(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Overseas ventilated shipping tests with Florida oranges and grapefruit"

Historic, archived document 

Do not assume content reflects current 
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. 



// Marketing Research Report No. 274 



LIBRA 



Ry 



Sf^'AL RECORD 

^ OCT 9 - 1C58 



U.S. 



^f^MENT OF AGRICULTURE 



OVERSEAS 
VENTILATED 




SHIPPING TESTS 

WITH FLORIDA 

ORANGES AND GRAPEFRUIT 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
Agricultural Marketing Service • Marketing Research Division 



■ 



CONTENTS 

Page 

Summary 3 

Introduction U 

Materials and methods U 

Results 6 

Fruit and air temperatures 6 

Condition of test fruit 9 

Decay 9 

Rind breakdown 13 

Relation of source to condition 13 

Discussion lu 

Appendix 17 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This study was made possible through the cooperation of a number 
of individuals and organizations. The staff of the U. S. consulate, 
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, and the office of the agricultural attache 
of the American Ennbassy in The Hague, The Netherlands gave valuable 
assistance. 

Cooperation was given also by the Swedish-American L,ine and the 
Willhelmsen Line, especially by the captains and first mates of the 
ships Tennessee, Teneriffa, Topeka, Maltesholm, and Vretaholm. 

The following personnel of the Quality Maintenance and Imiprove- 
ment Section of the Biological Sciences Branch, Marketing Research 
Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, originated and supervised 
the loading of the test shipments and expedited the return of recording 
thermiometers from Europe: Randall H. Cubbedge, B. A. Friedman, 
C. F. Melvin, and G. A. Meckstroth. 



Washington, D. C. September 1958 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office 
Washington 25, D. C. - Price 15 cents 



SUMMARY 

Ventilated shipments of treated Florida Valencia oranges and Marsh Seedless grape- 
fruit were made to the Netherlands late in the citrus season (in March, April, and May 1957). 
The purposes were to determine the feasibility of commercially shipping citrus fruits to 
European markets without refrigeration at this time of year, and to compare the effec- 
tiveness of different chemical treatments to inhibit decay. 

Regardless of treatments used to inhibit decay, all 4 of the test shipments of oranges 
in ventilated holds arrived in unacceptable condition. Those in the semirefrigerated last 
shipment arrived in acceptable condition. Of grapefruit, only 1 of the 5 shipments ar- 
rived in totally unacceptable condition. 

Shipment under ventilation is therefore not suitable for oranges at this season of the 
year. Fair success seems possible with grapefruit shipped in March. In every shipment 
except the last, grapefruit arrived with a lower percentage of decay than oranges. Rind 
breakdown, in most cases, also was greater in oranges than in grapefruit. The unac- 
ceptable arrival condition of many of the treated oranges was due to rind breakdown. 

Chemical treatments inhibited decay in oranges and grapefruit. In oranges, biphenyl 
+ DH was the most effective, followed by DH alone as the second best, and biphenyl alone 
as third. Regardless of treatment, and excepting the semirefrigerated fifth shipment, 
orange temperatures were too high and resulted in excessive decay and rind breakdown. 
Tennperature proved to be the most important factor in preventing spoilage. 

Treated grapefruit from some sources arrived in either acceptable or borderline 
condition in most shipments. However, except in the first shipment, the fruit became 
unacceptable because of decay or rind breakdown during the holding period after arrival 
at Rotterdam. 

The source of grapefruit and oranges was also important in relation to the extent of 
decay and rind breakdown which developed during the marketing period. 

The possibility of precooling oranges and grapefruit so as to obtain lower fruit 
temperatures during the early part of the trip, when fruit temperatures in ventilated 
shipments are ordinarily high, should be considered. 

Reducing elapsed time between harvesting and loading on board ship aJ.so would add 
to the potential shelf life of oranges and grapefruit on foreign markets. 



-3- 



OVERSEAS VENTILATED-SHIPPING TESTS 
WITH FLORIDA ORANGES AND GRAPEFRUIT 

By T. T. Hatton, Jr., and J. R. Winston, Biological Sciences Branch, 
Agricultural Marketing Service 

INTRODUCTION 

The Florida citrus industry is nnuch interested in the possibility of shipping oranges 
and grapefruit to Europe in ventilated holds, rather than the more expensive refrigerated 
holds. Although ventilated shipments of Florida citrus fruits from South Atlantic and 
Gulf ports are frequently unsuccessful during the winter, an even greater risk exists 
during the warmer months late in the season. This study was conducted to determine: 
(1) How late in the season ventilated shipments of citrus fruit, which had been chemically 
treated to inhibit decay, could successfully be made, taking into consideration the sources 
of the oranges and grapefruit, and (2) the relative effectiveness of various chemical treat- 
ments. 

