• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Front Matter
 Table of Contents
 Main
 Literature cited














Title: Composition of Florida-grown vegetables
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027198/00001
 Material Information
Title: Composition of Florida-grown vegetables
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Janes, Byron Everett,
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Publication Date: 1949
Copyright Date: 1949
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027198
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aen6189 - LTUF
18271429 - OCLC
000925536 - AlephBibNum

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        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
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
    Literature cited
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
Full Text


Bulletin 455 January, 1949


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









Composition of Florida-Grown

Vegetables

II.-Effect of Variety, Location, Season, Fertilizer Level
and Soil Moisture on the Organic Composition of
Cabbage, Beans, Tomatoes, Collards, Broccoli and Carrots
By BYRON E. JANES








TECHNICAL BULLETIN







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









BOARD OF CONTROL ECONOMICS, AGRICULTURAL

J. Thos. Gurney, Chairman, Orlando C. V. Noble, Ph.D., Agri. Economists
N. B. Jordan, Quiney Zach Savage, M.S.A., Associate
Thos. W. Bryant, Lakeland A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Associate
J. Henson Markham, Jacksonville D. E. Alleger, M.S., Associate
Hollis Rinehart, Miami D. L. Brooke, M.S.A., Associate
W. F. Powers, Secretary, Tallahassee R. E. L. Greene, Ph.D., Agri. Economist
H. W. Little, M.S., Assistant
Tallmadge Bergen, B.S., Asst. Economist

EXECUTIVE STAFF Orlando, Florida (Cooperative USDA)

J. Hillis Miller, Ph.D., President of the G. Norman Rose, B.S., Asso. Agr. Economist
University' J. C. Townsend, Jr., B.S.A., Agr. Statistician2
H. Harold Hume, D.Sc., Provost for Agr.3 J. B. Owens, B.S.A., Agr. Statistician
Harold Mowry, M..A., Director J. F. Steffens, Jr., B.S.A., Agr. Statistician'
L. 0. Gratz, Ph.D., Asst. Dir., Research
W. M. Fifield, M.S., Asst. Dir., Admin. ECONOMICS, HOME
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editors
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Associate Editor' Ouida D. Abbott, Ph.D., BHome Econ.
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian R. B French, Ph.D., Biochemist
Ruby Newhall, Administrative Manager3 ENTOMOLOGY
Geo. F. Baughman, M.A., Business Managers A. N. Ti Ph.D., Entomologist
Claranelle Alderman, Accountants A. N. Tissotert, Ph.D., Entomologist
L. C. Kuitert, Ph.D., Assistant
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant

MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE
HORTICULTURE

AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist'
Frazier Rogers, M.S.A., Agr. Engineers F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Horticulturist3
J. M. Johnson, B.S.A.E., Asso. Agr. Engineer3 H. M. Reed, B.S., Chem., Veg. Processing
J. M. Myers, B.S., Asso. Agr. Engineer Byron E. Janes, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
R. E. Choate, B.S.A.E., Asst. Agr. Engineers R. A. Dennison, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
A. M. Pettis, B.S.A.E., Asst. Agr. Engineers R. K. Showalter, M.S., Asso. Hort.
Albert P. Lorz, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
AGRONOMY R. H. Sharpe, M.S., Asso. Hort.

Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Agronomist1 R. J. Wilmot, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Agronomists R. D. Dickey, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
G. B. Killinger, Ph.D., Agronomists Victor F. Nettles, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.4
H. C. Harris, Ph.D., Agronomist' F. S. Lagasse, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.2
R. W. Bledsoe, Ph.D., Agronomist L. H. Halsey, B.S.A., Asst. Hort.
M. E. Paddick, Ph.D., Agronomist F. E. Myers, B.S.A., Asst. Hort.
S. C. Litzenberger, Ph.D., Associate
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Associate PLANT PATHOLOGY
Fred A. Clark, B.S., Assistant W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist'
M. N. Gist, Collaborator' Phares Decker, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
Erdman West, M.S., Mycologist and Botanist
ANIMAL INDUSTRY Howard N. Miller, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
A. L. Shealy, D.V.M., An. Industrialist18 Lillian E. Arnold, M.S., Asst. Botanist
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husbandman3
E. L. Fouts, Ph.D., Dairy Technologists SOILS
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian F. B. Smith, Ph.D., Microbiologist3
Gaylord M. Volk, Ph.D., Chemist
M. W. Emmel, D.V.M. Veterinarian J. R. Henderson, M.S.A., Soil Technologists
L. E. Swanson, D.V.M., Parasitologist J. R. lNeller, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Hush.3 Nathan Gammon, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
G. K. Davis, Ph.D., Animal Nutritionist C. CarBellrig, Ph.D., Associate Chemist
R. A. Carrigan, Ph.D., Asso. Biochemist'
R. S. Glasseock, Ph.D., An. Husbandman3 H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant Chemist
P. T. Dix Arnold, M.S.A., Asst. Dairy Husb.' Geo. D. Thornton, Ph.D., Asso. Microbiologists
L. Mull, M.S., Asst. in Dairy Tech. R. E. Caldwell, M.B.A., Asst. Chemist'
L. Mull M.S., Asst. in Dairy Tech. J. B. Cromartie, B.S.A., Soil Surveyor
Katherine Boney, B.S., Asst. Chem. Ralph G. Leighty, B.S., Asso. Soil Surveyor
J. C. Driggers, B.S.A., Asst. Poultry Hush. V. W. Cyzycki, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor
R. B. Forbes, M.S., Asst. Soils Chemist
Glenn Van Ness, D.V.M., Asso. Poultry H. L. Pritchett, M.S., Asst. Chemist
SPathologist Jean Beem, B.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
S. John Folks, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husb.3
W. A. Krienke, M.S., Asso. in Dairy Mfs. 1 Head of Department.
S. P. Marshall, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Husb.3 21n cooperation with U. S.
C. F. Simpson, D.V.M., Asso. Veterinarian 3 Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
C. F. Winchester, Ph.D., Asso. Biochemist On leave.









BRANCH STATIONS SUB-TROPICAL STATION, HOMESTEAD

NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
D. O. Wolfenbarger, Ph.D., Entomologist
J. D. Warner, M.S., Vice-Director in Charge Francis B. Lincoln, Ph.D., Horticulturist
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist Robt. A. Conover, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
W. H. Chapman, M.S., Asso. Agron. R. W. Harkness, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
L. G. Thompson, Ph.D., Soils Chemist Milton Cobin, B.S., Asso. Horticulturist
Frank S. Baker, Jr., B.S., Asst. An. Husb.

Mobile Unit, Monticello W. CENT. FLA. STATION, BROOKSVILLE
R. W. Wallace, B.S., Associate Agronomist William Jackson, B.S.A., Animal Husband-
man in Charge2
Mobile Unit, Marianna
R. W. Lipscomb, M.S., Associate Agronomist
RANGE CATTLE STATION, ONA
Mobile Unit, Wewahitchka W. G. Kirk, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
J. B. White, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist E. M. Hodges, Ph.D., Associate Agronomist
D. W. Jones, B.S., Asst. Soil Technologist
Mobile Unit, DeFuniak Springs H. J. Fulford, B.S.A. Asst. Animal Husb.
R. L. Smith, M.S., Associate Agronomist
CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION, SANFORD
CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED
R. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge J. W. Wilson, Sc.D., Entomologist
W. L. Thompson, B.S., Entomologist Ben F. Whitner, Jr., B.S.A., Asst. Hort.
J. T. Griffiths, Ph.D., Asso. Entomologist
R. F. Suit, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
E. P. Ducharme, M.S., Plant Pathologist' WEST FLORIDA STATION, MILTON
R. K. Voorhees, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
C. R. Stearns, Jr., B.S.A., Asso. Chemist H. W. Lundy, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist
T. W. Young, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
J. W. Sites, M.S.A., Horticulturist
H. O. Sterling, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist FIELD STATIONS
J. A. Granger, B.S.A., Asst. Horticulturist
H. J. Reitz, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist Leesburg
Francine Fisher, M.S., Asst. Plant Path. .
I. W. Wander, Ph.D., Soils Chemist G.K. Parris, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
A. E. Willson, B.S.A., Asso. Biochemist Plant City
J. W. Kesterson, M.S., Asso. Chemist
R. N. Hendrickson, B.S., Asst. Chemist A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Joe P. Barnett, B.S.A., Asst. Horticulturist
J. C. Bowers, B.S., Asst. Chemist Hastings
D. S. Prosser, Jr., B.S., Asst. Horticulturist A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
R. W. Olsen, B.S., Biochemist E. N. McCubbin, Ph.D., horticulturis'
F. W. Wenzel, Jr., Ph.D., Supervisory Chem.
Alvin H. Rouse, M.S., Asso. Chemist Monticello
L. W. Fayville, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist A. M. Phillips, B.S., Asso. Entomologist2
John R. Large, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.
EVERGLADES STATION, BELLE GLADE
Bradenton
R. V. Allison, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge J Becken h, Ph.D., Hort. in Charge
J. R. Beckenbach, Ph.D., Hort. in Charge
F. D. Stevens, B.S., Sugarcane Agronomist
E. G. Kelsheimer, Ph.D., Entomologist
Thomas Bregger, Ph.D., Sugarcane
Physiologist David G. Kelbert, Asso. Horticulturist
J. W. Randolph, M.S., Agricultural Engineer E. L. Spencer, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
W. T. Fbrsee, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist Robert O. Magie, Ph.D., Gladioli Hort.
R. W. Kidder, M.S., Asso. Animal Husb. J. M. Walter, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
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
N. C. Hayslip, B.S.A., Asso. Entomologist Warren O. Johnson, B.S., Meteorologists
E. H. Wolf, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
W. H. Thames, M.S., Asst. Entomologist Head of Department.
J. C. Hoffman, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist In cooperation with U. S.
C. B. Savage, M.S.A., Asst. Horticulturist 3Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F
D. L. Stoddard, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path. On leave.












Contents
PAGE

INTRODUCTION .... ........ ..... ........ ... ..- ..... .... .. .. .. .......- 5

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS --..-----...--....--...- .--------... ----....-- ...--..---.. 10

Growing and Harvesting --...--.......... --....--- --.. ------- ... ..-.----.. 10

Soil Samples ......... ............. -------- --------.--.... 14

Analytical Methods ---- -- --..--------......... ...... ... .------.. -- 14

Statistical Analysis of Data ...---.. ...... --..--...-..--------..... --..... 16

RESULTS -..--.............--......-..........----- ----....- -----. ----- ------------- 17

Effect of Fertilizer Level -....-.------.... ..... ............. 17

Effect of Varieties ..-.......... -----------.. .--------....---.. 22

Effect of Environment .. .........--------- ..- . .... ..---........... 22

Soil Type ............ ---..-----....--. .--------..-.----..... 27

Temperature and Light ..........-........-- ..----...........-----.... 31

Soil Moisture ........---...------..--..-.--... ....--- .----- .--- 31

Specific Crop Responses ...........-..........-------- .--- ......---- ---.-.. 36

Cabbage ..-- -................. ...----------... -- -...- --...--..-.. 36

Beans ............ .... ----.......... ....- ---------- -- --.-- --......-... 37

Tomatoes .....------.....--..----------------..... .. .....-...- ..--- 37

Broccoli .... ....-....-------- ...-- ...---.... ----..- ..-..- ....------ 38

Carrots .......--... --.... --------- --..-.------..-.......-......- 38

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ..--..-..--------------...---------...------....---.... 39

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..---.-----------.... .....------ --.......------... -----...- 40

LITERATURE CITED .-....--......---.-...-------..........---... ----..--...-..-.--. 40









Composition of Florida-Grown

Vegetables

II.-Effect of Variety, Location, Season, Fertilizer Level
and Soil Moisture on the Organic Composition of
Cabbage, Beans, Tomatoes, Collards, Broccoli and Carrots
By BYRON E. JANES

Introduction
Analyses of vegetables date back to the time of Francisco
Redi, an Italian scientist of the 17th century. According to
Browne (8),1 the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
of London for the year 1698 carried an account of some studies
that Redi had made. In it he states that "the quantity of ashes
and of salts obtained from different plant materials vary accord-
ing to the difference in species, and in the season of the year and
locality in which the plants are gathered." It was not until
about 1850 or later that European scientists made the first
analyses as we know them today.
In the United States W. O. Atwater and his associates in the
USDA made the first important studies on composition of foods.
This information was published as USDA reports and bulletins
from 1883 to 1901. For several of the constituents for a number
of crops his work is still the main source of information. Dur-
ing the period from 1900 to 1930 there was little emphasis
placed on the composition of vegetables as related to human
nutrition. Many analyses were made but they were largely
from a plant physiological standpoint to determine the effects
of varying environments on plant behavior. With the discovery
of the importance of vegetables as a source of vitamins and
minerals in a balanced diet it became necessary to learn more
of the composition of vegetables. Soon after 1930 a number of
workers began to analyze vegetables, especially for vitamins.
The food shortage developed by the war and the increased evi-
dence that many people were undernourished further stimulated
this type of research. Since 1940 many studies of the com-
position of vegetables have been made.
When there is little information available on a subject which

1Italic figures in parentheses refer to Literature Cited in the back of
this bulletin.







