• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Historic note
 Front Cover
 Foreword
 Composition of miscellaneous tropical...
 Selection of sample material
 Methods of analysis
 Mangoes
 The Japanese persimmon
 Other florida fruits
 Literature Cited
 Other florida fruits






Title: Composition of miscellaneous tropical and sub-tropical Florida fruits
CITATION PAGE IMAGE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027203/00001
 Material Information
Title: Composition of miscellaneous tropical and sub-tropical Florida fruits
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 20 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Stahl, Arthur L
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1935
 Subjects
Subject: Tropical fruit -- Composition   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 19-20.
Statement of Responsibility: by A.L. Stahl.
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: Florida Historical Agriculture and Rural Life
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027203
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000924358
oclc - 18213081
notis - AEN4976

Table of Contents
    Historic note
        Historic note
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Foreword
        Page 2
    Composition of miscellaneous tropical and sub-tropical Florida fruits
        Page 3
    Selection of sample material
        Page 4
    Methods of analysis
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Mangoes
        Page 8
        Page 9
    The Japanese persimmon
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Other florida fruits
        Page 12
    Literature Cited
        Page 19
        Page 20
    Other florida fruits
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE



The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida






Bulletin 283 July, 1935


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA
WILMON NEWELL, Director










COMPOSITION OF MISCELLANEOUS

TROPICAL AND SUB-TROPICAL

FLORIDA FRUITS



By A. L. STAHL














Bulletins will be sent free to Florida residents upon application to
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA







EXECUTIVE STAFF BOARD OF CONTROL

John J. Tigert, M.A., LL.D., President of the Geo. H. Baldwin, Chairman, Jacksonville
University A. H. Blanding, Bartow
Wilmon Newell, D.Sc., Director A. H. Wagg, West Palm Beach
H. Harold Hume, M.S., Asst. Dir., Research Oliver J. Semmes, Pensacola
Harold Mowry, M.S.A., Asst. Dir., Adm. Harry C. Duncan, Tavares
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editor J. T. Diamond, Secretary, Tallahassee
Jefferson Thomas, Assistant Editor
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Assistant Editor BRANCH STATIONS
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian
Ruby Newhall, Administrative Manager NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY
K. H. Graham, Business Manager L. 0. Gratz, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist in
Rachel McQuarrie, Accountant Charge
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Pathologist
MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE J. D. Warner, M.S., Agronomist
MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE R. M. Crown, B.S.A., Asst. Agronomist
AGRONOMY Jesse Reeves, Farm Superintendent
W. E. Stokes, M.S., Agronomist** CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED
W. A. Leukel, Ph.D., Agronomist John H. Jefferies, Superintendent
G. E. Ritchey, M.S.A., Associate* Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Associate Plant
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Associate Pathologist
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Associate W. A. Kuntz, A.M.. Assoc. Plant Pathologist
John P. Camp, M.S., Assistant B. R. Fudge, Ph.D., Associate Chemist
W. L. Thompson, B.S., Asst. Entomologist
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
A M HUSBA NDR TEVERGLADES STATION, BELLE GLADE
A. L. Shealy, D.V.M., Animal Husbandman**
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husbandman A. Daane, Ph.D., Agronomist in Charge
W. M. Neal, Ph.D., Asso. in An. Nutrition R. N. Lobdell, M.S., Entomologist
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian F. D. Stevens, B.S., Sugarcane Agronomist
M. W. Emmel, D.V.M., Asst. Veterinarian Thomas Bregger, Ph.D.,SugarcanePhysiologist
N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Husbandman G. R. Townsend, Ph.D., Assistant Plant
W. W. Henley, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husbandman Pathologist
Bradford Knapp, Jr., M.S., Asst. An. Husb. J. R. Neller, Ph.D., Biochemist
P. T. Dix Arnold, B.S.A., Assistant Dairy R. W. Kidder, B.S., Assistant Animal
Husbandman Husbandman
L. L. Rusoff, M.S, Laboratory Assistant Ross E. Robertson, B.S., Assistant Chemist
Jeanette Shaw, M.S., Laboratory Technician
SUB-TROPICAL STATION, HOMESTEAD
CHEMISTRY AND SOILS H. S. Wolfe, Ph.D., Horticulturist in Charge
R. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Chemist** W. M. Fifield, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist
R. M. Barnette, Ph.D., Chemist Stacy O. Hawkins, M.A., Assistant Plant
C. E. Bell, Ph.D., Associate Pathologist
R. B. French, Ph.D., Associate
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant W. CENTRAL FLA. STA., BROOKSVILLE
W. F. Ward, M.S.A., Asst. An. Husbandman
ECONOMICS, AGRICULTURAL in Charge*
C. V. Noble, Ph.D., Agricultural Economist**
Bruce McKinley, A.B., B.S.A., Associate FIELD STATIONS
Zach Savage, M.S.A., Associate
A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Assistant Leesburg
M. N. Walker, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist in
ECONOMICS, HOME Charge
ECONOMICS, W.. Shippy, Ph.D,. Asso. Plant Pathologist
Ouida Davis Abbott, Ph.D., Specialist** K. W. Loucks, M.S., Asst. Plant Pathologist
L. W. Gaddum, Ph.D., Biochemist J. W. Wilson, Ph.D., Associate Entomologist
C. F. Ahmann, Ph.D., Physiologist C. C. Goff, M.S., Assistant Entomologist
L. H. Rogers, M.A., Spectroscopic Analyst Plant City

ENTOMOLOGY A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
R. E. Nolen, M.S.A., Asst. Plant Pathologist
J, R. Watson, A.M., Entomologist** Cocoa
A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Associate
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant A. S. Rhoads, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
J. W. Kea, B.S.A., Assistant Hastings

HORTICULTURE A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Horticulturist** Monticello
G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist G. B. Fairchild, M.S., Assistant Entomologist
A. L. Stahl, Ph.D., Associate Br
F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Truck Horticulturist Bradenton
R. J. Wilmot, M.S.A., Specialist, Fumigation David G. Kelbert, Asst. Plant Pathologist
Research
R. D. Dickey, B.S.A., Assistant Horticulturist Sanford
E. R. Purvis, Ph.D., Assistant Chemist,
PLANT PATHOLOGY Celery Investigations
W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist** Lakeland
George F. Weber, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist E. S. Ellison, Ph.D., Meteorologist*
R. K. Voorhees, M.S., Assistant
Erdman West, M.S., Mycologist In cooperation with U.S.D.A.
Lillian E. Arnold, M.S., Assistant Botanist ** Head of Department.








