• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Front Matter
 Table of Contents
 Main
 Literature cited
 Table 1: Soil analyses expressed...














Title: Composition of Florida-grown vegetables
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027195/00001
 Material Information
Title: Composition of Florida-grown vegetables
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Alternate Title: Composition of Florida grown vegetables
Mineral composition of commercially grown vegetables in Florida as affected by treatment, soil type and locality
Physical Description: 31 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Sims, Guilford Trice
Volk, G. M ( Gaylord Monroe ), 1908-
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1947
 Subjects
Subject: Vegetables -- Composition   ( lcsh )
Vegetables -- Soils -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 27-28.
Statement of Responsibility: by G.T. Sims and G.M. Volk.
General Note: Cover title.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027195
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000925515
oclc - 18253862
notis - AEN6166

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page 1
    Front Matter
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Table of Contents
        Page 4
    Main
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
    Literature cited
        Page 27
        Page 28
    Table 1: Soil analyses expressed on unit weight basis before conversion to pounds per acre
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
Full Text



Bulletin 438 November, 1947


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
HAROLD MOWRY, Director
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA









Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables

I. Mineral Composition of Commercially Grown Vege-
tables in Florida as Affected by Treatment, Soil
Type and Locality

By G. T. SIMS and G. M. VOLK










TECHNICAL BULLETIN










Single copies free to Florida residents upon request to
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA









BOARD OF CONTROL ECONOMICS. AGRICULTURAL

C. V. Noble, Ph.D., Agri. Economist'1
J. Thos. Gurney, Chairman, Orlando Zach Savage, M.S.A., Associates
N. B. Jordan, Quincy A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Associate
Thos. W. Bryant, Lakeland UD. E. Alleger, M.S., Associate
M. L. Mershon, Miami D. L. Brooke, M.S.A., Associate
J. Henson Markham, Jacksonville
J. T. Diamond, Secretary, Tallahassee
Orlando, Florida (Cooperative USDA)
G. Norman Rose, B.S., Asso. Agr. Economist
J. C. Townsend, Jr., B.S.A., Agr. Statistician'
EXECUTIVE STAFF J. B. Owens, B.S.A., Agr. Statistician'
W. S. Rowan, M.S., Asst. Agr. Statistician2
J. Hillis Miller, Ph.D., President of the
University'
H. Harold Hume, D.Sc., Provost for Agricul- ECONOMICS, HOME
ture Ouida D. Abbott, Ph.D., Home Econ.'
Harold Mowry, M.S.A., Director R. B. French, Ph.D., Biochemist
L. O. Gratz, Ph.D., Asst. Dir., Research
W. M. Fifield, M.S., Asst. Dir., Admin.
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editor" ENTOMOLOGY
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Associate Editor'
Jefferson Thomas, Assistant Editor' A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Entomologist'
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian H. E. Bratley M.S.A., Assistant
Ruby Newhall, Administrative Managers
K. H. Graham, LL.D., Business Managers HORTICULTURE
Claranelle Alderman, Accountant'
G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist'
F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Truck Hort.
Byron E. Janes, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE R. A. Dennison, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
R. K. Showalter, M.S., Asso. Hort.
R. J. Wilmot, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
AGRONOMY R. D. Dickey, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
Victor F. Nettles, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
W. E. Stokes, M.S., Agronomist' F. S. Lagasse, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.'
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Agronomist
G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Agronomist'
G. B. Killinger, Ph.D., Agronomist PLANT PATHOLOGY
H. C. Harris, Ph.D., Agronomist
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Associate W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologistx
Fred A. Clark, B.S., Assistant Phares Decker, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
Erdman West, M.S., Mycologist and Botanist
Lillian E. Arnold, M.S., Asst. Botanist


ANIMAL INDUSTRY
SOILS
A. L. Shealy, D.V.M., An. Industrialist' s F. B. Smith, Ph.ID., Microbiologist' 8
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husbandman' Gaylord M. Volk, Ph.D., Chemist
E. L. Fouts, Ph.D., Dairy Technologists J. R. Henderson, M.S.A., Soil Technologist
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian J. R. Neller, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
M. W. Emmel, D.V.M., Veterinarians Nathan Gammon, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
L. E. Swanson, D.V.M., Parasitologist C. E. Bell, Ph.D., Associate Chemist
N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Husb.' L. H. Rogers, Ph.D., Biochemist
G. K. Davis, Ph.D., Animal Nutritionist R. A. Carrigan, B.S., Asso. Biochemist
R. S. Glasscock, Ph.D., An. Husbandman H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant Chemist
P. T. Dix Arnold, M.S.A., Asst. Dairy Husb.' Geo. D. Thornton, M.S., Asso. Microbiologist
C. L. Comar, Ph.D., Asso. Biochemist R. E. Caldwell, M.S.A., Soil Surveyor
L. E. Mull, M.S., Asst. in Dairy Tech.5 J. B. Cromartie, B.S.A., Soil Surveyor
Katherine Boney, B.S., Asst. Chem.
J. C. Driggers, B.S.A., Asst. Poultry Hush.
Glenn Van Ness, D.V.M., Asso. Poultry 1 Head of Department.
Pathologist 2 In cooperation with U. S. D. A.
S. John Folks, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husb. Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
W. A. Krienke, M.S., Asso. in Dairy Mfs. In Military Service.
S. P. Marshall, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Hush. On leave.










BRANCH STATIONS SUB-TROPICAL STA., HOMESTEAD
Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Vice-Director in
NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY Charge
J. D. Warner, M.S., Vice-Director in Charge D. O. Wolfenbarger, Ph.D., Entomologist
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist Francis B. Lincoln, Ph.D., Horticulturist
W. H. Chapman, M.S., Asso. Agron. Robt. A. Conover, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
R. C. Bond, M.S.A., Asso. Agronomist R. W. Harkness, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
L. G. Thompson, Ph.D., Soils Chemist W. CENT. FLA TA., BROOKSVILL
Frank S. Baker. Jr., B.S., Asst. An. Husb.
Kelvin Dorward, M.S., Entomologist C. D. Gordon, Ph.D., Geneticist in Charge'

Mobile Unit, Monticello RANGE CATTLE STATION, ONA
R. W. Wallace, B.S., Associate Agronomist W. G. Kirk, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge

Mobile Unit, Marianna E. M. Hodges, Ph.D., Associate Agronomist
D. W. Jones, B.S., Asst. Soil Tech.
R. W. Lipscomb, M.S., Associate Agronomist E. R. Felton. B.S.A., Asst. An. Hush.

Mobile Unit, Wewahitchka H. J. Fulford, B.S.A., Asst. An. Hush.
J. B. White, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION, SANFORD

Mobile Unit, DeFuniak Springs R. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Vice-Director in
R. L. Smith, M.S., Associate Agronomist Charge
A. Alfred Foster, Ph.D., Asso. P1. Path.
CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED J. W. Wilson, Sc.D., Entomologist
A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge Ben F. Whitner, Jr., B.S.A., Asst. Hort.
W. L. Thompson, B.S., Entomologist
^W.T GS Snh b. AsE mlo gist WEST FLORIDA STATION, MILTON
J. T. Griffiths, Ph.D., Asso. Entomologist WEST FLORIDA STATION, MILTON
R. F. Suit, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist H. W. Lundy, B.S.A., Asso. Agronomist
E. P. Ducharme, M.S., Plant Pathologist5
J. E. Benedict, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist
C. R. Stearns, Jr., B.S.A., Asso. Chemist FIELD STATIONS
James K. Colehour, M.S., Asst. Chemist Leesburg
T. W. Young. Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
J. W. Sites, M.S.A., Horticulturist G. K. Parris, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
H. O. Sterling, B.S.. Asst. Horticulturist
J. A. Granger, B.S.A., Asst. Horticulturist Plant City
H. J. Reitz, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Francine Fisher. M.S., Asst. P1. Path.
I. W. Wander, Ph.D., Soil Chemist Hastings
A. E. Willson, B.S.A.. Asso. Soil Phys.
R. W. Jones, Asst. Plant Path. A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
J. W. Kesterson, M.S., Asso. Chemist E. N. McCubbin, Ph.D., Horticulturist
C. W. Houston, Ph.D., Asso. Chemist
R. H. Cotton, Ph.D., Supervising Chemist Monticello
R. N. Hendrickson, B.S., Asst. Chem. S. O. Hill. B.S., Asst. Entomologist
(Processing) A. M. Phillips, B.S., Asso. Entomologist'

EVERGLADES STA., BELLE GLADE Bradenton

R. V. Allison, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge J. R. Beckenbah, Ph.D., Horticulturist in
F. D. Stevens. B.S., Sugarcane Agron. Charge
Thomas Bregger, Ph.D., Sugarcane E. G. Kelsheimer, Ph.D., Entomologist
Physiologist David G. Kelbert, Asso. Horticulturist
B. S. Clayton, B.S.C.E., Drainage Eng. E. L. Spencer, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
W. T. Forsee, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist Robert O. Magie, Ph.D., Gladioli Hort.
R. W. Kidder, M.S., Asso. An. Husb. J. Walter, Ph.D., Plant Path.
T. C. Erwin, Assistant Chemist
T. C. Erwin, Assistant Chemist Donald S. Burgis, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
Roy A. Bair, Ph.D., Agronomist
C. C. Seale, Asso. Agronomist Lakeland
L. O. Payne, B.S.A., Asst. Agronomist
Russel Desrosiers. M.S., Asst. Plant Path. Warren O. Johnson, B.S., Meteorologist'
N. C. Hayslip, B.S.A., Asso. Entomologist
J. C. Hoffman, M.S., Asso. Short. 1 Head of Department.
C. B. Savage, M.S.A., Asst. Hort. 2 In cooperation with U. S.
Geo. Van den Berghe, B.S., Asst. Fiber Tech. 3 Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
D. L. Stoddard, Ph.D.. Asso. Path. In Military Service.
John W. Randolph, M.S., Agr. Engineer 5 On leave.
















CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ........................ ... ..... .....5........ ............... .. 5


REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..................-----........--........- --- ...- ..- .... 6


METHOD OF SAMPLING --......--...---....--......--...--- ....... ... ...----.....- 7


PREPARATION OF SAMPLES .- ---.......-.........- ...- ......... .....--- ---------- 8


METHODS OF ANALYSIS ...-..........----------------...........................- .. 9


CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF VEGETABLES ...... ............................. ......... 10


Cabbage ...-- --..............-------.......-...................--- ... 10


Beans ............ ... ..-- --........... ...........-.... ......-......- ...-... ... 13


Celery .. ....................... .............-- ...........-------- 13


Tomatoes ..........---------------......- .................-- .... ...--... ---- 13


Collards .......--------.....-- .. -----....... ..... ...----- .-................ 13


EFFECT OF SOILS ON PLANT COMPOSITION ............-...........- .........----.... 14


SUMMARY ........................-- ---- -------- -............. ---------------- 25


LITERATURE CITED ........-............ ----.........- ---- ....-.....--------.... 27


A PPENDIX .... .................. ........................ ....... ............. ............. 29










Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables

I. Mineral Composition of Commercially Grown Vege-
tables in Florida as Affected by Treatment, Soil
Type and Locality

G. T. SIMS I and G. M. VOLK

Introduction
Recognition of the importance of mineral composition of food
plants in nutritional diseases of man has given added emphasis
to the need for accurate comprehensive data on the mineral
composition of commercially produced vegetables. Soil composi-
tion usually is the most important of the environmental factors
causing variation in mineral composition of plants, with climate
and season of secondary but still significant effect. The latter
possibly may have relatively more importance in influencing or-
ganic composition under Florida conditions (14).2
Data on the chemical composition of vegetables are discussed
by localities because there exists a general similarity of cropping
season, cultural practices and, to a certain extent, soils. Data
on soil type and composition, and the composition of the crop
grown thereon, are presented by individual samples.
A comparison of the mineral quality of marketed vegetables
grown in different areas of the United States is difficult because
of the scarcity of comparable data. The average mineral com-
position of Florida vegetables was as often above as below that
reported for other sources. Extensive data of the type reported
herein for Florida must be obtained for other areas before such
a comparison is valid. Iron data especially are questionable be-
cause of widespread use of iron mills for sample preparation.
Plant analysis has been used most frequently in the past to
determine plant response to soil condition for the purpose of
increasing production. Such data do not represent the composi-
tion of products found on the market and, therefore, are of
limited value in human nutritional work. For this reason more
emphasis should be placed on the composition of the products
produced under commercial practices. Methods of treatment,

1 Formerly Associate Chemist, Florida Agricultural Experiment Station.
Italic figures in parentheses refer to Literature Cited in the back of
this bulletin.








6 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

sampling, preparation and analysis must be reasonably uniform
in order that comparisons be valid.
It was the purpose of this investigation to determine the
ranges in mineral composition of several commercially grown
vegetables in Florida, and to correlate them with cultural prac-
tices, locality, soil type and soil composition.

Review of Literature
Beeson (1) has published a comprehensive compilation of data
showing the mineral composition of crops with particular refer-
ence to the soils in which they were grown. He recognized and
discussed some of the fallacies involved in sampling and prep-
aration of plant samples for analysis. Sherman (18) compiled
analyses of many types of foodstuffs. He recognized the vari-
ation in composition between plant parts such as the cabbage
head and the outer green leaves. Peterson and Elvehjem (16)
have pointed out the low percentage of iron in the heads of
cabbage, celery and lettuce as compared with the outer leaves
and stems of these vegetables. Cowell (5) showed that the
calcium content of the outer leaves of cabbage is 20 to 30 times
that of the head. He pointed out that the leaves are a richer
source of calcium than any other food, with the possible ex-
ception of cheese.
Elmendorf and Pierce (8) stressed the importance of chemical
analysis in food metabolism studies. They found that plants
grown on different soil types under varying conditions of fer-
tilization, culture and climate exhibited marked differences in
composition. Coleman and Ruprecht (4) concluded that, under
Florida conditions, complete fertilizers exert very little influence
on the composition of the crop when used in optimum amounts
for crop production. Eisenmenger and Kucinski (7) studied
the effect of soil treatment on calcium and magnesium content
of plants. They concluded that further experimentation might
develop procedures by which the mineral content of food plants
may be partially controlled by cultural methods so that the
mineral requirements of animals could be more adequately
satisfied.
The mineral content of plants apparently varies considerably
with the age of the plant and the season of the year. Bennett
(2) found that iron increased more rapidly in leaves during
early growth than after full size was reached. Sheets et al. (17)
reported significant differences in the calcium and phosphorus








Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 7

content of turnip greens when grown at the same location in
different seasons. They also found a highly significant inter-
action between nitrogen, calcium and phosphorus as measured
by analysis of greens. This indicated that the change in con-
centration of 1 element in the plant could alter the concentration
of several elements. Hansen (11), working in Oregon, found
that the concentration of calcium in certain crops was highest
in August and September, lowest in winter, and intermediate
during the spring. He found that the phosphorus content varied
less than the calcium content and tended to be at its highest
concentration during the winter. Davidson and LeClerc (6)
suggested the use of ranges rather than fixed values for report-
ing the mineral content of vegetables, because of the wide ranges
that occur when plants are grown in different seasons and in
different environments.

Methods of Sampling
Four categories of vegetables, based on the edible portions,
were sampled. Cabbage and collards represented leaf-type vege-
tables; snap beans, the pod-type; tomatoes, the fruit-type; and
celery, the stem-type. With the exception of collards, these are
some of the most important and widely grown vegetables shipped
in quantity from Florida. Collards were collected in the North
Florida area because they represented a leafy vegetable grown
under special cultural conditions. Vegetables are often planted
following tobacco in the shade tobacco area. The crop is grown
largely by the residue of plant nutrients left in the soil after
the tobacco harvest.
Vegetables were collected from each area as near the peak of
the harvest season as possible. It was intended that at least
8 to 10 samples be collected from each of the major producing
areas. In some areas the time of harvest was so scattered as
to limit the number of marketable samples available at 1 time.
Only marketable samples were collected. The fields selected for
sampling were chosen in a manner intended to make the data
representative of the area.
Crop samples were taken across the rows. The line of sam-
pling usually extended from 100 to 200 feet, depending on the
size of the field. Twenty-four heads or stalks of cabbage, col-
lards or celery or about 10 pounds of beans or tomatoes were
taken from a field. Soil samples were taken from the same area
at the time of collection of vegetable samples. A stainless steel








8 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

tube 1 inch in diameter was used. Approximately 20 plugs
6 inches deep were taken at random for each soil sample.

Preparation of Samples
Commercially grown vegetables are often coated with residues
from fertilizer dust and spray applications. This is a serious
source of contamination. Such residues should be removed in
preparation of samples for analysis. Usually it is considered
sufficient to wash samples in distilled water. Jacobson (13)
concluded that thorough washing of leaves with dilute HC1 is a
prerequisite for valid quantitative analysis for iron. This may
be advisable under certain conditions, but was thought to be
undesirable with the type of spray program followed on the
crops sampled in this investigation. It is recognized that wash-
ing of vegetative materials may remove small amounts of cer-
tain elements from the tissue itself.
The cabbage heads as brought to the laboratory had 8 to 10
dark green outer leaves still attached. Six to 8 of these leaves
next to the firm head were prepared for separate analysis. They
were washed twice in tap water, using a fibre brush to remove
all foreign matter adhering between the large veins near the
base of the leaf, and were then rinsed twice in distilled water.
The firm cabbage heads were not washed. Approximately 1/8
of each head was taken by cutting out a representative wedge-
shaped plug. These plugs were loosened to aid in drying. A
plastic knife was used throughout the work for cutting up of
the samples.
Collard samples were prepared by stripping the edible leaves
and petioles from the main stem. The leaves were washed in
the same manner as the outer leaves of the cabbage samples.
The coarse portion of the leaf petiole was separated from the
remainder of the leaf and the 2 portions were analyzed separately.
Celery stalks were first topped near the center of the leaf
cluster and the upper portion was discarded. The roots were
cut off as close as possible without causing the stalks to fall apart.
The oldest outer stems also were discarded. Considerable scrub-
ing with a brush was necessary to remove residue from between
parallel veins at the base of each stalk.
Beans were prepared by removing the calyx from the stem
end. They were washed and spread on cheesecloth until the
excess water had dried and then were cut into short pieces.








Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 9

Tomatoes were prepared by removing the calyx and washing.
Each tomato was halved and placed cut side up on cloth trays
for drying. Drying was started at 300 C. in a forced draft oven.
The temperature was gradually increased to 70 C. over a period
of 48 hours, then held for 24 hours. This method of drying
prevented the loss of juice. All other vegetable samples were
dried for 24 to 36 hours at 700. The samples were broken up by
hand when dry and stored in glass jars.
Each sample was divided for analyses. One portion was
ground with a Wiley mill and used for the determination of total
nitrogen, potassium, calcium, magnesium and phosphorus. The
other portion was ground by hand with a poreclain mortar and
pestle for the determination of iron.
Hood, Parks and Hurwitz (12) made an extensive study of
all kinds of laboratory grinding methods. They found that all
of the mechanical grinding methods tested resulted in serious
contaminations with 1 or more elements. Iron and copper con-
tamination made it impractical to use iron mills in minor ele-
ment work. Grinding by porcelain mortar and pestle was the
only method tested by them which appeared to give no serious
contamination.
Methods of Analysis
Chemical analyses of plant materials were run in duplicate,
using wet combustion with perchloric acid (10). Calcium was
precipitated as the oxalate and titrated with standard potassium
permanganate. Magnesium was precipitated as magnesium am-
monium phosphate and titrated with standard acid. Phosphorus
was determined colorimetrically by a molybdate blue method
(19). Potassium was determined by precipitation with sodium
cobaltinitrate and titration with permanganate (22). Iron was
determined colorimetrically by the use of the ferrous-ortho-
phenanthroline complex (9).
Soil samples were analyzed for base exchange capacity and
exchangeable bases by leaching with neutral normal ammonium
acetate, as recommended by Peech (15), with the exception that
precipitation of potassium was by the same method as used for
the plant analysis. Phosphorus was determined by the Truog
(19) method. Soil moisture equivalent was determined by the
centrifuge method of Briggs and McLane (3). Organic matter
was determined by the wet combustion method of Walkley (23),
except for peat soils, in which the organic matter was determined








10 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

by loss on ignition. Soil pH was determined with a glass elec-
trode potentiometer following the procedure recommended by
Volk and Bell (20).

Chemical Composition of Vegetables
The data in Table 1 show the range and average composition
of vegetables collected from various locations within the state.
From the range in composition with respect to a given con-
stituent and crop it is readily apparent that averages are very
misleading. Those averages from areas including a relatively
wide range of soil types are of much less value than from areas
of closely related types. The detailed data on individual plant
samples and associated soils which appear in Tables 2 to 6, in-
clusive, will be discussed in a later section.
A statistical analysis of variance was made of the data in
Table 1 in order to have a basis of evaluation of the variations
noted between areas. All differences have a certain value in
arriving at an understanding of the composition of Florida
vegetables, but only those differences between area averages
showing a significance at odds of 19 to 1 or greater will be men-
tioned in this section. Analyses of individual areas are con-
sidered as relatively above or below average if they are sig-
nificantly above or below the general average for the data herein
reported for that crop. This was determined from least sig-
nificant difference values, using the lowest number of replicates
in the comparison.
Cabbage.-The data in Table 1 show the range and average
composition of cabbage samples collected in the vicinities of
Hastings, Winter Garden, Bradenton, Belle Glade and McIntosh.
The outer leaves averaged higher in all constituents than did
the heads but individual samples did not all follow this order.
Phosphorus was more nearly equal in the 2 portions than were
the other constituents.
Analyses of cabbage heads show significant differences in pro-
tein, calcium, magnesium and iron; samples from Bradenton
were below average in protein and iron; and samples from Win-
ter Garden, below average in iron. Samples from the Hastings
area averaged higher in iron than those from Winter Garden
and Bradenton.
Analyses of cabbage leaves show significant differences in
protein, calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus and iron
percentages between areas. Samples from Belle Glade were











TABLE 1.-RANGES IN MINERAL COMPOSITION OF EDIBLE PORTIONS OF COMMERCIALLY GROWN FLORIDA VEGETABLES.

