APS_April2019

J ournal of the A merican P omological S ociety

84

Table 1. Locations, number of harvests, treatments used, and measurements made in 2008 and 2009. Year State Orchards Number of Harvests Storage Time in Air 1-Methyl- cyclopropane Used le 1. Locatio s, number of harvests, treatments used, and measurements made in 2008 and 2009. Harvest Indices

Storage Time in Controlled Atmosphere

Traits Measured After Storage

2008

Michigan

One commercial orchard

4

3 & 6 months 1.5% O 2 + 3% CO 2 ; 4 months, Not analyzed

No

Internal ethylene concentration (IEC), firmness, starch pattern (SPI), soluble solids concentration (SSC), percent redness, fresh weight IEC, firmness, SPI, SSC

IEC, firmness, SSC, percent redness, fresh weight, disorders

Minnesota Horticultural Research Center

4

3 & 6 months Not tested

Yes

Firmness, SSC, disorders

New York One

4

3 months

2.5% O 2 + 2.5% CO 2 ; 4.5 months Not analyzed

Yes

IEC, firmness,SPI, SSC, percent redness, weight

IEC, firmness, disorders

commercial orchard

2009

Michigan

Three commercial orchards, including 2008 orchard

3

3 & 6 months 1.5% O 2 + 3% CO 2 ; 4 months

Yes

IEC, firmness, SSC, percent redness, weight

IEC, firmness, SSC, percent redness, weight, disorders Firmness, SSC, disorders

Minnesota Horticultural Research Center

4

3 & 6 months Not tested

Yes

Firmness, SPI, SSC

New York Three

3

Not tested

2.5% O 2 + 2.5% CO 2 ; 4.5 months

Yes (with CA)

IEC, firmness, SPI, SSC

Firmness, disorders

commercial orchards, including 2008 orchard 2008 orchard

11

the 40-fruit lots were treated with 1 µL • L -1 1-MCP for 24 h within the first 7 d after har- vest. The four remaining lots were untreated. Half of the untreated and 1-MCP treated fruit were stored in air at 0 °C, whereas the other half was stored in an atmosphere of 1.5% O 2 and 3% CO 2 at 0 °C. Quality analyses were at 3 and 6 months for air-stored fruit, and 4 and 8 months for the CA-stored fruit. Fruit quality was assessed after storage removal as described above. Minnesota. Fruit were harvested once a week over 4 weeks in 2008 and 2009 from the Horticultural Research Center in Chanhas- sen, MN. The first harvest occurred when fruit background color started to turn from green to yellow. Fruit were brought to cam- pus the day of harvest and segregated into three lots. The first lot was used for quality analysis at harvest. The quality parameters that were measured were IEC, firmness, SPI

(1-8 scale), and SSC, except that IEC was not measured for the first harvest in 2009. The other two lots were air stored at 0 °C, where one lot was treated with 1 µL • L -1 1-MCP for 24 h. In 2008, 20 fruit were assessed at har- vest, while 10 fruit were tested in 2009 at harvest. In both 2008 and 2009, six batches of 10 fruit each were treated with 1-MCP in 17-L boxes and then stored at 0 °C. Six more batches of 10 fruit each were enclosed in 17 L boxes but not treated with 1-MCP, and then stored at 0 °C. Fruit were removed from stor- age after 3 and 6 months, and assessed for disorders, firmness, and SSC after 1 and 7 d at 20 °C.  IEC was measured on 1-mL gas samples using a Hewlett-Packard 5880 gas chromato- graph equipped with a flame ionization de- tector and 80/100 Porapak Q (1.8 m x 2.1 mm, i.d.) column (Supelco, Bellefonte, PA). Firmness and SPI were measured using the 12

12