COMPOSITION OF MISCELLANEOUS TROPICAL AND
SUB-TROPICAL FLORIDA FRUITS
By A. L. STAHL

CONTENTS
PAGE PAGE
Selection of Sample Material.................... 4 Acid Citrus Fruits.................... ....................-- 8
Methods of Analyses-........................-..... 5 The Japanese Persimmon (Diospyros kaki) 10
M angoes ...................... ............. ....... 8 Other Florida Fruits...........-- ...... .................. 12

There are more than 600 edible fruits found in the tropics and
sub-tropics and of these less than 50 are in general cultivation in
this country, with not more than 20 being sold commercially.
Of this number, only a very few are known to the entire popula-
tion of the country. There is an opportunity for the Florida
grower to introduce and popularize in all of the markets of the
United States a large number of tropical and sub-tropical fruits.
In recent years the public has begun to realize the value of fruits
in the daily diet, and has made a demand for a greater variety of
fruits throughout the year. This should cause the fruits grown
in the tropics and sub-tropics to become more and more popular
with the people in the other sections of the United States to
supplement their own fruits. With the recent improvement in
transportation and refrigeration facilities, it is now possible to
ship most tropical fruits long distances, and by reason of the
nearness to large centers of population Florida is well fitted to
introduce and popularize the tropical and sub-tropical fruits
which she, herself, finds palatable.
Tropical fruits should bring in higher returns per unit than
the abundant commonly grown types of more temperate regions.
Wide competition in production does not have to be met, due to
the restricted area in continental United States adapted to their
culture. Those fruits which are not desirable for consumption
in the fresh state can be marketed wholly or in part as manu-
factured products, such as jellies, marmalades and pastes. The
uncertainty connected with the marketing of perishable products,
such as most tropical fruits, is partially removed when they are
sold as manufactured products.
The general fruit-consuming public is ignorant of the proper-
ties, composition and qualities of most of the fruits of the tropics.
The banana, pineapple and a few of the citrus fruits are now the
best known and are considered almost indispensable in the diet,
even though fruits of the temperate zone are available. The






4 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

avocado, mango, persimmon, guava and some of the acid citrus
fruits are also becoming more popular, as is evidenced by the
increase in the demand for these fruits. Several others, such as
papaya, cherimoya, litchi, sapote and eugenia are well known and
commercialized in various parts of the tropical world, but are
scarcely known in the United States except in those areas where
grown.
The analyses on which this report is based were made to gain
information upon the physical and chemical characteristics of
the tropical and sub-tropical fruits which have fruited in Florida
and which show promise of having commercial value. There is
a need for reliable information regarding the composition of ripe
Florida fruits of various kinds and varieties, and the changes in
composition which take place during ripening. Almost every
grower and consumer has a desire to know more about the nature
of new fruits, their nutritive value and possible physiological
effects. The figures given in the tabulated forms represent the
composition of the fruits as they are eaten.
A number of the fruits studied had been analyzed elsewhere
but very few of these analyses were based on Florida grown
specimens. Moreover, these analyses were made in various
parts of the world, and in many cases from fruits which had
been shipped long distances or that had been in storage. All
analyses reported here were made by the writer according to one
uniform method (1) 1, and represent the relative percentages of
various constituents in an unusually large list of fruits from
Florida.
The composition of oranges, grapefruit, avocados and pine-
apples, all important crops of Florida, are not included in the
list herein discussed, as separate bulletins dealing with their cul-
ture and composition have been published (5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 19,
20, 21).
SELECTION OF SAMPLE MATERIAL
The list of fruits dealt with is intended to include those mis-
cellaneous species which, by actual trial, have shown some degree
of adaptability to the soils and climatic conditions of Florida,
but most of which are not yet grown in quantity. A large num-
ber were sent in by interested growers and the remainder ob-
tained through the cooperation of Dr. H. S. Wolfe and W. M.
Fifield of the Sub-Tropical Experiment Station at Homestead.

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






Composition of Miscellaneous Florida Fruits 5

The fruits were analyzed as soon after picking as possible, only
mature fresh fruit in good marketable condition being used.
Analyses were made of the following mango varieties:
Mulgoba, Haden, Singapore, Bennett's Alphonse, Amini, Pahiri,
Rajpury, Bennett, Sandersha, Brooks, Fajiri Long, Cambodiana,
Caraboa, Cecil, Number 11, Itamerica, Peters, Pico and Langra
(5, 15, 18). Some varieties were obtained from more than one
locality and in such cases all were analyzed and reported.
Analyses were made of the following acid citrus fruits:
Tahiti, Key, Jamaica, Rangpur, Everbearing and Woglum limes
(Citrus aurantifolia); Genoa, Meyer, Kennedy and Eureka
lemons (Citrus limonia) ; Calamondin (Citrus mitis) ; and the
following hybrids: Lakeland limequat, Eustis limequat, Sperryola
lemon and Perrine lemon (4, 6, 13, 17). The following nine
varieties of Japanese persimmon (Diospyros kaki) (8, 11, 16)
were analyzed: Tanenashi, Costata, Okame, Yemon, Hachiya,
Zengi, Fuyugaki, Triumph and Galley.
Analyses were likewise made of sapodilla, mamey sapote,
cherimoya, sugar-apple, soursop, carambola, papaya, natal plum,
white sapote, loquat, rose-apple, Java plum, surinam cherry,
feijoa, Celeste fig, Ischia fig, governor's plum, imbe (mango-
steen), pitaya, litchi, mammee apple, ceriman, Barbados goose-
berry, yellow Cattley guava, red Cattley guava, common guava,
pomegranate, tamarind and jujube (2, 5, 6, 12, 15).
METHODS OF ANALYSES*
The methods of analyses of the Association of Official Agricul-
tural Chemists (1) were used.
The total weight of the whole fruit was recorded and the size
measured with a caliper. Each fruit was then cut in half, the
seed removed, and the pulp separated from the skin. It was
necessary to remove the skin of a few of the fruits by paring.
The seed, skin and pulp were weighed and the percentage of each
determined. In case the fruit was too small for a complete
analysis, more than one fruit was used and all considered as one
sample. In the case of the acid citrus fruits the number of seeds
was also recorded as well as rind thickness, number of segments,
volume of juice, percent juice and specific gravity of the juice.
Specific gravity of the whole fruit was determined by weigh-
ing in air and under water (250C.). The specific gravity of the
*The author acknowledges the assistance of W. R. Lyle, R. L. Brooks,
J. C. Cain and S. J. Lynch, student assistants in the Department of Horticul-
ture, in the analyses of the fruit and the calculating of the data.






