• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Introduction
 Methods used in the investigat...
 Results
 Summary
 Reference






Group Title: Research report - Bradenton Agricultural Research & Education Center - GC1978-3
Title: Some weight-size relationships of Florida tomatoes
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00067717/00001
 Material Information
Title: Some weight-size relationships of Florida tomatoes
Series Title: AREC Bradenton research report
Physical Description: 14 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Marlowe, George A ( George Albert ), 1925-
Montgomery, Ralph T
Cornell, John A., 1941-
Agricultural Research & Education Center (Bradenton, Fla.)
Publisher: Agricultural Research and Education Center, IFAS, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Bradenton Fla
Publication Date: 1978
 Subjects
Subject: Tomatoes -- Varieties -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (leaf 14).
Statement of Responsibility: G.A. Marlowe, R.T. Montgomery and J.A. Cornell.
General Note: Caption title.
General Note: "December 1978."
Funding: Bradenton AREC research report
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00067717
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, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: oclc - 73173097

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Methods used in the investigation
        Page 3
    Results
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Summary
        Page 13
    Reference
        Page 14
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







S Agricultural Research and Education Center
SIFAS, University of Florida
Bradenton, Florida

AREC Bradenton Research Report GC1978-3 I IiU i embr- 78

SOME WEIGHT-SIZE RELATIONSHIPS OF FLOR IA TOMATES 0 1979

G.A. Marlowe, Jr., R.T. Montgomery, & hkAc hitof Fo
of Florida

A. Introduction

This study was initiated in response to a request by the Florida Tomato
Committee on May 4, 1978 to ascertain weight-size relationships of the major
fresh market varieties grown in Florida. The information is intended to provide
for a critical evaluation of the size and grade standards as set forth in the U.S.
Standards for Grades of Fresh Tomatoes as amended April 15, 1976 (6).
The size designations used at the time this study was initiated are listed in
Table 1. The size categories in the USDA publication listed above have been expanded
to include decimal, fractional inch, and metric equivalents.

Table l.--English and Metric Size Standards for Fresh Market Tomatoes, U.S. Dept.
Agric. Tomato Grade Standards, 1976 (7)
Size Size Diameter 1/32 in. Diameter Decimal, in. Diameter, mms
Class Name Min Max Min Max Min Max

7x8 ES 1-28 2-4 1.875 2.125 47.62 53.97
7x7 S 2-4 2-9 2.125 2.281 53.97 57.94
6x7 M 2-9 2-17 2.281 2.531 57.94 64.29
6x6 L 2-17 2-28 2.531 2.875 64.29 73.02
5x6 EL 2-28 3-15 2.875 3.469 73.02 88.11
5x5,L ML 3-15 ---- 3.469 --88.11
(1 in. = 25.4 mm)

Work by Showalter, 1972 (5) was instrumental in establishing the size standards
used in the USDA grades standards system. It was noted that reduction of the
diameter of the 7x7 and 6x7 standards by 1/32 inch decreased the number of 7x7
fruit by 7% and increased the 6x6 size by 5 percent. Changing the size requirements
affected the number of fruit in a size class, the weight distribution, and number of
fruit per container.

1GEORGE A. MARLOWE, JR., Extension Vegetable Crops Specialist, AREC-Bradenton,
R.T. MONTGOMERY, County Extension Agent, Vegetable Crops, Manatee County Cooperative
Extension Service, J.A. CORNELL, Associate Professor, Statistics Department.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the careful assistance of K.S. Carbiener
and D. F. Smolinski in the implementation of this investigation.







The distribution by number and size of Walter tomatoes as recorded by Showalter
is presented in Table 2.

Table 2.--Number, Weight, and Container Equivalents of Walter Tomatoes in
Five Size Classifications Using the FTC Proposed Standards
(Showalter, R. K. 1972. Proc. FL State Hort. Soc. 85:178-181).

Size Size Range % in Category Total number fruit
Classification 1/32 in. Number Weight Per 30 lb. carton

7x8 1-28, 2-4 6 3 203
7x7 2-4 2-9 13 9 160
6x7 2-9 2-17 49 46 125
6x6 2-17, 2-28 28 35 95
5x6 2-28, 3-15 4 7 68



Background data derived from the Annual Report of the Florida Tomato Committee
1977 (1) showed that the industry shipped and sold 21,032,250 thirty pound cartons
of tomatoes in 1976. Of the four major size categories, 22% were extra large, 31%
large, 36% medium and 11% in the small size. The grade distribution was 58% U. S.
Number 1, 10% Number 2, 18% Number 3 and 15% in the combination grade.

