Sarhad J. Agric. Vol.28, No.1, 2012

EFFECT OF HARVESTING DATE ON FRUIT SIZE, FRUIT WEIGHT AND TOTAL SOLUBLE SOLIDS OF FEUTRELL’S EARLY AND KINNOW OF MADARIN ( RETICULATA ) ON THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF FARMING COMMUNITY OF FAISALABAD MUHAMMAD IQBAL, MUHAMMAD NIAMATULLAH KHAN, MUHAMMAD ZAFAR and MUHAMMAD MUNIR Faculty of Agriculture, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan – . ABSTRACT The aim of study was to estimate the effect of harvesting date on fruit size, fruit weight and total soluble solids on tree growth and development of Feutrell’s early citrus and Kinnow cultivars of Mandarin (Citrus reticulata) on the economic conditions of farming community of Faisalabad during 2008. Ten trees were selected from each garden of Feutrell’s early and Kinnow cultivars of Mandarin. The fruit samples were brought at various intervals to Post graduate Laboratory of the Institute of Horticulture Sciences, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. The samples were washed with distilled water and were kept at room temperature. The selected physiochemical characteristics of the fruits were then evaluated on the same day. The results for all the selected physiochemical parameters were found significant at different intervals. Feutrell’s early and Kinnow varieties showed maximum fruit weight of 120.00 gm on 30 th December and 164.30 gm on 11 th of February, maximum fruit size of 5.45 % on 18 th December and 6.01 % on 30 th January, while total soluble solids of 11.46 % on 30 th December and 12.75 % on 26 th January, respectively. It is concluded from the study that agronomic conditions of Faisalabad are favourable for the quality fruits of Feutrell’s early and Kinnow cultivars of citrus and helped in economic enhancement of farmers in Faisalabad. Key Words: Garden, Kinnow, Total soluble solids, physico-chemical, agro-climatic conditions Citation: Iqbal, M., M. N. Khan, M. Zafar and M. Munir. 2012. Effect of harvesting date on fruit size, fruit weight and total soluble solids of feutrell’s early and kinnow cultivars of Mardan ( Citrus Reticulata ) on the economic conditions of farming community of Faisalabad. Sarhad J. Agric. 28(1): 19-21 INTRODUCTION The citrus fruit of genus citrus are including sweet oranges, grape fruits, mandarins, , limes, chukotra, sour , rough , kinnow and . It is a special type of berry named . It is called so due to the presence of hesperidium, a vitamin like substance. Citrus fruits are highly nutritious having vitamin A, B and C and also contains appreciable amount of other minerals (Saunt, 1990). The important citrus producing countries are China, Japan, Pakistan, , Brazil, Israel, South Africa, Algeria, Tunis, Egypt, Libya etc. In Pakistan it holds first position on the basis of area (183.8 thousand hectares) and production (1943.7 thousand tonnes) (Anonymous, 2004-05). The province of contributes 96.3% to the country’s total (Ali et al., 2007). Among citrus fruits, Kinnow mandarin ( Citrus reticulata Blanco ), Feutrell’s early and sweet oranges ( Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck.) have gained a prime importance due to their exceptionally high economical yield potential, excellent fruit quality and versatile adaptation to various agro-climatic conditions. The climate of Pakistan was proved to be the best for the excellent production of Kinnow (Saunt, 1990). Demand of citrus depends on factors such as income levels, population growth, availability and relative prices of substitute fruits and the changing consumer preferences for fresh produce, including health, quality, convenience or taste characteristics. Promotion campaigns including health, quality, convenience or taste characteristics may play an important role in order to increase demand for citrus fruits and juices (Saunt, 1990). As far as the production is concerned, various factors affect the production such as yield, agronomic performance, stress, susceptibilities and biochemical’s and cytological traits. Although the citrus is not a new fruit in Pakistan, pomological studies provide the documentation of reproductive growth of Kinnow and Feutrell’s early Faisalabad. MATERIALS AND METHODS The studies were carried out at Research Orchard of Institute of Horticultural Sciences, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad during 2008. Five trees were selected from each garden of Feutrell’s early and Kinnow. 