6 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

juice was determined by use of a hydrometer, correcting for
temperature.
The following constituents were determined on the edible
pulp:
Moisture was determined by drying to constant weight in
vacuo at 700C. Moisture or water content refers to the loss in
weight from drying or the difference between the weight of the
total solids and the fresh substance, while total solids refers to
the substance left after all moisture has been removed.
Ash is the residue from burning the dry substance until it is
free from carbon. All samples were burned in a muffle at 7000C.
Oil or fat was determined as ether extract, and it includes,
therefore, other ether-soluble substances such as plant pigments
in addition to the oil and fat. It was extracted from the moist-
ure-free samples with anhydrous ether.
Protein was calculated as N x 6.25, the nitrogen being de-
termined by the Kjeldahl-Gunning method.
Acid was determined as the total free acid by titration against
tenth normal sodium hydroxide and is expressed as anhydrous
citric which is calculated into percentage of the fresh substance.
The juice was expressed from the pulp through cheesecloth be-
tween stainless steel plates with a hydraulic press.
Effective acidity was determined by means of a potentiometric
determination, using the quinhydrone electrode and is expressed
as pH.
Sugar was determined either by the Shaffer-Hartman method,
using the cuprous titration, or by the Munson-Walker method.
In all cases free reducing, hydrolyzable and total sugars were
determined and all calculated as dextrose, using the Munson-
Walker tables. No analyses were made to determine amounts
of specific sugars present. The free reducing sugars in fruits
are usually half glucose and half fructose, while sucrose (cane
sugar) is usually the common form of hydrolyzable sugar; how-
ever, this is not always the case and other sugars may be found
in place of these forms or in combination with them.
All of the quantitative analyses were carried out on the edible
portion in duplicate so that all figures used in the tables are aver-
ages of two. The values were calculated into percentage of the
fresh tissue in all cases.
The averages reported are arithmetical means of individual
values as given in percentage of the edible portion. The number
of analyses in each case is given in the tables. The maximum
and minimum values for the constituents of most of the fruits











TABLE 1.-PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FLORIDA VARIETIES OF MATURE MANGOES (Mangifera indica) *

Group % % % Percent Sugars
Variety Source Weight [Specific % % Edible Moist- Acid % % Free %
(gms.)** Gravity See Sin Pulp ure (itric) Protein in Hydroyable Total Ash

Mulgoba r4
Mulgoba..................... Oneco 320.4 1.052 8.6 91.4 81.5 0.58 0.58 0.50 2.1 8.9 11.0 0.38 *.
Haden ........................ Homestead 457.0 1.053 6.8 93.2 85.3 0.31 0.62 0.66 2.1 8.3 10.4 0.49 .
Haden....................... Palma Sola 300.0 1.065 10.3 9.3 80.4 79.6 0.24 0.54 0.39 3.6 7.6 11.2 0.26 Q
Singapore............... Oneco 497.1 1.037 12.5 10.8 76.7 85.6 0.25 0.42 0.50 2.2 5.9 8.1 0.30
Alphonse
Bennett's Alphonse.. Oneco 256.2 1.065 9.5 90.5 82.6 0.55 0.58 0.52 2.5 9.4 11.9 0.53
Amini ....................... Bokeelia 167.0 1.057 15.1 84.9 83.9 0.25 0.60 0.37 1.5 10.6 12.1 0.51
Pahiri....................... Bokeelia 298.1 1.061 11.1 88.9 82.3 0.23 0.54 0.33 2.4 9.6 12.0 0.40
Rajpury................... Oneco 419.5 1.041 9.1 10.9 80.0 81.4 0.47 0.50 0.57 4.0 7.5 11.5 1.16 C0
Bennett........... Ft. Myers 290.8 1.062 11.2 11.4 77.4 81.7 0.21 0.34 0.43 2.5 11.2 13.7 0.65
Sandersha
Sandersha................... Homestead 540.0 0.999 8.2 12.1 79.7 82.5 0.53 0.64 0.63 2.7 4.1 6.8 0.33 S?
Brooks...................... Homestead 354.0 1.053 8.3 16.3 75.4 79.1 0.50 0.92 0.67 3.4 8.0 11.4 0.47 S
Fajiri Long ............... Palma Sola 244.2 1.060 7.6 13.9 78.5 81.2 0.57 0.40 0.52 3.3 8.9 12.2 0.38 0
Cambodiana s
Cambodiana .............. Bokeelia 294.5 1.055 10.5 89.5 79.3 0.61 0.78 0.55 2.6 11.7 14.3 0.38
Cambodiana............... Oneco 302.4 1.054 10.4 89.6 81.9 0.71 0.68 0.86 2.2 11.2 13.4 0.42
Caraboa...................... Bokeelia 384 0 0.973 11.9 16.5 | 71.6 84.8 0.65 0.77 0.49 4.4 4.5 8.9 0.36
Cecil........................ Oneco 196.8 1.062 11.9 88.1 79.4 0.13 0.62 0.54 3.0 10.9 13.9 0.46 -j
Number 11................ Oneco 158.7 1.038 17.9 13.0 1 69.1 81.3 0.29 0.48 0.46 5.1 5.7 10.8 0.53 g.

Itamerica.................. Oneco 132.9 1.063 13.9 14.2 | 71.9 80.0 0.43 0.62 0.37 1.9 11.1 13.0 0.49
Peters....................... Oneco 237.9 1.063 10.0 90.0 85.6 0.25 0.71 0.45 2.4 8.6 11.0 0.58
Pico........................... Oneco 287.5 1.038 6.8 93.2 82.5 0.50 0.65 0.42 3.6 8.4 12.0 0.50
Langra.................... Oneco 359.5 1.063 8.4 91.6 79.3 0.51 0.70 0.41 2.3 7.9 10.2 0.63 S.

*Analyzed August 1933 (Average of 6 analyses each throughout).
(1 oz. = 28.4 grams) (1 pound = 454 grams).


-;1






8 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

are also given in addition to the average values. These figures
give an idea of the range in percentage of the various constitu-
ents of each individual fruit.

MANGOES
Table 1 is a tabulation of the data on the composition of 19
varieties of mature mangoes grown in Florida. Each figure in
the table is an average of six analyses run in duplicate.
The proportions of most of the constituents in the ripe fruit
of the Florida mango compare well with those of other fresh
fruits. The moisture content is relatively low, giving a high
amount of total solids in the fresh fruit. The acidity varies for
different varieties but is low, being about 0.5% for most varie-
ties. The sugar content is very high, the total sugars varying
from 7 to 14 percent in the fresh fruit. In all the varieties
tested most of the sugar was in the hydrolyzable form, probably
sucrose (cane sugar).
Qualitative tests showed the presence of considerable amounts
of tannin, but no starch was found. A considerable amount of
free malic and tartaric acids was found, with just a trace of free
citric acid.
A comparison of the chemical composition of the apple (6)
with that of the mango gives some startling results. The follow-
ing figures were taken from the averages of the analyses of 300
apples as reported in United States Department of Agriculture
Circular No. 50, 1931 (6) and the average of the 126 mango
analyses reported in this paper. It was found that the apple
contains 15.9% solids whereas the mango contains 18.1%; the
apple contains 7 to 10% sugar (average 9%) while the mango
has 6.8 to 14.3% (average 11.4%) ; the apple has .3% protein and
the mango .5%. The total acidity of the apple is .5 to 1.2%,
whereas in the mango it is only .2 to .7%; the apple has .29%
ash, while that of the mango is .49%, or nearly twice as much.
In making these comparisons the averages of many varieties
of both fruits were used, and it may safely be said that, in regard
to chemical composition, the balance is on the side of the mango.

ACID CITRUS FRUITS
Of the acid citrus fruits grown in the state, the only ones to
reach commercial importance in the last few years are the limes.
However, there has recently been an enormous amount of interest
in all of the Florida limes and lemons. There have been frequent








TABLE 2.-PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FLORIDA LIMES AND LEMONS*.

