UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BERKELEY 4, CALIFORNIA FOOD VALUES ON A POUND, ACRE, AND MAN-HOUR BASIS FOR CALIFORNIA PROCESSED VEGETABLES' JOHN H. MacGILLIVRAW AGNES FAY MORGAN.' G. C. HANNA, 4 and ARTHUR SHULTIS This country faces a need for all possible food production; also a shortage of man power, transportation, and certain materials, including canning equipment. Wow is the time to examine agricultural habits and policies to see whether more nutrient values can be produced with our present limited facilities by adjusting the acre- age of crops. In comparing or ranking fresh vegetables 6 and processed vegetables, the object is the greater production of essential human foods with the fa- cilities available. The goal may be to determine the vegetable or product best in all nutrients or to overcome deficiencies of certain nutrients or vitamins; to secure food products that may be used when or where fresh vegetables are not available or cannot economically be made so; or, as in Great Britain, to obtain more from a very limited land area. The problem in California may be to produce the greatest total quantity of all nutrients with a declining supply of farm and processing labor. When vegetable foods are shipped, the degree of concentration is an im- portant factor in saving space and containers. The change in food values upon concentration, as well as storage, is important. Changes in pro- duction and processing involve many considera- tions besides the relative value of the different vegetables. On the production side are problems of crop adaptability, time, and equipment. On the consumption side, palatability and food habits are important, though they are not ade- quately considered here. A previous compilation was published in: Mac- Gillivray, John H. , G. C. Hanna, and P. A. Minges. Vitamin, protein, calcium, iron, and calorie yield of vegetables per acre and per acre man-hours. Amer. Soc. Hort . Sci . Proc. 41: 293-97- 1942. Associate Professor of Truck Crops and Oleri- culturist in the Experiment Station. 3 Professor of Home Economics and Biochemist in the Experiment Station. 4 Lecturer in Truck Crops and Associate in the Experiment Station. Specialist in Agricultural Extension and As- sociate on the Giannini Foundation. 6 MacGillivray, John H. , Arthur Shultis, G. C. Hanna, and Agnes Fay Morgan. Food values on a pound, acre, and man-hour basis for California fresh vegetables. 23 p. California Agricultural Experiment Station. Sept., 1943. (Litho.) In such comparisons one needs quantitative in- formation concerning nutritive values for processed vegetables, on the basis not only of a pound as purchased, but also of yield and output. The data given here may assist future decisions on the ■ relative importance of different vegetables. Al- though the report is largely confined to produc- tion intended for the processed products, it also includes a brief summary table grouping both fresh and processed vegetables. A previous report 7 has given data on essential materials. Scope of Study This report presents certain basic information on the nutritive contributions of 16 California processed vegetables in terms of the resources (such as land and labor) required to produce and prepare them for market. The comparisons should be viewed as tentative and partial rather than as final and complete. Not all the nutritive and resource factors have been taken into account; and the data used vary considerably in accuracy, though regarded as the best available. Processed vegetables are evaluated according to their composition and the daily dietary needs of man. For each vegetable, data have been gathered on the content of energy (calories) 8 , protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A, ascorbic acid (vitamin C) , thiamin (vitamin B : ), riboflavin (vitamin G) , and niacin (nicotinic acid) — the nine nutrients for which recommended dietary al- lowances were determined in 1941 by the National Research Council. Other nutrients important in the diet have been excluded because a recommended dietary allowance or the composition data are lacking. Bulk, another contribution of vegetables to our diet, has not been considered, because of the lack of quantitative data. The Council's recommendations form the basis of the dietary "units" used in tables 3, 4, and 7. One "unit" of a given nutrient equals the amount per day considered necessary for a moderately ac- tive man weighing 70 kg (155 pounds). This amount varies with each nutrient; see the footnote of 7 MacGillivray, John H. , Arthur Shultis, A. E. Michelbacher, P. A. Minges, and L. D. Doneen. Labor and material requirements of California vegetables. 15 p. California Agricultural Ex- periment Station. Sept., 1943- (Litho.) 