MATERIALS AND METHODS 

From nnid-March to mid-May 1957, five shipments of treated Valencia oranges and 
Marsh Seedless grapefruit were made from Tampa and Jacksonville, Fla. , to Rotter- 
dam, The Netherlands. The first 4 shipments were in ventilated holds, and the fifth was 
stowed in the hatch square between refrigerated compartments. The port of Rotterdam 
was selected because it receives a large percentage of the citrus fruit imported into 
Europe . 

All oranges and grapefruit were waxed with a citrus water wax emulsion. The test 
packages of oranges and grapefruit were packed in half-boxes (4/5-bushel wirebound 
crates) at Orlando and then transported by truck to shipside. Every shipment contained 
oranges and grapefruit from 2 different sources (groves), obtained from packing houses. 

Oranges were treated with (l) 2 sheets of biphenyl-treated paper (11 x 17 inches) 
per box; or (2) 2 percent sodium orthophenylphenate + 1 percent hexamine in a 3-minute 
dip, followed by a rapid water rinse (hereafter referred to as DH); or (3) a combination 
of the 2 treatnnents . A fourth lot was untreated and served as a control. All oranges 
were "color-added" and size 216 except some of the oranges in the first shipment, which 
were size 176. 

Grapefruit were treated with DH. A second lot was untreated and served as a con- 
trol. Some of the grapefruit in the first shipment were size 64, but most were size 70; 
the second shipment consisted entirely of size 112, and all remaining shipments were 
size 70. 

Recording thermometers were placed in boxes of oranges and grapefruit to record 
fruit temperature in transit. A thermograph was placed above the load to record the 
ambient air temperatures in the hold throughout the voyage. Another thermograph was 
placed on an outside deck to record outside air temperature during the crossing. In 
most cases, the ship's captain furnished sea temperatures so that relationships between 
water temperature and hold temperature could be studied. 



-ix- 



Upon arrival in Rotterdann, each fruit was exannined for rind breakdown (aging and 
pitting) and decay, and the amount of each was calculated per box. After disposal of 
decayed fruit, the entire shipnnent was placed in cold storage for 2 weeks with com- 
mercially imported citrus fruit, at a temperature of 38° to 40° F. It was then rein- 
spected as described, the decayed fruit being again discarded. Finally, the shipment 
was held at room temperature for 1 week and again examined. Room temperature aver- 
aged 50° in the first shipment, 70° in the last shipment, and 60° for the other shipments. 
The oranges and grapefruit were placed in cold storage and then at room temperature to 
simulate the handling of commercially imported citrus fruit into The Netherlands. 

Trace and slight""- rind breakdown data were not shown in the figures herein because 
trace rind breakdown is not commercially detectable, and slight rind breakdown is not 
important unless found extensively. Trace and slight rind breakdown data, however, are 
included in the tables and statistical analyses in the appendix. 

Picking, shipping, and arrival dates are shown for oranges and grapefruit in table 1. 
Grapefruit and oranges were shipped in the sanne hold. 

Table 1. — Picking, loading, and arrival dates for overseas shipments of Florida oranges 
and grapefruit to Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1957 



Shipment 


Sources""" 


Picking dates 


Loading 
port^ 


Loading 


Arrival 


Remarks 








No. 




Oranges 


Grapefruit 


date 


date 








March 










1 


A 


13 


14 


Jackson- 


March 


April 


Test fruit accompa- 


B 


12 


12 


ville 


20 


6 


nied commercially 
















ventilated fruit 


2 


C 


21 


26 


Tampa 


April 


April 


Test fruit accompa- 


D 


20 


26 




2 


17 


nied commercially 
















ventilated fruit 






April 










3 


E 


15 


15 


Jackson- 


April 


May 


Test fruit did not 


F 


17 


17 


ville 


23 


8 


accompany commer- 
















cially ventilated 
















fruit 


4 


G 


25 


24 


Tampa 


May 


May 


Test fruit did not 


H 


27 


24 




6 


21 


accompany commer- 
















cially ventilated 
















fruit 






May 










5 


I 


12 


9 


Jackson- 


May 


June 


Test fruit stowed 


J 


14 


13 


ville 


20 


4 


alone in hatch square 
















adjacent to refriger- 
















ated chambers 



■'■ Sources (groves) for oranges and grapefruit are different although the lettering is 
the same. ^ 

^ Ships loaded in Jacksonville stopped in Savannah en route to Europe. Ships loaded in 
Tampa sailed directly to Europe. 



""""Trace" rind breakdown is pinpoint in size up to 1/4 inch in diameter; "slight" rind breakdown is recorded when the dis- 
order, or the aggregate of the disorders, is smaller than a dime (5/8-inch diameter) but larger than 1/4 inch in diameter. 



-5- 



RESULTS 

Fruit and Air Temperatures 

Outside air temperatures showed more fluctuations and extremes than hold air tem- 
peratures. As was expected, outside air temperatures directly influenced temperatures 
inside the ventilated holds. Although hold temperatures lagged behind outside air tem- 
peratures, whenever outside air temperatures became higher, hold temperatures also 
became higher. The same relation prevailed when temperatures became lower. Sea 
temperatures had no direct relation to hold temperatures. 

