• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Board of control and staff
 Main














Group Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Title: Composition of Florida-grown vegetables
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027201/00001
 Material Information
Title: Composition of Florida-grown vegetables
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Alternate Title: Composition of Florida grown vegetables
Effects of location, season, fertilizer level and soil moisture on the mineral composition of cabbage, beans, collards, broccoli and carrots
Physical Description: 32 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Janes, Byron Everett, 1910-
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1951
Copyright Date: 1951
 Subjects
Subject: Vegetables -- Composition -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 31-32).
Statement of Responsibility: by Byron E. Janes.
General Note: Cover title.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027201
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: ltuf - AEN6407
oclc - 18266268
alephbibnum - 000925751

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Board of control and staff
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Main
        Page 4
        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
Full Text

FEB 1952

Bulletin 488 December 1951


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS
WILLARD M. FIFIELD, Director
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA










Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables


III. Effects of Location, Season, Fertilizer Level and

Soil Moisture on the Mineral Composition of Cabbage,

Beans, Collards, Broccoli and Carrots


By BYRON E. JANES
Formerly Associate Horticulturist, Florida Agricultural Experiment Station






CONTENTS
Page
Review of Literature ................----... ------------........... .. --------....... -- 5
Sec. I.-Effects of Location, Fertilizer Level and Season .---..........--... 6
Materials and Methods ........--.............- ....-----.----------- ------ 6
R results ....................................... .... ....---- .... 10
Variation in Individual Minerals ....--------.......-..-.--...... ... -------- 19
Section II.-Effects of Soil Moisture (Irrigation), Season and Nitrogen
Level on the Mineral Composition of Beans and Cabbage .............. 22
M materials and M ethods .................................. ................................ ...... 23
R results .................................................................... .- -- .......--. 24
Summary and Conclusion ......... ............... .. ....... ...... ....... 30
L literature Cited ............................. .............. ................................... ..... 31









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









BOARD OF CONTROL EDITORIAL
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editor s
Frank M. Harris, Chairman, St. Petersburg Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Associate Editor3
Holis Rineh rt, Miami L. Odell Griffith, B.A.J., Asst. Editor
.Eli Fink, Jacksonville J.N. Joiner, B.S.A., Assistant Editor 3
George J. White, Sr., Mount Dora.A, Asstant editor
Mrs. Alfred I. duPont, Jacksonville
George W. English, Jr., Ft. Lauderdale ENTOMOLOGY
W. Glenn Miller, Monticello
W. F. Powers, Secretary, Tallahassee A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Entomologist
L. C. Kuitert, Ph.ID., Associate
EXECUTIVE STAFF H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant
J. Hills Miller, Ph.D., President3 F. A. Robinson, M.S., Asst. Apiculturist
J. Wayne Reitz, Ph.D., Provost for Agr.3
Willard M. Fifield, M.S., Director HOME ECONOMICS
J. R. Beckenbach, Ph.D., Asso. Director
L. 0. Gratz, Ph.D., Asst. Dir., Research Ouida D. Abbott, Ph.D., Home Econ.'
Geo. F. Baughman, M.S., Business Mgr. R. B. French, Ph.D., Biochemist
Rogers L. Bartley, B.S., Admin. Mgr.8
Claranelle Alderman, Accountants HORTICULTURE
G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist'
MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Horticulturist
Albert P. Lorz, Ph.D., Horticulturist
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS R. K. Showalter, M.S., Asso. Hort.
H. G. Hamilton, Ph.D., Agr. Economist" R. A. Dennison, Ph.D., Asso. Short.
R. E. L. Greene, Ph.D., Agr. Economist R. H. Sharpe, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist
M. A. Brooker, Ph.D., Agr. Economist V. F. Nettles, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
Zach Savage, M.S.A., Associate F. S. Lagasse, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.2
A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Associate R. D. Dickey, M.S.A., Asso. Hort.
D. E. Alleger, M.S., Associate L. H. Halsey, M.S.A., Asst. Hrt.
I. L. Brooke, M.S.A., Associate4 C. D. Hall, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
M. R. Godwin, Ph.D., Associate Austin Griffiths, Jr., B.S., Asst. Hort.
H. W. Little, M.S., Assistant S. E. McFadden, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
Tallmadge Bergen, B.S., Assistant
D. C. Kimmel, Ph.D., Assistant LIBRARY
A. L. Larson, Ph.D., Agr. Economist
W. E. McPherson, M.S., Economist Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian
Orlando, Florida (Cooperative USDA)
G. Norman Rose, B.S., Asso. Agr. Economist PLANT PATHOLOGY
C. Townsend, Jr., B.S.A., Agr. W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist's
Statistician 2 Phares Decker, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
J. B. Owens, B.S.A., Agr. Statistician Erdman West, M.S., Mycologist and Botanist
AGRICULTURAL EG Robert W. Earhart, Ph.D., Plant Path.2
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING Howard N. Miller, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
Frazier Rogers, M.S.A., Agr. Engineer 3 Lillian E. Arnold, M.S., Asst. Botanist
J. M. Johnson, B.S.A.E., Agr. Eng.3 C. W. Anderson, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
J. M. Myers, B.S., Asso. Agr. Engineer
R. E. Choate, B.S.A.E., Asso. Agr. Eng.3
A. M. Pettis, B.S.A.E., Asst. Agr. Eng.2 POULTRY HUSBANDRY
AGRONOMN. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Hush.'
AGRONOMY J. C. Driggers, Ph.D., Asso. Poultry Husb.
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Agronomist1
G. B. Killinger, Ph.D., Agronomist
H. C. Harris, Ph.D., Agronomist SOILS
R. W. Bledsoe, Ph.D., Agronomist F. B. Smith, Ph.D., Microbiologist s
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Associate Gaylord M. Volk, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Darrel D. Morey, Ph.D., Associate J. R. Henderson, M.S.A., Soil Technologist 3
Fred A. Clark, B.S., Assistant J. R. Neller, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Myron C. Grennell, B.S.A.E., Assistant Nathan Gammon, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
E. S. Horner, Ph.D., Assistant Ralph G. Leighty, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor 3
A. T. Wallace, Ph.D., Assistant G. D. Thornton, Ph.D., Asso. Microbiologist
D. E. McCloud, Ph.D., Assistant Charles F. Eno, Ph.D., Asst. Soils Micro-
E. E. Buckley, B.S.A., Assistant biologist
ANIMAL HUBANDRY W Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant Chemist
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND NUTRITION R. E. Caldwell, M.S.A., Asst. Chemist 8'
T. J. Cunha, Ph.D., An. Husb.1 V. W. Carlisle, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor
G. K. Davis, Ph.D., Animal Nutritionist James H. Walker, M.S.A., Asst. Soil
J. E. Pace, M.S., Asst. An. Husb.3 Surveyor
S. John Folks, M.S., Asst. An. Husb.4 S. N. Edson, M.S., Asst. Microbiologist s
Katherine Boney, B.S., Asst. Chem. Fred E. Koehler, Ph.D., Asst. Soil Micro-
A. M. Pearson, Ph.D., Asso. An. Husb.3 biologist
John D. Feaster, Ph.D., Asst. An. Nutri. William K. Robertson, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
H. D. Wallace, Ph.D., Asst. An. Husb.3 0. E. Cruz, B.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
M. Roger, Ph.D., An. Husbandman 3 W. G. Blue, Ph.D.. Asst. Biochemist
J. G. A. Fiskel, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
DAIRY SCIENCE
E. L. Fouts, Ph.D., Dairy Tech. '3 VETERINARY SCIENCE
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husb. VETERINARY SCIENCE
S. P. Marshall, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Husb.3 D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian
W. A. Krienke, M.S., Asso. in Dairy Mfs.3 M. W. Emmel, D.V.M., Veterinarian a
P. T. Dix Arnold, M.S.A., Asst. Dairy Husb.S C. F. Simpson, D.V.M., Asso. Veterinarian
Leon Mull, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Tech. L. E. Swanson, D.V.M., Parasitologist
H. Wilkowske, Ph.D., Asst. Dairy Tech. Glenn Van Ness, D.V.M., Asso. Poultry
James M. Wing, M.S., Asst. Dairy Hush. Pathologist










BRANCH STATIONS SUB-TROPICAL STATION, HOMESTEAD
Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
D. O. Wolfenbarger, Ph.D., Entomologist
NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY Francis B. Lineoln, Ph.D., Horticulturist
Robert A. Conover, Ph.D., Plant Path.
J. D. Warner, M.S., Vice-Director in Charge John L. Malcolm, Ph.D., Asso. Soils Chemist
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist R. W. Harkness, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
L. G. Thompson, Ph.D., Soils Chemist R. Bruce Ledin, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
W. C. Rhoads, M.S., Entomologist
W. H. Chapman, M.S., Asso. Agronomist WEST CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION,
Frank S. Baker, Jr., B.S., Asst. An. Husb. BROOKSVILLE

Mobile Unit, Monticello William Jackson, B.S.A., Animal Husband-
man in Charge 2
R. W. Wallace, B.S., Associate Agronomist

