Fig. 30: Sweetness, flavour and juiciness of fruits at different treatments

4.3.4.2 Taste of fruits

The taste of tomatoes, subdivided into sweetness, flavour and juiciness was tested by untrained assessors at the beginning (12.12.2012), middle (14.01.2013) and at the end (08.04.2013) of the harvest period. The rating within the same sample was varying very much and therefore, same treatments resulted in a high standard deviation. However, it was obvious that Diamantino was much lower rated in taste, sweetness, flavour and juiciness than Encore. No obvious differences between grafted and ungrafted tomatoes were detected during tasting (Fig. 30).

Sweetness

8,5

5,0 5,5 6,0 6,5 7,0 7,5 8,0 12.11. 2012 10.12.2012 7.1.2013 4. 2.2013 4.3.2013 1.4.2013 29. 4.2013(marks: 10 = very good, 1 = fail) 240 HPS, Diamantino 240 HPS, ungrafted Encore 240 HPS, grafted Encore 300 HPS, grafted Encore 8,5

Flavor

5,0 5,5 6,0 6,5 7,0 7,5 8,0 12.11.2012 10.12.20127.1.2013 4.2.2013 4.3.2013 1.4.2013 29.4.2013 (marks: 10 = very good, 1 = fail) 240 HPS, Diamantino 240 HPS, ungrafted Encore 240 HPS, grafted Encore 300 HPS, grafted Encore 8,5

Juiciness

5,0 5,5 6,0 6,5 7,0 7,5 8,0 12. 11.2012 10.12.2012 7.1.2013 4.2.2013 4.3.2013 1. 4. 2013 29.4.2013(marks: 10 = very good, 1 = fail) 240 HPS, Diamatino 240 HPS, ungrafted Encore 240 HPS, grafted Encore 300 HPS, grafted Encore

Fig. 30: Sweetness, flavour and juiciness of fruits at different treatments.

4.3.4.3 Dry substance of fruits

Dry substance (DS) of fruits was measured three times during the harvest period. DS increased slightly during the harvest period from 4.6-4.9 % to 5.2-5.6 %. Grafted tomatoes had a lower dry substance content than ungrafted ones. It was observed a higher content for Encore than for Diamantino (Fig. 31).