A study of per plant productivity of the Walter cultivar in Manatee County was
conducted by Marlowe and Montgomery in 1976-7 (3). It was found that plants from
well managed fields of full bed mulch, spring grown tomatoes produced approximately
120 fruits per plant. Of this number 12% were extra large, 29% large, 27% medium,
and 14% small. The remainder, 18% were undersized or cull fruit.

In a fertilizer study in 1978, Montgomery, Pospichal, and Marlowe (4) observed
that level of fertilizer had very little influence on fruit number and percentage
size distribution, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3.--Average Number, Weight, and Percent of Fruit Produced at 3 Levels of
Fertilizer Application, Walter Variety, Spring 1978.
(Montgomery, R.T., M.T. Pospichal, and G.A. Marlowe, Jr., Veg. Crops
Extension Report 1978-1P) (Weight in pounds per plant)

Size High Fert. Level Medium Fert. Level Low Fert. Level % of Total
Category No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt.
EL 21 11.9 21 11.9 19 11.0 20.7 44.4
L 21 6.2 20 6.0 18 5.3 20.2 22.2
M 18 3.5 16 3.0 14 2.9 16.3 11.9
S 9 1.3 9 1.3 7 1.1 8.4 4.7
Other 26a* 3.3 43b 5.7 32a 4.2 34.4 16.8
Total 95 26.2 109 27.9 90 24.5 100.0 100.0

(High 4356, Medium 2178, Low 1089 Ibs of 18-0-25 fertilizer per acre).
*Figures followed by different letters are significantly different from one
another at the 5% level of significance.




-3-


It is to the tomato grower's advantage to produce as many large sized fruit
per acre as possible because of the higher prices of large, extra large and maximum
larae fruit. This desire, however, is not matched by the natural size distribution
generated by today's modern tomato varieties. The three largest grades shipped
represent 89% of the production and value of the crop; whereas, high yielding plants
produce an average of only 56% of their total number in these sizes. This dilemma
may be solved with more uniform setting, larger fruited varieties in the future,
but in the meantime, adjustments in the size-grade relationship may provide the
greatest hope.

B. Methods Used in the Investigation

The study was conducted from 9 May to 15 December 1978. This period covered
spring and fall harvest periods of the Manatee-Ruskin (District 4), Dade County
(District 1), and Immokalee-Naples (District 3) tomato growing areas. All fruit
used in the study was provided by a grant from the Florida Tomato Exchange, Orlando.

All fruit diameters reported were measured by metric reading caliper accurate
to 1 millimeter (.04 inch) and by USDA registered aluminum grading rings. All bulk
weights were made on a 30 lb. capacity hanging scale sensitive to 0.1 lb. All
individual fruit weights were made on a top loading analytical balance sensitive to
100 mg. Fruit measurements included largest equatorial diameter (LED), smallest
equatorial diameter (SED), distance from stem to blossom end (length or height),
fruit volume by the r formula, and weight. The number of fruits studied in each
size category for each variety ranged from 438 to 1,520 for each season. Two or
more cartons of fruit in each size category were collected for each variety
important to the district participating.

All data were subjected to statistical analysis by the IFAS Computer Center in
Gainesville.

The study consisted of three phases. Phase 1 was designed to assess the agree-
ment between machine sizing (packinghouse) and laboratory sizing methods. Each
carton was ring-sized into size categories. The fruit number and weight in size
was recorded and fruit was then returned to the carton for the next phase. Phase 2
was devised to define specific size-weight relationships on an individual fruit basis.
Diameter (LED and SED), length, and weight measurements were made and recorded. Size
measurements were determined by horizontal metric scale caliper and weights on an
analytical balance. Fruit volumes were determined by formula from LED measurements.
Phase 3 dealt with characteristics of qualification for current or future size
standards.

C. Results

1. Box Integrity Study

Evaluation of cartons of fruit were made as soon as possible after receipt
to minimize errors due to shrinkage. The results of ring sizing by number and weight
are shown in Table 4.