RANGE CATTLE STATION, ONA
Mobile Unit, Marianna
W. G. Kirk, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
R. W. Lipscomb, M.S., Associate Agronomist E. M. Hodges, Ph.D., Agronomist
D. W. Jones, M.S., Asst. Soil Technologist
Mobile Unit, Pensacola
R. L. Smith, M.S., Associate Agronomist CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION, SANFORD
R. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
Mobile Unit, Chipley J. W. Wilson. Sc.D.. Entomologist
P. J. Westgate, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
J. B. White, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist Ben. F. Whitner, Jr., B.S.A., Asst. Hort.
Geo. Swank, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED
A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge WEST FLORIDA STATION, JAY
W. L. Thompson, B.S., Entomologist C. E. Hutton, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
R. F. Suit. Ph.D., Plant Pathologist H. W. Lundy, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist
E. P. Ducharme, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path. W. R. Langford, Ph.D., Asst. Agron.
C. R. Stearns. Jr., B.S.A., Asso. Chemist
J. W. Sites, Ph.D., Horticulturist SUWANNEE VALLEY STATION,
H. 0. Sterling. B.S.. Asst. Horticulturist
H. J. Rei'z, Ph.D., Horticulturist LIVE OAK
Francine Fisher. M.S., Asst. Plant Path. G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Agronomist in Charge
I. W. Wander, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
J. W. Kesterson, M.S., Asso. Chemist
R. Hendrickson, B.S., Asst. Chemist GULF COAST STATION, BRADENTON
Ivan Stewart, Ph.D'., Asst. Biochemist E. L. Spencer, Ph.D., Soils Chemist in Charge
D. S. Prosser, Jr., B.S., Asst. Horticulturist E. G. Kelsheimer, Ph.D., Entomologist
R. W. Olsen. B.S., Biochemist David G. Kelbert, Asso. Horticulturist
F. W. Wenzel, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist Robert O. Magie, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Alvin H. Rouse, M.S., Asso. Chemist J. M. Walter, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
H. W. Ford, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist Donald S. Burgis, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
j .n; C. M. Geraldson, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
L. W. Faville, Ph.D., Asst. Bacteriologist C. M. Geraldson, Ph.D., Asst. Hurt.
L. C. Knorr, Ph.D., Asso. Histologist' W.G. Cowperthwaite, Ph.D., Asst. Hurt.
R. M. Pratt, Ph.D., Asso. Ent.-Pathologist
J. W. Davis, B.S.A., Asst. Ent.-Path.
W. A. Simanton, Ph.D., Entomologist
E. J. Deszyck, Ph.D.. Asso. Horticulturist FIELD LABORATORIES
C. D. Leonard, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
I. Stewart, M.S., Asst. Biochemist Watermelon, Grape, Pasture-Leesburg
W. T. Long, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist
M. H. Muma, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist C. C. Helms, Jr., B.S., Asst. Agronomist

EVERGLADES STATION. BELLE GLADE Strawberry-Plant City
R. V. Allison, Ph.D.. Vice-Director in Charge A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Thomas Bregger, Ph.D., Sugar Physiologist
J. W. Randolph, M.S., Agricultural Engr. Vegetables-Hastings
W. T. Forsee, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist
R. W Kidder, M.S., Asso. Animal Husb. A. H. Eddies, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
T. C. Erwin, Assistant Chemist E. N. McCubbin, Ph.D., Horticulturist
C. C. Scale, Asso. Agronomist
N. C. Hayslip, B.S.A., Asso. Entomologist Pecans-Monticello
E. A. Wolf, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist
W. H. Thames, M.S., Asst. Entomologist A. M. Phillips, .S., Asso. EPntomologist
"-W. N. Stoner, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path. John R. Large, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.
W. A. Hills, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist
W. G. Genung, B.S.A., Asst. Entomologist Frost Forecasting-Lakeland
Frank V. Stevenson, M.S., Asso. Plant Path. Warren O. Johnson, B.S., Meteorologist
R. H. Webster, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
Robert J. Allen, Ph.D.. Asst. Agronomist
V. E. Green, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist 1 Head of Department
J. F. Darby, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path. In cooperation with U. S.
H. L. Chapman, M.S.A., Asst. An. Hush. Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
Thos. G. Bowery. Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist 'On leave.







TABLE 1.-EFFECT OF FERTILIZER LEVEL ON MINERAL COMPOSITION OF CABBAGE, BEANS, BROCCOLI AND COLLARDS. VALUES
ARE AVERAGES OF ALL AREAS WHERE CROPS WERE GROWN AND ARE ON DRY WEIGHT BASIS.
Aver- Dry Percent
Ferti- age Weight Cal- Magne-1 Potas- angan Iron Percent Phos-
Crop lizer Weight Percent Ash cium sium sium Sodium ese Mgs. gs. per Sulfur phorus
Level* of Fxesh Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent per 100 100 as as Phos-
_Units Weight I Gms. Gms. Sulfate phate
Early Jersey /2 1.2** 9.3 7.9 .47 .13 2.9 .22 2.89 5.0 1.6 1.21
Cabbage 1 1.4 8.9 8.3 .48 .14 3.1 .24 2.94 5.0 1.6 1.27
11/2 1.5 8.8 8.4 .50 .15 3.1 .26 3.15 5.1 1.6 1.34
L.S.D. 5% .17 .29 .34 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S .
L.S.D. 1% .23 .39 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.

Copenhagen 1/ 1.6** 8.4 8.0 .50 .15 2.9 .27 2.86 4.9 1.6 1.21
Market 1 1.9 8.1 8.1 .49 .14 2.9 .30 2.94 4.8 1.6 1.21
Cabbage 12 2.1 7.8 8.4 .47 .14 3.0 .35 3.07 5.0 1.6 1.21
L.S.D. 5% .20 .19 .31 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.
L.S.D. 1% .27 .26 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.
Tendergreen 1/2 9.6 7.7 .53 .26 2.9 .10 2.81 7.2 .7 1.29
Beans 1 9.5 7.9 .52 .27 2.8 .10 3.07 7.3 .8 1.31
1%/ 9.5 7.9 .53 .27 2.9 .10 3.17 7.4 .7 1.32
L.S.D. 5% N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.
L.S.D. 1% N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.
Bountiful 1 9.3 6.8 .52 .25 2.4 .10 2.95 7.2 .7 1.25
Beans 1 9.4 6.9 .50 .26 2.5 .09 3.02 7.7 .8 1.25
11 9.5 6.9 .51 .25 2.5 .09 3.31 6.9 .8 1.24
L.S.D. 5% N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.
L.S.D. 1% N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.
Broccoli 1/2 2.7f 10.7 10.8 .61 .23 3.8 .27 3.31 7.9 2.1 2.26
1 3.7 10.7 10.6 .59 .22 3.7 .29 3.45 7.3 2.0 2.27
11/2 3.8 10.5 10.8 .61 .22 3.6 .30 3.61 7.5 2.0 2.37
L.S.D. 5% .51 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.
L.S.D. 1% .70 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.
Collards 16.1$ 12.6 14.2 2.17 .30 3.3 .35 6.59 8.4 2.8 1.57
1 19.4 11.8 14.5 2.19 .29 3.6 .35 7.17 8.6 2.9 1.62
1/2 20.2 11.7 14.6 2.24 .30 3.5 .41 7.33 8.9 3.0 1.68
L.S.D. 5% 2.9 .67 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. .N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.
L.S.D. 1%_ 4.1 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.
*Represents the normal or average amount of fertilizer commonly used; 1 and 11 are 1,' and 1/ the normal amount. **Pounds per head; tPounds
per 10 shoots; tPounds per 10 plants.










Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables

III. Effects of Location, Season, Fertilizer Level and
Soil Moisture on the Mineral Composition of Cabbage,
Beans, Collards, Broccoli and Carrots
By BYRON E. JANES

Introduction
This bulletin, third in a series on the composition of Florida-
grown vegetables, deals with the mineral composition of vege-
tables grown on a series of plots located in several different
vegetable-growing areas in the state. Part II of this series (Bul.
455) presented data on the organic composition of a number of
vegetables grown on these same plots. People interested in
nutrition are often concerned with the relationship of the or-
ganic and inorganic components of the plants. The data pre-
sented here were obtained from the same plant material as that
of Part II and show the range in mineral composition of vege-
tables from various parts of the state and the relationship of the
mineral composition to the various organic fractions.
The material presented is extensive and is divided into two
sections in order to simplify and clarify the information pre-
sented. Section I deals with the effects of location, fertilizer
level and season on the mineral composition of five vegetables-
beans, broccoli, cabbage, collards and carrots. Section II deals
with the effects of soil moisture, season and nitrogen level on
the mineral composition of cabbage and bean varieties.

Review of Literature
The voluminous literature on the composition of vegetables
has been presented in a number of reviews. Beeson (2)1 made a
study of the literature dealing with the mineral composition of
plants up to 1941. Sims and Volk (12) in Part I of this series
have reviewed briefly the literature from 1941 to 1946. Janes
(7) in Part II of this series gave a short review of the work
reported on organic composition.
The work of Sims and Volk (12) showed that the mineral
content of a given vegetable varied as much as 200 percent when
1 Italic figures in parentheses refer to "Literature Cited" in the back
of this bulletin.







6 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

grown on different soils and areas of Florida. There also was
considerable variation even within areas of similar soils. These
same workers also state that, "There was little correlation be-
tween fertilization or soil analysis and plant composition for a
given area of similar soils. The factors that characterized soil
types appeared to be organic matter content and pH of the soil.
Other factors of soil environment and moderate difference in
fertilization were of secondary importance."
In Part II it was pointed out that climatic environment is the
most important factor affecting the organic composition of
vegetables. Other factors, such as variety, soil type and fertil-
izer level, exert only a small influence in comparison to the
effect of location or season.
The studies of Hansen (6), Sheets et al (10), Speirs et al
(11), and the numerous publications of the USDA Nutritional
Laboratory at Cornell (16), have all shown that these same
factors operate in a similar manner in other parts of the country.