Variety Total Vol. Avg. Size No. % Sugars
and Source Weight Sp. Gr. of Rind of of Sp. Gr Free Hy-
Type of Fruit of Seed % % Juice % Thicknes Fruit Seg- of % Reduc- drolyz- Q
(gms.)** F'ruit No. I % Peel Pulp (cc.) Juice (cm) (cms.) ments Juice Acid p ing able Total

Tahiti Lime.............-..... Lake Alfred 111.2 0.994 0-2 0.2 16.1 83.7 70 62.6 .16 5.6X6.7 10 1.035 6.1 2.3 0.81 0.06 0.87 't
Tahiti Lime................. Homestead 89.2 1.012 0-0 0.0 22.6 77.4 52 58.2 .17 5.2X6.1 10 1.039 6.2 2.4 1.49 0.25 1.74
Key Lime ........-....... Florida Keys 31.2 1.035 3-9 1.5 15.2 83.3 20 58.1 .09 3.7X3.8 9 1.032 8.0 2.4 0.37 0.07 0.44
Jamaica Lime.............. Winter Haven 73.9 1.006 2-16 1.5 17.2 81.3 73 49.9 .16 5.0X5.4 8 1.038 6.0 2.4 0.97 0.17 1.14
0
Rangpur Lime............. Homestead 48.8 1.012 8-10 2.5 14.8 82.7 .... 53.0 .11 4.3X4.6 9 1.040 6.7 2.6 0.57 0.26 0.83
Woglum Lime.............. Coconut Grove 61.6 0.911 20-25 4.5 32.3 63.2 23 2... .32 1.7X6.0 9 1.036 5.9 3.2 ......
Everbearing Lime...... St. Petersburg 142.9 1.008 0 0.0 18.8 81.2 65 46.7 ... ........ 9 1.034 5.7 .... 0.80 0.18 0.98 9
Villa Franca L........... Lake Alfred 230.0 0.944 7-22 1.0 33.5 65.5 85 37.1 .52 7.2X9.3 10 1.035 6.3 2.4 0.48 0.02 0.50
Genoa Lemon................ Lake Alfred 137.5 0.988 10-26 1.5 28.0 70.5 107 39.0 .36 5.9X8.1 9 1.033 5.3 2.1 0.83 0.10 0.93
Meyer Lemon............... Lake Alfred 143.3 0.978 13-26 1.5 18.0 80.5 149 51.5 .21 6.2X7.2 10 1.035 4.7 2.5 1.66 0.25 1.91
Kennedy Lemon........... Lake Alfred 131.4 0.984 7-33 1.9 33.8 64.3 83 31.8 .45 6.0X7.7 9 1.035 5.5 2.5 0.86 0.14 1.00
Sperryola Lemon......... Winter Haven 58.7 0.973 12-24 4.3 21.8 73.9 26 43.2 .18 4.5X5.1 10 1.037 4.0 3.2 2.56 0.63 3.19
Eureka Lemon............. Homestead 222 4 1.003 7-10 2.1 56.5 41.4 27 ...... .60 7.2X9.2 10 1.035 5.6 2.4 0.90 0.20 1.10 2
Perrine Lemon***....... DeSoto City 267.0 .......... 32-46 1.7 20.1 78.2 128 50.4 .... .... 10 1.034 6.7 .. ......
Calamondin ................. Homestead 38.0 0.952 3-8 1.6 30.2 68.2 ...... ..... .. ....... 9 1.033 4.0 2.51 0.86 3.37
Limequat (Lakeland). Lake Alfred 19.3 1.022 5-9 3.6 15.2 81.2 96 49.8 .09 3.1X3.4 8 1.037 5.3 2.4 0.86 0.14 1.00

Limequat (Eustis)........ Lake Alfred 26.9 1.003 7-14 5.2 17.0 77.8 96 47.6 .10 3.9X4.0 8 1.05 6.1 2.5 0.90 0.31 1.21

All figures are averages of 10 analyses each (analyzed 1931-33).
** (1 oz. = 28.4 grams) (1 lb. = 454 grams).
***Figures for Perrine Lemon are averages of 4 analyses.
Q0





10 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

requests for information as to the composition of the limes and
lemons now growing commercially and of many varieties which
are now being tried. Data on those already analyzed have been
tabulated and are presented in Table 2.
Comparing Florida limes and lemons with imported lemons
from Italy, it has been found that Florida acid citrus fruits com-
pare well in all characteristics except sugar. The Italian lemons
are higher in sugar, having around 2 percent; at the same time
these lemons have a high acid content of 7 percent. The Sperry-
o!a lemon and Calamondin surpass the commercial Italian lemon
in sugar but do not have so high an acid content. Most of our
acid citrus fruits have a higher percentage of juice than those
grown in the drier regions of the United States, and are equal
or superior to them with regard to other constituents, especially
acid and sugar content.

THE JAPANESE PERSIMMON (Diospyros kaki)
Table 3 contains the tabulated data of the analyses of the
common varieties of Japanese persimmon grown in Florida. This
fruit is fairly well adapted to climatic and soil conditions obtain-
ing over a large portion of the state. With the right varieties,
proper culture, care in packing and marketing there is no reason
why this fruit should not become one of the staple horticul-
tural products of the state. The botanical description, culture,
description of varieties and methods of processing the mature
fruit so as to remove its astringency, are discussed in Florida
Experiment Station Bulletin 205 (3).
Nine varieties of persimmon show a range in total weight from
83.6 grams (2.94 oz.) in Gailey to 242.4 grams (8.53 oz.) in
Tanenashi. The moisture varies from 77.4% in Triumph to
81.5% in Tanenashi; the acid from 0.41% in Okame to 0.92% in
Zengi; the oil or fat from 0.10% in Zengi to 0.75% in Okame
and Triumph; the protein from 0.33% in Tanenashi to 1.18% in
Yemon; the ash from 0.33% in Tanenashi to 0.79% in Gailey;
the free reducing sugar from 4.43% in Zengi to 7.63% in the
Yemon; the hydrolyzable sugar from 4.06% in Okame to 7.16%
in the Yemon; and the total sugar from 9.27% in Okame to
14.79% in the Yemon.
The food value of the Japanese persimmon is very high, com-
pares well with other fresh fruits and is superior to most in this
respect, excelling in total solids and sugar. The most interesting
data of Table 3 are those for the sugars. In the earlier work







TABLE 3.-PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FLORIDA VARIETIES OF MATURE JAPANESE PERSIMMONS
(Diospyros kaki) *.