8 For convenience in ranking, the recommended dietary allowance of calories for energy will be designated as a "nutrient" in this paper. UNIV1 - i •• CALIFORNIA LIBRARY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE DAVIS [1] varies with each nutrient; see the footnote of table 3. From the standpoint of shipment and storage , processed products have an advantage over fresh vegetables: for any waste has been discarded be- fore shipment. Unfortunately the fresh, frozen, and dehydrated vegetables lose some nutrients upon cooking, and the canned vegetables as they are processed. The nutritive values for the processed vegetables are based on the final product, not on the fresh vegetables used. Methods and Sources of Data Composition . --The sources of the data on com- position after processing are given in table 1 and indicated by numbers in parentheses which refer to the "Bibliography on Composition." As a rule , only biological assay findings were used for the vitamin-A value of the carotene in the vegetables. Colorimetric determinations of beta- carotene were not included unless supported by biological tests. Chemical determination of as- corbic acid has, however, been accepted without biological confirmation; also (occasionally) the microbiological method for riboflavin and niacin. Whenever the results of biological assays for thiamin and riboflavin were available, these were chosen. The compilations of vitamin values of foods by Booher, Hartzler, and Hewston (l) 9 and by Fixsen and Roscoe (9) proved helpful in getting those data together. Many other sources were consulted, together with laboratory files of un- published assays of California-grown vegetables. Nutrients per Pound as Purchased. — Table 3 was developed from table 1 by converting to a pound basis, and expressing as a fraction, the amount Numbers in parentheses refer to "Bibliography on Composition" at the end of this paper. TABLE 1 Processed Vegetables: Composition Data per 100 Grams of Processed Product Vegetable Water Energy Protein Cal- cium Iron Vitamin A Ascorbic acid Thia- min Ribo- flavin Niacin Canned Asparagus , green Asparagus, white Beans, snap Peas Spinach Tomatoes, canned Tomato juice Tomato puree Tomato paste grams 93.9(3)* 93.6(3) 94.3(3) 85.4(3) 91.8(3) 94.2(3) 93.5(3) 89.2 + 71. 7 1 calories 20(3) 20(3) 18(3) 55(3) 28(3) 21(3) 2313) 40 1 106 1 grams 1.7(3) 1.7(3) 1.0(3) 3.3(3) 2.3(3) 1.0(3) 1.0(3) 1.81 4.7 + milli- grams 18 + 18 + 33 + 12 + § 7 + 7 + 13 + 34 + milli- grams 1.0 + 1.0 + 0.5 + 1.1 + § 0^5 + 0.5 + 0.9 + 2.3 + u.s.p . units 490(16)+ 0(4) 335 + 510 + 1,900 + 800 + 800* 1,600+ 2,600* milli- grams 9* 9* 6(6) 14(12) 28(5) 19(11) 19(11) 32* 70* milli - grams 0.08(7) .08(7) .04(6) .15(7) .05(7) .09* .09* .17* 0.43* milli - grams 0.08(7) .08(7) .09(6) .14(7) .13(7) .03* .03* .06* 0.15* milli- gr ams 0.93* 0.80* 0.34* 1.32* 0.40* 0.70* 0.70* 1.50* 3.80* Frozen Peas grams 74.3* calories 101 + grams 6.7 + milli - grams 22 + milli- grams 1.9 + U.S.P . units 600 (13,14) milli - grams 18 (10,15) milli - grams 0.24(8) milli - grams 0.15* milli- grams 1.20* Dehydrated milli- milli- U.S.P. milli- milli- milli- milli- grams calories grams grams grams units grams grams grams grams Cabbage 6.0(2) 307 + 14.8 + 477 + 8.5 + 600 + 332(2) 0.59(2) 0.79(2) 1.85 + Carrots 6.0* 301 + 8.0 + 280 + 4.7 + 10,400* 18* 0.23* 0.22* 1.18* Onions 6.0(2) 313 + 8.9 + 204 + 3.2 + 150 + 30 + 0.12 + 0.25* 1.25* Peas 6.0* 313 + 20.7 + 68 + 5.9 + 1,500* 86* 0.60* 0.51* 5.00* Potatoes, white 6.0(2) 306 + 7.2 + 47 + 3.9 + 120 + 21(2) 0.42(2) 0.20(2) 2.70 + Spinach 4.0* 281 + 25.3 + § § 24,600* 150* 1.10* 2.30* 4.30* '"Figures in parentheses indicate references in "Bibliography on Composition" page 15. + Estimated. *Unpublished analyses made in the Home Economics Laboratory, University of California. ^Canned spinach contains 83.0 mg. of calcium and 3«4 mg. of iron (estimated), dehydrated spinach contains 830.0 mg. of calcium and 34.0 mg. of iron but these amounts are largely unavailable, estimated) per 100 grams of processed product; [2] of man's daily recommended requirement of each constituent supplied by a pound of vegetable as purchased. Recommended Dietary Allowances 1 used as the basis of the unit were published by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council. (See table 3.) This board was "estab- lished in 1940 to advise on nutrition problems in connection with National Defense." The allow- ances were a partial outgrowth of a program initiated in 1935 by the League of Nations. "The values presented thus represent the combined judgment of more than fifty persons qualified to express an opinion on the subject. This does not mean, of course, that every contributor would fully agree with all the figures as given. It does mean, however, that the values are ones they were willing to accept tentatively, until stand- ards derived from more extensive and exact re- search data can be obtained. The term 'Recom- mended Allowances' rather than 'Standards' was adopted by the Board to avoid any implication of finality. " Further recommendations were adopted in 1942 for iodine, copper, and vitamin K. Other valu- able food constituents such as vitamin B 6 , panto- thenic acid, and various minerals will probably be supplied in a diet containing the specified allowances. The recommendations made in 1941 have remained unchanged for two years. Even though