I Average Pounds
S Primary Percentage Composition of Crops on Moisture-Free Basis
No. of Nutrients ___ -
Area Sam- Applied per I
ples Acre Protein Calcium Magnesium Potassium I Phosphorus I Iron
IN IP2051 O KO IMin. IMax. IMean MinI Max. -Mean- Min. l Max. Mean Min. I Max. I Mean Min. | Max. [ Mean | Min. | Max. | Mean
Cabbage Head

Hastings ......... 9 162 133 204 16.4 23.0 20.5 0.32 0.60 0.47 0.12 0.19 0.16 2.96 3.72 3.28 0.50 | 0.63 1 0.56 .0031 .0062 .0045
Winter Garden .. 143 140 126 14.3 21.6 18.5 0.34 0.74 0.52 0.14 0.29 0.18 2.61 3.85 3.05 0.43 0.56 0.48 .0026 .0038 .0030
Bradenton .. 10 187 120 109 11.8 21.1 16.9 0.47 0.80 0.56 0.13 0.18 0.16 2.48 3.28 2.88 0.36 0.48 0.39 .0025 .0037 .0029
Belle Glade .... 8 0 63 157 20.8 32.2 25.9 0.85 1.15 0.97 0.19 0.25 0.22 2.42 4.24 3.27 0.39 0.70 0.53 .0030 .0064 .0047
McIntosh ......... 6 88 97 110 18.6 23.2 21.4 0.36 0.65 0.47 0.14 0.18 0.16 2.20 3.14 2.79 0.40 0.53 0.47 .0033 .0044 .0037
All samples ..... 41 11.8 32.2 20.4 0.32 1.15 0.60 0.12 0.29 0.18 2.20 4.24 3.05 0.36 0.70 0.49 .0025 .0064 .0037
Statistical Sig-
nificance ....... .01 .01 .01 ...... ..... .01

Cabbage Leaves

Hastings .............. 10 162 133 204 17.4 27.3 23.0 0.68 1.91 1.20 0.13 0.30 0.22 3.53 4.77 4.09 0.55 0.72 0.60 .0044 .0096 .0063
Winter Garden 8 143 140 126 17.9 25.6 21.7 0.80 2.66 1.64 0.18 0.37 0.26 2.43 5.35 3.31 0.47 0.54 0.50 .0036 .0051 .0043
Bradenton .......... 10 187 120 109 12.1 23.8 17.2 0.92 2.37 1.36 0.19 0.32 0.24 2.31 3.73 2.96 0.33 0.48 0.41 .0031 .0061 .0046
Belle Glade ........ 5-8* 0 63 157 20.6 29.7 26.4 2.12 3.41 2.55 0.32 0.47 0.37 2.76 5.41 3.74 0.52 0.71 0.58 .0044 .0077 .0064
McIntosh ............... 6 88 97 110 19.9 26.0 22.4 0.64 1.69 1.13 0.15 0.24 0.20 2.06 3.84 3.00 0.43 0.56 0.48 .0044 .0070 .0056
All samples ........ 39 12.1 29.7 21.9 0.64 3.41 1.53 0.13 0.47 0.25 2.06 5.35 3.42 0.33 0.72 0.51 .0030 .0096 .0055
Statistical Sig-
nificance ........ .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01

Green Beans Pods

Belle Glade ........ 8 0 24 15 20.5 27.1 24.4 0.54 0.68 0.60 0.26 0.34 0.28 2.22 3.50 3.02 0.34 0.50 0.42 .0054 .0094 .0070
Palm Beach ..... 9 65 96 52 20.7 22.9 21.6 0.35 0.60 0.50 0.23 0.31 0.26 1.81 3.16 2.53 0.40 0.54 0.48 .0052 .0085 .0067
Homestead ......... 8 52 96 64 18.1 26.4 22.7 0.46 0.77 0.62 0.21 0.34 0.25 2.31 4.64 3.05 0.52 0.62 0.56 .0053 .0075 .0061
All samples ...... 25 18.1 27.1 22.9 0.35 0.77 0.57 0.21 0.34 0.26 1.81 4.64 2.87 0.34 0.62 0.49 .0052 .0094 .0066
Statistical Sig-
nificance ...... .05 .01 .... ...... .01


Partial analysis on 3 samples. See Table 2.













TABLE 1.-RANGES IN MINERAL COMPOSITION OF EDIBLE PORTIONS OF COMMERCIALLY GROWN FLORIDA VEGETABLES.-(Continued).

Average Pounds i
Primary Percentage Composition of Crops on Moisture-Free Basis
No. of Nutrients
Area Sam- Applied per I
ples Acre Protein Calcium Magnesium Potassium Phosphorus Iron
N IP=Ol KeO Min. Max. |Mean Min. IMax. Mean Min. 1 Max.] Mean Min. I Max. Mean Min. 1 Max. [ Mean I Min. I Max. Mean
Celery Stalks

Belle Glade ........ 10 20 161 402 12.8 21.3 17.0 1.10 2.71 1.56 0.18 0.30 0.23 5.60 9.82 8.47 0.34 0.64 0.51 .0016 .0039 .0026
Sanford ................ 9 320 319 507 12.8 17.4 14.8 1.06 1.94 1.42 0.13 0.32 0.19 5.62 7.10 6.23 0.44 0.73 0.56 .0013 .0028 .0021
Sarasota .............. 8 361 252 528 13.8 18.9 17.1 0.48 1.13 0.77 0.17 0.25 0.21 5.63 7.42 6.42 0.56 0.84 0.71 .0019 .0026 .0023
All samples........ 27 12.8 21.3 16.3 0.48 2.71 1.21 0.13 0.32 0.22 5.60 9.82 7.04 0.34 0.84 0.59 .0013 .0039 .0025
Statistical Sig-
nificance ........ ..... .01 ...... .01 .01 ........

Tomatoes

Homestead .......... 7 83 140 101 17.2 20.8 19.3 0.16 0.22 0.20 0.14 0.19 0.16 4.15 4.80 4.49 0.42 0.57 0.48 .0037 .0055 .0047
(Rockdale soils)
Homestead .......... 9 99 190 152 15.3 24.6 18.9 0.17 0.25 0.21 0.13 0.19 0.16 4.33 5.72 4.92 0.46 0.59 0.53 .0034 .0046 .0039
(Marl soils)
Fort Myers ........ 11 121 218 214 12.8 23.6 16.9 0.07 0.15 0.12 0.13 0.21 0.17 3.75 5.01 4.35 0.50 0.79 0.65 .0032 .0059 .0043
Fort Pierce ........ 8 149. 283 281 16.8 30.4 23.3 0.08 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.19 0.16 3.63 5.29 4.46 0.56 1.05 0.74 .0036 .0058 .0048
Collier County .... 8 118 201 290 15.7 27.6 21.8 0.10 0.19 0.15 0.13 0.22 0.16 3.53 5.02 4.24 0.29 0.57 0.42 .0032 .0058 .0044
All samples ........ 43 12.8 30.4 20.0 0.07 0.25 0.16 0.12 0.22 0.16 3.53 5.29 4.48 0.29 1.05 0.56 .0032 .0058 .0044
Statistical Sig-
nificance ........ .01 .01 ...... .05 .01 .

Collards Leaves

Quincy ............ 11 29.0 38.4 35.3 1.49 2.74 2.01 0.30 0.65 0.41 2.42 3.73 3.17 0.37 0.65 0.55 .0083 .0113 .0094

Collards Leaf Petioles

Quincy ............ 11 17.3 42.1 25.7 0.62 1.71 1.08 0.20 0.45 0.32 4.13 5.74 4.91 0.31 I 0.58 0.41 .0021 .0041 .0030








Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 13

above average in protein, calcium, magnesium and phosphorus;
while those from Hastings averaged high in potassium and phos-
phorus; and those from Bradenton, below average in protein
and phosphorus. Samples from Hastings and Belle Glade aver-
aged higher in iron than samples from Winter Garden and
Bradenton.
Beans.-Table 1 shows the range and average composition of
25 bean samples collected from the vicinities of Belle Glade,
Homestead and the lower east coast section of Palm Beach
County. They show significant differences in protein, calcium
and phosphorus percentages between areas. Samples from the
Belle Glade area were above average in protein but below average
in phosphorus, while samples from the Homestead area were
above average in phosphorus and samples from the Palm Beach
area, below average in calcium.
Celery.-Table 1 shows the average composition of 27 celery
samples collected from the vicinities of Belle Glade, Sanford
and Sarasota. Analyses of celery stalks show significant differ-
ences in calcium, potassium and phosphorus percentages between
areas. Samples from the Belle Glade area were above average
in potassium. Those from the Sarasota area were below aver-
age in calcium but above average in phosphorus.
Tomatoes.-The composition of tomatoes collected from Home-
stead, Ft. Myers, Ft. Pierce and Collier County is shown in
Table 1. They show significant differences in protein, calcium,
potassium and phosphorus percentages between areas. Samples
from Rockdale soils and Perrine marl in the Homestead area
were above average in calcium, while those from Ft. Pierce and
Ft. Myers were below average in this element. In phosphorus,
samples from the Ft. Pierce area were above average, those from
Collier County below average. Samples from the Ft. Myers
area averaged lower in nitrogen than those from Ft. Pierce and
Collier County. Samples from the Perrine marl at Homestead
averaged higher in potash than those from Ft. Myers and Collier
County.
Collards.-Table 1 shows the average composition of collard
leaves and leaf petioles collected from the vicinity of Quincy.
The collard leaves averaged 86 percent more calcium and 47
percent more iron than the petioles. The leaves also contained
more magnesium and phosphorus but less potassium. It is
worthy of note that the collard leaves contained higher percent-








14 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

ages of protein, calcium, magnesium and iron than the outer
cabbage leaves. It is obvious that a relatively small difference
in the point of division of plant parts selected for analysis could
invalidate comparison of data from different sources.
Coleman and Ruprecht (4) obtained values that were in gen-
eral somewhat higher for Florida vegetables than comparative
data herein reported. They suggested that their data on iron
analysis may have been high as a result of the use of an iron
mill for sample preparation.

Effect of Soils on Plant Composition
Certain differences in plant composition appear to be attribut-
able to major soil characteristics. Differential response of plant
varieties is not considered in this report because they appear
to be of minor importance.
Moderate differences in fertilization within the same produc-
ing area on similar soil types did not appear consistently to
influence plant composition. There was some indication that
differences in practices between areas may have been a factor.
Cabbage grown in the Hastings area received relatively more
potassium in the fertilizer and the crop was found to be rela-
tively high in this constituent. Soil types were found to have
considerable effect, but the chemical composition of the soil
did not always correlate with plant analyses. These data are
given in Tables 2 to 6, inclusive. The soil analyses as given
in pounds of each element per acre are thought to be the most
logical for correlation with plant analysis. The data for peats
and mucks have been adjusted to compensate for the differences
in apparent volume weights of soil. Soil data are given also on
the direct weight-ratio basis in the appendix for those readers
interested in a more detailed study of the data from this stand-
point.
The differences in exchangeable bases and weak acid-soluble
phosphorus in the soils at the time of harvest appeared to be
due more to soil type characteristics than to residual accumu-
lation from differences in fertilization. Relatively higher potash
concentration in the marl soils under tomato culture (Table 5)
as compared with bean culture (Table 3) indicated differential
residual effect of different treatment on a given soil. There is
also some indication of similar residual effect on the Belle Glade
area soils.