Max. No. % % % Sugars
Variety Source Min. Analyses Weight Specific % % Edible % Acid % % % Free Hydrolyz-
|| Avg. (avgd.) (gms.)** Gravity Seed Skin Pulp Moisture (citric) Oil Protein Ash Reducing able Total

Tanenashi Gainesville max. 12 292.1 1.095 1.2 15.7 86.6 82.59 1.01 0.33 0.40 0.48 5.70 6.19 11.29
min. 200.6 1.046 0.0 13.4 84.3 80.42 0.40 0.18 0.29 0.27 4.20 4 18 8.58
avg. 242.4 1.050 0.1 14.2 85.7 81.50 0.89 0.20 0.33 0.33 4.76 5.90 10.66 Q

Costata Gainesville max. 12 136.7 1.110 1.6 14.9 87.2 81.7 0.68 0.52 0.71 0.76 5.86 6 39 12.16
min. 105.2 1.070 0.0 11.2 85.9 78.3 0.60 0.32 0.10 0.21 5.31 5.86 11.42
avg. 119.1 1.091 0.3 13.1 86.6 80.4 0.63 0.40 0.56 0.42 5.20 6.03 11.23

Okarne Gainesville max. 10 169.5 1.100 .... ...... ...... 81.10 0.47 1.03 1.10 0.88 5.35 4.77 10.21
min. 135.6 1.052 .... ...... ...... 76.09 0.32 0.60 0.65 0.24 4.47 3.50 7.92
avg. 152.7 1.055 .... ...... ...... 78.02 0.41 0.75 0.90 0.56 5.21 4.06 9.27

Yemon Gainesville max. 10 176.4 1.096 2.9 16.0 85.0 81.40 ...... 0.48 1.38 1.00 8.23 7.77 15.78 S"
min. 152.3 1.060 0.0 14.6 80.1 76.98 ...... 0.10 0.90 0.50 5.21 6.19 11.82 C
avg. 156.2 1.081 1.9 15.1 83.0 80.66 ...... 0.37 1.18 0.68 7.63 7.16 14.79

Hachiya Gainesville max. 12 244.9 1.089 3.2 17.6 82.4 80.21 0.94 .. 0.78 0.65 7 62 4.87 12.60
min. 178.6 1.037 0.0 14.2 76.4 79.10 0.61 0.65 0.42 6.72 3.99 11.40
avg. 215.3 1.063 2.5 16.0 81.5 79.42 0.70 ...... 0.71 0.57 7.00 4.78 11.78

Zengi Gainesville max. 12 110.3 1.052 5.8 18.2 82.2 83.1 0.97 0.35 0.79 0.82 5.90 6.20 11.88
min. 80.0 1.040 1.9 14.3 76.9 73.5 0.86 0.00 0.35 0.57 4.20 3.30 7.92
avg. 94.2 1.042 2.8 17.7 79.5 80.9 0.92 0.10 0.63 0.77 4.43 5.18 9.61

Fuyugaki Glen St. Mary max. 6 215.9 1.081 .... ...... ...... 81.4 0.88 ...... 0.69 0.52 .
min. 186.4 1.027 .... ...... ...... 78.9 0.60 ...... 0.54 0.38
avg. 209.3 1.053 .... ...... ...... 80.6 0.75 ..... 0.62 0.49 ............

Triumph I Glen St. Mary max. 6 119.9 1.094 3.1 16.1 85.0 78.1 0.77 0.87 1.04 0.57 8.04 5.58 13.12
min. 92.5 1.040 1.2 13.2 80.8 75.2 0.62 0.65 0.52 0.31 5.98 4.37 11.25
avg. 98.4 1.081 2.6 14.8 82.6 77.4 0.71 0.75 0.68 0.39 7.59 5.21 12.80

Gailey Gainesville max. 12 89.7 1.079 5.0 18.1 80.8 81.8 0.94 0.32 0.81 0.92 5.66 5.14 9.88
min. 80.2 1.030 3.2 15.3 77.4 74.7 0.78 0.24 0.41 0.30 4.76 4.30 9.19
avg. 83.6 1.062 3.7 16.8 79.5 79.7 0.81 0.27 0.64 0.79 5.20 4.45 9.65

*Fruit sampled over period of four years (1931-35). Two or more years sampling represented in each figure.
(1 oz. = 28.4 grams) (1 lb. = 454 grams).
-'






12 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

of McBryde (11) and Tilt and Hubbell (16) the sugar is reported
as entirely in the reducing form, while in every variety analyzed
about half of the sugar present was found to be in the hydrolyz-
able form. The values for total sugar are lower than those form-
erly reported for the fresh fruit but even then the persimmon is
outstanding in its high sugar content and has a much higher
sugar content than most other fresh fruits. The difference in
amount and kinds of sugar found may be due to the time of
sampling of the fruit. In the earlier work the samples were
picked green and allowed to ripen in the laboratory, while all of
the samples of the present work were tree ripened. The maxi-
mum, minimum and average values are given in Table 3, to show
variations in amounts of the various characteristics.

OTHER FLORIDA FRUITS
The fruits listed in Table 4 include those miscellaneous species
which, by actual trial, have shown their adaptability to the soils
and climatic conditions of Florida, but most of which are not
yet grown in quantity. Proximate physical and chemical char-
acteristics of fruits including total weight and specific gravity;
skin, seed and edible pulp proportions; moisture, acid, oil or fat,
protein, ash and sugar furnish a convenient basis for judging
their relative commercial and food values. It should be pointed
out here that fruits contain many other constituents not de-
termined in these analyses, namely such substances as glucosides,
pectins, enzymes, organic acids, vitamins, and traces of rare
elements.
It is evident from the table that the moisture content of most
Florida fruits is high in comparison to other constituents. It
varies from 30% in the tamarind to 94% in the carambola,
but the majority of fruits have a moisture content of approxi-
mately 80% and a total solids content of approximately 20 %, the
moisture being lower and the total solids higher than in the
majority of fruits grown in the temperature zone.
The acid content of the fresh pulp of fruits varies rather wide-
ly from .12% in the fig to 5.59% in the tamarind, the acid con-
tent of the latter being higher than that of most citrus fruits.
On the whole the tropical and sub-tropical fruits outside the
citrus groups tend to have a lower acid content than fruits
grown in temperate climates. The acidity of most fruits is
due to the presence of several organic acids but each fruit usually
has a characteristic, predominant acid, such as citric, malic,






Composition of Miscellaneous Florida Fruits 19

from the compilation of data presented by Chatfield and Mc-
Laughlin in the U. S. Department of Agriculture Circular No. 50.
The table is presented to facilitate comparison of the physical
and chemical characteristics of the better known fruits with
those discussed in this bulletin.

LITERATURE CITED

1. ASSOCIATION OF OFFICIAL AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTS. Official and tenta-
tive methods of analysis. 2nd and 3rd ed. 1925 and 1930.

2. ATWATER, W. 0., and A. P. BRYANT. The chemical composition of
American food materials. U. S. D. A. off. Expt. Stas. Bul. 28, 1906.

3. CAMP, A. F., and HAROLD MOWRY. The Japanese persimmon in
Florida. Fla. Exp. Sta. Bul. 205, 1929.

4. CHACE, E. M., C. P. WILSON and C. G. CHURCH. The Composition of
California Lemons. Bur. of Chem. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bul. No. 993.
1921.

5. CHACE, E. M., L. M. TOLMAN and L. S. MUNSON. Composition of some
tropical fruits. U. S. D. A. Bur. Chem. Bul. 87. 1904.
6. CHATFIELD, CHARLOTTE and LAURA I. MCLAUGHLIN. Proximate Com-
position of fresh fruits. U. S. D. A. Cir. No. 50. 1931.
7. COLLINSON, S. E. Sugar and acids in oranges and grapefruit. Fla.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 115. 1913.

