28 2 5 2 5 ::: 1//// . 11111 . l:.i 11/1/2.8 1.0 1.0 I~ 1= 11111 . ~ ~P.2 I~ ~F2 I.:.l I" 2.2 ~ I~ .z I~ ~ ~ :f B~ ~ I~ .. " 1.1 al...... 1.1 ""&:.1'- ...." I -
""'1.25 111111.4 111111.6 1111,1.25 111111.4 11111.1.6
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS·1963·A NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS.1963·A F~~ ~o 'LA £'~-\ i:t I A..7(
~. Seasonal Changes in
~ ~ Florida Murcott Honey Oranges ",. ...
~ oe I.< ..0 ~~... :.:J ~ N U CD .... 0 (J") -...a f-o :::1 ll.l Cl.. - C\.l :n ~ V I- 43 ~ u bo Q t: 0 < cQ 0 ...... ,
Technical Bulletin No. 1271
~
United States Department of Agriculture PREFACE
This report is one of a group on seasonal changes in citrus fruItll. It is part of a broad program of research by the Agricultural Marketing Service to evaluate and maintain the quality of agricultural products in marketing channels. The late Arthur P. Sidwell was responsible for the organization and re,ision of the manuscript, in its final form, for publication. The light transmission studies were conducted under the direction of John~. Yeatman. William G. Long is now m;sociate chemist, Citrus Experiment Station, Lake Alfred, Fla.; i\lilliard B. Sunday and Paul L. Ha;-ding are statioued at Orlando, Fla. Harry J. Brinkl('y, James B. Smith, 0j'l"in H. ·Wllrc!, and Henry C. \Yhitesell gaye information and assisted in locating test plots of ::Uurcott Honey oranges fOr use in this study. Ed C. Anderson, T. J. Barns, C. C. Bishop, J. 1'. Danicl, O. J. Harvey, Xicholas Hoffmann, J. T. Humphries, Don Kemp, Orie Lee, Hoy )Ioulltain, Bob Pittman, Charles )1. Pool, E. r~. Richanls, William L. Sims II, and W. L. Story provided the l\lurcott Honey oranges for the in'estigatloll. Staff members of the Agricultural Research Service and Agriculturul. :Uarketing,- Service stntiolled at Orlnado, Fla., also pro\'ided assistancE' during the course of the study. WaShington, D.C. October 1962
CONTENTS
Pug#) Sull1111ary______Pnge Introeluction______5 Result:;·-Continued Early llistory______6 Chemical nnnh-~i~-('OlltiJllleci 6 As('orbic neieL_. __ . J G Fruit eharactcri"lic~ ______6 Acti\'c acidity (pHL Iii ~Intcrials anelll1clbods. ___ ..___ _ 7 Physical chara('tl'ri::;tiC8 __ . . 1G Salllplf' plots and ;:;ampUng___ ._ 7 Fruit wl'ight _ . . _ . _.. __ ~ _ Enlluation of pa.latallilit.\-______16 9 Volume and percent of juicf' .. IS Cbemical analy;;i~ ___ • __ . __ • __ _ a Rind eolor_. _ . _ _ __ _. . __ Physical characteristic;; ______IS f! COiN of f1f'sh ______. __ _ IS Color of rind______10 TexturE' of flesh. ___ ... _ .. Color of f1esh ______• ______10 Repdinpss ______._. IS Conclition of tlesh ______IS SecdineEs ______. ______10 Rinel thickness. __ . _ . ___ " 1.8 10 Fruit diameter__ . _... _. . IS Rind thickness and fruit, .Juice volume of sized fruit.. _ . cliamet~r ______IS 10 Light transmittnncp. rhame 10 tc·ristie&. ______Juice \'olume ot lli'lrd fruit.. 18 Light transmittance charac teristil's. ______Interrelationships among \'ari- 10 OWl c\'alutions__ • _. ___ "'" . 20 Statistical calculation______• 10 Othcl' factors influencing qual Results.______.12 ity. ______. ___ . ______2-1 Palatability studks ______12 Rootstock___ . __ • _ ._. __ _ Chemical analysis______21 TotalsoUels______15 Crop season \'arintion______2·1 15 Effects of freczing. ______.. 24 Total ncid______to Literature cited____ .. _____ ._ Solids-to-acid ratio______27 16 Appendix______. _. ______28 3 SEASONAL CHANGES IN FLORIDA MURCOTT HONEY ORANGES
'YILLr.ur G. LOXG, horticIIltllri8f, MILLAUD B. SmWAY, biological ,~cicllc:e8 techniciall, Ilnd PAUL 1.. ilAuDtXG, reBcorch lJlullt physiologist, Market Quality Rescarch Dh·i sion, Agricultural :\larkcting Scrvicc
SUMMARY
Mnrcott Honey orange s:unples acid content, than from certain were collected at monthly intu:ntls, other of the rootstocks. However, from December through ..:\pril~ dur fruit: frOIl1 rough lemon was slightly ing four crop seasons and studied heavier. for seasonal changes in fruit The sol ids and acid contents of quality. The data for the first sea the samples of fruit were related to SOil, ID57-58, were not included in their palatability ratin~, with the tabulations or condusions, except former value bearing the closest re for the effects of the freeze clamage lationship. The ratio of solids-to wLich o("clIlTed in that crop year. acid predicted the palatability rat Twenty-thl·CP eli n·prent IO-I'·ee plots ing of samples reliably during the on 4 rootstocks were sampled. early part of the crop Season. thus In all, 2;")0 samples of 100 fruit serving as a satisfnctory minimum each 'H'rc collected and analyzed. maturity stalldard i ndl:x. I:Iow Palatability of the jui('e, total ever, lnt.e-har\"ested samples ,nth a solids, solids-to-acid ratio, weight low acid and a high solids content of the fruit, and volume and percent were downgr:lded because uf over of juice increased as the season sweet, insipid flavor. progressed. Total aciel and the ~Iaturity regulations were nscorbic acid concentmtion of the adopted for MUI·cott Hon('y oranges j nice decreased cluri ng the season. in 1!)5l) based on the r('sults of the As the fruit matured. rind color 1058-59 studies. 'l'hef'c requir(' changed from green to orangc, and ments arc: (1) I-perccnt total acid the juice color changed from yel or less, or (2) grcate,· I han 12-to-1 low-omnge to orangc. The rind solids-to-aclc1 r:ttio if greater thnn was thinner anel the fruit diameter I-percent total acid. The results of was gl·cater toward the enel of the the additional 2 years' research have season. ComlllCl'cial siz('s of fruit substantiated these valucs. and no of the 1959-00 season yieldl:cl from complaints have been voiced by the 38 to 43 percent juice. The fruit industry. had an average of about 20 seeds I:-'hou"ld the citr,'s industry desire each. to upgmae the maturity l"('qllire Some important rootstock effects ments for the ~rllrcott Honey on quality factors were noted. orange, it coul(L be accomplished by: Fl·uit from rough lemon llv('rnged (1) Raising the minimum solids-to significantly lowcr in p:tlatabilil·y, aci(l ratio requiremcnt, (2) clcereas total solids, total acid, and ascorbie ing Ow maximum pere(·nt. total :1c·ic1,
5 01' (3) both raising the minimum tain light transmittance measure solids-to-acid ratio, and decreasing ments looked promising, but fur the maximum percent total acid. ther research and development are Some new techniques of quality needed before they can be recom evaluation were investigated. Cer- mended for nse by the industry.
INTRODUCTION
The ~Iurcott Honey orange, also The 1960-61 season production was known as the Smith tangerine, probably greater than 100,000 probably is a t[lngerine crossed with boxes. a sweet orange hybrid ( Oit?'1.lB Early attempts at processing 1'etic'llZata X O. sinensis) (6).2 :Uurcott Honey orange juice were not very successful, according to Barron and Olsen (~). Tl1e fhwOl' Early History was astringent and unsatisfactory, even when blended 1 part to 9 parts The early history of t11e Murcott with Hamlin. orange juice. How Honey orange is somewhRt obscure ever, juice extmcted by hand (.l4). It is not certain whether it squeezing has an excellent fluNor, is a chance seedling, an import, or allcl undoubtedly [1, method of a hybrid developed by Charles :JIur processing which will give a satis cott Smith or the U.S. DepnTtment: factory product will eventually be of Agdculture. "Morse (14) be found. lieves that it was one of lllfmy hybrids sent by the U.S. Depart Fruit Characteristics ment of Agriculture to cooperators for trial. The oldest-kuo"n budded The ~Iurcott Honey orange is a tree (p1Rte I) still stands in the medium-size ci trns fruit, somewhat former Smith grove, Bavview. flattened Hnd thinslcinned like a Clearwater, Fla. ., tangerine. It is it favorite with gift In the last decade Marcott fruit packers because of its high Honey orange plantings have in total solids content and its deep creased phenomenally. Savage orange flesh and juice color. It (16) reported that 203 trees "el'e peels more easily than an omnge, planted in 1951-52, and 164,738 has a high juice volume, .medium trees were distributed in the 5-year total acid, high solids-to-acid ratio, period between 1951 and HJ56. 13e yellow-orange rind color, and deep orange pulp and juice color. The cn.use many growers produce their trees produce well, but there is a own lltU'sery stock, 10,000 acres tendency toward alternate bearing. might be a reasonable estimate of The fruit are heavy; weight varies the area of the present plantings. from about 97 to 105 pounds f)er :2 Approximately 4,'100 boxes of bushel field box (5). They (0 not ~furcott Honey oranges were become puffy when oYerripe, but shipped to aue-Cion in 1955-56 (14.). dry out slowly. T,lle fmit are al The rollowing year 23,896 boxes ways seeely, averrtgll1g 20 seeds pel' were sold on the auction markets. fruit.
"Italic numl>en; in parentheses refer to Literature Cited, p. 27.
6 nX-1GIGGA
PLATE I.-The oldest-known budded 1Iurcolt Honey Ol'llllge tree ill lhe lute Charles Murcott Smith's nursery in Bayview, Clearwater, FIn. Xote overgrowth of the rough lemon rootstock. nlnrch lOW.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
!:...mple Plots and Sampling Sampling was clll'riec1 out during the crop seasons in 1%7-5R, ] fHJR In 1957, sample test plots of 10 59, IH;")!)-GO, and 19GO-61, but (he trees each W('L'U selected in com data fOl' 10iil-;':-; were not i])('lucl('tl mercial groves of :Murcott Honey in the tabulation ex('('pt for l'fl'c("ts oranges located in Hernando, Lake. of' the i'rN'zc· dnlllngc. during (hat Orange, Osceola, [mel Pinellas (,1'Op yetll·. :-;a111ples wCl."r takcn Counties. Rootstocks in 10 of the from the plots starting in the first plots were rough lemon; 0, sour we('k of ])eeclllbel" and sampling orange; 6, Cleopatra; and 1, swert continued at monthly intervnb orange. through the first \\"('ck'of April III
7 each year. The age of trees ranged Samples consisted of 10 fruit from 4 to 37 years in 1958; however, from each of the 10 trees. Care was most of the trees 'vere 6 to 10 years taken to pick fruit from only the old. AU test trees were in good regular bloom and which were not condition, and were mana~ed under sunburned. Samples v;ere selected good cultural practices. Plot loca so as to be representative of dif tions varied from the high sa!ldy ferent parts of the tree canopy be ridges that were low in organic mat cause the composition of the fruit ter to low-lying soils with higher varies with the location on the tree organic matter. and with Ol' \vithout (18). Samples were picked the first it subsurface hardpan. The loca week of each month. December tion, age, rootstock, and the years through April, and placed in cannu; that each plot was evaluated are bags for transport to the Horticul given in table 1. tural Field Station at Orlando, Fln.