these data on dietary allowances may not be perfect, they are the best available. There is some question whether each nutrient has an equal value. For the present, all nine must be considered necessary to maintain an average man at work and in good health. Thus the adding of the different units (daily requirements) con- tained in a certain quantity of food, with the vegetables in tables 3, 4, and 7, gives a basis for comparing the total nutritive values of dif- ferent foods in a mixed diet. Peppers contain much ascorbic acid; and this one nutrient greatly affects the amount of total nutrient units, par- ticularly units per pound. Table 2, presenting data on the per-capita consumption of processed vegetables in the United States, is interesting in connection with table 3 and' with the suggested grouping of vegetables presented in table 9. Nutrients per Acre . — Table 4 was developed from the nutrient units per pound of the vege- tables found in table 3, and from the average state yields per acre for 1937-1941. These yields were reduced by the ratio of net weight in proces- sed product to the raw product in order to cor- rect for the waste in processing (table 5). With asparagus, snap beans, peas, and spinach there is a discarding of vegetables in canning, as well as an adding of brine after the vegetable is placed in the container. Since the yields per acre vary widely from farm to farm and from year to year, 1 National Research Council. Recommended die- tary allowances. Reprint and Cir. Ser. 115: 1-6. 1943- these data present the situation on a farm that has average state yields and average output per man-hour. Table 6 gives the average state yields and state averages, as well as the output data, that were used to obtain table 7. Output per Man-hour . — The man-hour data were developed from California records, from publica- tions, and from current field inquiry among grow- ers (table 6). The detailed man-hours required for individual farm operations will be found in the second report of this series (cited in foot- note 7). Each crop was treated objectively, on a comparable basis. The figures obtained may be used in comparing one crop with another, though the hours of labor are not actual state averages. The schedules of hours are designed to fit the yield indicated. The hours of labor shown are those required to do the job with adult skilled TABLE 2 Annual United States Farm Value and Per-Capita Consumption of Some Canned Vegetables, Average 1937-1941 Group Per- Numerical order no. Farm capita and crop from value con- table 9 sumption million dollars pounds 1. Canned tomatoes 2 27.9* 5.7 2. Peas 2 14.2 5.1 3. Tomato pulp (puree) and juice 1 27.9* 3.7 4. Beans, snap 3 5.2 2.0 5. Spinach 3 0.7 0.9 6. Asparagus 3 4.0 0.6 *Value is for all processed tomatoes. Source of data: United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics 1942. p. 266-313, 330. 1942. workers performing as in 1937-1941. Without ad- justment these hours will not apply to 1942-1943 conditions. The man-hours per acre shown in table 6 were obtained by summarizing detailed schedules of time required for the various operations in each method of producing each crop; the aim was to estimate the weighted-average hours for all acre- age contributing to the state average. For some crops production methods are different for processed vegetables than for fresh. For can- ning, white asparagus as well as green is grown, and both are cut to a 7-inch length rather than the 9-inch length for the fresh market. All the canning snap beans are of the pole type, whereas a small percentage of the bush type are sold on the fresh market. Peas fcr processing are mowed and shelled in a "viner." Carrots are grown [3] TABLE 3 Processed Vegetables: Nutrient Units per Pound of Processed Product as Purchased Vegetable Energy ( calories) Protein Calcium Iron Vitamin A Ascorbic acid Units* Rank Units Rank Units Rank Units Rank Units Rank Units Rank Canned Asparagus , green 0.030 7^ ' 2 0.111 5J 0.103 34 0.380 34 0.441 7 0.549 74 Asparagus, white .030 7 1 ' 2 .111 54 .103 34 .380 34 0.000 9 0.549 74 Beans , snap .027 9 .065 8 .188 2 .190 7 0.302 8 0.366 9 Peas .083 2 .215 2 .068 6 .420 2 0.459 6 0.854 6 Spinach .042 4 .150 3 t 9 t 9 1.710 2 1.708 3 Tomatoes, canned .032 6 .065 8 .040 74 .190 7 0.720 44 1.159 44 Tomato juice .035 5 .065 8 .040 74 .190 7 0.720 44 1.159 44 Tomato puree .060 3 .117 4 .074 5 .342 5 1.440 3 1.952 2 Tomato paste 0.159 1 0.306 1 0.194 1 0.874 1 2.340 1 4.270 1 Frozen Peas 0.152 0.436 0.125 0.720 0.540 1.098 Dehydrated Cabbage 0.461 3 0.962 3 2.720 1 3.230 1 0.540 4 20 . 252 1 Carrots .452 5 0.520 5 1.600 2 1.790 3 9.360 2 1.098 6 Onions .470 14 0.579 4 1.163 3 1.220 5 0.135 5 1.830 4 Peas .470 14 1.346 2 0.388 4 2.240 2 1.350 3 5.246 3 Potatoes, white .460 4 0.469 6 0.268 5 1.480 4 0.108 6 1.281 5 Spinach 0.422 6 1.645 1 t 6 t 6 22.140 1 9.150 2 *The amount of each nutrient required for one unit is as follows: energy 3,000 calories, protein 70 grams, calcium 0.8 gram, iron 12 mg. , vitamin A 5,000 U.S. P. units (International Units), ascorbic acid 75 mg. , thiamin 1.8 mg. , riboflavin 2.7 mg. , and niacin 18 mg. National Research Council. Recommended dietary allowances. Reprint and Circular Ser. 115: 1-6. 