In all shipments, outside air temperatures and temperatures in the ventilated holds 
were relatively high at time of loading and remained high for the first 5 days at sea. 
Ships loaded in Tampa and sailing directly to Europe were exposed to the same compara- 
tive durations and extremes of temperature as those loaded in Jacksonville and stopping 
in Savannah. 

The average temperature inside boxes of oranges and grapefruit at loading ranged 
from 68° F. for the second shipment to 78° for the fourth shipment. As is normally the 
case, temperatures recorded en route within the boxes of oranges and grapefruit were 
usually a few degrees higher than the free air temperatures in the hold. Temperatures 
in boxes of oranges and grapefruit on top of the load were usually higher than those on 
the bottom of the load. The lowest outside air temperature encountered was 35°, re- 
corded on the seventh or eighth day after loading in the first, second, and third ship- 
ments. 

Figures 1 through 5 show the recorded temperatures until time of unloading for 
each shipment. Only outside air temperatures and temperatures inside the boxes are 
included, since they are the most pertinent. 

The first shipment was exposed to relatively cool outside air temperatures through- 
out the voyage (fig. 1). The highest average outside air temperatures were in the 60° to 
70° F. range at Jacksonville and Savannah as well as for the first few days at sea. On 
the eighth day after the ship's departure from Jacksonville, the outside air temperature 
dropped and remained low for the remainder of the voyage. However, temperatures in- 
side boxes of oranges and grapefruit did not closely follow this sudden drop of outside 
air temperature. When the outside air temperature was 35°, the temperature in the 
test fruit boxes was 57°. Commercial lots of ventilated oranges and grapefruit, in the 
same compartment with the experimental fruit, were inspected on the sixth day after 
leaving Jacksonville, and a strong odor of mold was detected. Some oranges and grape- 
fruit completely consumed with green mold were observed through the box slats. The 
outside air temperature at the time of this inspection was 52° and the temperature of 
this fruit ranged from 5Z° to 57°. 

The second shipment was exposed to outside air temperatures ranging from 70° to 
83° F. at the time of loading and for the first few days at sea (fig. Z). On the sixth and 
seventh days at sea, the outside air temperature became lower and remained below 55' 
for the rest of the voyage. The seventh day after the ship left Tampa, the outside air 
temperature was 35°, and at the same time the free air temperature in the ventilated 
hold was 47°. 

The third shipment was exposed to outside daytime temperatures of 70° to 90° F. 
at the time of loading and for the first few days at sea (fig. 3). Outside air tennpera- 
tures at night during this period were 65° to 75°. On the sixth and seventh days after 
the ship left Jacksonville, the temperature reached 35°. At the same time, the free 
air temperature in the hold was 38° for a short period, which in turn affected the tem- 
perature of the fruit only briefly. Thereafter, temperatures ranged between 51° and 
55° for the remainder of the voyage. 



-6- 



o 



I/I 






o 

CN 

-c 
o 

D 

c 
o 

-^ 

u 
D 



C 
D 



— E 

3 a 

3 Q) 



— = 



(/) 



lO '^ 



c 

0) 



CO 

0) 



O 
O 

< 
111 

Of 
CD 

O 

z 



2 5 



~ O-l .1= 
■ ^ OJ CD - 

5c55 



Ji 



.jaO. 



■ I 

I I 






z 
< 

O 



Q. 
< 

O 



a> 
u 

o 



UJ 

O 

z 
< 

O 



3 
tt 



a. 
< 
ec 
O 




o 
o 



o 



o 

CN 



GRAPEFRUIT DECAYED 

- 


- 


wk. storage at 40° F 
)lding 1 wk. at 50 F 

1 


At arrival 
^.'^ After 2- 
/\''^, 'After he 

n 



< 

0) 


1 
1 

O 

UJ 

< 


>- 

z 




X 

a 


CO 
0) 


1 
1 

o 

UJ 
< 


-J 
>- 
Z 




u 


MJ 


UJ 


X 


4- 


w 


lU 


UJ 


I 


3 


ec 


X 


a 




T 


ec 


X 


o 


O 


H- 


a. 




a. 


o 


^- 


a. 




Z 


CO 




CO 


Z 


m 






1 


1 
( 




1 
1 




3 

1 


1 
I 
1 





X 



a. 

CO 



Q 
UJ 

a. 

Q. 




o 

CN 



O 



o 
o 



< u 
Qt: UJ 



2 



< 

Z) 

t- 
_j 

u 



=) 




c; 




u. 




in 




Q. 