These figures show that the average total weight for most cultivars and most
sizes are within the 30 lb. net weight limit. There were more cases in which the
weight and number out of size were on the high side than on the low side. The 10%
limit was exceeded on the high side 10 times out of the 25 (EL, L, M, S) boxes, but
only 6 times on the low side. If both the low side and excess on the high were added
together 14 out of 25 boxes would be rated out-of-weight for the size category stamped
on the machine sized carton.




-3-


It is to the tomato grower's advantage to produce as many large sized fruit
per acre as possible because of the higher prices of large, extra large and maximum
larae fruit. This desire, however, is not matched by the natural size distribution
generated by today's modern tomato varieties. The three largest grades shipped
represent 89% of the production and value of the crop; whereas, high yielding plants
produce an average of only 56% of their total number in these sizes. This dilemma
may be solved with more uniform setting, larger fruited varieties in the future,
but in the meantime, adjustments in the size-grade relationship may provide the
greatest hope.

B. Methods Used in the Investigation

The study was conducted from 9 May to 15 December 1978. This period covered
spring and fall harvest periods of the Manatee-Ruskin (District 4), Dade County
(District 1), and Immokalee-Naples (District 3) tomato growing areas. All fruit
used in the study was provided by a grant from the Florida Tomato Exchange, Orlando.

All fruit diameters reported were measured by metric reading caliper accurate
to 1 millimeter (.04 inch) and by USDA registered aluminum grading rings. All bulk
weights were made on a 30 lb. capacity hanging scale sensitive to 0.1 lb. All
individual fruit weights were made on a top loading analytical balance sensitive to
100 mg. Fruit measurements included largest equatorial diameter (LED), smallest
equatorial diameter (SED), distance from stem to blossom end (length or height),
fruit volume by the r formula, and weight. The number of fruits studied in each
size category for each variety ranged from 438 to 1,520 for each season. Two or
more cartons of fruit in each size category were collected for each variety
important to the district participating.

All data were subjected to statistical analysis by the IFAS Computer Center in
Gainesville.

The study consisted of three phases. Phase 1 was designed to assess the agree-
ment between machine sizing (packinghouse) and laboratory sizing methods. Each
carton was ring-sized into size categories. The fruit number and weight in size
was recorded and fruit was then returned to the carton for the next phase. Phase 2
was devised to define specific size-weight relationships on an individual fruit basis.
Diameter (LED and SED), length, and weight measurements were made and recorded. Size
measurements were determined by horizontal metric scale caliper and weights on an
analytical balance. Fruit volumes were determined by formula from LED measurements.
Phase 3 dealt with characteristics of qualification for current or future size
standards.

C. Results

1. Box Integrity Study

Evaluation of cartons of fruit were made as soon as possible after receipt
to minimize errors due to shrinkage. The results of ring sizing by number and weight
are shown in Table 4.

These figures show that the average total weight for most cultivars and most
sizes are within the 30 lb. net weight limit. There were more cases in which the
weight and number out of size were on the high side than on the low side. The 10%
limit was exceeded on the high side 10 times out of the 25 (EL, L, M, S) boxes, but
only 6 times on the low side. If both the low side and excess on the high were added
together 14 out of 25 boxes would be rated out-of-weight for the size category stamped
on the machine sized carton.






Table 4.--Average Distribution of Sizes by Number and Weight, Commercial Sizing
Machine Analysis, Mean of 3 Districts, 6 Boxes Each Size


Spring 1978, (Weiqht


expressed in pounds).


EL
No. Wt.


L
No. Ut.


29.3
10.1







29.4
1.8
---


1.2
19.4
1.9
0.9





0.9
26.7
1.5


M
No. Wt.


CV
Walter
EL
L
M
S
ES

CV
Fl Dade
EL
L
M
S
ES


1.5
25.9
5.3






2.2
28.6
1.8
0.4


S ES
No. Wt. No. Ht.


11
115
27






7
152
14


1.9
19.8
4.6






1.3
27.4
2.5


3
26
201







14
197


0.4
3.7
26.1







2.0
27.3


Fall 1978

CV
Walter
EL
L
M
S


CV
Fl Dade
EL
L
M
S


CV
Tempo
EL
L
M
S


7
118
22






10
130
8
2


TOTAL
No. Wt.