1943- tCalcium and iron in spinach are largely unavailable. Calculations: example, energy and protein content of canned green asparagus. Energy 20 (calories per 100 grams, table l) x 4.54 (convert to pounds) _ 0.30 unit per pound 3,000 (calories energy per day] of cans' contents. 1.7 (grams protein per 100 grams, table 1) x 4.54 (convert to pounds) _ 0.111 unit per .pro em 70 (grams protein per day) pound of cans' contents. [4] Order of sum of ranks Thiamin Ribo- flavin Niacin Total nine nutrients Vita- Minerals and vitamins Nine nutrients Units Rank Units Rank Units Rank Units Rank Rank Rank Sum of ranks Rank Canned 0.202 64 0.134 5J 0.233 4 2.183 7 7 4 52.5 5 0.202 64 .134 54 .200 5 1.709 8 8 5 53.5 6 0.101 9 .151 4 .085 9 1.475 9 9 9 65.5 9 0.378 3 .235 2 .330 3 3.042 4 3 3 32.0 2 0.126 8 .218 3 .100 8 4.054 3 4 6 49.0 4 0.227 44 .050 84 .175 64 2.658 6 54 74 57.0 8 0.227 44 .050 84 .175 64 2.661 5 51 74 56.0 7 0.428 2 .096 7 .375 2 4.884 2 2 2 33.0 3 1.083 1 0.250 1 0.950 1 10.426 1 1 1 9.0 1 Frozen 0.604 0.252 0.300 4.227 Dehydrated 1.486 3 1.327 2 0.463 4 31.423 2 3 1 23.0 2 0.579 5 0.370 5 0.295 6 15.612 3 4 4 36.0 4 0.302 6 0.420 4 0.313 5 6.432 5 6 54 38.5 5 1.499 2 0.857 3 1.250 1 14.646 4 2 24 22.5 1 1.058 4 0.336 6 0.675 3 6.135 6 5 54 43.0 6 2.770 1 3.864 1 1.075 2 41.066 1 1 24 26.0 3 [5] TABLE 4 Processed Vegetables: Nutrients Produced per Acre with Average State Yields Vegetable Average state yield per acre , 1937-1941* Ratio of net weight to raw- product weightt De- hydra- tion ratio Energy ( calories) Protein Calcium Iron Pounds Per cent Ratio Units* Rank Units Rank Units Rank Units Rank Canned Asparagus , green 2,040 77.7 48 84 176 81 163 61 602 74 Asparagus, white 2,040 77.7 48 84 176 84 163 61 602 74 Beans , snap 8,280 138.4 309 5 745 4 2,154 1 2,177 3 Peas 1,640 137.0 187 7 483 7 153 8 944 6 Spinach 5,220 112.8 247 6 883 1 § 9 R 3 9 Tomatoes, canned 13,580 85.5 372 3 755 3 464 4 2,206 2 Tomato juice 13 , 580 75.0 356 4 662 6 407 5 1,935 5 Tomato puree 13,580 46.6 380 2 740 5 468 3 2,164 4 Tomato paste 13 , 580 19.0 410 1 789 2 501 2 2,255 1 Frozen Peas 1,640 99.0 247 708 203 1,173 Dehydrated Cabbage 16,000 18:111 410 4 855 4 2,418 2 2,871 3 Carrots 40,000 10:111 1,808 1 2,080 1 6,400 1 7,160 1 Onions 20,640 10:111 970 3 1,195 3 2,400 3 2,518 4 Peas 1,640 4:1** 193 6 552 6 159 5 918 5 Potatoes, white 17,544 6:111 1,345 2 1,371 2 784 4 4,328 2 Spinach 5,220 ll:ltt 200 5 781 5 6 6 *See table 6. tFrom table 5- Obtained from National Canners Association, canning, and accounting companies. +The amount of each nutrient required for one unit is as follows: energy 3,000 calories, protein 70 grams, calcium 0.8 gram, iron 12 rag., vitamin A 5,000 U.S. P. units (International Units), ascorbic acid 75 mg. , thiamin 1.8 rag. , riboflavin 2.7 mg., and niacin 18 mg. National Research Council. Recommended dietary allowances. Reprint and Circular Ser. 115 : 1-6. 1943. j Calcium and iron largely unavailable. 11 Canning Age 23: 514-15. 1942. **Dehydration Manual. [20 p.] Western Canner and Packer. San Francisco. 1943. ttCorrespondence . Calculations: example, energy and protein content of canned green asparagus. Energy 0.030 (unit per pound, x 2,040 (pounds per x 0.777 (ratio net to raw- ,„ A „_., + _ „._ table 2) acre) products weight) ~ k/ - b units per Protein 0.111 rit per pound, x 2,040 (pounds per x 0.777 (ratio net to raw- _,„. Q „„,• + - OT . table 2) acre) products weight) ~ in ' V Q ^ P acre . [6] Order of sum of ranks Vitamin A Ascorbic acid Thiamin Riboflavin Niacin Total nine nutrients Vita- mins Mineral and vita- mins Nine nutrients Units Rank Uni ts Rank Units Rank Units Rank Units Rank Units Rank Rank Rank Sum of ranks Rank Canned 699 8 870 84 320 81 212 81 369 8 3,459 8 8 8 724 8 9 870 81 320 81 212 Qh 317 9 2,708 9 9 9 744 9 3,461 6 4,194 6 1,157 5 1,730 1 974 5 16,901 6 41 4 36 4 1,031 7 1,919 7 849 6 528 6 742 6 6,836 7 7 7 60 7 10,068 1 10,057 5 742 7 1,284 2 589 7 23,864 5 6 5 47 6 8,360 3 13,457 1 2,636 3 581 5 2,032 3 30,863 2 3 3 27 3 7,333 4 11,804 4 2,312 4 509 7 1,782 4 27,100 3 44 6 43 5 9,113 2 12,352 2 2,708 2 607 4 2,373 2 30,904 1 1 2 26 2 6,037 5 11,017 3 2,794 1 645 3 2,451 1 26,899 4 2 . 1 19 1 Frozen 877 1,783 983 40< 487 6,870 .. Dehydrated 480 4 18,004 1 1,321 3 1,180 3 412 6 27,951 2 4 24 30 3 37,440 1 4,392 2 2,316 2 1,484 2 1,180 2 64,260 1 1 1 15 1 279 6 3,777 4 623 5 867 5 646 3 13,275 5 5 5 36 44 554 3 2,151 6 615 6 351 6 513 4 6,006 6 6 6 47 6 316 5 3,746 5 3,094 1 982 4 1,974 1 17,940 4 3 2J 26 3 10 , 517 2 4,346 3 1,316 4 1,835 1 511 5 19,506 3 2 4 37 44 [71 TABLE 5 Canned Vegetables: Ratio of Raw Product to Canned Contents and Labor Requirement per Case Vegetable Can size Cans per case* Net weight per case Amount of raw product re- quired per casef Ratio of net weight to raw product Direct labor re- quired per case , 1941 Asparagus , green No. 2 number 24 pounds 30.50 pounds 39.19 per cent 77.7 hours 1.000 Asparagus , white No. 2 24 30. 