6 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

has suddenly become of much popular interest, pseudo-scientists
or theorizers build up wonderful hypotheses without any evi-
dence or, at best, with very meager evidence to support their
conclusions. Those hypotheses with reference to the composi-
tion of Florida vegetables were no exception to the rule. Rumors
were spread to the effect that Florida vegetables, because of
the high rainfall and relatively unfertile soils, were low in
nutrients. The analyses which had been made on Florida vege-
tables, as well as the information obtained from other states,
indicated that there was little truth in these rumors. A little
thought on the point will show that the basic reasoning was at
fault on at least three counts: (1) a large portion of the Florida
vegetables are grown during the season of the year when the
rainfall is often so light that it is necessary to control the water
table or to irrigate to produce a good crop; (2) the organic
soils of Florida which comprise a large portion of the vegetable
acreage compare very favorably with such soils in any part of
the country; and (3) large amounts of fertilizers, including
minor elements, are used in the production of vegetables.
To determine whether there actually is a difference between
the composition of Florida vegetables and that of vegetables
grown in other parts of the country it was necessary to obtain
information on the variations in composition to be expected in
Florida-grown vegetables and also to determine what factors
were responsible for these variations. Coleman and Ruprecht
(12) and French and Abbott (17) had made a start on ac-
cumulating this information. In 1943 the Departments of Horti-
culture and Soils initiated a study to obtain more detailed
information on the composition of Florida vegetables. The
Department of Soils made a survey of the mineral composition
of commercially grown vegetables from a number of different
areas. This information is published as Part I of this series (54).
Information will be discussed here on the vitamin, carbohydrate
and nitrogen content of vegetables grown on plots at a number
of locations throughout the state. These plots were so arranged
that it was possible to measure the effect of variety, fertilizer
level and time of planting as influenced by location and season.

Review of the Literature
As was indicated in the introductory statements, the literature
dealing with the composition of vegetables is voluminous. At-
water and Woods (2) in 1896 gave a brief historical account






Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 7

of food analyses up to that time. They state that Atwater made
the first analyses of foods in the United States using modern
methods. These studies were reported in 1869. Atwater and
Woods further state that there existed at that time several
German works on the composition of foods but that they were
rather difficult to use. The authors collected enough data to
fill 30 pages of tables giving composition of foods. They include
data on refuse, water, protein, fat, carbohydrates, ash and fuel
value of many vegetables.
In 1883 Henderson (26) reported that there was a large in-
crease in carbohydrate in carrots as they became older, while
cabbage showed only a slight increase with increase in age.
The publication of Atwater's bulletin, "The Principles of
Nutrition and the Nutritive Value of Food" in 1901 (1) was
the last major study on composition until about 1930. The work
of Atwater was considered standard for many years and even
today some of his values are used as a measure of the composi-
tion of foods. During the period from 1901 to 1930 a few studies
were made on the composition of vegetables, but from 1930
to the present time there has been a tremendous increase in
the number of analyses being made. Much of this work has been
reviewed in Beeson's (3) review of the mineral composition and
Hamner and Maynard's (22) review of the factors that influence
nutritive value of tomatoes and by Maynard and Beeson's (37)
review of vitamin content of vegetables. These reviews discuss
the several factors which cause variation in composition of
vegetables and show that there was considerable disagreement
as to just what effect various factors have. They serve as
a basis for discussing more recent papers which begin to shed
some light on this very complex problem.
A number of papers and reports are devoted mainly to the
compilations of data on the composition of vegetables. The
following are representative of this type of study and are the
most complete. Chatfield and Adams (10) compiled data on the
approximate composition of foods, including refuse, water,
protein, fat, ash, carbohydrates and fuel value. Sherman (52)
lists vegetables and other foods and gives the approximate con-
centration of the constituents which they contain that are im-
portant in the human diet. A large portion of Volume II of
Winton and Winton, "Structure and Composition of Foods" (63),
is devoted to vegetables.
Ascorbic acid, because of its importance and the ease with






8 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

which it can be measured, has been studied very extensively.
The following workers are a few who have reported ascorbic
acid analyses of vegetables: Pepkowitz et al (45) from Rhode
Island; Tressler from New York (59); Van Duyne et al (60)
from Illinois; Mustard (41) from Florida; Truscott et at (58)
from Canada and Heinze et al (28) from South Carolina. Work-
ers in the U'. S. Department of Agriculture have made two
compilations of the vitamin content of vegetables. The first
is that of Hewston and Marsh (29) and gives the vitamin values
in terms of common measure. The second by Booher et at (6)
is a very complete compilation on a more exact basis of the values
which were available in 1942.
The research that had been reported by 1942 showed that
there was a large variation in the composition of vegetables,
especially the vitamin content. As was pointed out by Maynard
and Beeson (37) in their review, there were many contradictory
statements as to the cause of these variations. Because of this
state of confusion and the interest of both scientists and lay-
men, research workers in many institutions have carried on
experiments to determine the influence of various factors on
composition.
One factor receiving considerable attention is that of varieties.
There are a number of reports showing a small but significant
difference in composition of the different varieties of a single
crop. Heinze et al (28) analyzed 39 varieties of beans and
found some variation but, in general, there was no great differ-
ence between the varieties. Smith and Walker (55) and Poole
et al (48) made an intensive study of the vitamin C content of
cabbage varieties in connection with a breeding program and
found that it was possible to increase the ascorbic acid content
by selection but that similar varieties had similar concentrations.
For certain crops, such as beans, carrots and tomatoes, there
is a gradual change in composition as the crops mature. This
is probably true for most crops but is more marked in fruit and
root crops than in leafy crops, such as cabbage. Culpepper (13)
and Hibbard and Flynn (30) have shown the changes which
take place as beans mature. A number of workers have studied
tomatoes at different stages of maturity. Ellis and Hamner
(15) studied the changes in carotene content and Janes (32)
the changes in carbohydrates and acids as tomato fruits ripened.
The work of Platenius (46), Hansen (24) and Werner (62)







Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 9

all show that carrots increase in sugar and carotene content as
they mature.
The reviews of Hamner and Maynard (22), Beeson (3) and
Maynard and Beeson (37) showed that there was considerable
controversy over the influence of the various environmental
factors on the composition of vegetables. Hamner et al (21),
Harmer and Sherman (25), Hamner (20), Eheart et al (14),
Speirs et al (57), Karika et al (35), Burrell et al (9), Janes
(33, 34), Murphy (40), Reder et al (49), Bernstein et al (5),
Hansen (23), Finch et al (16), Pal and Bose (44) and Ijdo (31)
have all shown that the greatest differences in the composition
of vegetables are associated with different locations or seasons.
Amount or kind of fertilizer seems to have little or no influence
on the composition unless there is an extreme case of excess
or deficiency which results in chlorosis. Chlorotic or injured
plants often show differences in composition, especially the caro-
tene content.
The environmental factors, light intensity and duration, have
been discussed by several authors, especially as they affect
ascorbic acid content. Under certain conditions, as was shown by
Hamner and Parks (19), Somers et al (56) and Hamner et al
(18), light intensity does influence ascorbic acid content. Un-
der other conditions, however, as pointed out by Currence (11),
Platenius (47) and Smith and Walker (55), there are times
when large fluctuations in light intensity have little effect on
ascorbic acid content.
Soil moisture is one of the factors having an effect on the
composition of vegetables which is influenced considerably by
climatic environment from one location to another or from
one season to another. The work of Reder et al (49, 50), Speirs
et al (57), and Sheets et al (53) has shown that the amount of
rainfall and irrigation influences the composition of vegetables,
especially the organic constituents. These workers found a
positive correlation between ascorbic acid content in turnip
greens and rainfall. There was little or no correlation between
irrigation and iron, calcium or phosphorus content. Lee and
Sayre (36) have shown that tomatoes grown with restricted
soil moisture have a higher total acid content than those grown
with abundant moisture. Brooks and MacGillivray (7) re-
ported that the dry matter of tomato fruit varies inversely with
the percentage of soil moisture. McMurtrey et al (38) showed
that there was a higher percentage of potash in leaves of to-







10 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

bacco plants grown under irrigation than when grown without
irrigation, while nitrogen was higher in the leaves of tobacco
plants grown under relatively dry conditions.
Most of the papers discussed so far deal largely with vitamin
content. There have been a few reports which give the sugar
and nitrogen portions of vegetables. Bennett (4) reports the
variation in sugar content between a number of crops but does
not give the variation of individual crops. Nelson and Mottern
(42) reported on the composition of broccoli and gave a table of
values, including the moisture, sugar, starch, protein, pentosans
and several minerals. Rygg (51) has studied the sugars in the
root of the carrot and reported that total sugars vary from
4 to 7 percent of fresh weight.

Materials and Methods
The purpose of this study was to obtain as much information
as possible about the factors affecting the organic composition
of Florida-grown vegetables. It was thought that this could
best be accomplished if the crops were grown on plots at a
number of the branch stations of the Florida Agricultural Ex-
periment Station, where it would be possible to control the
variety, fertilizer level, time of planting and, to a certain ex-
tent, the moisture content of the soil. Temperature and rainfall
records were available at these locations.

Growing and Harvesting
The cooperation of the Branch Stations and Field Laboratories
of the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station at Homestead,
Belle Glade, Quincy, Hastings, Leesburg, Sanford and Bradenton
made it possible to grow the crops over a wide range of climates
and soil types. The following vegetable varieties were grown:
Copenhagen Market and Early Jersey Wakefield cabbage, Bounti-
ful and Tendergreen beans, Pan America and Rutgers tomatoes,
Georgia or Southern collards, Italian Green Sprouting broccoli,
Danvers Half-Long and Imperator carrots. It was not possible
to grow all crops at all locations; however, with the exception
of tomatoes, every crop was grown at seven or more locations.
Three fertilizer levels were used at each location, (1) the normal
amount commonly used for the particular crop and area, (2)
1/2 this amount and (3) 11// times this amount. The fertilizer
analysis and the normal rate for each crop at each location
are given in Table 1. Two varieties of each crop were grown







TABLE 1.-DATES OF PLANTING AND HARVEST, SOIL CHARACTERISTICS, KIND AND AMOUNT OF FERTILIZER AND AVERAGE
YIELD OF THE CROPS AT THE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.

Physical Characteristics of Soil
Date _Fertilizer at Time of Planting Yield, Lbs. per Acre
Crop | FLbs. per Organic !
Planted Har- Formula Acre pH Matter Moisture 1/ Normal 1%
vested I Normalt Percent I Equivalent Normalt Normal t
Quincy (Marlboro fine sandy loam)* __

Cabbage .... 11-16-43 3-22-44 4-7-5 1,000 5.0 2.7 11.1 14,264 14,410 15,162**
Beans ........ 3-23-44 5-15-44 3-8-5 800 5.1 2.6 9.5 2,848 3,272 3,049**
Collards ... 11-16-44 1-29-45 4-7-5 700 3,300 3,300 3,800
Broccoli .... 11-16-44 1-29-45 4-7-5 700 1,100 1,560 960
Gainesville (Arredondo fine sand)* _

Cabbage .... 11-2-43 2-14-44 4-7-5 1,280 5.8 1.3 4.7 5,542 8,325 6,575**
Beans ........ 3-14-44 5-3-44 4-7-5 1,200 5.6 1.3 4.9 3,001 4,388 4,436**
Tomatoes .. 3-15-44 5-26-44 4-7-5 1,000
Carrots ... 10-26-44 4-30-45 4-7-5 1,600 5.8 1.8 10.5 23,227 18,224 16,592** a
Collards ... 11-6-44 1-22-45 4-7-5 1,200 5.8 2.0 11.1 6,400 7,576 9,576
Broccoli ... 11-6-44 1-23-45 4-7-5 1,200 5.8 2.0 11.1 3,384 4,942 6,442
Collards .... 2-2-45 4-4-45 5.7 1.0 5.5 4,769 5,961 5,769
Broccoli .. 2-2-45 4-9-45 4-7-5 1,200 5.7 1.0 5.5 3,615 3,192 4,038
Hastings (Bladen loamy fine sand)*

Cabbage .... 11-9-43 2-8-44 5-7-5 2,000 4.9 2.5 9.7 21,480 26,950 26,510**
Beans ........ 4-12-44 5-29-44 5-7-5 1,600 4.7 1.0 3.9 4,096 4,241 4,024**
Carrots ...... 12-20-44 4-16-45 5-7-5 2,000 5.1 1.7 7.6 4,343 3,353 3,073**
Collards ..-. 11-14-44 1-11-45 5-7-5 2,000 I 5.1 2.12 9.14
Broccoli .... 11-14-44 1-11-45 5-7-5 2,000 5.1 2.12 9.14 4,744 5,069 5,023
Leesburg (Norfolk fine sand)*

Cabbage .... 10-30-43 2-2-44 4-7-5 700 5.7 1.0 3.2 4,927 6,118 10,534**
Carrots ...... 11-9-44 3-20-45 4-7-5 2,000 5.8 1.1 3.5 18,113 13,975 8,167**
Collards .. 11-9-44 1-19-45 4-7-5 2,000 5.8 1.1 3.3 1,057 2,057 2,500 -
Broccoli ... 11-9-44 1-19-45 4-7-5 2,000 5.8 1.1 3.3 2,596 3,173 4,903







TABLE 1.-DATES OF PLANTING AND HARVEST, SOIL CHARACTERISTICS, KIND AND AMOUNT OF FERTILIZER AND AVERAGE
YIELD OF THE CROPS AT THE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS-(Concluded).