SECTION I.-EFFECTS OF LOCATION, FERTILIZER
LEVEL, AND SEASON

Materials and Methods
Growing and Harvesting.-A complete description of the grow-
ing conditions and methods of harvesting of the crops was given
in Bulletin 455, Part II of this series (7).
The following crops were analyzed: Early Jersey Wakefield
and Copenhagen Market cabbage, Tendergreen and Bountiful
beans, Italian Green Sprouting broccoli, Georgia or Southern
collards, and Imperator and Danvers carrots. Each crop was
grown at three fertilizer levels: (1) the amount commonly used
for the particular crop and area; (2) one-half this amount; and
(3) one and one-half times this amount. These amounts are
referred to as normal, /2 normal and 1/ normal. The fertilizer
analysis and the normal rate for each crop at each location are
given in Table 2, along with physical characteristics of soils and
crop yields.
Analytical Methods.-Samples of the crops from all plots were
brought to Gainesville immediately after harvesting and stored
at 50 C. until sampled for chemical analysis. The preparation
of samples for analysis usually was completed within 36 hours
after harvest. In preparing the samples the material was first







Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 7

washed with tap water, the excess water was removed by shak-
ing, and then the sample dried with cheesecloth. After the
material was washed and dried a representative sample was cut
into pieces not larger than one-half inch square and thoroughly
mixed. The respective samples consisted of a quarter from each
of 10 heads of cabbage, two pounds of beans, 10 heads of broccoli,
a quarter from each of 10 collard plants (leaves and stems), and
either 10 whole small carrot roots or a half from each of 10
large carrot roots.
After the chopped material was mixed thoroughly two 100
gram samples were placed in one-pound paper bags and dried in
a forced draft oven at 75' C. to 80 C. These dried samples were
ground in an intermediate size Wiley mill to pass a 20-mesh
screen. The ground material was used to determine the amount
of the various mineral constituents. Samples of two to three
grams were placed in ashing boats in a tube furnace at 4500 C.
A small stream of oxygen was allowed to pass over the samples
for about 12 to 18 hours to complete the ashing. In most
instances this gave a white ash which was transferred to a
beaker, dilute HC1 was added and then the sample was heated
on a steam bath for four hours. The ash solution was then
filtered into a volumetric flask and made to volume. Aliquots
of this solution were used to determine calcium, magnesium,
potassium, sodium, phosphate and sulfate content.
Calcium was precipitated as the oxalate and titrated with
standardized potassium permanganate solution. Magnesium was
precipitated as magnesium ammonium phosphate and titrated
with standard acid. Potassium was determined by precipitating
as the cobaltinitrite and then titrating with ceric sulfate de-
scribed by Brown (3). Sodium was precipitated by the method
of Barber and Kolthoff (1), using uranyl-zinc acetate. Phos-
phorus was determined as phosphate colorimetrically by the
molybdate blue method of Truog and Meyer (15). Sulfur was
determined as sulfate by the barium chromate method of
Foster (4).
Separate samples of the dried material were used for iron and
manganese determinations. Iron was determined by the ortho-
phenanthroline method of Saywell and Cunningham as modified
by Sheets and Ward (9). Manganese was determined according
to the procedure described by Somers and Shive (14).
Soil Samples.-In cooperation with the Soils Department, a
soil sample was taken from each individual plot before fertilizer







TABLE 2.-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 oo
Date Fertilizer at Time of Planting Yield, Pounds per Acre
1 .002 N
P s Mois- H2SO4
Crop Planted Har- For- Pounds Organic ture 1 Sol. 2 Normal8 112
vested mula per Acre pH Matter, Equiva- Phos- Normal3 Normal'
Normal Percent lent phorus I
___ ______________ ____Lbs/Acre4l
Quincy (Marlboro fine sandy loam)' _

Cabbage ....... 11-16-43 3-22-44 4-7-5 1,000 5.0 2.7 11.1 74 14,264 14,410 15,162
Beans" .......... 3-23-44 5-15-44 3-8-5 800 5.1 2.6 9.5 74 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)'

Cabbage2 ...... 11-2-43 2-14-44 4-7-5 1,280 5.8 1.3 4.7 257 5,542 8,325 6,575
Beans2 ............ 3-14-44 5-3-44 4-7-5 1,200 5.6 1.3 4.9 257 3,001 4,388 4,436
Carrots .......... 10-26-44 4-30-45 4-7-5 1,600 5.8 1.8 10.5 411 23,227 18,224 16,592
Collards ........ 11-6-44 1-22-45 4-7-5 1,200 5.8 2.0 11.1 429 6,400 7,576 9,576
Broccoli ........ 11-6-44 1-23-45 4-7-5 1,200 5.8 2.0 11.1 429 3,384 4,942 6,442
Collards ...... 2-2-45 4-4-45 5.7 1.0 5.5 217 4,769 5,961 5,769
Broccoli ...... 2-2-45 4-9-45 4-7-5 1,200 5.7 1.0 5.5 217 3,615 3,192 4,038
Hastings (Bladen)' _

Cabbage2 ........ 11-9-43 2-8-44 5-7-5 2,000 4.9 2.5 9.7 430 21,480 26,950 26,510 1
Beans ........... 4-12-44 5-29-44 5-7-5 1,600 4.7 1.0 3.9 354 4,096 4,241 4,024
Carrots2 .......... 12-20-44 4-16-45 5-7-5 2,000 5.1 1.7 7.6 366 4,343 3,353 3,073
Collards ........ 11-14-44 1-11-45 5-7-5 2,000 5.1 2.1 9.1 421
Broccoli .......... 11-14-44 1-11-45 5-7-5 2,000 5.1 2.1 9.1 421 4,744 5,069 5,023
Leesburg (Norfolk fine sand)'

Cabbage2 ........ 10-30-43 2-2-44 4-7-5 700 5.7 1.0 3.2 57 4,927 6,118 10,534
Carrots2 .......... 11-9-44 3-20-45 4-7-5 2,000 5.8 1.1 3.5 51 18,113 13,975 8,167
Collards .......... 11-9-44 1-19-45 4-7-5 2,000 5.8 1.1 3.3 43 1,057 2,057 2,500
Broccoli ......... 11-9-44 1-19-45 4-7-5 2,000 5.8 1.1 3.3 43 596 3,173 4,903
1. Soil type in parentheses; 2. Yields of cabbage, beans, and carrots are average of two varieties; 3. Normal refers to the average amount of
fertilizer commonly used for the crop location and soil type; 4. In surface six inches.





TABLE 2.-DATES OF PLANTING AND HARVEST, SOIL CHARACTERISTICS, KIND AND AMOUNT OF FERTILIZER AND AVERAGE
YIELD OF THE CROPS AT THE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS (Continued).
Physical Characteristics of Soil
Date Fertilizer at Time of Planting Yield, Pounds per Acre
I .002 N
Pounds Mois- H.SO,
Crop Planted Har- For- per Acre pH Organic ture Sol. z NormaP 1
vested mula Normal8 Matter, Equiva- Phos- Normal Normal"
Percent lent phorus
SLbs/Acre'
_______ Sanford (Leon fine sand) _

Cabbage. ....... 10-27-43 1-20-44 4-5-7 2,000 5.3 1.6 4.4 251 4,814 8,381 12165
Beans" .............. 5-9-44 4-5-7 1,800 5.0 0.8 2.8 43 2,658 4,767 4,398
Carrots ............ 11-10-44 3-12-45 5-7-5 2,000 5.1 1.4 3.7 447 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
Bradenton (Manatee fine sandy loam)'_

Cabbage ........ 11-18-43 1-28-44 4-5-7 4,000 7.3 1.7 7.2 1,179 20,409 25,174 26,921 .
Carrots ........ 12-21-44 4-11-45 4-5-7 3,500 6.4 1.7 7.4 1,100 20,229 17,135 16,275
Collards ........10-27-44 12-28-44 4-5-7 3,000 6.2 1.6 7.6 1,263 11,656 16,138 20,605
Broccoli ......... 10-27-44 12-28-44 4-5-7 3,000 6.2 1.6 7.6 1,263 3,779 4,534 4,767
Belle Glade (Everglades peat)'

Cabbage2 ... 10-28-43 1-12-44 0-8-24 300 5.7 86.4 103.7 28 12,352 12,578 13,880
Beans ..... ..-.. 2-25-44 4-19-44 0-14-6 300 5.5 86.2 105.5 38 4,058 4,555 4,304
Carrots .......... 11-21-44 3-27-45 0-8-24 500 5.5 87.4 114.6 39 10,556 8,642 9,251 s
Collards .......... 11-21-44 1-17-45 0-8-24 300 5.7 87.0 108.8 45 19,029 19,932 17,960
Broccoli .......... 11-27-44 1-17-45 0-8-24 300 5.7 87.0 2108.8 45 2,279 2,569 2,558 -
West Palm Beach (Portsmouth loamy fine sand)'

Cabbage .......... 11-4-43 1-11-44 4-7-5 3,000 5.8 4.8 8.0 32
Beans2 .............. 1-18-44 3-16-44 4-7-5 500 5.5 10.1 15.3 44 1,588 1,559 1,588
Homestead (Marl)'

Beans2 ............. 1-7-44 3-6-44 4-8-6 1,000 7.6 5.8 59.9 30 9,778 10,533 9,408
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 32 15,304 18,432 17,467
Broccoli .......... 12-19-44 2-20-45 4-7-5 1,800 7.9 6.6 61.7 32 7,930 9,140 9,130








10 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

was applied. Ten to 12 plugs of soil 11/ inches in diameter and
to a depth of 6 inches were taken at random from each plot and
composite for samples. These samples of this series (12) were
then treated and analyzed by the authors of Part I as described
by them.

