Factors Influencing the Quality of American Grapes in Storage'
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Technical Bulletin No. 606 ^'^W^y^^^'-^^^S»^ March 1938 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURl FACTORS INFLUENCING THE QUALITY OF AMERICAN GRAPES IN STORAGE' By J. M. LUTZ, assistant physiologist, Division of Fruit and Vegetable Crops and Diseases, Bureau of Plant Industry * CONTENTS Page Pas« Introduction 1 Handling and storage studies—Continued. Handling and storage studies 2 length of storage life of different varieties- 21 Materials and methods--- -_ 2 Physiological studies 22 Factors influencing shattering and decay of Respiration of Concord grapes--- --- 22 grapes in cold storage -- - 2 Changes in composition in storage 22 Loss of weight of grapes in storage--- 19 Influence of maturity on composition 24 Deterioration of flavor in storage 19 Summary --- 25 Influence of storage on behavior after Literature cited 26 removal from storage -_ 20 INTRODUCTION Although considerable experimental work has been done on the handling and storage of vinifera grapes by Carrick {2),^ Jacob (8), Mann (1^), Pentzer and associates {13, 14, 15), Stubenrauch {17) and others, there is little information available on the handling and storage of labrusca and muscadine grapes. Hedrick and his co- workers {6) and Husmann (7) briefly mention the storage and shipping qualities of a few varieties of American grapes. Thayer {18) reports the results of limited tests comparing the storage behavior of 22 vari- eties of grapes in a fruit cellar as well as in cold storage. Rose et al. {16) briefly discuss the storage of American grapes. The investigations reported herein were undertaken in an attempt to determine the influence of various factors on the storage Ufe, chemical composition, and physiological activity of American grapes. Information on these matters should be useful in the storage and transportation of table grapes. Storage may also be used as an ad- junct in the manufacture of grape juice or wine by prolonging the season in which fresh grapes are available. All of the storage studies were conducted in the experimental storage rooms at the cold-storage laboratory, Arlington Experiment Farm, Arlington, Va. 1 Received for publication July 28,1937. J The writer gratefully acknowledges his indebtedness to D. F. Fisher for numerous suggestions in carrymg out this work; to M. H. Haller and P. L. Harding for assistance in making the respiration determinatlom; to R C Wright for suggestions and assistance in the determination of the rate of cooling in storage; and to I. W. Dix, J. R. Magness, and Charles Dearing for furnishing the fruit. ' Italic numbers in parentheses refer to Literature Cited, p. 28. 24922°—38 1 2 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 606, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE HANDLING AND STORAGE STUDIES MATERIALS AND METHODS This work was conducted during the seasons of 1932, 1933, and 1934. With the exception of the Concord, Niagara, Delaware, Worden, and Moore Early varieties which were grown at Beltsville, Md., the grapes used in the comparison of the storage life of different varieties were grown less than 20 miles distant at the Arlington Experiment Farm, Arlington, Va. Preliminary tests showed no apparent difference in keeping quality of the fruit from these two sources. The muscadine grapes used in this work were secured from Willard, N. C. While it is realized that muscadine grapes are seldom if ever stored commercially, it was thought desirable to obtain some information on them. The fruit was picked at the market-ripe stage of maturity, which was about 10 days before the full-ripe stage. The fruit had developed full color and nearly full flavor but was not quite as ripe as fruit har- vested for juice manufacture. The Moore Early harvested in 1934 and the second-picking grapes (table 13) were about 1 week beyond the market-ripe stage. Unless otherwise stated the fruit was stored in 4-quart baskets without washing, the containers being placed so as to permit free circulation of air around and over each one. It was usually placed in storage the day of harvesting, although occasionally it had to be held overnight at room temperature. Ordinary careful handling methods were practiced during harvesting and preparation for storage, except where variations in handling methods were being studied. A temperature range of 32° to 80° F. was used. The average relative humidity of the storage rooms for each of the 3 years is given in table 1. TABLE 1.