< 




QC 




O 




>^ 




CO 




UJ 




U 




Q 


LU 


UJ 


Ct 


UJ 


~J 


to 


1- 


X- 


_J 


*^l 


Z) 


a: 


u 


< 




s 


oc 


Q 


o 


2 


< 


<t 












UJ 


o 


o 

7- 


1- 


< 


z. 


tt: 


UJ 


O 


i 


< 


(- 




q: 


u 


< 


^ 


a. 


liJ 





-7-^ 







z 






N 


-1 = 






lO 


95 






Ov 


ii 1- 






I— ■ 






V 


0^ < ?°<= 






CN 






(/) 


u. 

o 


J = 

a 


I 


go >^ 
_o 




UJ 


D 




-J 1 

At arrival 
After 2-w 
After fiold 










^HB 


a 




i<- 




1 1 H^' 




^C 


E 

D 


- 


W 




^: 




I/I 




i- 




■F 








(/) 


h- 




ti 


:J 


1^^ 




i^l 





U) 



D 



<D ? 



— E 
ui a 



C 



= 0^ 



CN 

CO 







1 ' 1 


' 1 1 1 1 1 I 








lb " 








^- - 








?N 








' ) 




to „ 


-0 


1 ( 0) 




Hi Q 





1 ) TJ 






_0 


1/ ■:; 




< 2 


11/ - 






^n)1 / 




s . 


A' \ 




UJ " 


1' r ^ 




^ "" 






i ^>W J 






i / 7*^ **- ~ 






ff \* 






Ik E "° 
« 1 ° 






/1\ 




1 1 


70 °° 

-1 -r it 1 1 1 1 



o 
o 



Ui 


3 





V7 
UJ 


3 


u 







0) 







Q) 


Z 


UJ 


\i 


Z 


UJ 


ii 


< 


Oi 


3 


< 


Q. 


3 





< 




^ 





< 









o 
o 



o 
o 



o 

CN 



o 



Q 

< 
~i 
q: 

UJ 

3: 
I- 

UJ 
UJ 



Q 
Qi 
UJ 

K 
O 



3 

Q: 
u. 
Uj 
Q. 

a: 
o 



a: 

Q 
< 
UJ 

o 

z 
< 

o 
< 
G 

z 

UJ 

.J 
> 



< 

3 



3 
u 

o 
< 



^- 



Of all 5 shipments, the highest temperatures were recorded during the fourth ship- 
ment (fig. 4). At the time of loading and for the first 3 days the ship was at sea, the 
temperatures in this shipment ranged from 70° to 85° F. Outside air temperatures be- 
came lower on the sixth and seventh days at sea. When the outside air temperature was 
42°, fruit temperatures were 63° to 67°. 

The fifth shipnnent was loaded when temiperatures were approximately 95° F. (fig. 
5). The outside air temperatures during midday reached 95° for the first few days after 
loading. By the seventh day, the temperatures were mostly in the 55° to 70° range. Two 
days before arrival of the ship in Europe, the temperature gradually increased, reach- 
ing highs of 77° and 80°, respectively. Fruit temperatures in the hold steadily declined 
after loading and leveled off after 5 days at 48° at the bottom of the load and 52° at the 
top. Stowage of the test boxes of oranges and grapefruit near refrigerated compartments 
accounted for the relatively low fruit temperatures. 

Condition of Test Fruit 

Statements made concerning effects of chemiical treatments have been statistically 
confirmed by an analysis of variance. They are shown in tabular form in the appendix. 

Chemical treatments significantly inhibited decay in oranges and grapefruit. How- 
ever, except for the semirefrigerated fifth shipment, all shipments of oranges, regard- 
less of treatment, arrived in unacceptable 2 condition, due mostly to the combination of 
decay and unacceptable rind breakdown"^. Treated grapefruit from some sources ar- 
rived in either acceptable or borderline condition in most shipmients. 

Decay 

Phomopsis stem-end rot and green mold were the major decays observed through- 
out the shipments. Stem-end rot was found more frequently than green miold, especially 
in oranges. For both oranges and grapefruit, the percentage of stem-end rot increased 
with each inspection, while the percentage of green mold decreased. Figures 1 through 
5 graphically show the cumulative percentages of decay observed in oranges and grape- 
fruit at the 3 inspections- -upon arrival, after 2 weeks in storage, and after holding for 
1 week. 

Oranges in the first, second, and fifth shipmients arrived with stem-end rot account- 
ing for 64 to 68 percent of the decay present, green mold constituting the rennainder. 
Of decay present on arrival in the third and fourth shipmients, stenn-end rot accounted 
for 97 percent and 88 percent, respectively, and green mold accounted for the smiall 
remainder as secondary infection. 

In grapefruit, on the other hand, the observed decay on arrival was 65 percent green 
mold in the first shipment and 71 percent green mold in the fifth shipment; stem-end rot 
constituted the remaining decay. Although the percentage of stenn-end rot increased in 
succeeding inspections, green mold still accounted for the greater percentage of decay 
in these 2 shipments. On arrival of the second and fourth shipments, decay was 76 and 
65 percent stem-end rot, respectively. The third shipment of grapefruit differed from 
other shipments in that green mold on arrival accounted for 53 percent of the decay 
present, but at subsequent inspections most of the decay was stem-end rot. 