Results
The prevailing soil type, the physio-chemical characteristics
of the soil, amount and kind of fertilizer applied, dates of plant-
ing and harvesting and yield of the several crops are given in
Table 2. Values for the soil characteristics are averages of the
12 plots per crop2. With the exception of cabbage and beans
grown at Gainesville, and all crops at Quincy, a different area
of land was used for each crop at each location. The pH, or-
ganic matter, and moisture equivalent data indicate that a simi-
lar type of soil was used for all plots at any one location.
Effect of Fertilizer Level.-Crop yields (Table 2) show that
the quantity of fertilizer normally used in the specific area
usually was sufficient to give maximum yield, as indicated by the
larger difference in yield between the one-half normal and normal
than between the normal and one and one-half normal amounts
of fertilizer. The quantity of fertilizer used was a limiting
factor on yield in a number of places. In general, crops grown
at Sanford and Leesburg showed the most response to additional
increments of fertilizer beyond the quantity estimated to be
normal for the area. Despite the large amount of fertilizer
applied as normal on the Bradenton plots, additional fertilizer
increased yields of all crops except carrots. Factors other than
amount of fertilizer were limiting in a number of instances, as
indicated by the lack of response to increased applications. This
was particularly true at Quincy.
The yield of carrots was lower, except for Sanford, on the
plots receiving the heavier application of fertilizer. With the
exception of the plots at Homestead and Sanford, highest yields
of carrots were obtained from plots receiving from 800 to 1,500
pounds per acre, or one-half the amount of fertilizer normally

2The use of average pH was suggested by G. M. Volk. Justification is
the fact that the relationship of pH to percent base saturation is approxi-
mately linear for the soils in question. Hydrogen ion concentration, which
in itself is logarithmic, does not enter into the consideration because it is
the percent saturation of the base exchange complex, rather than the actual
concentration of hydrogen ions, that determines the significance of the
pH reading.







Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 11

used. At Sanford the normal amount of fertilizer (2,000 pounds
per acre) produced the highest yield. Highest yields at Home-
stead were obtained from plots fertilized with 1,500 pounds per
acre (one and one-half times the normal rate).
When all locations are considered the fertilizer level had very
little effect on mineral composition (Table 1). The total amount
of the various minerals was proportional to the growth of the
plants. A large plant had a larger total amount of minerals
than a small plant, but both had the same percentage mineral
content. The organic analysis, as published in Part II, shows
that the larger plants were higher in both total nitrogen and
percentage of nitrogen. This would seem to indicate that in
most instances nitrogen, and not the elements studied here, was
the limiting factor for growth.
An examination of the effect of fertilizer at the individual
locations3 showed that with two exceptions, there was no differ-
ence in the mineral content of the plants grown at different
levels of fertilizer application. This indicates that the mineral
composition was uniformly affected by fertilization at all loca-
tions with all crops. The two exceptions were the ash and
potassium contents of collards. At Bradenton, Leesburg and
Quincy an increase in amount of fertilizer applied resulted in an
increase in both percent ash and percent potassium of collards.
At all other locations there was either no difference or a slight
reversal of this trend.
Effect of Location.-Percentages of the several mineral con-
stituents and dry weights in different crops at the various lo-
cations are given in Tables 3 to 12. These data show that the
differences associated with location are rather large in com-
parison with those due to fertilizer level.
Factors associated with location which could have an influence
on composition can be divided into two groups: (1) atmospheric
conditions such as temperature, humidity, light, etc.; (2) soil
factors such as type, chemical and physical characteristics,
moisture content, temperature, soil microorganisms, etc. There
are undoubtedly other factors not mentioned here but they
would fall into one of the two groups.
In Part II of this series it was shown that the largest differ-
ence in organic composition resulted from variations in climate
associated with different locations and seasons. The variations

To simplify the presentation of the tabular material, the data on the
effect of fertilizer level at the individual locations were not included.








12 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

TABLE 3.-EFFECT OF LOCATION ON PERCENT DRY WEIGHT OF CABBAGE,
BEANS, BROCCOLI AND COLLARDS. DATA EXPRESSED AS PERCENT FRESH
WEIGHT. EACH VALUE IS AN AVERAGE OF SIX SAMPLES, ONE EACH
FROM Six PLOTS.
Copen- I
Early hagen Bounti- Tender- I
Location Jersey Market ful green BroccolilCollards
Cabbage Cabbage Beans Beans______

Homestead .................. 8.0 8.2 9.5 11.2
West Palm Beach ...... 7.1 6.2 8.7 9.1
Belle Glade .................. 6.1 5.1 9.7 10.3 10.3 11.3
Bradenton .................... 9.0 8.2 10.6 12.4
Sanford ........................ 9.8 8.6 9.0 9.2 9.6 10.0
Leesburg ...................... 9.8 8.8 12.4 15.0
Hastings ......-.....-------. 10.4 9.6 10.1 10.1 11.1 11.0
Gainesville
1st harvest ............ 8.9 7.8 9.5 9.9
Gainesville
2nd harvest ............ 9.8 9.8
Gainesville
January ................. 10.5 11.7
Gainesville
April ................... .. 11.5 13.3
Quincy ...................... 69 6.4 10.7 9.8 10.6 12.3
Least
Significant 5% ........ .61 .36 .18 .30 .4 1.17
Difference 1% ........ .82 .49 .25 .42 .6 1.62



TABLE 4.-EFFECT OF LOCATION ON ASH CONTENT OF CABBAGE, BEANS,
BROCCOLI AND COLLARDS. DATA EXPRESSED AS PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT.
EACH VALUE IS AN AVERAGE OF SIX SAMPLES, ONE EACH FROM SIX
PLOTS.
Copen- [
Early hagen Bounti- Tender-
Location Jersey Market ful green BroccolilCollards
_Cabbage Cabbage Beans Beans i

Homestead .................. 7.8 8.6 11.0 18.4
West Palm Beach ...... 8.4 8.3 5.8 6.5
Belle Glade .................. 9.9 10.1 8.0 9.3 11.9 17.6
Bradenton ................... 7.9 8.3 10.5 14.6
Sanford ........................ 7.0 7.2 6.9 7.1 11.4 15.4
Leesburg -..................... 6.6 6.3 8.7 9.8
Hastings ...................... 8.6 8.5 7.2 8.9 10.9 14.7
Gainesville
1st harvest ........... 8.1 8.0 6.4 7.0
Gainesville
2nd harvest .............. 6.2 7.0
Gainesville
January .................... 10.0 12.5
Gainesville
April .......................... 11.2 13.4
Quincy ....................... 9.2 8.7 6.4 8.4 11.1 13.3
Least Significant
Difference 5% .... .55 .51 .35 .43 .68 1.79
1% .... .77 .71 .48 .59 .93 2.46








Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 13

TABLE 5.-EFFECT OF LOCATION ON CALCIUM CONTENT OF CABBAGE, BEANS,
BROCCOLI AND COLLARDS. DATA EXPRESSED AS PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT.
EACH VALUE IS AN AVERAGE OF SIX SAMPLES, ONE EACH FROM SIX
PLOTS.
-- -- --- -6o Tender-In~ e~T--i -
Early hagen Bounti- green
Location Jersey Market ful Beans Broccoli Collards
Cabbage CabbageI Beans 1

Homestead ................... .69 .71 .61 3.47
West Palm Beach ...... .70 .70 .63 .64
Belle Glade ................ .91 .87 .58 .62 .99 3.70
Bradenton .................... .51 .58 .57 2.62
Sanford ..................... .32 .39 .45 .47 .48 2.00
Leesburg .................... .25 .24 .56 1.32
Hastings ..................... .34 .34 .35 .38 .41 1.37
Gainesville
1st harvest .......... .42 .39 .47 .45
Gainesville
2nd harvest ........... .52 .54
Gainesville
January .---..-...- ...... .- .60 2.05
Gainesville
April ........................ .63 1.85
Quincy ............. ........ .54 .45 .38 .41 .59 1.48
Least Significant
Difference 5% .... .064 .091 .048 .067 .064 .367
1% .... .089 .126 .066 .097 .088 .506



TABLE 6.-EFFECT OF LOCATION ON MAGNESIUM CONTENT OF CABBAGE,
BEANS, BROCCOLI AND COLLARDS. DATA EXPRESSED AS PERCENT OF DRY
WEIGHT. EACH VALUE IS AN AVERAGE OF SIX SAMPLES, ONE EACH FROM
SIX PLOTS.
Copen- 1
Early hagen Bounti- Tender-
Location Jersey Market ful green Broccoli Collards
ICabbagelCabbagel Beans Beans

Homestead .................. .29 .29 .23 .21
West Palm Beach ...... .13 .13 .26 .25
Belle Glade ................. .19 .19 .26 .28 .21 .35
Bradenton .................. .14 .14 .30 .45
Sanford ......... ..... ...... .10 .10 .24 .23 .24 .37
Leesburg ..................... .15 .14 .23 .26
Hastings .......... ...... .16 .16 .30 .33 .16 .29
Gainesville
1st harvest ............. .12 .11 .22 .22
Gainesville
2nd harvest ............ .24 .25
Gainesville
January .................... .18 .22
Gainesville
April ......... .-- ........... .17 .18
Quincy ................. .14 .15 .22 .27 .26 .33
Least Significant
Difference 5% .... .018 .030 .196 .045 .017 .078
1% .... .024 .042 .272 .062 .024 .108
1_1_ _ __








14 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

TABLE 7.-EFFECT OF LOCATION ON POTASSIUM CONTENT OF CABBAGE,
BEANS, BROCCOLI AND COLLARDS. DATA EXPRESSED AS PERCENT OF DRY
WEIGHT. EACH VALUE IS AN AVERAGE OF SIX SAMPLES, ONE EACH FROM
SIx PLOTS.
Copen-
Early hagen Bounti- Tender-I
Location Jersey Market ful green I Broccoli Collards
ICabbage Cabbage Beans Beans _

