Ewa Rożek

University of Life Sciences in Lublin

Renata Nurzyńska-Wierdak

University of Life Sciences in Lublin

Maria Kosior

University of Life Sciences in Lublin


Tomato fruit, constituting raw material for processing industry, can be harvested manually or mechanically, with the use of a harvester. Such features of new cultivars, as almost simultaneous fruit setting, high fruit durability and slow overripening of fruit, make it possible to give up the traditional, multiple harvesting. Limiting the number of harvests and introducing mechanical harvest, express aiming at decreasing the harvest costs. During studies conducted in the years 2009–2010 the quantity and structure of fruit yield in several tomato cultivars recommended for processing industry. Fruit came from single harvest, conducted in the second half of September. The highest fruit yield and the best fruit yield were these of Dyno F1 and Benito F1 cultivars. The cultivars Asterix F1 and Tenorio F1 yielded at a similar level and the unfavourable feature in their yield structures was high share of small fruits (of the diameter from 4.0 to 3.5 cm) and very small ones
(below 3.5 cm). The yield of tomato fruit in the subsequent years was significantly differentiated and depended upon weather conditions. It was demonstrated that in the case of cultivars with longer vegetation periods, including cultivars recommended for processing industry, the harvest of the whole yield is not always possible. In the first study year ripe fruits constituted 94.9%, in the second year – 80.7%. A large number of unripe fruits significantly hinders conducting mechanical tomato harvest.


Lycopersicon esculentum, single harvest, industrial tomato cultivars, marketable fruit

Arazuri S., Jaren C., Arana J. I., Perez de Ciriza J.J., 2007. Influence of mechanical harvest on the physical properties of processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). J. Food Engineering, 80, 1, 190–198.
Battilani A., Bieche B.J., 1994. Effects of irrigation, Ethrel and harvest date on yield and quality on processing tomato. Acta Hort. 376, 299–302.
Dyduch J., Kossowski M., Przepiórowska E., 1988. Ocena plonowania dwóch superwczesnych odmian pomidorów typu Beta. Rocz. AR Poznań, 194, 73–85.
Elkner K., Borowiak J., Horodecka E., 1995. Przydatność najnowszych odmian pomidora do przetwórstwa. Ogólnop. Konf. „Jakość surowca warzywnego do przetwórstwa”, Skierniewice, 19–20 października, 91–93.
FAO, 2011. http://faostat.fao.org.
Gonzales J.V., 1999. Use of ethylene (ethephon) in uniform ripening of processing (Lycopersicon esculentum) tomatoes in California. Acta Hort. 487, 179–182.
Gruda Z., Postolski J., 1999. Zamrażanie żywności. WN-T Warszawa.
GUS. 2010. Wyniki produkcji roślinnej w 2009 roku. Warszawa.
Hartz T.K., Miyao E.M., Mullen R.J., Cahn M.D., 2001. Potassium fertilization effects on processing tomato yield and fruit quality. Acta Hort., 542, 127–134.
Helyes L., Pek Z., Brandt S., Varga G., Barna E., Hovari J., Lugasi A., Bieche B., Branthome X., 2003. Influence of harvest date on fruit technological traits of five processing tomato varieties. Acta Hort. 613, 213–216.
Lopez J., Ruiz R.M., Ballesteros R., Ciruelos A., Ortiz R., 2001. Color and lycopene content of several commercial tomato varieties at different harvesting dates. Acta Hort. 542, 243–247.
Machado R.M.A., Bussieres P., Koutsos T.V., Prieto M.H., Ho L.C., 2004. Prediction of optimal harvest date for processing tomato based on the accumulation of daily heat units over the fruit ripening period. J. Hort. Sci. Bio., 79, 3, 452–457.
Machado R.M.A., Rodroguez del Rincon A., Portas C.A., 1999. Mechanical harvest of processing tomatoes: influence on percentage of damaged fruit and importance of the relation green fruits/rotten fruits. Acta Hort. 487, 237–241.
Macua J.I., Garnica J., Lahoz I., 2001. Whole-peel processing tomato varieties suitable for mechanical harvesting. Acta Hort. 542, 249–252.
Macua-Gonzalez J. I., Lahoz I., Arzoz A., Zúñiga J., 2003. Processing tomato paste cultivars in Navarra. Acta Hort., 613, 341–344.
Macua J. I., Santos A., Zúñiga J., 1999. The effect of the planting date on the programmation yield and quality of processing tomato in Navarre (Spain). Acta Hort. 487, 229–232.
Murray M., 2001. Using ethephon effectively for enhancing early-season processing tomato fruit maturity in California. Acta Hort. 542, 373–375.
Nichols M.A., Fisher K.J., Davis S.I., Julian A.P., Pan H.Y., 1999. Improving the efeiciency of process tomato cultivar evaluation trials. Acta Hort., 487, 183–189.
Nichols M.A., Fisher K.J., Johnstone P., 2001. The effect of harvest date on yield of processing tomatoes. Acta Hort. 542, 359–363.
Rożek E., 1999. Wpływ dynamiki kiełkowania nasion na plonowanie pomidora. Cz. I. Plon wczesny. Annales UMCS Sec. EEE, Horticultura, 7, 31–37.
Rożek E., 2000. Ocena plonowania i niektórych cech użytkowych kilkunastu odmian pomidora do mrożenia. Zesz. Nauk. AR Kraków, 364, 71, 155–158.
Rożek E., 2007. Czynniki i cechy kształtujące jakość owoców pomidora oraz ich przydatność do mrożenia. Rozpr. Nauk. AR w Lublinie, 319.
Thorre R., Ballesteros R., Lopez J., Ortiz R., Ruiz R.M., 2001. Agronomic and physical-chemical evolution of tomatoes during ripening. Acta Hort., 542, 197–203.


Ewa Rożek 
University of Life Sciences in Lublin
Renata Nurzyńska-Wierdak 
University of Life Sciences in Lublin
Maria Kosior 
University of Life Sciences in Lublin



Articles are made available under the conditions CC BY 4.0 (until 2020 under the conditions CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
Submission of the paper implies that it has not been published previously, that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

The author signs a statement of the originality of the work, the contribution of individuals, and source of funding.


Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 1 2 3 4 > >>