## 3 Results  
### Analysis Results of Geometrical Properties  
To describe the physical properties of the garlic dried on the road surface before collection, geometrical properties were analyzed for each cultivar. As shown in Table 1, for the Uiseong, Danyang, Namdo, and Daeseo cultivars, their mean weights were 49.2, 40.6, 72.9, and 83.0 g, respectively, whereas their mean lengths were 42.0, 36.4, 47.4, and 38.8 mm, respectively; their mean widths were 48.0, 44.1, 63.6, and 62.1 mm, respectively; their mean number of garlic cloves was 6.6, 7.2, 9.6, and 10.4, respectively. As shown in Table 2, their mean volumes were 61.4 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\), 48.1 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\), 89.9 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\), and 91.2 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) m\({}^{3}\), respectively; their mean densities were 755.6, 758.8, 840.0, and 907.9 kg/m\({}^{3}\), respectively. When measuring the volume of garlic by cultivars, the height of rising water induced by the mass of wraps used to seal them and the sticks used to submerge them was ignored due to its negligible length. The weight, length, and width of Namdo and Danyang garlic were highest and lowest, respectively. Additionally, the volume and density of WSG garlic were greater than those of CSG. The number of garlic cloves was also greater in the WSG than in the CSG. Incompletely formed garlic cloves (chaff) were found in WSG but not in CSG (Figure 5). This result confirms the findings of [PERSON] et al. (1999) [PERSON] et al. (1999), whose analysis suffered from significant errors due to the relatively high proportion of chaff in the Daeseo cultivar. In the WSG, the degree of the reaction force of garlic during machinery operation was likely to differ due to the unevenness of the surface of garlic, which could be a design factor influencing the feed rate of collecting machinery. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Division**} & **Weight (g)** & **Length (mm)** & **Width (mm)** & **No. of Cloves (ea)** & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)} \\ \cline{3-4} \cline{6-6}  & & & **M \(\pm\) SD** & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Cultivar} & Uiseong & 49.2 \(\pm\) 7.5 b & 42.0 \(\pm\) 3.1 c & 48.0 \(\pm\) 2.9 b & 6.6 \(\pm\) 0.6 a & \multirow{4}{*}{0.000 ***} \\ \cline{2-4} \cline{6-6}  & Danyang & 40.6 \(\pm\) 6.1 a & 36.4 \(\pm\) 2.4 a & 44.1 \(\pm\) 3.1 a & 7.2 \(\pm\) 0.8 b & \\ \cline{2-4} \cline{6-6}  & Namdo & 72.9 \(\pm\) 9.9 c & 47.4 \(\pm\) 3.7 d & 63.6 \(\pm\) 4.1 d & 9.6 \(\pm\) 0.6 c & \\ \cline{2-4} \cline{6-6}  & Daeseo & 83.0 \(\pm\) 15.6 d & 38.8 \(\pm\) 3.0 b & 62.1 \(\pm\) 5.1 c & 10.4 \(\pm\) 0.8 d & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Cultivar-specific geometric properties: measurement results and ANOVA statistical analysis (\(n=30\)). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Ecotype**} & **Cultivar** & **Volume (m\({}^{3}\))** & **Density (kg/m\({}^{3}\))** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{CSG} & \multirow{4}{*}{Uiseong} & M \(\pm\) SD & 61.4 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) \(\pm\) 11.3 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) b & 755.6 \(\pm\) 21.9 a \\  & & Max & 80.3 & 782.1 \\  & & Min & 48.6 & 722.5 \\ \cline{2-4}  & \multirow{4}{*}{Danyang} & M \(\pm\) SD & 48.1 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) \(\pm\) 16.3 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) a & 758.8 \(\pm\) 16.3 a \\  & & Max & 71.8 & 809.8 \\  & & Min & 34.7 & 725.0 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{WSG} & \multirow{4}{*}{Namdo} & M \(\pm\) SD & 89.9 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) \(\pm\) 7.1 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) c & 840.0 \(\pm\) 45.9 b \\  & & Max & 100.0 & 987.0 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Min & 78.9 & 777.9 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-4} \cline{6-6}  & \multirow{4}{*}{Daeseo} & M \(\pm\) SD & 91.2 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) \(\pm\) 11.7 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) c & 907.9 \(\pm\) 97.9 c \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Max & 112.3 & 1124.5 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Min & 78.9 & 729.7 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Cultivar-specific density and volume: measurement results and ANOVA statistical analysis (\(n=30\)).