Homestead ...-........-. 2.7 3.0 3.9 3.7
West Palm Beach ...... 9 2.7 1.7 1.9
Belle Glade .............-- .. 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.4 4.2 3.3
Bradenton .........---.... 2.9 3.1 3.8 4.3
Sanford ..........-- ............ 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.7 3.9 3.6
Leesburg ..................... 2.4 2.2 3.2 1 2.5
Hastings ..................... 3.3 1 3.2 2.8 3.5 4.0 4.2
Gainesville
1st harvest .-........- 3.2 3.2 2.4 2.9
Gainesville
2nd harvest ...-....... 2.3 2.5
Gainesville
January ............. ..... 3.6 3.1
Gainesville
April .....-.......-......-. 3.7 3.5
Quincy .... .....---.... 3.7 3.4 2.3 3.1 3.1 3.2
Least Significant
Difference 5% .. .22 .26 .15 .31 .03 .76
1% ... .30 .37 .21 .42 .04 1.05



TABLE 8.--EFFET OF LOCATION ON SODIUM CONTENT OF CABBAGE, BEANS,
BROCCOLI AND COLLARDS. DATA EXPRESSED AS PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT.
EACH VALUE IS AN AVERAGE OF SIX SAMPLES, ONE EACH FROM SIX
PLOTS.
"ICopen~T-1
Early hagen Bounti- Tender-I I
Location Jersey Market ful green BroccolilCollards
_Cabbage Cabbage Beans Beans _

Homestead ...........-... .12 .12 .39 .62
West Palm Beach ...... .25 .37 .08 .10
Belle Glade ................ .21 .23 .11 .14 .21 .19
Bradenton ............-...... .17 .17 .22 .20
Sanford -...--.................. .20 .29 .07 .07 .35 .48
Leesburg ...................... .26 .33 .18 .17
Hastings ..................... .34 .52 .09 .09 .46 .77
Gainesville
1st harvest ............. .23 .26 .11 .11
Gainesville
2nd harvest ........... .10 .09
Gainesville
January .................. .24 .26
Gainesville
April .......... ......... .36 .49
Quincy ........................ .. .25 .23 .08 .09 .19 .14
Least Significant
Difference 5% .... .041 .16 .018 .025 .073 .119
1% ... .057 .22 .024 .035 .101 .164
| 1 ---j












TABLE 9.-EFFECT OF LOCATION ON MANGANESE CONTENT OF CABBAGE, BEANS, BROCCOLI, COLLARDS AND CARROTS. DATA
EXPRESSED AS MGS. PER 100 GMS. DRY WEIGHT EACH VALUE IS AN AVERAGE OF SIX SAMPLES, ONE EACH FROM SIX PLOTS.

Copen- 1 0
Early hagen Bounti- Tender- Denver Imperator
Location Jersey Market ful green Broccoli Collards Carrots Carrots
_Cabbage Cabbage Beans Beans __

Homestead ..................... .................. 2.7 2.8 2.6 5.6 1.3 1.2 0
W est Palm Beach ............................... 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.1 1.0
Belle Glade .............................. ......... 2.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0
Bradenton ............................................ 1.7 1.4 1.8 2.9 2.6
Sanford ......................................... ...... 4.4 4.1 5.4 4.0 3.9 8.9 5.1 5.0
Leesburg ..........................................-.... 2.1 2.1 3.0 4.3 3.0 2.8
Hastings .................................. ........ 4.1 4.4 1.7 1.8 2.5 4.9 3.7 3.9
Gainesville
1st harvest ...................... ............... 3.2 2.5 2.8 2.5 3.1
Gainesville
2nd harvest .......................... ......... 3.8 4.2 2.7 2.9
Gainesville
January ............................... .......... 1.8 4.1
Gainesville "
A pril .............................. ... .. ....... 5.4 12.7
Quincy .......................................... ...... 4.6 4.7 7.3 7.3 8.7 19.0
Least significant
Difference 5% ................ .63 .52 .74 .74 .73 1.68 .67 .86
1% ................ .86 .72 1.03 1.03 1.00 2.31 .93 1.18





. .
Vt













TABLE 10.-EFFECT OF LOCATION ON IRON CONTENT OF CABBAGE, BEANS, BROCCOLI, COLLARDS AND CARROTS. DATA EX-
PRESSED AS MGS. PER 100 GMS. DRY WEIGHT. EACH VALUE IS AN AVERAGE OF SIX SAMPLES, ONE EACH FROM Six PLOTS.
Copen- -
Early hagen Bounti- Tender- Denver Imperator
Location Jersey Market ful green Broccoli Collards Carrots Carrots
Cabbage Cabbage Beans Beans

Homestead ....................................... 5.7 5.6 6.3 8.1 3.1 3.3
W est Palm Beach ............................... 5.9 6.1 7.6 7.0
Belle Glade ................ ..... 7.9 .3 7.7 7.6 7.6 9.4
Bradenton .................. ............... 4.3 5.5 7.2 5.8
Sanford ............................................. 3.5 3.2 7.8 8.5 7.4 8.7 3.1 3.5
Leesburg ............................................ 4.4 4.3 6.6 6.5
Hastings ............................................. 4.3 4.2 6.4 7.1 7.0 8.9
Gainesville
1st harvest .................... ................. 5.9 5.7 7.2 7.6 5.3 4.8
Gainesville
2nd harvest .................... ... ............. 6.2 5.1 7.0 7.3
Gainesville
January ...... ......... .......................... 7.6 8.9
Gainesville
A pril ................................ ........................ 8.4 10.6
Quincy .................................... ........... 6.2 6.0 6.8 7.4 10.1 10.9
Least significant
Difference 5% ............ .875 1.50 1.34 1.06 1.66 1.48
1% ............ 1.20 2.05 1.85 1.46 2.27 2.03








Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 17

TABLE 11.-EFFECT OF LOCATION ON SULFUR CONTENT, EXPRESSED AS
SULFATE, OF CABBAGE, BEANS, BROCCOLI AND COLLARDS. DATA EXPRESSED
AS PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT. EACH VALUE IS AN AVERAGE OF SIX
SAMPLES, ONE EACH FROM SIX PLOTS.
SCopen- I I
Early hagen Bounti- Tender-
Location Jersey Market ful Igreen Broccoli Collards
CababbagelCabbage Beans I Beans i

Homestead .................. .8 .9 2.2 3.7
West Palm Beach .... 1.6 1.6 .7 .7
Belle Glade ............. 1.7 1.9 .7 .8 2.2 3.1
Bradenton ................ 1.6 1.6 2.2 2.9
Sanford .................. ... 1.4 1.3 .9 .8 2.1 3.4
Leesburg ...................... 1.1 1.0 1.8 2.5
Hastings ..................... 1.7 1.7 .8 .9 1.8 2.4
Gainesville
1st harvest .............. 1.7 1.7 .6 .6
Gainesville
2nd harvest ............ .7 .7
Gainesville
January .................... 1.8 2.5
Gainesville
April ......................... 2.3 3.0
Quincy ........................ 1.8 1.7 .7 .7 2.1 2.7
Least significant
Difference 5% .... 0.27 0.25 .09 .08 .12 .30
1% ... 0.38 0.35 .12 .11 .17 .41



TABLE 12.-EFFECT OF LOCATION ON PHOSPHORUS CONTENT, EXPRESSED AS
PHOSPHATE, OF CABBAGE, BEANS, BROCCOLI AND COLLARDS. DATA EX-
PRESSED AS PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT. EACH VALUE IS AN AVERAGE OF
SIx SAMPLES, ONE EACH FROM SIX PLOTS.
ICopen- I
Early I hagen I Bounti- Tender-1
Location Jersey ] Market ful green Broccoli Collards
_CabbagelCabbage Beans Beans_

Homestead .................. 1.47 1.49 2.16 1.48
West Palm Beach ...... 1.22 1.22 .91 .98
Belle Glade ............... 1.67 1.22 1.28 1.37 2.28 1.50
Bradenton .................... 1.44 1.67 2.21 1.31
Sanford ................... 1.22 1.22 1.31 1.28 2.58 1.96
Leesburg ................... 1.44 1.29 2.10 1.41
Hastings ...................... 1.14 1.37 1.41 1.52 2.36 1.66
Gainesville
1st harvest .............. 1.60 1.60 1.21 1.21
Gainesville
2nd harvest .......... 1.32 1.33
Gainesville
January ................. 2.36 1.86
Gainesville
April ........................ 2.25 1.75
Quincy ........................ 1.60 1.37 1.06 1.28 2.43 1.70
Least significant
Difference 5% ... .14 .19 .11 .08 .27 .27
1% .... .20 .26 .15 .10 .38 .38







18 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

in climate affected both soil and atmospheric environment. While
soil characteristics have little or no effect on organic composition,
they do have a marked influence on mineral composition. The
physical and chemical characteristics of the soil were important
factors in determining the mineral composition; but it was ap-
parently affected to some extent by changes in climate.
For most of the mineral constituents there was a definite
correlation between the percentage of the element in the dif-
ferent crops and the location where grown. The percentage of
total ash (Table 4) was highest, except for collards (in which
was second highest), in the crops grown at Belle Glade. The
crops grown at Leesburg had the lowest percentage of ash. As
would be expected from the variation in ash content, the amount
of the individual elements in the various crops was dependent to
a large extent on the location where they were grown.
If the soil were the only factor influencing mineral content,
the concentrations of the several constituents in the different
crops would all have the same position relative to each other
when the locations are compared. If, for example, the phos-
phorus content of the crop depended only on the soil on which it
is grown, the location producing the highest concentration of
phosphorus in one crop would produce other crops with the high-
est phosphorus content. This, however, is not the case (Table
12) and thus it must be assumed that factors other than those
associated with the soil influence the mineral content. Since the
climatic factors had such marked influence on organic composi-
tion, it would be expected that the same factors would also
influence the mineral content.
The two crops of broccoli and collards grown at Gainesville
show that the soil is very important in determining the mineral
composition but that climatic factors do exert some influence
(Tables 1 and 3 to 12). The percentages of total ash, sulfur, iron,
manganese and sodium were higher in crops harvested in April
than in those harvested in January. With the exception of man-
ganese, the percentage of the various constituents in the two
harvests was in about the same position relative to other loca-
tions. There was a three-fold increase in manganese content
between the January harvest and the April harvest. Since the
soil type was the same for both crops, these differences in
composition between the two seasons were due to the difference
in the climatic environment.
The variation in concentration of the several elements between







Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 19

the different crops is as large as, if not larger than, the variation
between locations for one crop. Collards were much higher in
mineral content and beans lower than the other crops.
Effect of Portion of Plant.-The data in Table 13 show the
variation in composition of apical and lateral shoots of broccoli
at several locations. The lateral shoots were harvested two to
three weeks after the main shoots. Percentages of ash, calcium,
manganese and sulfur were higher and percentages of potassium
and phosphorus were lower in the lateral shoots at all locations.
These differences were not very large but do have some signifi-
cance because they are consistent at all locations.