^ In this study, condition of oranges and grapefruit was determined by combining the percentage of decay and unacceptable 
rind breakdown and classifying them as follows: Acceptable = less than 5 percent; borderline = 5 percent - 8 percent; unaccept- 
able = above 8 percent. 

^ Unacceptable rind breakdown included all moderate and severe aging and pitting. Moderate rind breakdown was deter- 
mined when the aggregate of the disorder exceeded the size of a dime (5/8- inch diameter) but less than the size of a half-dollar 
(1-1/8-inch diameter); severe rind breakdown was recorded when it exceeded the size of a half-dollar. 



-9- 



Untreated oranges in every shipment arrived with significantly more decay than 
treated oranges. Biphenyl + DH afforded the best protection from decay. DH alone in- 
hibited decay second best, followed last by biphenyl. Treatments on oranges inhibited 
decay the same relative amount in all shipments. DH effectively inhibited decay in 
grapefruit shipments. 

Both oranges and grapefruit had little additional decay during the Z weeks' storage 
at 40° F. 

Usually, a large amount of decay developed in both treated and untreated oranges 
and grapefruit during the final week of holding at room temperature, indicating that the 
fungistatic treatments had lost their effectiveness. 

Most of the treated oranges in the first shipment arrived with less than 5 percent 
decay (fig. l). Of the 3 inspections in this shipment, the greatest amount of decay was 
observed at the arrival inspection. At this time, there was no significant difference in 
annount of decay between oranges treated with DH and those treated with the biphenyl + 
DH treatment. However, both treatmients held decay significantly below that in oranges 
given the biphenyl treatment. 

All treated oranges in the second shipment, except some of those treated with the 
biphenyl + DH treatment, arrived with more than 8 percent decay (fig. 2). The biphenyl 
+ DH treatment again significantly inhibited decay the most, followed by DH and then 
biphenyl. In this shipment, most of the decay occurred in transit, only a relatively 
small amount occurring during the holding periods. 

Upon arrival of the third shipment, only oranges treated with the biphenyl + DH 
treatnnent arrived with less than 5 percent decay (fig. 3). Some of the oranges treated 
with biphenyl and with DH arrived with 5 to 8 percent decay. This shipnnent of oranges 
differed from previous shipments in that more decay developed during the holding periods 
than during transit. 

All oranges in the fourth shipment arrived in unacceptable condition due to decay 
(fig. 4). Decay in oranges of this shipment was the highest of all orange shipments. Upon 
arrival of the shipment, the odor of decayed fruit could be detected some distance from 
the ship. Even though the chemical treatments significantly reduced decay, the oranges 
were not acceptable. Decay during transit was far more than that which developed during 
holding, yet decay during holding also was comparatively high. 

Generally, oranges in the fifth shipment arrived with less decay than those in pre- 
vious shipnnents (fig. 5). Most of the treated oranges in the shipment arrived in excel- 
lent condition. All chemical treatments again effectively inhibited decay. Although 
treated oranges in this shipnnent arrived in excellent condition, they were sinnilar to 
the 2 previous shipments in having a brief storage and holding life. Decay observed at 
the final inspection was high. 

Treated grapefruit in the first and second shipments arrived with less than 5 per- 
cent decay, while decay in untreated grapefruit of these 2 shipments ranged from 5.2 to 
9.2 percent (figs. 1 and 2). A statistical analysis showed that DH significantly inhibited 
decay. More decay developed during the transit period than during holding. 

Grapefruit in the third shipment arrived with more decay than other grapefruit 
shipments (fig. 3). Decay in untreated grapefruit at arrival ranged from 11.3 to 14. 6 
percent, while decay on treated fruit ranged from 6. 7 to 7. 1 percent; DH significantly 
reduced the amount of decay. More decay developed during the final week of holding at 
room tennperature than occurred during transit. 

Treated grapefruit in the fourth shipment arrived with decay ranging from 5.4 to 
9. percent; untreated grapefruit arrived with decay ranging from 6. 3 to 13. 8 percent 
(fig. 4). Decay during the final 1-week holding at room temperature was excessive in 

•10- 




c 
tl E 






CO 






1 ' 


1 1 


1 ' 


1 ' 1 ' 






-D 








O 


1 






_0 


1 






*0 


i 


LU Q 




E 

0' 


^J 


0£ -< 




^ 


5 


3 ^ 


k 


o 

CO 


1 


< ^ 







f 


Q^ </) 






^^^ 








^^ 


LU » 


3 




rJr "O 


H- 


O 




7/ I - 




\ 

r 


J> 


/ 

op of 1 

L. 1 


1 . 


u 


5 


1 , 1 1 



o 
o 



o 



o 

CN 



o 



o 
o 



Q 

Q: 

UJ 

a: 
1- 
lu 

z 

a: 



o 
a: 






3 

U. 
UJ 

o 



< 

Q 



o 

< 

a: 
o 



u 

LU 

-J 
< 
> 



> 



o 

2 



2 



3 
U 

O 
< 



3 



Z) 
U 

Qi 
O 



2 
LU 

H 

< 

CL 
LLI 
CI 

l/> 

ID 



-11- 



^° 





z 


N 


o ^ 


^ 


Ov 


^ K 




< " - 








V 


°^ < ^^ ^ 


T 


%^ o 


"5 v: . 