T"\BrJE 1.-Jlw'cott Honey orange sample l)Zots and seasonB in 'which each 10((8 8fudied
Rootstock and Tree age 1 Located near- Distrid Seasons studied plot Xo. ! in Florida ------il------·I------I------Rough lemon: 1 ______6 Clermont______CentraL - -_ 1958-59 to 1960 61. 2 ______6 _____ do______do____ _ Do. 3 ______7 _____ do______do____ _ Do. 4 ______18-23 Largo______\\\':
1 Years of age in spring of 1 %8. 8 Each sample was washed to remO\-e color and texture of flesh were re dirt and spray residues, and sepa cordecl. Juice was extracted with It rated into a 25-fruit lot for analysis pressure-type extractor (8) :md and a 75-fruit lot for taste tests. squeezed through cheesecloth to re Fruit for analysis were chosen as move seeds and pulp. The percent typical of the sample in size and age of totnl solids (total soluble rind color. Fruit was stored at 32° solids, principally sugars) was de F., until analysis and taste tests rived from the refractive indices, could be made. converted to percent as Sllcrose, and corrected for temperature (1). Evaluation of palatability Total acid (calculated as citric :v·id) was determined by XaOH Each fruit in the 75-fruit taste titration, using phenolphthalein as sample was cut into halves. and two the indicator. Ascorbic acid (vita wedge-shaped pieces ,yere cut from min C) ,,-as determined by 2,6-di each half. Several wedges from chloroindophenol titration (3) and each lot were tasted by euch member actin acidity (pH) by a line of a taste-test panel. and an "ayer operated pH meter. Duplicate age" rating was givell for each sam juice samples were analyzed in all ple of fruiL using the scorecard of cases. Harding, Sunday, and Davis (10), shown below. Physical Characteristics The appearance or "eye SCORECARD FOR PALATABILITY RATING OF fiJUHCOTT HOXEY ORAXGES I ; X \l1I1?rical! ratIIIg range i Indi\'id\lal Arbitrary standard Taste or flavor of fruit con~l'- : numerical sponding; rating . to descrip-: , tion ------'------1------11------\'eryacid...... _.jl VPr~' acid, raw, ill1mature fla\-or. ! 20-80 I Acid ______.. Aciel with absence of raw, immature I 40-50 ,~=~~=:==== fla\·or. t Tart.__ . ______. _ __ Too tart for consur!wr approval. GO-GO 1__ . ______Pleamntly tart.___ _ :\1 inimum stage of satisfaction for '70-791______consumer. Pleasantly tart to Pleasant blend of Sligar:> anel acid, with 80-100 ,•• ______sweet.______very good texture and flavor. I' Im;ipid (agcdl-_____ Very sweet. watery, lacking in fla\'or, ______low in acidity, aged. I! 1 This scorecard was used by the panel of taste testers. A rating of 70 was seleclrd as the arbitrary standard below which the judges would consider the fruit not satis factory, or not meeting consumer approval. 64.1010'-62---2 9 Color of Rind.-Rind color ,,-as reaming. The pulp was squeezed evaluated by matching the fruit through cheesecloth. Juice volume with color standards A-H in plate was measured and weighed. and II. total solids and total acid' were Color of Flesh.-F'lesh colors determined. 'were divided into two groups: Light Transmittance Charac YO-yelJow orange, and 01' teristics.-These measurements orange (13). were made as part of a separate re Condition of Flesh.-'l'he tex search project to develop new meth AI ture of the flesh ,"as classifi.ed as ods of evalua6ng citrus quality. ricey, coarse, good, and overripe. They were made on intact fruit, by Ricey-textured fruit hacl very thick the use of a specialized instrument "'alled vesicles, containing small clesignd and constructed by the In amounts of juice. The juice con strument Research Laboratory of . tent was greater in coarse-textured the Agricultural Marketino- Serv fruit, but the vesicle walls were still ice. This instrument, called the distinct. In good-textured fruit Horticultural Spectrophotometer, the vesicle walls' were barely visible, passes constantly varying wave because the vesicles ,,-ere rully dis lengths of light energy throuo-h the tended with juice. Overripe fruit fnut and records its absorbance. showed thicker vesicle ,,-al1s and Two measurements were made: smaller amounts of juice because of (a) Relative chlorophyll abs01'p granulation, or "drying out." tion, which is the difference in opti Seediness.-This characteristic cal density between measurement ,,-as measured on 4: lots of 100 fruit, m1lde at 675 and 695 millimicrons takell from (1) a solid block of trees and is a measurement of the relative that was relatinly isolated, (2) a content of chlorophyll. block that was interplantcd with (b) '{'he 'wafl:elengtlL 0/ peak Temple oranges, (3) a block that tm7181111ttance of light energy \Ya~ jnterplrrnf"ecl with Dancy tan through the fruit. gerllles, and (4:) a sample pitked at. The~e l1Ie!tsurement.s were accom random from several plots in April plished by pl!:cing the intact fruit 1050. Each fruit W[\..s cut, and the m the meaSllrlllg cell of the instru seeds were rt'moy('(1 and counted. ment, which displayed the wave Rind Thickness and Fruit Di length of peak transmittance di ameter.-The rind thickness [wd rectly on a meter, as well as auto fruit diameter of the 25-rruit sam matically recording a curve of the ples from plots 8, Ie, 17, and 23 light transmittance characteristics 011 rough lemon, SOUl' orange, Cleo of the fruit. patra, and s'Yect orange rootstocks, respectively, were measured in mil Statistical Calculation limeters at eneh monthly sampling Certain statisticttl calculations over a 3-year pel'joel. were made to show the relationship Juice Volume of Sized Fruit. ~f t1le more importa.nt quality Samples of 23 fruit of Gsizes-SO, factors and measmements to the 100, 120, 150, 17G, and 210-were harvest season and to each other. taken from fruit pure-hased 'from a This was accomplished by calculat commercial packinghouse. The ing the linear correlation co fruit used wns harvested Oil )Iarch efficient "r!' between pairs of quality 3, HHJO, from plot 18 from trees on measurements or factors. The Clcopntl'a rootstock Each fruit closer that the value "1''' approaches was "eighec1, ca.lipel'ec1, cut into 1.00, either plus or minus, the closer halves, and the pulp removed by the relationship. 10 A E B F c G D H 1'1.,\'1'1'; rr,-· ·St:llltl:ll'tl,; 11;;1'11 1',,1' dl'II'J'Illillillg Ih!' (,,,1m' or ,\llll'('ult 1[0111',\' 1J1·:lIl.~(, rilld. 11 In ca1cll1ating the l'('lntionship of of some of the elata. WeL'e made, pnl' seasonal change to these sHeral ti(,lIlal'ly to aRcel'tain whet hel' c1 if qlla1it·y fildol's, (,1I('h month of hal' '/\W('II('PR (ll1e to the type of I'oolsto('k Vl'st· was gi\"('n a progl'pssi,'(' IIUI\l- \\'CI'e stat ist'ira1ly signifi(,:lnL rsc b(,I:: D('('('mbt'I', 1 ______.April, fi; of the tpl'm "Rig-IIi fieallt ly dill'pl'l'llt" and tllP I'plationsllip of this s('ah~ to illlpl ips that sll('h di/1't'L'pnces \\'Cl'(> ('hangl' in the spe('ifie quality found t·o be statisti('ally signi(j('ant fattol's wmi (':tJ('ulnted, '1'h is s(>:\ by odds of at least ID to I. Data 011 sonal s('all~ 1 to :) is c:t1letl "spasona I :i'l'tlit h01l1 swppt· orange L'ootsto('k trend" in tablt' 2 and in lntt'I' dis \\'C'n' not statistiea]]y ana1yz('(1 be cussion, cause samples wcre collected fl'om Analyses of val'iance C'fl1('ulations only Ollt' g'l'O\'(', TAIILE 2,-Linelll' rOI'I'e/at ion ('oetfl('il'llt.v bf'll('('('11 ji((ilw o/sehrtNl quality lac/o)' 1Il('(l8IU'('/I/('ntN 0/ J[w'rotl [Jolley oi'all[jes, 0)' ol'lw('l'n IIt(,M} jac tOl'S and tlte 8('11807!al t,'end \'aitlP of "1''' Pllirs ;!;~~~5~~11H5\J~-~1;-1 ~!;;jl:(~TI'-All YPtlr::: 1 --t~---<'~"i--~'-"""""'~ ...... '~.-~! .. S(,H>'Ollal tl'pncl, alld ! I l I I'nlntahilit." : 0, 71i O. RO i o. so I 0, 75 '1'01:11 "olicl:~ i ' ss I , S2 j , 7S , SI Total al'id : ' no .5R ,!I·1 : ,7() Holirls-to-tll'id ratio. i • !IS , !li) , H;i . , \)2 :\:;l'orilil' nl'ic!. .. , :j,j 11 ,77 . SO ! .SI !"rllit wight . _ I ,!17 . SO IJ? • , HH I'e'!'l'ell t jlli{'(' I , ·I;{ , all : ~~ I , ·12 \\':1 l'pl('llg1 It of ppak 1r:t1l;;lllit IHIH'I' . .'lS PlllalalJilit", :llld , __ 1 ' ~:~) I ' :\1 ,I Holids~t I)-:l('id ral io _. , II ""') ,n;{ , SO Holids-lo-:lI'id ral in (/)Pl'C'll1iJl'r. Jall 11:11'1', FpiJrtlHI"" ollh') · \17 . !J21 ,!J:l ; , S2 !.og:u:it hill of soiids-t(Hll'id rat io_ ,SG ,\II I ' ~~ I Total ~()Iicl,; , S I . SH , SS i '1'01:11 solici- (1)('('('111111'1', .f:1IIII 1lI'I', 1,·pIJrlWI'.I' only) _ _ _ _ _ • I I · Hii 1 ,IHI I . \HI ! , S:l Total a{'id • 7n I , .J!) ) , 7:1 ,7:1 W/lI'pIPIl!!;t h of pl'ak tl':IIl,;lltit t:llll'p, alld I Total,..olid:-: , !II ,S!J , " Hi' I'a!ntahilit~, , HI ..1)1' ) Ij , \11 1 Cnlrul:l!I.'d frolll tit(' ('Oll1lJillt'd dala froll! :tll:{ ,I'P:lI''''. j,., 1I0t all al'('mgt', RESULTS Thcfinc1illgs of the analyses alld Palatability Studies I1lpaSIII'l'lIl('nts llPon ~'rlll'('()tf: !!(Jlll',\' ol'allgl'i'l an" PI'psl'lltl'd ill labll's :1 The i 111 porta 11('(' 0 f f1a \'01' is 0 ft('11 th I'ough :i nlid figlll,t''; 1 Ih I'ottgh H, llIHlpl'(';-;1 inl:tiP(1.! 'ul'('l1as('R by t Itl' Data fol' tlie individual plots al'!, ('IIIIl->IIlIIPI't/PP(llld 1:ll'g'ply tlpOll Itow gl\'PIl ill apP('lldix taiJlp {i, tilt' pI'odud l->atisfil's his i'astl', TIll' 12 TABLE 3.