178
FLORIDA STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY, 1972
JtarwLlriq ano jprocessiyicj Section
SIZING TOMATOES INTO FRUIT DIAMETER CLASSIFICATIONS
R. K. Showalter
IF AS
Vegetable
Crops
Department
Gainesville
Abstract, The tomato industry in the United
States is attempting to place new diameter re
quirements
in
the
U.S.
Standards
for
fresh
tomatoes that will eliminate unfair trade prac
into
size
classifications presently designated as 7x8,
tices.
The
distribution
of
tomatoes
7x7,
6x7, and 6x6 was determined by resizing the
same tomatoes according to 5 different standards
of diameter measurements. The Florida tomato
industry has been using a standard with unequal
diameter
ranges
between
sizes
that
allocated
about 45 percent of the fruit in this study to the
6x7 size. Division of a standard into equal ranges
resulted in a much higher percentage of tomatoes
in the 7x7 size. Reducing the diameters of the
7x7 and 6x7 standards by 1/32 inch decreased
the number of 7x7 size fruit by 7 percent and
increased the 6x6 size 5 percent.
Fruit size is an important economic factor
for tomatoes since prices are higher for large
sizes than small sizes. Minimum and maximum
diameter measurements for the various size
classifications in the current U.S. Standards for
fresh tomatoes became effective in 1953 (3). These
standards have considerable overlap in diameter
ranges between sizes, and they permit variations
in size classifications for tomatoes of the same
diameter. The USD A is considering revision of
these size standards and has proposed new ones
the fruit size classifications and the net weight
of tomatoes in shipping containers were well
supported by growers and shippers in Florida (2).
Florida mature green tomatoes are usually
separated into sizes designated as 7x8, 7x7, 6x7,
6x6 and larger by means of perforated belts.
The 7x8 size drop through the first belt with the
smallest holes and larger fruit drop through the
belts with successively larger holes. The diameter
of the holes correspond with the maximum di
ameter of tomatoes in any single classification.
Since the equatorial diameter of most Florida
tomatoes is greater than the polar diameter (stem
blossom axis) and the fruit are revolving dur
ing mechanical sizing, classification is more diffi
cult than for spherical shapes. The U.S. Stand
ards for tomatoes state that "the measurement
for maximum diameter shall be the smallest di
mension of the tomato determined by passing
the tomato through a round opening in any
position" (3). If tomatoes are sized for minimum
diameter, the equatorial diameter would have to
be measured and most tomatoes are not oriented
this way over the holes in the sizing belts. Since
sizing rings are used by inspectors to check the
accuracy of belt sizing equipment, similar rings
were used for this study. When a full circle
opening is used, there is not as much variability
in sizing as when the fruit is contacted at only
two points
(1).
Changing- the size requirements affects not
only the number of fruit in a size classification
but also the weight distribution and the number
of fruit per container. In Florida, mature greens
are packed with 30 pounds net weight per con
The Florida tomato industry, under the leader
ship of the Florida Tomato Committee, has been
tainer. The purpose of this study was to compare
tomato size standards and provide information
for revision of the U.S. Standards.
using size standards (5) since 1956 which have
no overlap. It was shown that with a 10 percent
Materials and Methods
for evaluation.
sizing tolerance, overlap of diameter ranges was
unnecessary
(4). Regulations that standardized
Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations, Journal Series
No. 46S2.
For easy reference, letters have been assigned
to
the
standards
used
to
measure
ameters.
A = Florida Tomato Committee
tomato
di
179
SHOWALTER: SIZING TOMATOES
B = Proposed revision by USD A
Table 1.
Number, weight and container equivalents of Homestead1 and
'Walter'tomatoes in five size classifications using the Florida
C = Present USDA
Tomato Committee standard (A) and USDA standard (.0.
D z= Equal diameter range between size
E = Modified Florida Tomato Committee
Tomatoes were sized
during May and June,
1971 with the following combinations of standards,
Size
classification
Size Ma>T
standard Inch
AC
Ruskin
'Walter'
AC
Ruskin
'Homestead'
ABCD
Ruskin
'Walter'
AE
Ruskin
'Walter'
ABCD
Oxford
'Walter'
7,
%
2-4/32
2-8/32
7 x 7
2-9/32
2-12/32
6 x 7
2-17/32
2-20/32
44
2-28/32
2-28/32
25
13
Variety
Area
6x6
A
C
Number fruit
per 30 lb.
