)BTERiaiMATIOH OF YIELB* BAWmtTf, AMD
VltAHIM C JH SHVOLS-HAERrSST'
BUSfl SMAF BEAMS
by
KBMMBTH ARTHte BBVSJM
A fgESIS
submitted tq
Cai&QM STATS COl£&CS
in partial fulfillraent of
the. reqalr-eraents for %h®
decree of
lAStER OF SCIEHCE
Jane 1949
APPROVF
Professor of Food Technology
c
In Charge of Sa^or
Head of Deoartment, of \W&od Technology
Chairman of School Sradaate Committee
<^ii^iHi>ifc^iiiuiLiMji»wii^Tiujwi»tiM^'i*^>^ra^^)^iffrT^iiriM^
Dean of Graduate School
The writer is ©speciaily gratefal to Professor
E* tt* Wiegar»<3 for a reBemreh. fellowship -appoirttffient.
ladebt^oess 1© also acKnon/le^secl t® Br, Thomas
B* divert and 'Ourtie #.,, 'Wilder who gave eriilci&a* and
eneowrageffient throaghoat the course of this work.
The- writer also wiehes to ttenfe Lorne A. Ihe^felt
for his aid In the ©tati®tlcal analyse®«
TABLE OW COKTSMTS
Pag©
I
II
111
it
V
VI
¥11
DJtROSUCMOH, * ,..» ,. .
» , * ...
1
LIT88ATORE EE¥I» . ... „ ..*,.**.,.*
2
♦».♦•*,,♦* .
9
1.
FlaBt-iag .•»*»**.« * • «. * .
^
B*
Hardest* -.. * ♦ * » . * •,. * . . * ...
9
3..
Processing * * . * ..».,. * ,. . * 10
4*
Analyst© «■ ... .. * ... ■.. .. .. * « *■ * * IS
E^PSBI1BNT.^L I3&TH00S
Ay
Total S^iiats* * *- .. « • ... 12
8..
Starch GoateKt, * ♦ * .. « * 14
©•
eruae jpitor * * * * . , » . is •
D*
A8«0rM« AeKS » « . ... ♦ ,- * 19 -
aigtii^fa .,..*♦. . * ♦. . ♦ .♦ .. * . « * *. gs
...
.
.
♦
*-»■
Yife.is^
»
,*
*
.,»
.
... .»; •».
•
m
S5
S.
toaiys©@ «, * « « ... ♦ . ... .. ♦ ,* .. ,. %B
DISC0SSI08 OF BSS¥LT§ . .. * *. * * . ,. » » . 29
1*
SaqperioeRtal S!@t^o^s * .. .„ *. ,, «. .. £9
2.
Yield. :♦ * .. * ♦,..........* 2©
3*
Analyses .•..#,**• * .. » * . * * 33
COKICUISXOMS
SUBIMAHY
dlBUOGERAPBT
A»
total 8dli6»» ♦ . *. .. * * • 33
B»
Siareti, ,. . . . . . * ., ♦ .. . 34
0,
Crude Fiber *..«...*. 35
D..
Vltemln C .♦..,.. . ,. 38
..***«,*,'*.« • .. .. .. 42
«. ...... . ... 44
.... . .......'.**»...., 45
LIST OF TABUS
TABU! I
Harvest Beg-wXt©. . .. * ♦ « * * *• * »■ *
2S
TABLE II
Tie la B««ults for Rival Variety . • .
84
TMIM 1X1
Yield SemXta Smw Variety fender^odi ,
25
TABl£ I¥
Tieia Beaait© for, Varlefgr fei^terereefi
S6
TABLS V
Yield Bespits fer Variety Strlngletis
Oreesipoi
TABUS ¥1
»• ♦• * ... ♦ ,- - * ... « .
E7
ABelyees of Uffftrettt Verietiee of
Btt'Sh Simp S^aiae * * * * » * * -♦•
S8
- . * .. * * * * .. » .♦■*** *.^ ♦ ...
t9
TABLE ¥1.11 tetal Snippage toa»' *3r ^rleiy* * ♦ *
3i
TAiat* VIS
T^BtE tZ
@0mpsrl#Qa. of SiHiop S^on trial's- ia
^Lehl^w) «o^ Ore^m * * * * * ..
TABLE X
13
Vitamin 0 0or»t®iit of tbe ©iCf©r©at
?ari©-%ies Qi Snap Bean© * * * *
'40
TmiE OF GRAPHS
Pag©
OSAPft %
P^rceat of Starch - FTeefe Basis
G1APH g
Ptare^ntr of Starch ^ FreflSi Basis*,
24 kmr -dcslajr » * . * » .■ .. . .■
S6
37
DETEBimaTIGH OF YIELD, HATURIIT, AND
VUmW C W SXHOLS-^iARVEST
BOSH «3A? BE^I®
1>. 3BraROBBGTIOH
lost of th© snap "beans growa ia the Facifie Mortfewest
are ©f tfee pel© tfpe© ap^
SIRC®
these have Xittie possi-
bility for m&Ghmxie&X harvestlag* interest ha© been eesstere4
OP
the bxtah types.
Shoals the "baeh varieties lend
themselves t© meehanieal harvesting it woulcl meaja a huge
saving in la&er eoet© te the proeessers*
However., the
Intraduetiea- of a single harvest im place of the present
three and even as hi^h a© $ix pickings, eremtes new pro%~
One important prebles is t^ie ylela ■«•* will the
Xeme^
meehsniea.i 'harvest eqatal the harvest© '%$ tm®* or hew
m&ch extra acreage Is -neededtt
Another' vital consiiaeratien
is that of ;iaat«rit|?^ if all the feeans on a vine are
piclcecl at one tiise, raat percentage will he sultafele for
preoessing gm& what will he the percentage distrihatios* hy
grades?
The effect of a single harv®gt on. th© variom®
qwality factor'© irost he {sno^B..
Such factor© are vitamin
content*, fiber* ratio of hull to see*!* etc.
It will 'fee
the responsibility ©f the fiel# men to cleclde when the
majority of heans in any variety are rea<^ for harvest
anS they must he right the first tie©.
In an attempt to find the. answers to some of these
problems* this research was cinder taken.
2
ii,
hitm&'mm
HSVIBW
■A aw^ey of tlie literature on gr&en beans reveals
that much e»pha©is has been given to the vitamin content
of beans at various stages of maturity as mil as vitamin
loss during storage and eookiiag.
At the limited State® Vegetable Breeding Laboratory in
Charleston^ South Carolina, Hayden and his associates (11)
have taken an increase in vitannin content as one of the
objectives in the program of breeding snap beans adapted
to that region.
In a recent article Oil) these workers
have stressed the value of snap beans by'stating that the
cofamereially canned pack ranks next to- those for to-fflatoes.,.
peas., and corn,,
There appears to be some eonflictlng reports In the
literature as to the effect ©f maturity on the vitamin
content ©f snap bean-s.
The results of work by lack.. Tap-
ley aii$ King, (1?) indicate that the variation in ascorbic
acid content is greatest i^lth the large seeded varieties.
They suggest that the effect may be Sue to the distribution
of vitamin C between the seed and the seed pod,
fhese
worfeers found that on a freshMarelght basis the seeds contained from 3 to 4 times as auch ascorbic acid as the seed
pod.
Hence, they ©how# ascorbic acid content due to the
seeds increases with growth* while that due to the shelled
pods decreases rapidly at first and then remains about
constant* resulting in a net effect of miniauta aseorbie
acid content at the usual stage of raaturity at wfoick snap
beans are karveste^l*
Kramer (16) has also shorn that the
seeds contain more agcorMe acid ihaft th© pods and his re*
salts ©hots increase in a&eorMc acid with increaaing aat-*urity,
Sayflen* Heinse and ®a<l# (11) agree tsrith the results
of Krataer stating that on a fresh weight basis: sigjai.fi»
eantly isore thiarain and slightly ©ore ascorbic acid were
found in the green*overfflature beans,
Phillips and
Fen ton (22) found that Vitamin 0 concentration wa@ higher
in the immature stage, than in the aature or ©■ver-saature..
They have this timely eoanent to a&A*
w
HaCK» Tapley and
King reported ho change in ascorbic acid contant of
Tendergreen beans sith maturity but distribution of th©
vitamin varying within the vegetable according to the.
proportion of seed to pod,.
In interpreting the values
found in the literature on© should realize that standards
of uaturity are difficult to define and recognise*w
Phillips and Fenton also found that the seeds in th©
over-aature beans on the moist b&®let had nearly twice
as such ascorbic acid as the pod.
From their results it
would appear that either there is a loss of vitamin C as
the beans raature,. or there Is a transfer of the vitaain
fro® the pod to the seeds.
Wade and Kanapausc (S8) found
no significant differences between large, laediura and small
4
tmR& that- matx&ritj oa© m% a©e«©iat0# dltfet iss^gs #lff«-r^
OWS00 im as#@rfei© ca©SJ @@@%9©% #f til© f@-#is a»S mo l©a©©
s©i#,
ji2i$tear$ OOMS f'l.pna CIS) ropar* %Sa&% astJsrM© ^©li;
'©5i®!%smt grsaiaalli? l»eir©a-o6'€l ®%tfa faster 1%-^ i3k?ii taafe ill©
tli© fall er^p.