8. GORE, H. C. Experiments on the processing of persimnrons to render
them non-astringent. U. S. D. A. Bur. Chem. Bul. 141. 1911.
9. HUME, H. H., and H. K. MILLER. Pineapple culture. Fla. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bul. 70: 37-63. 1904.

10. JOFFA, M. E. and H. GASS. Composition and food value of California
avocados. Cal. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 365: 630-638. 1923.

11. MCBRYDE, J. B. Notes on the chemistry of the persimmon. Tenn.
Exp. Sta. Bul. Vol. 11: 1-220-223. 1899.
12. MOWRY, HAROLD and L. R. TOY. Miscellaneous tropical and sub-tropical
fruits. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 223. 1931.
13. POPE, W. T. The acid lime fruit in Hawaii. Hawaii Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bul. 49: 1-20. 1922.
14. STAHL, A. L. Changes in composition of Florida avocados in relation
to maturity. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 259. 1933.
15. THOMPSON, ALICE R. Composition of Hawaiian fruits and nuts.
Hawaii Agr. Exp. Sta. Rept. 62-73. 1914.
16. TILT, JENNIE, and REBECKA B. HUBBELL. A study of the Japanese per-
simmon grown in Florida. Jour. Home Econ. 22: 757-765. 1930.






20 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

17. WEBBER, H. J. The Lime in California. Cal. Citrograph XVII: 456-
79. 1932. XVIII: 19 and 32. 1932.
18. WEBSTER, P. J. The mango. Gov. of Philippine Is. Dept. Agr. and
Nat. Resources. Bur. Agri. Bul. 18. 1920.
19. WILCOX, E. V. The effect of manganese on the pineapple plant and
the ripening of fruit. Hawaii Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 28. 1912.

20. WILLIMOT, S. G. and FRANK WOKES. Some constituents of citrus
fruits. Pharm. Jour. 118: 770-773. 1927.

21. ZOLLER, H. F. Some constituents of the American grapefruit (Citrus
decumona) Jour. Ind. and Eng. Chem. 10: 364-373. 1918.








TABLE 4.-PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS-TROPICAL AND SUB-TROPICAL FRUITS OF FLORIDA*.


Botanical Name Min. Analyses Weight Specific % % Edible Moist- Acid % % Free ydrolyz-
Variety Source Avg. (Avgd.) (gms.)*** Gravity eed Skin Pulp ture (citric) Oil Protein Ash Reducing able Total Cl

Sapodilla Homestead max. 9 336.2 1.046 4.6 11.7 89.5 80.1 0.72 1.65 0.38 0.52 5.60 2.56 8.16
min. 131.6 1.033 1.9 7.7 83.7 73.6 0.60 0.45 0.21 0.26 5.01 2.07 7.64
(Achras sapota) avg. 257.7 1.038 3.1 9.7 87.2 75.9 0.66 1.00 0.32 0.40 5.37 2.37 7.74 0

Sapote Mamey Homestead max. 14 748.1 1.077 5.8 18.2 79.4 71.0 0.63 0.75 0.22 2.05 4.20 12.92 19.78
min. 692.5 1.073 4.7 17.0 68.1 62 6 0.40 0.35 0.11 1.50 3.31 9.41 14.02
(Achras zapota) avg. 730.0 1.074 5.2 17.5 77.3 66.7 0.58 0.65 0.13 1.88 3.67 11.76 15.43 Z

Cherimoya 0
Che noa cherimla) Key Largo avg. 1 448.0 1.024 19.1 22.6 58.3 71.1 0.41 0.72 0.94 1.10 8.60 1.04 9.64 '
(Annona cherimola)

Sugar-apple Homestead max. 5 265.3 1.045 40.0 39.8 36.9 74.2 0.65 0.92 1.88 1.09 13.59 4.10 16.60
1A a min. 210.0 1.020 31.6 23.1 28.6 69.9 0.26 0.48 1.15 0.81 11.20 1.16 12.40 t
(Annona squamosa) avg. 250.5 1.036 35.8 33.3 30.9 72.0 0.55 0.65 1.60 0.98 12.16 2.42 14.58 (t

Soursop Homestead max. 5 341.6 1.048 20.2 19.6 78.5 82.6 1.74 0.56 1.28 0 84 13.40 1.90 14.02 P
min. 298.5 1.026 10.9 14.2 59.1 76.2 0.92 0.48 0.90 0.41 9.30 1.15 11.20 S
(Annona muricata) avg. 330.2 1.042 13.6 16.4 70.0 80.4 1.56 0.51 1.20 0.56 12.40 1.25 13.65

Carambola Homestead max. 6 73.5 0.975 1.9 19.5 84.5 94.1 0.82 0.84 0.71 0.42 4.19 0.08 4.24
A min. 68.2 0.958 1.6 16.9 78.6 92.6 0.64 0.72 0.30 0.21 3.40 0.00 3.40
(Averrhoa carambola) avg. 70.3 0.962 1.8 17.5 80.7 93.2 0.78 0.78 0.42 0.30 4.00 0.01 4.01 -1

Papaya Homestead max. 5 3580.3 0.765 43.1 13.4 53.6 91.6 0.20 0.47 0.30 0.50 5.68 0.60 6.28
Caria an. 2246.5 0.710 39.3 9.8 42.4 89.9 0.08 0.43 0.21 0.25 5.20 0.00 5.20 r
ar papaya) avg. 2448.0 0.750 41.2 10.1 48.7 91.0 0.16 0.45 0.25 0.35 5.40 0.25 5.65 P
Natal Plum Homestead max. 30 28.8 0.982 10.4 10.7 93.4 87.1 2.09 2.57 0.63 0 38 6.63 0.03 6.66
(Carissa grandiflora) min. 16.1 0.928 2.4 4.2 76.9 76.2 1.57 0.52 0.22 0.30 5.19 0.00 5.19
avg. 23.4 0.964 7.0 6.5 86.5 81.4 1.83 1.56 0.45 0.31 5.99 0.01 6.00
White Sapote Key Largo max. 8 169.1 0.979 8.0 7.8 84.9 84.5 0.77 0.66 1.26 0.84 11.81 5.20 13.15 -
(Casimiroa edulis) I min. 119.1 0.957 7.5 7.2 83.3 78.0 0.44 0.50 0.98 0.51 7.40 2.20 12.65 cQ
avZ. 144.1 0.969 7.8 7.6 84.6 82.1 0.62 0.60 1.17 0.73 10.77 2.27 13.04
White Sapote
(Cajimiroa edulis) Bradenton avg. 2 194.6 0.983 16.3 14.7 69.0 77.1 1.53 0.77 1.00 0.61 6.48 7.32 13.80
]W









TABLE 4.-PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS-TROPICAL AND SUB-TROPICAL FRUITS OF FLORIDA*.-Continued.