I I Physical Characteristics of Soil I
Date Fertilizer I at Time of Planting Yield, Lbs. per Acre
Crop Lbs. per I
Planted Har- Formula Acre I pH Organic | Moisture 1% Normalt 1 /2
vested Normalt I Matter [ Equivalent Normalt Normalt
Sanford (Leon fine sand)*

Cabbage .... 10-27-43 1-20-44 4-5-7 2,000 5.4 1.6 4.4 4,814 8,381 12,165**
Beans ....... 5-9-44 4-5-7 1,800 5.0 0.8 2.8 2,658 4,767 4,398** -
Tomatoes 6-2-44 4-7-5 2,700 1
Carrots ...... 11-10-44 3-12-45 5-7-5 2,000 5.1 1.4 3.7 9,317 19,493 13,528
Collards .. 11-10-44 1-8-45 5-7-5 2,000 7,900 8,760 10,400
Broccoli 11-10-44 1-8-45 5-7-5 2,000 2,100 3,320 2,920 c
Bradenton (Manatee fine sandy loam)* -.

Cabbage .... 11-18-43 1-23-44 4-5-7 4,000 7.3 1.7 7.2 20,409 25,174 26,921**
Carrots .. 12-21-44 4-11-45 4-5-7 3,500 6.4 1.7 7.4 20,229 17,135 16,275**
Collards .... 10-27-44 12-28-44 4-5-7 2,000 6.2 1.6 7.6 11,656 16,138 20,605
Broccoli .... 10-27-44 12-28-44 4-5-7 3,000 6.2 1.6 7.6 3,779 4,534 4,767
Belle Glade (Everglades peat)* _

Cabbage .... 10-28-43 1-12-44 0-8-24 300 5.7 86.4 103.7 12,352 12,578 13,880**
Beans ........ 2-25-44 4-19-44 0-14-6 300 5.5 86.2 105.5 4,058 4,555 4,304**
Carrots .... 11-21-44 3-27-45 0-8-24 500 5.5 87.4 114.6 10,556 8,642 9,251** S
Collards .... 11-21-44 1-17-45 0-8-24 300 5.7 87.0 108.8 19,029 19,932 17,960
Broccoli .... 11-27-44 1-17-45 0-8-24 300 2,279 2,569 2,558
West Palm Beach (Davie mucky fine sand)

Cabbage ... 11-4-43 1-11-44 4-7-5 3,000 5.8 4.8 8.0 0
Beans ....... 1-18-44 3-16-44 4-7-5 500 I 5.5 10.1 15.3 1,588 1,559 1,588** Z
Homestead (Perrine marl)*

Beans ........ 1-7-44 3-6-44 4-8-6 1,000 7.6 5.8 59.9 9,778 10,533 9,408**
Tomatoes .. 2-3-44 4-19-44 3-8-6 2,000
Carrots ...... 12-19-44 3-17-45 4-7-5 1,000 7.7 6.0 62.4 32,538 29,406 41,180
Collards .... 12-19-44 2-20-45 4-7-5 1,800 7.9 6.6 61.7 15,304 18,432 17,467
Broccoli .... 12-19-44 2-20-45 4-7-5 1,800 7.9 6.6 61.7 7,930 9,140 9,130
Soil type in parentheses.
** Yields of cabbage, beans, and carrots are average of two varieties.
t Normal refer to the average amount of fertilizer commonly used for the crop location and soil type.
r A Ik A L. L .






Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 13

at the three fertilizer levels at each location. The two varieties
at three fertilizer levels were randomized together in two blocks
of six plots each. Collards and broccoli were considered as one
crop and randomized together. Whenever it was necessary to
apply an insecticide or fungicide, an organic material was used.
The same lot of seeds was used to make plantings at all loca-
tions. All cabbage planted in 1943 was obtained from a single
plant bed. With the exception of plants grown at Bradenton,
Homestead, and the spring crop at Gainesville, all collard and
broccoli plants came from a single plant bed. All tomato plants,
except those grown at Homestead, were started in flats at Gaines-
ville. The various vegetables were harvested when they reached
commercial maturity. For the cabbage a firm head was con-
sidered marketable. The tomatoes were picked either green
mature (just before starting to color) or red; the stage of
ripeness is indicated whenever tomatoes are discussed. The
beans were harvested when the pods were fully mature and of
good market quality. The broccoli was harvested when it
reached commercial maturity (just prior to opening of flowers)
by removing the apical bud and a portion of the stem. To obtain
comparable samples, the stem, including the bud, was cut to
six inches in length. At several locations the lateral shoots which
develop after the removal of the apical bud were harvested.
They were handled in a manner similar to the terminal bud.
Since it is the vegetative part of the collard plant which is
eaten, the entire above-ground portion of the plant was har-
vested. It is difficult to judge by its appearance the stage of
maturity of the vegetative collard plant. To obtain samples
of collards which would be of comparable maturity at all loca-
tions, they were planted and harvested at the same time as the
broccoli, which has a shorter cycle of development. It seemed
that this would give a more uniform sample than harvesting at
a certain age, since the broccoli would represent a uniform en-
vironmental exposure.
Most of the carrots were an inch or more in diameter and none
was less than 1/2 inch in diameter when harvested. No attempt
was made to harvest the carrots at any certain age. Two dif-
ferent harvests of the same plots of carrots were made in
Gainesville and Homestead.
To obtain further information on the effects of different
seasons on the composition, samples of a number of varieties
of cabbage were obtained from four of the locations where cab-






14 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

bage previously had been grown. These varieties were grown
during the 1945-46 season in connection with a cooperative cab-
bage variety trial and were located on soils similar to ones used
in the 1943-44 experiment.
During the 1944-45 growing season carrots were planted on
the plots at Gainesville on two additional dates. The fertilizer
was applied at the same rate as the normal amount in the regular
tests. A more extensive carrot test was made during the
1945-46 season. Twenty-four plots were planted, four on each
of five dates; two plots of each planting received irrigation and
two did not. The carrots were harvested when they were ap-
proximately 100 days old and then at 30-day intervals until
they were destroyed by diseases and insects which attacked
them in the hot, humid weather.
To obtain information on the effect of soil moisture on com-
position, samples of two varieties of snap beans, Logan and
Stringless Black Valentine, grown with four different amounts
of irrigation, were analyzed. The method of growing and the
amounts of water applied are described by Nettles (43).
Soil Samples
In cooperation with the Department of Soils, a sample of
soil was taken from each individual plot before the fertilizer was
applied and again at time of harvest. Ten to 12 plugs 11/ inches
in diameter to a depth of six inches, taken at random, were
composite to make the sample of each plot. These samples
were then treated and analyzed as described by Sims and Volk
in Part I of this series (54).
Analytical Methods
Samples of the crops from the plots were brought to Gaines-
ville and stored at 50 C. until sampled for chemical analysis.
The sampling for chemical analysis was completed usually
within 36 hours after harvest. In preparing the samples for
analysis they were washed with tap water, the excess water
was removed by shaking and then they were dried with cheese-
cloth. After the material was washed and dried a representa-
tive sample was cut into pieces not larger than 1/2 inch square
and thoroughly mixed. The samples consisted of a quarter
from each of 10 heads of cabbage, two pounds of beans, a
quarter from each of 10 tomatoes, 10 heads of broccoli, a quarter
from each of 10 collard plants, and for the carrots either 10
whole roots if small or a half from each of 10 large roots. After







Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 15

thoroughly mixing the chopped sample, two 100-gram samples
were placed in one-pound paper bags and dried in a forced draft
oven at 75 to 800 C. These samples were preserved for nitrogen
and mineral analyses. Twenty-five gram samples of chopped ma-
terial were weighed out for ascorbic acid, carotene and carbo-
hydrate analyses. The ascorbic acid and carotene were deter-
mined immediately. A modification of the Morrell method (39)
was used for ascorbic acid determinations. The method of Wall
and Kelly (61) was used to determine carotene. The 25-gram
sample for carbohydrate analysis was ground in a Waring blendor
with 200 ml. of 95 percent ethyl alcohol, transferred quantita-
tively to a pint Mason jar and stored at room temperature until
the analysis could be made.
The following procedure was used in determining the several
carbohydrate fractions: The sample preserved in alcohol was
filtered through a sintered glass filter of medium porosity and
the residue washed several times with 80 percent ethyl alcohol.
The alcoholic filtrate was made to volume and the reducing and
total sugars determined on an aliquot of this material. The
alcohol insoluble residue was removed from the filter and dried
under vacuum. A sample consisting of about half of the dried
residue was hydrolyzed by mixing with 100 ml. water and 10
ml. of HC1 and autoclaving at 15 pounds pressure for one hour.
The hydrolyzed material was filtered through a weighed filter
paper while hot, the residue was dried and weighed (acid-in-
soluble residue). The filtrate was neutralized with 1.ON NaOH
and the reducing power of an aliquot determined (acid-hydro-
lyzable carbohydrate). The reducing value of the several solu-
tions was determined by the Shaffer-Smogyi Method as modi-
fied by Heinze and Murneek (27).
It was thought that the value for acid-hydrolyzable material
would give a fair indication of the amount of insoluble or reserve
carbohydrate in the various vegetables. It is recognized that,
in addition to starch, other polysaccharides would be hydro-
lyzed by the procedure outlined and also that a portion of the
material hydrolyzed might not be physiologically active. How-
ever, since it was expected that large differences would be en-
countered, it was thought that the greater amount of informa-
tion which could be obtained by using the simpler procedure
would justify the use of this method rather than the more time-
consuming procedure necessary to determine starch.
The value for acid-insoluble residue is included to give an
indication of the amount of inactive or fibrous material present.







16 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

One half of each tomato was placed in the Waring blendor
and blended until thoroughly broken up (about 1/ minute).
The blended material was centrifuged and the clear juice used
for soluble solids and titratable acidity determination. An
Abb6 refractometer was used to determine the soluble solids.
The titratable acidity was determined by titrating 10 ml. of
juice with 0.1N NaOH to a phenolphthalein end point.
The two 100-gram samples of chopped material which were
dried were combined and ground to pass a 40-mesh screen and
then redried under vacuum at 650 C. A sample of 25 to 35
mgs. of this material was weighed out and digested in a micro-
Kjeldahl flask for the nitrogen determination. The digestion
mixture consisted of 2 ml. of concentrated H2SO4 with a knife
point of CuSO4, K2S04 catalyst added. The digested material
was transferred to a micro still, the solution made alkaline with
NaOH and the liberated NH3 caught in 2 percent boric acid and
titrated with standardized HC1, using methyl red indicator.

Statistical Analysis of Data
An analysis of variance was made wherever the data would
permit. The data for each variety were analyzed separately.
Table 2 gives the sources of variation and the degrees of free-
dom assigned to each when the crops were grown at eight
locations. The degrees of freedom varied according to the num-
ber of locations.

TABLE 2.-SOURCE OF VARIATION AND DEGREES OF FREEDOM USED IN
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.

Source of Variation D. F.

Location ................... ................-.. ..........- .... ....... 7
Blocks in location ................-..-....---- -........-- ..- ...-- ...... 8
Fertilizer level .......--.....--...-------- .............. ........................ 2
Location X fertilizer level ................................................... 14
E rror .......................... .......................................................... 16

Total .............. ............................................. 47


The mean square for location X fertilizer level was used as
the error term for fertilizer level and location.
From this analysis of variance the least difference necessary
for significance was calculated and is included in all tables for







Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 17

which enough data were available to make a statistical analysis.
The plots testing the effect of irrigation on beans were laid
out in a Latin square. The data for this experiment were
analyzed according to the standard Latin square procedure, using
a split plot design. The four irrigation treatments were ran-
domized in the Latin square and the varieties planted as split
plots. In the discussion of the data no reference is made to
the fact that differences are statistically significant. To elim-
inate the needless repetition of this phrase, unless mentioned
otherwise, only those differences which are significant are dis-
cussed.
Results
The data on composition are presented on both a dry weight
and a fresh weight basis. For most of the data the conclusions
drawn would be the same regardless of which basis was used;
but, in several instances, changing from one basis to the other
changes the relationship entirely; this is especially true when
there is a large difference in the moisture content. The data
on the effect of irrigation on beans illustrates this very well.
When expressed on a fresh weight basis, ascorbic acid, carotene,
reducing sugars, total sugars, acid-hydrolyzable carbohydrates
and acid-insoluble residue all show a difference between treat-
ments (Table 14). However, on a dry weight basis these dif-
ferences practically all disappear.
Information on amount of fertilizer applied, type of soil and
yield of the several crops is given in Table 1. With the excep-
tion of beans and cabbage at Gainesville and all crops at Quincy,
a different plot of land was used for each crop at each location.
The pH, organic matter and moisture equivalent data indicate
that a similar type of soil was used on all plots at each location.
The values for soil characteristics are an average of the 12
plots per crop. The crops were grown over a wide range of soil
types, (1) including very sandy soils of low pH, organic matter
and moisture equivalent, (2) the peat soils of the Everglades
with high organic matter and moisture equivalent and medium
pH; and (3) the Homestead marl soils with high pH and high
moisture equivalent.