72 39.55 77.7 1.000 Beans , snap No. 2 24 30.60 22. lOt 138.4 0.500 Peas No. 2 24 31.20 23.00 * 137.0 0.400 Spinach No. 21 24 42.00 37.24 112.8 0.508 Tomatoes, canned No. 2T 24 30.15 35.26 85.5 0.544 Tomato juice No. 2T 24 27.90 37.22 75.0 0.218 Tomato puree No. 10 6 39.20 84.23 46.6 0.229§ Tomato paste 6 oz. 100 41.30 217.00 19.0 0.544 *0btained from National Canners Association. t Obtained from canning and accounting companies. ^Calculated from data on per cent of waste obtained from canners. S Estimate . larger for dehydration and are sold on a topped basis. The nutrients produced per man-hour are given in table 7. Construction of the Basic Tables The several vegetables are compared with re- spect to their nutritive contents, on three separate bases: (l) nutrients per pound as pur- chased, (2) average yield per acre, and (3) man- hours of labor required to produce and prepare them for market. Other important bases of com- parison would be farm machinery, production and packing materials, transportation, climatic adaptability of the crop, successive cropping and crop rotation, period of occupancy of land, storability, and need for punctual harvesting, particularly in times of labor shortage. Inex- perienced persons differ greatly in ability to produce maximum crops, as do experienced growers with new crops. Once the basic data have been collected, the several vegetables may easily be ranked accord- ing to their content of any one nutrient. But it is quite another matter to combine the several nutrients into a single index number that would have precise meaning. 1 - 1 A scale of general nu- tritive value along which the various vegetables could be ordered would be highly desirable. In the light of present knowledge, however, no valid During this study, several different methods of constructing a general nutritive index were examined in addition to those included. index of this kind appears obtainable. An ade- quate diet is one that satisfies the daily re- quirements for all the nutrients; and from this point of view the various nutrients are equally important. Obviously, however, the nutritive elements are not interchangeable: a vitamin-A deficiency cannot be compensated for by excess intake of calcium or of ascorbic acid. At present, a meaningful ordering of vegetables can be attained only on the individual categories of nutrients — not on some composite in which the individual categories lose their identity. All the units have been totaled for each vege- table and termed "Total nine nutrients" in tables 3, 4, and 7. These totals have not been used in this report, for a vegetable may rank first by being extremely high in only one nutrient. (The ascorbic-acid content of peppers is a good ex- ample of this situation.) Rank based on the sum of the individual ranks was used instead because it emphasizes those vege- tables that are high in all or most of the nutri- ents. The individual nutrients have each been ranked, and the sums of these ranked for "Vita- mins," "Minerals and vitamins," and "Nine nutri- ents." The data for the latter are given in table 8 for convenience; they are also found for each of the three bases in tables 3, 4, and 7. Classification and Comparison of Vegetables The nutrient tables 3, 4, and 7 present the units of each of the nine selected nutrients pro- duced by or contained in each of the 16 vegetables studied in this report. These will be useful [8] TABLE 6 Processed Vegetables: Labor Requirement, Acreage, Yield, and Amount of Product Produced per Man-hour Labor required per acre for grow- State Yield Amount of product pro- ing, harvesting, and processing of acreage , per duced and processed per yield given 1937- acre , man-hour with 1937-1941 1941 1937- average yields Vegetable Har- Pro- average ■1941 average Produced Cul- vest- Sub- cess- To- Pro- Pro- and tural ing total ing* tal duced cessed processed Canned man- hours man- hours man- hours man- hours man- hours acres pounds pounds pounds pounds Asparagus, green 36 67 103 52 155 45,982 t 2,040 20 39 13 Asparagus, white 36 67 103 52 155 45,982 t 2,040 20 39 13 Beans , snap 128 285 413 126 539 804 1 8,280 20 66 15 Peas , shelled 13 19 32 21 53 2,594t 1,640 51 78 31 Spinach 37 39 76 103 179 10,206 t 5,220 69 51 29 Tomatoes, canned 46 58 104 210 314 69,724t 13,580 131 65 43 Tomato juice 46 58 104 80 184 69, 724 t 13,580 131 162 74 Tomato puree 46 58 104 37* 141 69, 724 1 13,580 131 366 96 Tomato paste 46 58 104 37 141 69, 724 t 13 , 580 131 366 96 Frozen Peas, shelled man- hours 13 man- hours 19 man- hours 32 man- hours 94 man- hours 126 acres pounds 1,640 pounds 51 pounds 17 pounds 13 Dehydrated Cabbage man- hours 54 man- hours 28 man- hours 82 man- hours 150 man- hours 232 acres pounds 16,000* pounds 195 pounds 107 pounds 69 Carrots, roots 72 54 126 440 566 § 40,000* 317 91 71 Onions 94 60 154 295 449 § 20,640 117 70 44 Peas, shelled 13 19 32 16 48 § 1,640 51 102 34 Potatoes, white 38 58 96 308 ^04 § 17,544 150 57 41 Spinach 37 39 76 104 180 § 5,220 69 50 29 *Gbtained