-Palatability: 1 Seasonal changes in lI-Iurcott Honey O1'anges, 1958-59 to 1960-61 Rootstock and crop year Dec. 1-5 Jan. 1-5 Feb. 1-5 Mar. 1-5 Apr. 1-5 Rough lemon: 1958-50______(m 85 00 01 80 1059-60______68 84 89 00 90 1960-61______55 76 85 01 89 Sour orange: 1958-50______69 88 94- 94- 91 1959-60______72 86 90 91 93 1960-61______61 78 86 94- 89 Cleopatra: 1958-59______70 86 94- 92 89 1950-60______71 86 88 90 92 1960-61______62 78 85 94. 89 2 Sweet1958-59 orange:______63 87 ... ------_ ... ------_. 1959-60____ < ______70 85 87 87 .------'"" 1960-61______66 84 91 96 93 1 Average of ratings given by 29 to 46 tasters lIsing the scorecard shown 011 p. 9. 2 Only one plot on sweet orange rootstock was available for testing. TABLE 4.-0Zassification and c01npositiol1, of 13131 8aln7JZeS of ~V'U7'cott Honey OI'ange.s that 1'ated satisfactory in taBte tests by scot'ing an ave~'age ot 70 0/' mon Number of Total solids Total acid Solids-to-acid Palatability samples ratio I rating I I 2 ______Percent I Percent 13______9.16 to 9.31 0.76 to 0.81 11.31 to 12.25 70 to 71 29 ______10.06 to 10.96 .62 to 1.03 10.35 to ] 8.66 70 to 81 45 ______11.00 to 11.97 .68 to 1.21\ 9,46 to 17.76 70 to 91 45 ______12.01 to 12.97 .58 to 1.26 9.80 to 21.56 70 to 94 48______13.00 to 13.98 .62 to 1.48 8.90 to 21.98 73 to 95 25______, 14.02 to 14.99 .62 to 1.22 11.42 to 23.92 77 to 96 8 ______15.00 to 15.99 .63 to 1.19 13.17 to 24.92 87 to 96 6______16.07 to 16.67 .66 to 1..1'1 11.1G to 24.70 r 81 to 94 17.06 to 17.,57 .72 to 1.26 13.81 to 24.40 i. 89 to 93 1 TABLE 5.-0lcmification ancZ composition of J8 samples of illurcolt IIoney ) oranges that 1'((tecl /(nsatisfa(Jtol~1j in ta8te tests by .~coring 7e88 than an average of 70 Number of Total solids Total add Solids-to-acid I Palatability samples ratio rating I I, 1______Percellt Percent 10______8.31 O. 6ii 12.78 I G8 9______9. 01 to H.91 O. 72 to 1. 25 7. 93 lo 13. 26 ii:3 to 61l 16 ______10.02 to 10.96 . 85 to 1. 26 8. 66 to 11. 75 57 to 69 2______11. 00 to 11. 95 . 95 to I. 55 7. 52 to 11. 98 53 to 69 12. 00 to 12. 07 I. 09 to 1. 11 10. 81 to 11. 07 {i8 to 69 13 PALATABILITY, SOLIDS, ACID, SOllDS·TO·ACID RATIO, ASCORBIC ACID, AND ACTIVE ACIDITY AT TIME OF PICKING Murcott Honey oranges on .- Rootstoclcs NUMERICAL RATING PALAT ABIUTY SO 1---- ...t.J.I~~~I-~:::::r::~J • --;~I;;;; S·TANDA~D-;;-Q~ALhy":--· 60~--~--4------~----~--~----~~ PERCENT------.------.------.------~ TOTAL SOLIDS I 15~------~------+-~ 13r---- ---·Rough lemon 11 - Sour orange ------Cleopatra ---Sweet orange PERCENT TOTA~ ACID 1.2 --~--...... ----------... --- .S --. ------...... ~~ ---r -----1-----= RATIO SOLIDS-TO-ACID RATIO 20~------~------+------· ( 161------+-- 12r----~~~-r---~--~------~------~ (Oontinued on fl. 15) 14 consumer's subsequent purchases with seasonal trend, while the are influenced by whether or not the graph in figure 1 shows the shape first purchase was satisfactory to of the curve of seasonal change. his taste. The effect of the type of rootstock The flavor of the DecembeI' sam on palatability was not entirely ples was often unsatisfactory (table clear. The over-all average palata 3 and appendix table 6) ; 4 out of bility rntings of the samples from 12 samples rated 70-72, which is of the different rootstocks were not borderline quality. Nine out of 12 significantly different. However, samples rated pleasantly tart to when the data from the February, sweet (80 and above) in January. March, llnd April samples were cal The palatability increased in Feb culated separately, the samples ruary; and the l\Iarch samples from rough lemon rootstock were rated 87-96, indicating that prime significantly lower in palatability flavor was attained at about that than those from sour orange. The time. Palatability decreased slight samples from Cleopatra were inter ly in April when the ratings ranged mediate between these two. between 89 and 93., This decrease was apparently due to the flat, over Chemical Analysis ripe flavor and the low total acid found at that time of season. The Total Solids.-The average total values of "1''' in tab1e 2 show the solids content of the fruit samples degree of ~orrelation of palatabi1ity increased from about 11 percent in (Continl/cel trom }l.1I,) MG. PER 100 ML. ASCOR~IC ACID 40 I ~...... ~---~ 20 --- ... -.. ~...... ~.-... -'IIIIj l- 0 I pH V ALUE ACTIVE lACIDITY 5.0 : - I I ,_.w-.'1---..L.....-=j - 3.0 - I -., DEC. 1-5 JAN. 1-5 FEB. 1-5 MAR. 1-5 APR. 1-5 PICKING PERIOD U. S. DEPAffTMEHT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. AMS 2·46·62 (31 AGRICUl.TU~AL MARKETING SERVICE FIGURE I.-Palatability, total solids, total acid, >;olids-to-acid ratio, ascorbic acid per 100 ml., and active acidity of juice of :.\Iurcott Honey oranges on four rootstocks at different picking periods. (AYerages, 1958-50 to 1!l60-61.) 15 December to about 15 percent in table 2. The solids-to-acid ratio of April. Most of this increase had rough lemon samples averaged occurred by the first of February slightly lower than those from sour (appendix table 6) ; thus, the sea orange and Cleopatra. However, sonal change relationship showed this difference 'was not significant considerable curvature (fig. 1). The statistically. "1''' values of total solids and sea Ascorbic Acid.-The ascorbic sonal trend are also relatively low acid concentration decreased from (table 2) bee a use of the curvilinear an average of 22-26 mg. per 100 mI. nature of the relationship. in December to 12-16 mg. in April The averages of total so1ids con (fig. 1 and appendix table 6). This tent of the samples did not vary concentration was lower than that significantly from year to year dur previously reported for other citrus ing the 3-year course of tIlls study. fruits (8, 9, 10). The correlation Fruit samples from trees on rough with seasonal trend was high dur lemon rootstock were significantly ing two seasons and lower in the lower in total solids than those on remaining season, the 1958-59 har Cleopatra and sour orange. Their vest. l\fost of the decline in ascorbic average over the three seasons was acid occurred in the :March and 11.50 percent, while samples from April samples (fig. 1). Murcott Cleopatra and SOUl' orange aver Honey orange samples from rot1&h aged about 13 percent. lemon rootstock were significantly Total Acid.-The average total lower in ascorbic acid than those acid content of the fruit decreased from sour orange. Their average from about 1 percent in December contents were 20.2 and 23.2 mg. per to about 0.65 percent in April (fig. 100 mI., respectively; the samples 1 and appendix table 6). This de from Cleopatra average~ 21.1, cline correlated closely with sea which was not significantly differ sonal trend during 2 years of the ent from either. study (table 2) . However, the cor Active Acidity (pH).-The pH relation was poor chu'ing the re increased from about 3.4 in Decem maining season (1959-60). The ber to 3.9 in April (fig. 1 and ap fruit of the early part of this season pendix table 6) . This increase was was characterized by an unusually similar to thflt found in tangerines low acid content. which declined and tangelos (9, 10). slowly and irregujarly through the season. Physical Characteristics An effect of the type of rootstock was noted, with fruit from rough Fruit Weight.-The average lemon having a significantly lower weights of fruit of the samples all-season average than fruit from changed from a range of 109-123 g. sour orange and Cleopatra. The in December to a range of 159-205 all-season average acid content of g. in April (fig. 2 and appendix ( rough lemon was 0.84 percent, while tflble 6). This increase was gradurtl SOllr orange and Cleopatra aver and regular through the season in aged 0.02 percent. two of the harvest seasons of the .solids-to-Acid Ratio.-The sol study, as indicated by a high cor ids-to-acid ratio increased from relation with "seasonal trend" about 10:1 to about 20:1 during the (table 2). A lower correlation dur course of the harvest seasons (fig. ing the 1959-60 season v.-as due ap 1 and appendix table 6). The sea parently to rootstock di fi'erences, sonal change was very regular as the average fruit weights of the indicated by a high "1''' value in rough lemon and sour orange sam 16 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AT TIME OF PICKING Murcoff Honey Oronges on 4 Rootstocks GRAM5 WEIGHT ~F FRUIT , /.~ 180 "/ ~, --...:; 140 -", I ::;:ft#'"~-P' I Rough lemon 100 -Sour orange ------Cleopatra - --Sweet orange MILLILITERS I I I I 120f------VOLUME OF JUICE PER FRUIT I _-J-----~-----J 80 ~~...... ~[==--:::.;:;--::;-ff~-:;;:-9-1 AOf------+---·-_d----~+_d % OF W EIGHT I JUIC' J::': __ClL_ ___ 60 ~-----~ ------I J I , AO I I I COLOR----r-----·-~-----~----~~ ft 1 ~~----~-- ~ DEC. 1-5 JAN. 1-5 FEB.1-5 MAR.1-5 APR. 1-5 PICKING PERIOD U. S. DEP.A!lTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FIGURE 2.