Effect of Fertilizer Level
The yield data in Table 1 show that in most instances the
normal amount of fertilizer was sufficient to give maximum
growth, as indicated by the greater difference in yield between






18 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

the 1/ normal and normal than between the normal and 11/
normal amounts of fertilizer. The amount of fertilizer was a
limiting factor for growth in a number of the tests. In general,
crops grown at Sanford and Leesburg showed the greatest re-
sponse to fertilizer. Despite the heavy normal application of
fertilizer on the Bradenton plots, an increase in fertilizer in-
creased yields of all crops but carrots. Factors other than amount
of fertilizer were limiting in a number of trials, as indicated by
the lack of response to increased applications. This was particu-
larly true at Quincy.
Carrot plantings were the only ones to show a depressing
effect on yield due to higher applications of fertilizer. With
the exception of the plots at Homestead and Sanford, highest
yields of carrots were obtained from plots receiving 1/ the nor-
mal amount of fertilizer, ranging from 800 to 1,500 pounds per
acre. At Sanford the normal amount of fertilizer (2,000 pounds
per acre) gave the highest yield. Highest yields at Homestead
were obtained from plots fertilized with 1,500 pounds per acre
(11/ times the normal rate).
Table 3 shows the effect of fertilizer level on composition of
the various crops. These values are averages of data from all
locations. On the basis of including all locations, but making
the statistical analysis of each crop separately, there are only
a few small and relatively unimportant differences in composition
due to various fertilizer levels. However, there are certain
differences which are general for all crops and apparently have
some importance when considered in this way. The growth of
the crop increased with increasing amounts of fertilizer. Asso-
ciated with increase in size was a decrease in concentration of
ascorbic acid and percent dry weight and percent carbohydrate,
and an increase in percent nitrogen. These differences are very
small in comparison with the differences due to location or
season. Differences which occurred when increased fertilization
resulted in increased growth are somewhat minimized by the
inclusion of tests where added fertilizer had no effect on growth.
To illustrate further the effect of fertilizer level on com-
position, the average values for Early Jersey Wakefield cab-
bage at the three fertilizer levels at four different locations
are given in Table 4. These locations were chosen to illustrate
the results obtained where there was (1) no effect of fertilizer
on growth (West Palm Beach), (2) a slight effect (Bradenton
and Hastings), and (3) a considerable effect (Leesburg). The










TABLE 3.-EFFECT OF FERTILIZER LEVEL ON ORGANIC COMPOSITION OF CABBAGE, BEANS, COLLARDS, BROCCOLI AND CARROTS. VALUES
ARE AVERAGES OF ALL AREAS WHERE CROPS WERE GROWN.

S | Ascorbic Acid I Acid Acid
Aver- Dry Mgs. per 100 Carotene Mgs. Reducing Total Sugars Hydrolyzable Insoluble Nitrogen
Pertil- age Weight Gms. per 100 Gms. Sugars I Carbohydrates Residue
Crop I ier Weight e Per- Per- Per- I Per- P er- Per- Per- Per- Per- I Per-
Level* of cent Fresh Dry Fresh Dry cent cent cent cent cent cent Icent ] cent cent cent
Units Fresh Weight Weight Weight Weight Fresh Dry Fresh Dry Fresh Dry Fresh Dry Fresh Dry
___Weight _WeightWeighht(Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight

Early Jersey 1.2** 9.3 57 624 3.4 39.4 0.9 10.4 0.9 10.4 .24 2.85
Cabbage 1 1.4 8.9 54 627 3.3 38.9 0.9 10.3 0.8 9.9 .26 3.20
1% 1.5 8.8 54 639 3.2 39.3 0.8 9.5 0.8 9.8 .27 3.31
L.S.D. 5%, 0.17 0.29 2.6 26 .24 3.47 -0.15 1.3 0.1 0.82 .024 0.26
L.S.D. 1% 0.23 0.39 3.6 36 .33 4.82 0.21 1.8 0.2 1.13 .033 0.35

Copenhagen / 1.6** 8.1 54 670 3.1 41.4 0.9 11.1 0.9 11.5 .18 2.44
Market 1 1.9 8.0 54 674 3.1 41.4 0.8 10.2 0.8 10.8 .19 2.52
Cabbage 1/ 2.1 7.8 51 660 3.1 4.1 0.7 9.5 0.8 9.9 .19 2.60
L.S.D. 5% 0.20 0.19 2.95 23 .19 2.79 0.12 1.3 0.1 1.17 .019 0.24
L.S.D. 1% 0.27 0.26 4.02 32 .26 3.87 0.16 1.8 0.2 1.64 .026 0.33

Tendergreen 1 9.6 16.2 171 0.413 3.98 2.24 23.4 2.38 25.1 1.91 19.9 0.73 7.6 .26 2 8
Beans 1 9.5 15.8 165 0.409 3.85 2.09 22.1 2.25 23.7 1.96 20.6 0.70 7.4 .28 2.9
1, 9.5 16.1 170 0.409 4.04 2.12 22.4 2.30 24.2 1.93 20.2 0.73 7.7 .27 2.9
L.S.D. 5, 0.18 1.31 8.3 0.029 0.291 0.13 1.29 0.20 2.0 0.20 1.05 0.11 1.22 .019 0.21
L.S.D. 1% 0.26 1.83 11.5 0.040 0.404 0.19 1.79 0.29 2.8 0.28 1.46 0.15 1.69 .027 0.29

Bountiful > 9.3 10.2 206 0.359 3.44 2.57 27.5 2.69 28.8 1.76 18.9 0.72 7.8 .23 2.5
Beans 1 9.4 18.4 197 0.347 3.39 2.47 26.5 2.61 28.0 1.78 19.1 0.61 6.6 .23 2.5
11/ 9.5 19.0 201 0.364 3.61 2.58 27.2 2.66 27.9 1.90 20.0 0.70 7.4 .24 2.6
L.S.D. 5% 0.11 1.08 11.5 0.024 0.24 0.12 1.10 0.20 2.4 0.13 1.04 0.16 1.33 .016 0.22
L.S.D. 1% 0.15 1.50 16.0 0.034 0.34 0.17 1.53 0.28 3.4 0.18 1.44 0.22 1.84 .022 0.31












TABLE 3.-EFFECT OF FERTILIZER LEVEL ON ORGANIC COMPOSITION OF CABBAGE, BEANS, COLLARDS, BROCCOLI AND CARROTS. VALUES
ARE AVERAGES OF ALL AREAS WHERE CROPS WERE GROWN-(Concluded).

Ic Ascorbic Acid I ] Acid Acid |
IAver- Dry Mgs. per 100 Carotene Mgs. Reducing Total Sugars Hydrolyzable Insoluble Nitrogen
Fertil- age Weight I GGms. per 100 Gms. Sugars Carbohydrates Residue __
Crop izer Weight Per- F Per- Per- Per- Per- Per- Per- I Per- Per- I Per- I Per-
Level* of cent Fresh Dry Fresh Dry cent cent cent cent cent cent cent Icent cent cent
Units Fresh Weight Weight Weight Weight Fresh Dry Fresh Dry Fresh Dry Fresh Dry Fresh Dry
S______ I____Weight _____ __ Wet eight Weight Weight Weight Weight WeightWeight Weight Weight Weight

Broccoli Y 2.7j 10.7 81.7 759 0.925 8.6 1.44 13.3 1.58 14.7 1.63 15.0 0.71 6.3 .53 5.0
1 3.7 10.7 78.2 739 1.032 9.7 1.49 13.9 1.65 15.5 1.53 14.3 0.68 6.3 .55 5.2
11 3.8 10.5 78.1 742 1.061 10.0 1.39 13.0 1.44 13.5 1.54 14.4 0.70 6.7 .57 5.4
L.S.D. 5% 0.51 0.3 3.0 98 0.12 1.0 0.10 1.0 0.20 1.9 0.08 1.06 0.09 1.0 .045 0.41
L.S.D. 1% 0.70 0.4 4.1 135 0.16 1.4 0.14 1.4 0.27 2.7 0.11 1.45 0.13 1.3 .063 0.56

Collards 1/2 16.1* 12.6 81.7 646 3.687 30.4 1.58 12.0 1.81 13.6 1.78 13.8 0.81 6.4 .51 4.2
1 19.4 11.8 78.3 68 3.804 32.6 1.43 11.7 1.65 13.4 1.52 12.7 0.80 6.6 .52 4.5
1% 20.2 11.7 76.2 653 4.201 36.4 1.22 10.3 1.32 11.1 1.39 11.6 0.77 6.6 .55 4.7
L.S.D. 5% 2.9 0.67 7.3 42 0.420 4.1 0.31 1.85 0.41 2.48 0.25 1.35 0.14 1.10 .048 0.46
L.S.D. 1% 4.1- 0.93 10.1 58 0.578 5.6 0.43 2.55 0.57 3.42 0.35 1.85 0.19 1.52 .067 0.64

Danvers 12 86.3 12.2 7.317 59.1 1.80 15.4 5.23 42.4 1.57 12.6 0.97 8.04 .20 1.66
Carrots 1 88.9 12.2 6.897 55.7 1.58 13.4 5.18 42.0 1.52 12.3 0.97 8.02 .21 1.72
1% 77.9 12.4 7.589 60.1 1.57 13.2 5.06 40.4 1.64 12.9 1.00 8.03 .21 1.77
L.S.D. 5% 9.48 0.44 0.789 5.1 0.16 1.68 0.27 1.72 0.13 0.70 0.072 0.57 .021 0.15
L.S.D. 1% 13.01 0.61 1.087 7.0 0.22 2.31 0.38 2.37 0.16 0.97 0.099 0.79 .029 0.21

Imperator % 73.7 12.9 7.401 57.9 1.76 14.2 5.34 41.3 1.77 13.4 1.02 7.93 .24 1.83
Carrots 1 72.8 12.7 7.678 61.0 1.56 12.9 5.20 40.6 1.71 13.2 1.02 8.08 .25 1.99
1% 71.8 13.1 7.669 58.2 1.69 13.7 5.24 39.7 1.85 13.7 1.10 8.43 .25 1.91
L.S.D. 5% 2.88 0.46 0.836 4.7 0.14 1.38 0.24 1.78 0.17 0.94 0.075 0.58 .034 0.16
L.S.D. 1% 3.97 0.64 .2 .

*Represents the normal or average amount of fertilizer commonly used; /2 and 11/ are %2 and 1%2 the normal amount.
"** Pounds per head.
t Pounds per 10 shoots.
t Pounds per 10 plants.
Grams per root.








TABLE 4.-EFFECT OF FERTILIZER LEVEL ON ORGANIC COMPOSITION OF EARLY JERSEY WAKEFIELD CABBAGE GROWN AT FOUR
LOCATIONS IN 1943-44. EACH VALUE IS AN AVERAGE OF TWO SAMPLES, ONE EACH FROM TWO PLOTS.

Aver- Dry I Ascorbic Acid | Soluble Acid Acid
Fertil- age Weight Mgs. per 100 Sugars Hydrolyzable Insoluble Nitrogen
Location izer Weight Percent Gms. I Carbohydrates Residue
Level* of Fresh IIPercent Percentl Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Heads Weight Fresh Dry FreshFresh Dry Fresh Dry i Fresh Dry
Pounds Weight Weight Weight I Weight ] Weight Weight Weight Weight ] Weight Weight

West Palm Beach 1/2 2.3 7.1 39 541 3.2 44.4 0.7 9.2 0.7 9.2 0.21 2.89
1 2.1 7.0 42 587 2.3 40.4 0.7 10.1 0.8 10.8 0.24 3.19
1V 2.1 7.1 43 610 2.8 40.1 0.7 10.0 0.7 10.0 0.22 3.15


Bradenton %/ 1.9 9.4 61 645 4.2 45.0 1.0 10.1 1.0 10.2 0.24 2.50
First cutting 1 2.1 9.0 56 621 4.0 44.7 1.0 10.6 0.8 9.0 0.27 3.00
1/2 2.1 8.8 60 677 3.7 42.1 0.7 8.0 0.9 9.7 0.27 3.00

Leesburg 1z 0.9 10.7 65 603 3.6 33.2 1.5 13.6 1.1 9.9 0.24 2.18
Second cutting 1 1.0 9.8 58 586 3.6 36.9 1.1 11.3 0.9 9.2 0.22 2.20
11 1.4 9.0 53 584 3.3 36.5 1.2 12.5 0.7 9.4 0.23 2.51

Hastings /2 1.0 10.9 50 458 3.6 33.1 1.2 10.6 1.1 10.1 0.31 2.84
Second cutting 1 1.2 10.3 47 456 3.3 32.1 1.0 9.2 0.9 8.3 0.37 3.55
11/ 1.2 10.1 51 505 3.1 30.7 0.9 8.4 0.9 8,9 0.42 4.16

*The figure 1 indicates normal or average of fertilizer commonly used; 1/ and 1%2 refer to 1 and 1% times this amount.







22 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

influence of heavier applications of fertilizer on percent dry
weight seems to extend beyond the increase in size, since at
both Bradenton and Hastings the larger amount 'of fertilizer
did not result in an increase in size but there was a decrease
in percent dry weight and an increase in amount of nitrogen.
Only cabbage at Leesburg showed a difference in ascorbic acid.
It is interesting to note that, in all instances, the percent nitro-
gen increased with the increase in amount of fertilizer. This
increase was particularly marked in the cabbage grown at
Hastings.
Effect of Varieties
The different varieties of the crops are quite similar in com-
position (Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 12). There were small differences
between them, but, in general, factors other than variety were
responsible for the variations which were found in composition.
With the exception of cabbage, only two varieties were used.
It is possible that if a larger number of varieties had been used,
greater differences than those found in this study would be en-
countered. This is indicated by the wider variation between the
seven varieties of cabbage grown in 1945 (Table 6).
An interesting point concerning the varieties is the fact that
if one variety is relatively low in comparison to another variety
in one constituent at one location, it is relatively low in this
constituent at all locations. This is well illustrated by the ascor-
bic acid and carotene contents of the two varieties of snap beans,
Tendergreen and Bountiful (Table 8). The ascorbic acid content
was higher and the carotene content was lower in Bountiful than
in Tendergreen beans at all locations. This same relationship
holds true for all constituents of beans measured and, in general,
for all constituents of all the crops studied.
Effect of Environment
It is obvious that the widest variation in composition of vege-
tables is the difference in composition of different crops. How-
ever, when any one crop is considered, variations in location
or season are the most important factors in determining the
concentration of the organic constituents. Tables 5 to 12, in-
clusive, show the variations in composition for the various crops
from location to location and in several instances in the same
location at different seasons. Soil type, soil moisture, tempera-
ture and light intensity, which all vary from location to location
and season to season, are the environmental factors usually con-





TABLE 5.-EFFECT OF LOCATION ON ORGANIC COMPOSITION OF CABBAGE GROWN IN 1943-44. EACH VALUE IS AN AVERAGE OF
SIx SAMPLES, ONE EACH FROM SIX PLOTS.