Variation in Individual Minerals
Calcium.-The crops grown at Belle Glade, Homestead and
West Palm Beach had the highest calcium content (Table 5).
This can be accounted for, at least in part, by the fact that the
soils at Homestead are calcareous in origin and those at Belle
Glade and West Palm Beach are underlaid by limestone. Rela-
tively low calcium was found in the crops grown on the more
sandy soils such as those at Leesburg and Hastings.
Magnesium.-Soil characteristics do not seem to be the only
factors influencing magnesium content (Table 6.) There was no
one location which had the highest concentration of magnesium
for all crops. For example, at Hastings beans had the highest
magnesium content, broccoli the lowest. The data are not ex-
tensive enough to determine if this fact can be attributed to
differences in the climatic environment or to differences in the
response of the several crops to the soil condition.
Potassium.-Crops grown at Hastings were consistently high
in potassium while those at Leesburg were usually low (Table
7). The soil at Hastings had been intensively cropped to cabbage
and potatoes for a number of years. Both of these crops require
large amounts of fertilizer and undoubtedly the potassium re-
serve had built up in the soil. The soil at Leesburg was
land previously planted to watermelons that had received only
one or two light fertilizer applications. This difference in
previous history of the soil could account for some of the differ-
ences in potassium content.
Sodium.-Sodium content of the several crops does not seem
to be correlated with the soil (Table 8). The data of Tables 18
and 19 show that it is possible to double the amount of sodium









0


TABLE 13.-EFFECT OF LOCATION ON MINERAL COMPOSITION OF APICAL AND LATERAL SHOOTS OF BROCCOLI. EACH VALUE IS
AN AVERAGE OF SIX SAMPLES, ONE EACH FROM SIX PLOTS. MINERAL COMPOSITION EXPRESSED AS PERCENT DRY WEIGHT.

Bradenton Sanford Hastings Gainesville
Constituent Apical Lateral Apical Lateral Apical Lateral Apical Lateral
Shoots Shoots Shoots Shoots Shoots Shoots Shoots Shoots

Dry Weight percent fresh weight ...... 10.6 11.6 9.6 11.5 11.1 12.9 10.3 11.4
Ash (percent) .................................... 10.6 10.4 11.4 10.0 10.9 9.9 10.0 10.1
Calcium (percent) ....... ........................ .57 .72 .48 .60 .41 .49 .60 .76
Magnesium (percent) .......................... .30 .18 .24 .21 .16 .23 .18 .19
Potassium (percent) ............................ 3.8 3.4 3.9 3.3 4.0 3.4 3.6 3.5
Sodium (percent) .................................. .22 .35 .35 .36 .46 .38 .24 .28
Iron (mgs./100 gms.) ... ................ 7.2 5.6 7.4 7.1 7.0 7.4 7.6 8.6
Manganese (mgs./100 gms.) ............ 1.8 2.1 3.9 5.3 2.5 3.0 1.8 2.0
Sulfur as sulphate (percent) ............ 2.2 2.5 2.1 2.3 1.8 2.0 1.8 2.1
Phosphorus as phosphate (percent) 2.2 1.7 2.6 2.2 2.4 1.9 2.4 2.0







Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 21

in cabbage by applications of nitrate of soda. It is very probable
that the differences in amount of sodium in the fertilizer ac-
counted for some of the variation.
Manganese.-Manganese content of the crops is quite closely
related to the pH of the soil (Tables 2 and 9). The lower the pH
of the soil the higher the manganese content, the one exception
being at Homestead. The soil there had the highest pH but the
manganese content of crops grown there was not as low as that
in the crops grown at Belle Glade, Bradenton and West Palm
Beach. The highest concentration of manganese was found in
the crops grown at Quincy, where the soil had a low pH.
Iron.-Sims and Volk (12) state that the iron content of
vegetables is apparently related to organic matter content and
pH of soil on which they are grown. High organic matter con-
tent and low pH of soil favored high iron content of crops grown
on them. In general, the highest percentage of iron in the crops
reported here was in those grown at Belle Glade, where the pH
was intermediate and the organic matter high (Table 10). The
lowest iron content was in the crops grown on the high pH soils
at Homestead. The crops at Hastings had a low iron content
despite the low pH of the soil.
The relationship of manganese and iron is rather interesting.
Somers and Shive (14) and Somers, Gilbert and Shive (13) have
reported that a ratio of iron to manganese of 1.5 to 2.5 in the
soil or growing medium is the most nearly optimum. A calcula-
tion of the ratios from the data presented here on plant composi-
tion shows that usually the ratio in the plant is 2.0 to 3.0 There
are several exceptions, however. The most interesting exception
occurred in the crops grown at Belle Glade. The manganese
content is quite low at Belle Glade but the iron content is high,
giving a ratio of 8.3 for collards, 6.8 for broccoli, 4.6 for Bountiful
beans and 3.0 for Early Jersey cabbage. Somers and his workers
report that when iron is too high, symptoms of manganese
deficiency occur. Both collards and broccoli growing at Belle
Glade did have a chlorotic pattern in the leaves suggestive of
manganese deficiency. It is the regular practice in the Belle
Glade area to apply manganese in the fertilizer and also at times
in sprays to the plants. All the crops grown at Belle Glade had
manganese applied in the fertilizer; despite this, the manganese
content of the plants was quite low.
Crops grown at Bradenton had low contents of both mangan-







22 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

ese and iron. Those grown at Gainesville and Quincy had high
manganese and iron contents, but the manganese was higher
than iron. According to the work of Somers referred to, this
should have resulted in iron deficiency; however, none was
apparent.
Sulfur.-There is little relation between the location where the
crops are grown and their sulfur content (Table 11). The crops
grown at Leesburg had a rather low sulfur content. However,
in broccoli at Gainesville the lowest sulfur content was in the
plants harvested in January and the highest in those harvested
in April. This indicates that climate or some factor other than
soil has a decided influence on the sulfur content.
Phosphorus.-There was some indication from the data (Table
12) that there might be a correlation between the amount of
soluble phosphate in the soil (Table 2) and the percentage of
phosphorus in the crops grown on them. An analysis of covari-
ance between the amount of soluble phosphorus in the soil and
the phosphorus content of cabbage showed no correlation between
the two. Apparently something other than type of soil con-
tributed to the variation in phosphorus content of the crops.
This is illustrated by the fact that the phosphorus content of
cabbage grown at Bradenton and Belle Glade was quite high
but that of collards and broccoli grown at these locations was
low in comparison to the other locations.


SECTION II.-EFFECTS OF SOIL MOISTURE
(IRRIGATION), SEASON AND NITROGEN LEVEL ON
THE MINERAL COMPOSITION OF BEANS
AND CABBAGE
As was indicated in the first section, soil characteristics have
the most influence on mineral composition. However, there are
other factors which have an influence. Soil moisture varies
considerably from location to location and season to season, and
might have an influence on composition.
A series of plots was established at Gainesville to determine
the effectiveness of irrigation in producing high quality vege-
tables. The vegetables produced on these plots offered an excel-
lent opportunity to obtain material which had grown with wide
ranges of soil moisture on similar soils and similar climatic
conditions. Samples of two varieties of beans grown under







Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 23

various irrigation treatments and one variety of cabbage grown
during several seasons with varying amounts of nitrogen and
irrigation were secured.

Materials and Methods
Two varieties of snap beans, Logan and Black Valentine, were
grown under three irrigation treatments light, heavy, and the
same amount of water as the heavy irrigation split into two
applications. A check treatment received no irrigation. These
treatments were randomized in a latin square. Method and
time of irrigation and other cultural practices, as well as yields,
are given by Nettles (8) in his discussion of the effects of irriga-
tion on yields. The growing season, especially the latter part,
was extremely dry, resulting in a marked response to the irriga-
tion treatments as shown by differences in yield and appearance.
Yields varied from an average of 24 bushels per acre for the
non-irrigated plots to an average of 291.2 bushels per acre for
the plots receiving the largest amount of irrigation.
A sample of approximately 2 pounds of beans from each plot
was taken to the laboratory as soon as harvested and a sub-
sample of 500 grams was weighed out. The number of beans in
the sub-sample was counted. The beans were washed in tap
water and the excess water was removed by centrifuging in a
small basket centrifuge for one or two minutes at 1,500 to 2,000
revolutions per minute. The washed beans were chopped into
small pieces, none of which was more than one-fourth inch in
length, and thoroughly mixed. Samples for the several analyses
were taken from this composite sample.
Glory of Enkhuizen cabbage was grown on the same plots.
However, a somewhat different experimental design was used.
Three rates of irrigation, frequent, medium and occasional, as
well as no irrigation were used as treatments on the main plots,
which were replicated four times. Each main plot was divided
into three sub-plots and planted to cabbage on three dates -
October 20 and December 3, 1947, and February 6, 1948. Each
of these sub-plots was then sub-divided and one-half was side-
dressed several times with nitrate of soda. The original applica-
tion of fertilizer was at the rate of one ton per acre of a 4-7-5
commercial mixture.
The original plan of this experiment was to determine the
time of irrigation by measuring the amount of evaporation from







24 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

an open pan. From this the following schedule was determined:
frequent irrigation, a half inch of water applied after one-quarter
inch of evaporation; medium irrigation, a half inch of water ap-
plied after each half inch of evaporation; and occasional irriga-
tion, a half inch of water applied after one inch of evaporation.
This procedure for determining the time to apply irrigation was
very satisfactory during the cool weather of the winter months
when evaporation was rather slow. However, in the spring, when
the evaporation rate increased, these intervals between irrigation
became too short. The following schedule was then adopted:
One-half inch of water was applied to 'frequent' plots every
second day, to the 'medium' plots every fourth day and to the
'occasional' plots every eighth day. A half-inch or more of rain
was considered as an irrigation and the time of next application
dates from the day of rain.
Samples of the first and third crops were taken for analysis. A
frost damaged the second crop so that it was no longer repre-
sentative of the treatments. The same chemical procedures
were used as outlined in Section I.