from accounting, canning, freezing, and dehydration companies. tOnly portion of the acreage used for this processed product. * Estimated. $> Acreage not known. [9] TABLE 7 Processed Vegetables: Nutrients Produced per Man-hour from Average State Yields per Acre Vegetable Output per man-hour of produced and processed products' 1 ' Energy ( calories) Protein Calcium Iron Vitamin A Pounds Unitst Rank Units Rank Units Rank Units Rank Units Rank Canned Asparagus , green 13 0.310 8J 1.135 84 1.052 74 3.884 74 4.510 8 Asparagus, white 13 0.310 84 1.135 84 1.052 74 3.884 74 0.000 9 Beans , snap 15 0.573 7 1.382 7 3.996 i 4.039 6 6.421 7 Peas 31 3.528 1 9.113 1 2.887 4 17.811 1 19.453 6 Spinach 29 1.380 5 4.933 4 * 9 * ' 9 56.246 2 Tomatoes, canned 43 1.185 6 2.404 6 1.478 6 7.025 5 26.624 5 Tomato juice 74 1.935 4 3.598 5 2.212 5 10.516 4 39.853 4 Tomato puree 96 2.695 3 5.248 3 3.319 3 15.348 3 64.631 1 Tomato paste 96 2.908 2 5.596 2 3.553 2 15.993 2 42.816 3 Frozen Peas 13 1.960 5.61? 1.611 9.310 6.960 Dehydrated Cabbage 69 1.767 5 3.685 3 10.422 2 141.685 1 2.069 4 Carrots 71 3.194 3 3.675 4 11.307 1 12.650 3 66.148 1 Onions 44 2.160 4 2.661 6 5.345 3 5.608 5 0.621 6 Peas 34 4.021 1 11.500 1 3.313 4 19.125 2 11.542 3 Potatoes, white 41 3.329 2 3.394 5 1.941 5 10.713 4 0.782 5 Spinach 29 1.111 6 4.339 2 1 6 * 6 58.427 2 * From table 6. t The amount of each nutrient required for one unit is as follows: energy 3,000 calories, protein 70 grams, calcium 0.8 gram, iron 12 mg. , vitamin A 5,000 U.S. P. units (International Units), ascorbic acid 75 mg. , thiamin 1.8 mg. , riboflavin 2.7 mg., and niacin 18 mg. National Research Council. Recommended dietary allowances. Reprint and Circular Ser. 115 : 1-6. 1943. Calculations: example, energy and protein content of canned green asparagus. „„„„„„ 48 (units per acre, table 4) n o lfl . , . Energy 155 (man-hours per acre, table 6) = °- 310 unit P er nan-hour. Protein \l\ U^Lltl LT^f 1 ^ A\ = 1-135 units per man-hour. 155 (man-hours per acre, table o) * % Calcium and iron of spinach are largely unavailable. [10] Order of sum of ranks Ascorbic acid Thiamin Ribo- flavin Niacin Total nine nutrients Vita- mins Minerals and vitamins Nine nutrients Units Rank Units Rank Units Rank Units Rank Units Rank Rank Rank Sum of ranks Rank Canned 5.613 8i 2.065 84 1.368 84 2.381 7 22.318 8 8 8 724 8 5.613 84 2.065 84 1.368 84 2.045 8 17.472 9 9 9 744 9 7.781 7 2.147 7 3.210 5 1.807 9 31.356 7 7 7 57 7 36.208 6 16.019 3 9.962 1 14.000 3 128.981 5 3 3 28 3 56.184 4 4.145 6 7.173 2 3.291 6 133.352 4 44 6 48 5 42.857 5 8.395 5 1.850 7 6.471 5 98.289 6 6 5 50 6 64.152 3 12.565 4 2.766 6 9.685 4 147.282 3 44 4 39 4 87.610 1 19.213 2 4.312 4 16.830 2 219.206 1 2 2 23 2 78.135 2 19.816 1 4.575 3 17.383 1 190.775 2 1 1 18 1 Frozen 14.151 7.802 3.246 3.865 54.524 Dehydrated 77.603 1 5.694 4 5.086 3 1.776 5 249.787 1 3 2 28 2 7.760 6 4.092 5 2.622 4 2.085 4 113.533 3 5 34 31 3 8.412 5 1.388 6 1.931 6 1.439 6 29.565 6 6 6 47 6 44.813 2 12.813 1 7.313 2 10.688 1 125.128 2 1 1 17 1 9.272 4 7.658 2 2.431 5 4.886 2 44.406 5 4 5 34 5 24.144 3 7.311 3 10.195 1 2.839 3 108.366 4 2 34 32 4 [11] where consumption of one or more individual nu- trients or of the vegetables best in all nutri- ents is to be increased. The vegetables used in this study have been se- lected because information was needed on the dif- ferent types of crops, not because the basic data met uniform standards of accuracy. The data on yield, composition, and labor requirement are more accurate for major crops than for minor. Other limitations include the method used in de- termining the most efficient vegetables; the omis- sion of certain food constituents as well as bulk and palatability ; and the need for considering, in any shifts in crop acreage, such factors as available equipment, suitability of land and cli- mate, and essential materials. Because of these limitations, detailed comparisons of vegetables based on small differences would not be justified. Table 9 presents fresh and processed vegetables in four groups. The portion dealing with fresh vegetables has been copied from the first report (cited in footnote 6, p. 1). The processed vege- tables and fresh were all ranked for the individ- ual nutrients; the ranks were summed up; and these sums were ranked. The last portion of these data is given in table 8. Table 9 includes the proces- sed vegetables corresponding in rank to those given in table 8 of the first report (cited in footnote 6, p. 1). In summarizing the ranks of both the fresh and the processed vegetables, small differences have affected the arrangement; the crops are not in the same order in table 8 of the first report (cited in footnote 6, p. 1) and table 8 of this report. These are minor arrangements; only for cauliflower and summer squash is the grouping affected. On the basis of nutrients per acre, summer squash ranked 16 and cauliflower 17 in the first report; but in table 8 they rank above market tomatoes. This discrepancy has been ignored, and for summer squash it will not affect the results based on our