J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 278-292, 2022 This is an open access article d istributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommer cial-ShareAl ike 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, d istribution, and reproduction in any med ium, provide d the original author and source are credited. Original Research Paper INTRODUCTION Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is one of the most important vegetable crops cultivated in the wor ld. I t is u s ed a s s a la ds a nd a lso cooked vegetable in the preparation of curries. Processed items su ch a s toma to p ur ee, ketchup, pickle, chutney, whole peeled tomatoes, and tomato powder are also consumed considerably. Tomatoes are also an important source of vitamins and minerals. They are an excellent source of phosphorus, iron and vitamin A, B and C (Cobley and Steele, 1976). They also contain small amounts of the B complex vitamins; thiamin, niacin and riboflavin (Naika et al., 2005). They are loaded in minerals, vitamins, essential amino acids, sugars and dietary fibers. Most importantly, tomatoes are rich in carotenoids, especially lycopene (Beecher, 1998). Lycopene and other flavonoids in tomato serve as good source of antioxidants (Agarwal and Rao, 2000). Tomato occupies 5.05 million hectares with a productivity of 37 t/ha in the world. In India it is cultivated in an estimated area of 0.81 million hectares with productivity of 25.3 t/ha (FAO STAT 2020). One of the major reasons for low productivity in India is due to prevalence of various biotic and abiotic stresses. White fly (B. tabaci) transmitted tomato leaf curl disease, bacterial wilt (R. solanacearum) and early blight (A. solani) cause economic yield losses in the major tomato growing areas of the country and elsewhere in the world (Lukyanenko, 1991). Though India is the second largest producer Breeding tomatoes suitable for processing with triple disease resistance to tomato leaf curl disease, bacterial wilt and early blight Sadashiva A.T.$*, Oberoi H.S., Singh T.H., Prasanna H.C., Madhavi Reddy K. Krishna Reddy M., Ravishankar K.V. and Nayana R.S.** ICAR- Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bangalore, INDIA $Present Address Nethra Crop Sciences Pvt., Ltd, Bengaluru, Karnataka, INDIA **University of Horticultural Sciences, Bagalkot, Karnataka, India *Corresponding author Email : atsbrs@gmail.com ABSTRACT India is the second largest producer of tomato with 11 per cent global share and cultivated on an estimated area of 0.76 million hectares with productivity of 24 tonnes per hectare. Less than 1% of the produce is processed when compared to 26% in other major producing countries. Of the estimated more than 41 million tonnes of tomato processed globally, only 130,000 tonnes were processed in India and domestic demand for processed tomato products is expanding at an estimated 30% annually. At present traditional fresh market tomato cultivars are being processed though such cultivars are unsuitable for processing. Processors in India are looking for high yielding tomato cultivars with high total soluble solids (5-6 º Brix), acidity not less than 0.4%, pH less than 4.5 and uniform red colour with a/b colour value of at least 2. In addition, firm fruited tomato cultivars with joint less pedicel (j2) which facilitate mechanical harvesting or rapid hand picking. ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research has recently developed two high yielding F1 hybrids in tomato viz: Arka Apeksha and Arka Vishesh suitable for processing. On evaluation for three years, both the hybrids recorded good level of total soluble solids (4.5-5º Brix) and colour value of 2. Further, both the hybrids had high yield potential (80-90 tonnes / hectare) with triple disease resistance to tomato leaf curl disease, bacterial wilt and early blight. Arka Apeksha and Arka Vishesh were also bred with jointless pedicel making them suitable for mechanical harvesting. Our experimental studies on vine storability revealed that all the fruits were intact on plants even 110 days after transplanting in the main field facilitating once over harvest. 