-Weight of fruit, juice per fruit, pcrc'cnt of fruit that is juicc. anll rind color of Murcott Honey Ol"llnges on four r(Jot;;tocks at dilIcrcllt picking p(·rinds. (A\'cr ages, 1958-59 t~ 1960-Gl.) 17 pIes being larger that harvest sea was overripe or dry in the April son. FrUIt from rough lemon aver samplings. aged 142 g. over the a-year study. Seediness.-The results of seed This was significantly bigher than count.s taken in 1058-59 and 1959 fruit from Cleopatra, which ayel' 60 seasons showed an average of aged 133 g. Sour orange rootstock 20.2+4.9 seeds per fruit. The least fruit samples averaged 1:38 g., number fonnd in a fruit was 7, and which was not significantly dif the most was 31. Frllit from a block ferent from the other two. interplantecl "'ith tangerines aver . '\)Iume and Percent of Juice. aged 21.:3+5.5; from a block inter The ayerage yolume of juic'e per planted with Temple oranges, fruit. increased from 11 range of flT 21.1+4-,5: from [t solid block. G7 ml. in December to a range of 10.4±-1:.7: and from a random sam 85-113 in April (fig. :2 and ap ple picked April 1959, 18.8+5.0 pendix table Ci). However, since seeds pet' fruit. the fruit was increasing in size over Rind Thickness.-The rind this same period, the milliliters of thickness ranged from 2.:2 111m. to juice pel' 100 g, of fruit weight in 1.5 mm .. and tended to be thinner in creased only slightly. The juice April dian in December, except in content as :'percent of weighf' the 1960-G1 season. ,,,hen the re showed a similar ClllTe (fig. 2), verse situation '''as obsened. The seasonal l'llJl!!e \"as !='l1lall. Thi::; Fruit Diameter.-Fruit diam and chance variation contributed to eter increased from (jJ-UO mm. ill a genera]]y 10" C'olTelation \\'ith December to GT-'iS mm. in April. seasonal trend (table 2), Differ Rootstock had no obsermble in, ences among rootstocks did not t1P flueilee on fruit ditlmeter. peal' to be significant. Juice Volume of Sized Fruit. Rind Color.-The snmples were ":"hen indiyidual frnit of six com green in DcC'eIllber, but had cle mercial sizes were taken from n greened almost completely by Sanu packinghouse and the juice was ex a!'}' (appendix table G). The fruit tt'acted by the standnrd method from rough lemon rootstock did not (7), the "olume of juice ranged reach the c1e ,..,rrree of onuwe,.., eolol' at from !:l7 ml. for size :21 0, to 99 IIII. tained by the Cleopatra, and SOUl' for size 80. The percenfafre of jui('e orange samples until the February by weight ranged f!'Om !~:-i to -13 per 18 LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE CHARACTERISTICS AT TIME OF PICKING Murcott Honey Oranges on 4 Rootstocks WAVE LENGTH-----.'------,'------~,------. (MILLIMICRONS) WAVE LENGTH OF PEAK TRANSMITTANCE I I 1 .- 610 r ,,',,,' r-----~-_i_----·-·---t 600t 590 ---1959-60 ------1960-61 (~, 0.0. 675-695~)-'------r------.------. 20 RELATIVE CHLOROPHYlL ABSORPTION 15 "" I I 10 "" ,, ,, 5 ,, o " '1---- t -5 .... - .... ------ -10 DEC, JAN. FEB, MAR, APR, PICKING PERIOD u. s~ bEPARTMENT Of AGRICULTURE NEG. AMS 2U-62 0) AGBICULTURAL i,4ARI":ETING SERVICE l<'lGUII~: a,-",Y:tI'(~lpn:;llt of l'pnk lmm;iliittalH'C fwd rein Iin' ('hlorophyll aiJsorption or :\flll'('ott floll(')' OI':lllgl'S Oli [0111' rootstO('f;:" at (}ilTl'l'l'lIl: ph-killg periods, (An'/'Ilgl's, Ifi;;fHiO :111(1 l!Jfio-lil,) Em'h ,,('nl(' unit of rein t i \'(~ <:hlol'Ophyll aiJsorption is ap, proximately equal 10 ,02 unit" or opth-al (len"ity, ()f late m:ttUl'ity, The \':dlles also (b) H'avelenr;th of Peak 7'I'({IlB indieated some I'esponse to apparent 77lilt(tnreo--The ll\'Ploage ntlucs of n:'gl'eening of the fruit in the April this l11eaSUI'C'li1pni ill('I,(,:tsC(l.fail'l\' pickings. The plot 01' seasonal l'l'gulul'ly through tIl(' season, a(: tTend (fig. 3) was so definitely ('UJ: (,OJ'c1ing to a plot of thC' (lata (fig, vilinenl' that the linenr (,OI'1'elatioll 3) and C'akulatioll of Ow ('ol'r('Ia, eocllieipn( \\'as 1I0t (':Iltlllated, tion with seasonal tn'lHl (talll£' 2), 19 Interrelationship Among Vari tion normally occurs rather lute in the crop season, a calculation of the ous Evaluations relationship occurring in Decembel', .January, imd February was made. The pl'ed iction oT important The resultant correlations we\'e factors of qnality suell as palata higher (table 2) than when the bility by llse oT chemical and phy whole season's results were used, sical measurements has been an im and a high degree of prediction is portant objective oT mucll citrus indicated if only the within-season research of the past (8,9,10,11,19, basis is used. The "all-years" value /5). Based on the findings OT the of "l'~' was less impressive. The first year's study reported herein, lower sol ids-to-acid ratio trend was c(,l'tain selected chemical analyses recogniZEd by the taste panelists in and physical meaSUL'ements 'for scoring each crop season's samples .\[urcott Honey omnges were incor (fig; 5). porated into legislation (G, 7), If it is assumed that when taste namely: panelists are progressively less ap Jl[llreotts .~lwZl be deemed to bc lU(ltllra preciative. of juice. with solids-to lor Ir(,8/1. Irllit .shiplUcnt lfll('l1 thc ((cid, acid ratio high above a minimum ('.l"PI"('.S8('1/ (IS ulIII/lrlroll./i ('it ric, (/0('8 'not requirement, appropriate mathema (',I'cC'cri 1,0 p('rc('lIt; 01', if Ille ((cil/ riocs ("I:('('CI/ 1.0 pcrr'clIl,. 11'/1('/, /1//' rll/io of to/a/. tical transformations of the. data 80111V/e solil/II of lh(' jllif'(' I/lI'reof to the can be made. For example. the ((lIh/llirOIlS dtri(' (lC'i(/ is 12 to lor hiflher. common logarithm of the solids-to ('ol1sequ('ntly. an tlnal,Ysis \\'as made acid ratio shows a gmdnallevelling. of the intelTelationships of th(> sev It correlated with palatability rat ('ml (letel'lninations made on )1111' ing to a higher extent than solids cott HOlley oranges. The 'faetor of to-acid ratio alone (table 2 and fig. • palatability l'cceiYed first attention. 6). Th(' ranges of total solids, total acid, Of the fadors making lip the and solic1s-to-acic1ratios of samples solids-to-acid ratio, the fadOl' of :i uc1gcd satisfactory and unsatisfac toLll solids correlated with palnta tOl'V by taste tests are shown in bil ity to a greater extent than total ta\;les "·b tl1ld 5 (111so see fig. 4). acid (table :2 and fig. 6). In fact, ])ahl. of the stlbseqnent 2 years' the cOl'l'elation of total solids with study s\lbsblntinte the present legal palatability over the whole season maturity r('quin>l11ent fOt· )[Ul'cotts. was usually as high as that hetwe('n Ho\ycyer, should the j ndustry !'lolids-to-acid ratio and palatability. ('h<,>ose to upgl'il(l(' th(' nllltnrity I'e However, the early-season total C[ull'(>l1lenls 0" the )[UI'('ott Honey solids data (Decembet·.•Tal1ltaI·Y, orang(>, it could elo so by 1':1 i:~i ng the anll February) did not !'lhow as minimum solids-Io-aeid mlio I'C high correlation with palatability quirC'm('nts, 01' by bolh raising the as the ea rly-season solids-to-acid minimum so\ids-to-:\('id ratio I'C' ratio data. The data plots indicate quirement and deC'I'ensin!! H1C maxi that the relationship between solids mum pereent total acid. to-acid ratio and palatability The lill(,lll' cOl.'I'('latioll 1)(>lwe('1) showed less data seatte\' than that soli.ds-to-acitl ratio allt1 pahtability \wtwc('n total solids and palatability l':ltlllg through the loUt! s(>:lson \\'ns (fig.fi). 1I0t pn.rlicularly high (t::;hl(' ~). In The data from the measurement!'; fad, the taste pan('lists sOllletim(>s of. light tmnsmittance ('hal'aC'tN' . (lowngmdNI stlmpl('s of high soli<1s isi'je!'; w(>re also compared to palata io-acid rntio \)('('fluse of insipid 01' bility ratings (table 2). The rela o\'pn{lYcet fI a \'01'. ::iincc this sitlUl ti\·('. chlorophyll absorption showed 20 ACID AND SOLlDS·TO·ACID RATIO OF FRUIT RATED· SATISFACTORY AND UNSATISFACTORY TOTAL ACID (PERCENT) 1.6 1.4 A " " A,iI • Satisfactory fruit ~ .t ;"" " 1.2 66 A~ .-.. A Unsatisfactory ,., 6~&~i: -: •• _ fruit II t. • 4t~.: \~ :...... • 1.0 e. A6' ~•• ,.__., .....-: • 1&.t ~.... •• . •-,,- -t. ,...... , \_ I.- ,..._ . . 8 . . ..1 ~.. _•. I.~.. . A ... •••••~ • _., " • II ••_ " • -. ..• ..,.. • .6 6 .. • ... .._ "" .4 .2 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 SOLIDS-TO-ACID RATIO U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. "'MS"l49 - 62 (31 AGRICULTURAL MARK ETING SERVICE FIGURE 4.-TotaJ acid alHj solids-tn-acid ratio of fl'uit: ratea satisfaetory and ummtis factory, according to taste tests of "Iurcott Honey OI'ange:; on tour roo!;;to('ks. (lOG8-GO to lOOO-Gl.) RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PALATABILITY AND SOLlDS·TO·ACID RATIO SOLIDS-TO-ACID RATIO 20 .... - __ A 15 ----,-- - --- I .----- .... ~_- - I 10 ~--, 5 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 PALATABILITY RATING U. S. DEPARTMENT Of ACRICULTURE FIG1::nE ;:;.-Y(·ar-to-y(·ar variations in tIll' relation;;hip 11('( \I"('en pal:ttabilit~· aud solids to-add ratio of "Iul"('ott: HOlley OI"1II1/.l"('S 011 fuul' rools[o('!,::;. (Axel'age::;, Ue<:emlJer, January, anti FelirUlLL"Y, H);:iS-;;U to l!JuO-Gl.) 21 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PAL~TABILITY RATING AND CERTAIN SELECTED QUALITY FACtOR ME!SUREMENTS Murcoll Honey Oranges on 4 Roolslo s PERCENT ----r---,------,----,---r----.