Tli©®© sar^^ro oto^s timt. f<@r •©©BS3©r©4©I
lisQ 4© gott for fjao ©©Qll-G-r ©sa^s® ^il@fe ^s^ m% %©■ t&s
i^i© mstnttei: &l@fes"0't Is Q$©WM# «atM ImS ©©esi #£ -Us©
imtf «I%M Igiersacs %n v&t§k% mi f@$ zmS, im pwm§mw%lmm <s>f
4 p^r^ost @f tis© %®%sl ejslgM ^aM immsssd© rapMIjf sap t©
a p@>:%m% ai t^£«b tbe SOOSSQ eaaoftifcafc© I'l ^© IS> p.3rs©a% ®i
tfe© p## ra3ljilis't# stftier cMcfe %&© Sparsas© IS9@©53QQ aim? m*$
relatt^Ql'f ©smll ta aaiRimi*
limm tarter® offi^^®®$.aD tfe©
fcoasae %arloa xsl^M the sta^e ©■£ #3V©X©ps®fst ©f Vsxa p®®®*
mmpm'lQQm %@"t,o@©© ^a^is^ies ^m% ho oai© ®ml^ ©'lt& ma&®g''»
Sal ©f a life© ©iag© of dtetsroi^pao&fc...
grafiaalif lsser©as©a o'l^M ?Batiari%y»
flfam CP) Qiti fer
fte^ al©i> f@«S!# t!i©
vlissfa U ©©satopt ©f %tm sosfi t© fees ^igfeof tftoia 4aa% la
el^©^ %tet. ^iiajBto S io app'^slemtoljf tiiQ -aagso lj® all.
air©©© tM© isp#r%t»©© ®t vo^lotf m ® ta©%^r %m vc^ia^
%ht<3ffi»te«
dag*l©ii aai Rl^arisotii CIS) rQf@^t t>te,& ros?
@p@©fi ©trlxis %&m® m® a is@@€ #@Q:r©© ©f ^l^aols A| ©
fit© ©^©rag© l©©a tm @©©@FM© a©!^ a® slmtus %|r flto-*
g@ral€ ©»i ffQll.@rs C©) atB§!i3mt#€ H« ti p#reefs% tM<m to©!©
©©©lirrei at S*^^ CSST),.
Efe^.^ f^pl^f amt ESiag {11}
immm® a leo© @f ft $© ^0 |®r©©Bt Is fmr ^a^JQtios Ml fiat tl i® 83*6 C#f»8- td ft**©'0?) fur ®ao d4sy«
ttoos© ra»nE«pe
a tat® that In comparison with other vegetable© smp t>e$ns
los© their vitaraln C very rapl&ty*.
Wad© @md Kanapaoic (28-)
find a loss of approximately 2 pereent in th© vitaisla 6
content when stored at 2.2*6 (3£*IP) for 24 to 4S hour® and
a lofts ©f approximately 5 percent ohen held at 21.1^0
(TOT).
If held for T£ hosars at Sl.l^C th® leaci ^s® sharp
an<S elgnlflcassl.
A very important factor affeottng loss'
of ^Itawln® in storage ha@ 'feeen stressed by the wane of
Harris et al (10) ^hos© research proves that hmi&ity Im©
a Tfreariag on the retention: of ase-orfeic acid*
fh&dr work
indicates that th© rate of aestraetion. of th© ^itapin in
six iFegetaMes* ineXuding snap btana, stored at an as^rag©
relative 'hural«Sity slightly less thssi St pereent at?erag@d
ab'Oat* 64 percent greater than in eo-rresponding saaple©
stored at an average relative haaidity of 9$ percent..
Conelderable research has been cendected on losses
of vitamins as a resalt ©f blanching and cooking.
Phil-
lips and Fenton (22) concluded that blanching in boiling
water preparatory to freezing, caused a loes of 13 percent
ascorbic acid* 11 percent thiaffiin and 14 percent riboflavin,
finck© and her grotip (?) foiand. a lo®s of 14 to 21
percent thiaaiin in eooklng fresh snap beans.
Satchelder,
Stein and Sater (2) stat© that the amomit of ascorbic acid
is higher &,ith a 2 mlnut© than Mth a 3 rainute scald in
bdlling tsater and the percent retention daring B laonths
sterag© at G0F«t is higker In saapX©s scalded 2 ralmites
than in %ho®@ s-ealie€ far 3 raiiiat^a*
ie'd:fQr<a aia^ Ms
gromp (3) f©QB# n© ©iguifleant differo^ee b®t^©©Q ateaft
%I®ntefeifig and vmt©r Msts^Mng^ althoagh laitially ttimre
taas a ©ligfetl^ less toes ®f ascorbie aeid Ijy strata Mane&
wMe^. hetw^ver* sliooe^ '« greater lo«s iwriBg storago..
BSayf ietd and BicAmr^soifc <IS> aaintain tlaat freabiy
eoofe©.i greeit strteg la®©**® iiafe l©#t aons ©f tfcelr fita-*
©In ^ ar B| 'p©t#sa«y afsii are ©till a. g©©^ sour©® of ^itaai®
C* «V9n tiious^i & 3© to €0 petHKdnt log© of thia ^Itmiin
oeocirred ^yiriag ^ootejtii^
'f5i©y doaineiit further ttoftt esaxned
gr^mn et^ix^ ^eenSf, takes froia ■storage «44 re^ea'te^* appear to lie Bsaarly as rlels ia vitaASs A a© m@ fretihly
■eook-ei- fe©®e5Bt but s©«® to bave lost, afeowt 40 per sent of
tbelr vltaolfi B eositeBt.*
fMy report tte lorn to vitamin
0 !& very maricwl* bding :S0 to as pere&nt of t^t preiaent
in raw- te.asaa.
f io^t ttff©r!0»c© t>etw®©fi -v^'-teti©© of simp h,©&m groras
in aevma different area® of Flori^et e^ad th0ir; d-ry galg£it.t
@©oorl>iO' aeld aM earotes^ eofitent,Tli© follo^iisg %&,bl® r®pro<Si3eedi: fr®® the pa%lieati©is
of Kayfiali and Rle&apd&on (18) is of interest fro© thenatritiona.! aspeet.
On© average s©r^ii»g of 70 graais of
cootei gr#iasi strlBg feeiaia© woaid supply the follo^iagt
8
Frfghl^Se^a m&m
Qimn<3& B&@Mm St©r©$
1.0,
F©r «eft teg©
par'
of iaft|f
servifig reqisireiaejst
I.. U,
per'
©©rting
Percentage
of aailir
reqalreoent
fit. A
840
14 - 88
700
11 - 83
vit, ml
.83
4-8
14
8-4
m, G 7 - ISag 10 * 30
Sag.
3. * 10
flitg rd^i^sw ©t tfo® literature l»4ieatde timt Vxer*
is a ne^a far etandar^lzatioft of the metbodd WMtfi ift &©«*
eertwining the quality of green. Ibe-aass ss ©#11 as a ne©t
fisr oorrelatioii of qmi&tf €®4 nuti'itivo- faeters* Kramer
(IS) teil©. m that the tiaree ".tfliporftsnt factor®- of qis^lity
for gre©R to^«ia& are imtivril^r^ sise a^a fi^roBs^es®.,
He
states, that raatiarity may be raeasuared % the proportion ©f
the t»stght of s©e4e to the podft; else by dftteratUtlag the
ujeaa iiasjeter fro© svititr® to ^isture -ana fifertmsmss; 1>F
aticQll 4i.ge@ti.0B>
EJatarity 1# ®|>p@re»tly jtiige^ in var*
io^,s a^«#. sa^h a© ratio of hall to seeji-^ siae of po<a,,
aui leagth of seeds.
Fiber ieterBlnation© ©eea to have
been o©itt©€ Isy too mmy workers while re salt© of starch
aaaly-ses are seldora ©eea.
9
HI,,.
.gsraatnaBBjm. mmom
tEMMre f^are tQwr varieties' of bmgfa -satap beeoid
sel©©t©4 far Ifchic eto^r, nasidly ¥•»§-.P,*^* Ei?al*. Burp©©
1:®B&®F
Pea., larp©:© feade-rir^en and Sarf©© Strlngl-ess
Qre-ea Fod*
?&©-&© varieties- i?er# @rot;«i is Hiilsfeoro* ■
fro?©-n food eQafa^j,
E^eft. wrfcety «r«0 ptaoted ©n J»n® 3-,
1948^ in $ «a&«2»mdr«d foot- rows -witfe S foot 6patoi&& tor
3 rows*' fh^ @<?edlfsg' r-^t© for -f©«#©?■ Fod,,. ?9nder®r*$n swd
Strtogld^s (%ro«ffik t©d wm aS>o«t SS potmdg per aoy* sia©@
ihio '©as all ©f tils© «aed ^vallaM^*
llwal ^s a^isally
plaated- ta«e& ihieteef* (-SO powids- per aer©} l»t% -©as t^tefied
aoOTi t© a- 0©i}f^raW-.# ©tajssU
feard
FQ-OS
on ©aeli ©ide of Wm ^spsrimeatal; plot-*
Qer« al©©. piasfted
Tfet a^erimeptal
plot oats C#.rfciXi2#d with iOO perods ©ltr®t©s# S00 pcurnds
^honsphates^, ld0 pounds pot&e^. gmid
TM©
irrigated tfer@#
timea during %h® groTziBg ^©as-©^,
ffe© b^sms ©er© harvested* upoii th© advice of .an
©3cp@f 1©J3;€^<S fi#ldm«aiir oia©** th© majl-ority ©f pods i» a variety taad reached th© o-pttian© stag© of laatarity for ©■omser*
dial proceaaing*
In this wor&s tU© ^©ptrlfimni ©tag© of
10
maturity* a&m@4l for* ^^a i&at which ©^uld result.in ©ost
feeaas of coHi©ereiai grs^es 1 and 2V to be explained later.
the bar-vest ©as carried &u%§ as near as caiaid be arranged,
at 8 o*el©cfe each momiog*
fhere ©as ©niy @.ae iaarve-st of
eaeh tr^rlety a®i all bwgiie^j. yielding ©r aat, of tfee var*
iety were harfestei by haM arad eouaats-i into be^n bags.
Foar men partteipated in the har^^^t ©Mefe reqair©4 15 to
g0: ffiirMtes.
*tim bag© were iaiBeM-ately ha*il©€ by tr^ie^ to
the processing pia»t.
It uotal^ b© safe W say that the
tiise required ftrora c-earaeneemeat of' har-fe'St to arrival' at
the processing pla^t sme not ®mr oaes-teiif lumr*
(a)
tfp^k arrival at the pro-eeseing plant the
bushe© raere weighed and th® po€e quietly r©aev©4 by
haiad* froffl the viaes^
<b)
fhe p@4s alone were <Krei§he4.