TABLE 2.-COMPOSITION OF COMMERCIALLY UROWN CABBAGE AND OILS ON WHICH 'LHEY WERE UROWN.

Crop Sample Soil Sample

S Primary Nu-
trients Applied
Pounds per t Percentage Composition 1 r Exchange Bases
Pt Pounds
S Acre Variety Ana- Soil Type t per Ac re
P per Acre3
S 7 -j lyzed Po C ___
EZ NnPO0I3O Z lZ N Ca M P Fe Ca I MI g K
SHastings Area

158 412 168 140 284 Enkhuizen Head 21.6 0.60 0.19 3.40 0.57 .0042 Bladen |
Leaves 21.7 1.21 0.27 3.90 0.57 .0066 loamy f.s. 7.27 2.15 6.59 5.68 1,448 238 164 620

1:9 413 No data Unknown Head 20.4 0.58 0.17 3.47 0.54 .0043 Bladen
Leaves 23.2 1.47 0.27 4.37 0.58 .0052 loamy f.s. 6.96 2.20 5.38 5.19 1,111 126 164 983

161 415 171 140 238 Enkhuizen Head 19.6 0.55 0.16 3.08 0.58 .0062 Bladen
Leaves 21.8 1.91 0.28 3.77 0.56 .0096 loamy f.s. 5.87 1.92 4.98 5.21 1,039 104 172 540

162 416 171 140 238 Enkhuizen Head 20.9 0.56 0.16 3.72 0.59 .0055 Bladen
Leaves 22.6 1.33 0.25 4.55 0.72 .0091 loamy f.s. 9.50 2.38 8.07 5.58 2,061 211' 196 495

163 417 199 120 258 Copenhagen Head 20.1 0.32 0.14 3.35 0.54 .0047 Bladen
Leaves 17.4 0.68 0.18 3.93 0.55 .0055 loamy f.s. 7.89 2.44 5.38 4.90 830 92 133 407

164 418 162 120 212 Copenhagen Head 16.4 0.48 0.15 2.98 0.50 .0031 Bladen
Leaves 21.8 1.07 0.23 3.78 0.58 .0057 loamy f.s. 5.32 2.23 4.17 4.99 902 83 70 450

165 419 162 120 212 Copenhagen Head 20.1 0.40 0.15 3.01 0.55 .0043 Scranton
Leaves 27.1 1.11 0.30 4.14 0.61 .0049 loamy f.s. 5.34 2.18 4.04 5.36 682 44 78 400

166 420 161 140 146 Copenhagen Head 23.0 0.32 0.12 3.54 0.57 .0051 Portsmouth
Leaves 27.3 0.75 0.13 4.77 0.60 .0062 loamy f.s. 6.26 2.95 6.40 4.55 597 39 86 215

167 421 104 140 100 Copenhagen Leaves 24.0 1.65 0.14 4.13 0.59 .0062 Bladen
loamy f.s. 5.84 2.16 4.84 5.52 1,375 63 86 315

168 422 161 140 146 Copenhagen Head 22.6 0.44 0.16 2.96 0.60 .0035 Portsmouth
Leaves 22.8 0.82 0.18 3.53 0.58 .0044 loamy f.s. 6.77 3.72 6.03 4.30 658 36 31 210

__ Winter Garden Area

115 352 173 150 250 Copnehagen Head 21.6 0.37 0.18 3.85 0.56 ,0038 Pamlico
Leaves 24.0 1.58 0.29 5.35 0.54 .0047 muuk 76.90 54.80 86.40 4.32 4,774 757 688 325

116 53 133 1.17 105 Copenhagen Head 19.41 0.50 0.16 3.)8 0.46 .0027 Scranton &
Leaves 25.6 2.66 0.30 3.22 1.510 .0036 Leon f.s. 4.96 1.83 5.29 5.78 1,2(3 8: 78 940

117 354 120 140 | 100 Enkhuizen Head 17.7 0.52 0.18 2.61 0.52 .0027 Leon
Leaves 18.3 1.48 0.25 2.43 0.50 .0040 f.. 5.61 2.01 5.02 6.71 1,464 122 39 1,180
118 355 80 140 100 Mixed Head 19.1 0.62 0.17 3.34 0.47 .0026 Peat over
______Leaves 20.6 1.47 0.29 3.62 0.49 .0038 marl 114.00 83.80 94.50 5.81 7,859 1,214 349 98

1 Moisture-free basis. 2 N x 6.25. In surface 6 inches. Unclassified or tentative.








TABLE 2.-COMPOSITION OF COMMERCIALLY GROWN CABBAGE AND SOILS ON WHICH THEY WERE GROwN.-(Continued).

Crop Sample Soil Sample

Primary Nu-
Pounds per Part Percentage Composition 1 c a Exchange Bases 2
Acre Part Pounds
re P Variety Ana- Soil Type per Acre
z z Pro- o
N IP21 K2O tein Ca Mg K P Fe Ca Mg I K u24
____ I ____ ___________________1 ___ _S_ Ca MgIK

119 356 120 168 120 Copenhagen Head 17.3 0.59 0.15 2.76 0.47 .0028 Leon
Leaves 20.8 1.47 0.21 2.66 0.50 .0038 f.s. 5.27 1.96 4.97 6.03 1,508 85 63 1,220
120 357 64 70 80 Copenhagen Head 19.3 0.74 0.29 3.17 0.50 .0038 Leon
Leaves 24.9 2.39 0.37 2.67 0.48 .0051 f.s. 5.36 2.00 5.56 6.44 1,656 175 109 568
121 358 340 175 125 Copenhagen Head 14.3 0.51 0.14 2.62 0.43 .0026 Bladen
Leaves 17.9 1.26 0.18 3.03 0.49 .0045 f.s. 5.28 1.95 4.75 5.31 1,002 66 47 885
122 359 112 147 133 Copenhagen Head 19.7 0.34 0.16 2.94 0.47 .0031 Scranton
SLeaves 21.2 0.80 0.23 3.48 0.47 .0046 f.s. 5.16 1.84 4.97 5.25 642 53 125 270

Bradenton Area

84 401 366 160 160 Copenhagen Head 16.8 0.53 0.16 3.28 0.37 .0025 Delray
Leaves 17.8 2.37 0.26 3.73 0.43 .0061 loamy f.s. 4.83 1.67 5.36 7.42 4,194 321 242 830
8 402 280 70 50 Mixed Head 19.6 0.54 0.18 2.54 0.36 .0033 Scranton
Leaves 23.8 1.69 0.30 2.31 0.34 .0047 f.s. 5.06 2.27 6.04 5.16 754 70 94 290
86 403 224 160 160 Copenhagen Head 17.7 0.80 0.17 2.68 0.36 .0025 Delray
Leaves 16.4 1.45 0.19 2.89 0.39 .0044 loamy f.s. 19.34 10.60 24.60 6.14 8,686 790 172 1,160
87 404 366 160 190 Copenhagen Head 16.1 0.47 0.18 2.57 0.36 .0025 Leon
Leaves 15.0 1.52 0.32 2.40 0.33 .0037 f.s. 5.08 2.28 4.49 5.88 1,660 253 109 278
88 405 134 93 93 Copenhagen Head 17.7 0.54 0.17 3.11 0.42 .0033 Delray
Leaves 19.1 1.12 0.25 3.36 0.46 .0051 loamy f.s. 17.10 8.35 22.11 5.58 6,082 734 164 660
89 406 65 63 91 Mixed Head 13.4 0.54 0.15 2.83 0.38 .0027 Bradenton
Leaves 12.2 1.03 0.23 2.91 0.38 .0031 f.s. 5.21 1.38 4.75 5.99 1,460 207 141 510
90 407 36 70 50 Copenhagen Head 17.3 0.57 0.15 3.11 0.40 .0027 Manatee
Leaves 15.5 0.92 0.19 2.98 0.41 .0039 loamy f.s. 11.04 2.08 13.89 6.12 3,769 595 258 1,150
91 408 105 140 100 Copenhagen Head 17.8 0.54 0.15 3.28 0.41 .0030 Manatee
Leaves 19.8 1.41 0.25 3.53 0.45 .0059 loamy f.s. 7.40 1.73 8.14 6.73 4,744 313 149 815
92 409 64 84 60 Copenhagen Head 11.8 0.48 0.13 2.90 0.38 .0027 Bradenton
Leaves 12.1 0.93 0.24 3.12 0.41 .0043 f.s. 4.95 1.24 5.49 6.42 1,460 258 109 980
93 410 226 200 140 Mixed Head 21.1 0.61 0.17 2.48 0.48 .0037 Ruskin
Leaves 20.3 1.12 0.20 2.39 0.48 .0050 f.s., 5.961 2.68 6.32 5.59 2,085 119 78 320





''ABLE 2.-COMPOSITION OF COMMERCIALLY GROWN CABBAGE AND SOILS ON WHICH THEY WERE ULROWN.- uolnunuea).

Crop Sample Soil Sample
Primary Nu-
trients Applied
S Pounds per Part Percentage Composition 1 Exchange Bases
Acre r Z Peo uen
Variety Ana- Soil Type per Acre
.| lyzed "
F z Pro- PI I II W _ _
Z N IP-Os K tein Ca Mg K P Fe Mg I K
Belle Glade Area

105 343 0 32 100 Copenhagen Head 26.8 1.15 0.22 3.27 0.53 .0049 Everglades
Leaves 27.1 2.61 0.32 3.32 0.52 .0066 peat 111.5 91.40 129.90 5.23 6,908 602 86 45
106 344 0 80 240 Copenhagen Head 27.6 0.94 0.21 3.90 0.56 .0050 Everglades
Leaves 27.6 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... peat 115.0 90.60 141.60 5.55 8,276 761 258 69
107 345 0 35 105 Copenhagen Head 24.8 0.85 0.19 3.71 0.54 .0050 Everglades
Leaves 27.9 2.25 0.32 4.08 0.60 .0077 peat 113.6 91.60 131.70 5.64 8,344 880 167 63
108 346 0 48 144 Copenhagen Head 24.1 0.97 0.22 3.25 0.55 .0030 Everglades
Leaves 27.7 3.41 0.47 3.18 0.53 .0065 peat 125.6 95.20 122.80 5.39 3,539 445 95 13
109 347 0 48 144 Copenhagen Head 32.2 1.09 0.25 2.81 0.54 .0064 Everglades
Leaves 29.7 2.12 0.34 2.76 0.53 .0070 peat 110.1 88.60 133.50 5.74 8,208 761 31 43
110 348 0 40 120 Copenhagen Head 23.6 0.95 0.25 2.48 0.42 .0055 Everglades
Leaves 23.6 ....... ...... .... ...... ........ peat 109.3 94.20 134.40 5.05 4,924 570 68 23
111 349 0 180 360 Copenhagen Head 27.3 0.94 0.23 4.24 0.70 .0038 Everglades
Leaves 26.9 2.36 0.38 5.41 0.71 .0044 peat 110.1 93.30 132.60 5.45 5,078 600 157 24
112 350 0 42 45 Copenhagen Head 20.8 0.89 0.23 2.42 0.39 .0040 Everglades
Leaves 20.6 ...... ...... .... ...... ........ peat 104.7 88.10 127.20 5.73 8,509 1,015 22 36