Aver- Dry Ascorbic Acid Acid Acid
age Weight Mgs. per 100 Reducing Hydrolyzable Insoluble Nitrogen
Location Variety Weight Percent Gms. Sugars Carbohydrates Residue
of Fresh LPercent] PercentJ Percent Percent' Percent! Percent Percent Percent
Head Weight Fresh Dry Fresh Dry Fresh Dry Fresh Dry Fresh Dry
_Pounds Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
Quincy E. J.* I 1.5 6.9 1 51 742 2.8 39.9 0.7 10.0 .7 10.2 .24 3.45
SC. M.**I 2.4 6.4 49 771 2.8 44.2 0.6 9.6 .7 9.4 .17 2.67
Gainesville E. J. 1.0 8.9 56 676 3.5 39.5 1.0 11.3 .9 9.7 .28 3.05
1st cutting C. M. 1 1.5 7.8 56 715 3.1 40.9 0.9 11.1 .9 11.7 .19 2.36
Gainesville E. J. 1.0 7.5 51 675
2nd cutting C. M. 1.4 7.0 48 696
Hastings E. J. 1.1 9.7 58 599
1st cutting C. M. 1.6 8.9 55 624
Hastings T E. J. 1.4 10.4 49 473 3.3 31.9 1.0 9.4 1.0 9.1 .37 3.52
2nd cutting C. M. 2.1 9.6 46 476 3.1 32.7 0.9 9.4 .9 9.2 .24 2.53
Leesburg I E. J. 1.1 10.5 65 589
1st cutting C. M. 1.3 10.1 68 674
Leesburg E. J. 0.9 9.8 58 591 3.5 35.0 1.1 11.4 .9 8.7 .23 2.30
2nd cutting C. M. 1.4 8.8 55 624 3.2 35.9 1.0 11.5 .8 9.6 .17 1.86
Sanford I E. J. 0.9 9.8 56 569 4.0 40.4 1.0 9.8 1.2 11.9 .21 2.15
1st cutting C. M. 1.4 8.6 57 679 3.6 42.0 0.9 10.0 1.1 12.0 .17 1.94
Sanford I E. J. 0.7 11.5 76 680
2nd cutting C. M. 1.1 10.5 71 657 __
Bradenton E. J. 2.0 9.0 59 650 4.0 43.9 0.9 9.6 .9 9.6 .26 2.83
1st cutting C. M. 2.7 8.2 59 716 3.6 43.4 0.8 10.1 .8 10.0 .21 2.61
Belle Glade I E. J. 1.4 6.1 42 704 2.7 44.4 0.6 9.3 .7 11.0 .26 4.29
SC. M. 2.4 5.1 39 757 2.6 50.5 0.5 9.7 .6 12.3 .18 3.60
West Palm Beach E. J. 2.1 7.1 41 581 2.7 38.7 0.7 9.7 .7 9.9 .22 2.97
_C. M. 2.5 6.2 39 627 2.7 43.4 0.7 10.8 .7 11.9 .16 2.49
Difference 5% IE. J. .48 .61 5.6 55.3 .4 5.31 .25 2.1 .18 1.33 .039 .42
necessary 5% C. M. .40 .36 5.6 48.7 .3 4.55 .19 2.2 .18 1.93 .030 .39
for signifi- 1% E. J. .65 .82 7.6 75.0 .5 7.37 .35 2.9 .24 1.85 .054 .58
chance 1% I C. M. .54 .49 7.7 66.0 .4 6.31 .26 3.0 .24 2.68 .042 .54
E. J.-Early Jersey Wakefield.
** C. M.-Copenhagen Market.








TABLE 6.-EFFECT OF LOCATION ON ORGANIC COMPOSITION OF SEVERAL CABBAGE VARIETIES GROWN IN 1945-46. EACH
VALUE REPRESENTS A SINGLE SAMPLE. ALL VALUES ARE ON A FRESH WEIGHT BASIS.

Acid-Hydro-
Location Dry Ascorbic Carotene Reducing Total lyzable Acid-
and Variety Weighht, Acid Mgs. Mgs. per Sugars, Sugars, Carbo- Insoluble
Percent per 100 100 Gis. Percent Percent hydrates, Residue,
_Gms. __Percent Percent

Sanford
Golden Acre ................... 8.2 50 .112 3.66 3.96 0.88 .72
Marion Market ................ 8.6 46 .080 3.58 3.76 0.96 .64
Early Copenhagen ......... 8.2 50 .088 3.40 3.60 0.80 .70
Globe .............................. 9.2 61 .112 3.84 3.96 1.04 .86
Dark Green Copenhagen 7.6 46 .120 3.32 3.60 0.80 .69

Hastings
Golden Acre ... ............. 7.9 51 3.22 3.44 0.80 .61
Glory of Enkhuizen ...... 8.4 46 3.32 4.12 0.88 .73
Midseason ....................... 8.5 46 3.58 3.64 0.74 .60
Marion Market ............... 8.9 48 3.66 3.84 0.87 .64
Early Copenhagen .......... 8.2 45 .160 3.40 3.60 0.80 .59
Globe ............................ 9.3 55 .120 3.40 3.60 0.96 .68
Dark Green Copenhagen 8.4 53 .264 3.76 3.76 0.88 .71

Bradenton
Early Copenhagen .......... 7.2 50 .044 3.20 3.40 0.70 .54
Glory of Enkhuizen ...... 8.0 45 .100 3.62 3.76 0.81 .60
Midseason ....................... 7.6 43 .088 3.68 3.72 0.79

Gainesville
Golden Acre ................... 6.7 50 .088 3.14 3.14 0.72 .50
Marion Market ................ 7.8 43 .088 3.76 3.76 0.90 .66
Early Copenhagen .......... 6.6 50 .080 3.02 3.12 0.69 .52
Globe .............-................. 7.6 50 .072 3.30 3.30 0.87 .68
Dark Green Copenhagen 7.0 54 .112 3.08 3.08 0.79 .63
Glory of Enkhuizen ....... 7.4 43 .160 3.22 3.22 0.84 .66
Midseason .................. .7.3 54 .084 3.20 3.24 0.85 .65
Volga .................. ............ __ 3.12 3.12 0.96 .72











TABLE 7.-EFFECT OF LOCATION AND STAGE OF MATURITY ON ORGANIC COMPOSITION OF TOMATOES. EACH VALUE IS AN
AVERAGE OF SIX SAMPLES, ONE EACH FROM SIX PLOTS. ALL VALUES ON A FRESH WEIGHT BASIS.

Ascorbic Acid Titratable Acid-
Degrees Percent Mgs. per 100 Carotene Mgs. ity (M. of N/10 Soluble 0
Location of Dry Weight Gms. per 100 Gms. NaOH for 10 Ml. Solids
Ripeness of Juice)
Pan Pan Pan I Pan Pan I
_America Rutgers America Ruers A a Rutgers America Rtgers America Rutgers o

Homestead Green 6.3 5.9 17.7 15.8 0.134 0.157 7.7 7.6 4.2 4.1


Homestead Picked green
and ripened 6.4 6.0 21.9 21.1 9.1 8.4 4.5 4.2


Gainesville Green 7.0 6.7 27.7 26.7 0.171 0.171 8.4 7.5 4.9 4.9


Gainesville Picked ripe 7.3 7.0 26.0 25.9 0.358 0.398 8.5 7.4 5.8 5.4


Sanford Picked ripe 6.5 6.1 25.0 24.1 0.495 0.465 8.2 7.1 4.8 4.5




Co
cn












TABLE 8.-EFFECT OF LOCATION ON ORGANIC COMPOSITION OF BEANS. EACH VALUE IS AN AVERAGE OF SIX SAMPLES,
ONE EACH FROM SIX PLOTS.

Ascorbic Acid Acid- Acid-
Dry Mgs. per 100 Carotene Mgs. Reducing Total Sugar Hydrolyzable Insoluble Nitrogen
Weight I Gmins. per 100 Gms. Sugars Carbohydrates Residue | ____
Location Variety percent I I Percent Pererent Percent IPercent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Fresh I Fresh Dry Fresh Dry Fresh Dry IFresh Dry Fresh Dry Fresh Dry Fresh Dry
I[ _Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight I Weight I Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
Quincy Tendergreen 9.8 19.6 201 .460 4.40 2.4 24.3 2.6 26.9 1.8 18.4 .67 6.9 .25 3.0
Bountiful 10.7 22.4 211 .321 3.21 3.2 30.1 3.5 33.2 1.9 18.6 .76 7.1 .24 2.3

Gainesville Tendergreen 9.9 13.4 136 .372 3.72 2:9 29.4 3.2 32.5 1.9 18.7 .82 8.3 .23 2.3
1st picking I Bountiful 9.5 16.1 173 .357 3.57 3.8 39.8 3.8 39.8 1.7 17.4 .72 7.5 .19 2.1

Gainesville Tendergreen 9.8 12.9 172 .325 3.46 2.1 20.9 2.3 23.3 2.2 22.2 .67 6.9 .24 2.6
2nd picking I Bountiful 9.8 13.7 198 .293 3.32 2.2 23.1 2.4 26.0 1.9 21.1 .63 6.7 .23 2.5

Hastings Tendergreen 10.1 17.3 140 .346 3.19 2.1 21.1 2.4 23.5 2.2 21.3 .56 5.5 .27 2.7
| Bountiful 10.1 19.7 199 .332 2.88 2.7 26.7 2.9 29.8 2.2 21.5 .49 4.9 .25 2.4

Sanford Tendergreen 9.2 12.9 197 .319 4.02 2.6 28.7 2628 .77 1.9 19.8 60 6.6 .24 2.6
SBountiful 9.0 17.8 214 .288 3.74 2.7 30.5 2.7 30.5 1.7 18.5 .59 6.6 .21 2.3

Belle Glade Tendergreen 10.3 20.2 180 .401 5.37 1.3 12.2 1.5 14.6 2.1 20.3 1.00 9.8 .34 2.9
SBountiful 9.7 20.8 233 .366 4.77 1.6 16.8 1.9 19.3 1.9 19.4 .87 8.3 .27 2.8

West Palm Tendergreen 9.1 16.2 191 .533 4.09 2.1 22.7 2.3 25.0 1.9 24.5 .68 7.5 .30 3.3
Beach 1Bountiful 8.7 20.2 246 .489 3.43 2.2 25.9 2.2 25.9 1.7 19.3 .62 7.2 .26 3.0

Homestead Tendergreen 8.2 15.7 132 .409 3.42 1.8 21.8 1.8 22.2 1.4 16.5 .73 8.9 .22 2.7
Bountiful 8.0 19.6 140 .343 2.93 1.9 23.8 2.0 25.2 1.5 18.8 .80 10.1 .19 2.4

Least
difference 5% Tendergreen 0.30 2.00 19.2 .048 0.47 0.22 2.1 0.34 3.3 0.32 1.72 .18 2.0 .03 0.37
necessary 5% Bountiful 0.18 1.77 18.8 .040 0.40 0.20 1.8 0.33 4.0 0.21 1.69 .26 2.2 .07 0.39
for signifi- 1% ITendergreen 0.42 2.80 26.6 .065 0.66 0.30 2.9 0.47 4.6 0.45 2.39 .24 2.8 .05 0.51
chance 1% Bountiful 0.25 2.45 26.2 .056 0.55 0.28 2.5 0.46 5.5 0.29 2.35 .36 3.0 .09 0.53







Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 27

sidered most important. An attempt has been made in this
study to determine the effect of several of these factors on
composition.
All crops show considerable variation in composition from
location to location. However, there is little consistency as to
the relative position of the various locations for the several
crops. For example, cabbage grown at Sanford and Bradenton
had the highest sugar content and that at Belle Glade the lowest.
For beans, the highest sugar content was in those grown at
Gainesville and the lowest in those grown at Belle Glade. The
lowest sugar content of collards was in those grown at Home-
stead; the highest in those grown at Leesburg. For broccoli,
the highest was at Leesburg and the lowest at Belle Glade.
There does seem to be some indication that crops grown at Belle
Glade will have low sugar content but there is little or no con-
sistency as to location having highest sugar content. This same
type of relationship is true for the other constituents.
Soil Type.-While these experiments were not specifically
designed to show the effect of soil type on composition, there
is considerable evidence which indicates that it ha little effect
on organic composition of vegetables. The most direct support
of this statement is given in Tables 9 and 11. Two crops of
collards and broccoli were grown at Gainesville on the same soil
but at different seasons. The crops harvested in January were
lower in moisture, ascorbic acid and carotene and higher in total
sugars than those harvested in April. There was little difference
in the nitrogen content. While these differences are not as great
as those found between some locations, they are much greater
than that due to fertilizer level.
To obtain more information on the effect of soil type, samples
of seven varieties of cabbage which had been grown at Sanford,
Hastings, Bradenton and Gainesville were secured and analyzed.
These plants were grown on the same plots or on plots close to
the ones on which cabbage was grown in 1943-44. That year
there was a large variation from location to location and small
variation between varieties (Table 5). The variation from loca-
tion to location in cabbage grown in 1945-46 (Table 6) was
much less than that for the 1943-44 cabbage, being only slightly
more than that between varieties. If the variation from location
to location were due to soil differences, it would be expected
that similar variations would occur during different seasons.
However, since there was as much difference from season to











00


TABLE 9.-EFFECT OF LOCATION ON ORGANIC COMPOSITION OF BROCCOLI. EACH VALUE Is AN AVERAGE OF SIX SAMPLES,
ONE EACH FROM SIX PLOTS.