<«-)
the peis -tsere pat through a aeehanie&l
graier ahieh distributed them aeeerdiog to diameter as
follovjsj
Grade 0 or less than gl/64 inehes
Grade I or Si/€4 inches to, but not inciudiag
24/^4 Inches
0rade 2 or 24/64 inches to,; but n^t ineliading
E7/64 Inches
11
Grade 5- ©r 37/64 inches and oir®r
(d)
Eaeii sis© groap sa© weighed to gitf© per-*
oexstage diatritetioa.
(©>
Each sige gr®ia|> ©a© divided equally into
two lots* ©is© lot being held for 84 hours at roo@ temperature» the other hemdled iramediataly.
(f)
100 pods isere selected at raadou from each
size group of the lo-t handled iraraediately* and weighed.
(g)
Th@ percent crooked pods In each else
group was determinedi wsing the' pods of part (f).
(h)
the ratio of hull to seed in each sitse
group ms deterffiinei usittg. the beans in part <f>,
(i>
A smnspte of each ©rcup of the fresh beans
was used Ifflinedlately f-or a ^itadia € detersiaation and
another saaple ©as sealed in glass Jars aad froze** imraed'lately, for use In analysis at a later date.
(J)
The reaaiRder of the fresh beans were
snipped raeehanieally if possible,, by hand If not.,, weighed,
blanched in steal® in a small retort for 2 minutes# cooled
in running tap water for I to 2 ininute© and placed in
f>©ters*"Style consumer es^tons.
The cartons were labeled,
sealed in a wax paper oter-OTap and quick; frosen*
The
beans were tested after blanching and cooling for eatalase
aetivity by means of the Thompson catalase test (25),
The period froa hardest to blanch ms approxiraately tu©
12
hoars *
(Is)
Th.© delayed samples whi^h 3aa<S M@B ii9ld for
24 hoars s,t room teroperstiar© i?«ra re-.©©igheS,, sraipp©^ snS
^felgbed agai-n.
A safapl© tias taken for ^itaala C deteratl**-*
ation emd ©notlier sample taken ^a4 h&l^ ^y freezing for
fari&er analysis*
th© r^aalniag poa© tser© pr@©©ssei im
sinllar fashion to th© frfteh wat®rlal,
&si.,,.^^g§ll;
laeh st«® group of th© fresh @ii^ 04-*h©Tar ielaf
beaas ©©re an-siirz©^ for th© follosring':'
A,
total soitis
i.,
Si^pch. aonte&t
C«
Ormta fi*«p
fh© atthods of antUyaio wwret
•(i)
The jar eomtalatfig' th© frog©a aampl© ®ae
aXl©©©'d to thasr at room temperatare^ ©ter-etapon' the ©uteBd
of the Jar *as 4rie<3 thoroaghly* ®2*a ■the Jar pitas contents
©eighedi aeeara'tely on a triple-fee-am baXsnee to the nearest
0,1 g©.. aa<3 estimated to ©•OS g®.
(S)
the l^ans were transferred to a cl©an.j. -
dry Waring Blsn&or, care being eje^reisei to see that a©
raeh moisture as possible was transferred from the Jar t@
13
the ¥ien<lor..
<3>
U-slag a ^oliara^tric-pipet..,, exa><»t'l^ 3§ ml.
of ©ater were ©<l4©d to tfo© Bl^ador to faMlitat© blend*
ing..
A satisfactory blerad could not be accomplished
onleas this tee!miqu$ tjas ®®piap&&-,*
(4)
Th© beaa© were th^ro^hlf ^l^Rdsd (3 to 4
minutd8)t theri a lar§e portion of th© bl@x)d@4 ©araple tsas
p©.«r©d Ipt© the saapl© Ja^r,, the lid screwad on @xi& the
jar shats-en...
Th© sample was thers reternei to the blendor
and givsn another short.blend*
fh© last ©tsp was gait©
to Incorporate as^f mttr "(droplets remaining in th© safuple
Jar,, thus yielding a homogeneous sampl©..
(5)
Buplieat© sample© fro® the "blended ml*~
ture"©hich would approxiwat© the specification:® called
for in the PSethods: of ^nalysl© ©f the Msociation • of
Official Agricultural Oheoists vj@r© we-ighed accarately
to 0...1 gra® on a triple-hean halan.ce..
The saeiples were
weighed in previously heated* cooled and tared alafnintara
weighing dlshe©,
the©© dishes were 34.SO s%. cm* In area
secesaitating a Mended satnpX©- weighing approatiaately 10
gram® to meet with, the aforejueptioned specifications.
(€)
fh® saraple Jars and lid® •©ere rinsed
clean.^ thoroughly dried inside and out and weighed giving
the weight of Urn fresh sample.
(?)
The weighing dishe© were placed in. the
14
mcmms ov©» a-ssd 4'ri©4 ac«e>F$iu.g to %1m offieial siethods
(20),, r©feate4 Jierelm
%$®i$$i im%® flat«l)ottoa©^ iisto. a fortton of samp&e ©f
suoh slate -tim-t tiff res,i(Sa© will not 'be les© than ^ tag.
nor mor© thsea 12 rog/sq,
«J»,
of dryijag saffaoe*
Bi®trl%iat©
thinly in even lay^r oi?©r bottom af die^t^ diluting witSa
IgO if Mt&me&ey to faeilitst© aistrltoation,
Place in
vaettam o^en at 70-*C «lt^ release eo©*£ left partly ©pep so
that degsre« of vamu® cloe© not est.c^et iSO ram of Hg az»3
mo!«&*?&-.evolved is ©arrleS off ira^ldly*
Bry *ir atoit«*
ted tl|r^:agk release $©e:^ bf feufeMliig t^oa^i %B04.
After
one howr ©mralne dishes and remove frosi e^en @»3r in r&ieli
material has reaehed apparent dryness.
Continue this re—
raovetl of dishes ©ith dried aaterial at safesequent hs&fw
hour intensral®:.
after taater-iaX in all dishes has reached-
apparent dryness retam dishes to ©iren#; nearly el-ose reieas© cook -so that abo^t two feubfeles ©f sir each second
are admitted throtafh the Ufpo^ and dry at TO0© for four
hoars at pressure not exceeding 100 m»
(8)
the dried samples were a-ectarateiy weighed
en the triple fee&m haianee to 0.1 ©ra© and estiwated to
0.05 gra»..
the method adopted for starch analysis was
essentially that of Hielsen. (19)
IS
ftw- jar ooat&inisjg %h® frosea saffipl©
?J&©
allowed to th«w at.rooiB temperature wterempoa the- oiatsid©
of the Jar vms ^rto<3 thoroa^&y am& the Jar plus eontonta
■migh<34 Q&om&tetf %® Q»-l gram ©a a tri^l'0*baa!ffl feai^se©.
fh© feean* «ere tramsferra^l to a dean Gey Wsri»g Bl^ndor*
ear© Ming eaeereiaed to .©©e timt a® aaeli ®#ls%ar© a@ pos^
slMa
?MS
tr&nsferred from jar to M^i©r«
ffets- Jar &3J!<3
-144 ®er* rina94« 'tisorou^Ajr dried and m-igfe^U p^irtg a
grfcdtM*0d':'<^li.fsder,. aaad a gradtiate<S plpet ®fr-eia neeess^ry*
4 ^«fitl% af ssaWr ^^ai^ale^t ^ tha s©i.gMt of tins b.©-a®8
©as ada-ed. to t^e btend^r^
Hii* ^lendor m& @3.lmv®i. to rtm-
for 3- to 4 jBinute®.*
Iteg&leats ssfflpleS' of ttod %Ie'Kd©d mtSEtare
©f approximately t grams were wotghe*! ©oeurateiy ©a aB
analytieal bmlai^e^ irkt© tar«d S© m%. b@alc-©rs*
One nl* of ^at©? wae sdted to tis© aaapie
til tk© 50 ml., beaker by faeass of a I al-, pi pet and S,-?
nl. of dilute parotttarle aoid <43.B ajl.. of 60 pereent
peretilorio 4- 6*'S sal. distilled mter) ^m© added by pipet,
the aeld aae stirred in. slowly.
The ©ample was allowed
to. stand in oontaet with %h& aeld for 15 minate© vsitfo
eecaslonal stir-ring and tfeep raad© t».p to 35 ml* with water.
Th© sample w%® Bois filt©.r®<3 trhrougji a Whateaa M©.». 1 filter
paper' i© ■pjfel'ere-Rc© to sei-tltog c?hicl3t required too fiacb
tim©.
A I ml. aliqaot, ctf th© clear filtrate was trana-
ferred bj aeaa© of a .1 §»!.. volawstrie pip©t#: ft© a £5
graduate _ojltntier and ^ ram of vmter add#d...
PJ1»
A (ir©£> of
pii©riaS.|>latlial.€'i» wa© ©ddsd «aad tfe© aolstioa brcasgltt to a
pialc color with a $®® drops &£ 6 S sodim© ^dro^id^*
Masct 2 151 aeeftie sei<3 ■«?§« add#4 ^ feu-re-t imttX t>h® pivk.
oojor disappeared* g:#5 lal, ia escess «^r.<a addtd, 0..S- ml*
of 10' f>@:re#i*t p'Otasaist? i©d:id# by plpet and § rol* O'f 0*01.
15 pota©-©la# i-0da1f© added aeetarsitialj by jjlpet* The s©l«**
t.ioB tK?as ®llot^d: to- afand. at lmmm% S niimst©-© aad Uw%i w&&
faad© up to exag'ftl? SS ©1*. •'d?i.t& ^at-er,.-
fti© -uolatioa \*as
slioicea^, transtf^rr^d t@- a, Fi@li©r eleotrop^t.O'riieter tobe anad
«»©;ad is %fee Fis&ar ©l.^eiro^ot.O'ae-ter using a r^-d filtar
JJo^r 6-SO- amd reading pa the A seal^-.
fli^ far«©Btag#
starch was e&Ioulatad fr-mt a eurw prepared froa in© calorimeter readipga of a Icn&tm ra«g© of patato starcii.
centr&tion*
COB—
*$&& ©olcrifaeter reading:© ©ere- corrected usitfa
@ Ma^k coftiainiftg all of the r©a@^n'ts-.