±~__r--___,I ! TOTAL SOLIDS ~ 0 +(96) + 0 I, . +It(96) o + • 14 f o t +. I o : • 0 t+ + 0 ++ o o· • I 0·+· 0 0 - + + • I + I + : I o I o I o 10 f- • 1958-59 + o 1959-60 (55) 60 61 + t - 8·~--~--~----~--~----~--~--~~--~ PERCENT I TOTAL SOLIDS I DEC., JAN., FEB. ONLY + + + 141-- o o • 0 + + + 0 o o. • I I o •..,.. 0 + + • • + : I + o o 101- o + (55) 11.31) PERCENTT· '-T...---.---1...-----r---,---...... ,..-----. 1.2 - I TOTAL ACID + • • (55) + +1.0 - + + + + + . + •• . • + . .8+ o (ColltiIlIlCri-) 22 RA TI Or---.---.----=-SO--:TLI=-=D:-:S=-_-=-TO-=-'-A-=-=C:-:ID=-=-R-=-A'=T:-:IO=--- • • --.---L-----. • 0 + (V6)' 201- • • I •of. (96, I o •+. 16 t- + + ++ , • + + 12 r- + + •• + (55! - • + o I + 0 + + .. • + + + 12 00 • + + I / + r- J+ (55) j 8 • i 1 J RATIO • i - + -y-----, SOLIDS-TO-ACID 1.30 r- LOG OF RATIO o I· + 1'(96! • 0.: Loo! • I 1.20 t ••~ + , 1.10r • + + + • • l 1.00 - +':1 11 + , 11 +/55) (O·Dl9)~I___...I_~_-.l.- __-L __' _,-.L-~_--L-__--"'" _ ' __ ~~t" 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 PALATABILITY RATING 1"[(a'I:E n.-Uelafion;.:hip of LllllaflllJilil.\' to IOlal 1 23 progrcss of ('ol1l111cl'eiallkg]'cl'ning, The youngest trees in the ilwes Thc technique also has use in rc tigatioll were on sweet orunge root sc:u'ch work (II), stock, and the quality of theil' fruit Thcwavclength of peak tmlls \\'as excellent. 1Yhilc production l1littance showed a surprisillgly records were 1101- taken. obscrvatiolls high corl'clation with palatahility ]l\(licate that all rootstocks pro rating. ~ince this rncnsilrement is duced good crops: SOlll' omnge root sellsiti\"l~ to pigment <1eyclopm~nt ill stock peoduted a sma11(,1' tree; con the rind. and perhaps to some extent seqnently, crops and feu it sizes in the flesh. it might sen'e as an in were snmllc!', If such factors as dicator of ma turi ty progrl'!:is. In production, tree size, and virus fac't, it eliel correlate highly with susceptibility, are considered, Cleo total solids during the 2 years it patra appears outstanding as a root was used in this study (table 2). stock for MUl'cott Honey oran!!cs. This, again, is not suflicient evi Crop Season Variations.-The dence to warntnt rc('oI11ll1e]l(lation Murcott Honey orange is Yery sub fo!' usc of the method, bllt these ject to alternate bearing. and no 11('\\"er teehniqucs \\"hi('h do not L'e doubt the 1057;....58 freez('s afl'ected quirc culting the i~I'nit for quality the size and qnality of the crops in evalilation arc dcfinitcly worthy of subsequent yeal's, Xe,'erthcless, the further study and deyelopment. variations in physiC-ill and chemical ractOL's among crop years (figs, 5, Other Factors influencing 7, and S) were relati\'cly small compared \"ith those fOlln 131-----.j.~ ~----4------~------1958-59----~ - -1959-60 -----1960-61 --~--~~----~~----~--~~<----~~ PERCENT TOTAL ACID 1.21----~----+-1_.---1 __ I 1 .8 t..---..--..____ ~c=l- -- J 181------+-----4- 141----0 10 DEC. 1-5 MAR.1-5 APR.1-5 PICKING PERIOD U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG.. ,t.MS 252-62t31 AGRJCUlIURAL cl.4~RKETItiG SERVICE' Fwrm;; T.- yparl~' I':lri:1I ion;; iu a \'('ragp loin 1 ;:;oli(!;;, toh11 ll!'i(\, and ;;olill,,·to·I1('ic\l'I\tio 01' .Mlln·otr: H()u~'~' iH'aug!.';; ,gro\\'u ou CIt'O\1:1II',l roolslo(''', (.\\·Pl'ap;ps, lH:;I\-:;!I to ] !)(iU..(; I.) 25 YEARLY VARIATIONS IN WEIGHT AND VOLUME AT TIME OF PICKING Murcott Honey Oranges on Cleopatra Rootstock GRAMS L WEIGHT OF FRUIT 180~'------+------+------r-----~ I __ ..... __ j""" r ___ -- __ ~-.~ 140~[------~-J.~.....==~ .....;;~~1~~~~:;~------~ 1 ------[__ 5 8-59 100f--'------+------+---::::-:'1 ---~~~.--J.19- -1959-60------1 It------1960-611___ - MILLILITERS=i I 120 t--- VOLUME OF JUICE PER FRUIT 801-----I -- _l--:.=-_=--_. ..,. - ....-...~ I ---- I..,....-- 40 --.----I------l-----~---__l O~-----~------L-----__~______~ DEC. 1-5 JAN. 1-5 FEB. 1-5 MAR.1-5 APR. 1-5 PICKING PERIOD U. S. DEPA.RTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. "MS 253-62 (J) AGRICULTURAL ~"'RKeTltIG SERVICF: FJOnu;;R.-Yl":1rl~· nll'ialillJ1;; ill ar(,I':lg-t' \\"pi;!ht of' fl"1lit :lllil 1"01 III Ill' of jni(-(' of)IlIreott HOlley ol'a 1l;!l'S gm\\"l1 011 l'1('o)l:l tnt I'oot;;tm'k" (A,"('rages, w:;K-:m to 1 !JliO-m.) rnfrozell nnd fl'Ozel1 fl'uit were total solids as £!:oo(l fl"uit. Solids detel"111 ine(l by Uw standard method, to-aeid ratio al;(l pH W('I'C ltighH; outlined in Chaptet" GOl.S!) of the. total acid, palatability ratings. F'lorida Citrus Code (1), of c"utting ascorbie acid. volumr and pel"Cell!: the fruit 1h inch below the. top of juice, and fruit w('ight were.lowel· the segnlt'llts and deh.'I·mining if thtlnin sOllml unfrozen frllit. The "ll1al"lwd dl'.)'ness·' appeared" If most prominrnt ('f!"('rts of. j\'crzing dryness did not show at the l,(i-inch were :t rapid cl('cl"(':tsc in juiec ('on cut, the. fruit was cOllsidered good. t('nt· and the intl"(':tf'iell rate of drop PI'ozen fJ'llit- llttd abollt t he same in t.otalacid. 26 LITERATURE CITED (1) ASSOCIATIOX OF OFFICL\L AGRICULTUIIAL CUEMISTS. l!)ijij. OFl'ICIAL METHODS OFAX.U,YSIS. Ed. 8, 1008 pp. 'Washington, D.C. (2) BARIIOX, R W., and OLS~:X, n. "'. 1!)(;0. PIIOCESSEIl PIIOIlUCTS .FROl[ l£UIICOTT OIlANGE. l)art II. CIL\IlACTEltlS. TICS OF Pl!OCESSEll PI!ODUCTS. Fla. Stnte Hort. Soc. Proc. 'n: 2i9-2S!. (3) BESSEY, O. A., und KIXG, C. G, 11)33. THE I>ISTIUnUTION OF \'ITAl£IN C IN PLANT "\ND ANn£AL TISSUES, AND ITS llETElnUXATION. .Tour. BioI. Chem. 103: 08i-60S. (.1) Bm'rlI, G. S., XOllms, K. H., and YEATlfAX, .T. X. 10iji. NOX·llESTRUCTI\·E llEASUIlElfEXT OF IN1'EItNAL COLOIt OF TOl£ATOES BY SPECTltAL TIlAXSlIISSIOX. .I<'ood '.reeh. 11: ijG2-Giji. (5) DESZYCK, E .•T., and TrxG. S. ,'. 19GO. PROCESSED PIWlll'CTS FIWl£ llUIIC01'1' OIlANGES. Purt 1. A\'AILAIIILITY AXil CIUItACTERrSTICS OF 'rHE FItUIT. Fla. State Hort. Soc. Proc. 73: 276 2m. (6) FLOltIDA CrrItUS COlDIlSSIOX. 1059. S1'.-\TE OF FLOItIDA ClTUUS FllUlT LAWS. Florida Citrus Code, Ch. 601, Fill. Dept. Agr., Winter HIH'en, Fla. 4'1 pp. December. (7) 1!)5ft IIEGULATIOXS l'unSUANT TO CIIAPTElt (l01, FLOIUllA STATUTES. AS A.\n:xllElJ (citrus code), Fla. Dept. Agr., Lakeland, Fla. a::; Jlll.•\ugust. (8) HAIWIXG, P. L., 'YIXSTON, J. R., and FISHER, D • .1<'. 1940. SEASONAL CHANGES IN FLOItIllA OIlANGI'S. V.S. Dt'pt. Agr. Tech. Eul. i;;3, HS pp., illus. (0) ---, and SUXllAY, M. B. 1940. SEASONAL CHANGES IX FLOItIDA TAXGEIIINES. U.S. Dept. Agr. Tcrh. Bul. Oi'S, 5n Pll., illus. (10) ---, SUNIJAY, ~f. R, and DA\'IS, 1'. J~. 10ij!). SEASOX,\J, ClIAXGJ-:S IX FLOIUlJA TA:\'GJ-:I.OS. e.;;;. Dl'pr. Agr. Tech. Btll. 120;;, .!j IlP., Him;. (11) Lol'w, W. G. 1!)61. ItECA'fIOX O~' COLOH TO QUALITY IN .\fl'IICOTT 1I0XI,Y OltAXGES. Fla. State Hurt. So<:. Pro<:. 74: 1l8-12a. (I?) ---, and CHILllS, .1. F.L. - lUGO. DIFFEIU,NCES IN 'l·E.\IPI.E OIlAXGE COLOH ANII Qt:.\I,ITY ASSOCIATED WITH ··STYL.\JH:XD GREEXIXG." Fla. State IIort. Hol'. I'rol'. 7:{: !):!-O;;. (13) .MAERZ, A., and PAUL, :\f. H. 19i1O. A IJIOTIOXAllY OF CO!'oIt. 20i Pll., ij(i ('0101' plates. Xe\\' York and London. (14) MORSE, P. C., Jit. 1n:)7. IIISTOItY, PItOl'.\GA1'lON, AXIl IIISTItIBl'TIOX 01' T1IE ~ft;HCOTT (S.\fl1'Il TAN. GEItINE). Fla. Tangerine Coollernti\·e. Lakeland. (1;:;) RYGG, G. L., and GIITTY, ~L R. H);:;;:;. SEASONAL CHANGES IX .\IUZOXA AND CALIFOHNI.\ GHAI'EFllUIT. V.S. Dept. Agr. 'I.'ech. Enl. 1130, 44 llll., illm,. (Hi) SAVAGE, Z. H):)7. lruncoTT nOXEY NUltSERYSTOCK ~fon:~IEN·I·. Citr\1S ?Iag. 20(2) : 18,34. (Ii) SWWELL, A. P., BmTII. G. S., EUXEST, .T. V., and GOLl'.\IIIJC, C. In(11. THE USI, OF LIGHT TIIANSlUTTAXCE 'fECIIXIQCES TO ~:STDIATE THE ClII.O. 1I01'IIYr,r, COXTEN1' AXD STAGE OF MNrUHATION OF ELn~:It1'A PEACIU:S. I~o()d 'l.'erh. 1;; (2) : 7~}-i8. (18) SITES, J. 'V., und REIT7-, H. J. 11)'!U. '('liE YARIATIOX IN r:-illI\'II1UAL VAI.EXCIA OUAXGES FUO~f DIFFEHE:-iT I.OCA TIOXS OX TIlE TIIEE AS A GUIDE TO SA1fPI.1NG .\[ETIIOD8 AND SPOT.PICKING FOu QUAUTY. I. SOLUlILE SOLIDS IN TIlE JUICE. Allier. Soc. Hort. ScI. Proc. 54: 1-10. 27 APPENDIX TABLE 6.-Seasonal ohanges in physical chamctmi8tics a.nd ohemical con stituents of Florida ilht?'cott Honey omnges by 'rootstook, plot looation, and sample (lates, 1958-59 to 1960-61 Rough lemon rootstock, Plot I, Clermont Rough lemon rootstock, Plot 2, Clermont Characteristic nnd season Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Dec. Jan. Feb. ~Mar. Apr. 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-6 1-5 ------------------- Weight per lruit; I 1958-50______g__ 118 15S 15i 174 li9 130 139 153 166 176 195!HiO.______g__ 131 142 160 18.1 162 19tJ(HJ1.______g__ 129 140 152 160 147 105 133 144 li2 184 106 137 142 173 187 Rind color: 2 I 1958-59______C F F F F A F F F }-' 1959-60______B E F F F-G C E F 'j! F-G 1960-6L______A E F F-G F-G A E F F-G F-G Flesh color: 2 , 1958-59______Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or 1959-W______Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or 1960-61..