28 2 5 2 5 ::: 1//// . 11111 . l:.i 11/1/2.8 1.0 1.0 I~ 1= 11111 . ~ ~P.2 I~ ~F2 I.:.l I" 2.2 ~ I~ .z I~ ~ ~ :f B~ ~ I~ .. " 1.1 al......... 1.1 ""&:.1'- ...." I - ""'1.25 111111.4 111111.6 1111,1.25 111111.4 11111.1.6 MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS·1963·A NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS.1963·A F~~ ~o 'LA £'~-\ i:t I A..7( ~. Seasonal Changes in ~ ~ Florida Murcott Honey Oranges ",. ... ~ oe­ I.< ..0 ~~... :.:J ~ N U CD .... 0 (J") -...a f-o :::1 ll.l Cl.. - C\.l :n ~ V I- 43 ~ u bo Q t: 0 < cQ 0 ......, Technical Bulletin No. 1271 ~ United States Department of Agriculture PREFACE This report is one of a group on seasonal changes in citrus fruItll. It is part of a broad program of research by the Agricultural Marketing Service to evaluate and maintain the quality of agricultural products in marketing channels. The late Arthur P. Sidwell was responsible for the organization and re,ision of the manuscript, in its final form, for publication. The light transmission studies were conducted under the direction of John~. Yeatman. William G. Long is now m;sociate chemist, Citrus Experiment Station, Lake Alfred, Fla.; i\lilliard B. Sunday and Paul L. Ha;-ding are statioued at Orlando, Fla. Harry J. Brinkl('y, James B. Smith, 0j'l"in H. ·Wllrc!, and Henry C. \Yhitesell gaye information and assisted in locating test plots of ::Uurcott Honey oranges fOr use in this study. Ed C. Anderson, T. J. Barns, C. C. Bishop, J. 1'. Danicl, O. J. Harvey, Xicholas Hoffmann, J. T. Humphries, Don Kemp, Orie Lee, Hoy )Ioulltain, Bob Pittman, Charles )1. Pool, E. r~. Richanls, William L. Sims II, and W. L. Story provided the l\lurcott Honey oranges for the in'estigatloll. Staff members of the Agricultural Research Service and Agriculturul. :Uarketing,- Service stntiolled at Orlnado, Fla., also pro\'ided assistancE' during the course of the study. WaShington, D.C. October 1962 CONTENTS Pug#) Sull1111ary_____________________ _ Pnge Introeluction__________________ _ 5 Result:;·-Continued Early llistory________________ _ 6 Chemical nnnh-~i~-('OlltiJllleci 6 As('orbic neieL_. __ . J G Fruit eharactcri"lic~ __________ _ 6 Acti\'c acidity (pHL Iii ~Intcrials anelll1clbods. ___ ..___ _ 7 Physical chara('tl'ri::;tiC8 __ . 1G Salllplf' plots and ;:;ampUng___ ._ 7 Fruit wl'ight _ . _ . _.. __ ~ _ Enlluation of pa.latallilit.\-_____ _ 16 9 Volume and percent of juicf' .. IS Cbemical analy;;i~ ___ • __ . __ • __ _ a Rind eolor_. _ . _ _ __ _. __ Physical characteristic;; _______ _ IS f! COiN of f1f'sh _________ . __ _ IS Color of rind______________ _ 10 TexturE' of flesh. ___ ... _ .. Color of f1esh ______ • _______ _ 10 Repdinpss _____________ ._. IS Conclition of tlesh __________ _ IS SecdineEs ___________ . _____ _ 10 Rinel thickness. __ . _ . ___ "­ 1.8 10 Fruit diameter__ . _... _. IS Rind thickness and fruit, .Juice volume of sized fruit.. _ . cliamet~r ________________ _ IS 10 Light transmittnncp. rhame­ 10 tc·ristie&. _______________ _ Juice \'olume ot lli'lrd fruit.. 18 Light transmittance charac­ teristil's. ________________ _ Interrelationships among \'ari- 10 OWl c\'alutions__ • _. ___ "'" . 20 Statistical calculation________ • 10 Othcl' factors influencing qual­ Results.______________________ _ .12 ity. _______ . ___ . ________ _ 2-1 Palatability studks __________ _ 12 Rootstock___ . __ • _ ._. __ _ Chemical analysis____________ _ 21 TotalsoUels_______________ _ 15 Crop season \'arintion_______ _ 2·1 15 Effects of freczing. _______ .. 24 Total ncid________________ _ to Literature cited____ .. _____ ._ Solids-to-acid ratio_________ _ 27 16 Appendix____________ . _. ______ _ 28 3 SEASONAL CHANGES IN FLORIDA MURCOTT HONEY ORANGES 'YILLr.ur G. LOXG, horticIIltllri8f, MILLAUD B. SmWAY, biological ,~cicllc:e8 techniciall, Ilnd PAUL 1.. ilAuDtXG, reBcorch lJlullt physiologist, Market Quality Rescarch Dh·i­ sion, Agricultural :\larkcting Scrvicc SUMMARY Mnrcott Honey orange s:unples acid content, than from certain were collected at monthly intu:ntls, other of the rootstocks. However, from December through ..:\pril~ dur­ fruit: frOIl1 rough lemon was slightly ing four crop seasons and studied heavier. for seasonal changes in fruit The sol ids and acid contents of quality. The data for the first sea­ the samples of fruit were related to SOil, ID57-58, were not included in their palatability ratin~, with the tabulations or condusions, except former value bearing the closest re­ for the effects of the freeze clamage lationship. The ratio of solids-to­ wLich o("clIlTed in that crop year. acid predicted the palatability rat­ Twenty-thl·CP eli n·prent IO-I'·ee plots ing of samples reliably during the on 4 