(i)
■
Slwotdilng
the jar- coataiaing the frozen sample ©a©
allowed to tha© at roo®; t©iaper:a.ture:*
The feeans nere th©B
trarisferred to a clean dry Waring Slender^ care heiag
17
exereisei to 'see that as cmacii ©oistar© as possible was
transferrea from jar to M.«m&or.
Tim sample was blended
xrith intermittent shoeing- in an effort to aistribrate th@
loGse t&oi&iur® e^tn-iy*.
(s)
Wftl^jhiwg
o
Fifty gretes -of th© Iyl.®iwle4 ^caapl^ sere
wsigheiS oa a trlpie-fe&a© fealasee-
®M&
o^en i!B©tko4 as pre^lo^sly de$e.rlfe©&»
ir$@4 fe^ the memiBi
Duplicate' firl©4
©araples ^'©iglilng in proRlmitf t© 2 gra©s w$r@ w^i^e-i.
out ac^uratoiy
©B
the asialftical balan-o© asdl -oacfe ®a.s
traasf ©rred t^ a %QQQ ml.*. %&ateer..
fhe metliodt adopted for crude flfeer determination ^as takeis from tee Offiel&X and Tentatif© He-thodd
of itoaiysia (SO).
However,. tiie etfeer extraction wa©
ie©m©d imnecess^pj..
One-«tli©uasfid ml* feeaJcers were used as •
digestion flask© and large fe^id^ii flas&s were eapleyed
as coadensere to maintain a coiaatant volume of digesting
solution*.
The kjeldakl flask© rested ©n the rim of the
'bea&ers* presenting a large cool surface.' t© vapors and
foan* from the digestion,.
Approxiiaatelf ©,.§ graa of dig-
eeted aebestoe was added to tfe© dried bean® in the beaker
and 800 a3U of foiling sulfurie acid (1...25 ga. HgSO^lOOnl)
was added-.,
fiie digestion flask ms iassiediately ^Kmnected
IS
to the condenser and heat tsas applied by Btansew bamer,
A battery of fo«r digestion flasfes was operated at one
tifi©.
The contestB- of the flasK ^er© l»ro«ght to boiling
as close as po-sslfel© t© the one isintate called for hj the
Official Slsthods.
30 miiuat©'®.
Boiling was then continued for exactly
The flasks «er© rotated occasionally to wash
dotm any natterial clinging to the mils..
4t the ©aspira-
tion of 30 minates the flasks were reaoved., filtered
through dreas linen in a fitted funnel.,: and washed tj-ith
boiling irater antil the xsashings were no longer acid,
Litmtt« paper was used to test the acidity of the m&ii
water,
A quantity of sodlust hydroxide (1 ..:2:5g/l.O0 ml,)
had been kept boiling under reflux condenser and n&ss 200
»1.,. of this has© ®m used to crash the charge and. asbestos
into a elean dry 1000' ml, leader*
& ©ash bottle mar-ked
to deliver ZOO ml. facilitated the washing of eharg© into
the beaker.
The. bealeer ©a© brought into contact vjitte.
the fejeldahl flask and the sampl© digested as before for
30 minutes.
At the end of that tis© the contents of
each flask uere filtered through a Qooch eruicible prepared with a thin asbestos mat.
The filtered material
©as thoroughly ©ashed with boiling water and then washed
with approximately 15 ml, ©f alcohol.
The cruclbies and
contents were dried at 100*0 to constant weight* cooled
in a desiccator and weighed., on an. analytical balance.
19
fh© GORt/stxta of the erH«lbl©s srer^e incinerated- in aa
electric nrnffle oven- for approKiraatelj SO minutes* cooled
to a ^esSceattor sn4 weigiied.
The dlfferemcs in ©.©igUings
\mr® report©^ as erts&a fiber...
fh® m&thag mnptoy&^t. ©^s a ma^ifieatian ef Bes-*
soy*a (4) analysis for vitamin C*
(1)
DetermiQ^iioR, of ggt-lilaratti^a i.go^st^3.t .tig)
for^AacgrMe.,.Acicl ,..Usl^-g; Um Fistxer H.^tr^^kot^fa^.te^ a^tiFilter. S-ES,.8^.
T-M© c.^iiferati^ii coristasst i?^s -secured bj
em-ploying the following e^aatisn -on & lm®©n range ©f
ssc-orbi-e acid concentrations..
K &
~^J®}
\
^Siesss
^
„ X 100
%
C ** tlie coriaeairati^in @f aeeorbi© a0id in
aiga/iUl
15^ as ^wraiie readings of test eolation aims
sample iej 1 ml. S^S mstaph^splx-orie
acid 4- S5 ra!„- dye -^ buffer mixture
©^ ^ average reading ©f -asoerMe a-cid test
K «* eslibratien constant in ©gra* per 1-00 gms*
per degree on galvon^meter.
T-en staples of ascorbic acid t?©re run in matehed
20
tmb€!-ss. th© eone@.ntratiop*s begtaBiBg at ©♦Ql mg* per ml.
api iB^reasing Tzj 0,01 TSgra, per ml* mstil a eosscsRtratien
©f 0...10 mg.. per ml, h;a<t beem r^aehed.
(a)
iS gre©.. of sodlQs asetats Oaffsr)
were t!?©igfr@£ ani tr^Bsferr^^ t© a ^000 ml. vslumetric
flagk,.
Mstill©^ TOter was utseot te ©asfe the fe-tiffer isato
tfee flask*
(h)
17 rsgms,. of g4; & disijloropfem©!!. Inctepk^
■enol ware -weigh®!!! aii4 fe©% distilled «ater wad ass-d to- waslx
iji© <3f^ through, a filter paper iisto %h<a t%az& eo-ritaintog'
<■«■)
ffae^ t'l«®ie was then ma®.® np to^ %b©
•8000 ftl. isark with dis'tilied «at©r*
<d)
SS el., ©f %hiB efy©~&etf£er .©ixture
woeld iis^allf r^a^ SO "t 5 oa- th© gai^osometar of the
Fiskor Sle45tjPoph©toHset®r, anci: ^as a«l^©t©ci to thl© rang©
by Silatioti or can^&ntr&tl-m it necessary.*
The dys-bvaffer
mixture was prepared sash day for the satapi@3 run.
Sample
(a)
The galvonoaieter ©a© adjaatect to ©
^hereupoct sampl© tu^es of distilled water ssere inserted
and the galv^ome-ter oB-e© raore sdjusted to 0.
(b)
The Q^ reading was ebtailed by
21
pipettiag I ffii* 3f the 3$ jae'taptio^pboric. aeig (axtraetant)
into th© coXopiisss.tey tu^b©.^ aefding 05 ml* of dye-buffer
mix%^r© fey sssajaa ef a pipst ealiferaied to deliver in 20
secoM© anfi reading the gaivarjofseter within. 30 ©eeerads
after the dye is started iuto th© test tafee*
^he ©^ read*
ing m&s otetaii^sd by saa^irig duplicate >©r triplicate' readings and «?a$ eUe-eised periodically*
<c)
30 gWB. of fresh feeoja.s (©ssds snipped
off 5 -were deposited in the Smml of the Wsrissg Bleiidor and
250 ml. of 3^ faetapIao-Bphoric acid was added*-
fhe sample
was. hi ended for 3 minute® then- filtered through a fJo» 193
CBaton-Piketaan Co«> filter paper,.
The firs* 10 to g© al©.,
of the flfitrate was disearded and then a VQlmt®%!t$& pipet
was employed to transfer 1 •ml*, of the filtra'te iBto a
sample tube*
Naaet 85 al., of the dye-twal"f er mixture wa»
added fey sesas of a voluraetrie pipet to the sample in the
tube.
The solution u'&s now decolorised mth C-*P* aacorhic
acid crystals and the galvanometer reaija^ted to 0*
This
readjustment is accomplished by moving the inltia;! null
©ontroi knob*
This action nullifies the effect of the
turbidity of the 1 ©1* sample*
A second ml. of the fil-
tered ©atraet tsas pipetted into a coloriJaeter tU'bet 2S ml.
of dye-buffer alxture added end the galwfiomeier reading
taken*
Duplicate readings were obtained.
22
Aaeorliic aeia ia ragas... per 100 gms'.. fresh
weight iji gae, of sai^l©
S3
IV*
HKStJLTS
i* XMM
The fallowing tabl© presents Hie harvest data, for tfee
varieties studied;
Table- I
Variety
rf
Rival
Date plated
S~3-*48
S-S-4d
««*3*48
6-3-^8
Pat© harvested
8-4-40
8*5-^6
a*6*48
8-6-48
Growth ported
<J8 4«y»
€S days
S4 stays
64 dear*
No.,, 'feashe®
©fflerged.
4:20
446
45*
467
WU '-nne© *
pod9
XAfr l&L
6 asfe,*
iS4-!%©.«
'3 «a^
163 lbs*
3 oa,
L64 Itjs;
5 «>».*
S4 Ibfti
t ©**
^4 I^-a.
3 ea*
S4 I^S.
10 ez.
35,.5
SS^S
3.9*1
wt-. of pod©
■'
^ Tield
• 75 lfes„
14 eg*
40k9
Tenderwod
Tendergreen Sir.Greenpod
>
J&
tD
O
Q
o
©
•H
IS
O
Q
■
Mr
<r4
o
^•1
©
C3 cS
CO
03-
■CC ft*
*
^
\D
^\
■O'.*^
s&W
V
*
•
■
W
® :
S3
«>H
C0
SJ
"O •
is!
u
a
*
«
•
14
•
©
«■
s^
'»
©
&9
o
r^
^
13>
o
m ■
r*
N ■
■
N
O
,«
« .
o•
o
£>
S3 ■
J3
>*
.!»J
r* -
.♦ ■
•
•i0
P5
IT*
&
« •
©
'•
*-•
*-«
©
•
o
■
*■
••
•
♦
^3
o
•
-
eg
m
a> r-» to
»
•■* -»
;»
*•
«>
■
O
St, (35 ^ -CO <1>
rrf O iH 0 5S •o <«>
*»
OS
4S
■♦■
'd
o>
-•
d-
■-••
&
£*»■
m a
m ©
^>
■*«.
