Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 2,545 items for :

Clear All

., 1980 ); although some exceptions exist ( Clarke, 1990 ; Judd et al., 1989 ), they appear to be tolerated statistically ( Zhang and Robson, 2002 ). Although fruit weight distributions are frequently reported in the literature, fruit firmness

Free access
Authors: and

Abstract

The firmness tester for juicy fruit measures firmness by the compression of the fruit between two parallel surfaces with a measured force until a given applanation area is reached. An improved hydrostatic measuring head for this instrument is described that allows the direct determination of this area instead of the measurement of its diameter in the optical head formerly used. The firmness index is defined as the applied force per unit applanation area. Examples of firmness measurements of Prunus avium L., Vitis vinifera L., and Carica papaya L. are given.

Open Access

Abstract

Multiple applications (1-3) of 10 and 50 ppm GA3 to ‘Bing’ and ‘Lambert’ (Prunus avium L.) sweet cherries increased fruit firmness and weight, and delayed harvest. Firmness was positively related to dose of GA3 (number of applications × concentration), soluble solids (SS), and In leaf/fruit ratio. GA3 interacted with SS so that the effect of GA3 dose on firmness was increased at higher SS levels. Fruit coloring was delayed by GA3. Chemical name used: gibberellic acid (GA3).

Open Access

Firmness is an important fruit quality trait in northern highbush blueberry ( Vaccinium corymbosum ) and contributes to machine harvestability, postharvest quality, shelf life, and the consumer eating experience. Fruit firmness, particularly

Open Access

, and maintenance firms) as well as production firms (e.g., wholesale nursery, greenhouse, and turfgrass sod producers), and wholesale and retail distribution firms such as garden centers, home stores, mass merchandisers with lawn/garden departments

Open Access

A convenient and reliable method that used a specially designed tool to apply a uniform bruising force in situ was developed to assess the relative susceptibility to fruit surface pitting in sweet cherry. Assessment of pitting with a visual scale after 2 weeks of 1 °C storage was found to be in close agreement with measurements of pit diameter. Using this method `Bing' showed the greatest susceptibility to pitting in both years of the study and `Bing', `Lapins', and `Sweetheart' cherries showed a decline in susceptibility as fruit matured. The predictive value of fruit firmness at harvest, fruit respiration at harvest, and weight loss in storage was assessed in relation to the severity of pitting. The model to best describe pitting was found to include all three physiological variables (firmness, respiration, and weight loss). While an acceptable model was obtained when combining all three cultivars, the best models were achieved when each cultivar was considered separately. It was concluded that there are likely unmeasured variables involved in determining susceptibility to pitting. Hence the best approach to predicting pitting susceptibility is the application of the pit-induction method described in this work.

Free access

physiological firmness loss ( Paniagua et al., 2013 ). Although firmness can vary widely among cultivars ( Cappai et al., 2018 ), it is commonly used to estimate perishability (postharvest potential) of a given lot ( Lobos et al., 2018 ). Instruments to assess

Open Access

. Factors contributing to splitting in cherries include cultivar differences, water temperature, period of wetting, soluble solids, fruit firmness and turgor, and elasticity of the skin ( Ackley and Krueger, 1980 ; Bullock, 1952 ; Davenport et al., 1972a

Free access

The United States environmental horticulture industry, or green industry, comprises wholesale nursery, greenhouse, and turfgrass sod producers; landscape design, installation and maintenance firms; as well as wholesale and retail distribution firms

Full access

Firmness is the main attribute that gives an indication of fruit texture and it is often used by producers to evaluate harvest date ( Trillot and Tillard, 2002 ). This quality index can be influenced by many preharvest factors such as season

Free access