______YO Or Or Or Or YO Or Or Or Or Flesh1958-59 condition:______2 195!HiO______Coarse Good Good Good Good C03rse Good Good Good Good 1900-61.______Co)rse Good Good Good Good Co"rse Coarse GO!l I The~mean 0125 determinations made in I season, of 50 determinations made In 2seasons, or oCi5 determinutlons made in 3 seasons. • The meM of 25 determinations. • See plate II. • YO, yeliow orange; Or, orange. I Mean ot duplicate determinations. • Mg./IOO mi. 28 TABLE 6.-Seasonal changes in physical charaate'f'istics aM chemical con stituents of Florida 1.1lurcott Honey O1'anges by rootstock, plot location, and sa1nple dates, 1958-59 to 1960-61-:-Continued Rough lemon rootstock, Plot 3, Clermont Rough lemon rootstock, Plot 4, Largo Characteristic .. and season Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Dec; Jan. Feb. ~Iar. Apr. 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-0 1-5 1-5 1-5 ------Weight per fruit: I 1958-5L_____ g__ 139 195!HlO______g__ liS 135 156 191 197 107 128 126 142 151 153 166 185 189 169 170 163 --_ .. 1960-6L_____ g__ _------ 113 126 141 163 187 ------.. ------_ .. ------Rind1958-50 color:______S I .. A F F F F A E F E F 1959-60______1900-6L______C E F }' F-G B E F ------A E F F-G F-G ------Flesh color: , I 1958-59______Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or 1959-60______Or Or Or Or Or Or 1900-6L______Or Or ------ YO Or Or Or Or ------Flesh condition: , 1958-59______1959-60______Co~rse Good Good Good Good C03rse Good Good Good Good 1960-61.______Coorse Good Good Good Good COlrse Coarse Good ------ Coarse Gaou Good Goou Good ------Juice per 100 g. of fruit: I 1958-59_____mL 49 52 52 52 54 55 56 58 55 56 195!HlO_____mL 53 57 53 52 54 50 58 56 ------1960-61 _____lUl._ ------ 55 55 55 56 55 ------Juice pcr fruit: I 1958-59_____peL 51 54 54 55 57 50 59 61 58 60 195!HlO_____pct.. 55 60 56 55 57 5S 61 59 ------ -_. __ ._ 1960-6l..___ pct,_ 58 58 58 59 58 ------ PalatabUlty: Numerical rating: 1958-59______195!HlO______69 86 85 92 89 71 85 89 86 89 71 85 00 91 92 65 84 83 ------ 196fHlI______5S 76 S6 02 93 ------.------_ .. _- Ascorbic acid: , • 1958-59_____mg__ 21 21 21 15 14 18 17 19 14 14 1959-60_____mg__ 25 19 19 16 13 23 15 13 ------.--- 1960-6L___mg__ 24 23 23 22 13 ------_.------Active acidity: , 1958-59_____ pFL_ 3.7 3.7 3.9 4.0 3.7 3.7 4.0 4.2 195!HlO____ pH__ 3.6 3.S 3.7 3.9 4.0 3.6 3.9 3.9 -->------.----- 1960-6l..___ pH__ 3.2 3.4 a.5 3.7 3.8 ------ ------Total solids: ' 1958-59_____ pcL 10.29 12.97 13.95 12.38 12.85 11.24 12.:17 14.05 14.23 15.70 195!HlO_____ pcL 9.31 11.61 13.29 13.12 14.13 9.51 11.06 12.08 ------ 1960-6L____ peL 10.93 12. 35 13.4j 14.67 14.67 ------Total acid: , 1958-59_____ pcL .91 .89 .82 .66 .64 1.05 .84 .82 .68 .63 1959-60_____ pcL .76 . i2 .82 .80 .68 .82 .63 .60 ------_ .. 1960-6l..___ pcL 1. 26 1.26 1.15 .93 .75 -_ .. ------.------ Solids-to-acld ratio: 1958-59______29.08 10.70 14.73 17.13 29.93 24.92 195!HlO______11.31 13.56 15.91 18.76 12.2.5 16.13 16.21 16.40 29.78 11.60 17.56 29.13 ------ 1900-6L__ . _____ ------8. fij 9.80 11. 71 15.77 19.56 ~------ I Thc mean of 25 determinations made in I season, of 50 detcrminations made in 2 seasons, or of 75 detcrmlna tions mude in 3 seasons. , The mean of 25 determinations. • See plute II. I YO, yellow orenge; Or, orange. '",rean of duplicate determinations• • Mg./100ml. 29 TABLE 6.-Seasonal ohanges in physioal oharacteristios and ohemioal oon stituents of Florida MU1'00tt Honey ora.nges by 1'ootstook, plot looation, and sample dates, 1958-59 to 1960-61-Continued Rougb lemon rootstock, Plot 5, Safety Rougb lemon rootstock, Plot 6, Palm Harbor Harbor Characteristic and SE).'ISOn Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 ------Weight per Cruit: 1 1958-59______g__ 119 137 139 160 151 103 139 120 116 130 1959-60______g__ 131 138 155 157 154 196 1 The mean oC25 determinations mnde in I season, oC 50 d~terminntions mnde in 2 seasons, or of i5 determinations made in 3 seasons. 2 The mean of 25 determinations. • See plate II. .. YO, yellow orange; Or, orange. 'MenD ofduplicate determinations. 'l'vIg./loo m!. 30 TABLE 6.-Seasonal changes in physical ch(L1'actel'istics and chemical con stituents of Florida MU'l'cott Honey Ol'anges by 1'ootstock, plot location, ~. and sa7nple dates, 1958-59 to 1960-6'1-Continued Rough lemon rootstock, Plot 7. Avalon Rough lemon rootstock. Plot 8. fIowey·in·the·lIills Characteristic and season Dec. Jnn. Feb. Mar. Apr. Dec. Jan. Feb. )(nr. Apr. 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 ------Weight per fruit: I 1958-59••...••g•• 112 12~ 143 173 163 141 133 143 156 169 1951HlO•...••.g•• 133 142 1.16 175 169 112 119 144 : 145 151 1969-61....•••g•• 114 138 133 168 187 116 133 139 161 193 Rind color: 2 3 1958-59.....•••.• A F l' E F A E .F E F 1951HlO••..••••.. C E F F F-O 13 E F F F 19tJQ-oL•.•••.••• A E F .F-O F-O A E F F-O F-O Flesh color: I. 1958-59••...... Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or 1959-60.••...•... Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or j Or Or 1969-6L.••••••• YO I Or Or Or Or YO Or Or Or Flesh condition: 2 Or I • 1958-59....••••.. Coarse Good Good Good Good Coarsc Good Good t Gooel Good 1951HlO.•....••.• Coarsc Good Good Good Good Coarse Good Good j Good Good 1969-6L...•.••. Coarse Coarse Good Good Good Coarse Good Good Good Good Juice per 100 g. of I fruit: I 1958-59•••••mL 56 M 52 51 55 56 .52 S:I M M 1951HlO•.••.mL M 53 56 58 60 50 48 :>-1 51 M 1969-61 •..••mL 52 53 50 55 51 58 59 57 60 56 Juice per fruit: I 1958-59...••pcL 58 57 .15 M 58 58 55 .15 56 57 1959·60.•.••pct•• 56 55 59 61 6.1 52 51 56 M 57 19HO-61....•pct.. 54 56 52 58 53 60 61 60 63 59 PRintability: Numerical rating: 1958·59...... 70 87 92 94 90 72 86 91 9.5 AA 1959-60.....••••• 68 81 89 89 90 68 82 88 I 89 86 1969-61...... •.• 55 77 86 90 83 57 78 85 . 93 90 Ascorbic acid: ,. 1958-59.....mg.. 23 22 22 1·1 16 2:{ 2:l 21 20 IIi 19,;9-60.••..mg.. 25 19 17 16 J.I 21 17 Ii 14 10 196Ir6L•••mg•. 19 19 19 19 12 21 21 21 22 13 Active acidity: ' 1958·59.....pIL. 3.5 :J.8 4.0 4.0 3.6 3.5 3.8 I 3.9 -1.0 1959-60..•..pIL. ·····3~6· 3.S 3.8 3.9 4.0 a.5 3.9 3.7 ! 4.0 3.9 1961r61.....pIL. 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.9 3.3 3.·1 a. (; I 3.6 ; 3.9 Total solids: , 1958-59.•••.pct.. II. 14 12.57 1:1.·15 l~. 9t 15.2 31 TABLE 6,-Sea~onal changes in physical cha1'acteristics and chemical con stituents of FlO1'ida llbt1'COtt Honey oranges by rootstock, plot location, and salnple dates, 1958-59 to 1960-61-Continued Rough lemon rool,toek, Plot 9, Apopka Rough lemon rootstock, Plot 10, Tlolopaw • Characteristic I nn 195!Hj(L______g______147 It;:l If>!! W~ ______'\'elf~~~_~~~~~:_~J-:-=-======I==~-- 19{](H;1.______114 122 138 IH HO Rind1958-59______color: , I A E ______ 1951HiO______.______D E F ~. ______1900-61.______A E F F F-G Flesh1958--59______color: , • Or Or ______• ___ •______•____ _ 195!HiO______Or Or Or Or ______lOOIHiI.______YO Or Or Or Or Flesh1958-59 condition:______, Cour:;<' Good ______. ______1951HiO______Conrse Good Good Good ______lOO1Hi1. ______• ______Coarse Coam! Con,.,.., Good Good 4 Juke per 100 g. of fruit:1958-59 I _____ mL_ ;)·1 51 ______ 19S!HiO_____mL__.______53 5.~ 51 56 ______1900-6L ____ mL_____ .. ______55 57 57 57 59 Juice1958--59 per fruit: _____ Ipct._ 51i 5.1 _.______• ______• ______ 1~5!HiO _____ Pct-- _____ •______- ______-______5.'i 56 DI. I 59 Pnl!A;~Yl;.;---pet------58 59 60 I 60 6~ Numerical1958-59______rating: rJ8 8.5 ______/. ______ 195!}-60______i ..______69 81 ,,7 ~:i ______ 1960-61. _____ • _____• __• ______1, ••______53 H &5 O-~ 87 ASC~~~~:~:~_:_~:ng-- 22 20 ______.______t=::::::;:~::'I::::::::=i==::===:= =::=:::=1'=::=:::= :==:::=: ;; :~ :g I :~ ------ii .\cti~:~J~~~:~~~rr__ :1.6 i 3.6 ______• __ _ 195!HiO_____ pH __ '-______i______1______-.------3.6 a.9 3.9 4.1 ------ 1900-61_ •• __ '______,______3.3 3.4 3.6 3.8 3.U P ILI______'rotal solids: I , 1 :~~~:::::~~~:= I---:~::~_j ___ :~:~_ :::=::::1===::::: =:=:::=: ----ii=~6-· ---io:ii6- ---i:i:il- --i:i:ii:i- ===:==:: 1ge(}-f,L----Pd--!------r------,-.------9.01 I 11.75 12.77 IUr. 14.12 'l'ot%,tgL __ pct..l 1.10 i .96 ------\------.------.- :~~1:::==~~~::i::::::=::i=:::=:=== =:::===+:=::=: ===::==: 1: I~ j 1: ~~ :~ :[i -----:; 1 The mean 0[25 dClcrmlnations made in 1SCll."{)n, of flO • 32 TABLE 6.-.Sea.sonal changes in physical cha1'acteristics and chemical con stituents of Florida lllurcott Honey O1'anges by 'rootstock, lJlot location, and sa1npZe dates, 1958-59 to 1960-61-Continued Sour orange rootstock, Plot 11, Clermont Sour orange rootstock, Plot 12. Clermont Chara~~~~~ic and 1----;-----,----,----;----1-----;,------;---....---;--- Dec. J··n. Feb. )Olar. Apr. Dec. Jail. Feb. I Mar. I "'pro 1-5 H H H H H H H!HIH --I-j-- Weight pcr fruit: I 1958-59 ______1:__ 110 132 148 159 172 139 1:12 142 152 161 19.59-00.______~ __ 145 146 159 165 1a5 U6 165 181 1961Hi1.._____ g __ 101 130 133 160 175 121 136 139 172 159 Rilld color: ' I 1958-59______1959-00______n I' I' F F n F F F-GF ,______F _ 1960-jj!.______D I' F D F F C E I' F-~ ---F:(j- B E F F-G F-G Flesh color: ' , 1958--59______Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or . Or 1959-60______Or Or Or Or Or Or 1960-61.