12 plants were selected from each of Feutrells’s early and Kinnow from the five years old healthy citrus orchard. As the plants were not of large size, so we could divide each tree in two sections by drawing a straight line through the canopy from east to west. Two samples from each tree one from west and other north were picked and total of 24 samples for M. Iqbal et al. Effect of harvesting dateon fruit size, weight and TSS of Kinnow cultivars … 20 each variety were collected. Samples of these varieties were done in accordance with the following schedule. Seven samples of Feutrell’s early from 17 November 2008 to 15 February 2009 are taken and while 7 samples of Kinnow from 7 th January 2009 to 25 February 2009 are taken as harvesting dates mentioned below; Feutrell’s Early Mandarin Kinnow Mandarin T1 17th November, 2008 T1 7th January, 2009 T2 3rdd December, 2008 T2 17 th January, 2009 T3 18 th December, 2008 T3 26 th January, 2009 T4 30 th December, 2008 T4 3 rd February, 2009 T5 14 th January, 2009 T5 11 th February, 2009 T6 30 th January, 2009 T6 30 th January, 2009 T7 15 th February, 2009 T7 25 th February, 2009 The fruit samples were brought to post-graduate laboratory of the Institute of Horticulture Sciences, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. The samples were washed with distilled water and dried at room temperature. These fruits were then evaluated on the basis of following fruit characteristics on the same day. Size of Fruit Polar and equatorial ends were measured with vernier caliper and size was expressed in centimeters. Fruit Weight Analytical balance was used to weight the fruit and the data was expressed in grams. Total Soluble Solids (TSS) For determining total soluble solids, procedure suggested by Erickson and Hass was adopted.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table I showed that the fruit size increased on 30 th of December (T4) and the tended to decline later in the season, the results are compared with the findings of Bowman (1994) reported increase in fruit size until November only and found similar weight up till end of December. Fruit marked on 17 th of November (T1) were with minimum size. The most important controllable factor to determine the fruit size as reported by Koo and Reese (1977) and Sites et al. (1951) carried on studies in Florida concluded that a moisture stress of any duration after the fruit set was set reduced the size of the fruit and that the reduction never entirely regained by any means. Table I also indicates that with the passage of time the fruit weight of Feutrell’s early increased up till 30 th of December (T4) and fruits harvested later in the season were with significant lower weight. Fruit marked from 1st week of December (T4) were similar in weight statistically, while fruit marked 15 days before (T1) and after (T5), this duration were low in weight but similar with each other. Fruit sample on 15 th of February (T7) were with lowest values and excelled significantly by all other treatments except T6, which is correlated with the findings of Jawanda (1964) and Grosser and Chandler (2000). It was noted that fruit weight increased significantly as the time of picking was delayed. Other treatments means were intermediate, slight decrease in fruit weight on 17 th January (T2) and on 3rd February was surely due to fact that sampling was done from the market where fruits was coming from different orchards. Fruit weight remained statistically stable from 26 th January (T3) to 19 th of February (T6) except (T7) showing slight decrease. T7 has dramatic lower value. Size of fruits followed the same general increase that was observed in case of fruit weight, it generally increased as the time of picking was delayed. Maximum size was observed on 19 th of February (T6), while maximum weight was observed on 11 th of February (T5). Table I also provides total soluble solids, which were 8.66 % on 17 th of November (T1) and increased with the passage of time and gained economic values at the end of December (T4), thereafter it started decreasing slowly. Fruits marked on 17 th of November (T1) were with maximum TSS when compared with rest of treatments. Maximum values for TSS were observed from mid December up till February as shown in Table I. Total soluble solids were supposed to keep on increasing for a very long time until complete ripening. The TSS percent started to increase from low values mid December (T1) till end of December. Increase was however was not even, quick increase in November was observed which showed down in December results closely resemble to the findings of Ukalfar and Shanker (1979) who reported economical value of TSS up till 3 rd week of December only. The results compiled by Bakhshi et al. (1968) Joolka and Awasthi (1990) and Chandra and Yadagmi (1983) showed an increase in TSS up till ripening and slow decrease followed that period are in close conformity with our findings. The