Range
Number Y
Weight x
container
32nd Home- Walter Home- Walter Home- Walter
Inch stead
stead
stead
7 x 8
varieties and production areas:
Sample Standards
Percent of total fruit
for each size standard
Diameter
classifications
No.
203
203
166
160
141
178
16
13
145
20
21
42
41
39
128
116
46
47
179
125
114
31
28
17
15
67
67
Over 2-28/32
Over 2-28/32
Larger
No.
68
68
2 Minimum diameter for 7x8 = 1-28/32 inch
Y Number sized = Homestead 421.
Walter
177.
x Weight of tomatoes = Homestead 104 lbs.
Walter 46 lbs.
Samples of commercially grown and harvested
mature green tomatoes were randomly selected
from trucks delivering them to packinghouses.
The field-run tomatoes had not been sorted, so
all sizes harvested were mixed together. Samples,
varieties were much higher with standard C than
varying in numbsr from 177 to 1,681 tomatoes,
2-4/32 inch maximum diameter and decreased to
with standard A (Table 1). The calculated num
ber of fruit per 30 lb. container was 203 with a
were immediately sized using two or more sizing
178 or 179 when some larger fruit were included
standards. All fruit in each size were counted
and weighed. Diameters for each standard are
in the maximum range of 2-8/32 inch.
presented in tables of results.
6x7 classification, and there was relatively little
Each tomato was sized by passing it through
the opening in a small metal sizer in any position
and the smallest opening through which it passed
determined its size classification. Tomatoes were
rotated above an opening if passage was doubt
ful. Since there were no undersize or oversize
tomatoes in the various classifications, the dis
tribution among standards was due to differences
in diameter requirements of the standards and
variations in. dimensions of the fruit samples.
No attempt was made to estimate the size dis
tribution of fruit for a variety or an area. These
tomatoes were sized to determine the possibilities
of shifting variable percentages of fruit from one
size classification to another. Tomato number and
weight data for the unequal sample sizes were
converted to percent to facilitate comparisons of
standards.
Nearly one-half of the tomatoes went into the
difference in distribution by number or weight
between the two standards since both extended
over a range
2-17/32
and
of 8/32
2-20/32
inch.
went
The fruit between
into the
6x7's
with
standard C and into the 6x6's with standard A.
This increase in the larger size was 12 percent
for 'Homestead' and 13 percent for 'Walter', and
should
be
economically
important
because
of
higher prices for the larger size.
Changes in
distribution
of tomatoes in five
size classifications as affected by four standards
are shown in Table 2. There were fewer small
and more large tomatoes in the Oxford sample
than
in
the
Ruskin
sample.
In
the
7x8's
at
Ruskin, standard C had 11 percent more tomatoes
and standard B had 4 percent less than standard
A. For the 7x7 size when the equal range stand
ard D increased from 2-4/32 to 2-12/32, 31 per
cent of the Ruskin fruit and 27 percent of the
Results and Discussion
Oxford
In the first comparison, 'Walter' and 'Home
fruit were
in
this
classification.
These
were additions of 15 percent more 7x7 fruit than
stead' tomatoes were sized with the USDA stand
for standard A.
ard (C) using the largest diameters permitted
in the standard, and the Florida Tomato Com
percent of the fruit from all standards and the
mittee standard (A). For the 7x8 size both stand
distribution was very similar at both locations.
The 6x7 classification received from 41 to 49
ards start with a minimum diameter of 1-28/32
Standards C and D had 12 to 14 percent fewer
inch, but
larger
fruit in the 6x6 classification than standard A.
maximum diameter than standard A. Percent of
This higher percent of 6x6's for A, resulting from
the total number and weight of 7x8 fruit for both
the 3/32 inch smaller diameter of the 6x7 classifi-
standard
C
has
a
4/32
inch
181
MATTHEWS, ET AL: PROCESSING TOMATOES
the
average
distribution
of
tomatoes
for
each
production areas, additional data are needed for
size classification from the smallest to the largest
other
with the Florida Tomato Committee standard is:
before the most satisfactory size standards ca/
5,
be determined.
