Search Results

You are looking at 31 - 40 of 75 items for :

  • "fruit evaluation" x
  • All content x
Clear All
Open access

Chad E. Finn, Bernadine C. Strik, Brian M. Yorgey, Mary E. Peterson, Patrick A. Jones, Jungmin Lee, Nahla V. Bassil, and Robert R. Martin

Extension Center (Aurora, OR); planted in replicated trial (three plots of three plants each) in 2013. Fruit evaluations were made weekly during the harvest seasons using a 1 to 9 scale (9 = the best expression of each trait). The subjective fruit ratings

Full access

Celia M. Cantín, Carlos H. Crisosto, and Kevin R. Day

period. Shelf life quality evaluation. CI symptoms such as flesh translucency, gel breakdown, flesh bleeding, decay, and “off flavor” were not observed on ripe fruit evaluated at 30 and 45 d of cold storage (data not shown). Our informal sensory

Free access

Chad E. Finn, Bernadine C. Strik, Brian M. Yorgey, Mary E. Peterson, Jungmin Lee, Robert R. Martin, and Harvey K. Hall

not for fruit weight and the means for yield in each year are presented and compared ( Table 1 ). Subjective fruit evaluations were made during the 2011–13 fruiting seasons using a 1 to 9 scale (9 = the best expression of each trait). The fruit ratings

Free access

Duane W. Greene

to make meaningful fruit evaluation. Table 4. Effect of the time of 500 mg·L −1 ABA application on fruit size and quality at harvest of ‘Bartlett’ pears, Expt. 1. All rates of ABA from 50 to 500 mg·L −1 applied at the 10-mm fruit size stage resulted

Free access

John R. Clark and Paul. J. Sandefur

temperature (≈20 °C) for ≈24 h. Skin and flesh quality, skin and flesh color, juiciness, browning, mealiness, and taste were subjectively rated on a scale from 0 (worst) to 10 (best). Photographs were taken of all fruit evaluated using a Beseler CS-14 copy

Full access

David Obenland, Dennis Margosan, Sue Collin, James Sievert, Kent Fjeld, Mary Lu Arpaia, James Thompson, and David Slaughter

evaluation of commercially harvested fruit. Because the CDFA method, and segment cutting especially, is a subjective and error-prone means of freeze damage and fruit quality evaluation, it makes a rather poor basis for evaluating the success of a new fruit

Open access

Chad E. Finn, Bernadine C. Strik, Brian M. Yorgey, Mary E. Peterson, Patrick A. Jones, Gil Buller, Sedat Serçe, Jungmin Lee, Nahla V. Bassil, and Robert R. Martin

University’s North Willamette Research and Extension Center (Aurora, OR); planted in replicated trial (three plots of three plants each) in 2013. Fruit evaluations were made during the harvest seasons using a 1 to 9 scale (9 = the best expression of each

Open access

Chad E. Finn, Bernadine C. Strik, Brian M. Yorgey, Mary E. Peterson, Patrick A. Jones, Gil Buller, Jungmin Lee, Nahla V. Bassil, and Robert R. Martin

and Extension Center (Aurora, OR); planted in a replicated trial (three plots of three plants each) in 2005. Fruit evaluations were made during the harvest seasons using a 1- to 9-point scale (9 = the best expression of each trait). The subjective

Free access

Audrey M. Sebolt and Amy F. Iezzoni

with nonself-pollen versus 23% for the six trees at the east side of the plot. S -allele genotyping confirmed the contribution of ‘Montmorency’ pollen to achieving fruit set in ‘Balaton™’ because 30% of the fruit evaluated resulted from ‘Montmorency

Free access

Luiz C. Argenta, Xuetong Fan, and James P. Mattheis

60% of the fruit surface affected) ( Fan et al., 1999b ). A peel disorder of unknown etiology manifested as a diffuse, grayish brown discoloration and observed during fruit evaluation was visually assessed as clear or affected. There was no difference