65
95
138
166
228




67
99
142
174
213


30.5
31.0
30.1
29.7
30.7




30.3
30.7
31.4
31.2
30.2


30.4
4.6
0.4





27.7
6.7






28.3
2.2


0.7
26.0
7.3
1.4




2.6
23.4
9.3
0.4




1.6
25.2
3.2


3
99
43





1
88
52





8
114
38


0.7
23.0
8.0





0.3
20.3
10.6





2.1
26.4
7.6


109






3
105






3
126


21.2






0.5
18.9






0.5
22.5


71
98
129
159




72
96
127
166




73
100
128
167


31.1
31.3
30.7
30.8




30.3
30.4
30.1
31.0




29.9
29.5
30.1
30.5


0.2







1.1







0.4






This information represents an average of many different sizing operations.
Most of the boxes sampled were well within limits. Samples from chain sizer
operations were generally more within size than from belt sizer operations.

Phase 2

Measurements of diameter, length and weight are presented in Table 5. Weights
have been reported in the English as well as the metric system. There are very few
clear cut trends in the fall and spring data. The fall tomatoes of the Walter and
Floradade cultivars are heavier than the spring fruit except for the extra large
size.

The Floradade fruit in the spring and fall crop were longer than the Walter
group except for the extra small and extra large categories.

Table 5.--Largest Equatorial Diameter, Length and Weight of 3 Tomato Cultivars,
Average of 3 Growing Districts

SPRING FALL
Cultivar Size Stat. Diameter Length Weight* Diameter Length Weight
mms mms gms ozs mms mms gms ozs


Walter










FlDade


ES AV
SD
S AV
SD
M AV
SD
L AV
SD
EL AV
Sn


51.2
1.7
55.6
1.1
60.7
1.7
67.8
2.7
81.3
6 6


45.4
3.5
46.7
3.3
50.8
4.7
53.5
2.6
62.5
2 2


60.3
9.1
76.5
9.2
97.5
13.0
131.0
20.2
216.8
47 C


1.9

2.5

3.1

4.2

6.9


54.5
1.7
56.7
2.7
62.8
2.8
67.1
3.5
75.7
13 A


47.4
1.5
47.7
2.1
52.3
1.5
54.7
2.0
58.6
1 7


74.0
3.3
86.0
8.3
112.1
10.4
136.0
15.4
187.1
0O1 0


1.9
---
2.7

3.6

4.3

6.0


JU U.U : .L. "1 .J --- ..I 24t't. ---

ES AV 50.8 47.7 66.0 1.6 55.0 46.2 73.3 2.3
SD 1.7 4.0 8.8 -- 3.8 2.3 4.6 ---
S AV 55.6 49.6 81.1 2.6 58.3 51.4 85.5 2.7
SD 1.2 4.1 9.8 --- 3.2 1.2 8.2 ---
M AV 60.5 51.4 99.1 3.2 62.1 52.8 103.6 3.3
SD 1.6 4.0 11.7 --- 3.5 1.0 12.4 ---
L AV 68.1 59.5 142.7 4.6 70.7 55.3 144.3 4.6
SD 2.7 3.3 13.5 --- 4.5 1.0 22.0 ---
EL AV 79.4 63.9 209.0 6.7 77.3 55.6 196.3 6.3
SD 4.7 3.7 34.3 --- 4.3 1.0 26.8 ---
C A **n


L.J Inu
SD
S AV
SD
M AV
SD
L AV
SD
EL AV
SD


t4.3
2.3
56.2
2.4
60.9
3.1
66.8
4.1
76.4
4.3


1.0
49.3
1.3
53.3
1.2
54.6
1.2
59.1
1.3


03.0
5.4
83.0
7.2
103.6
11.6
131.7
20.9
184.4
26.6


2.I
---
2.6

3.3

4.2

5.9


*1 Avoirdupois
**Not available


ounce = 28.35 grams.
for spring study.




-6-


Phase 3(a) Explanation of Statistical Terms Used

The metric system provides a somewhat expanded view of the data as compared to
the English system. One of the reasons the metric system is used is because of the
ease of conversion. One can change measurements from meters to centimeters to
millimeters by movement of a decimal point.

An average of many measurements is a valuable but limited description of the
individuals within the group studied. If one were to measure the heights of all
of the tomato growers in Florida and plot these heights on graph paper by groups
in the form of a bar graph, the tallest growers would be on one end of the graph,
the shortest on the other, and the largest number would be in-between these extremes.
If a line were drawn between the tops of "bars", a bell shaped curve could be expected.