279 Breeding tomatoes suitable for processing with triple disease resistance J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 278-292, 2022 of tomato with 11 % global share, less than 1% of the produce is processed when compared to 26% in other major producing countries Of the estimated more than 41 million tonnes of tomato processed globally, only 130,000 tonnes are processed in India a nd domes t ic dema nd f or p r oc es s ed t oma t o products is expanding at an estimated 30% annually (Subramaniam, 2016). At present traditional fresh market tomato cultivars are being processed though suc h cult iva r s a r e u nsuit a ble f or pr ocessing. Processors in India are looking for high yielding tomato cultivars with high total soluble solids (5- 6º Brix), acidity not less than 0.4%, pH less than 4.5 and uniform red colour with a/b colour value of a t lea st 2 (Stevens a nd Rudich, 1 978). In addition, firm fruited tomato cultivars with joint less p edicel (j2 ) which f a c ilita te mecha nic a l harvesting or rapid hand picking. Tomato breeding p r ogr a mme a t I C AR - I ndia n I ns t it u t e of Horticultural Research, Bengaluru has resulted in the development of high yielding dual purpose F1 hybrids with triple disease resistance to tomato leaf curl disease (ToLCD), bacterial wilt (BW) and early blight (EB) suitable for both fresh market and processing. MATERIALS AND METHODS Development of triple disease resistant lines and F1 hybrids Back cross breeding method was adopted during 2005 to pool genes carrying resistance to ToLCD, BW and EB. An advanced breeding line IIHR-2202 (CLN-2123-Dc1F1-111-17-21-2-12) with combined r esista nce to ToLCD +BW received fr om The World Vegetable Center (WVC) was crossed with EB r esista nt line IIHR-1816 (NCEBR1). T he resultant F1 was backcrossed to IIHR-1816 and further advanced up to BC1F7 to develop seven a dva nc ed b r eeding line s wit h t r ip le dis ea s e resistance to ToLCD+BW+EB (Fig. 1). All the seven advanced breeding lines were resistant to ToLCD (Ty 2), BW and EB had high potential with good fruit quality attributes like deep red and firm fruits. All the seven lines were crossed with eight advanced breeding lines received from The World Vegetable Center, Taiwan in a line x tester design to develop 56 hybrids with triple disease resistance. Two hybrid combinations viz., IIHR- 2834 (TLBER-12-21-43-1) x IIHR-2833 (CLN- 2498D) later named as Arka Rakshak and IIHR- 2835 (TLBER-38-7-4-27) x IIHR-2832 (CLN- 2498E) later named as Arka Samrat were resistant to ToLCD+BW+EB with high yield potential & exc ellent fr u it qu a lit y a tt r ib ut es . Bot h Ar ka Ra ksha k a nd Ar ka Sa mr a t wer e identified a t Institute level for commercial cultivation during 2010 (Fig. 2). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Development of dual purpose F1 hybrids in tomato with triple disease resistance Breeding for dual purpose tomato was initiated during 2016. Our aim was to develop high yielding triple disease resistant F1 hybrids suitable for both f r es h ma r ket a nd p r oces s ing f or yea r - r ou nd cultivation under open. Several hybrid combinations were attempted involving the triple disease resistant parent IIHR-2834 which had jointless (j2) pedicel which facilitates mechanical harvesting. IIHR-2834 was crossed with two advanced breeding lines viz., IIHR-2918 (ToLCVRES4-F3-21-9-1) and IIHR- 29 17 ( ToLC VR ES4 -F 3- 18 8- 1-1 ) whic h wer e resistant to ToLCD (Ty 3) and BW and later named as Arka Apeksha (H-385) and Arka Vishesh (H- 391) respectively (Fig. 3). Performance of dual purpose F1 hybrids: Arka Apeksha (H-385) and Arka Vishesh (H-391) A total of eighteen F1 hybrids including two hybrids viz., H-385 (IIHR-2834 x IIHR-2918) and H-391 (IIHR-2834 x IIHR-2917) were evaluated for two years viz., 2017 (rainy season), 2017-18 (winter IIHR-2202 (Combined resistant