S....McIntosh Area

133 370 78 98 78 Enkhuizen Head 23.2 0.65 0.16 3.07 0.46 .0039 Fellowship
Leaves 24.9 1.69 0.19 3.38 0.48 .0063 loamy f.s. 5.22 1.39 4.97 5.37 954 34 125 650
134 371 109 160 206 Copenhagen Head 22.1 0.40 0.17 2.20 0.40 .0034 Arredondo
Leaves 19.9 1.03 0.24 2.06 0.43 .0046 loamy f.s. 8.58 2.23 8.87 5.55 1,043 143 125 220
135 372 67 112 125 Enkhuizen Head 23.1 0.54 0.18 3.14 0.48 .0033 Arredondo
Leaves 21.1 1.10 0.20 3.84 0.47 .0070 f.s. loam 10.63 2.12 9.90 5.70 1,556 114 360 550
136 373 72 70 50 Enkhuizen Head 19.5 0.37 0.14 2.81 0.48 .0035 Blichton
Leaves 20.8 0.64 0.15 3.02 0.50 .0049 f.s. 3.95 1.05 2.64 5.23 293 24 94 238
137 374 114 70 112 Enkhuizen Head 18.6 0.36 0.16 2.66 0.44 .0038 Blichton
Leaves 21.4 0.73 0.17 2.89 0.43 .0044 f.s.' 3.84 1.10 3.40 5.08 205 15 78 170
138 375 88 70 90 Enkhuizen Head 21.5 0.53 0.16 2.86 0.53 .0044 Bayboro
Leaves 26.0 1.57 0.24 2.81 0.56 .0062 loamy f.s. 5.95 1.83 5.24 5.41 974 66 109 258

SMoisture-free basis. N x 6.25. s In surface 6 inches. 4 Unclassified or tentative.








TABLE 3.-COMPOSITION OF COMMERCIALLY GROWN GREEN BEANS (EDIBLE PODS) AND SOILS ON WHICH THEY WERE GROWN.

Crop Sample Soil Sample
Primary Nu-
trients Applied b 0 "
S Pounds per Percentage Composition 0 Exch. Bases
| & Acre Variety Soil Type Lbs. per Acre 0<
aE |, ___ p ______________w.J.
.0 Pro- d3
Z O2 N tPnOs. KeO tein I Ca Mg K P Fe Ca | Mg | K

Belle Glade Area

34 264 0 30 30 Bountiful .. 20.5 0.54 0.27 3.09 0.37 .0056 Okeelanta peaty
muck ................ 87.3 77.3 123.6 5.45 12,360 1,089 228 77
33 265 0 30 30 Tendergreen 23.9 0.56 0.26 3.49 0.45 .0068 | Okeelanta peaty
muck ................ 80.4 68.9 108.0 5.50 10,957 1,225 318 89
36 266 0 0 0 Tendergreen 26.1 0.61 0.31 2.66 0.50 .0067 Everglades peat 112.9 92.8 147.4 5.58 6,361 660 32 14
37 267 0 0 0 Tendergreen 25.1 0.56 0.26 2.22 0.34 .0054 Everglades peat 115.6 93.6 140.2 5.49 5,554 679 29 13
38 268 0 65 23 Tendergreen 27.1 0.58 0.34 3.50 0.47 .0094 Okeechobee muck 64.8 60.2 99.0 5.26 10,772 1,263 226 106
39 269 0 20 35 Plentiful ...... 24.5 0.67 0.27 3.28 0.47 .0075 Everglades peat 105.0 83.1 135.2 5.78 9,931 865 86 47
40 270 0 48 0 Plentiful ...... 24.2 0.64 0.26 2.85 0.38 .0075 Okeelanta peaty
muck ................ 78.7 74.5 107.5 5.08 7,988 709 130 33
41 271 0 0 0 Tendergreen 23.9 0.68 0.29 3.10 0.36 .0074 Okeechobee muck 48.3 49.3 85.1 5.49 10,534 1,219 271 52

Palm Beach (Lower East Coast) Area

73 316 64 144 48 B. Valentine 22.4 0.51 0.31 3.16 0.48 .0078 Immokalee f.s. .. 3.76 1.82 3.15 5.10 610 78 109 185
74 317 64 108 52 Plentiful ....21.6 0.59 0.26 2.70 0.46 .0084 Pompano f.s. ...... 3.67 1.18 2.18 6.25 802 163 86 440
75 318 48 84 60 Bountiful...... 20.8 0.50 0.25 2.75 0.54 .0057 Pompano f.s. ...... 3.68 1.41 3.03 6.07 1,155 85 55 515
76 319 48 96 48 Bountiful.. 21.8 0.48 0.26 2.52 0.53 .0072 Immokalee f.s... 4.07 1.73 3.26 5.30 1,079 68 55 132
77 320 104 70 50 Plentiful ...... 21.3 0.44 0.24 2.37 0.40 .0052 Immokalee f.s... 4.24 1.87 3.40 6.14 1,343 78 94 295
78 321 64 84 76 Bountiful...... 21.9 0.50 0.29 2.32 0.47 .0067 Immokalee f.s. .. 3.71 1.81 2.92 6.35 1,267 49 63 169
79 322 64 90 54 Plentiful ..... 20.7 0.60 0.27 2.88 0.49 .0085 Broward f.s ..... 3.31 1.49 2.70 5.56 1,002 107 94 222
80 323 63 99 53 Bountiful ..... 22.9 0.51 0.23 2.23 0.53 .0055 Broward f.s. ...... 4.70 1.82 2.64 7.60 5,245 36 63 250
81 324 64 90 30 Plentiful ..... 21.4 0.35 0.25 1.81 0.46 .0052 Charlotte f.s ..... 2.35 0.63 0.93 5.98 192 49 31 175


Homestead Area

148 385 45 120 90 B. Valentine 24.1 0.77 0.34 4.64 0.56 .0060 Perrine marl.... 62.6 7.06 7.97 7.59 12,074 85 235 39
149 386 28 63 21 Tendergreen 23.7 0.46 0.26 2.98 0.61 .0057 Perrine marl ... 55.7 6.14 6.63 7.61 10,894 165 156 81
150 387 80 160 120 Pole beans.... 24.4 0.53 0.28 2.95 0.62 .0053 I Perrine marl .... 56.8 5.56 6.97 7.49 12,074 165 117 76
151 388 48 72 60 Bountiful ..... 18.1 0.73 0.23 2.85 0.56 .0058 Perrine marl ..... 52.4 7.64 8.69 7.47 13,253 46 149 39
152 389 72 90 60 B. Valentine 22.3 0.66 0.23 2.31 0.52 .0060 Perrine marl ...... 59.8 7.02 7.17 7.49 12,367 46 78 39
153 390 28 63 21 Plentiful ......22.1 0.68 0.22 2.99 0.57 .0057 Perrine marl...... 68.4 9.32 11.67 7.44 15,451 126 211 51
154 391 60 105 75 Tendergreen 20.6 0.54 0.21 2.95 0.53 .0075 Perrine marl...... 65.7 9.00 10.93 7.49 13,843 87 149 44
155 392 No data B. Valentine 26.4 0.58 0.26 2.74 0.53 .0067 Perrine marl...... 62.3 8.09 13.92 7.48 14,135 46 102 46


1Moisture-free basis. "N x 6.25. 3 In surface 6 inches.






TABLE 4.-COMPOSITION OF COMMERCIALLY GROWN CELERY AND SOILS ON WHICH IT WAS GROWN.

Crop Sample Soil Sample
Primary Nu-
trients Applied i
a Exch. Bases a
i Pounds per Percentage Composition a
M Are Variet Soil Type 0 Lbs. per Acre V y '

Z N IPOs.IKO__ tein Ca Mg K P Fe Ca M

Belle Glade Area

95 334 0 166 384 Golden ..... 15.9 1.36 0.19 8.74 0.51 .0026 Everglades peat 109.1 88.2 135.0 5.46 8,600 863 227 86
96 335 0 166 384 Golden...... 18.0 1.37 0.23 9.81 0.56 .0030 Everglades peat 102.4 87.4 134.1 5.73 6,335 683 216 43
97 336 24 206 480 Golden 12.8 1.83 0.24 9.80 0.39 .0026 Everglades peat 102.4 82.5 124.5 5.71 11.071 1,216 326 88
98 337 0 176 528 Golden. 19.6 1.20 0.21 9.82 0.35 .0026 Everglades peat 100.2 79.5 126.2 5.53 11,228 1,160 751 105
99 338 36 160 510 Golden............ 21.3 1.85 0.22 9.08 0.61 .0029 Everglades peat 124.0 88.8 130.3 5.21 8,421 1,032 430 80
100 339 13 135 451 Golden .......... 14.4 1.10 0.28 8.18 0.56 .0029 Everglades peat 118.6 87.0 130.8 6.31 10,620 1,190 646 178
101 140 0 80 240 Golden...... 21.3 1.74 0.19 5.60 0.34 .0025 Everglades peat 111.6 87.3 126.2 5.69 10,201 833 163 78
102 341 16 180 270 Golden.......... 13.4 2.25 0.26 8.46 0.54 .0016 Everglades peat 121.7 92.5 136.2 5.52 7,113 886 305 90
103 342 16 180 270 Golden............ 15.4 2.71 0.30 7.37 0.64 .0017 Everglades peat 103.6 94.0 126.3 5.25 4,976 526 203 66
104 351 92 160 504 Golden ........ 18.3 1.17 0.18 7.82 0.55 .0039 Everglades peat 98.2 88.8 125.4 5.61 7,487 774 255 46

Sanford Area

171 425 288 288 524 Golden .........13.9 1.12 0.13 6.44 0.49 .0027 Portsmouth f.s. 5.50 2.84 6.46 5.76 2,550 85 352 1,770
172 426 505 365 540 Golden ....... 15.9 1.42 0.19 6.89 0.60 .0028 Leon f.s. ......... 6.71 2.73 6.69 6.12 2,871 182 282 1,600
173 427 328 205 536 Golden ........... 17.1 1.06 0.16 5.78 0.54 .0021 Immokalee f.s. 9.17 3.02 9.09 5.07 2,297 175 399 1,200
175 429 242 398 462 Kilgore 15 ... 12.8 1.88 0.24 5.62 0.56 .0022 Portsmouth f.s. 6.50 2.46 6.56 5.90 2,458 211 149 1,260
176 430 416 490 728 Pascal ........... 15.2 1.51 0.20 6.24 0.51 .0022 Portsmouth f.s. 5.58 2.18 6.26 6.67 2,919 165 164 2,640
177 431 200 199 257 Pascal ............ 13.5 1.22 0.32 5.97 0.73 .0021 Leon f.s........... 6.21 3.28 5.93 5.69 2,093 182 63 730
178 432 298 320 492 Pascal ........... 14.6 1.94 0.16 5.93 0.54 .0017 Immokalee f.s. 5.30 2.40 5.39 6.31 2,594 119 219 1,420
180 433 No data Unknown ...... 17.4 1.65 0.14 6.07 0.61 .0021 Scranton f.s. ... 5.53 2.20 5.61 5.46 2,085 78 196 1,380
181 434 288 288 524 Golden ............ 13.3 1.49 0.17 7.10 0.44 .0013 Portsmouth f.s. 5.66 2.68 6.19 5.83 2,694 122 422 1,800