A more precise way of expressing the heights of these tomato growers would be
to say that the average (or mean) is 5'10" with a range 4'9" to 6'4". This tells
us how much variability was encountered in the measurements. Another term which
helps to describe the variability in a population of measurements is the standard
deviation.

The standard deviation tells us rather precisely how much variation was found.
For example, an "average" large sized Walter tomato weighs 131 grams or 4.2 ounces.
Within the weights of this size we found that a Walter diameter measuring between
64-73 millimeters (or 2 17/32 to 2 28/32 in.) could weigh from 71 to 191 grams: The
data needed to be refined for communication purposes, obviously! The standard
deviation (SD) computation is a simple and effective statement of this variation.

The large Walter, with a mean of 131 grams, was found to have a normal spread
of weights. Sixty-eight percent of the weights were within 111 to 151 grams. The
SD states this same information as 131 grams (plus or minus 20.2 grams). If one
wanted.to show how great the extremes were for 95% of the population one could say
(2)SD plus or minus from the mean. This would cover all tomatoes of this diameter
range weighing from 131 plus 2 x 20.2,or minus 2 x 20.2. -This would tell us that
95%"of all of the large sized Walter fruit would weigh at least 90.6 grams up to
171.4 grams.
For those growers (or others interested in tomato sizing) who may wish to
compare cultivars, seasons, or size categories by weight or size, Tables 6 and 7
are presented.

This information should be helpful in describing the sizes of the various
cultivars studied.

It may be of interest to note that the extra large, spring tomatoes were
heavier and larger than that same size range in the fall crop. The large, 'medium,
and small tomatoes from the fall crop were significantly larger and heavier than
fruit from the spring crop. This seasonal feature could place an extra burden on
the sizing system.

Phase 3(b)

In this phase of the study particular emphasis was placed on those fruit which
fell in the extreme ranges of the size class. The purpose of this emphasis was to
provide background information for the development of a sizing system similar to
that used in potato standards, in which a category may be qualified by diameter
-and/or some associated range in weight.







Table 6.--The Average, Standard Deviation, and Range of Diameters of 3 Varieties
of Fresh Market Tomatoes, Average of 3 Districts


1. Spring Crop, 1978
Size Size Range
Name Limits, mms
EL 73-88


L 64-73


M 58-64


S 54-58


ES 48-54






2. Fall Crop, 1978

EL 73-88


L 64-73


M 58-64


S 54-58


Mean Diameter in Size Category, mms
Factor Walter Floradade Tempo**
Mean 81.3 79.4
St. Dev. 6.6 4.7 ---
Range* 50.9 94.5 70.0 88.8

Mean 67.8 68.1
St. Dev. 2.7 2.7
Range 62.5 73.1 62.7 73.5

Mean 60.7 60.5
St. Dev. 1.7 1.6 ---
Range 57.2 64.2 57.2 63.8

Mean 55.6 55.6 ---
St. Dev. 1.1 1.2 ---
Range 53.4 57.8 53.2 58.0

Mean 51.2 50.8
St. Dev. 1.6 1.7
Range 47.9 54.5 47.4 54.2

*Range at 95% Confidence Interval (2 St. Dev.)
**Not available for Spring Study.



Mean 75.5 77.3 76.4
St. Dev. 3.9 4.3 4.3
Range 67.9 83.5 68.7 85.9 67.8 85.0

Mean 67.1 70.7 66.8
St. Dev. 3.5 4.5 4.1
Range 60.2 74.0 61.7 79.7 58.6 75.0

Mean 62.8 62.1 60.9
St. Dev. 2.8 3.5 3.1
Range 57.2 68.4 55.1 69.1 54.7 67.1

Mean 56.7 58.3 56.2
St. Dev. 2.7 3.2 2.4
Range 51.3 62.1 51.9 64.7 51.4 61.0








Table 7.--The Average,
Fresh Market

1. Spring Crop, 1978
Size Size Range
Name Limits, mms
EL 73-88



L 64-73


M 58-64



S 54-58


ES 48-54


Standard Deviation and Range of Weights of 3 Varieties of
Tomatoes, (Average of 3 Districts)


Factor


Mean
St. Dev.
Range

Mean
St. Dev.
Range

Mean
St. Dev.
Range

Mean
St. Dev.
Range

Mean
St. Dev.
Range


_ Mean Weight in-Grams


Walter


216.8
47.5
121.8 311.8

131.0
20.2
90.6 171.4

97.5
13.0
71.5 123.5

76.5
9.2
58.1 94.9


60.3
9.1
42.1 -


78.5


(Range 2 St. Dev., 95%)
Floradade


Tempo*


209.0
34.3
140.4 277.6

142.7
13.5
115.7 169.7

99.1
11.7
75.7 122.5

81.1
9.8
61.5 100.7

66.0
8.8
48.4 83.6


*Not available for Spring Study.