Aver- Dry Ascorbic Acid Carotene Mgs. Reducin Acid- Acid-
age Weight IMgs. per 100 per 100 Gms. Sugars Total Sugars Hydrolyzable Insoluble Nitrogen -<
Location Weight Percent Gms. Carbohydrates Residue
Sof 10 Fresh I IPercent PercentPerentPerent PercentPercent Percent Percrce Percrcet PecenP t Percent
SHeads Weight Fresh Dry Fresh Dry Fresh IDry Fresh I Dry Fresh Dry 1 Fre I Dry Fresh Dry
SPounds Weight IWeight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight I Weight I Weight I Weight I Weight I Weight I Weight I Weight
Quincy 1.6 10.6 80.7 765 1.104 10.5 1.35 12.9 1.45 13.8 1.58 15.0 .77 7.4 .57 5.4 .
Gainesville 4.3 10.5 77.2 736 0.814 7.9 1.65 15.9 1.73 16.8 1.76 17.1 .60 5.9 .50 4.8
Jan.
Gainesville 2.4 11.5 87.6 762 1.205 10.5 1.59 13.9 1.64 14.4 1.89 16.5 .83 7.2 .55 4.7
April
Hastings 2.1 11.1 80.8 741 1.009 9.0 1.41 12.7 1.58 14.1 1.52 13.5 .71 6.2 .61 5.5
Leesburg 2.6 12.4 98.5 795 1.121 9.1 2.12 17.1 2.35 19.0 2.20 17.8 .72 5.8 .48 3.9
Sanford 2.3 9.6 81.0 846 1.171 12.3 0.89 9.4 1.42 14.9 1.33 13.9 .63 6.7 .63 6.6
Bradenton 4.1 10.6 72.0 681 0.979 9.3 1.63 15.5 1.68 15.8 1.43 13.2 .90 8.5 .55 5.2
Belle Galde 2.5 10.3 80.7 787 0.928 9.1 0.88 8.6 0.88 8.3 1.39 13.5 .48 4.5 .57 5.5 ;t
Homestead 8.6 9.5 56.0 605 0.681 7.2 1.38 14.5 1.38 14.5 1.03 10.6 .63 6.7 .50 5.3

Least
difference 5% .89 .4 5.2 157 .20 1.74 .17 1.7 .34 3.3 .14 1.83 .16 1.7 .08 .71 (
necessary for I
significance 1% 1.23 .6 7.2 217 .28 2.41 .24 2.4 .47 4.6 .20 2.52 .22 2.3 .11 .98















TABLE 10.-EFFECT OF LOCATION ON ORGANIC COMPOSITION OF THE APICAL AND LATERAL SHOOTS OF BROCCOLI. EACH
VALUE IS AN AVERAGE OF SIX SAMPLES, ONE EACH FROM Six PLOTS.

SI I Acid- Acid-
SAscorbic Acid Reducing Hydrolyzable Insoluble Nitrogen
Date Dry Weight Mgs. per Carotene Mgs. Sugars Total Sugars Carbohydrates Residue Percent Fresh
Location Harvested Percent Fresh 100 Gms. per 100 Gins. Percent Fresh Precent Fresh Percent Fresh Percent Fresh I Weight
o ______n Weight Fresh Weight Fresh Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight _
Apical Lateral Apical Lateral Apical]Lateral Apical Lateral Apical Lateral Apical Lateral Apical Lateral Apical Lateral Apical Lateral
__Shoots Shoots Shoots Shoots Shoots Shoots Shoots Shoots Shoots Shoots Shoots Shoots Shoots Shoots Shoots Shoots Shoots Shoots

1944 1945 10.6 11.6 72 64 0.98 0.66 .55 .49

Sanford Jan. 8 1Jan. 23
S 1945 1945 9.6 11.5 81 84 1.17 1.13 1.4 .89 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.9 .63 .71 .63 .64

Hastings Jan. 4 Feb. 16
1945 1945 11.1 12,9 81 101 1.01 1.78 F .61 .60

Gainesville Jan. 22 Feb. 13
(Jan.) 1945 1945 10.5 11.2 77 84 0.81 1.65 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.8 1.9 .60 .85 .50 .59











CO


TABLE 11.-EFFECT OF LOCATION ON ORGANIC COMPOSITION OF COLLARDS. EACH VALUE IS AN AVERAGE OF SIX SAMPLES,
ONE EACH FROM SIX PLOTS.
I I AI bIcAcld aroteneI I ]I
Aver- Dry Ascorbic Acid Carotene Ms. Reducing Total Acid- Acid-
age Weight Mgs. per 100 per 100 Gms. Sugar Soluble Hydrolyzable Insoluble Nitrogen
Location Weight Percent Gmns. __Sugar Carbohydrates Residue
of 10 Fresh I I Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percen. Percent Percent Percent
Heads I Weight Fresh I Dry Fresh Dry Fresh Dry Fresh Dry I Fresh Dry Fresh Dry Fresh I Dry
___I Pounds Weight Weight Weight Weight I Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight WeiWeigh Weight Weight
Quincy 4.4 12.3 96.4 784 4.02 32.6 1.64 13.4 1.77 14.47 1.43 11.52 0.80 6.54 .57 4.6 3.
Gainesville 10.7 11.7 74.7 638 3.33 28.6 1.88 15.5 2.07 17.56 1.71 14.48 0.69 5.90 .51 4.1
Jan.
Gainesville 11.4 13.3 91.2 684 3.81 28.9 1.43 10.7 1.49 10.9 2.14 15.87 1.01 7.53 .56 4.2
April
Leesburg 5.7 15.0 104.7 697 3.87 26.1 2.62 17.4 3.20 21.1 2.45 16.21 0.84 5.64 .56 3.4
Hastings 7.0 11.0 76.8 698 3.64 33.1 1.04 9.4 1.44 13.10 1.21 11.01 0.68 6.14 .56 5.1
Sanford 9.3 10.0 73.2 730 4.64 46.4 0.88 8.8 0.94 9.48 1.12 10.59 0.57 5.72 .54 5.3
Bradenton 16.4 12.4 72.0 579 4.04 33.7 1.83 14.2 2.12 16.62 1.59 12.7 1.16 9.41 .45 3.7
Belle Glade 13.0 11.3 67.5 599 3.28 29.1 0.74 6.6 0.74 6.6 1.26 11.16 0.59 7.98 .56 4.9
Homestead 28.8 11.2 52.0 463 4.45 39.6 0.65 5.8 0.65 5.8 1.18 10.49 0.76 6.64 .54 4.8

Least
difference 5% 5.09 1.17 12.7 73 0.727 7.1 0.55 3.21 0.71 4.30 0.44 2.33 0.25 1.91 .084 0.80 g
necessary for I I
significance 1% 7.02 1.62 I 17.5 100 1.002 9.7 0.76 4.42 0.98 5.92 0.61 .21 0.34 2.64 .116 1.10
___________ ___II I_______________I.0011 ________ I __-__1.82_ _5.21






Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 31

season at one location as from location to location during one
season, it would seem that climatic factors are much more
important than soil in determining the organic composition of
vegetables. Further evidence of this same nature is given in
Table 13. Carrots of the same age, harvested at different
seasons of the year from adjacent plots, showed considerable
variation in their composition.
Temperature and Light.-Both light and temperature are im-
portant factors contributing to the variation of environment
from location to location and season to season. It is recognized
that both of these factors may have an influence on composition
of plants; however, in this study no attempts have been made
to correlate changes in temperature or light with variations in
composition.
Soil Moisture.-Soil moisture varied considerably from loca-
tion to location and from season to season and it seemed that
this might be an important factor influencing composition. To
obtain information on this point, two sets of analyses have
been made on vegetables grown at Gainesville. Results of the
first experiment using carrots are given in Table 13. Rainfall
was quite evenly distributed over the growing season and there
were only a few periods when the non-irrigated carrots were
dry enough to suffer from lack of moisture. For this reason,
there was little difference in size, percent dry weight or carotene
content of carrots from irrigated and non-irrigated plots. There
was some indication of lower carotene content in carrots receiv-
ing additional irrigation.
A much better opportunity to study the effect of irrigation
on composition was had in 1947. The growing season at Gaines-
ville during the spring of 1947 was extremely dry, resulting in
a very marked response in the growth of snap beans to supple-
mental irrigation. Samples of the two varieties of beans-
Logan and Black Valentine-were obtained and analyzed. The
results are presented in Table 14. Increasing soil moisture by
irrigation very markedly increased the size of the pods. The
beans from the non-irrigated plots were wrinkled and of gen-
erally poor market quality, as judged by appearance. The most
pronounced effect of irrigation was that of hydration. The
beans grown on the non-irrigated plots averaged 10.8 percent
dry weight and those from the heavily irrigated plots 8.6 per-
cent. When the results are expressed on a fresh weight basis,
this difference in moisture is reflected in the concentration of










TABLE 12.-EFFECT OF LOCATION ON ORGANIC COMPOSITION OF CARROTS GROWN IN 1944-45. EACH VALUE IS AN AVERAGE c
OF SIX SAMPLES, ONE EACH FROM SIX PLOTS. D


Ascor- Acid- Acid-
Dry bic Carotene Mgs. Reducing Total Hydrolyzable Insoluble Nitrogen
Weight Weight Acid per 100 Gms. Sugars Sugars Carbohydrates Residue
Location Variety of One Percent Mgs.. _
Root Fresh per 100 1
Grams Weight Gms. Fresh Dry Percent Percent PPercent percent IPercent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent o
Fresh Weight Weight Fesh Dry Fresh Dry Fresh I Dry Fresh I Dry Fesh Dry i
____Weight __Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight t I ihtWeight Weight Weight) Weight
Gainesville D* 57.1 10.6 14.8 4.98 47.1 1.87 17.73 4.82 45.6 1.39 13.2 0.43 4.1 .16 1.50
1st harvest I** 43.9 10.5 13.4 5.35 50.8 2.19 20.74 4.55 43.3 1.52 14.4 0.46 4.4 .17 1.58
Gainesville D 171.5 12.3 12.3 9.73 78.8 0.64 5.27 4.44 35.9 1.40 11.7 1.11 9.0 .21 1.72 2
2nd harvest I 139.1 12.3 12.4 10.56 85.4 0.65 5.25 4.28 34.6 1.44 9.7 1.19 9.7 1.95
Sanford D 76.8 11.9 17.8t 6.55 54.9 2.06 17.35 4.74 39.9 1.68 14.1 1.34 11.3 .19 1.63
I 63.2 12.0 13.3t 6.92 57.4 2.08 17.57 4.47 37.3 1.76 14.7 1.32 11.0 .21 1.73
-t
Hastings D 39.8 18.0 14.2t 11.60 64.1 1.53 8.50 9.08 50.4 2.59 14.4 1.03 5.8 .25 1.37 P
I 26.3 17.1 13.3t 10.91 57.9 1.15 6.14 8.84 47.0 3.25 17.3 1.04 5.5 .28 1.53
Bradenton D 165.5 13.0 11.5t 8.94 68.3 0.84 6.57 5.00 38.4 1.97 15.1 1.32 10.1
I 135.2 14.0 8.01 8.84 63.1 1.07 7.73 5.41 38.8 2.20 15.7 1.33 9.5 .31 2.18
Homestead D 43.7 10.9 9.7f 4.56 41.9 2.92 26.86 4.32 39.7 0.97 8.9 1.03 9.4 .17 1.60
1st harvest I 47.6 10.9 8.8t 4.60 41.9 3.15 26.33 4.88 40.8 1.06 8.8 1.19 9.9 .21 1.70
Homestead D 63.9 11.3 12.0 4.74 42.1 1.96 17.39 .01 44.6 1.50 13.3 0.92 8.2 .19 1.65
2nd harvest I 65.1 12.6 12.0t 5.81 46.1 2.29 18.14 5.48 43.4 1.77 14.1 1.03 8.2 .24 1.87 7
Belle Glade D 96.7 10.5 15.5t 6.03 57.4 0.85 8.10 3.72 35.4 1.08 10.3 0.68 6.5 .26 2.48
I 84.5 11.4 12.4t 7.22 62.4 0.78 6.85 4.06 35.8 1.22 10.7 0.80 7.1 .30 2.58 c
Leesburg D 44.3 11.8 13.8t 8.28 70.1 2.16 18.33 5.26 46.6 .21 1.78 g.
I 50.3 12.4 12.01 8.05 66.3 1.66 13.39 5.43 43.7 .26 2.05 0

Least
difference 5% D 23.2 0.76 1.37 8.8 0.27 2.91 0.47 2.99 0.21 1.15 0.116 0.94 .034 0.25
necessary 5% I 49.8 0.80 1.45 8.2 0.24 2.38 0.42 3.09 0.27 1.58 0.160 0.95 .053 0.27
for signifi- 1% D' 32.0 1.05 1.88 12.1 0.38 4.01 0.65 4.13 0.29 1.53 0.122 1.30 .047 0.34
canoe 1% I 68.6 1.11 1.99 11.3 0.34 3.28 0.58 4.26 0.38 2.11 0.168 1.31 .073 0.37
D-Danvers half long.
** I-Imperator.
t Values based on two samples per location.