Sarasota Area

190 448 200 200 320 Pascal ............ 15.1 0.48 0.25 6.69 0.68 .0022 Peaty muck .... 81.9 74.0 91.4 4.77 5,580 221 193 836
191 449 373 225 610 Pascal.......... 18.8 0.60 0.21 5.84 0.71 .0026 Muck .......... 57.5 46.5 68.1 4.98 9,683 419 281 956
192 450 326 200 734 Pascal .......... 16.5 0.99 0.22 7.06 0.75 .0020 Muck ...... 114.2 33.8 89.7 5.62 7,469 324 477 912
193 451 472 200 504 Pascal .......... 18.9 1.13 0.20 6.12 0.84 .0019 Peaty muck .... 98.9 67.4 87.8 6.69 13,788 596 197 847
194 452 No data Unknown 18.4 0.59 0.19 5.63 0.72 .0023 Peaty muck ... 85.3 70.5 100.8 5.02 9,624 223 203 1,007
195 453 262 502 416 Pascal...... 16.8 0.49 0.21 6.43 0.71 .0026 Muck .......... 52.9 37.2 66.8 4.73 8,840 442 575 1,161
196 454 348 195 427 Golden ........ 13.8 1.07 0.22 7.42 0.56 .0023 Peaty muck .. 49.1 65.4 51.5 5.61 7,038 344 283 764
197 455 546 240 688 Pascal ......... 18.3 0.81 0.17 6.19 0.72 .0022 Muck ........ 91.2 30.1 82.0 5.27 18,960 871 968 1,596

SMoisture-free basis. N x 6.25. 3 In surface 6 inches. 4 Unclassified.











TABLE 5.-COMPOSITION OF COMMERCIALLY GROWN TOMATOES AND SOILS ON WHICH THEY WERE GROWN.

Crop Sample Soil Sample
Primary Nu-
Strients Applied Eh. Bass
r Exch. Bases
S Pounds per Percentage Composition1 Mw a
S 3 Acre Variety Soil Type Lbs. per Acre3
.a I_______ E ____A4_
Z Z 7N |P3OsIg| K0teln2- Ca J Mg K P I Fe 0 o S Ca Mg K ,

Homestead Area (Rockdale Soils)

42 272 112 140 60 Rutgers ...... 23 0.22 0.17 4.61 0.42 .0054 Rockdale f.s.l.-
Limestone...... 29.4 9.96 22.6 7.37 18,466 313 438 292
43 273 70 123 88 Rutgers ...... 20.8 0.20 0.19 4.65 0.51 .0045 Rockdale f.s.l.-
Limestone ........ 34.0 10.28 30.7 7.17 20,519 513 798 658
44 274 80 140 100 Rutgers .......... 19.9 0.19 0.17 4.39 0.47 .0046 Rockdale f.s.l.-
Limestone ....... 28.1 8.72 21.3 7.77 16,926 313 602 244
45 275 80 140 100 Rutgers....... 17.2 0.21 0.15 4.15 0.46 .0041 Rockdale f.s.l.-
Limestone ....... 27.0 7.34 20.4 7.85 16,413 306 587 206
46 276 80 140 100 Rutgers .. 17.9 0.16 0.16 4.80 0.57 .0055 Rockdale f.s.l.-
Limestone....... 8.13 3.78 4.57 7.71 9,063 114 102 218
47 277 80 160 160 Marglobe ...... 18.6 0.22 0.18 4.46 0.49 .0037 Rockdale f.s.l.-
Limestone ....... 22.4 6.68 19.7 7.68 14,833 117 610 310
48 278 80 140 100 Rutgers ... 20.6 0.22 0.14 4.41 0.46 .0050 Rockdale f.s.l.-
Limestone ..... 33.6 9.29 30.7 7.65 19,493 216 876 275

Homestead Area (Marl Soils)

139 376 48 96 72 Grothen G..... 22.8 0.22 0.18 5.72 0.55 .0040 Perrine marl ..... 54.2 7.20 8.74 7.44 13,851 129 626 105
140 377 48 96 72 Grothen G..... 19.5 0.23 0.17 5.00 0.47 .0038 Perrine marl ..... 62.1 7.42 7.71 7.55 12,483 136 266 64
141 378 150 290 210 Rutgers.... 20.8 0.25 0.19 4.99 0.46 .0041 Perrine marl..... 54.4 9.05 11.65 7.47 14,877 248 352 152
142 379 120 240 240 Rutgers ....... 24.6 0.25 0.19 5.58 0.51 .0046 Perrine marl .... 52.8 8.82 9.68 7.35 14,364 90 618 139
143 380 88 154 110 Grothen G.... 15.9 0.19 0.13 4.74 0.59 .0038 Perrine marl ...... 65.3 10.84 12.72 7.51 15,046 136 266 73
144 381 116 232 174 Grothen G .. 16.9 0.20 0.13 4.88 0.55 .0040 Perrine marl ..... 65.0 4.04 12.01 7.44 15.559 129 493 59
145 382 140 269 247 Grothen G... 15.3 0.20 0.15 4.59 0.52 .0038 Perrine marl ..... 66.8 6.56 6.36 7.34 13,337 190 344 115
146 383 82 162 121 Grothen G... 16.8 0.20 0.14 4.33 0.50 .0034 Perrine marl ..... 66.4 11.30 14.25 7.41 15,559 326 219 51
147 384 100 175 125 Grothen G. .... 16.8 0.17 0.16 4.48 0.58 .0039 Perrine marl ..... 65.8 6.62 6.45 7.38 25,989 219 540 68


1 Moisture-free basis.
SN x 6.25.
3 In surface 6 inches.






TABLE 5.-COMPOSITION OF COMMERCIALLY GROWN TOMATOES AND SOILS ON WHICH THEY WERE GRowN.-(Continued).

Crop Sample Soil Sample
Primary Nu-
Strients Applied 0 B
"a B ? Exch. Bases ,
SPounds per Percentage Composition 1 xc ases
| r Acre Variety Soil Type Lbs. per Acre
"* SI E.Pro-I i K
hZ M. N (P2OiK3O trinK Ca Mg K P Fe 43 C Ca I Mg K K~
Ft. Myers Area

49 279 236 462 427 Rutgers 21.8 0.13 0.17 4.95 0.70 .0038 Immokalee f.s. 5.03 1.98 3.75 4.96 1,095 100 305 233
50 280 128 248 232 I Grothen G. 15.9 0.10 0.18 4.56 0.70 .0037 Immokalee f.s. 4.58 1.82 3.18 5.03 573 85 39 86
51 281 60 120 290 Pan Am. 13.8 0.13 0.17 4.09 0.63 .0033 Immokalee f.s. 3.72 1.46 2.36 4.82 577 34 39 72
52 282 80 140 100 Rutgers .. 16.3 0.10 0.21 5.01 0.50 .0048 Immokalee f.s. 3.79 1.51 3.16 4.90 561 58 70 109
53 283 80 140 100 Rutgers ..... 15.9 0.12 0.20 4.63 0.64 .0045 Broward f.s ... 4.42 2.02 4.04 5.27 1,059 70 63 160
54 284 68 124 116 Marglobe. 19.3 0.15 0.14 4.43 0.79 .0058 Immokalee f.s.. 3.61 1.37 2.37 5.20 646 56 70 80
55 285 166 299 333 Rutgers ... 17.7 0.07 0.18 4.42 0.63 .0034 Immokalee f.s.. 4.69 2.00 3.66 4.84 593 119 117 56
69 312 132 220 191 Pan Am........ 13.9 0.14 0.16 3.75 0.63 .0032 Immokalee f.s. 2.54 1.67 3.31 5.09 874 34 47 325
70 313 159 269 175 Rutgers ......... 23.6 0.15 0.13 3.96 0.72 .0059 Immokalee f.s. 3.10 1.86 3.54 4.64 782 19 47 357
71 314 76 133 95 Rutgers........ 12.8 0.08 0.18 4.08 0.60 .0042 Immokalee f.s. .. 6.08 2.06 6.61 5.02 1,003 228 39 140
72 315 150 239 292 Rutgers.......... 14.9 0.11 0.19 3.99 0.56 .0047 Immokalee f.s... 5.21 1.95 3.72 5.30 926 177 125 120

Ft. Pierce Area

222 480 84 168 156 Unknown...... 19.9 0.08 0.12 3.63 0.60 .0054 Charlotte f.s ... 3.99 1.22 2.19 4.54 353 27 47 56
223 481 76 152 114 Unknown..... 20.9 0.08 0.13 3.87 0.56 .0043 Charlotte f.s. ..... 3.21 1.12 1.21 4.86 321 29 39 63
224 482 76 152 114 Unknown... 25.4 0.09 0.14 4.16 0.65 .0058 Charlotte f.s. ..... 3.46 1.10 1.33 5.10 345 34 39 37
225 483 72 144 144 Unknown .. 16.8 0.10 0.15 4.10 0.57 .0038 Unclassified f.s. 4.02 1.34 2.40 6.88 882 22 31 43
226 484 245 454 480 Unknown... 20.6 0.16 0.15 4.65 0.70 .0036 Pompano f.s ...... 5.93 2.23 4.03 6.25 1,404 29 47 91
227 485 245 454 480 Unknown.... 30.4 0.14 0.19 5.29 1.00 .0048 Pompano f.s.. 3.73 1.50 1.96 5.03 650 27 86 104
228 486 245 454 480 Unknown...... 27.8 0.14 0.18 5.11 1.05 .0051 Pempano f.s.. 2.49 0.77 1.19 5.05 409 12 47 104
231 488 No data Unknown .....24.7 0.16 0.19 4.83 0.76 .0057 Pompano f.s ...... 5.75 1.91 4.27 6.55 1,949 61 70 115

Collier County

211 467 131 169 324 | Livingston G. 23.5 0.13 0.22 4.39 0.35 .0045 Ochopee marl .... 28.4 6.10 7.17 I 7.39 12,740 66 I 282 36
212 468 128 240 306 Lusch G. 15.7 0.18 0.13 3.53 0.33 .0032 Ochopee marl 27.6 4.65 7.08 7.51 12,138 39 250 32
213 469 157 212 383 Mixed 16.6 0.19 0.15 4.08 0.45 .0038 Ochopee marl 17.5 5.25 7.35 7.39 11,797 199 336 43
214 470 131 169 324 Unknown 21.4 1 0.10 0.17 3.77 0.29 .0042 Ochopee marl 26.2 8.76 7.35 7.37 12,054 107 461 59
215 471 No data Unknown.... 26.3 0.18 0.18 4.87 0.57 .0058 Ochopee marl ... 23.7 6.54 6.81 7.34 11,372 58 368 47
216 472 54 144 144 Calco G ..... 18.8 0.14 0.16 3.69 0.38 .0040 Ochopee marl .... 21.0 6.25 7.44 7.32 11,192 139 289 37
217 473 112 236 276 Grothen G..... 24.6 0.17 0.14 4.58 0.49 .0051 Ochopee marl .... 21.6 6.25 5.64 7.44 9,720 61 188 24
218 474 112 236 276 Grothen G. .. 27.6 0.14 0.16 5.02 0.54 .0046 Ochopee marl 30.2 7.55 9.14 7.41 11,336 92 289 37

1 Moisture-free basis. N x 6.25. In surface 6 inches.











TABLE 6.-COMPOSITION OF COMMERCIALLY GROWN GEORGIA COLLARDS AND SOILS ON WHICH THEY WERE GROWN. QUINCY AREA.