2. Fall Crop, 1978


EL 73-88


L 64-73


58-64


S 54-58


Mean
St. Dev.
Range

Mean
St. Dev.
Range

Mean
St. Dev.
Range

Mean
St. Dev.
Range


187.1
24.2
138.7 235.5

136.0
15.4
122.2 166.8

112.1
10.4
91.3 132.9

86.0
8.3
69.4 102.6


196.3
26.8
142.7 249.9

144.3
22.0
100.3 166.3

103.6
12.4
78.8 128.4

85.5
8.2
69.1 101.9


184.4
26.6
131.2 237.6

131.7
20.9
89.9 173.5

103.6
11.6
80.4 126.8

83.0
7.2
68.6 97.4


Tem


--






For those growers interested in the mathematics of this phase of the study, we
studied the population characteristics within the extremes of the bell-curve
developed for the over-all size groups. By measuring a great many fruit in these
extremes, a secondary, more precise bell shaped curve was constructed.

The USDA sizing rings and the horizontal metric caliper were used to locate
these "extreme" fruit. If the diameter of the fruit held the fruit by its own
weight in the sizing ring of the minimum diameter to qualify for that size, it
was used in the study. Table 8 shows the ranges of weights (metric system) of
these fruits covering 95% of the individuals surrounding the average weight (2 SD)
of fruit in that size class. Table 9 presents the same information in the
avoirdupois (English) system.

On December 19, 1978 the Florida Tomato Committee temporarily amended the size
ranges set forth in the standards enacted in 1976 (2). The changes in these standards
during the past six years is presented in Table 10. It may be noted that the
temporary size designations allow for an overlap of one thirty-secondth of an inch.


Table 8.--Average Fruit Weight and Range of
Minimum Size Standards (Expressed


Weights of
in Grams)


3 Tomato Cultivars Meeting


Cultivar Size, Sample Number Pooled
mm mean, gm fruit variance LR* Mean UR

Walter ES 48 52.0 31 8.0 36.0 52.0 68.0
S 54 73.8 110 6.4 61.0 73.8 86.6
M 58 85.9 123 3.6 78.7 85.9 93.1
L 64 114.1 155 9.0 96.1 114.1 132.0
EL 73 161.8 142 13.7 134.4 161.8 189.4

Floradade ES '48 61.5 35 6.0 49.0 61.5 73.5
S '54 74.8 93 7.0. 60.8 74.8 88.8
*M 58 86.0 112 5.9 74.2 86.0 97.8
L 64 114.1 109 9.5 95.1 114.1 133.1
EL 73 163.9 89 11.8 140.3 163.9 187.5

Tempo ES 48 58.9 20 8.4 42.1 58.9 75.7
S 54 74.5 60 6.1 62.3 74.5 86.7
M 58 84.0 152 5.6 72.8 84.0 95.2
L 64 116.1 83 7.3 101.5 116.1 130.7
EL 73 161.4 94 10.0 141.4 161.4 181.0



An additional analysis was made to show diameter-weight relationships of these
latest revised sizes and is presented in Table 11.

A comparison between ring sized and caliper sized fruit is presented in Table
12. The agreement is within 2 grams in the Walter and Floradade variety, but was
considerably greater in the Tempo variety. The 12 gram descrepancy represents
approximately .4 of an ounce.