TABLE 13.-EFFECT OF TIME OF PLANTING, AGE AND IRRIGATION ON SIZE, PERCENT DRY WEIGHT AND CAROTENE CONTENT
OF IMPERATOR CARROTS. EACH VALUE IS AN AVERAGE OF Two SAMPLES GROWN IN 1945-46.

First Harvest Second Harvest Third Harvest Fourth Harvest Fifth Harvest

Date of 6 a
Planting i i -
Treatment r o 0




October 3
No irrigation 106 186 10.0 5.2 132 336 12.6 6.7 166 796 11.1 8.9 190 1,207 11.1 9.7 215 1,060 11.6 10.9
October 3
Irrigated 106 65 11.3 5.4 132 344 12.1 6.1 166 670 10.1 5.9 190 1,510 11.2 9.3 215 1,070 10.6 9.3
November 1
No irrigation 104 82 12.9 4.8 138 388 10.5 6.4 162 738 11.9 8.6 187 968 11.9 10.8 0
November 1
Irrigated 104 104 12.1 4.4 138 315 10.4 5.3 162 663 11.6 10.0 187 1,035 11.7 11.5
November 28
No irrigation 110 121 10.1 4.1 134 640 12.6 8.6 159 760 12.4 8.9
November 28 .
Irrigated 110 210 10.2 3.0 134 668 12.0 6.9 159 793 10.4 6.8
January 3
No irrigation 98 370 12.9 8.4 123 718 12.3 8.1
January 3
Irrigated 98 420 12.5 7.3 123 635 12.0 8.1 I
January 21
No irrigation 106 258 12.1 7.3 c
January 21
Irrigated 106 370 12.3 6.1
February 21
No irrigation 75 84 10.6 3.6
February 21
Irrigated 75 143 10.5 3.2 "












TABLE 14.-EFFECT OF IRRIGATION ON THE ORGANIC COMPOSITION OF SNAP BEANS.

Heavy
No Light Heavy Irrigation Difference Necessary
Constituent Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation in Split for Significance
Application I 5% 1%
Fresh Weight

Weight, per pod, gms ...----.... .................-......... 4.40* 6.53 7.42 7.46 0.41 0.62
Dry weight, percent .....................- ...........-........ 10.48 9.4 8.6 8.8 0.98 1.48
Ascorbic acid, mgs. per 100 gms. ......................... 22.4 18.3 17.1 16.1 2.18 3.30
Carotene,** mgs. per 100 gms. ............................. 0.44 0.33 0.23 0.19 0.15 0.23
Reducing sugars, percent .............................--..- 2.40 1.99 2.13 2.17 0.16 0.24
Total sugar, percent .---.................. ................ 2.98 2.42 2.47 2.46 0.26 0.40
Acid-hydrolyzable carbohydrate, percent ............ 1.82 1.75 1.49 1.44 -0.41 0.62
Acid-insoluble residue, percent ................---.....-.. .83 .79 .84 .81 0.16 0.27


Dry Weight

Ascorbic acid, mgs. per 100 gms. ......................... 210.0 196.0 200.0 181.0 31.0 47.1
Carotene,** mgs. per 100 gms. ........................ 4.0 3.3 2.6 2.3 1.7 2.6
Reducing sugar, percent .. .---.......-..-...-- ...-- ----.... 22.4 21.4 24.9 25.4 2.7 4.0 CO
Total sugar, percent .................................-- ....... 27.9 25.9 28.8 27.9 1.7 2.6
Acid-hydrolyzable carbohydrate, percent ........... 16.9 18.2 17.5 16.3 2.7 4.0
Acid-insoluble residue, percent ......................--.... 7.7 8.3 9.8 9.2 1.6 2.4 0

Each value is an average of eight samples, four replications of two varieties each.
** Values for Black Valentine only.







Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 35

the several constituents which were determined (ascorbic acid,
carotene, reducing sugars, total sugars, acid-hydrolyzable carbo-
hydrates and acid-insoluble residue). For all constituents, aver-
age values were highest in beans grown without irrigation,
intermediate in those grown with light irrigation and lowest
in those grown with heavy irrigation. There was no significant
difference in composition between beans from heavy irrigation
plots, irrespective of whether the water was applied at one time
or in two applications. When results are expressed on a dry
weight basis, most of the-differences disappear. However, there
are differences in the carbohydrate and organic nitrogen con-
tents on a dry weight basis. Expressed as percent of the dry
weight, beans from the light irrigation plots have the lowest
total content. These values are average for both varieties from
each of the four replicates. The relatively low amount of total
sugars in beans from lightly irrigated plots is due largely to
low concentration of sugar in Black Valentine beans. There
was little or no difference in the Logan beans grown under dif-
ferent irrigation treatments. The percent nitrogen decreased
with increasing soil moisture, on both fresh and dry weight basis.
The foregoing discussion has been concerned with the factors
commonly considered as part of environment. There are other
factors, such as soil micro flora and fauna (nematodes, fungi,
bacteria, etc.), concentration of carbon dioxide in air, and con-
centration of oxygen in soil, which have not been considered
and which may have considerable influence on the composition.
An attempt has been made to point out briefly how individual
environmental factors can influence the composition. It must
be remembered, however, that in the field where there is little
attempt to control environment, except soil moisture and nu-
trient level, there can be an infinite combination of the various
factors, and that the final result is a sum of the effect of all
these factors working together. For example, under one set
of conditions the soil moisture may be low, tending to increase
the concentration of substances, while at the same time light
and fertilizer level might be such that they tend to decrease
the concentration; thus, the final concentration is the sum of
the effect of these three factors. With an increase in the number
of factors the picture becomes much more complicated.
It may be possible in the greenhouse to control some of these
factors, varying them at will, and thus be able to determine the
effect of each one singly or of two together. However, even







36 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

in the greenhouse there are many factors which cannot be con-
trolled which might have an influence on composition. It seems
like a rather difficult task to vary any particular factor and be
sure that the measured effect is due to the one factor alone and
that a similar treatment will give the same effect at another time.

Specific Crop Responses
Each crop was analyzed for the same constituents and the
preceding general statements about the variation in comparison
apply to all the crops; however, there are several points which
need to be discussed for each individual crop.
Cabbage.-The cabbage heads did not all mature at the same
time, so that it was necessary to make several cuttings at 10
to 14-day intervals to obtain the heads at the same stage of
maturity for proper yield records. In addition to the samples
on which all analyses were made, another cutting at Gainesville,
Hastings, Sanford, Leesburg and Bradenton was sampled and
the dry weight and ascorbic acid were determined. The analyses
(Table 5) show little or no effect of age but do indicate that
environmental conditions between harvests had more influence
than the length of time the cabbage had taken to grow. Both
sets of samples were secured from cabbage which was approxi-
mately at the same stage of maturity, as judged by appearance
and firmness.
Values for percent dry weight will serve as an illustration.
Percent dry weight of the second harvest was higher than that
of the first in cabbage grown at Hastings, Sanford and Braden-
ton; the reverse was true in cabbage grown at Gainesville and
Leesburg.
Carotene content of cabbage is so low that it is of little im-
portance from a nutritional standpoint. Carotene analyses were
made on the cabbage varieties grown in 1945-46 to determine
the variation which existed and also to determine what range
might be expected (Table 6). Dark Green Copenhagen had the
highest carotene content, averaging 50 to 100 percent more
than the other varieties.
A few preliminary analyses of the two varieties used showed
that the soluble sugars were largely of a reducing nature and
for this reason total sugars were not determined, except in the
variety tests grown in 1945-46. Results of analyses of samples
taken in 1946 (Table 6) show approximately 0.2 percent more
total sugars than reducing sugars. There was little difference







Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 37

between varieties but some difference between locations. Cab-
bage grown at Sanford, Hastings and Bradenton had approxi-
mately 0.2 percent non-reducing soluble sugars, while there was
practically none in cabbage grown at Gainesville.
Beans.-Fruits tend to be more constant in their chemical
composition than the vegetative portion of the plant; beans
(Table 8) are apparently no exception to this rule. The differ-
ences in composition of beans are much smaller than those of
leafy crops, such as collards and cabbage, but there is less
variation between replicates, so that smaller differences in com-
position of beans are just as significant as larger and more pro-
nounced differences in crops in which the vegetative portion of
the plant is utilized.
Tomatoes.-The original plans for this study called for more
work on tomatoes than is included. The crops at Bradenton,

TABLE 15.-EFFECT OF DATE OF PLANTING AND AGE ON SIZE, PERCENT DRY
WEIGHT AND CAROTENE CONTENT OF IMPERATOR CARROTS GROWN AT
GAINESVILLE DURING SEASON 1944-45. EACH VALUE REPRESENTS A
SINGLE SAMPLE.
Carotene
Date of Weight of Percent Mgs. per
Date of Harvest Variety One Root, Dry 100 Gms.
Planting and Age Grams Weight Fresh
S Weght

10-16-44 2-14-45 Danvers 71.4 11.1 4.3
121 days Imperator 67.7 10.5 5.0
3-16-45 Danvers I 151.8 10.5 6.5
151 days Imperator 86.3 10.6 7.8
5-2-45 Danvers 279.0 11.4 10.7
198 days Imperator 200.0 11.8 9.8

10-26-44 3-6-45 Danvers 63.6 10.6 5.4
131 days Imperator 54.0 10.4 5.4
3-16-45 Danvers 68.5 10.4 4.3
141 days Imperator 62.5 11.0 4.8
4-30-45 Danvers 176.0 13.2 11.8
186 days Imperator 148.0 12.3 11.7

12-18-44 3-16-45 Danvers 18.0 10.6 2.6
88 days Imperator 13.3 9.9 2.4
5-2-45 Danvers 176.0 10.8 6.2
135 days Imperator 98.0 11.9 6.6

1-31-45 5-2-45 Danvers 21.5 11.6 4.2
91 days Imperator 16.0 11.8 2.7
11.






38 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

Belle Glade and West Palm Beach were not harvested because
poor growing conditions resulted in almost complete crop fail-
ure. The limited data (Table 7) that were obtained are included
to have some information available for tomatoes which is com-
parable to the data on the other crops. The data are not exten-
sive enough to show the variation which might be encountered
from location to location but do show the differences in composi-
tion at various stages of maturity. These results are very
similar to those obtained from a number of analyses which have
been made in other studies on tomatoes in this laboratory.
Broccoli.-The samples on which most of the analyses of
broccoli were made were obtained from the apical shoots. After
the apical shoot is removed lateral shoots develop from buds
in the axils of the leaves. Samples of these lateral shoots were
obtained from plants grown at Gainesville, Bradenton, Hastings
and Sanford. Analyses of these samples (Table 10) showed
that environmental conditions during the period between har-
vest of the apical shoots and harvest of the lateral shoots were
more important than age of the plant in determining composition.
There was a consistently higher dry weight in lateral shoots
than in apical shoots, but no consistent difference in amount
of ascorbic acid, carotene, carbohydrates or nitrogen. This is
similar to the effects of dates of harvest in cabbage.
Carrots.-Vitamin content of carrots is the reverse of that
of cabbage. Carrots have low ascorbic acid and high carotene
contents. With the exception of carrots grown at Gainesville,
only samples from normal fertilizer plots were analyzed for
ascorbic acid. There was considerable variation from location
to location, but the total amount is so low that even a 100 per-
cent variation represents only a few milligrams of ascorbic acid.
As was pointed out in the literature review, a number of
workers have studied the changes in composition of carrots as
they mature. The studies of Hansen (24) and Werner (62)
showed that the concentration of carotene increased up to 120
to 140 days and then either stayed constant or decreased. The
data obtained in the 1944-45 season (Table 15) indicate that
the carotene content continued to increase as the carrots grew,
even up to 198 days. A more extensive study was made during
the 1945-46 season (Table 13). These data also showed that the
older the carrots (maximum age was 215 days) the higher the
carotene content. A possible explanation for the difference in
response of carrots in this experiment and those reported by







Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 39

Hansen and Werner is to be found in the time of growth. Both
the former studies were made with carrots harvested in the fall
when the days were getting shorter and cooler, while the present
studies were made on carrots harvested during the spring when
the days were getting longer and warmer. The data in Table 13
show that the carrots grown during the winter months tend to
be lower in carotene. This is especially evident in the values
for the first harvest. The carrots planted the last of November
and harvested the first of March had the lowest carotene content,
even though they were several days older than the others when
harvested. Carrots planted a little more than a month later
and harvested when they reached the same age had nearly twice
as much carotene per 100 grams of fresh weight.

