Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for :

  • Author or Editor: C. Richard Unrath x
  • HortScience x
Clear All Modify Search

With the current situation facing land grant universities of declining resources and a portion of federal funding being dependent upon multistate activities, the search for means to successfully address clientele needs may be handled through multistate activity. In the Southeast, the tree fruit programs, both research and extension, have been evaluating areas that could be addressed with multistate programming. To date, most of the tree fruit multistate activities have been informal in nature. The apple program was the first to look at multistate activity because of the heavy concentration of the industry in the mountains of NC, SC, GA, and TN. The formation of the Southeastern Apple Growers Meeting, which combined the annual educational meeting for apple growers in NC, GA, SC, and TN, was the first initiative. It proved to be very successful with the completion of the eighth joint meeting. In addition, the pest management guides for both apple and peach have been combined for many of the southeastern (five states) and southern states (11 states), respectively. Numerous working groups, workshops, tours, and field days are held on a regional scale as well. However, in order for multistate programming to succeed, our experience suggest the need for several key components. The technical competence in the program to be addressed, a supportive university administration, backing of the industry groups, and personnel that are neither territorial nor resistant to change must be present. From our experience multistate programming can be very successful!

Free access

`Fuji' apples (Malus domestica Borkh.) were harvested at three maturities for three consecutive seasons. Fruit firmness, soluble solids concentration, starch—iodine index (SI), and internal ethylene concentration were measured at harvest. Fruit were stored in 0 °C air storage for 8 months. Fruit firmness and other maturity indices were measured monthly during storage. Using a stepwise regression procedure, harvest maturity indices were used to predict firmness after air storage. When all maturity indices measured were represented in the model, R 2 = 0.29, 0.34, and 0.26 at 4, 6, and 8 months, respectively. Use of only SI and fruit firmness in the model gave R 2 values of 0.25, 0.29, and 0.24 for 4, 6, and 8 months, respectively. Although R 2 values were low, they were highly significant. The model using fruit firmness and SI resulted in the best fit. Thus, an equation was developed using months of air storage, firmness, and SI at harvest. Actual firmness values correlated fairly well with predicted firmness values, usually within ≈5 N. On Washington apples, predicted values were 4.3 and 3.7 N too low compared to actual firmness values after 3 or 5 months' storage. In 1993, when predicted and actual firmness values were compared for Pennsylvania apples, predicted values ranged from 2.6 to 8.3 N too high after 3 months' storage, depending on harvest date. In 1994, Pennsylvania fruit stored 4 months had predicted values 0.5 N too high to 6.3 N too low, depending on harvest date. It may be possible to develop and refine models for an apple variety that would be applicable to several regions.

Free access


A simple measure of fruit asymmetry was used to evaluate fruit shape in ‘Delicious’ apple (Malus domestica Borkh.). The maximum/minimum length ratio, the ratio of the maximum distance between an individual calyx lobe and the stem end shoulder of the fruit to the minimum distance between calyx lobe and stem end shoulder, gave consistent results for evaluating normal and abnormal fruit shape.

Open Access