Common Name Max. No. Total % % %% Sugars
Botanical Name Min. Analyses] Weight Specific % % 0 Edible Moist- Acid % % % Free Hydrolyz-
Variety Source Avg. (Avgd.) (gms.)** GravitySeedSkin Pulp ture (citric) Oil Protein AshReduing able Total

Loquat ]
(Eriobtrya japonica) Gainesville max. 18 19.4 1.048 22.7 11.3 69.7 89.3 2.40 0.20 0.54 0.48 4.66 4.50 9.70
(aro rya apoca) min. 14.0 1.017 19.4 9.3 65.2 82.7 0.95 0.06 0.32 0.26 3.61 2.98 6.59
(Japanese) avg. 15.5 1.034 21.4 10.3 68.3 85.7 1.60 0.13 0.40 0.36 3.91 4.38 8.29
(Chinese)
( inese) Gainesville max. 12 18.4 1.052 32.1 18.4 65.9 89.9 1.94 0.32 0.90 1.10 5.06 4.80 9.90
min. 12.6 1.032 26.4 13.2 52.3 81.6 0.80 0.16 0.37 0.30 2.94 3.20 6.70
avg. 15.8 1.048 28.3 14.7 57.0 87.0 1.60 0.24 0.64 0.48 3.21 4.41 7.62

Rose Apple Homestead max. 20 18.9 0.766 24.2 6.7 82.1 84.1 0.60 0.71 0.94 0.47 8.45 4.80 12:60
min. 15.3 0.746 13.9 3.4 72.3 78.8 0.10 0.51 0.31 0.13 6.70 2.40 8.45 5.
(Eugenia jambos) avg. 17.0 0.754 16.4 5.4 78.2 81.7 0.50 0.56 0.62 0.29 7.36 2.89 10.25

Rose Apple Lake Placid avg. 6 16.9 0.772 23.5 16.6 59.9 82.0 0.58 0.32 0.48 0.51 7.20 2.70 9.90
(Eugenia jambos)

Java Plum Homestead max. 18 7.3 1.116 27.5 11.9 77.6 86.6 1.24 0.41 0.66 0.17 12.34 0.23 12.34
min. 4.0 1.083 11.7 10.4 62.1 77.5 0.60 0.12 0.36 0.14 09.81 0.00 10.04
(Eugenia jambolana) avg. 5.1 1.105 19.1 11.0 69.9 83.2 1.09 0.26 0.47 0.15 11.38 0.07 11.45 N

Surinam Cherry Homestead max. 18 6.6 1.039 20.4 7.4 79.0 92.4 0.72 0.60 1.10 0.30 3.83 1.37 4.43
min. 5.5 1.020 13.5 5.5 74.1 90.7 0.38 0.20 0.59 0.21 2.42 0.47 3.00 .
(Eugenia uniflora) avg. 6.1 1.030 17.8 6.3 75.9 91.7 0.60 0.36 0.79 0.25 3.10 0.81 3.91
Feijoa Gainesville max. 12 12.4 1.029 14.8 93.9 85.6 0.63 0.32 1.10 0.75 3.48 1.76 4.95
Feio min. 8.3 1.015 6.0 85.2 80.1 0.10 0.20 0.66 0.50 2.40 1.10 3.98 s.
(Feijoa sellowiana) avg. 11.6 1.026 11.4 88.6 84.6 0.30 0.24 0.80 0.58 2.68 1.52 4.20
Fig g-
(Ficus cagica) Gainesville max. 12 14.3 0.945 1.2 1.8 98.9 84.2 0.15 0.89 0.72 0.51 12.60 1.25 13.40
(FC lt) min. 10.2 0.854 1.0 0.9 95.0 83.7 0.10 0.49 0.60 0.40 9.10 0.40 09.20
(Celeste) avg. 12.4 0.900 1.1 1.4 97.5 83.9 0.12 0.66 0.68 0.46 10.06 0.82 10.88

(Ischia) Gainesville max. 12 15.9 0.988 4.2 6.7 92.3 85.9 0.90 0.60 0.78 0.90 12.21 1.06 13.10
min. 12.0 0.950 1.6 2.6 85.1 83.2 0.12 0.41 0.30 0.38 10.40 0.75 8.25
avg. 13.7 0.960 3.7 5.6 90.7 84.8 0.25 0.48 0.52 0.51 11.20 0.80 12.00

Governor's Plum Homestead max. 5 5.6 1.100 27.3 15.2 67.4 82.6 ...... ...... 0.34 1.10 18.15 1.85 19.74
s a min. 4.2 1.086 18.4 10.4 59.9 76.2 -- --. 0.24 0.72 15.20 0.80 15.72
(Flacourtia ramontchi) avg. 4.9 1.099 25.0 13.9 61.1 80.4 ...... ..... 0.28 0.94 16.29 1.72 18.01






TABLE 4.-PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS-TROPICAL AND SUB-TROPICAL FRUITS OF FLORIDA*.-Continued.


Botanical Name Min. Analyses Weight Secific % % Edible Moist- Acid % Free Hydrolyz-
Variety Source Avg.(Avgd.)| (gms.)** Gravity Seed Skin Pulp ture (citric) Oil Protein Ash Reducing able Total
Imbe (Mangosteen) Homestead max. 8 18.8 0.950 24.8 9.5 70.0 87.5 1.80 0.39 0.72 0.30 8.90 0.90 9.80 C
Imbe ( ngoeen) in. 15.2 0.930 20.1 8.1 63.5 85.1 1.27 0.20 0.34 0.21 8.60 0.00 8.60
(Garcinia livingstonei) avg. 17.0 0.941 23.2 8.9 67.9 86.3 1.50 0.27 0.64 0.23 8.65 0.50 9.15 f
Pitaya Homestead max. 4 203.5 0.999 6.9 34.6 76.4 89.2 1.21 1.21 1.63 0.58 3.36 1.51 4.87
min. 184.1 0.988 2.4 19.3 62.0 83.4 0.30 0.30 1.40 0.30 2.65 1.05 3.70
(Hylocereus undatus) avg. 195.9 0.996 3.7 25.4 70.9 87.6 0.70 0.99 1.54 0.41 3.24 1.25 4.49 C

Litchi Homestead max. 15 15.6 1.086 19.8 9.9 78.1 80.8 1.32 1.60 1.30 1.00 7.30 6.90 14.12
tm in. 15.0 1.064 12.0 9.3 70.1 76.5 0.96 0.50 0.20 0.50 6.00 4.20 12.90
(Litchi chinensis) avg. 15.3 1.072 15.9 9.6 74.5 78.2 1.20 0.97 0.94 0.69 6.89 6.68 13.57

Mammee Apple Florida Keys avg. 2 1409.6 1.011 30.7 17.3 52.0 88.7 3.43** 0.86 0.72 0.27 2.57 1.43 4.00
(Mammea americana)