16, 45, 29, and
5
percent.
With the
USDA
seasons,
varieties,
and
production
area**
standard, about 15 percent more fruit are in the
two
smaller size
less
fruit
are
classifications
in
the
6x7
and
and
6x6
15
percent
sizes.
The
equal range standard puts a much higher percent
of fruit in the 7x7 size but equals the USDA
standard in larger sizes. The distribution of sizes
with
the
proposed
USDA
standard
was
mos'
similar to the distribution with the Florida stanr
ard.
Since this study included only two varieties
fruit harvested late in the season and only tw<
Literature Cited
1. Bowman, E. K. and G. E. Yost. 1965. Citrus sizing
methods and economic effect. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Sor.
78:210-219.
2. Manley, W. T. and K. M. Gilbraith. 1968. Industry
perceptions about the marketing agreement program for
Florida tomatoes. Univ. of Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir. S-186.
15 pp.
3.
1953. U.S. Standards for Fresh Tomatoes.
18 F. R. 4880. United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D. C.
4.
1956. Annual Report, Florida Tomato
Committee, 1955-56. Orlando, Fla.
5.
1972. Annual Report, Florida Tomato
Committee. 1971-72. Orlando, Fla.
PROCESSING FLORIDA TOMATOES-THE IMPACT OF
MECHANICAL HARVEST
R. F. Matthews and R. P. Bates
IFAS Food Science Department
Gainesville
Herbert H. Bryan
IFAS Agricultural Research and Education
Center
Homestead
Abstract. The processing quality of ripe fruit
of tomato cultivar Florida MH-1, which was de
veloped especially for machine harvesting, was
evaluated. Samples of ripe tomatoes were obtained
from mechanical harvest experiments for maturegreen tomatoes
for fresh market and ripe to
matoes for processing. The ripe tomatoes were
lye peeled and canned whole or packed as tomato
juice. Mean product quality was superior to that
now being produced by commercial Florida
tomato processors. The effect of mechanical har
vest on the competitive position of Florida canned
whole tomatoes was evaluated.
remaining after hand harvest of mature-green
tomatoes grown for fresh market. In recent years
IFAS researchers have developed and released
tomato cultivar Florida MH-1, bred especially
for mechanical harvest (5). IFAS researchers1
have also been developing and evaluating equip
ment for mechanical harvesting of mature-green
tomatoes for fresh market. The hand picked sal
vage of ripe fruit which has been available for
processing will be eliminated when mature-green
tomatoes are mechanically harvested for the fresh
market.
This past season these researchers evaluated
a mechanical harvester and a semi-harvester with
experimental plantings of the Florida MH-1 to
mato at several localities throughout the state.
This study provided an opportunity to evaluate
the processing quality and to estimate the supply
of the ripe tomatoes which would be available
for processing when growers begin extensive use
of machine harvesters for fresh market maturegreen tomatoes.
Materials and Methods
Processors of Florida tomatoes have always
relied on hand-harvested salvage of ripe tomatoes
Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations, Journal Series
4679, Received for publication.
*The tomato samples evaluated in this experiment were
from mechanical harvest experiments conducted by W. W.
Deen, AREC Belle Glade; P. H. Everett, ARC, Immokalee;
N. C. Hayslip, ARC Ft. Pierce and H. H. Bryan, AREC
Homestead. Appreciation is expressed to Richard F. Johnson
No.
for
the
product
analyses.
Ripe MH-1 tomatoes were obtained from
mechanical harvest experiments at ARC Immo
kalee on 5-11-72, AREC Homestead on 12-29-71
and ARC Ft. Pierce on 12-3-71. Immokalee and
Ft. Pierce tests were designed to obtain maximum
mature-green yields, while the
objective of the
Homestead test was for maximum ripe yield. The
samples were placed in 40 lb. fiberboard boxes