to ToLCV + BW) x IIHR-1816 (Moderately resistant to EB)  F1 x IIHR-1816  BC1F1 (Triple disease resistant recombinants selected underartificial conditions and advanced)  BC1F7 (Seven advanced breeding lines viz; TLBER-7- 12-15-28, 7-12-15-29, 7-4-11-29, 7-4-11-34, 38-7- 4-27, 38-7-41-43 and 12-21-43-1 with triple resistance were selected) Fig. 1 : Flow chart detailing the development of triple disease resistant tomato lines 280 Fig. 2 : Triple disease resistant F1 hybrids developed at ICAR-IIHR Arka Rakshak Arka Samrat IIHR-2833 IIHR-2832 IIHR-2834 IIHR-2835 Sadashiva et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 278-292, 2022 281 Arka Apeksha (H-385) Arka Vishesh (H-391) Fig. 3 : Arka Apeksha and Arka Vishesh dual purpose tomato F1 hybrids sea son) and 2018 (r ainy season) a nd 2018-19 (winter sea son) r espectively under open field conditions. Five commercial F1 hybrids viz., Arka Rakshak, Arka Samrat, Abhinava, Lakshmi and Shivam were also included as checks. During rainy sea son (2017), H-397 wa s the highest yielder followed by H-391 (94 t/ha), H-387 (84 t /ha) & H-385 (83 t /ha) (Table 1). During winter season (2017-18), H-391 (44 t/ha) was the top yielder followed by H-387 (34 t/ha) and H-397 (33t/ha) (Table 2). During rainy season (2018), H-397 (51.88T/ha), H-387 (46t/ha), H-391 (28 t/ha) and H-385 (25 t/ha) (Table 3) were the top yielders among the processing type. During winter season (2018-19) both H-391 (31 t/ha) and H-385 (30t/ha) were also high yielders (Table 4). Mean yield over all the seasons revealed that H- 385 (46 t/ha) &H-391 (43 /ha) (Table 5) expressed high yield potentia l over the commer cia l dua l purpose hybrid Abhinava (40 t/ha). Both these two hybrids also recorded average fruit weight of 70g- 90g with high TSS (50Brix) and deep red firm fruits (8 kg/cm2) which meet present day market demand. During rainy season (2018), both the hybrids viz., H-385 and H-391 were triple disease resistant to ToLCD+BW+EB, whereas commer cial hybrids expressed moder ate resista nce and susceptible r ea c tion to ToL CD a nd BW (Ta b le 6) . Four season’s data revealed that H-385 and H-391 had high yield potential & commercially acceptable fruit quality attributes with triple disease resistance to ToLCD, BW and EB. Pooled analysis for yield per hectare over three years confirmed yield stability of Arka Apeksha and Arka Vishesh (Table 7) Breeding tomatoes suitable for processing with triple disease resistance J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 278-292, 2022 282 H yb ri d E st im a- A ve ra ge N o of F ru it F ru it P er ic ar p T SS F ru it N o. Sh el f F ru it F ru it te d yi el d F ru it fr ui t/ le ng th w id th th ic kn es s (0 B ri x) fi rm ne ss of L if e co lo ur sh ap e (t /h a) w ei gh t kg ( g) (c m ) (c m ) (c m ) (k g/ cm 2 ) lo cu le s (D ay s) H -3 85 83 .0 0 81 .2 3 12 .3 1 6. 25 4. 50 0. 10 5. 00 8. 25 2. 00 - - - H -3 87 84 .0 0 92 .8 5 10 .7 7 5. 55 5. 00 0. 50 5. 10 9. 75 3. 00 18 R Sq . R ou nd H -3 91 (A rk a V is he sh ) 93 .1 7 10 1. 11 9. 89 5. 90 5. 00 0. 75 5. 50 7. 00 3. 00 19 R Sq . R ou nd H -3 97 11 2. 83 91 .6 6 10 .9 1 4. 90 6. 00 0. 70 5. 00 8. 00 6. 00 12 R O bl -r d H -4 23 52 .5 0 95 .2 4 10 .5 0 6. 10 5. 50 0. 55 4. 70 8. 25 3. 00 H -5 01 79 .5 0 93 .9 8 10 .6 4 5. 15 6. 00 0. 70 5. 00 7. 75 4. 00 14 R O bl -r d H -5 02 89 .5 0 80 .4 5 12 .4 3 4. 35 5. 80 0. 65 4. 00 8. 25 4. 00 - - - H -5 04 72 .2 5 95 .1 5 10 .5 1 5. 10 5. 90 0. 50 4. 80 6. 75 6. 00 - - - H -5 05 74 .6 7 10 1. 42 9. 86 5. 10 6. 00 0. 60 5. 00 9. 50 4. 00 - - - H -5 06 98 .3 3 11 3. 38 8. 82 5. 15 6. 60 0. 90 4. 10 6. 75 5. 00 13 R O bl -r d PH -1 02 1 88 .8 3 13 4. 41 7. 44 5. 35 6. 00 0. 60 4. 70 8. 75 6. 00 8 R O bl -r d PH -1 02 5 89 .0 0 12 7. 23 7. 86 5. 75 6. 00 0. 70 5. 10 7. 25 6. 00 9 R O bl -r d PH -6 32 1 92 .2 3 12 0. 05 8. 33 6. 00 7. 30 0. 65 4. 15 7. 50 5. 00 9 R O bl -r d A rk a R ak sh ak 90 .1 7 72 .9 4 13 .7 1 5. 90 5. 00 0. 55 4. 40 8. 75 3. 00 18 D R O va l A rk a Sa m ra t 10 3. 33 89 .9 3 11 .1 2 5. 