final analysis. Since small differences may affect the rank of vegetables, comparison cannot safely be made between vegetables in the same or adjacent groups. It is believed that the vegetables in group 1 of table 9 are better than those in groups 3 and 4; that those in group 2 are better than those in group 4. [12] TABLE 8 I Classification of California Fresh and Processed Vegetables Based on Sum of Ranks of Nine Nutrients* Nutrients per acre with Nutrients per man-hour Nutrients per pound as purchased average yields of labor Sum Sum Sum lank of Crop Rank of 9 ranks Crop lank of 9 Crop 9 ranks ranks 1 32| Peas (dehydrated) 1 46 Mustard, greens (fresh) 1 40 Squash, winter (fresh) 2 37i Cabbage ( dehydrated) 2 70 Carrots (dehydrated) 2 55 Mustard, greens (fresh) 3 60 Tomato paste (canned) 3 84 Potatoes, white (fresh) 3 63 Potatoes, white (fresh) 4 65| Carrots (dehydrated) 4 118 Onions, late (freshj 4 80 Cabbage ( fresh) 5 80i Onions (dehydrated) 5 123 Beets, bunch (fresh) 5 112 Potatoes, sweet (fresh) 6 87! Potatoes, white (dehyd.) 6 124 Broccoli (fresh) 6 114 Tomato paste (canned) 7 106 Spinach (dehydrated) 7 128 Cabbage (fresh) 7 117 Onions, late (fresh) 8 mi Peas (frozen) 8 129 Carrots, bunch (fresh) 8 119! Tomato puree (canned) 9 138 3roccoli (.fresh) 9 134 Celery (fresh) 9 120 Peas (canned) 10 143 Peas (canned) 10! 137 Onions, early (fresh) 10 122 Peas (dehydrated) 11 144 Mustard, greens (fresh) 10! 137 Squash, winter (fresh) 11 138 Broccoli (fresh) 12 147 Tomato puree (canned) 12 138 Turnips, bunch (fresh) 12 154 Onions, early (fresh) 13 15l! Potatoes, sweet (fresh) 13 139 Potatoes, white (dehyd.) 13 155 Cauliflower (fresh) 14 165 Brussels sprouts (fresh) 14 149! Tomato paste (canned) 14 161 Spinach (fresh) 15 180 Beans, snap (.fresh) 15 153 Spinach (fresh) 15 176 Casabas, Honeydews (fresh) 16 189 Asparagus, green (fresh) 16 155 Potatoes, sweet (fresh) 16 182 Turnips, bunch (fresh) 17 191| Peas, in pod (fresh) 17 157 Tomato puree (canned) 17 187 Tomato juice (canned) 18 2041 Spinach (fresh) 18 159 Tomatoes (canned) 18 191 Carrots, bunch (fresh) 19 210! Asparagus, green (canned) 19 174 Cabbage (dehydrated) 19 195 Cabbage (dehydrated) 20 212 Asparagus, white (fresh) 20 181 Beans, snap (canned) 20 207! Lettuce (fresh) 21 213 Potatoes, white (fresh) 21 184 Tomato juice (canned) 21 210 Beets, bunch (fresh) 22 216 Beans, lima, in pods (fresh) 22 197! Brussels sprouts (fresh) 22 217 Corn, sweet (fresh) 23 228! Spinach (canned) 23 202 Squash, summer (fresh) 23 223 Cantaloupes (fresh) 24 236 Asparagus, white (canned) 24 207 Cauliflower (fresh) 24 225 Peas (frozen) 25| 242! Artichokes (fresh) 25 208 Onions (dehydrated) 25 225! Carrots (dehydrated) 25i 242! Tomatoes, market (fresh) 26 210 Tomatoes , market ( fresh) 26 235! Tomatoes, market (fresh) 27 243! Cabbage (fresh) 27 241! Lettuce (fresh) 27! 237 Peppers, bell (fresh) 28 246! Tomato juice (canned) 28 244 Beans, snap (fresh) 27! 237 Squash, summer (fresh) 29 250! Tomatoes (canned) 29 248 Spinach (dehydrated) 29 244 Watermelons (fresh) 30 250! Squash, winter (fresh) 30 249 Peppers, bell (fresh) 30 246! Spinach (canned) 31 261 Peppers, bell (fresh) 31 252! Spinach (canned) 31 249 Spinach (dehydrated) 32 263! Onions, early (fresh) 32 253 Casabas, Honeydews( fresh) 32 253 Celery (fresh) 33 2634 Onions, late (fresh) 33 266 Beans, lima, in pods (fresh) 33 254 Tomatoes (canned) 34 266 Squash, summer (fresh) 34 270! Cucumbers (fresh) 34 256! Cucumbers (fresh) 35 269 Beans, snap (canned) 35 287 Cantaloupes (fresh) 35 257 Artichokes (fresh) 36 287! Cauliflower (fresh) 36 297! Peas (frozen) 36 261 Potatoes, white (dehyd.) 37 290! Turnips, with tops (fresh) 37 303 Peas (canned) 37 262! Brussels sprouts (fresh) 38i 297! Carrots, with tops (.fresh) 38 304! Radish, bunch (fresh) 38 297! Asparagus, green (fresh) 38! 300! Celery (fresh) 39! 305 Watermelons (fresh) 39 303 Beans, lima (fresh) 40 304 Corn, sweet (fresh) 39! 305 Corn, sweet (fresh) 40 319 Onions (dehydrated) 41 305 Lettuce (fresh) 41 328 Peas (dehydrated) 41 321! Asparagus, white (fresh) 42 310 Casabas,Honeydews (fresh) 42 333 Asparagus, green (fresh) 42 325 Beans, snap (fresh) 43 312 Beets with tops (fresh) 43 337 Peas, in pod (fresh) 43 327 Peas (fresh) 44 325! Cantaloupes (fresh) 44 342 Artichokes (fresh) 44 331 Beans, snap (canned) 45 338 Cucumbers (fresh) 45 356 Asparagus, white (fresh) 45 367 Radish, bunch (fresh) 46 358! Radish, with tops (fresh) 46 381! Asparagus, green(canned) 46 378 Asparagus, green (canned) 47 369! Watermelons (fresh) 47 402 Asparagus, white (canned) 47 401! Asparagus, white (canned) *Data developed rrom tables 3, 4, 6 of the first report (cited in footnote 6, p. 1) and tables 3, 4, and 7 of this report. The fresh and processed vegetables of each column were ranked as one group for each column of this table. [13] TABLE 9 An Over-all Classification of Fresh and Processed Vegetables Based on Their Rank* Group 1 Fresh vegetables! ranking 1-15 in nutrients Processed vegetables meeting the same standards per pound , acre , and man-hour • as the fresh vegetables Broccoli Cabbage Cabbage (dehydrated) Mustard Tomato juice (canned) Spinach Tomato paste (canned) Sweet potatoes Tomato puree (canned) White potatoes Winter squash Group 2 Fresh vegetables:! ranking 1-15 in two of the Processed vegetables meeting the same standards following: nutrients per pound, acre, or man-hour as the fresh vegetables Beets, bunch Carrots (dehydrated) Brussels sprouts Onions (dehydrated) Carrots, bunch Peas (canned) Early onions Peas (dehydrated) Late onions Potatoes, white (dehydrated) Tomatoes, market Tomatoes (canned) Turnips , bunch Group 3 Fresh vegetables t ranking 1-15 in one of the Processed vegetables meeting the same standards following: nutrients per pound, acre, or man-hour as the fresh vegetables Artichokes Asparagus, green (canned) Cauliflower Asparagus, white (canned) C as abas and Honeydews Beans, snap (canned) Celery Spinach (canned) Green asparagus Spinach (dehydrated) Lettuce Peas (frozen) Lima beans Peas Snap beans White asparagus Group 4 Fresh vegetables! ranking 16-31 in nutrients Processed vegetables meeting the same standards per pound, acre, and man-hour as the fresh vegetables Bell peppers Cantaloupe Cucumbers Not applicable to any processed vegetables studied Radish Summer squash Sweet corn Watermelon interpretation : The accuracy of the data does not permit distinctions between small differences. Vegetables in group 1 are thought to be better than those in groups 3 and 4; group 2 is considered better than group 4- tCopied from: MacGillivray , John H. , Arthur Shultis, G. C. Hanna , and Agnes Fay Morgan. Food values on a pound, acre, and man-hour basis for California fresh vegetables. Table 8. California Agricultural Experiment Station. Sept., 1943. (Litho.) [14] ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many have contributed unselfishly to this study. Though the senior author is responsible for interpreting and presenting the data, H. R. Wellman, of the Giannini Foundation of Agricul- tural Economics, helped to plan, direct, and summarize this material. In the same Foundation H. E. Erdman and G. M. Kuznets gave valuable help. Further important contributions were made by Helen E. Axelrod and Bessie B. Cook, Home Economics; E. B. Roessler, Mathematics; B. B. Burlingame, L. W. Fluharty, P. A. Hinges, and Wallace Sullivan, Agricultural Extension Service; and Carl Schiller, United States Department of Agriculture. It was A. M. Jongeneel who vividly called the problem to the senior author's atten- tion. BIBLIOGRAPHY ON COMPOSITION 1. Booher, L. E. , E. R. Hartzler, and E. M. Hewston. 1942. A compilation of the vitamin values of foods in relation to processing and other variants. U.S. Dept. Agr. Cir. 638 : 1-244. 2. Chace, E. M. 1942. The present status of food dehydra- tion in the United States. Inst. Food Technologists Proc. 1942 : 70-89. 3. Chatfield, C. , and G. Adams. 1940. Proximate composition of American food materials. U.S. Dept. Agr. Cir. 549 : 1-91. 4. Crist, J. W. , and M. Dye. 1929. The association of vitamin A with greenness in plant tissue. II. The vitamin A content of asparagus. Jour. Biol. Chem. 81: 525-32. 5. Dunker, C. F. , and C. R. Fellers. 1939. Vitamin C content of spinach. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1938 Proc. 36: 500-4. 6. Farrell, K. T. , and C. R. Fellers. 1942. Vitamin content of green snap beans. Influence of freezing, canning, and de- hydration on the content of thiamin, riboflavin, and ascorbic acid. Food Res. 7: 171-77. 7. Fellers, C. R. , W. B. Esselen, Jr., and G. A. Fitzgerald. 1940. Vitamin B : and vitamin B 2 (G) content of vegetables as influenced by quick freezing and canning. Food Res. 5: 495- 502.. 8. Fincke, M. L. 1939. Thiamin values of garden type peas preserved by frozen-pack methods. III. Thiamin (vitamin 3J. Food Res. 4_: 605-11. 9. Fixsen, M. A. B. , and M. H. Roscoe. 1940. Tables of the vitamin content of hu- man and animal foods. II. Nutr. Abs. and Rev. 9: 795-861. 10. Jenkins, R. R. , D. K. Tressler, and G. A. Fitzgerald. 1938. Vitamin C content of vegetables. VIII. Frozen peas. Food Res. 3_: 133-40. 11. Munsell, H. E. 1940. Vitamins and their occurrence in foods. Milbank Mem. Fund Quart. 18: 311-44. 12. Richardson, J. E. , and H. L. Mayfield. 1940. The quality and vitamin content of green peas when cooked or home canned. Montana Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 381: 1-19. 13. Stimson, C. R. , D. K. Tressler, and L. A. Maynard . 1939. Carotene (vitamin A) content of fresh and frosted peas. Food Res. 4: 475-83. 14. Todhunter, E. N. 1939. Vitamin values of garden-type peas preserved by frozen-pack methods. II. Vitamin A. Food Res. 4: 587-92. 15. Todhunter, E. N. , and B. L. Sparling. 1938. Vitamin iTc ilues of garden-type peas preserved by frozen-pack methods. I. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C). Food Res. 3: 489-98. 16. Zimmerman, W. I., D. K. Tressler, and L. A. Maynard . 1941. Determination of carotene in fresh and frozen vegetables by an improved method. II. Carotene content of aspara- gus and green lima beans. Food Res. 6: 57-68. [15] 7m- 12, -43(8563;