— X 


■i- ?^ 




: 


Z D 


Q£ 


: h'i 


^ 




s^ 


gl 


: o/> 

: .-s: "^ — 

: — 5 -5 


^ 






^ : 




^ O 




s; : 


. .— '--g .i^ 


>; 




7 ^ 




^i 


At arr 

After 

'^.fter 


^1 






^; 


1 I 1 
1 ' < 


^1 








ii 


■J 


1 


1 



i2l 

D 



*. Si 



C 

— E 

U) .0. 






0) 



lU 

o 

z 
< 

O 



3 

UJ 

a. 
< 

O 



O 

z 
< 

O 



«/l 





f 


■T| 






_ 


U- ■ 


; 








: 

: C3 " 






- 




: (-"^ : 


- 




o 




: ^ : 




^^ 


UJ 

>- 








o 


UJ : 




c: •— • : 




7] 




^ 




; --e ; 








o ; 




re -^ 








f" ■ 




: o 53 : 




















3 : 




: .s- : 








oe ' 




: -a: \ • 






^ 


UJ ; 


; 1 


2-W 






o 

CN 


a. : 

O i 












-^ ill : 


_ 








1 1 '^ 1 






■ ■ -» ■ 1 


1 


r>- 


1 1 1 1 


1 



^ 5 



< 
O 



1 1 


1 I 1 1 1 1 


1 


T 




-o 


[i 




— 








^ 




- 






r 




- 




*o "•^ 


P 






«/) 




1) 






^ o 


a 


r 






ec ° 





I 






2? 


•- ( 






— 


< ? 


ll 




. - 


oc ^ 


1 






£< 


■o ri 




~ ■ 


5^ 


^ 


, 


- 


UJ - 






_j 


H- — . 


•o ^pS 


*5 


— 




i 


o 


- 






■o 






fj 


^ 






^ J 


3 


- 




1 


O 


_ 


1 1 


1 1 .1 . 1 . 


1 


I 



o 
o 



o 
o 



o 

CN 




o 

a: 
< 

itj 



< 

Q 

K 
O 



UJ 
Q. 



Q. 
-< 



< 

Q 

< 

oj 
J 

o 



o 

z 



< 

ct: 

=} 
(- 



^ i^ 



u 



-42- 



grapefruit of this shipment, and was several times greater than that which developed in 

transit. 

Treated grapefruit in the semirefrigerated fifth shipment arrived with decay rang- 
ing from 4. 6 to 7. 1 percent; decay in untreated grapefruit ranged from 7. 5 to 11.7 per- 
cent (fig. 5). A high amount of decay developed during the final week of holding at 70° F. 

Rind Breakdown 



Throughout the shipments, pitting was never a factor on oranges. On grapefruit, 
pitting was observed in every shipment, but was usually only a trace or slight. Aging 
was the most common type of rind breakdown found on both fruits. 

Figures 1 through 5 graphically show the percentages of unacceptable rind break- 
down observed in oranges and grapefruit at the 3 inspections. Since chemical treatment 
had no great effect on the extent of rind breakdown, the figures do not show the amount 
of rind breakdown according to chemical treatment. A statistical analysis showed that 
DH had no significant effect on the extent of rind breakdown in grapefruit when compared 
with untreated fruit (table 5). There was likewise, no statistically significant difference 
in the extent of rind breakdown between untreated oranges and those treated with DH 
(table 4). However, oranges treated with biphenyl and biphenyl + DH showed significantly 
less rind breakdown than those treated with DH alone, but the differences were slight and 
of little or no comfnercial innportance. In the figures, the amount of rind breakdown at 
each inspection is shown separately instead of cumulatively because the same fruits 
were observed each time for extent of rind breakdown, instead of being discarded as 
was decayed fruit. 

Oranges in the first shipment arrived with average unacceptable rind breakdown of 
10.4 percent in oranges from 1 source and 23.7 percent in those from the other source 
(fig. 1). 

Unacceptable rind breakdown in the second shipment of oranges on arrival was 
heavy, accounting for an average of 13.8 percent in oranges from 1 source and 19. 1 
percent in those from the other source (fig. 2). 

In the third shipment of oranges, rind breakdown in the form of severe aging was 
responsible for the cull condition of over one-third of the entire shipment on arrival 
(fig. 3). Many of the oranges in this shipment also had a desiccated appearance on ar- 
rival. 