•
ss
o
so
*
■
»
88
o
t
<?
iH
42
80
ft
^•i
&
IP4
■to
S3
0>
■o
•>
#•4
*&
n
-*
0.
o
r4
o
o
•
*
,©
<f> .
,©•
M
|3 •
-*■
y>
#*5
r4
0
(M
.
-
^
O
e-
■I *>
»M,
WSi
^:
-s?
<X3
«* .* ' i. ■
<(f ^
\
o»
*
^5
»,
to
G
O
js *#• el TJ1 ■•• i©
© ea
«?
:* ' If ^
<&
♦»
&•
fc
m-
C
»
63
O
©
*
♦
(-4C©
J3
r-lOi
r>- r«4
63
O
£5
.•
N
O
eo
■-:«
HI
^>\J;»
**< ♦
-#
ID r^i
t*
u
rt JO
50
O
M
o
ci
p-fl
3
^j
P
«rtl
ftrfi
24
to
©s
03
o
•
*»
<S3 ©
r4 53
-
©
♦»•
3,
CQ
#«
ss
:• &->:& ©^
■»«* '■* *£» G €0
P«-t ©•
«*
.© -ft © i
«CJ ts- ••■ e i*
^>
Q^^a i
:Sk.iU oH fc). SO
AfJ £ U 06
^i HI €«
•^ ©
fe •« «aso
«;
© (9 ©&88
O G tS s
B m
«»* t
<«r ■ :P..B«0 S 0 S«35
«
■'O i-*
•*=* O "H «o irt o
'«M (8 r-0
^■^©
SX^ ng
©,
o
0
© oi „a •©
>» d «7» ^
■
O ««» o ■
*0 «ii.-«0
■3 © tS
a) w
O ,53 •fiW'<S> ■« ©
© Q «!& -a ® JS *>
■
too ©*
•
-WO
o-'&m ■
<**
© fH) o
SO r* JO
■
■©too
■
«
■
O ODU?
4»
r-r V9 ■
e-
'•:
.
*
va
e- if>
(MtO
o
r"4tn»
rH SO'
t»
^3
'• '
'mm
■*
:C3
o
M
r*
X5
d^^J
e* ^
W (-!!
C'-
■0
•H
-p -g <n
•rt -»? Qt,
3 o ■«
,© "■« -o
•^ 3
•^^■O
^^g3
*»
»-a> t* « :o ■<» O fo •o •EJ- 'f
,o ■a.v© ss t. ft fe <^; u «■ «>
«>
©
©, .■©» ©, £5 a
AS
I» .« .4.
.^i
-•
«
6
^ St
03 >H -o *»
<P « a> . .© fij ©
S «w o «J o (S,:©
•rf ** M
'3 4* 'O
>C9 O
■•* SH %
^^
^«3 O
B
M:
M
©
fi
fit'
&
H
©
u
fr«
>»
*»
©
"Si
U
>
a
<M
1*4
03
©
05
<d
r-t
©
«-»
>4
s©
s &
■<& o
^0
«\«d
<^ eg
^K 13
s
$
\
£>
OJ
s
•4»
^ M
c
•
-
'
»
%
»-«.eo
.fi-
to
O
■•
03 CO
t~i ©
t
43
HlW
to
•
t «s
. o
:
!
•?
0> id
; ^to
«.
t3
o
•
0
^9
r-i
8*
e- tfj
£». • » .
P« r4 Ct
•
(9
^3
«-<
W
^O
f-t • *
>-««H 01
x»
o ■
i»4
. > ...
■
a*
•
.
. ©*».
'
•
03
£>
ft
N
O
•
ja
r<
•
©»
©
r4
•o
t
&
<-!
<5J
«
o
• o
ft
o
fi4
©>
» •
ft
ft
1ft
©
. •
o>
O
•
/»
«-»
^5
««l
©>
t
68
©
*o
■<*■
.•
0i
©3
•
t0
*
03
ft
r*
CU
.
M
•
^
r*
0}
*
e*3
©
O
^
*
to
«0'
* .
'!S3 ■
©
€>
•
<!" «3
so
® ©
a a tJ 1S '« s •a
<?3 ns
•O
■© S) ffl ©
03
03
**
•
JO
ft
■ »
6S ■
rs
O^j
Pal"*
■a
O .C
O ■
ff-* ©
•
rt
•© <*
Jid fi
.© S
o O
t, O
©
*
•o
w
•
<0O o
♦•
€VJ ■ •: . ..
JBxn
ft •.
••
n
©
ea
•'
eo
do
H'
f>-«H
s
©
•H fi ©
■P. © •©
S «*l ©
^3 *» cu •
-a
s* ^a "O
^^fe
u ■ •
© <S
-ftr©
©
• -03
<P
e
.
<»
»-*»
ff-f
«*
i©
«©
1
<M
©
•
N
O
J>
•
M
O
r-J
^
•
^
*
M
w
ft
©
•
• *-*
■^
?»»
03
fi
•
eo'
. •
03
ft
1
*
©
O
r*
••
*:
40
W
». ■
£
ft
<o
©
..»
N
to
«H
•
©
«S
•
4
r-T ■
(0
©
<#
•
,© ■
rt •
to
0*
r-t
•
(53
ft
m
f=*
o
•
e*
r-»
25
fi
^
e-
•
a
r^l
(
*;
43
©
W
©
©
<HI.
*8
©
V9
*
«
1
1
1
^
ft
03
S*^^
^3
e
3?
»
r
Jn.
J*
©^
^
e*
©
CQ
<# S
<»
9
f
. •;
•
«
^ ©
0Jp«
■©*.«
0J
.©
ft ■
©
«a
o
^5
^
ft
•
'S
ft
e* ©
SS', ©ea1
f*
•
sP
0J
*
.*
X>
•a
0}
•
N
©
ft
*
03
ft
••
•
80
•H
««H
fo
s §s 0
ci «30 &•
I -P M ^
*»■
©
©
0 ^W •
«© (8 ^
■o> QtU
OJ - ♦
©^
*» &
W
©<o
$ © M-&
f-i m OJ <»
© fi
©
•M tJ ■© eu
'CJ ©<© Q*5© ^ <©
« ^ @« •Hi-« ©
<# •♦> .© a* u a ©
fe
03 15 Jivt £1 © « .. §-.
G
£S
V
^S ir
« • sg
€ O S»© g o
'© .H !3!,w4 ©^ ©•58BtS ^r4
O 8? ©
a
©.
is « © P»«-a ^3
P**!? ■♦■d
©
a.-® ♦» © © ©
• •O &*
wt «a
P
03
m
si
©
s a
©
m <3 tt <** 1© #>
1 0
« ®-Q © ®«'©
fi © 0 © (%>© ft CD
3 .© a,0«H © ©•a,x{
*
63 <#
u ©,i* C b
. 0» •H ©, 03 ■a, •©03 •
&
««
4*
©
£«
fi
«9
'«
£2
fa
SB
P^ VI
<sa .H
ffi %.
*-» *»
<Q ffl
tH
♦ •o
4»
■H
■»
iH HI ft
^
*»
CO
Wft
•
to
^0
<#
■ «-4
<^
1
*
m
^s^fiQ
016^
'^\5S
:
&
<3«
•
r^ *0 M
^Ksa
we-»
ft m
s
«
«0
V
© ft
■ '%: W
03
©
SS3
i««
O
©
•a
<s
ia
©
a
©
u
&
xi
>»:
O
©
ra
©
83
03
"Hi
©
•a
<3
b
©
©t
*& oj
*& .
s
Oil
■
»
w
o
»
IOA0
♦
O
m
1-4 O
*o o
• • •
«© r-i *&
0
40
eO O
■•
03 f»4 ^
03
HI
«
■ oo
•
so e* oa-
C3
00
BOO
«5 O »-«
A
-c e> -
to
rHEO
N
O
t
£3
©
JO
fi
o
•H
•■8B
£0
o
««>
o
N
O
o
©
%Q
«
Qi
©
r-4
©
HI '
<i>
©
O
P4
Oi
©
43'
(-5
DO
■» •
© :ffl '«9 ©
«>
W
60
to
•0
©
© s
d ra
® <&■ m <&
«5 © fSS © c^© «*
s © © © 04 © &
sea© (H © O
02
••• £ii«j-4 P* ffl -IS, -•■
©
©
80
to
63
©
■^
«=4
•
43
«-»
.
o
<*
•
JS
«-«
HI
a-4
i~«
#-»
©
•
■1-4 ■
©
<3
•
03
•
o
EO
•
<©
rt
o
•M
©
CD
ft
*9
CO
■•
CO
♦
O
s©
o
^
0j
f-8
*-4
©
'21
£9
O
&, ©
©
©
IS
M
to
»
to
o
a «
© e»
© <5|
^
^.
© CO
©sfe
«#
©
o
<\3
to
A
m
V.
©(HI fl-3 »-» ©
I & © Da© G ®
ja.
feS^ ©CO
«i-s © tJ '
©
Oil
03
♦ '
to
to
•
05
Hi
03
SO
o *** a
o
o
fe».
03
P
ne
03
M
O
HI
&•
•
J0
ea©
■HI
O
■
# •
63
©
©
*•
P
HI
es
tO
©
H«
t» .HI
o af ©
43
© W
cs ^
© *H
*s ©<o
©HS
<S«rt ©
©
© OS © *& "
.a,
(M
© £aii-4 43
43** A.
O £S
©
Q,® $2 © © © €
■H 3
o
8
«*» © «H © ■& t3 ttS'tt ©
**,©•©
4^ >H © V
«*
©
©
«t» >»
«-4
■«■ i* ie s
•H «i> © si © *©
ts ©■ © © Pu ©
©
-•, .61
«* h o
.T3 © -
^^^
<*s>
i<*8.