-10-


Table 9.--Average Fruit Weight and Range of
Minimum Size Standards (Expressed


Weights of 3 Tomato Cultivars Meeting
in Ounces and 1/32 Inch)


Cultivar Size, Sample Number Pooled Range (2 SD) oz.
inches mean fruit variance LR* Mean UR

Walter ES 1-28 1.7 31 0.26 1.1 1.7 2.2
S 2-4 2.4 110' 0.40 1.9 2.4 2.8
M 2-9 2.7 123 0.11 2.5 2.7 3.0
L 2-17 3.6 155 0.29 3.1 3.6 4.2
EL 2-28 5.2 142 0.43 4.3 5.2 6.1
Floradade ES 1-28 2.0 35 0.19 1.6 2.0 2.4
S 2-4 2.4 93 0.22 2.0 2.4 2.8
M 2-9 2.7 112 0.19 2.3 -. 2.7 3.1
L 2-17 3.6 109 0.30 3.0 3.6 4.2
EL 2-28 5.2 89 0.38 4.4 5.2 6.0

Tempo ES 1-28 1.9 20 0.27 1.4 1.9 2.4
S 2-4 2.4 60 0.19 2.0 2.4 2.8
M 2-9 2.7 152 0.18 2.3 2.7 3.1
L 2-17 3.7 83 0.12 3.5 3.7 3.9
EL 2-28 5.2 94 0.32 4.6 5.2 5.8

*LR signifies Lower Range of Distribution, UR Upper Range.


Table 10.--Modifications of Size Standards for Fresh Market Tomatoes,.USDA and
Florida Grade Standards (Reported in Inches plus 1/32 inch diameter)

1973 1976 1978
Size Name LR UR LR UR LR UR
7x8 ES 1-28 2-8 1-28 2-4 --- ---
7x7 S 2-8 2-12 2-4 2-9 2-3 2-9
6x7 M 2-12 2-20 2-9 2-17 2-8 2-17
5x6 L 2-20 2-28 2-17 2-28 2-16 2-28
4x5 EL 2-28 Over 2-28 3-15 2-27 3-15
ML ---- ---- 3-15 Over 3-15 Over




-11-


Table 11.--Average Fruit Weight and Range of Weights of Tomato Cultivars Meeting
Minimum Standards Under FTC Size Ranges, 12-18-78

A. Metric Size, Sample Number Standard Range (2 SD) qms
Cultivar mm mean, gms fruit deviation LR Mean UR


Walter


Floradade


66.3
86.8
113.5
161.8
259.3

71.4
87.1
107.4
158.9
246.4

67.2
86.5
110.2
157.8
239.9


Tempo


B. Avoirdupois
1/32


Walter


Floradade


Tempo


2-3
2-8
2-16
2-27
3-14

2-3
2-8
2-16
2-27
3-14

2-3
2-8
2-16
2-27
3-14


7.58
6.17
10.04
13.44
10.40

7.1
7.4
13.1
14.2
15.0

6.7
5.2
7.2
12.4
14.0


0.24
0.20
0.32
0.43
0.33

0.23
0.24
0.42
0.45
0.25

0.21
0.17
0.23
0.40
0.45


Ounces
2.1
2.8
3.6 ,
5.2
8.3

2.3
2.8
3.4
5.1
7.9

2.1
2.8
3.5
5.0
7.8


51.4
74.4
93.5
135.0
238.5

57.2
72.3
81.2
130.5
216.4

53.8
76.1
95.8
133.0
211.9


1.6
2.4
3.0
4.3
7.6

1.8
2.3
3.0
4.2
7.4

1.7
2.5
3.0
4.2
6.9


66.8
86.8
113.5
161.8
259.3

71.4
87.1
107.4
158.9
246.4

67.2
86.5
110.2
157.8
239.9


81.5
99.2
133.5
188.6
280.1

85.6
101.9
133.6
187.3
276.4

80.6
96.9
124.6
182.6
267.9


2.1
2.8
3.6
5.2
8.3

2.3
2.8
3.4
5.1
7.9

2.1
2.8
3.5
5.0
7.8


2.6
3.2
4.2
6.1
9.0

2.8
3.3
3.8
6.0
8.4

2.5
3.1
4.0
5.8
8.7




-12-


Table 12.--Agreement Between Ring Szting and Caliper Measurement and Fresh Height
of 3 Tomato Cultivars, Avg. 2 Seasons, (Means of 60 fruit in each size
range, lower range to qualify)


Size Diameter


Weight in grams, per diameter
Ring Caliper


Cultivar


Walter


161.8
114.1
85.9
73.8


163.9
114.1
86.0
74.8

161.4
115.1
84.0
74.5


The relative volumes of fruit in the mid-range of each size category was
calculated from the equation 4.189 radius cubed. The calculations are presented
in Table 13. The cultivar Floradade had a greater volume in the fall crop than
Tempo in all:size ranges,but only inlsizes ES, S, L, and EL was.Floradade greater
than Walter. The fall tomatoes (average of three varieties) had greater volumes
than the spring fruit did except in the EL size.