Crop Sample Soil Sample
Primary Nu-
S trients Applied s
Pounds per Part Percentage Composition t Soil Bases
r Acre Analyzed =lye O a Lbs. per Acre

SN NPaOIKO _te in2 Ca Mg K P e Ca Mg K

56 298 Residual only Leaves ........... 34.8 2.45 0.30 2.91 0.54 .0100 Magnolia
Petioles ....... 21.5 1.32 0.21 4.13 0.39 .0030 f.s. loam .......... 6.69 1.38 3.49 5.81 497 61 102 394
58 330 Residual only Leaves ............ 36.7 2.27 0.38 3.52 0.63 .0108 Magnolia F
Petioles .......... 26.9 1.12 0.26 5.74 0.49 .0037 f.s. loam ...... 9.42 2.04 5.64 6.24 1,111 109 282 425
59 301 51 136 85 Leaves .......... 38.1 1.66 0.46 2.42 0.65 .0104 Ruston
Petioles ..........27.5 1.12 0.37 4.86 0.43 .0036 f.s. loam ....... 8.06 1.41 3.58 5.11 361 80 63 135
60 302 No data Leaves ............ 29.9 1.49 0.41 3.25 0.53 .0085 Marlboro
I Petioles .......... 17.3 0.62 0.22 4.74 0.34 .0022 f.s. loam ........ 7.99 1.56 4.26 5.66 393 102 196 210
61 303 Residual only4 Leaves........... 34.1 2.30 0.37 3.21 0.50 .0083 Faceville
Petioles ......... 20.2 1.06 0.42 4.13 0.31 .0021 f.s. loam .......... 9.60 1.64 5.06 6.08 938 85 219 450

62 304 Residual only4 Leaves .......... 36.4 2.74 0.51 2.97 0.57 .0089 Faceville
Petioles ......... 26.5 1.71 0.42 5.18 0.41 .0029 f.s. loam ........ 6.57 1.26 3.63 5.57 497 70 180 397
63 3:5 Residual only4 Leaves......... 38.4 1.79 0.37 3.26 0.56 .0085 Faceville
Petioles 26.4 1.16 0.33 4.89 0.39 .0026 f.s. loam....... 7.96 1.55 4.44 5.87 634 90 219 220

64 336 Residual only5 Leaves ............ 38.4 1.96 0.65 3.41 0.48 .0085 Ruston
Petioles .......... 27.3 0.95 0.45 5.48 0.39 .0030 f.s. loam .......... 9.77 2.83 5.55 4.95 409 61 117 185
65 307 Residual only Leaves ........... 35.3 1.51 0.31 3.20 0.62 .0093 Magnolia
I Petioles........ 29.1 0.77 0.20 4.54 0.58 .0041 f.s. loam ......... 7.70 3.17 5.38 5.14 477 100 86 100
66 309 0 0 0 Leaves .......... 29.0 2.17 0.40 2.94 0.37 .0086 Faceville
Petioles..... 17.4 1.14 0.28 4.68 0.39 .0025 f.s. loam ......... 5.24 1.46 3.94 6.05 666 80 149 184

G8 311 40 80 404 Leaves ......... 36.3 1.76 0.40 3.73 0.57 .0113 Magnolia
Petioles .......... 42.1 0.97 0.33 5.63 0.40 .0032 f.s. loam .......... 5.10 1.54 4.03 5.34 333 41 141 205

1 Moisture-free basis.
SN x 6.25.
3In surface 6 inches.
SResidual from the heavy fertilization of shade tobacco.








Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 23

The peat soils of the Belle Glade area contained large quan-
tities of organic nitrogen, exchangeable calcium 3 and mag-
nesium. This was reflected in the composition of cabbage, as
shown in Table 2. However, these soils were relatively low in
dilute acid-soluble phosphorus and exchangeable potassium, but
produced cabbage which averaged second highest in these 2
elements. A high level of organic matter apparently favored
the availability of phosphorus and iron and possibly potassium.
Cabbage containing the lowest concentration of phosphorus was
grown at Bradenton on soils which contained a relatively high
amount of dilute acid-soluble phosphorus. Potassium followed
the same trend in that it was relatively high in the soils from
the Bradenton area on which cabbage was grown, yet the cab-
bage was low in potassium.
The composition of green beans (Table 3) did not vary as
much as the composition of cabbage, although the soil types on
which beans were grown represented a wider range in chemical
composition. Seed-bearing portions of plants are known to be
more constant in composition than leaves.
The calcium and magnesium contents of beans were definitely
associated with soil type. Calcium was highest in beans grown
on the marl soils at Homestead and second highest in those
grown in the Belle Glade area on organic soils also containing
large quantities of calcium. The highest average concentration
of phosphorus was found in beans grown on calcareous soils.
These soils were low in extent of dilute acid-soluble phosphorus.
This is probably the result of neutralization of the extracting
acid by the lime, rather than a true low quantity of soluble phos-
phorus. The amount of carbonic acid-soluble phosphorus found
in these soils substantiates this contention. The pH of the
calcareous soils was above neutral but the organic matter con-
tent of these soils was relatively high and may have aided in
phosphorus assimilation by the plants. On the other hand,
phosphorus was below average in samples from the Belle Glade
area, which is the reverse of the findings with respect to cabbage.
The iron concentration in beans averaged highest for those
grown on slightly to moderately acid organic soils, next highest
in beans grown on mildly acid sands and generally lowest in
those grown on calcareous soils. This is in agreement with

Millequivalents of exchangeable bases exceed base exchange capacity
in e-rt-in instances because of the solubility of lime in the extracting
reagent.







24 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

Bennett (2), who observed that the iron content was relatively
low in plants grown in calcareous soils.
There appears to be a correlation within each area between
potassium in the beans and that found in the soil. It also ap-
pears that, in organic soils, potassium was retained best in those
containing the most calcium, regardless of pH or exchange ca-
pacity. Volk and Bell (21) have shown that nitrates prefer-
entially move as Ca(NO3)2, with attendant depression of the
solubility of potassium in the soil.
Table 4 shows the analyses of celery and the corresponding
soils used in celery production. The celery grown at Sarasota
contained far less calcium and more phosphorus than celery
grown at Sanford or Belle Glade, yet the soils at Sarasota were
high in exchangeable calcium and soluble phosphorus. The phos-
phorus levels in the Belle Glade soils were low, which apparently
correlated with relatively low phosphorus content in the celery,
as also was found for beans, but in contrast with cabbage.
The potassium content of celery grown in the Belle Glade area
was exceptionally high. Differences in fertilization or exchange-
able potassium in the soil would hardly account for this differ-
ence from the other areas. The trend is similar to that noted
in cabbage analyses. The calcium uptake in the Sarasota area
was below average, despite the relatively high level of exchange-
able calcium in the soil.
The variation in protein content of celery is explainable on the
basis of soil organic matter. Celery grown at Sanford on sandy
soils averaged 14.8 percent protein, while that grown in the
Belle Glade and Sarasota areas on soils having large quantities
of organic nitrogen contained 17 and 17.1 percent protein, re-
spectively.
Table 5 shows a wide variation between the phosphorus and
protein contents of tomatoes grown in different areas on different
soil types. The phosphorus percentage of tomatoes grown in
the Ft. Pierce and Ft. Myers areas was much higher than for
tomatoes grown on the calcareous soils of Collier County and
Homestead. There was no correlation with acid-soluble phos-
phorus in the soil nor with fertilization. Within the Ft. Pierce
area, the data show that tomatoes assimilated more phosphorus
from the Pompano fine sands than from the other 4 soils. The
latter contained less acid-soluble phosphorus and received less
fertilizer.








Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 25

The protein content of tomatoes apparently did not correlate
with soil factors. Season may have been the cause of recorded
differences, inasmuch as the high protein tomatoes grown in
Collier County and in the Ft. Pierce area were harvested in
April and May, respectively, while the other 3 areas were har-
vested between November and February and contained less
protein.
The magnesium content of tomatoes showed little variation,
even though there was considerable variation in exchangeable
magnesium in the soil. The calcareous soils contained much
more exchangeable potassium than the sandy soils, but only
in the case of marl soils was the potassium content of the to-
matoes high. The calcium content of tomatoes was higher when
grown on the calcareous soils than when grown on acid soils.
The iron content was lowest in tomatoes grown at Homestead
on Perrine marl. The Rockdale soils at Homestead contain a
high iron-bearing colloid of lateritic origin which evidently sup-
plies adequate available iron.
There was no apparent correlation between soil and plant com-
position for collards grown in the Quincy area. The protein,
calcium and magnesium percentages in collards were higher than
in any of the other vegetables analyzed, yet the soils in which
the collards were grown were comparatively low in organic mat-
ter, calcium and magnesium. Collards grown under tobacco
shade on the fertilizer residue left from the tobacco crops and
those grown with fertilizer in open fields were similar in mineral
composition.
The primary interrelationship that characterized soil types
appeared to be between organic matter content and pH of the
soil, with other factors of soil, environment and moderate differ-
ences in fertilization of secondary importance.

Summary
Samples of marketable vegetables and of the soils in which
they were grown were collected from commercial fields through-
out the State of Florida and analyzed for mineral composition.
Data are discussed with respect to variation from the general
averages so obtained for the state.
The mineral content of a given vegetable varied as much as
200 percent when grown on different soils in different areas.
There was also considerable variation even within areas of simi-
lar soils. Therefore, it is impractical to report a specific figure








26 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

or narrow range in percentage composition as being representa-
tive for a given vegetable crop in the state.
High protein percentages in the crops were associated with
organic soils such as those of the Belle Glade area. High calcium
and magnesium were associated with calcareous soils or those
relatively high in exchangeable calcium and magnesium.
On a dry weight basis, cabbage showed significant differences
in percentages of protein, calcium, magnesium, potassium, phos-
phorus and iron between certain areas in the state; beans, dif-
ferences in protein, calcium and phosphorus; celery, differences
in calcium, potassium and phosphorus; and tomatoes, differences
in protein, calcium, potassium and phosphorus.
Compared with the general average of all areas sampled, cab-
bage samples from the Belle Glade and Hastings areas were
above average in iron, while those from Bradenton and Winter
Garden were below average in this element. Cabbage leaves
averaged higher in all constituents than did the heads.
Beans from the Belle Glade area were below average in phos-
phorus, those from the Perrine marl at Homestead were above
average. Those from the Palm Beach area were below average
in calcium.
Celery from the Belle Glade area was above average in potas-
sium while that from the Sarasota area was above average in
phosphorus but below average in calcium.
In calcium, tomatoes from the Homestead area were above
average, those from Ft. Pierce and Ft. Myers areas below aver-
age. Samples from the Ft. Pierce area were above average in
phosphorus and those from Collier County were below average
in this element.
Collard leaves averaged 86 percent more calcium and 47 per-
cent more iron than the petioles. Collard leaves were higher in
percentage protein, calcium, magnesium and iron than the outer
cabbage leaves.
There was little correlation between fertilization or soil an-
alysis and plant composition for a given area of similar soils.
The factors that characterized soil types appeared to be organic
matter content and pH of the soil. Other factors of soil environ-
ment and moderate differences in fertilization were of secondary
importance.
The average mineral composition of Florida vegetables was
as often above as below that reported for other sources. Ex-
tensive data of the type reported herein for Florida must be ob-









Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 27

trained for other areas before such a comparison is valid. Iron
data especially are questionable because of widespread use of
iron mills for sample preparation.