______YO Or Or g~ -----Or- YO Or Or g~ Flesh condition:' I------or 1958-59..______Coarse Good Good Good Good Coarse Good Good Good, Good 195!l--6O______Coarse Good Good Good Good 1961HiL______Coarse Good Good g~~~ --OOtKi' C~I~r~~ Good Good 8:3 !---OoOd Juice per 100 g. oC. \ fruit: I I 1955-59_____ mL 51 , 50 50 58 51 51 49 52 51 1959-00_____m\.. 56 57 52 52 59 51 1. ______1960-61..___ m\.. 56 5.1 54 52 51 fil 51 ! 52 Juice prr fruit: I . 1955-59_____ pcL_ 52 61 r.l 55 57 53 51 54 54 53 1959-00_____ peL 59 60 57 55 54 62 57 1961HiL___ peL 58 56 57 57 57 55 54 54 Palatability: Numerical rating: • 1958-59______~ r-----: 1959-60______i3 90 95 94 94 68 89 !l.1 196lHil ______74 87 92 75 57 92 58 80 87 g~ -----8i;- 67 82 91 ~ r-----lii Ascorbic acid:' , 195!l-59_____ ~ m.__ 25 26 30 19 19 25 .' 28 2117 1,______20 _ 1959-60_____ mg.. 29 22 21 19 2G 23 20 1960-61..___ mg__ 18 IS IS 16 11 26 2-1 24 20 14 Activr acidity: l 1958-59_____ pIL 3.5 3.7 3.8 4.0 3.0 3.4 3.7 4.0 3.U J9S!H''O____ plI __ 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.513.8 a~ 7 1960-6L___ plL 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.8 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.6 g -----3:ii Total solids: ' 1958-59_____ pet__ 11.80 13.10 15.05 15.29 16.30 12.00 13.70 15.40 11.19115..10 19.59-60_____ pet__ 10.73 1297 H.49 15.16 10. fl.l • 1297 13.39 15.47 ____ ..__ 1960-6L___ peL 10.96 1210 I 13.83 14.27 14.83 11.55 12.90 1-1. fr2 15.60 16.31 'l'otalncid: , 1958-59_____ pel.. l.m .8-1 .8-1 .76 .66 1.11 1. 12 1.00j .. Ii .67 19.>9-60_____ pel.. .86 .87 .90 .92 .88 .74 .78 1960-6L____ pct._ 1.00 1.00 .98 .69 .62 1.05 1.0'2 1.01 Solids-to-acid ratio: I j~ 1-----~73 19.58-59______11.46 15.78 18.13 20.12 24.70 19.;9-60______10.SI 12..23 1il.43 22IJ 1 The mean of 2-5 determinations made in 1rellson, of 50 determinations made in 2 reasons, or of 75 determinlltions .. made in 3 scasong. , The mean oC 25 determiuations. • See plate U • • YO, yellow orange; Or, orange. , Mean of duplicllte determinations. • l\lg./100 mi. 33 TABLE 6.-Seasonal changes in physical chm'acte)'istics and chemical con stituents of FlO1'ida ilbtrcott Honey O'I'anges by 1'00tstock, plot location, and sample dates, 1958-59 to 1960-61-Contillued ... Sour orange rootstock, Plot 13, Spring Luke Sour ornngc rootstock, Plot l.J, Jassnmlnc Characteristic and senson nl'e. I .Tan. I Feb. I Mnr·1 .\ pr. Der. I Jan. I, F,-Cb. 1 :lrar., Apr. 1-5 1 1-5 I 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 I 1·5 I 1-5 1-5 1-5 "-"-el-g-ht-pe-r-c-ru-I-t:-,-I---l---:---j-- ---'----1---1---'---1-- 19511-59·__····S·· 96 liS ...... : ...... ;...... 107 I 1261 I~O 132 , ...... 19511-60...... g.. 111 134 16., 143 ...... 164 I 164 j 101 I ISO 161 HHKHiL...... g.. 105 111 124 ...... 102 I JOt f, 121 121 128 Rind color: I I I :g~~::::::::=: i ~ ·....T "'F:(j' ::=::::: I~ ~; F-h F-~ "'F:O 19f,Q-61...... 13 E F ...... U E F F-G F-G Flesh color: I • 19511-59...... Or Or ...... ___ . __..1...... Or Or Or 195!1-6O...... Or Or Or Or [...... Or Or 01 g~ ·.... ,Or 1960-61...... YO Or Or .....__...... YO Or Or Or Or Flesh ~on.ditioD: I : 1958·09...... , Conrst.1 Good Coarse (;ood Good Good Good 1951.1-60..••...... '1 "6;;o;j'I:::::::: Coarse 000<\ g~:i r ~~~~t '''Good 1960-61...... Coarse Coarse Good Good Goorl Good Juice per 100 g. 01 Good Good '...... 1...--... I Crult: , ! i 1958-59..__..mL ,0 57 58 195I1-W...... mL.. -iI 59 52 1960-61...... mL.l 54 53 51i Juice 12er lrult: , ! ~i r'''~tr~~~~~:l==:==:== 1958-59.....pct..l 52 fiU ...... ___ ...... 19 61 62 56 19511-60.....pCL·i 54 W 58 53 ...... 61 ':;5 56 56 5.1 19f,Q-6L....pct··1 56 ii6 54 _.. ___ • __ .... ______56 59 53 53 .17 Palntability: I Numerical mtlng: : 19$-59...... 1 fi8 g7 91 19511-60..__...... i 70 ~~ -----gg- ---- .. 89- :::::::: So.'i """93 75 &1 ____ . __ " ______88 r~ Asc~~:-~~i(I:''-'"'' i 60 .3 81 02 !JO 1 19.5S-59.....mg.. 24 2.1 2S 19511-60.....mg..l 32- ~~ ---"~2~-l"'"-~-~O-t:=::::=: 2.5 2.1 J~ ...... ?:! 196Q-6L....mg.., 28 27 27 24 15 Acth'e acid I!,,: , I 26 2S 1----....\...... - 19iiS-59..~..pH..[ 3.5 a.7 ...... __ ...... 1...... :J.2 3. i 3.6 195!1-6O.....pH..' 3.4 3.6 a. ~ 1 3. n ...... 3.5 3.5 3.7 ~: ~ -----3~S 1960-6L._.pH••, :1.·1 3.3 3.-1 ...... 3.2: 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.8 Total solids: ' , r 1958-59...._pcL.: II.OO r II.O.; 25 II. \0 13.99 J059-f,(L.__ pct..! I 12. 1 12.73 ! :~: ~~ ni:ii5' "j;-::;;-' :=:::::= 11.03 : 11.02 1.5, !!Q 1.i~ ;i; 17.31 1960-6L....pct. I 13.00 i 1-1.-17 , ...... 11.70 I 1:1.90 W.O. I •• ~O 1.1.86 Total acid: , ; I ' 1955-.59.....prt..i 1::: 11 .84 ;...... ,...... 1.06 LIS .9S 1959-foO.....pN__ : 1.47 I 1.2" .1lI!! LOlli 1.03 ...... 95 I. I:! ,95 LO~ .S9 .. 196Q-61.....pct•. \ 1.3:! 1.41> 1.1. :...... J,MI 1.-18 1.-14 J, 26 .97 Solids·.to·~c1ds ratio: I 1958-.'9...... i 10.19 II.fH ;...... )...... ! j...... 7. 52 1 IJ..iG 11.95 1-1.25 1959-60...... 1 1O.:!7 " 1L 92 I It. I-I! 16_S6 r...... 11.61 , 12..12 I lr,09 1-1,.\2 19. ·15 1960-61...... , : 8.57 8.90 I 12.37 I...... ;...... 7.5:j ; 9.39 I 11. 16 13.SI! \G. 35 , The mean oC25 dNermin~lions made in I S<'~on, of fll dNerminnlion$ mndc in:! "·'L"'lOS. or of75 de!errnillutioos made in 3 seasons. I 'fha mean of 25 determinations. 3 Sec plat~ II. I YO, yellow or:ln~e; Or. ornoge. , , .Mean of d upJicutu determinations. • ~Ig./IOO ml. 34 TABLE 6.-Sea1:Jonal changes in plLysical chamcteri1:Jtics and chemical con stituents of FlO1'ida ilhl1'cott Honey omnges by 1'00tstook, plot location, and sample dates, 1958-59 to 1960-s1-Continued CI~0l>ntr" rootstork, Plot 19, Cleopatra rootstock, Plot 20, IIowcr·in·thc·Hiils /Iolopu\\" Characteristic and season Dec. I Ia'!. I Fe~'1 ::\[a,r. ! Apr. Dec. I Jnn. Feb. I::\far. Apr. 1-5 1-, 1-, 1-,! 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5. 1-5 1-5 ------l----l---.---,---,------,---. . ___~;______Weight per fruit: 1 t l I ... 1958-59.••_••. f!.. 1(}1 I 131 • 143 161 l 169 1959-00••_••.•1(.. 104 I 121 ; 143 159 I 159 ..·-·i43 ISS. liO ...· iSi;' 1960-~H ...... g.. 113 ! 125 ! 146 165. IS5 106 118 t 135 j 144 143 Rind color: , 1 f 1955-59•••••••_._ A , F FI F 1951Hi0...... C : .F Ft F-G 1969-6L.••• ___ • n I! E F F-GI F-G ·----·f ""--r ------rl-- ..T =:f~~=: Flesh color: ' • 1, '1' 1958-59••••••._.. Or Or Or or! Or •• --...... 1...... __ ...__ ... 195Q-60...... _... Or Or Or Or Or Or Or : Or •.••. __ • 1960-6L...... , YO Or Or Or YO Or Or i Or Or Flesh condition:' I g~ I i 1958-59•••••••••. Coarse I Good Good Good Good 1959-60._ •.• __ •••. Good Good Good Good Good '--6;;oti· '''cioo(j" "'C'-no(i'Good' .:.:::.: 1960-6L···___ Coarse i Good Good Good Juice per 100 g. of ··I : of fruit: 1 I GO~: I ". I 58 '1 i 55 .~:~~~~.•~:~~~. --.~:.~(:.L~:.~(:. __~.o.~~. :g~:::::~h j~ I 5f1 ' 56 60 55 5S 57 I 59 _...... ,,g 59 I 1969-6L••••lllLI 55 , 59 GO 62 .S2 ;11 56 1 57 ill Juice per Cruit: 1 i 1 I 1958-59.....pct.. ~9 . 55 61 i ,54. 58 -- " ..... __ ..1...... 1...... 1959-OO•...•pct..l 48 : fl9 59 63 5i 61 60 , 62 "'''''' 1960-61.•..•pc1. 5i 61 63 ! 51 1 59 59 61 61 Pnlntabilitr: ,I I ~l I 89 I I N~9~~g~:~~~~'~:. .1 ! 95l 931 1959·60...... fiO : ~1 91 --""i3' "'--Sf, ....··ssl ..89· ...--... 1960-6L.••.• ___ • 65 81 I ~~ I 9:1 58 i6 81 ! 9'~ 84 Ascorbic acid:' • I t ~~ I 1958-59••_._111g.. 24 i 23 ?j I IS, 17 13 --""26"" 21 195Q-60•••••mg.. 23 , ~Q 1' ...iii l 18 i.:::.::: 1969-61. ...,lllf!.. 23 f _0 ! 16 21 I 21 20 ! 1.1 I 9 "\ctI\'itr aeiditr: ! I ~~ ~~ I I i l 1955-59.....pTr.. 3.4 1 :l.6 ! :1.8 3.9 3 9 ' : 1959-60..__ .piL 3.4 f il.S' 3.S 3.9 4:0 I'" 3:.i i--':i:i a:iT '3:8';::::::: HI69-61. ___.pCL. :l.:I ! 3.6 I 3.7 i :1. 9 I 3.2 i 3.3 3.6' 3.6 t 3.9 'rotal solids: , • :u! 19~-~9 .....PCLI 11.17 I 12.4.1 ! lU7 1 t:t 73 ! 1059·60..••.prL II). 10 12.69 13.88 ' 14.92 : 1I.05l·'··1--·· .13.88·1·· i4:821-::· : .. 196()-6L•.__ pct.. 11.05 ; 12.80 13.9S " l4. 60 ,: :t~g :8:~!, g:~ Total acId: ' . ! .1:l:.S I. 1·1. ~51 __ :~~ ~ 1955-59.....pet.. I. 13 .00 ! •SS .SO . .701 .... l.. 195.9.60____ .Pct.. .89 .74 t .79 .75 • .•2 .9a: .N> .Sl I .n ...... 1909-6L.. __ pC1.. 1.12 1.01 .91 . is ; .6S 1.1t\ I.Oll Solids·to·acid mtio: ! , I i .00 ! ..86L.. 69 1955-59•• _____ ... 9.SS 1 12.9. ! 16.4-1 17.16 i 20.07! .•... I 1959-00...... lU5, 1;. 15 ~ 17.57 :~.~~ i 21. 19 i 10.82, 15. 11 iii. 72 , 19, 25 r~,. .... 1969-6L...·• ....I 9.H'1 12.67 : 14.87 f .1_ , 21.12 , H.n6. ! 11.8l1 1·1. 35 ~ 17.15! 20.38 • I The menn 0(25 dct«rmirHuionli mUlie in I ~!l:iOn, or 50 dNt"rmlnmion;.; mutiE:' in 2 S{·l\.Son~, Or oC 75 dNerminalion.<; mnde in 3 sellSons. , The mean oC 25 determinations. 3 See plate U. 4 ·YO, yellow orange; Or, orange. , ::\[can oC duplicate determination •• • ~lg./l00 m1. 35 TABLE 6.-Seasonal changes in phy8ical chamcte1'istics arul chemical con stit-uents of FlO1'ida I1f1l'rcott Honey m'anges by 'rootstock, plot location, and sam,ple d(Ltes, 1958-59 to 1960--61-Continued Sour orange rootstock, Plot 15, Brooksvllle Sour orange rootstock, Plot 16, Brooks"lIIe Charncterlstlc and 1---....---.,.---.,.---.,.---1.---,---....--'-...---,..