Ceriman Homestead max. 5 365.2 ........ 17.9 31.4 57.6 81.9 1.03 0.43 1.59 1.50 13.22 1.08 13.62
min. 298.6 ...... 15.0 27.6 50.2 77.6 0.65 0.18 0.95 0.97 09.62 0.30 9.98
(Monstera deliciosa) avg. 305.9 ........ 17.1 29.0 53.9 80.6 0.80 0.32 1.45 1.29 10.14 0.42 10.56
Barbados Gooseberr Homestead max. 6 56.1 0.957 15.3 18.9 72.6 94.8 0.88 0.12 1.11 0.48 2.78 0.30 2.83 O
d sherry min. 40.2 0.910 13.2 15.3 65.0 86.2 0.65 0.00 0.94 0.38 2.40 0.00 2.40
(Pereskia aculeata) avg. 48.7 0.929 14.0 17.0 69.0 93.1 0.78 0.02 1.06 0.40 2.55 0.19 2.74
Guava
(Psidium cattleianum) Gainesville max. 12 13.2 1.056 14.8 90.7 87.9 1.85 1.02 1.05 1.50 3.16 4.55
min. 09.8 1.019 09.3 85.2 77.4 0.49 0.77 0.52 1.00 2.40 3.70
(Yellow Cattley) avg. 12.2 1.020 10.3 89.7 84.2 ...... 0.67 0.80 0.75 1.32 3.00 4.32 3.
Guava
(Psidium cattleianum) Gainesville max. 12 12.3 1.069 8.6 95.8 85.6 ...... 1.06 ...... 1.20 3.60 6.31 7.63
min. 09.6 0.998 4.2 91.4 81.2 0.40 0.55 1.32 1.27 4.21
(Red Cattley) avg. 11.1 1.007 6.0 94.0 84.9 .... 0.46 0.75 1.50 2.92 4.42
Guava
(Psidium guajava) I Homestead max. 6 16.3 1.098 23.8 84.7 87.9 0.72 0.69 0.89 0.77 2.45 3.04 5.40 Co
mm in. 14.2 1.000 15.3 76.2 80.6 0.24 0.27 0.51 0.42 1.33 2.42 4.23
(Common) avg. 15.6 1.030 20.0 80.0 86.1 0.30 0.57 0.79 0.48 1.69 2.77 4.46
Pomegranate
(Punica granatum) Gainesville max. 6 496.3 0.946 39.4 25.1 63.7 84.6 1.20 1.00 0.75 0.77 3.40 3.90 6.90
min. 220.2 0.900 27.6 10.3 48.9 80.9 0.92 0.78 0.39 0.39 2.10 3.00 5.77 lI
(Wonderful) avg._ 459.0 0.932 31.3 14.5 54.2 82.6 1.18 0.92 0.51 0.61 2.30 3.60 5.90 5n









01







-

TABLE 4.-PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS-TROPICAL AND SUB-TROPICAL FRUITS OF FLORIDA*.-Continued.

Common Name Max. No. Total % % % % Sugars [.
Botanical Name Min. Analyses Weight Specific % % Edible Moist- Acid % % % Free Hydrolyz-
Variety Source Avg. (Avgd.) (gms.)*** Gravity Seed Skin Pulp ture (citric) Oil Protein Ash Reducing able |Total

Tamarind Homestead max. 24 10.1 0.869 53.5 28.5 45.3 38.0 9.10** 1.63 3.54 13.21 28.40 0.62 28.25 S
min. 7.4 0.508 30.5 18.9 27.6 21.4 6.56** 0.55 2.59 10.42 16.29 0.00 16.84
(Tamarindus indica) avg. 9.8 0.644 37.4 24.9 37.7 30.4 8.03** 1.26 2.73 12.60 21.16 0.22 21.38
Jujube I
(Ziziphus jujuba) Homestead max. 10 4.8 0.978 15.4 29.6 68.9 78.6 0.75 1.10 1.33 1.05 6.20 7.01 13.20
min. 3.1 0.959 12.6 15.3 58.4 70.8 0.51 0.10 0.80 0.48 4.62 5.60 10.04
(Indian) avg. 4.0 0.968 13.1 23.6 63.3 74.2 0.62 0.40 0.97 0.54 5.54 6.17 11.71 -t
*Fruit sampled over period of four years 1931-35. Two or more years represented in each figure.
**Acid calculated from weight of dry pulp.
** (1 oz. = 28.4 grams) (1 lb. = 454 grams).




0





Composition of Miscellaneous Florida Fruits 17

tartaric, oxalic or some other similar acid. In these analyses
the identity of the acid actually present was not determined, and
for convenience, acidity figures are based on citric acid.
The oil or fat content of most of the fruits listed in Table 4 is
very small. None of the numerous analyses presented here show
nearly so high an oil content as do the avocado and olive, these
showing from 4 to 20 percent as compared to less than 1 percent
in most other tropical and sub-tropical fruits.
The protein content is low, being less than 1 percent in most
of these fruits, but, in spite of this fact, it compares well with
that of fruits grown in the more temperate climates.
The ash content of the tropical fruits is relatively small when
compared to the other constituents, but is as high as or higher
than that of the more popular temperate fruits. The ash is
largely made up of iron, calcium, potassium, sodium, magnesium
and silica, with traces of many other elements.
Carbohydrates, of which the most important are the starches
in immature and the sugars in mature fruits, are the important
constituents in most fruits. The amount of sugar present in
any given fruit depends on its stage of maturity. The starch
present in most green fruits is high, but, as the fruit ripens, the
starch decreases until, in the ripe fruit, it disappears while the
sugars increase with maturity. All of the fruits analyzed being
fully mature, the sugar content was high in most of them. The
tropical fruits appear to have a higher sugar content on the
whole than do temperate fruits. In such fruits as the guava,
loquat, and feijoa large amounts of pectin are found, especially
in the unripe fruit. The material causes concentrated water ex-
tracts of the fruits to gelatinize and form jelly, and such fruits
are valuable for jelly making.
It is not necessary here to give the botanical description,
climatic restriction, propagation and culture of the fruits listed
as this has previously been done and can be found in Florida
Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 223 (12).
To facilitate the finding of a given fruit the arrangement is
alphabetical according to the botanical classification. Such an
arrangement of the common names is not given, owing to the
multiplicity of these names for many fruits. There are numer-
ous synonyms for almost all the common names given, and the
one used here was found to be the one most commonly used in
Florida.
In Table 5 are given the averages of a large number of analyses
of some of the more common fruits. These figures were taken









00





a
TABLE 5.-*AVERAGE PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION OF THE EDIBLE PORTIONS OF SEVERAL POPULAR FRUITS
(From U. S. D. A. Circular No. 50).

%Sugars
No. Total % % % % sugars
Common Fruit Weight Specific % % Edible Moist- Acid % % % Free Hydrolyz-
Name (Avgd.) (gms.) Gravity Seed Skin Pulp ture (malic) Oil Protein Ash Reducing[ able Total

Apple 289 ........ ........ 12.0 88.0 84.1 0.47 0.40 0.30 0.29 ........ ....... 11.1

Banana 34 ........ ........ 33.0 67.0 74.8 0.39 0.20 1.20 0.84 ...... ........ 19.2

Peach 31 ........ ....... 12.0 88.0 86.9 0.64 0.10 0.50 0.47 ........ ....... 8.8

Grape 8 ........ ........ 22.0 78.0 81.9 1.21 1.40 1.40 0.45 ..... ....... 11.5

Pear 12 ...... ........ 17.0 83.0 82.7 0.29** 0.40 0.70 0.39 ........ ...... 8.9
*For Comparison with Florida Fruits.
**Values are in terms of citric acid.

ZS




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