Summary and Conclusion
Six vegetable crops-cabbage, beans, tomatoes, collards, broc-
coli and carrots-were grown in a number of areas in the state.
Three levels of fertilizers were used: (1) the normal amount
for the particular crop for the soil type and area where grown;
(2) 1/2 the normal amount, and (3) 11/2 times the normal amount.
Samples of the various crops were analyzed for dry weight,
ascorbic acid, carotene, nitrogen, reducing and total soluble
sugars, acid-hydrolyzable carbohydrates and acid-insoluble
residue.
Widest variations in composition were associated with loca-
tion and season. A preliminary attempt has been made to deter-
mine the relative importance of the several environmental
factors. Soil type had little effect on the organic composition.
Soil moisture had a marked effect on moisture content but only
minor effects on other constituents.
Fertilizer level and variety did influence the composition of
crops but their effect was much less than that of season and
location.
Length of time required to mature cabbage had little effect
on composition. There was a higher dry weight in the lateral
shoots than in the apical shoots of broccoli.
Beans grown in soils with high moisture content were larger
and had lower percent dry weight than those grown on soil in
which the moisture was low. High soil moisture was maintained
by frequent irrigation.
The carotene content of carrots increased with age. Carrots
grown during the cool, short days of mid-winter were lower in







40 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

carotene than those grown during warmer, longer days of fall
or spring.
It was pointed out in the introduction that this study was
made in part to determine how the composition of Florida-grown
vegetables compared with that of those grown in other parts
of the country. No direct comparison has been made because
there are no data available which were obtained in a similar
manner on these same crops grown in other parts of the country.
There is a voluminous amount of information on composition
of vegetables, especially the vitamin content, and a comparison
of the variations and averages reported for crops grown in other
states is about the same as for the values reported here. It
must be remembered that the values reported here are averages
and the actual extremes of the analysis were even greater than
the values in the tables.

Acknowledgments
The author wishes to express his appreciation for help in growing the
crops to J. D. Warner, North Florida Station; E. N. McCubbin, Potato
Disease Laboratory; R. W. Ruprecht, Central Florida Station; G. W.
Parris, Watermelon and Grape Laboratory; E. L. Spencer, Vegetable Crops
Laboratory; E. C. Minnum, formerly with the Everglades Station and
P. J. Westgate, formerly with the Sub-Tropical Station.
F. S. Jamison was very helpful in initiating the project and his counsel
and encouragement throughout the progress of the work has been most
welcome.
Jean Campbell and Muriel Thomas assisted in the analytical work.
Soil analyses were selected and obtained in cooperation with G. M.
Volk of the Department of Soils.

Literature Cited
1. ATWATER, W. O. Principles of nutrition and nutritive value of food.
U. S. Dept. of Agr. Farmers' Bul. 142. 1902.
2. ATWATER, W. 0., and CHAS. D. WOODS. Chemical composition of
American food materials. USDA Office of Exp. Sta. Bul. 28. 1896.
3. BEESON, KENNETH C. The mineral composition of crops with particular
reference to the soils in which they were grown. USDA Misc.
Pub. 369. 1941.
4. BENNETT, E. Ratio of soluble sugars, pectic materials and hemi-
celluloses to nitrogen-free extract of some common vegetables.
Food Res. 9: 462-464. 1944.
5. BERNSTEIN, LEON, K. C. HAMNER and R. G. PARKS. The influence of
mineral nutrition, soil fertility, and climate on carotene and ascorbic
acid content of turnip greens. Plant Phys. 20: 540-572. 1945.








Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 41

6. BOOKER, LELA E., EVA R. HARTZLER and ELIZABETH M. HEWSTON. A
compilation of the vitamin values of foods in relation to processing
and other variants. USDA Circ. 638. 1942.
7. BROOKS, R. E., and J. H. MACGILLIVRAY. Studies of tomato quality. II.
Effect of soil moisture on percentage of dry matter in the fruit.
Jour. Amer. Assoc. Off. Agr. Chem. 11: 389-393. 1928.

8. BROWNE, CHARLES A. A source book of agricultural chemistry.
Chronica Botanica 8: No. 1. 1944.

9. BURRELL, R. C., H. D. BROWN and V. R. EBRIGHT. Ascorbic acid con-
tent of cabbage as influenced by variety, season, and soil fertility.
Food Res. 5: 247-252. 1940.
10. CHATFIELD, CHARLOTTE, and GEORGIAN ADAMS. Proximate composition
of fresh vegetables. USDA Circ. 146. 1931.

11. CURRENCE, T. M. A comparison of tomato varieties for vitamin C
content. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 37: 901-904. 1939.

12. 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.
13. CULPEPPER, C. W. Effect of stage of maturity of the snap bean on
its composition and use as a food product. Food Res. 1: 357-376.
1936.
14. EHEART, J. F. et al. Vitamin studies on lima beans. Southern Co-
operative Series Bul. 5. 1946.
15. ELLIS, G. H., and K. C. HAMNER. The carotene content of tomatoes
as influenced by various factors. Jour. Nutr. 25: 539-553. 1943.

16. FINCH, A. H., W. W. JONES and C. W. VAN HORN. The influence of
nitrogen nutrition upon the ascorbic acid content of several vege-
table crops. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 46: 314-318. 1945.

17. FRENCH, R. B., and 0. D. ABBOTT. Vitamin C in Florida fruits and
vegetables. Ann. Rept., Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. 1941.

18. HAMNER, K. C., L. BERNSTEIN and L. A. MAYNARD. Effects of light
intensity, day length, temperature and other environmental factors
on the ascorbic acid content of tomatoes. Jour. Nutr. 29: 85-97.
1945.

19. HAMNER, K. C., and R. G. PARKS. Effect of light intensity on ascorbic
acid content of turnip greens. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 36:
269-273. 1944.

20. HAMNER, K. C. Minor elements and vitamin content of plants. Soil
Sci. 60: 165-171. 1945.
21. HAMNER, K. C., C. B. LYON and C. L. HAMNER. Effect of mineral
nutrition on the ascorbic acid content of the tomato. Bot. Gazette
103: 586-616. 1942.








42 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

22. HAMNER, K. C., and L. A. MAYNARD. Factors influencing the nutritive
value of the tomato. USDA Misc. Pub. 502. 1942.

23. HANSEN, ELMER. Seasonal variation in the mineral and vitamin con-
tent of certain green vegetable crops. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.
46: 299-304. 1945.

24. HANSEN, ELMER. Variations in the carotene content of carrots. Proc.
Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 46: 355-358. 1945.

25. HARMER, P. M., and G. D. SHERMAN. The influence of manganese
deficiency on synthesis of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) in foliage of
plants. Proc. Amer. Soc. Soil Sci. 8: 346-349. 1943.

26. HENDERSON, CLIFFORD. Report of the chemist. USDA Rept. 237-241.
1883.

27. HEINZE, P. H., and A. E. MURNEEK. Comparative accuracy and
efficiency in determination of carbohydrate in plant material. Univ.
of Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bul. 314. 1940.

28. HEINZE, P. H., MARGARET S. KANAPAUX, B. L. WADE, P. C. GRIMBALL
and RUTH L. FOSTER. Ascorbic acid content of 39 varieties of snap
beans. Food Res. 9: 19-26. 1944.

29. HEWSTON, ELIZABETH M., and ROSEMARY L. MARSH. Vitamin values
of foods in terms of common measures. USDA Misc. Pub. 505.
1942.

30. HIBBARD, A. D., and L. M. FLYNN. Effect of maturity on the vitamin
content of green snap beans. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 46:
350-354. 1945.

31. IJDO, J. B. H. The influence of fertilizers on the carotene and vitamin
C content of plants. Biochem. Jour. 30: 2307-2312. 1936.

32. JANES, BYRON E. Some chemical differences between artificially pro-
duced parthenocarpic fruits and normal seeded fruits of tomato.
Amer. Jour. Bot. 28: 639-646. 1941.

33. 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. Proc. Amer. Soc.
Hort. Sci. 45: 387-390. 1944.

34. JANES, BYRON E. Variations in the dry weight, ascorbic acid, and
carotene content of collards, broccoli and carrots as influenced by
geographical location and fertilizer level. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort.
Sci. 48: 407-412. 1946.

35. KARIKKA, KATHERINE JOHNSON, LOLA T. DUDGEON and HAZEL M.
HAUCK. Influence of variety, location, fertilizer and storage on
the ascorbic acid content of potatoes grown in New York State.
Jour. of Agr. Res. 68(2): 49-63. 1944.








Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 43

36. LEE, F. A., and C. B. SAYRE. Factors affecting the acid and total
solids content of tomatoes. N. Y. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. 278.
1946.

37. MAYNARD, L. A., and K. C. BEESON. Some causes of variations in the
vitamin content of plants grown for food. Nutr. Abst. and Revs.
13: 155-164. 1943.

38. MCMURTREY, J. E., Jr., J. D. BOWLING, D. E. BROWN and H. B. ENGLE.
Effects of controlled soil moisture on growth, composition, yield,
and quality of Maryland tobacco. Jour. of Agr. Res. 75: 215-249.
1947.

39. MORELL, S. A. Rapid photometric determination of ascorbic acid in
plant materials. Ind. & Eng. Chem. Anal. Ed. 13: 793-794. 1941.

40. MURPHY, ELIZABETH F. The ascorbic acid content of different varieties
of Maine-grown tomatoes and cabbages as influenced by locality,
season, and stage of maturity. Jour. of Agr. Res. 64: 483-502.
1942.

41. MUSTARD, MARGARET J. The ascorbic acid content of a number of
vegetables produced in southern Florida. Proc. Fla. State Hort.
Soc.: 96-102. 1946.

42. NELSON, E. K., and H. H. MOTTERN. The organic acids of spinach,
broccoli and lettuce. Jour. Amer. Chem. Soc. 53: 1909-1912. 1931.

43. NETTLES, V. F. Two years' results of the effect of several irrigation
treatments on the yield of cabbage and snap beans. Proc. Amer.
Soc. Hort. Sci. 1948.

44. PAL, R. K., and N. M. BOSE. Variations in composition of crops in
different areas under varying conditions of soil and climate. Ann.
Biochem. Exptl. Med. 5: 25-30. 1945. (C. A. 40 1959) Original
not seen.

45. PEPKOWITZ, LEONARD P., RUSSELL E. LARSON, JOSEPHINE GARDNER and
GERALDINE OWENS. The carotene and ascorbic acid concentration
of vegetable varieties. Plant Phys. 19: 615-626. 1944.

46. PLATENIUS, HANS. Physiological and chemical changes in carrots
during growth and storage. Cornell Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. Memoir
161. 1934.

47. PLATENIUS, HANS. Diurnal and seasonal changes in the ascorbic acid
content of some vegetables. Plant Phys. 20: 98-105. 1945.

48. POOLE, C. F., P. C. GRIMBALL and M. S. KANAPAUX. Factors affecting
the ascorbic acid content of cabbage lines. Jour. Agr. Res. 68:
325-329. 1944.

49. REDER, R., et al. The effects of maturity, nitrogen fertilization, storage
and cooking on the ascorbic acid content of two varieties of turnip
greens. Sou. Coop. Series Bul. 1. 1943.








44 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

50. REDER, RUTH, LEAH ASCHAM and MARY S. HEART. Effect of fertilizer
and environment on the ascorbic acid content of turnip greens.
Jour. Agr. Res. 66: 375-388. 1943.

51. RYGG, G. L. Sugars in the root of the carrot. Plant Phys. 20: 47-50.
1945.

52. SHERMAN, HENRY C. Principles of nutrition and nutritive value of
food. USDA Misc. Pub. 546. 1944.

53. SHEETS, O. A., et al. The effect of fertilizer, soil composition, and
certain climatological conditions on the calcium and phosphorus
content of turnip greens. Jour. Agri. Res. 68: 145-190. 1944.
54. SIMS, G. T., and G. M. VOLK. Composition of Florida-grown vegetables.
I. Mineral composition of commercially grown vegetables in Flor-
ida as affected by treatment, soil type and locality. Fla. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bul. 438. 1947.

55. SMITH, F. G., and J. C. WALKER. Relation of environmental and heredi-
tary factors to ascorbic acid in cabbage. Amer. Jour. Bot. 33:
120-129. 1946.

56. SOMERS, G. F., K. C. HAMNER and W. L. NELSON. Field illumination
and commercial handling as factors in determining the ascorbic
acid content of tomatoes received at the cannery. Jour. Nutr. 30:
425-433. 1945.

57. SPEIRS, M., et al. Effect of fertilizer and environment on the iron
content of turnip greens. Sou. Coop. Series Bul. 2. 1944.

58. TRUscoTT, J. H. L., W. M. JOHNSTONE, T. G. H. DRAKE, J. R. VAN
HAARLEM and C. L. THOMSON. A survey of the ascorbic acid con-
tent of fruits and vegetables and some native plants grown in
Ontario, Canada. Dept. of Nat'l Health and Welfare, Ottawa,
Canada. 1946.

59. TRESSLER, D. K. The vitamin C content of New York State vegetables.
N. Y. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 196. 1942.

60. VAN DUYNE, F. O., S. M. BRUCKART, J. T. CHASE and J. I. SIMPSON,
Ascorbic acid content of freshly harvested vegetables. Jour. Amer.
Diet. Assoc. 21: 153-154. 1945.

61. WALL, MONROE E., and EDWARD G. KELLEY. Determination of pure
carotene in plant tissue. A rapid chromatographic method. Ind.
& Eng. Chem. Anal. Ed. 15: 18-20. 1943.

62. WERNER, H. O. Dry matter, sugar and carotene content of morpho-
logical portions of carrots through the growing and storage season.
Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 38: 267-272. 1941.

63. WINTON, A. L., and K. B. WINTON. The structure and composition
of Foods. Vol. II. Vegetables, legumes, fruits. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. 1935.





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