-- scason Dec. Ian. F.lh. Mar. Apr. Dcc. Inn. Feb. 1\[ar. Apr. 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 ------I-~·------ Weight per lrult: I I'.'S 1958-S~ ______~ __' 107 101 , 159 166 133 137 151 Hi.5 163 19SIHJ(L_____ ~--:- ______._.. . , ______•• ______128 1:J.3 146 16~ 132 .. 19(1(}-lH ______I'__ ! ------\- _--- __ -.1 __ ------1------106 1I7 138 156 17·' ]1 F F F ~. Rinrg*~~:~;:::::::; ______:~_!. ______r~_I-. ___ !~ ______:~_ L---~- C F F-G F-G F-G n E F F-G F-G Flcsh~~~:;-i------: --·-----t------"\"--- '---1------;------1958-59______~ Or ! Or • Or Or i Or Or Or Or Or Or 1959-60______-.--! ---- -. ___ 1....._-- _1 __ --'-' _1 ____ ----1------Or Or Or Or Or YO Or Or Or Flcsl~'!.~liti~)i;;-;· --; ---- ...--\'------.. j-.------.--.----,------ Or IU.5S-59____ .... _! C'!:Ir$<) O(l()d I ntl()d I 00",1 I Good Coal'Se Oood Good Good Goo,\ 19~9-60___ • ---.--.:._. _----. _----.--., ----....\-.--.. __1______COflr~C Good Good Good Good 1060-61.._....._.· __ . ______1__ ,. .. __ -----.- -.------Courso Coarse Goot! Oood (lood JUI~~if:c,r 1001(_ 01 _ r "' I __ 1 _ I _. 1958-59___ .. 11'1. .1t. ,·H I ", 1 .. I • .·h 57 55 53 5-1 52 51 53 59 1999:~t::: ::-:L::::::::::.:.::::::!::::::::I::::::::I:::::::: 52 51 57 50 Juice pc: rruit: 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ 1955-5~ _____11l't.·; .;S HI ! 1"0 • M ' IoU ii6 i I 1959-f;O___.1,t t -" i w ~ .. ---~- ~ -.:.---- .. - '" 1~ ~ -~-. -~; ... _...... _.... i- ...... -~-- 1;6 19iiO--61...__ I'(·!' +.. _____ . __ .___ ._-'... ____ .1. •_____ .,. _..___ _ 54~I flO 1'1IIalubility:' I I I NlImerirnl riltln:::: I I 70 88 1 94 93 89 l~~t~g==:=::::::! -- ..--::-1-... --~:- .... 9~.L __ =~_L. ___ ~~_ 71 80 91 9'1 19f.tH;L ______,------....-.-.- I. -..... ,1--" ----i·------&1 8180 I 87 9-i 00 Agcorbic Reiel: l b 1 t I • 1958-59____ .. n"[!' :?-.! t !.'"2 ~ ~o ' 113 : 15 2·1 I IS Ii 2U I 18 U l~~g:ll?::::::::i:: .. :::.::::;: .: :::::: I:::::::: i:::::::~ ~ :::::::: 16 9 Active IIcidity: I , .~~ ! 19.)'~-W _____ pl1. :1.4 :1. 7 :1.7 .1. 0 4.0 :1.-1 .to) 3.6 3.8 3.8 1959-60_____ pll. _ .--- _.1 .. _...t.. . \...... 1· ..... _. :J.6 :1. j" 3.8 ,1.9 -1.0 'l'OI~r~~ls:.--Pll. ( .... ,....-··-r· .. -; ..·..· '... . :i. 2 :1.3 3.ti :1.,'; :I.U 1058-5!1__.._P~I •• ' 1I.:lO I U.:1O! I·I.~:I I I Uri It. 70 11. ." 12.80 14.03 15.~0 10.68 11,02 15.27 li.2fi 1~~g?:::::g~:::i:::::::::I:::::: ::: ::::::::1::::::: :::::-:: 1I. liS 13.,10 15. Sf) IS.iH Total neld: I I I05S-59_____!l(·L__ 1 1.07 I .82 .Il:! I .8.'; .tl9 1.10 1.03 .98 .8:1 . i8 1059-flO1960-61.______ppctet______/______------.---- 1.03 .96 _91 .i I Tbe menu of25 dcterminatloll~ mude in Il'<'jI. 36 TABLE 6.-Seasonal changes in physical chm'actm'istics and chemical con stituents of FlO1'idal1btrcott Boney ora,nges by 'rootstock, plot location, and sample dates, 1958-59 to 1960-61-Continued Cleopatra rootstock:, Plot 17, "Brooks\'We Cleopatra rootstock, Plot IS, Killarney Characteristic and season Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. \ Apr. Dec. Jan. Feb. :Mar.1 Apr. 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 Weight per (rult: I 1958-59._____ .g._. 113 138 H9 109 153 HS 1959-60______g__ • 132 13t 149 ~-:155 155 113 lt2 160 -:1=lSI ______• 1960-tiL----·g--1 112 122 137 H7 173 106 131 HO 1581 1,,;1 Rind1958-.19 color:______; J I_ )' }' F F C F f' F 1______1959-60______t A C F F-G t:-_GG F-G D }' F F 1------E F-G r F-G B E F }'-G I F-G Fles\~g~:;-.------· B 1958-59..______--' Or Or Or Or Or Or Or 1959-6')______.___ .1 Or Or Or Or Or Or Or IS60-61 ______1 YO Or Or Or Or YO Or g~ I g~ ======6~ Flesh eon_dillon:' I 1958-a9______, Coarse Good Good Good Good Coarse Good Good! Good , __ •____ _ .. I9.59-6(L______i Coarse Good Good Good Good Coarse Good Oood I Good i ____ ._._ 1£-69-61.______1 Coarse Coarse Good I Good Good Coarse Good 1 Good, Good i Good Juice per 100 g. of I j I : fruit: I ; ! 50 r______1955-59_____ mL.; 51 54 52 J 52 .51 53 1959-60_____mL.· 58 51 .'l5 50 51 54 1969-61. ____ 1111..: 52 55 51 56 59~I 53 53 ~~ (----M Juice per fruit: , ~ll 5.1 I 5i 55 55 61 [,5 53 56 ~ 1------ \g~=~~==--. 1;~L:l 60; Ii! 58 5:l 62 00 53 57 ~ 1------58 19,10--61._.••• pct•. f 541 58, 54 00 62 57 on on 1 Pnlntnhilil'-: I !\TtunerlcilI11Iting: I I I 1955-59______: En; 93 H2 8S 69 95 1959-60______1 S' I 00 91 93 72 88 1961Hi1.__ ••• ___ .' 87 05 93 60 8-1 92~ 1======; 81 Ascorhlc acid:" • ~l 1955-50_____ l11g__ 1 IS 15 12 26 26 195{HjlL____ I1:~_ .. \ 23 '1 :1 2i Z..! 2.'i IS H B !======19GO-61.._••mg__ 1 22t J'23 I 2'2 IS! 12 26 2t i~:!O I 11 Active acldil~':' . I 1958-59_____ pl r.. 3.31 3.5 I 3.6 3.S 3..1 3.S 3.6 ~. 9 .~. 9 ii------____ • __ _ 1959-60••___ 1'11-_ 3." I 3.!Q 3.8 I ~J !\ 4.0 3.6 3.S 3.7 1960-61 _____ pl L_ 3.3 I 3.3 , 3.5 :1.6 3. S 3.3 3.3 3.5 , 3.6 i a.S TOlltl solids:' 1958-59____ .)1ct._ 12.07 12.85 1 14.721 15.23 1... ____ _ 11. 12 12.85 i 13. 86 1 I 13.45 1959-tiO____ .pCL_ 10.02 1 13.88 H.3:15.2i I' 17.06 12. 71 13.S:! : 1-1.62 :__ ._._ •• 12.66 : 10.67 1900-61.____ pct.--I 11.10 13.35, 14.79 15.60 15.21 10.70 I 12. 70 13.39 i H.7S' 13.00 Total acid: J 1958-59_____ pct __ : 1.20 .98 .90 .8-1 .73 1.09 .8-1 I.C6\· .7S 1059-60_____ pct._ .85 .8-1 .81 .87 .71 .88 .88 .SI .80 J06lHiL.___ llCl__ 1.07 1.04 1.00 .81 .71 1.25 1.10 1.00, .82 .75 Sollds-to·ocid ralio: 1955-59______9.27 13.11 H.B 17.C6 IS. 42 11.07 15,30 19.53 1959-60.______15.07 2'2.16 12.13 14.44 13.S91i.07 " 15.28 1961Hi1 ___ • _____ • 11.79 I 17. It I Ii. 55 12. S4 14.79 19.26 21.42 8.56 11.55 13.39 . 18.02 18.21 10.37 I I I Tbe me.w 0[25 determinations rnnde in I ,eason, of 50 det~rminatlons mnde In 2 seasons, or of75 determlnatioDs made in 3 scnson~. , 'l'he mean of 25 determinullons. 3 See plate U. 4 YO, :..~':low ornnge; Or, orange. , lIlean 01 dnpUcate determinations. , _\lg./l00 m!. 37 TABLE 6.-Sea80nal changes in phys'ical chaJ'actel'istics and chemical con stituent8 of Fl07'ida 111111'cott Honey omnge8 by 'root8tock, plot locat-ion, and 8ample date8, 1958-59 to 1960-e1-Continued ..01 Cleopatra rootstock, Plot 21, Apopktl Clcopatra rootstock, Plot 22, Ltlrgo Characteristic and senson Dcr.. 1-5 • I The menn oC25 determinations mnde In 1Ecawn, oC til c1rh'rllllnntloIl3 IlInd~ in 2"":1.'010<, or 0[7.1 drt~rmlnntil)lIS mndc In 3 scllsons. , The mean oC 25 determinations • • See plnte II. t YO, yeBow ornnve; Or, oran~c. , MetID oC duplicate determlnlltlonS . • Mg./IOOml. 38 TABLE 6.-Seasonal changes in physical chct1'actm'lstics and chemical con stituents of FlO1'lda i1Iurcott Honey O1'anges by root,~tock, plot locat-ion, and s(J;;nple dates, 1958-59 to 1960-61-Continued Sweet orange rootstock, Plot 23, Howey-in-the-Hills Characteristic and season Dec_ 1-5 Jan,1-5 Feb. 1-5 ;.\Iar.I-5 Apr. 1-5 ______1___ ------ Weight per fruit: I 1958-59~ ______------g-- ll8 ------i4i------iS3- :::::::::: 1959-60______------g-- 102 gg .., 1900-61 ______------g-- 107 139 147 166 205 Rind color: , I 1958-59______- __ ------B ~ ------y------y- :::::::::: 1959-60 ______------C 1900-61 ______------B E F .F-G F-G Flesh color: I I 1958-59____ ------Or g~ 1959-60______------.---.------Or ------Or------Or- :::::::::: 1900-61 ______------YO Or Or Or Or Flesh condition: , 1958-59______------------------------ ---- Coarse g:~ ----Oood- ----Oood- :::::::::: 1959-60____ ---- ----------------------------- Coarse .. 1900-61______---------------- Coarse Good Good Good Good Juice1958-59 per 100______g. of fruit: I • ______• ______• -_- ••-.-m I __ 53 5447 ______54 ------56 ------______1959-60______• __ • ______._• __ --- -.mi .• 48 1960-61.______• _____ ••____ .In I __ 54 58 58 61 55 Juice1958-59 per lrult:______I • ______----pct._ 56 ______------ ------.- 55 49 57 59 ______1959-60 ______• ______------pet__ 49 1!lOO-61 ______• ----.-pct__ 56 61 62 65 58 Palatability: Numeric"1 ratings: 87 1958-59 ______- --_ -••-.---. ---- ---------- 63 85 ------8i------87- :::::::::: 1959-60____ • __ -- __ ----.----.-----.---. ------.-. 70 1960-61. ______••••••_••-------------..----.- 00 84 01 96 93 Ascorbic ncld: , • 1958-59______• ______---_m g- 27 1951>~ ______•______mg._ 23 1900-61. ~ _.. _.. __ ~ ______w ~ ___ ~ .... ____ ._ .. __ mg... 26 Acti,e acidity:! 1958-59______• ___ • ______------pH__ 3.4 1959-60______• ______-P H __ 3.4 U -----Ti------.j:ii- :::::::::~ 1960-61_.______• __ ------P fl__ 3.4 3. 4 3. 6 3. 7 4.0 'rotal solids: ' 1958-59 ______------pet-- 11.17 1959-60______._- _-- -- _pet._ 10.37 :k~~ ----iii:5:i- ----i.j:ii2- :::::::::: 1900-61 ______. ------pet-- 1l.50 13.20 1·1.19 15.35 14.76 Total acid: , 1958-59..______------pct.. l.31 .97 ------.... '" 1959-60______------pct__ .91 .n . i6 .72 ___ . __ ...... _ 1960-61 ______------_pct __ .96 l.ot ,8i • i4 .65 Solids-to-ncid ratio: 1958-59_____ ------ 8.53 1959-60______--__ ------ 11_40 1960-61 ______• _____ ------ 11.98 I The mean 0125 determinations made In 1season, of 50 determinations made ill 2 seasons, or or 75 detcrminations made In 3 seasons. 2 The mean or 25 doterminations. J See plate II. I YO, yellow orangc; Or, orange . • Mean of duplicate determinations . • Mg./IOO mi. U,S. GOVCRNMENT PRItHINC OFfICC.l.1iZ 39 t .. ,.' -...--.