) and Yarnell et al. (17 to 25) and Corns (1) have added much to our knowledge of this trouble. The most typical symptom of a puffed tomato is its angular appearance, with slightly indented walls which yield readily to the least pressure. In some varieties the flatness of the sides is not so conspicuous, but the light weight and the hollow feel of the fruit is a sure indication of puffing. A severely puffed fruit upon being sliced shows a partial to complete abortion of the placental tissues, which accounts for the hollow interior. Sometimes the locular walls are much proliferated and hardened. Tomatoes in which the hollow cavity is negligible are classified as no. 1 fruits and marketable, while fruits with prominent cavities are classed as culls. To determine the prevalence of tomato puffing in the United States in 1933, a questionnaire was sent to plant pathologists and horticulturists in every state as well as in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The replies received reported tomato puffing of field-grown tomatoes in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, but only of greenhouse-grown tomatoes in Illinois and Michigan. During 1924, field losses were estimated at 14 per cent. ; in 1925, 15 per cent. ; in 1926, 20 per cent. ; in 1927, 2 per cent. ; in 1928 and 1929, 8 per cent. ; in
Read full abstract