10 6. 20 0. 80 4. 90 9. 00 4. 00 19 D R O bl -r d L ak sh m i 10 2. 33 63 .6 9 15 .7 0 5. 25 4. 80 0. 55 4. 25 6. 25 4. 00 13 D R O bl at e Sh iv am 99 .8 3 86 .4 3 11 .5 7 4. 65 5. 65 0. 50 4. 80 6. 75 5. 00 13 D R O bl at e A bh in av 88 .3 3 90 .9 1 11 .0 0 5. 50 4. 60 0. 60 4. 35 8. 25 2. 00 13 D R O va l C D @ 5% 27 .8 3 18 .2 1 2. 08 0. 32 0. 15 0. 10 0. 73 0. 78 0. 15 C V ( % ) 19 .1 7 8. 21 11 .0 7 2. 30 0. 95 5. 25 5. 47 3. 70 2. 26 Ta bl e1 : P er fo rm an ce o f to m at o F 1 h yb ri ds a t IC A R -I IH R , B en ga lu ru ( R ai ny s ea so n, 2 01 7) Sadashiva et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 278-292, 2022 283 H yb ri d E st im at ed A ve ra ge N o of F ru it F ru it P er ic ar p T SS F ru it N o. o f yi el d F ru it fr ui t/ le ng th w id th th ic kn es s (0 B ri x) fi rm ne ss lo cu le s (t /h a) w ei gh t (g ) kg (c m ) (c m ) (c m ) (k g/ cm 2 ) H -3 85 ( A rk a A pe ks ha ) - - - - - - - - - H -3 87 34 .0 0 85 .8 6 11 .6 5 6. 83 6. 33 0. 67 5. 17 8. 00 3. 00 H -3 91 ( A rk a V is he sh ) 43 .6 7 89 .5 6 11 .1 7 7. 17 6. 17 0. 90 4. 83 7. 17 2. 00 H -3 97 33 .3 3 10 5. 30 9. 50 6. 33 7. 17 0. 77 5. 17 7. 17 4. 00 H -4 23 - - - - - - - - - H -5 01 16 .0 8 12 5. 00 8. 00 6. 50 7. 67 0. 97 5. 20 7. 00 6. 00 H -5 02 24 .8 3 10 9. 01 9. 17 6. 67 7. 33 0. 70 4. 83 7. 50 5. 00 H -5 04 - - - - - - - - - H -5 05 34 .3 3 97 .6 4 10 .2 4 5. 17 6. 17 0. 67 5. 00 9. 00 3. 00 H -5 06 34 .8 3 10 5. 30 9. 50 5. 17 6. 33 0. 50 5. 00 6. 00 4. 00 PH -1 02 1 29 .1 7 12 0. 37 8. 31 6. 00 6. 67 0. 63 5. 17 8. 33 4. 00 PH -1 02 5 32 .3 3 13 2. 28 7. 56 7. 00 7. 50 0. 70 4. 83 8. 00 4. 00 PH -6 32 1 38 .1 7 11 2. 04 8. 93 6. 67 6. 77 0. 73 5. 17 8. 00 3. 00 A rk a R ak sh ak 40 .0 0 93 .9 4 10 .6 5 6. 67 6. 83 0. 83 4. 17 7. 50 4. 00 A rk a Sa m ra t 40 .1 7 86 .7 5 11 .5 3 6. 17 7. 00 0. 80 5. 00 8. 00 3. 00 L ak sh m i 39 .8 3 88 .3 8 11 .3 1 6. 83 6. 17 0. 83 5. 00 8. 00 2. 00 Sh iv am 37 .8 3 72 .1 2 13 .8 7 6. 50 6. 17 0. 53 5. 17 7. 00 5. 00 A bh in av 32 .3 3 92 .9 8 10 .7 6 4. 50 6. 00 0. 60 5. 00 6. 17 4. 00 C D @ 5% 15 .6 2 30 .3 7 2. 12 0. 65 0. 49 0. 10 0. 40 0. 39 0. 31 C V ( % ) 6. 78 6. 81 2. 21 1. 29 2. 00 7. 49 2. 87 1. 45 2. 14 Ta bl e 2 : Pe rf or m an ce o f to m at o F 1 h yb ri ds a t IC A R -I IH R , B en ga lu ru ( W in te r se as on , 20 17 -1 8) Breeding tomatoes suitable for processing with triple disease resistance J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 278-292, 2022 284 H yb ri d E st im at ed A ve ra ge N o of F ru it F ru it P er ic ar p T SS F ru it N o. o f yi el d F ru it fr ui t/ kg le ng th w id th th ic kn es s (0 B ri x) fi rm ne ss lo cu le s (t /h a) w ei gh t (g ) (c m ) (c m ) (c m ) (k g/ cm 2 ) H -3 85 ( A rk a A pe ks ha ) 24 .6 7 66 .6 7 15 .6 7 5. 63 5. 27 0. 70 5. 00 8. 20 3. 33 H -3 87 46 .0 9 10 0. 00 10 .0 0 5. 03 4. 90 0. 70 4. 33 8. 17 3. 00 H -3 91 (A rk a V is he sh ) 28 .0 7 68 .7 0 14 .6 7 5. 33 5. 60 0. 97 4. 83 9. 17 3. 00 H -3 97 51 .8 8 81 .2 0 12 .3 3 4. 93 6. 30 0. 97 4. 17 6. 63 6. 00 H -4 23 22 .6 7 83 .3 3 12 .0 0 6. 20 5. 30 0. 80 5. 17 7. 37 3. 00 H -5 01 21 .0 4 12 0. 37 8. 33 5. 33 6. 03 0. 87 5. 00 6. 50 5. 00 H -5 02 2. 81 * 93 .9 4 10 .6 7 4. 00 5. 90 0. 91 5. 17 7. 33 5. 67 H -5 04 1. 04 * 91 .4 1 11 .0 0 4. 03 4. 90 0. 47 5. 73 6. 50 5. 00 H -5 05 9. 79 96 .9 7 10 .3 3 4. 50 4. 80 0. 50 4. 77 8. 33 4. 33 H -5 06 22 .1 9 10 0. 67 10 .0 0 5. 23 6. 23 0. 77 4. 23 6. 17 6. 00 PH -1 02 1 27 .6 0 12 0. 37 8. 33 5. 03 6. 20 0. 57 5. 37 7. 50 5. 00 PH -1 02 5 17 .8 1 12 0. 37 8. 33 5. 23 5. 90 0. 30 4. 60 8. 17 5. 00 PH -6 32 1 40 .6 3 11 6. 67 8. 67 5. 17 6. 03 0. 60 5. 10 10 .3 3 5. 00 A rk a R ak sh ak 52 .7 1 91 .4 1 11 .0 0 6. 17 5. 83 0. 93 5. 17 10 .3 0 3. 00 A rk a Sa m ra t 40 .7 3 12 0. 37 8. 33 4. 97 5. 73 0. 83 5. 33 8. 70 5. 00 L ak sh m i 4. 38 * 84 .9 2 12 .0 0 5. 10 5. 33 0. 70 4. 17 7. 50 5. 67 Sh iv am 25 .5 2 81 .2 0 12 .3 3 3. 93 6. 00 0. 53 5. 23 7. 67 6. 00 A bh in av 25 .8 3 10 3. 70 9. 67 6. 10 4. 87 0. 90 4. 50 8. 50 2. 00 C D @ 5% 18 .5 0 15 .1 2 2. 17 0. 31 0. 45 0. 18 0. 79 0. 48 0. 42 C V ( % ) 9. 30 0. 96 2. 45 0. 46 3. 12 2. 82 0. 65 1. 99 1. 26 Ta bl e 3 : Pe rf or m an ce o f pr om is in g to m at o hy br id s du ri ng r ai ny s ea so n (2 01 8- 19 ) Sadashiva et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 278-292, 2022 285 H yb ri d E st im at ed F ru it F ru it P er ic ar p T SS F ru it N o of yi el d le ng th w id th th ic kn es s (0 B ) F ir m ne ss lo cu le s (t /h a) (c m ) (c m ) (c m ) (k g/ cm 2 ) H -3 85 (A rk a A pe ks ha ) 30 .0 6. 8 6. 1 0. 7 5. 3 7. 5 2. 3 H -3 87 28 .8 6. 9 5. 6 0. 7 4. 5 7. 0 3 H -3 91 ( A rk a V is he sh ) 31 .4 6. 5 5. 6 0. 7 4. 7 6. 6 2. 7 H -4 23 28 .9 7 5. 6 0. 7 4. 4 7. 3 3. 3 H -5 01 24 .8 5. 5 7 0. 4 4. 8 6. 0 5. 3 H -5 02 28 .1 4. 5 6. 7 0. 6 5. 4 5. 7 5. 7 H -5 04 28 .6 4. 2 5. 8 0. 5 5. 5 6. 1 5. 0 H -5 05 26 .1 5. 8 6. 8 0. 7 5. 3 6. 9 5. 7 H -5 06 28 .0 5. 3 6. 5 0. 8 4. 6 6. 9 5. 3 PH -1 02 1 28 .3 5. 4 5. 8 0. 5 5. 4 7. 7 5. 7 PH -1 02 5 25 .3 6. 6 7 0. 5 5. 2 5. 9 6. 3 PH -6 32 1 32 .3 5. 7 5. 7 0. 6 5. 5 6. 0 6. 3 A rk a A bh ed 28 .9 5. 4 6. 1 0. 7 5 6. 7 6. 0 A rk a R ak sh ak 26 .6 6. 1 5. 4 0. 7 5. 2 6. 7 2. 7 A rk a Sa m ra t 23 .7 6. 2 6. 2 0. 5 5. 5 6. 0 4. 0 L ak sh m i 22 .9 4. 4 5. 8 0. 5 5. 8 5. 8 4. 0 Sh iv am 21 .6 4. 6 5. 5 0. 6 4. 8 6. 0 4. 7 A bh in av 30 .7 6. 3 5. 2 0. 7 5 7. 8 2. 0 C D ( P= 0. 05 ) 5. 35 0. 25 0. 45 0. 2 0. 65 0. 86 1. 58 C V ( % ) 2. 4 0. 53 0. 88 3. 91 1. 4 1. 61 3. 99 Ta bl e 4 : Pe rf or m an ce o f to m at o hy br id s du ri ng w in te r se as on ( 20 18 -1 9) Breeding tomatoes suitable for processing with triple disease resistance J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 278-292, 2022 286 H yb ri d E st im at ed y ie ld A ve ra ge F ru it T SS F ru it f ir m ne ss % I nc re as e in (t /h a) w t (g ) (0 B ri x) (k g/ cm 2 ) yi el d ov er A bh in av H -3 85 ( A rk a A pe ks ha ) 46 .0 0 95 .1 4 5. 15 7. 85 15 H -3 87 41 .7 5 77 .5 6 4. 70 7. 80 H -3 91 ( A rk a V is he sh ) 43 .1 9 69 .8 8 4. 90 7. 20 7. 5 H -3 97 47 .4 6 74 .4 3 4. 60 7. 30 H -4 23 31 .2 0 82 .9 6 4. 40 6. 90 H -5 01 33 .4 9 10 1. 55 5. 35 6. 40 H -5 02 33 .8 3 83 .7 6 5. 10 6. 90 H -5 04 31 .3 8 88 .1 7 5. 30 6. 75 H -5 05 33 .8 0 94 .9 5 4. 75 7. 90 H -5 06 40 .0 4 88 .9 7 4. 90 7. 00 PH -1 02 1 36 .9 2 10 8. 80 5. 15 7. 05 PH -1 02 5 39 .3 4 92 .5 7 5. 15 6. 90 PH -6 32 1 42 .9 6 88 .1 2 4. 90 7. 65 A rk a R ak sh ak 43 .7 8 72 .0 7 4. 90 7. 80 A rk a Sa m ra t 42 .5 6 75 .8 2 5. 30 7. 30 L ak sh m i 35 .8 8 65 .6 8 5. 15 6. 55 Sh iv am 38 .0 0 72 .8 9 4. 95 6. 55 A bh in av 39 .7 7 72 .8 8 4. 80 7. 70 Ta bl e 5 : M ea n Pe rf or m an ce o f se le ct ed t om at o F 1 h yb ri ds f or y ie ld a nd q ua lit y pa ra m et er s Sadashiva et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 278-292, 2022 287 H yb ri d R ea ct io n to T oL C B V D is ea se B ac te ri al w ilt R ea ct io n R ea ct io n D is ea se S ev er it y Sc or e R ea ct io n in ci de nc e to to 30 dp i 60 dp i (% ) E B ( P D I) L B ( P D I) H -3 85 ( A rk a A pe ks ha ) 0. 44 ±0 .2 2 1. 00 ±0 .1 9 H R 2 (R ) 05 ( H R ) 97 ( H S) H -3 87 0. 67 ±0 .1 9 0. 89 ± 0. 29 H R 2 (R ) 10 ( H R ) 92 ( H S) H -3 91 (A rk a V is he sh ) 0. 33 ± 0 .1 9 0. 67 ± 0. 00 H R 1 (R ) 10 ( H R ) 10 0 (H S) H -3 97 0. 00 ± 0. 00 0. 44 ± 0. 19 H R 0 (H R ) 05 ( H R ) 0 (H R ) H -5 01 0. 22 ± 0 .1 1 0. 44 ± 0 .1 1 H R 0 (H R ) 20 ( R ) 94 ( H S) H -5 06 0. 22 ± 0. 11 0. 67 ± 0. 00 H R 2 (R ) 15 ( R ) 92 ( H S) A rk a R ak sh ak 1. 78 ± 0. 11 2. 44 ± 0. 19 M R 6 (R ) 15 ( R ) 10 0 (H S) A rk a Sa m ra t 2. 00 ± 0. 19 2. 78 ± 0. 19 M R 8 (R ) 20 ( R ) 10 0 (H S) A bh in av a 1. 11 ± 0. 11 1. 67 ± 0 .1 9 M R 9 (R ) 30 ( M R ) 98 ( H S) L ak sh m i 0. 67 ± 0. 19 2. 17 ± 0 .1 1 M R 5 8 (H S) 30 ( M R ) 10 0 (H S) Sh iv am 0. 83 ± 0. 19 3. 00 ± 0 .1 1 S 45 ( S) 05 ( H R ) 93 ( H S) Pu nj ab C hu ha ra 1. 75 ± 0. 09 4. 00 ± 0 .0 0 H S - - - C D @ 5% 0. 65 2 0. 65 0 14 .1 1 C V % 36 .3 2 22 .3 2 6. 89 N ot e: d pi = da ys o f po st i no cu la tio n, H R = H ig hl y R es is ta nt , M R = M od er at el y R es is ta nt , R = R es is ta nt , S= S us ce pt ib le a nd H S= H ig hl y Su sc ep tib le Ta bl e 6 : R ea ct io n of t om at o F 1 h yb ri ds t o To L C B V, B W , E B a nd L B d ur in g ra in y se as on ( 20 18 ) Breeding tomatoes suitable for processing with triple disease resistance J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 278-292, 2022 288 Assessment of Arka Apeksha (H-385) and Arka Vishesh (H-391) for processing qualities Processing qualities in fine pulp were estimated in Arka Apeksha and Arka Vishesh at ICAR-IIHR, Bengaluru. Both the hybrids exhibited higher values for TSS (>50Brix), lycopene (>12 mg/100g) and colour index (47) (Table 8). Processing qualities in tomato puree was also estimated in Arka Apeksha and Arka Vishesh. Arka Vishesh recorded the highest TSS (11.200 Brix) when compared to commercial puree marketed by popular processing Industries such as Dabur, Kisan and Morton (Table 9). Both the hybrids also exhibited higher values for lycopene (> 13 mg/ 100g). Higher values were also observed for TSS (>270Brix) & lycopene (>14 mg/100g) in tomato paste in both the hybrids (Arka Apeksha & Arka Vishesh) (Table 10). In order to assess the processing qualities and suitability of Arka Apeksha (H-385) and Arka Vishesh (H-391), fruit samples were supplied to four commercial processing industries located in the different states in the country viz., Sahyadri Foods, Na shik, Ma ha r a shtr a sta te, Sun-sip Foods, Sr iniva sa pur a , Ka r na ta ka Sta te, Ja dli Foods, Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu State and Cremica Food Industries Ltd., Phillaur, Punjab State. Sahydri Foods analysed fruit samples of four entries viz., Arka Apeksha, Arka Vishesh, Abhinav and Arka Ashish (a pure line selection from UC82B) for Hunter Lab colour value, lycopene, acidity, TSS, pH and total solids in the initial pulp and puree (Table 11). Colour value was more than 2 in the puree in all the samples. Arka Apeksha and Arka Vishesh recorded TSS 40 Brix and >120 Brix in the initial pulp and puree respectively which was slightly more than dual Sadashiva et al Table 7 : Pooled analysis for estimated yield per hectare Hybrid Yield (t/ha) 2017 2018 2019 H-385 (Arka Apeksha) 83.0 24.7 30.0 H-387 84.0 46.1 28.8 H-391 (Arka Vishesh) 93.2 28.1 31.4 H-397 112.8 51.9 28.9 H-423 52.5 22.7 28.9 H-501 79.5 21.0 24.8 H-502 89.5 2.8 28.1 H-504 72.3 1.0 28.6 H-505 74.7 9.8 26.1 H-506 98.3 22.2 28.0 H-1021 88.8 27.6 28.3 H-1025 89.0 17.8 25.3 H-6321 92.2 40.6 32.3 Arka Rakshak 90.2 52.7 26.6 Arka Samrat 103.3 40.7 23.7 Laxmi 102.3 4.4 22.9 Shivam 99.8 25.5 21.6 Abhinav 88.3 25.8 30.7 CD (P=0.05) 10.86 CV (5%) 24.58 J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 278-292, 2022 289 Hybrids TSS pH Acidity Vit-C Lycopene Colour Tomato (°Brix) (%) (mg/ (mg/ Value Colour 100g) 100g) Index Abhinav 10.2 4.1 0.66 36.56 11.90 0.99 42.18 H-397 10.80 4.1 0.67 22.26 13.91 1.20 45.65 Arka Vishesh (H-391) 11.20 4.1 0.83 28.75 13.03 1.36 47.21 Arka Apeksha (H-385) 8.80 4.1 0.81 27.54 13.41 1.28 47.99 H-387 10.33 4.0 0.72 24.06 13.38 1.34 50.46 Dabur old 9.8 3.9 0.59 13.42 14.02 1.21 45.22 Dabur new sample 10 3.8 0.60 14.66 13.92 - - Kisan 8.9 4.0 0.62 26.47 10.65 1.31 47.10 Morton 9.0 4.0 0.634 19.74 10.72 1.14 45.38 Table 9 : Processing qualities- tomato puree Table 10 : Processing qualities-tomato paste Hybrid TSS Acidity Colour Tomato Vitamin Lycopene Tomato (°Brix) (%) Value as Colour C (mg/ (mg/ Colour per Index 100g) 100g) Index formula Abhinav 28.0 1.95 1.20 47.72 47.13 12.85 28.0 H-397 27.5 1.31 1.73 53.36 32.08 14.16 27.5 Arka Vishesh (H-391) 27.0 1.72 1.38 48.98 38.97 14.13 27.0 Arka Apeksha (H-385) 26.2 1.43 1.40 50.65 36.58 14.15 26.2 Indira 28.0 1.12 1.21 45.22 32.33 14.08 28.0 Table 8 : Processing qualities attribute for fine pulp Hybrid TSS Total Juice pH Acidity Vit-C Lycop- Tomato (°Brix) Solids Yield (%) (mg/ ene (mg/ Colour (%) (%) 100g) 100g) Index Abhinav 5.68 7.54 74 4.2 0.38 27.84 10.26 44 H-397 5.66 6.86 67 4.1 0.33 17.52 12.19 45 Arka Vishesh (H-391) 5.40 6.60 70 4.3 0.54 15.83 12.97 47 Arka Apeksha (H-385) 5.33 6.88 74 4.2 0.54 20.15 13.41 47 H-387 5.00 7.26 74 4.1 0.52 13.85 11.95 47 purpose commercial hybrid Abhinav and processing variety Aka Ashish. But Arka Ashish (476) recorded highest lycopene (C/2 scale) followed by Abhinav (473), Arka Apeksha (469) and Arka Vishesh (442). Acidity was less than 0.26 in Arka Ashish and Abhinav. pH was less than 4.3 in all the entries. Arka Apeksha recorded the highest total solids (86.35%) (Table 11) in the puree. Both Arka Apeksha and Arka Vishesh had acceptable processing qualities. Sun-sip foods analysed fruit samples in Arka Apeksha, Arka Vishesh and Abhinav for process time, Brix, acidity, pH, colour value and number. of pouches filled. All the parameters were on par with each other in the initial pulp and the final product, where as Arka Apeksha (2 hr 12 min) took less time compared to Arka Vishesh (2 h 25min ) & Abhinav (2 h 27 min) Breeding tomatoes suitable for processing with triple disease resistance J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 278-292, 2022 290 Ta bl e 11 : P ro ce ss in g qu al ity p ar am et er s of s el ec te d hy br id s P ar am et er H -3 91 (A rk a V is he sh ) A bh in av H -3 85 ( A rk a A pe ks ha ) A rk a A sh is h In it ia l P ul p 12 b ri x pu re e In it ia l P ul p 12 b ri x pu re e In it ia l P ul p 12 b ri x pu re e In it ia l P ul p 12 b ri x pu re e H un te r O n O n O n O n O n O n O n O n O n O n O n O n O n O n O n O n L ab c ol ou r C /2 D 65 /2 C /2 D 65 /2 C /2 D 65 /2 C /2 D 65 /2 C /2 D 65 /2 C /2 D 65 /2 C /2 D 65 /2 C /2 D 65 /2 va lu e Sc al e Sc al e Sc al e Sc al e Sc al e Sc al e Sc al e Sc al e Sc al e Sc al e Sc al e Sc al e Sc al e Sc al e Sc al e Sc al e L 32 .9 2 31 .2 7 23 .7 4 23 .1 32 .3 8 31 .1 5 24 .3 23 .5 32 .7 5 30 .5 4 23 .6 5 22 .7 7 32 .7 7 31 .1 2 23 .1 7 22 .3 7 a 34 .3 6 31 .4 5 27 .8 9 26 .4 7 34 .0 4 31 .8 5 30 .8 6 29 .1 8 33 .2 6 30 .0 5 29 .4 8 28 .1 6 34 .0 9 31 .9 1 30 28 .4 b 16 .7 5 15 .3 13 .5 5 12 .1 8 15 .7 14 .1 9 14 .1 6 12 .9 6 17 .2 5 15 .3 3 13 .6 4 12 .6 17 .0 3 15 .3 7 13 .7 12 .4 9 a/ b 2. 05 2 2. 05 5 2. 05 8 2. 17 3 2. 16 9 2. 24 4 2. 17 9 2. 25 1 1. 92 8 1. 96 2. 16 2 2. 23 4 2. 00 2 2. 07 6 2. 18 9 2. 27 3 Ly co pe ne C /2 44 0 N A 44 2 N A 47 1 N A 47 3 N A 40 9 N A 46 9 N A 42 8 N A 47 6 N A B ri x 4 12 .2 4 12 4 12 .2 3. 2 12 .1 A ci di ty 0. 3 0. 94 0. 25 0. 63 0. 35 0. 62 0. 26 1. 07 pH 4. 1 3. 93 4. 14 4. 1 4. 12 4. 09 4. 14 4. 16 To ta l S ol id s (% ) 95 .2 2% 85 .3 8% 94 .7 6% 85 .9 1% 95 .1 5% 86 .3 5% 96 .1 3% 84 .7 8% C ou rt es y: M r. Sa ch in , S ah ya dr i fo od s, N as hi k, M ah ar as ht ra P ar am et er A rk a V is he sh ( H -3 91 ) A rk a A pe ks ha ( H -3 85 ) A bh in av N et f ru it w ei gh t (k g) 6 5. 85 6 Pr oc es s T im e 2 H rs 2 5 M in 2 H rs 1 2 M in 2 H rs 2 7 M in R ea di ng s In iti al Fi na l In iti al Fi na l In iti al Fi na l B ri x 4. 05 12 .1 2 4. 28 12 .2 1 4. 41 12 .3 1 A ci di ty % 0. 28 0. 89 0. 28 0. 85 0. 31 0. 89 pH 4. 16 3. 51 4. 01 3. 71 4. 0 3. 85 C ol ou r- a/ b 1. 75 1. 98 1. 9 1. 97 1. 9 1. 98 N o of P ou ch es F ill ed 2 N o’ s 2 N o’ s 2 N o’ s C ou rt es y: M r. H em an th , Su n- Si p fo od s, S ri ni va sa pu ra , K ar na ta ka Ta bl e 12 : P ro ce ss in g qu al ity p ar am et er s of s el ec te d hy br id s Sadashiva et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 278-292, 2022 291 Ta bl e 13 : P hy si ca l, ch em ic al , o rg an ol ep tic a na ly si s of f re sh f ru its P ar am et er A bh in av A rk a V is he sh ( H -3 91 ) A rk a A pe ks ha ( H -3 85 ) T .S .S . 4. 2o B ri x 4. 2o B ri x 4. 2o B ri x A C ID IT Y (% a s C /A ) 0. 27 % 0. 33 % 0. 38 % SE E D S PE R C E N TA G E V E R Y L E SS V E R Y L E SS V E R Y L E SS C O L O U R D E E P R E D D E E P R E D D E E P R E D TA ST E N A T U R A L & C H A R A C T E R ST IC S N A T U R A L & C H A R A C T E R ST IC S N A T U R A L & C H A R A C T E R ST IC S O F R IP E T O M A T O O F R IP E T O M A T O O F R IP E T O M A T O FL U SH G O O D /D E E P R E D G O O D /D E E P R E D G O O D /D E E P R E D FL A V O R T Y PI C A L R IP E T O M A T O F L A V O R T Y PI C A L R IP E T O M A T O F L A V O R T Y PI C A L R IP E T O M A T O F L A V O R A PP E A R A N C E SO U N D & G O O D SO U N D & G O O D SO U N D & G O O D H yb ri d T .S .S . pH A ci di ty H un te r co lo r va lu e on V is co si ty ( 30 s ec .) V is ua l (0 B ri x) (% ) C 2 ill um in at io n B O ST W IC K ob se rv at io n A rk a V is he sh (H -3 91 ) 4. 05 4. 39 0. 36 L =3 2. 56 a =3 5. 37 b =1 6. 67 a b= 2. 12 14 .0 0 L es s ju ic y, s of t sk in , le ss s ee d 4. 00 4. 44 0. 32 L =3 5. 80 a =3 4. 89 b =1 7. 96 a b= 1. 94 14 .0 0 3. 94 4. 42 0. 35 L =3 0. 19 a =3 4. 45 b =1 6. 16 a b= 2. 13 14 .2 0 M ea n 4. 00 4. 41 0. 34 a/ b= 2. 06 14 .0 0 A rk a A pe ks ha ( H -3 85 ) 4. 15 4. 36 0. 38 L =3 2. 52 a =3 5. 12 b =1 6. 84 a b= 2. 09 12 .0 0 H ar d sk in , le ss s ee d 4. 10 4. 43 0. 33 L =3 6. 51 a =3 5. 75 b =1 8. 09 a b= 1. 98 12 .5 0 4. 05 4. 42 0. 35 L =3 2. 94 a =3 5. 87 b =1 7. 43 a b= 2. 06 12 .5 0 M ea n 4. 1 4. 4 0. 35 a/ b= 2. 04 12 .3 3 C ou rt es y: C re m ic a, P hi lla ur , P un ja b Ta bl e 14 : P ro ce ss in g qu al ity c ha ra ct er is tic s of H yb ri ds ; A rk a V is he sh ( H -3 91 ) an d A rk a A pe ks ha ( H -3 85 ) Breeding tomatoes suitable for processing with triple disease resistance J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 278-292, 2022 292 Table 15 : Processable characteristics for Arka Vishesh (H-391) and Aka Apeksha (H-385) Parameter H-391 H-385 Parameters desired by Processing Industry TSS (degree OBrix) 4-4.6 4-4.7 4.2 or higher (Higher the better) Colour value 1.98-2.12 1.96-2.09 > 1.95 Acidity (%) 0.32-0.36 0.34-0.38 <0.40 pH 4.21-4.41 4.12-4.40 < 4.40 Texture/ Firmness 4.09-5.41 4.05-4.30 > 4 Lycopene (mg/100g fresh weight) 8.5-10.5 11.12-11.42 >8.0 Lycopene in tomato paste 14.14 14.15 >14 (mg/100g fresh weight) Viscosity (Bostwick, cms/30 sec) 14-14.20 12-12.50 7-14 (Table 12). Jadli foods carried out physical, chemical and organoleptic analysis of fresh fruits. All the parameters in Arka Apeksha and Arka Vishesh were on par with commercial hybrid Abhinav (Table 13). Cremica analysed both Arka Apeksha and Arka Vishesh for TSS (40Brix), pH (4.4), acidity (0.35), colour value (>2) and viscosity (12-14) (Table 15). CONCLUSION Values obtained for all the parameters revealed that both the hybrids in Arka Apeksha and Arka Vishesh were suitable for processing. The processing qualities analysed by four commercial processing industries were in the acceptable range as desired by the processing industry in India. However, there is a need to breed tomato varieties / F1 hybrids with higher TSS (5.5-60 Brix). REFERENCES Agarwal, S. and Rao, A. V., 2000, Tomato lycopene and its role in huma n health and chr onic diseases. CMAJ, 163(6): 739-744. Beecher, G. R. 1998, Nutrient content of tomatoes and tomato products, Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med., 218: 98-100. Cobley, L. S and Steele, W. M., 1976, An introduction to the botany of tropical crops. ELBS and Longman, London, p. 267-272 FAOSTAT: http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E). Accessed on 21st March 2022. Lukyanenko, A. N., 1991, Disease resistance in toma to. In Genetic impr ovement of tomato. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, p. 99-119. Naika, S., Juede, J.,Goffau, M.,Hilmi, M. and Dam, V., 2005, Cultivation of tomato production, processing and marketing. Agromisa/CTA, Agrodokseries No. 17. Stevens, M. A. and Rudich, J., 1978, Genetic potential for overcoming physiological limitations on adaptability, yield, and quality in the tomato. Hortic. Sci., 13(6): 673-677. Subramanian R. 2016. India processing tomato segment: Cur r ent sta tus, tr ends a nd opportunities for engagement. World Vegetable Center, Taiwan. Sadashiva et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 278-292, 2022 (Received : 21.03.2022; Revised : 01.12.2022; Accepted : 12.12.2022)