Results
The main difference in the composition of beans was one of
hydration (Table 14). Beans from the plots receiving the largest
amount of irrigation were lowest in dry weight and those from
the plots receiving no irrigation were highest. On a fresh weight
basis the highest concentration of all the minerals was in the
beans from the non-irrigated plots and lowest in those from the
heavily irrigated plots. That this variation was largely due to
the difference in moisture content, and not to a difference in the
actual amounts of materials in the different samples, is indi-
cated by the fact that, with the exception of potassium, there
was but little effect of irrigation when the results were expressed
on a dry weight basis. There was a difference in potassium
content expressed as percent of the dry weight, potassium being
highest in the beans grown on the light irrigation plots and low-
est in those from the non-irrigated plots.
The effect of the various irrigation treatments on composition
of cabbage grown in two different seasons is given in Table 16
and 17. There was about twice the rainfall during the growth
of the April harvest as that of the January harvest (Table 15).
However, because of the lower temperatures and even distribu-







Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 25

TABLE 14.-EFFECT OF IRRIGATION ON MINERAL COMPOSITION
OF SNAP BEANS.


S, Least Signifi-
.. .2 .2 cant Difference
Constituent 4g ---

______ 5%, 1%

Fresh Weight

Weight, per pod (gms.) ..... 4.40 6.53 7.42 7.46 0.41 0.62
Dry Weight (percent) ........ 10.8 9.4 8.6 8.8 0.98 1.48
Ash (percent) ........................ 0.85 0.84 0.70 0.76 0.085 N.S.
Calcium (percent) ................ 0.055 0.048 0.044 0.046 0.0080 N.S.
Magnesium (percent) .......... 0.026 0.022 0.018 0.020 0.0056 N.S.
Potassium (percent) ............ 0.31 0.32 0.26 0.28 0.025 0.039
Sodium (percent) .................. 0.013 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.0023 N.S.
Phosphorus as phosphate
(percent) .............................. 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.13 0.019 0.029
Sulfur as sulfate (percent) 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.012 0.018
Iron (mgs. per 100 gs.) .... 1.28 0.92 0.93 0.96 N.S. N.S.
Manganese
(mgs. per 100 gms.) .......... 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 N.S. N.S.

Dry Weight

Ash (percent) ..................... 7.9 8.8 8.2 8.5 N.S. N.S.
Calcium (percent) ........... 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.52 N.S. N.S.
Magnesium (percent) .......... 0.24 0.25 0.20 0.23 N.S. N.S.
Potassium (percent) ............ 2.91 3.39 3.11 3.13 0.29 N.S.
Sodium (percent) .............. 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 N.S. N.S.
Phosphorus as phosphate
(percent) ...................-..... 1.64 1.59 1.44 1.43 N.S. N.S.
Sulfur as sulfate (percent) ._ 0.83 0.87 0.78 0.80 N.S. N.S.
Iron (mgs. per 100 gms.) .... 9.9 10.3 10.8 10.9 N.S. N.S.
Manganese
(mgs. per 100 gms.) ...... 3.2 2.7 3.0 2.8 N.S. N.S.


tion of rainfall during the growing period of the first crop, the
additional water applied by irrigation gave no added response in
size of plant. Most of the rainfall came early during the growth
of the later planting, so that during much of the period of rapid
growth there was a need for supplementing the rainfall with
additional moisture. This is reflected in the increased size of the
cabbage obtained from the plots receiving the additional water.
There was no difference in average mineral composition of the
cabbage harvested in January from the several irrigation treat-
ments (Table 16), although calcium, sodium, phosphorus and
manganese showed small differences.








26 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

TABLE 15.-TOTAL AMOUNT OF WATER, RAINFALL PLUS IRRIGATION, FOR
THE VARIOUS IRRIGATION TREATMENTS OF CABBAGE.
Frequent Medium Occasional
Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Rainfall
and and and no
Rainfall Rainfall Rainfall Irrigation

1st Planting
Oct. 20-Jan. 10 15.09 9.09 8.09 7.59
3rd Planting
Feb. 9-April 29 23.0 18.00 14.50 13.00




TABLE 16.-EFFECT OF IRRIGATION ON MINERAL COMPOSITION OF CABBAGE
HARVESTED IN JANUARY.


4 i Least Signifi-
!. a cant Difference
Constituent | 3 -
I ___5% 1%

Fresh Weight

Weight per head (lbs.) ...... 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.5 N.S. N.S.
Dry weight (percent) ...... 8.3 8.1 8.2 8.0 .29 .45
Ash (percent) ............... ...... .69 .66 .70 .67 N.S. N.S.
Calcium (percent) ...............- .084 .077 .085 .090 .012 .018
Magnesium (percent) .......... .014 .014 .014 .014 N.S. N.S.
Potassium (percent) ........... .26 .25 .26 .25 N.S. N.S.
Sodium (percent) ................. .014 .016 .020 .017 N.S. N.S.
Phosphorus as phosphate
(percent) ......................-....... .100 .093 .106 .090 .010 .016
Sulfur as sulfate (percent) .095 .089 .093 .089 N.S. N.S.
Iron (mgs. per 100 gms.) .... .29 .24 .29 .27 N.S. N.S.
Manganese
(mgs. per 100 gms.) ........ .14 .19 .20 .20 N.S. N.S.

Dry Weight

Ash (percent) ....................... 8.33 8.15 8.60 8.43 N.S. N.S.
Calcium (percent) ...........--. 1.03 .97 1.04 1.13 N.S. N.S.
Magnesium (percent) ............ .16 .17 .18 .18 N.S. N.S.
Potassium (percent) ........... 3.16 3.06 3.15 3.16 N.S. N.S.
Sodium (percent) .................. .17 .21 .25 .21 .07 .11
Phosphorus as phosphate
(percent) .....-.....................-. 1.16 1.16 1.29 1.13 .12 .18
Sulfur as sulfate (percent) .. 1.15 1.10 1.14 1.11 N.S. N.S.
Iron (mgs. per 100 gms.) .... 3.44 2.98 3.50 3.40 N.S. N.S.
Manganese
(mgs. per 100 gms.) ...-- 1.69 2.34 2.44 2.47 .65 .98








Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 27

TABLE 17.-EFFECT OF IRRIGATION ON MINERAL COMPOSITION OF CABBAGE
HARVESTED IN APRIL.


S a 3 s Least Signifi-
r. cant Difference
Constituent P W
'EA g O 55% 1%


Fresh Weight

Weight per head (lbs.) ....... 2.7 2.5 1.8 1.5 .29 .45
Dry weight (percent) ........... 6.8 7.2 8.1 8.5 .37 .56
Ash (percent) ..................... .56 .57 .66 .71 .039 .059
Calcium (percent) .........-..... .075 .072 .083 .098 .0095 .0143
Magnesium (percent) .......... .008 .009 .010 .012 .0021 .0032
Potassium (percent) ........... .20 .19 .23 .25 .0212 .0321
Sodium (percent) .................. .023 .030 .025 .026 .0086 .0131
Phosphorus as phosphate
(percent) ............................ 085 .087 .106 .099 .017 .026
Sulfur as sulfate (percent) .. .09 .11 .11 .12 .027 .041
Iron (mgs. per 100 gms.) ...... .24 .27 .30 .38 .082 .124
Manganese
(mgs. per 100 gms.) ........ .12 .14 .17 .17 .027 .041


Dry Weight

Ash (percent) ................... 8.3 8.0 8.2 8.5 N.S. N.S.
Calcium (percent) .........-... 1.10 .99 1.04 1.17 N.S. N.S.
Magnesium (percent) ......... .12 .13 .13 .15 .02 .04
Potassium (percent) .......... 2.90 2.62 2.82 3.02 .20 .31
Sodium (percent) ............. .34 .41 .31 .31 .08 .12
Phosphorus as phosphate
(percent) .......... ........... .. 1.25 1.21 1.31 1.18 N.S. N.S.
Sulfur as sulfate (percent) .. 1.33 1.27 1.36 1.43 .08 .13
Iron (mgs. per 100 gms.) .... 3.25 3.76 3.77 4.52 1.0 1.5
Manganese
(mgs. per 100 gms.) ....... 1.81 1.77 2.09 1.95 N.S. N.S.