%
&
n
•H
s
N
* #
©
If}
£3
©
©
CO
62
*9 O
CO
t<>©
ca
W>0-
&
U:
a•
*•* © r^
m
pa©
*» G
M
■&* «-• tO
©
'♦
«©
«a
•»
©
®
% A •0
•0}
i3
©
©3
«-a
•
fi9
©
03
M
©
•
©
©
g-4
,0
•
©
r-l
©
**
©
01
'♦
<HI
© -
•■
f-4
f>
e*
01
t-4
©
•
©
«0
•
f-^
<o
^
©
Oi
©
05
<4J
O
-so
i®
^.
©
0}
©
t©
#=<
K
©
©
#■4
rf»
10
9tt
cS
^
W
03
■♦
t©
•
^
tO
rf
©
<r4
5-*
^
©I
©
r-i
*-4
<o
43
.
<$?
©
•-
©
o
©
I©
i3
vS
©
©
<©
t3
©
©
«0
• -
c
03
o
■a-Cfc, *© ©0*3
•
G
•
t©
0*
&a
^
«"")
©■
© bfe
©
01
0»
t9
«-4
©
ns
0«
©■©
C ^
© t
■*> «0
W •
-ttf ffi
©
03 e ^3 -H 2 m xs •&
«5£ ■4' © ©4 t- f3 ©
&
e- ® u
ffi
© © & fl>
© 63 C O t, * c$ $a«
©
«o a e ^ e ffl 6
«o
•en l -♦» (9 ^t & <&
Ort
•B © E >© S
© fei
© ffl ©' •
©.rf
%*
^ © <Cs$ O
• JJ.
03 • fe>»
2
0^3 ^ «0 * ^J
•O ^'©
©
Gi © ♦» @ © '©- 0 <#
«* ©
*s flj 0
©
M © «-« «a is <® «s--.o © -I • 13 *» •«8 IS «£S p •-«■ ©«<j»
© •
® •©.«» AO -»»
■*a
© fi
© & 03
,-» «4 «<J: '<t3- ©<
!,
5g ©
©4»o
* •«
^
©\ft p
♦»
« © ng -© ©*■©■ U I
^!*> fc.
©CO"© 6 © © © euo ^©
o ss n>® g © a ;© «r4 © ©
<&
■U &< S*
V ©
o ©
•^
Zl
$5-
a
S3
S;
HI
■©■
M.
©
s
©
»
Z.
Analyses
The following table gives the results of duplicate deteroinations of total solids,
starch, crtad© fiber and vitamin 0^
'"
fable ¥1
:
Variety
A_,
Grade
■liHwrfw—mfWm*
Bival
fendierpod
0
1
©
1
Analyse of .different Varieties of .Bash .@n^p gemns,
Total "SdXldd
Strijigless
Green Pod
0
1
2
3
0
1
B
3
aisi
0,,©S
0*®4
0,80
23
g©
19
17
19
64
94
94
14.78
13.14
16.68
13,14
0,44
0*58
0.eg
18.
1§
11
IS
£8
76
11
70
11.86
10.00
18,96
9.99
4,8$
U40
30 00
sa 63
©7 69
30 76
15,2§
15.46
IS, 86
19,08
ia.20
0.80
0.8©
0.9E
89
74
14
74
SO.38
24.89
87.81
28.61
lUg
10.6
8.S
5. 1
5.,
0
0
1.16
3^ ol
4./6B
§■• ©9
3.86
§,34
6 6
7 4
7 1
a, 3
i;74
0.S1
6.41
7.,4©
7,; 57
7.* 88
0.73
6.; 49
4.; 4$
6*86
io;s
IO:B
9. t
T S
11 1
11,9
li-
lUt
i2;9
lt. 7
11lg i
S-.7
14,. 3
nmtmmv**tw jn'ii^Lii^iMi
Freeli
a; is
e;s4
11.M
14.7
Vitaain 0
■ .iy©sh
g4 hr*.
6;9
6»4
7;4
.
©rale" Fi%«r
.24 hr-«.
'aresh
3
fend©rgreen
8%acr*b"SXF$ "B&ai*
,84 lar^..
0..74
0.93
0.7S
10. so
Fresh „%4 hr...
84
3S
87
8©
.
^5
49
29
f.
PISGtrSglOK OF RBSULfS
aaftKlKKstsamaatt
The proe<Ntare followed in tran^ferrlitg the frosefisaaple© to the biesdor #sf fetav« ln©arred a slight ©rror
ia the final results^
Similarly^, the us© of smter t© fae*
ilitat© tii'dAdiing inerraeeB th® dl^fleolty iia ofetainiRig a
r©pr.@.@©}f5tatii?# anampl©*
Sssperlmentatiwi ©B this. teehBlque
$»>i3id probably show th&t there ie axs ©piliiiaa eone&ntrstioft
of s@fflpl© ai^ ©ator t© g-i"^© aost aeeurate results*
U'S?© of fotat© st^reh a© a st&RdarS ifi th©- star eh analysis pro^ii©© only r®lati'i?e result.® mfalsfa are,, ho^e^er.^
qiaate satisfactory In a s©rle® ©f an^Lyse© ©hieh iaelwi©
only on© proffeet.
Siels^n (Wl tms ©imti® that %n his ©©th-
©d of starch analysis th© srror da© to dsxtrin© is much
less than In © hydrolysis pr'©e@dwrs far stsreh nh^r© th©
dsKtrlns ars not- r©ro0^©4,
e..
Yield
The following tsbl© staram&rig©© the- dat®. on y&sld
eh&r&ett'rlsties &t the ^arieti©© studisdf
^"©^'"■"^''""""am&lh' ""^uslies'"""*" '^''"'ifiel^1''1'' '" ' :I'''
period Emerged
#0
In days
14*5
40*0
420
62
Rival
13*0
35.3
446
63
Tender P©d
18*4
39*1
467
64
Stringless
»*©«=
Green Pod;,
Tendergreen
64
456
33*2
13*3
"'^""Msiritrtiiion
#1
#2
#3
18.»3
12*5
4*8
31*5
35v3
38*4
35*6
39^2
18*4
8»5
30»6
46*7
30
In %h® light of this data it would appear that Ri¥al is a
maeh better yielding ■variety .and && earlier maturing variety t&an th© others,
this -may b© an erresieeud eonolu-elo»
ia that the aetmal nuaaser of lushe© yielding fceana ©ere n@%
eownte-d, bat rather the total njoaber aS b\*sfe©e ©oerge<i for
eaeh variety.
TM.®,» 'he^ever,. Sees not &®em likely since
there is sueh a significant difference in the- total bashes
efflerged for Blval and the other varieties*
Ha<S Biml been
allowed to ifsatere the extra on© t© two days like tte© ether
varieties it is probable that the yield ©f this parU«ttlar
variety woald ha^e been e^en greater.
The l@r^st perueistag© of bean-s* Pith the exception
of gtringiesa Green Fod* are <li©trib!ated. in grade© 2 and 3,
Stringlees dreea t'©d nae the most evenly di-stribated var-*
iety.
Bi^al ©homd the highest percentage of crooked pods.
Tehdergreen and Stringlea-s Qreen Pod showed the highest
weight, loss frora holding S4 how© at rooa teraperature,
The
weight loss in holding showed n© correlation to grade else.
Table VIII shows the. total snippage logs for each
variety?
31
table ¥111
total .^1.
Salppage
h®&& % Variety
nili:»ii'
I II ..i Hi , I ill r ll'.i I 11
ii.i'inliHtij n.n.i infill jl.i.u'. mill
IIIMIIIH
Rivat-l
tepderpod
feadorgrees
..n.....»i..
.'.in- .i,
St.Grn Fed
of all gradeiT '
3? 11»»
27 itee,
M lbs,
^S lbs*
SRtp^Crd' ©%•. Of
all grad&e
proot©©©*! iisffl®4»
"
3S lbs-.
© os*
23 lbs.
14 02.
"
3© 1M...
& 08*
IS8 lbs.
3 o«.
g Snippajso
13*8
13*6
8g*i.
12.9
Bith t&e ©3fe©TptioB @f fen^ergreen^. tto© total loea ol'^© to
snippag© was -.ele©© to 1§ p^rceint for ea©k of the otlutr
vari@ti©-s..
In ©ssieral %fo® ^pippag© teraded to lessen witk inereas-lug grade aiz«*
The ©©ad oontent me ia all eases well be lei? the l^
allowable for P. S. Grade € standards for maturity of canaed
greefi beans* and ©aly la one grade of ©a© variety did the
seed eontent e^eed'the &% allowable for a standard grade
aeeordlag to Ho©© aad Boeaej (Z&).
The fo'lleslng table is of interest to ©osp-ariag the
yield resalts of the four varieties studied with siailar
researeh eoedyteted in iSiehigaa la 194'? by Wittwer aad
Barrleon (29).
•8'
«n4
■d
«•»
m
I
s
e
I
©
■do
m
© ©
■s
■if*
»
o
4*
• •■o ©■
m&
■
P^
•^ © © €> ■«?
WAV,
*«»
'* .« ^
■«* 49 -O
■O g »«
^ a
E-S
r«3 ©
■© ©
I* ©■
© ©
>
:
!
4
8
«4)
©3
8
i&
<&
fQ
9
o
to
«Nt
0
€9
«
H
«l
j»4
O'
«
03
•ffl ^
•^6
©
«.
0?
<9
»«4
i
i
m
m
aw
MO
^
©
ffe
e
©
©
*
m
0
•St
in u
* :.■
.© ©
32
3$
'fee resalts iodiloate that the yielfis of tiies-© ifari©ii©@ growi i^ liehig©® sr© klgfeer tbsra tk© Or©gom yields,
but fe@re agaiB th© stage© of mattsrlty at hari^st aui the
Htiaber &f pipings should be knevm before true eoriparisoias
ean be made*
Wittwer and iferrisoi* (29) p^int oist t&at Ri-^al mm©atstaoiirag isa yield ®n& make this interestittg commentj.
a
Ther© is ara indication fr<M tiaase testa tfesat Eifal l3elo»g@
to the saiae har% class» mmf be fflor© prodmctitsei,, and ha®.
the qaality ©f Teaddrgreenv* thl® stateaeet is ■wrrob***
rated toy the present sorfe ^ust completed i© Oregoa.,. for
Bi^al firovei saperior in yield t© feadergreeia. aai lo«eF
in starcti and crude fifeer*
Etosn^wr^ Bi^al did not eoxw
tain as rauch vitamin. C as fept^ergreea.