Sarhad J. Agric. Vol.28, No.1, 2012 21

observations pertaining to total soluble solids (TSS) indicated consistent rise till 19 th of February (T6) and then tended to decrease up till end of February (T7). Statistics show no change in TSS after 3 rd February (T4). T3 was the highest economical value and differ significantly with T1 and T2 while similar with rest of treatments. Data given in Table I indicating overlapping, which is the symbol of slow decrease or increase. Total soluble solids are supposed to keep on increasing for a long time up till complete ripening. Decrease in total soluble solids in February could be contributed to irrigation, which dilute the TSS in the start of new vegetative growth utilized a part of reserved carbohydrates and thus TSS of the fruits might have decreased. The results are concordance with Bakhshi et al. (1968) and Joolka and Awashti (1990) who reported increased TSS till maturity only and then decreased once the maturity was over. Table I Fruit length, fruit weight and total soluble solids of Feutrell’s Early and Kinnow Fruit Length Fruit Weight Total Soluble Solids Treatments Feutrell’s Feutrell’s Feutrell’s Kinnow Mean Kinnow Mean Kinnow Mean Early Early Early T1 5.04 ab 5.32 b 5.18 97.50 bc 137.60 bc 117.55 8.66 c 11.75 abc 10.20 T2 5.18 ab 5.74 ab 5.46 107.80 ab 126.90 c 117.35 10.12 b 12.05 abc 11.08 T3 5.45 a 5.67 ab 5.56 113.40 ab 154.40 ab 113.9 11.24 a 12.75 a 11.99 T4 5.39 a 5.37 b 5.38 120.00 a 140.50 bc 130.25 11.46 a 12.50 ab 11.98 T5 5.38 ab 5.93 a 5.65 97.50 bc 164.30 a 130.9 11.31 a 12.55 ab 11.93 T6 5.37 a 6.01 a 5.69 86.00 cd 152.20 ab 119.1 11.11 a 12.45 ab 11.78 T7 5.37 a 6.00 a 5.68 69.70 d 129.10 c 99.4 10.87 ab 11.70 abc 11.20 Mean 4.59 5.73 98.84 143.5 10.68 12.25 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is concluded that selected physico-chemical characteristics such as fruit size, fruit weight and total soluble solids have significantly influenced and resulted in improving the economic conditions of farmers due to Feutrell’s early and Kinnow mandarin under agro-climatic conditions of Faisalabad. REFERENCES Ali, A., Naz, J.J. Muhammad, A. Haider and M. Qasim. 2007. In vitro studies on micro grafting technique in two cultivars of citrus to produce virus free plants. Pak. J. Bot. 39(5): 1773-1778. Anonymous. 2004-05. Agriculture Statistics of Pakistan. Ministry of Food, Agric. & Cooperatives, (Planning Unit), Islamabad, Pakistan. Bakhshi, J.C., G. Singh and K.K. Singh.1968. Effect of time of picking on fruit quality and subsequent cropping of Valencia Late of sweet orange ( Citrus sinensis ). Indian J. Hort. 24: 63-70. Bowman, K.D. 1994. Cipo’ sweet orange and its unique growth habit. J. Fruit Varieties. 48(4): 230-234. Chandra, A. and R. Yadagmi. 1983. Maturity studies in Kinnow in Hisar. Agric. Sci. Dig. 3(2): 113-114. Grosser, J.W. and J.L. Chandler. 2000. Increasing losses of trees and improvement. Hort. Sci. 5(1): 329-332. Jawanda, J.S. 1964. Maturity standards for sweet orange. Pb. Fr. J. 27-29(90-99): 207-210. Joolka, N.K. and R.P. Awashti. 1990. Studies on maturity standards of Kinnow in Himachal Pardesh. Pb. Hort. J. 20(3/4): 149-151. Koo, R.C.J. and R.L. Reese. 1977. Influence of N, K and irrigation on citrus fruit quality. Proc. Int’l. Soc. Citricul. 1: 34- 38. Saunt, J. 1990. The citrus varieties of the World. Sinclair Int,1. Ltd., Norwich. 103 P. Singh, G. and C.S. Dhaiwal, 1980. Performance of cultivars under Ludhyna conditions. Punjab J. Hort. Sci. 20: 140-142. Sites, J.W., H.J. Reitz and E.J. Deszyck. 1951. Some results of irrigation research with Florida Citrus. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 64: 71-79. Ukalkar, S.S. and G. Shankar. 1979. Measurement of physico-chemical changes in the developing fruits of mandarin hybrids. Allahabad Farmer. 50(4): 447-448.