LITERATURE CITED

1. BEESON, K. C. The mineral composition of crops with particular refer-
ence to the soils in which they were grown. U.S.D.A. Misc. Pub.
369. 1941.

2. BENNETT, J. P. Iron in leaves. Soil Sci. 60: 91-105. 1945.

3. BRIGGS, L. J., and J. W. MCLANE. Moisture equivalent determinations
and their application. Proc. Amer. Soc. Agron. 2: 138-147. 1910.

4. COLEMAN, J. M., and R. W. RUPRECHT. The effect of fertilizers and
soil types on the mineral composition of vegetables. Jour. Nutr. 9:
51-62. 1935.

5. COWELL, S. J. A note on the calcium content of cabbage. Biochem.
Jour. 26: 1422-1423. 1932.

6. DAVIDSON, JEHIEL, and J. A. LECLERC. The variation in the mineral
content of vegetables. Jour. Nutr. 11: 55-66. 1936.

7. EISENMENGER, W. S., and K. J. KUCINSKI. Minerals in nutrition.
II. The absorption by food plants of certain chemical elements im-
portant in human physiology and nutrition. Mass. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bul. 374: 12-15. 1940.

8. ELMENDORF, ERNESTINE, and H. B. PIERCE. The calcium and phos-
phorus content of certain vegetables grown under known conditions
of fertilization. Jour. Nutr. 20: 243-253. 1940.

9. FORTUNE, W. B., and M. G. MELLON. Determination of iron with
O-phenanthroline. Ind. and Eng. Chem., Anal. Ed. 10: 60-64. 1938.

10. GIESEKING, J. E., H. J. SNIDER and C. A. GETZ. Destruction of organic
matter in plant material by the use of nitric and perchloric acids.
Ind. and Eng. Chem., Anal. Ed. 7: 185-186. 1935.

11. HANSEN, ELMER. Seasonal variations in the mineral and vitamin con-
tent of certain green vegetable crops. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.
46: 299-304. 1945.
12. HooD, S. L., R. Q. PARKS and CHARLES HURWITZ. Mineral contamina-
tion resulting from grinding plant samples. Ind. and Eng. Chem.,
Anal. Ed. 16: 202-205. 1944.

13. JACOBSON, L. Iron in the leaves and chloroplasts of some plants in
relation to their chlorophyll content. Plant Physiol. 20: 233-245.
1945.









28 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

14. JANES, BYRON E. The relative effect of variety and environment in
determining the variations of percent dry weight, ascorbic acid,
and carotene content of cabbage and beans. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.
45: 387-390. 1944.

15. PEECH, MICHAEL. Chemical studies on soils from Florida citrus groves.
Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 340. 1939.

16. PETERSON, W. H., and C. A. ELVEHJEM. The iron content of plant and
animal foods. Jour. Biol. Chem. 78: 215-223. 1928.

17. SHEETS, O. A. ET AL. Effect of fertilizer, soil composition, and certain
climatological conditions on the calcium and phosphorus content
of turnip greens. Jour. Agr. Res. 68: 145-190. 1944.

18. SHERMAN, H. C. Chemistry of food and nutrition. Fourth Ed. The
Macmillan Co. 1935.

19. TRuoG, E. The determination of the readily available phosphorus of
the soil. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 22: 874-882. 1930.

20. VOLK, G. M., and C. E. BELL. Soil reaction (pH)-Some critical
factors in its determination, control and significance. Fla. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Bul. 400. 1944.

21. VOLK, G. M., and C. E. BELL. Some major factors in the leaching of
calcium, potassium, sulfur and nitrogen from sandy soils. Fla.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 416. 1945.

22. VOLK, N. J. The determination of small amounts of potassium in soils,
employing the sodium cobaltinitrite procedure. Jour. Amer. Soc.
Agron. 33: 684-689. 1941.

23. WALKLEY, ALLEN. An examination of methods for determining organic
carbon and nitrogen in soils. Jour. Agr. Sci. 25: 598-609. 1935.









Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 29

APPENDIX
TABLE 1.-SOIL ANALYSES EXPRESSED ON UNIT WEIGHT BASIS BEFORE
CONVERSION TO POUNDS PER ACRE.1

Soil Sample ppm. P m.e./100 gms. Soil
No. Ca Mg K

264 120 96.37 14.01 0.91
265 123 75.90 14.00 1.13
266 48 105.75 18.10 0.27
267 42 92.33 18.62 0.25
268 126 63.96 12.38 0.81
269 97 103.19 14.84 0.46
270 52 62.25 9.12 0.52
271 1 48 47.76 9.12 0.63
272 146 46.05 1.29 0.56
273 329 51.17 2.11 1.02
274 122 42.21 1.29 0.77
275 103 40.93 1.26 0.75
276 109 22.60 0.47 0.13
277 155 36.99 0.48 0.78
278 138 48.61 0.89 1.12
279 117 2.73 0.41 0.39
280 43 1.43 0.35 0.05
281 36 1.44 0.14 0.05
282 55 1.40 0.24 0.09
283 80 2.64 0.29 0.08
284 40 1.61 0.23 0.09
285 28 1.48 0.49 0.15
298 197 1.24 0.25 0.13
300 212 2.77 0.45 0.36
301 68 0.90 0.33 0.08
303 105 0.98 0.42 0.25
304 225 2.34 0.35 0.28
305 198 1.24 0.29 0.23
306 110 1.58 0.37 0.28
307 93 1.02 0.25 0.15
308 50 1.19 0.41 0.11
309 92 1.66 0.33 0.19
311 103 0.83 0.17 0.18
312 163 2.18 0.14 0.06
313 179 1.95 0.08 0.06
314 70 2.50 0.94 0.05
315 60 2.31 0.73 0.16
316 93 1.52 0.32 0.14
317 220 2.00 0.67 0.11
318 258 2.88 0.35 0.07
319 66 2.69 0.28 0.07
320 148 3.35 0.32 0.12
321 85 3.16 0.20 0.08
322 111 2.50 0.44 0.12
323 125 13.08 0.15 0.08
324 88 0.48 0.20 0.04
334 215 107.24 17.76 1.45
335 144 105.32 18.74 1.84
336 158 98.60 17.88 1.49
337 188 100.00 17.05 .3.43
338 200 105.00 21.24 2.75

1 See Tables 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of body of report for sample descriptions.









30 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

TABLE 1.-SOIL ANALYSES EXPRESSED ON UNIT WEIGHT BASIS BEFORE
CONVERSION TO POUNDS PER ACRE.--(Continued).


Soil Sample ppm. P m.e./100 gms. Soil
No. I Ca Mg K

339 370 110.35 20.40 3.44
340 195 106.00 14.29 0.87
341 225 88.69 18.23 1.95
342 221 82.72 14.44 1.73
343 113 86.14 12.38 0.55
344 173 103.19 15.65 1.65
345 158 104.04 18.10 1.07
346 42 58.84 12.20 0.81
347 108 102.34 15.65 0.20
348 77 81.87 15.65 0.58
349 80 84.42 16.47 1.34
350 90 106.10 20.89 0.14
351 115 93.36 15.93 1.63
352 325 23.81 6.23 1.76
353 470 3.15 0.34 0.10
354 590 3.65 0.50 0.05
355 204 81.66 20.82 1.86
356 560 3.76 0.35 0.08
357 284 4.13 0.72 0.14
358 443 2.50 0.27 0.06
359 135 1.60 0.22 0.16
370 325 2.38 0.14 0.16
371 110 2.60 0.59 0.16
372 275 3.88 0.47 0.46
373 119 0.73 0.10 0.12
374 85 0.51 0.06 0.10
375 129 2.43 0.27 0.14
376 53 34.54 0.53 0.80
377 32 31.13 0.56 0.34
378 76 37.10 1.02 0.45
379 70 35.82 0.37 0.79
380 37 37.52 0.56 0.34
381 30 38.80 0.53 0.63
382 58 33.26 0.78 0.44
383 26 38.80 1.34 0.28
384 34 64.81 0.90 0.69
385 20 30.11 0.35 0.30
386 41 27.17 0.68 0.20
387 38 30.11 0.68 0.15
388 20 33.05 0.19 0.19
389 20 30.84 0.19 0.10
390 26 38.53 0.52 0.27
391 22 34.52 0.36 0.19
392 23 35.25 0.19 0.13
401 415 10.46 1.32 0.31
402 145 1.88 0.29 0.12
403 580 21.66 3.25 0.22
404 139 4.14 1.04 0.14
405 330 15.17 3.02 0.21
406 255 3.64 0.85 0.18
407 575 9.40 2.45 0.33
408 408 11.83 1.29 0.19
409 490 3.64 1.06 0.14
410 160 5.20 0.49 0.10
412 310 3.61 0.98 0.21









Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 31

TABLE 1.-SOIL ANALYSES EXPRESSED ON UNIT WEIGHT BASIS BEFORE
CONVERSION TO POUNDS PER AcRE.-(Continued).

Soil Sample ppm. P m.e./100 gms. Soil
No. Ca Mg K

413 490 2.77 0.52 0.21
415 270 2.64 0.43 0.22
416 248 5.14 0.87 0.25
417 204 2.07 0.38 0.17
418 225 2.25 0.34 0.09
419 200 1.70 0.18 0.10
420 108 1.49 0.16 0.07
421 158 3.43 0.26 0.11
422 105 1.64 0.15 0.04
425 885 6.36 0.35 0.45
426 800 7.16 0.75 0.36
427 600 5.73 0.72 0.51
429 630 6.13 0.87 0.19
430 1320 7.28 0.68 0.21
431 365 5.22 0.75 0.08
432 710 6.47 0.49 0.28
433 690 5.20 0.32 0.25
434 900 6.72 0.50 0.54
448 345 43.49 10.75 0.77
449 355 40.93 6.67 0.61
450 675 77.61 15.65 2.54
451 710 81.87 8.30 0.60
452 310 66.67 11.51 0.72
453 325 32.42 7.03 1.08
454 410 41.79 7.49 0.86
455 605 65.67 9.12 1.72
467 18 31.77 0.27 0.36
468 16 30.27 0.16 0.32
469 22 29.42 0.82 0.43
470 30 30.06 0.44 0.59
471 24 28.36 0.24 0.47
472 19 27.91 0.57 0.37
473 12 24.24 0.25 0.24
474 19 28.27 0.38 0.37
480 28 0.88 0.11 0.06
481 32 0.80 0.12 0.05
482 19 0.86 0.14 0.05
483 22 2.20 0.09 0.04
484 46 3.50 0.12 0.06
485 52 1.62 0.11 0.11
486 52 1.02 0.05 0.06
488 58 4.86 0.25 0.09





University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs