From ONvegetables
By: Cheryl Trueman, Ridgetown Campus – University of Guelph
About these tables:
- These tables were created using results from replicated processing tomato field trials at the Ridgetown Campus, University of Guelph. Please contact the author for more information on research methods and copies of full reports. The tables are for information only and do not guarantee successful results with the use of any product.
- Always check the most recent version of the product label before applying any product.
- Only products labelled for ‘control’ of the specific disease are included in each table except where noted.
Late blight:
- An Ontario-specific version of fungicide ratings by Dr. Tom Zitter (Cornell University) for late blight was compiled by Janice LeBoeuf (OMAFRA) in 2015 and is posted here.
- Some fungicides are not included in the summary. Efficacy trials completed in the Great Lakes Region suggest:
- Zampro (Group 40 + 45, ametoctradin + dimethomorph): dimethomorph is rated ++ by Dr. Tom Zitter; Zampro was equivalent to programs using ++ and +++ rated fungicides in a trial in Pennsylvania.
- Orondis Ultra (Group U15 + 40, oxathiapiprolin + mandipropamid): mandipropamid is rated ++ by Dr. Tom Zitter; oxathiapiprolin provided very good (+++) control when applied in rotation with ++ rated fungicides in a trial in Pennsylvania.
Anthracnose (fruit rot):
- Fungicide trials for anthracnose management are completed on a regular basis at the Ridgetown Campus, University of Guelph. Only data from trials with high disease pressure were considered in developing these ratings.
| Trade Name | Active Ingredient(s) | FRAC Group(s) | # of Trials | Rating[1] |
| Various | Mancozeb | M3 | 1 | +++ |
| Various | Chlorothalonil | M5 | 5 | +++ |
| Inspire | Difenoconazole | 3 | 3 | + |
| Bravo Top | Difenoconazole + chlorothalonil | 3 + M5 | 3 | +++ |
| Lance / Cantus | Boscalid | 7 | 3 | 0 |
| Aprovia | Benzovindiflupyr | 7 | 2 | +++ |
| Sercadis** | Fluxapyroxad | 7 | 2 | ++ |
| Fontelis** | Penthiopyrad | 7 | 3 | +++ |
| Reason | Fenamidone | 11 | 1 | 0 |
| Cabrio | Pyraclostrobin | 11 | 3 | +++ |
| Quadris | Azoxystrobin | 11 | 4 | +++ |
| Quadris Top | Azoxystrobin + difenoconazole | 11 + 3 | 3 | +++ |
Early blight:
- Early blight disease pressure is inconsistent at the Ridgetown Campus, University of Guelph. Ratings represent results of only one efficacy trial when disease pressure was high. Therefore, it is not possible to include observations on product consistency in ratings.
| Trade Name | Active Ingredient(s) | FRAC Group(s) | # of Trials | Rating[2] |
| Various | Chlorothalonil | M5 | 1 | ++ to +++ |
| Inspire | Difenoconazole | 3 | 1 | ++ |
| Lance / Cantus | Boscalid | 7 | 1 | +++ |
| Fontelis | Penthiopyrad | 7 | 1 | + |
| Scala | Pyrimethanil | 9 | 1 | ++ |
| Reason | Fenamidone | 11 | 1 | ++ |
| Cabrio | Pyraclostrobin | 11 | 1 | ++ |
| Quadris | Azoxystrobin | 11 | 1 | ++ |
| Quadris Top | Azoxystrobin + difenoconazole | 11 + 3 | 1 | +++ |
Septoria leaf spot:
- Septoria leaf spot pressure is inconsistent at the Ridgetown Campus, University of Guelph. Ratings represent results of only one efficacy trial when disease pressure was high. Therefore, it is not possible to include observations on product consistency in ratings.
| Trade Name | Active Ingredient(s) | FRAC Group(s) | # of Trials | Rating[3] |
| Bravo ZN | Chlorothalonil | M5 | 1 | +++ |
| Bravo Top | Chlorothalonil + difenoconazole | M5 + 3 | 1 | +++ |
| Aprovia | Benzovindiflupyr | 7 | 1 | +++ |
| Sercadis** | Fluxapyroxad | 7 | 1 | +++ |
| Fontelis** | Penthiopyrad | 7 | 1 | +++ |
| Quadris | Azoxystrobin | 11 | 1 | +++ |
| Quadris Top | Azoxystrobin + difenoconazole | 11 + 3 | 1 | +++ |
Interested in a product not on the list?
If you didn’t find the product information you were looking for, check out the fungicide efficacy ratings from other locations: Wisconsin (late blight), New York (late blight), New York (late blight, early blight), Georgia (various tomato diseases).
[1] 0 (no effect) no difference from control plots that receive no fungicide; + (poor) inconsistent control and/or some effect at reducing; ++ (OK to good) consistent control, does not perform as well as +++ products in all years; +++ (very good) consistent control, consistently one of the best fungicides in the trial.
** These products are labelled for early blight on field tomatoes but have also shown efficacy against anthracnose and may be beneficial when applied for early blight control.
[2] 0 (no effect) no difference from control plots that receive no fungicide; + (poor) some effect at reducing; ++ (OK to good) does not perform as well as +++ products; +++ (very good) one of the best fungicides in the trial.
[3] 0 (no effect) no difference from control plots that receive no fungicide; + (poor) some effect at reducing; ++ (OK to good) does not perform as well as +++ products; +++ (very good) one of the best fungicides in the trial.
** These products are labelled for early blight on field tomatoes but have also shown efficacy against Septoria leaf spot and may be beneficial when applied for early blight control.
« SOIL CONSERVATION DIRECTLY LINKED WITH ENVIRONMENTAL PICTURE GRAIN FARMERS OF ONTARIO SUPPORT NEW RENEWABLE FUELS MANDATES »