—Average relalivc humiditi/ of storage rooms uned in deierminiiig tlie effect of temperature on grapes Relative humidity Belative humidity storage tempera- .Storage tempera- ture (»F.) ture (°F.) 1932 1933 1934 1932 1933 1934 Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent 32 79 80 76 60 83 96 36 87 88 80 70..._ 91 86 40 88 85 89 80 72 72 50 77 89 80 "Shattering" or dropping, or as it is sometimes called "shelling," of the berries from the pedicels was determined after shaking the bunches slightly. The shaking was apphed as uniformly as possible to all treatments. FACTORS INFLUENCING SHATTERING AND DECAY OF GRAPES IN COLD STORAGE TEMPERATURE The results obtained on the influence of temperature on shattering and decay are given in tables_2 to 7, inclusive, Some of these data are illustrated in figures 1 to 12, inclusive. QUALITY OF AMERICAK GRAPES IN STORAGE •g ^ lOi 1 s ifS i i i i i i 1 Percent ft ■gi,.c*3o> —eoio-H !!!!!; M0eo*í30t* Oí „•s í i i ; ; i : ■2 B i : i i !0 1 ^03 QO 1 i i i ; nOM Or- ; M ; ; i j^^SS'^ 3 CM' e4 í¿ c^ 3 ;" i M i ; i^ te í ; : ; Wf QO -0 lo lo 1 1 ! ! ; ! ! oc Ico 1 ¡lili! Ë '■ '■ '■ 1 <ïï i i i 13 è ; i i": » lís 1 1 ! 1 ! ! 1 tó !■* 1 ! ' 1 ! 1 1 ^1 íK i; :; '"; o O 3> >-< O « s i i" ; .111 1 1 1 lo Ico CO CO 1 ; i ! ; i ^ I- = i i" i i i i i i i i i® i'^ g « \ \ \ \ 'l 1 1 1°^ i*^ : g o -73 g « Xl lili . 1 1 ai 1 1 3 1 r " i a ^ 1 ll- 1 1 1 I Tt< 1 1 ■S 2 ; !" ! ; !" ; ; te S S W ir i s H i ■g loco ; i 1 F 1 1 1 liOCÖ I 1 „■S lili 1 lo-* 1 1 lili 1 lsri 1 QÓ (OCJ í i ■ -0 lO ItO 1 lííOiOOM Ice o OOiCOO • \~ ss«"" 1 ■ , 1 í i O lo 1 OOOOTf-^ Ico 1 o o r- 00 ■* „'S •-■ 30 eo (N 1 1 CO ^ II ë [si g CO ä a ^ \ \ \ \ j s ■o CO .JO eo bijoo t- (O »o -w co i ■^ I ce o U TKCHNICAL BULLETIN 6 0 6, U. S. UEIT. OF AGRICULÏUKE TABLE 3.—Effect of temperature on shattering and development of decay of Worden and Delaware grapes stored for various periods, 19S2 SHATTERING AFTER STOBAOE PERIODS INDICATED Variety and storage tem- 1 week 2 weeks iwrature (*^ ¥.) 3 weeks 4 weeks 5 weeks 6" weeks 8 weeks Worden: Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent 70 42.1 60 14.6 60 1.5 7.1 20.0 40 2.5 16.0 37.9 48.3 40' 62.5 32 4.0 l-i.C 38.6 60.7 32l__. , 56.7 Delaware: 70 20.00 60..-. .8 3.6 11.9 60-.- .0 2.1 4.7 9.7 40 2.8 7.0 36 4.2 7.4 36" 32.... .7 1.6 DECAY AFTER STORAOE PERIODS INDICATED Worden: 70 1.1 60 1.5 60 .8 2.3 2.8 40.... .6 .9 1.5 2.1 401 7.1 32 .0 .3 .3 .3 321 _ 2.6 Delaware; 70 8.5 60 1.0 3.8 9. 1 60-.-. .0 .2 2.8 7.9 40 1.7 3.6 12 6 36 1.1 1.7 3 0 36' 7.9 32 .0 . 1 2 1 Inspected after 6 weeks' storage only. ' Inspected after 8 weeks' storage only. TABLE 4.- -Effect of temperature on shattering and development of decay of different varieties of grapes, stored for various periods, 193S SHATTERING AFTER STORAOE PERIODS INDICATED Variety and storage temperature (° F.) 1 week 2 weeks 4 weeks 6 weeks 7 weeks 8 weeks 10 weeks 12 weeks Concord: Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percera Percera 80 85.7 70 47.5 60 6.8 31.6 60 1.2 4.6 23.4 40 .8 3.2 9.5 38.4 36 .3 1.7 4.2 20.9 38,9 32 .3 1.2 2.7 5.6 18.4 38.9 321 16.7 32> 2.0 Niagara: 70 31.6 60 4.2 18.7 50 1.3 3.5 12.4 40 1.4 4.4 13.2 36 2.8 8.5 16.0 32 .8 6.2 13.6 19.6 Worden: 70 60 10.8 60 6.6 51.6 40 6.2 63.8 36 2.2 30 n m 6 32 .0 3 0 3Q fi 1 66.4 See footnotes at end of table. QUALITY OF AMERICAN GRAPES IN STORAGE 5 TABLE 4 —Effect of température on shattering and development of decay of different varieties of grapes, stored for various periods, 1933—Continued DECAY AFTER STORAOE PERIODS INDICATED Variety and storage temperature (° F.) 1 week 2 weeks 4 weeks 6 weeks 7 weeks 8 weeks 10 weeks 12 weeks Concord: Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent 80 9.2 70 6. 1 60 3.5 5.0 60 1.0 2.2 4.0 40 1.9 2.8 4.1 38 _ 5.2 .5 1.9 3.1 4.2 4.8 32 .3 .9 2.1 321 3.0 3.2 3.'8 4.4 32> 2.7 70 12.6 60...