rootstocks were sampled. early part of the crop Season. thus In all, 2;")0 samples of 100 fruit serving as a satisfnctory minimum each 'H'rc collected and analyzed. maturity stalldard i ndl:x. I:Iow­ Palatability of the jui('e, total ever, lnt.e-har\"ested samples ,nth a solids, solids-to-acid ratio, weight low acid and a high solids content of the fruit, and volume and percent were downgr:lded because uf over­ of juice increased as the season sweet, insipid flavor. progressed. Total aciel and the ~Iaturity regulations were nscorbic acid concentmtion of the adopted for MUI·cott Hon('y oranges j nice decreased cluri ng the season. in 1!)5l) based on the r('sults of the As the fruit matured. rind color 1058-59 studies. 'l'hef'c requir('­ changed from green to orangc, and ments arc: (1) I-perccnt total acid the juice color changed from yel­ or less, or (2) grcate,· I han 12-to-1 low-omnge to orangc. The rind solids-to-aclc1 r:ttio if greater thnn was thinner anel the fruit diameter I-percent total acid. The results of was gl·cater toward the enel of the the additional 2 years' research have season. ComlllCl'cial siz('s of fruit substantiated these valucs. and no of the 1959-00 season yieldl:cl from complaints have been voiced by the 38 to 43 percent juice. The fruit industry. had an average of about 20 seeds I:-'hou"ld the citr,'s industry desire each. to upgmae the maturity l"('qllire­ Some important rootstock effects ments for the ~rllrcott Honey on quality factors were noted. orange, it coul(L be accomplished by: Fl·uit from rough lemon llv('rnged (1) Raising the minimum solids-to­ significantly lowcr in p:tlatabilil·y, aci(l ratio requiremcnt, (2) clcereas­ total solids, total acid, and ascorbie ing Ow maximum pere(·nt. total :1c·ic1, 5 01' (3) both raising the minimum tain light transmittance measure­ solids-to-acid ratio, and decreasing ments looked promising, but fur­ the maximum percent total acid. ther research and development are Some new techniques of quality needed before they can be recom­ evaluation were investigated. Cer- mended for nse by the industry. INTRODUCTION The ~Iurcott Honey orange, also The 1960-61 season production was known as the Smith tangerine, probably greater than 100,000 probably is a t[lngerine crossed with boxes. a sweet orange hybrid ( Oit?'1.lB Early attempts at processing 1'etic'llZata X O. sinensis) (6).2 :Uurcott Honey orange juice were not very successful, according to Barron and Olsen (~). Tl1e fhwOl' Early History was astringent and unsatisfactory, even when blended 1 part to 9 parts The early history of t11e Murcott with Hamlin. orange juice. How­ Honey orange is somewhRt obscure ever, juice extmcted by hand­ (.l4). It is not certain whether it squeezing has an excellent fluNor, is a chance seedling, an import, or allcl undoubtedly [1, method of a hybrid developed by Charles :JIur­ processing which will give a satis­ cott Smith or the U.S. DepnTtment: factory product will eventually be of Agdculture. "Morse (14) be­ found. lieves that it was one of lllfmy hybrids sent by the U.S. Depart­ Fruit Characteristics ment of Agriculture to cooperators for trial. The oldest-kuo"n budded The ~Iurcott Honey orange is a tree (p1Rte I) still stands in the medium-size ci trns fruit, somewhat former Smith grove, Bavview. flattened Hnd thinslcinned like a Clearwater, Fla. ., tangerine. It is it favorite with gift In the last decade Marcott fruit packers because of its high Honey orange plantings have in­ total solids content and its deep­ creased phenomenally. Savage orange flesh and juice color. It (16) reported that 203 trees "el'e peels more easily than an omnge, planted in 1951-52, and 164,738 has a high juice volume, .medium trees were distributed in the 5-year total acid, high solids-to-acid ratio, period between 1951 and HJ56. 13e­ yellow-orange rind color, and deep­ orange pulp and juice color. The cn.use many growers produce their trees produce well, but there is a own lltU'sery stock, 10,000 acres tendency toward alternate bearing. might be a reasonable estimate of The fruit are heavy; weight varies the area of the present plantings. from about 97 to 105 pounds f)er :2­ Approximately 4,'100 boxes of bushel field box (5). They (0 not ~furcott Honey oranges were become puffy when oYerripe, but shipped to aue-Cion in 1955-56 (14.). dry out slowly. T,lle fmit are al­ The rollowing year 23,896 boxes ways seeely, averrtgll1g 20 seeds pel' were sold on the auction markets. fruit. "Italic numl>en; in parentheses refer to Literature Cited, p. 27. 6 nX-1GIGGA PLATE I.-The oldest-known budded 1Iurcolt Honey Ol'llllge tree ill lhe lute Charles Murcott Smith's nursery in Bayview, Clearwater, FIn.