Oranges in the fourth shipment arrived with an average of 19. 5 percent unaccept- 
able rind breakdown in oranges from 1 source and 33. 5 percent in those from the other 
source (fig. 4). 

In the fifth, or semirefrigerated, shipment, rind breakdown was negligible and 
oranges arrived in good condition (fig. 5). 

All grapefruit arrived with a negligible amount of rind breakdown except that from 
1 source in the third shipment (figs. 1 to 5), 

Relation of source to condition 

Source of oranges and grapefruit in most shipments influenced the annount of decay 
and rind breakdown. 

Although the source of grapefruit had only slight effect on the amount of decay on 
arrival, large differences were apparent after a week of holding at room temperature. 
This was strikingly different from the record for oranges, which often had great dif- 
ferences in the amount of decay on arrival that were related to the source of fruit. 

-13- 



DISCUSSION 

The importance of temperatures in ventilated overseas shipments of oranges and 
grapefruit cannot be overemphasized. The excellent condition in which the last, unven- 
tilated, semirefrigerated shipment arrived dennonstrated the importance of cool tem- 
peratures en route. This is especially apparent since these oranges and grapefruit, 
picked late in the season, were more mature than fruit picked earlier and would nor- 
mally be of poor keeping quality. Regardless of chenaical treatment to inhibit decay, 
cool temperatures were paramount for extending the storage and holding life of oranges 
and grapefruit. 

Temperatures in the hold did not respond as quickly or beconne as low as outside 
air temperatures, and these relationships indicate that ventilated holds had a relatively 
slow replacement of air. Therefore, any means of taking advantage of cool outside air 
would be desirable in ventilated shipments at this time of the year. 

Because outside and hold air temperatures were highest during the first 5 days after 
loading, attention should be given to the problem of reducing the temperatures of fruit 
and hold, and maintaining low levels during this period. Precooling of oranges and 
grapefruit might be considered. 

Since the ventilated holds were on the top deck and above the water line, sea tem- 
peratures had little, if any, direct effect on tennperatures in the ventilated holds. 

The elapsed time from picking until the oranges and grapefruit were loaded aboard 
ship was usually from 6 to 8 days, but ran as long as 13 days. No doubt careful selec- 
tion and proper timing to lessen the elapsed time from tree to ship would add to stor- 
age and holding life. 

Although chemical treatments reduced decay, oranges and grapefruit in shipments 
like the third and fourth, which were exposed to the highest temperatures encountered, 
arrived in the worst condition. Where decay on treated oranges was negligible, severe 
or moderate rind breakdown usually caused them to be unacceptable. For example, in 
the third shipment all oranges treated with biphenyl + DH arrived with a small amount 
of decay and would have been acceptable had not excessive rind breakdown been present. 
Rind breakdown is a serious disorder, not only because it causes poor appearance but 
because it provides a possible means for the entrance of decay organisnns. 

There were instances where treatment definitely prevented oranges and grapefruit 
from arriving in borderline or unacceptable condition. For example, grapefruit in the 
first shipment and oranges in the fifth shipment would have arrived in unsatisfactory or 
questionable condition had not chemical treatment been used. 

Although green nnold caused less decay than stem-end rot, most green mold was 
detected at the arrival inspection and was found to accompany mec^hanical injury to the 
oranges and grapefruit. Since green mold flourishes in cool temperatures and Phomopsis 
stem-end rot prefers warnner temperatures, shipments exposed to cool temperatures 
contained more green mold than those exposed to higher temperatures. 

High percentages of decay during the final week of holding occurred in the last 3 
shipments of oranges and grapefruit. This is probably due to the more advanced maturity 
of the fruit, which was susceptible to the entry of decay, especially when a high in- 
cidence of rind breakdown was present as well as the higher holding temperatures. 

During the final week of holding at room temperature there was little difference in 
the amount of decay development between treated and untreated oranges, and in some 
cases the untreated oranges had less decay, indicating that the fungistatic treatments 
had lost their effectiveness at the time of the final inspection. The exception to this was 
in treated oranges of the semirefrigerated last shipment, which developed significantly 



Ij i/^ 



K 

o 

CN 

D 



CD 



C 

o 

to 

-^ 

o 



o 

< 



3 



z 



2 s 



— 5-5 

^ <1> CD 

S 55 



O 



o 



o 

CN 



Q :: 


111 
o 


>- ^■ 
< >. 

UJ ': 

Q i; 


C=) 

1 — 
1 1 re 

_, o 

'■: 'to •— " 


^ - 


torage 
lolding 

1 


u. ■:■ 

UU : 








3 
Q 

a: 

LU 



o 

a: 



Q 

UJ 

a. 
a. 



:3 

u. 
ui 

Q. 