Tenderfrad ©hen gro%m. in Michigan showed the highest
yield op a plant toasis, yet,,,; toeeauss the plants failed
to develop in col<l wet weather it ms the- least products
i^r© variety,
the Oregon re salts shots Sival to he sttperior
in yield to fenderpod or any of the other trarieties ©n a
plant basis.
The resialts of the ©iatlstleal analysis (M) on
total -solids ar© presented helo^.
The W value of 1?.4
indicate© that there is a highly significant differones
34
Isiiteeen varieties insofar as total solid© are eogteerned*
Wo sisniftcftBt difference was found in ^cmparins grade
sises and oo a-lguifieasit differ&ne® was- fowsd. to c^mpar^
ing fresii with 24 ko-ur d®laf 0aai|Jl@®.*
3 8 ■
Varieties
© p
124.03
It* 09
Grade©-
?»iS
3
£.3*
1«.0S
Dgl^y
T,90
1
7*90
v^iif'^^
Error
$5«5i
m
Total
lt4,..St
si
S...S1 •
Bi^diy S'igia.ifi«aai
Striagiee^ :^r@««i Pod eentained tli^ Higbeftt per«s»ta^e ©f
total solids ©» tije gs-wrage,, whil© f©sidergre«B. ©^s "ae:st
and fender pod -and Slml ^ere sbo&f e^eu.
fartesr and Stpart (£1) foand tbat ssall beans eom-*
tainod a higher per^eritage of ©©istyr® Vam. large feeaa©
and that the percent ©f less is weight ©» ©t@rag©- was
praetically ttoe saia© in both -0i&e@.
Th© ftgare© for the statlstieal asaalysis of starch
on the (Sry feasia as sho^n, reveal that therf is a highly
sigpificaxit difference in starch between varieties aad
among grades* toot n© ©ignlfleant difference ^etsseen the
fresh and 24 hoar delayed saaples*
m
S S
© F
1 s
F
is&as
ggaas
3
41*38
01,9**
3
73*38
38*9-
©©lay
Si 15
1
5.13
Error
4S.*a9
S4
1*80
Total
394.68
11
Varieties
Grades
m
2*7
Mhghly elgBifleactt
Stri3fj.gle$s ©reen P©d. «'@ntals)Sd fey far the Mghesto
percisirat^g® ©f starch
OB
ths ii@iglat#i a¥#rage» Tend©r^t*^^a
©as next lil:ish@a:t,f %h®n TenS&epoi&f, aBd finally Rival,.
fla® stsrcfe e©iit©js:tr l^or^^sed. rap-idly tilth ijaereasing
grade sige*. tJhiek e^ese witk tfee remjlt® of Far&er said
@i»art ($1)+
The rise in stared eosatesi-t i® illustraied in
graph.© 1 spid 2;.;
Cr Cr^fi^.
Orily in oia© iKistau-ee did t&© fi"fe©r oxe@©d 1 pereent
®n ifee fresh basis.,
It is difficult,,, frcwn the results ©£ the analysis^ to
prediet x'5,heth©r ©r not the fiber increases with inereaslftg
grade st-ze.
Wm®v@r» there appear® to "foe some differen-e©
io varieties* since Rivals TetJ-dergreesa and Striagless Oreea
Pod contain; approximately the same ammmt of fi^er ®hile
fenderpod appears to have eomsiderafcly less thasi the afore—
mesntioned varieties*
36
GRAPH I
% STARCH— FRESH BAS S
;.tKT{rthrR£. if-m:
+ Jn
HlrrtiTi-jl
x
o
<
(0
I-
z
u
o
tr
ui
o.
GRADE
GRAPH 2
i
o
a:
<
t-
UJ
o
cr
UJ
o.
GRADE
37
% STARCH— FRESH BASIS, 24 HR. DELAY
38
The Canned Food B-©f©r©iaee Mamal (1) gives an average
of 0.5 percent crude fiber in green beans, Kramer (16) reports an average of 0.65 percent and Chatfleld and Maros
($) 1.40 percent,
the average ©f ail grade siaes reported
herein im© tovmd to be 0.® percent for Rlva-1,,. 0.5 percent
for Tenderpod, 1.1 percent for Tender green and 0.9 percent
for Strlngless 0re©n Fed,
»• fityala,^, '
The results of the s'tattstlcal analysis on ascorbic
acid figures appear belo^;
.S S
Varieties
© F
76'1.§4-
3
1.92
3
Delay
88*?. 40
Error
Total
Grade©
13 S
F
253.84
26.47
0.64
0.0?
1
287.40
29.97
230.10
24
0.59
1280.95
31
,
Highly significant
In this experlaent the F values indieat© that there is a
highly significant difference in vitarain 0 content between
the varieties of beans and also a highly significant differance between the fresh and tt3©nty-*fo»r hour delay samples.
That no signdficant difference was found in vitarain
€ determinations by grades confirms the work by Mack ©t al
(17):, Wade and Kanapaux (27) and Tressler et al (26).
How-
ever, Flynn and associates (9), Caldaell et al (5) Kramer
39
(15) and Ptilllips amd FentoB (22) foiamd that vltaoiin C varied with the grade ais^ or stage ©.f .roattirity.
m&eKr Tapley aisd King (17) report that to «omp@rison
tjith othsr vegetable a snap beaas lose their vitamiBi C rapidly in storage^ ^speei-ally at l-ow temperature, which- is
qalt© ©vidgsit fro© the tables ©hawiiig vitarain C content.
f/ade and KaKiapam (SS) aoted that the, ©ore fiferogs
atrate© ©r varieties had a higher aeoorbic a€id coaieat.,
This o^a®rvati©n can be made in the preseht work for ^
feBderpod having a decidedly lower 'fiber' eoaten't has also
a decidedly lower aeeorble acid eonicint uhile Teudergree^
©ith highest fiber content ha© highest atscorble acid content«
fh© following table present® a -ec^apa^ls^n of the results of several investigation© of ascorbic acid content In
ailli^rasss per 100 grand fresh baana* of the varieties
studied.
m
Vitamia G Oontent of the Mti®wen% Var%6%l&& of
"■""mi i- |i 'V
.1 'i li J I I II nilummi/ii ■■linniiiliiiniiiiilii.iiiiw
Im^estiga—
tors
_______
IMLII..I.;II,:,I¥IIMII.I«III«IMI
Rival
Sacfe ©t al (17)
H©liaK© et al (18)
Hagrgea'61 al (11)
Phillipg & Wm^m <88>
ai'Mard & Flyim (13)
Jane.0. (14)
Flyxj© et al (9)
fan Buysae el al <S6)
la^fleld & Rlehard^
son (IS)
Bedford •©! al (S)
Present Mom'
($©igtit<i<l-®v. of
grades)
«=rt«!H»a»fii»>m!».fc
II,I.I..H.»I
.il
i Hi
li iiii.;i;i
.in
I.'..i .
16.?
I...II
...n rn i i. ■■■
i» ■■
n in-nun
tender* Str.&reen
green
. Pod
34.0
3S..0
g4..g
21.1
3S.5
15.8
86.T
19. S
81.0
%?.Q
20.1
[M.III
li un.iii mill.
fsaaer*
___ pad
IPI V.I:.IM»
13*8
39.0
m,:s-
89..§
26..6
li'iiimr III.III ;■ - .yiiiipftnnwxi.Hini y/.n uni.lll' I mull i, 11'jij i mn
i;",'ii;#r.<Wi> .',»..»'»«ii<
II %®. a ■di.ffl©itfll taatc to raak lh» varl©!!©© ©ImdlM
on Hi© resells presealdd tier© asd- iiid®©d.t such ^a& not t&e
©fej.©<Jt of this research.
However». if the values for
stareh* crude fiber and vitamin 0 fee considered approxitaalely ©q^a:l in a practical s©n©e:f then an atteiapt way be
made to rank the varieties on liar vest yield and processing
char aeteri all e®-.
Rival was best ae it gave the highest yield in the
shortest growing period.
Stringless Green Pod having a
©rowing period one day longer than Tendarpoi produced a
slightly higher yield than that variety.
Had the growth
periods been equal the yield of Tenderpod •raotald probably
41
have b©en higher than it was.
T©nd@rgr©en gav© the 1 ernest
yield*
Am far as sulppag© loss ©as eoiie©rn©4. Tender green
loe'i ra©@t while the other varieties were al>out even im
snippage loss.
Th© grafi^ si see I and g @re siosfc €©©iraMe if the
beans ar© to be frosea for eoanereial use..
Stringles©
6reen Pod h©Q the highest percentage of bea?*© in these
grai© 9ta»9t foll.arci&6 by Rival* fef^erped and fender^ee®.
Siaee livsl Is so ontetahfiing in yieia it aahay be
ranteei first*
Stria^leae Careen Pod having mo®% be^as Sa
the preferred' grade siges. say b® ranlce^ ®eooKiSt follo^ecl
by fesaderpoa.
On th© ba:Si# of th© twbUtre Jti«t i:ise«s©e^r
fendergreeB deserve® to be ptaded fourth*
42
vi. .cc«cu»iqw8.
If ©siap beans are i© b@ har^estM meehanically it is
e^l^eBt. that liicr^ased planting ©agt fe®- made in ©rcler
to equal th© yi@l4 by hand picRiag.
fh© date of h^p^est
tsAttt h® earefally considered if a aiajorlty of a ©pecific
grade sis® is desired.
