Fig. 31: Sugar content of tomatoes

Fig. 43: Profit margin in relation to treatment – calculation scenarios

4.3.4 Interior quality of yield

4.3.4.1 Sugar content

Sugar content of tomatoes was measured three times during the harvest period. Completo had a sugar content of 3,4-4,0°BRIX. The sugar content was at the two last measurement dates independent of the light treatment. However, at the first measurement date were significant differences between light treatments observed (Fig. 31).

Fig. 31: Sugar content of tomatoes.

Letters indicate significant differences (HSD, p ≤ 0,05).

4.3.4.2 Dry substance of tomatoes

Dry substance (DS) of tomatoes was measured on the same dates as the sugar content and was varying between 4,1% and 4,5% (Fig. 32). The DS content was independent of the light treatment.

Fig. 31: Sugar content of tomatoes

Next Article

Fig. 43: Profit margin in relation to treatment – calculation scenarios

4.3.4 Interior quality of yield

4.3.4.1 Sugar content

Fig. 31: Sugar content of tomatoes.

4.3.4.2 Dry substance of tomatoes

More articles from this publication:

Fig. 43: Profit margin in relation to treatment – calculation scenarios

Tab. 12: Comparision of yield with different treatments and calculation scenarious regarding placement of LED lights

Fig. 42: Profit margin in relation to yield with Hybrid top lighting with(out) LED interlighting in continuous production and either HPS (a) or LED (b) lights in young plant production – calculation scenarios

Fig. 41: Profit margin in relation to yield with different light sources in young plant production and either Hybrid+LED (a) or Hybrid b) in continuous produciton – calculation scenarios

Tab. 11: Marketable yield per cluster with different light treatments

Fig. 40: Profit margin in relation to the light treatment

Tab. 8: Energy costs and investment into lights in seedling production and continuous production for one growing circle of tomatoes under different light sources

Tab. 10: Profit margin of tomatoes at different light treatments

Fig. 37: Revenues at different treatments

This article is from:

Rit LbhÍ nr 143