There were several differences in composition associated with
the differences in growth of the cabbage harvested in April
(Table 17). On a fresh weight basis, as was the case with beans,
there was a higher concentration of most minerals in cabbage
grown without irrigation. The ash, calcium, magnesium, iron
and manganese as percent of fresh weight were all higher in
cabbage grown without irrigation. The other constituents, with
the exception of sodium, were higher also, but the differences
were not significant. On a dry weight basis only potassium,
sulfur and iron showed a difference and these were significant











TABLE 18.-EFFECT OF NITROGEN LEVEL ON MINERAL COMPOSITION OF CABBAGE GROWN AT FOUR LEVELS OF SOIL MOISTURE-
HARVESTED IN JANUARY.

Fresh Weight _Dry Weight
Two ILeast Significant Two Least Significant o
Constituent Side- No Difference Side- No Difference .
dressings Side- dressings Side-
of NaNOs dressings 5% 1% of NaNOs dressings 5% 1%

Weight per head (lbs.) ....................... 1.6 1.3 .21 .29
Dry weight (percent) ..................... 7.9 8.3 .27 .37
Ash (percent) .................................. .68 .68 N.S. N.S. 8.46 8.29 N.S. N.S.
Calcium (percent) ......-.................... .082 .086 N.S. I N.S. 1.04 1.05 N.S. N.S.
Magnesium (percent) ................ .014 .014 N.S. N.S. .18 .17 N.S. N.S.
Potassium (percent) ........................ .25 .26 .006 .008 3.12 3.15 N.S. N.S.
Sodium (percent) ........... ........... .023 .011 .003 .005 .28 .14 .03 .04
Phosphorus as phosphate (percent) .099 .100 N.S. N.S. 1.23 1.13 .09 .13
Sulfur as sulfate (percent) .............. .089 .094 .004 .006 1.14 1.16 N.S. N.S.
Iron (mgs. per 100 gms.) ............. .27 .27 N.S. N.S. 3.35 3.31 N.S. N.S.
Manganese (mgs. per 100 gms.) ........ .18 .18 N.S. N.S. 2.25 2.22 N.S. N.S.









TABLE 19.-EFFECT OF NITROGEN LEVEL ON MINERAL COMPOSITION OF CABBAGE GROWN AT FOUR LEVELS OF SOIL MOISTURE-
HARVESTED IN APRIL.

Fresh Weight _Dry Weight
Two Least Significant Four Least Significant
Constituent Side- No Difference Side- No Difference
dressings Side- I dressings Side- o
of NaNO0 dressings 5% 1% of NaNOa dressings 5%/ 1%

Weight per head (lbs.) ........................ 2.1 2.1 N.S: N.S.
Dry weight (percent) ......................... 7.5 7.7 N.S. N.S.
Ash (percent) ............................ .63 .62 N.S. N.S. 8.44 8.05 .28 .38
Calcium (percent) ............................. .083 .080 N.S. N.S. 1.11 1.04 N.S. N.S.
Magnesium (percent) ................... .010 .009 N.S. N.S. .13 .13 N.S. N.S.
Potassium (percent) .................... .21 .22 N.S. N.S. 2.85 2.84 N.S. N.S.
Sodium (percent) ..................-....... .031 .019 .0021 .0029 .43 .25 .03 .04
Phosphorus as phosphate (percent) .. .097 .091 N.S. N.S. 1.30 1.18 .064 .088
Sulfur as sulfate (percent) ................ .11 .10 N.S. N.S. 1.35 1.35 N.S. N.S.
Iron (mgs. per 100 gms.) .....-........ .30 .30 N.S. N.S. 3.98 3.81 N.S. N.S. if
Manganese (mgs. per 100 gms.) ..... 15 .15 N.S. N.S. 1.95 1.93 N.S. N.S.


NO







30 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

only at the 5 percent level. Thus, as in the beans, the widest
difference was one of moisture content of the tissue.
The effect of additional nitrogen as side-dressing on mineral
composition of cabbage is shown in Tables 18 and 19. There was
a small but significant effect of side-dressing on growth of cab-
bage harvested in January and none in cabbage harvested in
April. The largest difference in composition was that of sodium,
the cabbage from the side-dressed plots having about twice the
sodium content of that not side-dressed. Apparently the sodium
added in the nitrate of soda is very readily available to the plant
and the plant accumulates it rapidly. Phosphorus expressed as
percent of the dry weight was higher in the cabbage receiving
the side-dressing of nitrogen than in cabbage grown without
extra nitrogen. This was true for both harvests.


Summary and Conclusion
Cabbage, beans, collards, broccoli and carrots were grown at a
number of areas in the state. Three levels of fertilizer were
used: (1) the normal amount for the particular crop for the
soil type and area where grown; (2) one-half the normal
amount; and (3) one and one-half times the normal amount.
Beans and cabbage were grown at Gainesville also with various
amounts of supplemental irrigation. The irrigated cabbage was
grown during two seasons and with several amounts of nitrogen.
Samples of the various crops were analyzed for ash, calcium,
manganese, potassium, magnesium, iron, sulfur and phosphorus.
The largest differences in mineral composition were associated
with type of crop and location where grown. Soil type, or at
least soil environment, was the main factor associated with loca-
tion which influenced mineral composition. Only minor differ-
ences in composition were associated with fertilizer level. Cli-
matic environment, or at least some undetermined factors
associated with location other than soil, influenced composition
but to a lesser extent than soil environment.
There was a small difference between the composition of apical
and lateral shoots of broccoli harvested from the same group
of plants.
Calcium, manganese and iron contents of plants were related
to the physical and chemical characteristics of the soil. The other
constituents measured were not as closely related to soil char-
acteristics. Sodium was very markedly influenced by the amount







Composition of Florida-Grown Vegetables 31

added to the soil. Manganese and iron were both affected by the
degree of soil acidity. With the exception of Belle Glade crops,
ratios of iron to manganese were very similar.
Phosphorus content of the crops was not correlated with the
acid-soluble phosphate in the soil.
Varying the amount of soil moisture by irrigation resulted in
marked differences in mineral composition when expressed on
fresh weight basis but there was little or no difference when
expressed on dry weight basis.
The main effect of side-dressing cabbage with nitrate of soda
was to increase the sodium content.


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. K. Parris,
Watermelon and Grape Investigations Laboratory; E. L. Spencer, Gulf
Coast Experiment Station; E. C. Minnum, formerly with the Everglades
Station; P. J. Westgate, formerly with the Sub-Tropical Station; F. S.
Jamison, who made helpful suggestions in initiating and carrying out the
project; and to Muriel Thomas, who assisted in the analytical work and
statistical analysis of the data.
Soil analyses were made by G. M. Volk of the Department of Soils.

Literature Cited
1. BARBER, H. H., and I. M. KOLTHOFF. A specific reagent for the rapid
gravimetric determination of sodium. Jour. Am. Chem. Soc. 50:
1625-1631. 1928.
2. BEESON, KENNETH C. The mineral composition of crops with par-
ticular reference to the soils in which they were grown. USDA
Misc. Pub. 369. 1941.
3. BROWN, D. S., R. R. ROBINSON and G. M. BROWNING. Determination of
small amounts of potassium. Ind. & Eng. Chem. Anal. Ed. 10: 652-
654. 1938.
4. FOSTER, M. D. Volumetric determination of sulfate in water. The
barium chromate method. Ind. & Eng. Chem. Anal. Ed. 8: 195.
1936.
5. REDER, R. Effects of fertilizer and environment on the calcium, phos-
phorus and iron content of cowpeas. Sou. Coop. Series Bul. 4. 1946.
(Okla. Agr. Exp. Sta.)
6. HANSEN, ELMER. Seasonal variations in the mineral and vitamin
content of certain green vegetable crops. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 46:
299-304. 1945.








32 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

7. JANES, B. E. 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. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 455. 1949.
8. NETTLES, V. F. Two years' results of the effect of several irrigation
treatments on the yield of cabbage and snap beans. Proc. Am. Soc.
Hort. Sci. 51: 463-467. 1948.
9. SHEETS, O. A., and M. V. WARD. Studies in nutritional anemia. Miss.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. 26. 1940.
10. SHEETS, O. A., L. MCWHIRTER, W. S. ANDERSON, M. GIEGER, L. ASCHAM,
H. L. COCHRAN, M. SPEIRS, R. READER, J. B. EDMOND, E. J. LEASE, J.
H. MITCHELL, G. S. FRAPS, J. WHITACRE, S. H. YARNELL, W. B.
ELLETT, R. C. MOORE, and H. H. ZIMMERLEY. Effect of fertilizer,
soil composition and certain climatological conditions on the calcium
and phosphorus contents of turnip greens. Jour. Agr. Res. 68: 145-
190. 1944.

11. SPEIRS, M. Effect of fertilizer and environment on the iron content of
turnip greens. Sou. Coop. Series. Bul. 2. 1944 (Miss. Agr. Exp.
Sta.)
12. SIMS, G. T., and G. M. VOLK. Composition of Florida-grown vege-
tables. I.-Mineral composition of commercially grown vegetables
in Florida as affected by treatment, soil type and locality. Fla. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Bul. 438. 1947.

13. SOMERS, I. I., S. G. GILBERT and J. W. SHIVE. The iron-manganese
ratio in relation to the respiratory COs and deficiency-toxicity
symptoms in soybeans. Plant Physiol. 17: 317-320. 1942.

14. SOMERS, I. I., and J. W. SHIVE. The iron and manganese relation in
plant metabolism. Plant Physiol. 17: 582-602. 1942.
15. TRUoG, E., and A. H. MEYER. Improvement in the Deniges colorimetric
method for phosphorus and arsenic. Ind. & Eng. Chem. Anal. Ed.
1: 136-139. 1929.
16. USDA. Factors affecting the nutritive value of foods. Studies of the
U. S. Plant, Soil and Nutrition Laboratory. USDA Misc. Pub. 664.
1948.





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