Rival appears to giir© a higher yield and to »at»re
earlier than the other varieties.
fh® ®Hippa@e iess I* syfficleatly high ip seae grade0
to fjarrasrrt farther ii5ve'@tigatio:)a»..
the seed, oos^ent inereaee^ ©Ith lacreasiwg grade
else which should ©taviate the ■necessity ©f detentiraiag
pereent seed as- ain todieatioB of st^ge of maturity.
there is a temdeacy for the bean© to loe© weight
©lightly during storage for 24 hovar© at room, teaaperature,,
wlille ©tareh on the dry hasis qto&m n& significant change
and vitamin S los-o 1© hi:ghly eignifleant*
Starch content incmase© rapidly with raaturation and
the relatively ©imple and rapid ©tsrch Qnaly©i# of Miel^
sen .(19) could easily he need a© a quality control aeasure.
The starch content on the fresh basiss was belovj 1
pereent in saost results and in no case ©scceeded % percent,
these results ooapare favorably with thoee of Ghatfieid
and Adaws <6) ^h® give an average of S*S percent ©tarch
for green bean©*
43
P© sigjaifleant Mtt&remG® in vlt&Mln S of boa^s from
%b® ¥mf%Q<n& jgr-Q&$£ was obser-vaiS^
Th© i?api©t4e'0 stiadi^S ^rar«■ not ©Keessitely high lf>
stcir^h or •cra&a filler aa«3 t^© ase@r%ic a©ia content coa*
pared favwateiy trith th© f inSlag® ©f ©ifeer w©rfeer©.
44
mi... mmmt
A review of the litsratar© ©is .^re^a fe@&»& ha© been
IMree-ajated*
Flrgjar'e.^ for Jmrwsfc, yield,, jield fey grate© and
proeessing losses for fosr varieties of siagle-^^rveet
baab 3R@f> beans -are ©iJ®CTi in talSmisr fiara*
Aaal^s©'® sr^ given for total soii&s* •starefe.,. crat©1
fiber« <m& aseorM« aeidl
@B
&otia fresh and a 34 ho'tsr
■delayed bast®*
Sans eoacliasioxis from ttie mr& are mads*
4$
X,
J-m&TtG&xi 'Omi iotapaiij. Tfi© dasiftei food ref©r©n-ce' man.aai* 2tt<3 E"i*"H©g©r©-«SC©ll.ogg-Still©OB.r IBC*,
nm SarK tf.T.*. U94t).. 552 p.
or® E. "^^©of'MC: a©id triCLm® In- trmzem' ®n&p'
%&&&&' «&' aff 00^4" fey ft$m© pri5-ce«siii@' feeik'ods
a6.d' &tdf"a®&'times..' Mw. Wtdi&n Wa%ritlon aM'
Hosts 'Sc..^. A-#*. Rtsdafe&'Mm,* U.S.- 09p-". 'Agr.^
Frogr©©© H'o-t©,. Sfo... l,f JaB,*^ I:if46} ..? p,.
Stiif' 11, "The effect of M«EiCii;i»g;.i tr®&z>$tig
afs4 'danaiag-'oa the tritaim-lB. ■^datsnt' ©f" snap
4,
©e»§«-y#; 0# Ai &'ml&&& for tJi« 4@t^riaiaail©a of small
qtaatiti^B: of ^©«®rl>l-© aM^TaM -te^SroascorMe
■&ei€" iaft itirMd eud- ool^re^ 0®l^t'i@as ta' "Ui©
•'•:*^re'8^a»s" .of'.o'tjisr rettael-mg. .©Qls'tsta©©©. $.
SI ol. Cla^a,.; 186* mL*T04# (1S38>.
5.
■Gal^ell* ^.. S..,* '€aipepper,.'£. 9¥9.'f!at6hlft&<9. H* 0-.
isoil.* B. "S, aaa. ©il.-©o%. M., 3» Studio©- of
tari^tal smitafeilit^ for ^tl^drailoa la snap
feaaag- the £Jame;r 99- (11}.# I^IS^ ('1944)
6..
0hatfi@M# '0-. -sad Ma®®, '®... Fr^Klraate eofflpositiaa
@f fresh'iregetaM^e, ^.. S. Bspt-. Agr*,* Circ.
14$,, daa., Ci94&)f.
7.
gJ,iack@>- largaret L-.» FerKias,. Jeaaae and Bairejr,
Be-ssie-. the ®ff©et of fre©«iag and eoofeiag on
the thlaiila ¥-al«e@' of asparag^©,: 'feroe-eoli,
Tbr&ssels' spro«te% cera^ li®a beca»Bt snap
fcean© sad ssfie© ehard* Mat. Ooop.. Project
Progrese S©tes. Oregon Ag-r, E^p* Sta...#. Cor*
vallia, Oregon. 2 p.
8»
Fli&geralg, o* A* aad Fellers-;, ©. B. Garetefse and
m^eor&ie a©id eoateat of freoh marltet and;
oofiiraereially frozen friait® -and ¥e-g©tables.
Food Beseareh^ 3+ 1O9**120, (1938),
46
9.
Plyzm, Laara M* 9 ' HIMjaTd, A«<3rey ©.!t Hdgafi* A* ©•
aHi'Sura^ek, A. E.. Effect of'tsaturlty on nu*
trI©Bta df suap bean©, J.. Am, Dl^tet. Assoc.»#
10.
Hsrri©, E» S»» W&0^iidiin« H* ®.« aM 0re9Tille¥ &•■
T'&e Sffe^t of r©d^6§<3 ©vapdratlon on tke ^Itaasin
■coat«$:t' ©■£' trmft'v®^%&bl$Q'%n r^frl'gerated
storage.. 3* Lafe* Clin^ 0©4.# SS# ©SS-B&S*
(1940)..
11..
H^den# Fira^es S** SeiB^e^'F, Et« a^^ Wetde* B. L..
Vitamin content of' map fo&em® growi- i-n Soutli
Carolin&v Food BodftATfih^. I3» %43«*3.6i« (3t9«8)
12...
Hoia®e:.f F, H** Kesa^att^t ?3argar©% S*,,. la#e> B* £»♦<,
Or irabal 1, ' F*. €. mi4' foster # Bath' L.. StoeorM ©
atJldi ooMest of 30 irarl^tiis©-of aptap feeaB©-»
IS.
lIlfebaf-'4? 4* ©^ etxa Flynis.^, L*'S, If feet of m&tfxri&y
?roo*' a®, Soo,.. H@r-t.. MI.#., 4:S.j 55§*4S4-^ (l$43)«
14*
Jaaa®^" %rofe E.' fk@ relative #ff©ct of variety araS
^p^iroiuteyjt itiE 4o.t^rialftl33g. t)ae>-'variations of
p#.r««Bt ■dry'w^ig&t# aaoorbl'© a^id arid earotefie
• eoBtent'of '©afeli^g©' sm® fe^anfe* froo.. Am* Sod,Hort* gcfi*^ 4$* 38f«390» (1944),
IS.
Kramer'.#'4ffl|ted,- '©orrolati^ia of q»^lt%3r and nutritive
fa&tors> Food fa^teor,, 89 <5>4 38«46# (1948),
IS.,
Kramar* ^aiiiatd, Htatritiv^ valu.© of oa^ied .foods.
Ifl* ?r^.Kimate srtd ©iraera! ooispoaltion. Food
Hea0ar@ii:» ll;r 89X-398, (1946 >*
17,
!3aok.# 0, L*, fapley*'W*. T. and Kiiig* C» ©* ^Hafiiii '
'0 in ^a^e-taMos., 3S S^ap %©^a©.. Food Research,
■*» 309-B14,- (19S9),
18,
Hayfleld;* H©:ler». Is, and. Blchardio^K ^-s&le S*. Tiie
iriiasin co^teat of $r«®r> string
be.ans wliea
eocked or carmsd easd stor©sS:#. 'Dfontafta State'GoX**lege Agr, Sxp„ Sta. Bull, 3^,:. Jttiie# (1999>v
13 p.
IS-,
Hielsen* John f:» Eapid d^terwimfation of atareh,
Ing, €hem, Anal^ Ed.., 15» ItS^l?©, (1943),
Ind.
4?
SO...
Official ami Teatsiti^'^ethedls of ^naiy©i# of tlm'
ASGO^; Office ilgrs Chooi^te^ 6>t)t e-ft., (194$),.
21.
Parte®r4:'S.'0. an^" StasaPt* S* V* Ghsaagp* In tn©
ctefe©Eil;66I 'ComposiVl<m'of .gir#m ©mp '^©am after
fearv^gt,- WhrylamM A&r. Sxp* Sta. tall. 383,
<19SS)? El p.'
SS.
gowc^'S* #. ani Sonn&y^ ¥,., B. * @tts&y ©f cbesaleai
stB# pliysie&I oi©thd-d« far ^terai^l^g th§ aatiar(1936).
24...
&b&QAQ&ti "€?•♦' W.. Statistic©! aetiiM#. 4tb ed*
Osll©^iat0 i^.re©^^ iR-e*t Atfi^s^ fowa# (.1946}*
MB pn
85,.
fressler* '^naii- K. m4 Srers^ Cl if fort f • Tjie
fr0.©«ing .pr^aefvatioft'of f©0i«»" ^d ©<a.
Ilae' A*i ,BBb* 0©, inc.,, fte* ¥o.rk#. (1947)#
93^ p..
26...
tr«0©l«'^:|t. ©©nal^ K.,8. Mafck:* S;. L. aad'KlRf^ C?* G.
Zf.
¥^13 Dtsjme^ F, 0., Br»-cfs&ri, S.* 1*# Ohase,.. J* f. ^ndi
Sl-®p0o?i# ^. I... Ad'0©rbie astcl coii^sit of
fre^My harvested ve^otabl^'gu J* A©* Di©tet..
Aets^e., 21» X5S*1S4., (1945)..
2®,.
WG<|-@#.
'B* X*..* and Kanapta5a% iargarat S* JtaCQrtoie ecid-
E@searcfe* 66;.t 313-3S4* (194:3)^
89.
^it'twe-r^ ®.. .E» a«4 Harri^on^ l, &.., Basults ©f 194?
■suap ^ean variety trials- is BSi«-higan« Efarget
Growers J.,, 76 (12) 8, (1947).