Table 13.--Relative Volumes of Tomato Fruits by Size,
Cultivar, 1978 (Volume expressed in cubic


Production Season and
centimeters)


Cultivar Size Category Theoretical Mean Actual Mean Actual Mean
mm name for category for category for category
spring fall

Walter 48 ES 56.5 70.2 84.3
54 S 82.4 88.1 95.0
58 M 102.1 116.5 126.0
64 L 138.5 163.2 157.5
73 EL 203.7 280.3 226.2

Floradade 48 ES 56.5 68.6 86.2
54 S 82.4 90.0 103.2
58 M 102.1 115.4 124.8
64 L 138.5 164.6 184.3
73 EL 203.7 262.1 241.0

Tempo 48 ES 56.5 ---- 74.6
54 S 82.4 --- 93.0
58 M 102.1 -- 117.7
64 L 138.5 --- 156.1
73 EL 203.7 --- 233.5


161.5
116.7
87.0
73.5


162.4
116.2
86.8
74.3

168.3
119.9
88.5
75.3


Floradade


Tempo




-13-


SUMMARY


A number of tomato fruits adequate to provide a valid assessment of size and
weight for three cultivars in five size categories were evaluated in 1978. Samples
from three tomato growing districts indicated that the average net weight of fruit
per container was 30.7 Ibs. The average number of extra large (EL) fruit per
container was 73, large (L) 100, medium (M) 129, small (S) 165 for the three
cultivars Walter, Floradade, and Tempo.

Fruit grown in the fall was significantly heavier and larger than spring grown,
except in the extra large category. Floradade fruits were heavier than Walter and
Tempo in the extra large and large sizes. The average Walter fruit weighed 202
grams EL, 133 grams L, 105 grams M, and 56 grams S, (6.4 oz., 3.3 oz., 2.6 oz.,
respectively). The average EL fruit of the Halter variety measured 78.5 mm at the
largest equatorial diameter, 67.5 mm L, 61.2 mm M, and 56.1 mm for the small sizes
(2-28 EL, 2-17 L, 2-9 M, and 2 4/32 inches small).

Associated weight standards for fruit qualifying for the minimum size range
within a 95% confidence interval for the proposed and current size standards would
be possible. The following gradations are suggested for further study.


Current Standards
4/76 12/78
Size Weight Range
Category LR UR LR UR


Proposed Standards
12-78 (FTC)
Weight Range
LR UR LR UR


gms ozs gms ozs
ES 42 72 1.5 2.5 -- -- -
S 72 88 2.5 3.1 83 99 2.9 3.5
M 88 95 3.1 3.3 99 131 3.5 4.6
L 95 132 3.3 4.6 131 186 4.6 6.5
EL 132 186 4.6 6.5 186 275 6.5- 9.6
ML 186 over 6.5 over 275 over 9.6 over



This study indicates the built-in hazards of establishing a weight or size
separation system with too many categories. The basis for this difficulty is due
to the wide range of weights within a given diameter, and the wide range of diameters
within a given weight class.




-14-


REFERENCES CITED

1. Florida Tomato Committee, 1977. Annual Report. Orlando, Florida.

2. Florida Tomato Committee, 1978. Grade,Size, Container Inspection Requirements.
Regulatory Bulletin No. 1.

3. Marlowe, G. A. and R. T. Montgomery, 1977. The Yield Potential of the Walter
Variety. Vegetarian Newsletter, September.

4. Montgomery, R. T., M. T. Pospichal, and G. A. Marlowe, Jr., 1978. Weight-Size
Relationships of Walter and Floradade Tomatoes. Vegetarian Newsletter, Sept.

5. Showalter, R. K., 1972. Sizing Tomatoes into Fruit Diameter Classifications.
Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 85:178-181.

6. U. S..Dept. of Agriculture, 1973. U. S. Standards for Grades of Fresh Market
Tomatoes. Agricultural Marketing Service, Washington, D.C.

7. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1976. U. S. Standards for Grades of Fresh Tomatoes,
Agricultural Marketing Service, Washington, D.C.




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