< 
o 



Q 
UJ 
UI 



O 

< 

o 
< 
u 

UI 

< 
> 



u 

o 
< 



Z3 

u 

o 
< 



LU 

< 



-15- 



less decay during the final week, indicating that the effectiveness of fungistatic treat- 
ments was prolonged by lower temperatures. 

Under the conditions of these tests, grapefruit appear to be more adaptable for 
ventilated shipments than oranges. In every shipment except the last, grapefruit ar- 
rived with a lower percentage of decay than oranges. Rind breakdown, in most cases, 
also was greater in oranges than grapefruit. Regardless of treatment, all shipments 
of oranges arrived in unacceptable condition except those in the semirefrigerated last 
shipnaent. The unacceptable arrival condition of many of the treated oranges was due to 
rind breakdown. Of grapefruit, only the third shipment arrived in totally unacceptable 
condition. 

None of the oranges shipped in ventilated holds between mid-March and mid-May 
arrived in satisfactory condition, because rind breakdown and decay were excessive. 
Treated grapefruit in the first Z shipments, made in March and early April, arrived 
with less than 5 percent decay. After holding at Rotterdam, there was an average of 
8. 6 percent decay in the treated fruit of the second shipment, but only 3. 3 percent in 
the treated fruit of the first shipment made on March 20. However, rind breakdown 
developed on grapefruit from 1 of the 2 sources in this shipment to such an extent as to 
make the fruit unmarketable after this long a holding period. 

On the basis of these tests, it does not appear feasible to make ventilated shipments 
or oranges from Florida as late as mid-March. Fair success was obtained with grape- 
fruit shipped in mid-March, but not with later shipments. 



-16^ 



APPENDIX 

Table 2.--Mean-'- number of decayed fruit per box in test shipments of Florida Valencia 

oranges, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1957 





Shipment 
No. 


Inspection 




Treatments 


Upon 
arrival 


After 2 

weeks at 

40O F. 

storage 


After 1 
week at 
room tem- 
perature 


Average of 

treatment 

means 


Untreated 


1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

Average 


16.5 
30.1 
15.1 
45.4 
9.1 

23.2 


3.3 
3.3 
4.8 
4.8 
5.4 

4.3 


5.0 

3.8 

12.0 

16.0 

17.1 

10.8 


12.8 


Biphenyl 


1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

Average 


9.7 
22.7 

9.8 
39.9 

5.7 

17.6 


2.7 
3.3 
4.3 
3.1 
4.1 

3.5 


2.8 

3.6 

11.3 

17.9 

11.9 

9.5 


10.2 


DH 


1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

Average 


3.5 
16.1 

7.2 
30.8 

4.3 

12.4 


2.2 

2.8 
6.9 
5.2 
4.3 

4.3 


4.3 

2.8 

16.8 

19.3 

14.9 

11.6 


9.4 


Biphenyl + DH 


1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

Average 


2.7 
12.2 

4.4 
23.4 

3.3 

9.2 


2.0 
2.3 
4.5 
5.4 

2.1 

3.3 


2.8 

3.7 

14.2 

22.3 

13.8 

11.4 


7.9 



Average of inspec- 
tion means 



15.6 



3.8 



10.8 



LSD"^ for treatment means .01 = 1.9 

" " " " .05 =1.4 

" " inspection " .01 = 5.8 

" " " " .05 = 4.3 

"'" Each mean represents the average number of decayed oranges per box from 6 boxes in the 
first shipment and 12 boxes in the other shipments. 

^ LSD - Difference required for significance between treatment or inspection means at 1- 
percent level (.01) or 5-percent level (.05). 



-17- 



Table 3. — Mean.-'- number of decayed fruit per box in test shipments of Florida Marsh Seed- 
less grapefruit, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1957 





Shipment 
No. 


Inspection 




Treatments 


Upon 
arrival 


After 2 
weeks at 

40° F. 
storage 


After 1 
week at 
room tem- 
perature 


Average of 

treatment 

means 


Untreated 


1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

Average 


2.8 
5.0 
6.2 
5.0 
4.8 

4.8 


1.4 
1.7 
2.8 
2.6 
2.0 

2.1 


1.4 

3.0 

7.5 

17.2 

12.7 

8.4 


5.1 


DH 


1 
2 

3 
4 
5 

Average 


2.0 
3.7 
3.8 
3.9 
3.3 

3.3 


1.1 
1.8 
2.1 
2.1 
1.7 

1.8 


1.2 

2.4 

7.3 

16.6 

10.4 

7.6 


4.2 



Average of inspection 
means 



4.1 



1.9 



8.0 



LSD^ for treatment means .01 = 0.8 

" " " " .05 = 0.5 • 

" " inspection " .01 = 4.6 
" " " " 05 =33 

■'- Each mean represents the number of decayed grapefruit per box from 18 boxes in the 
first shipment and 24 boxes in the other shipments . 

LSD - Difference required for significance between treatment or inspection means at 
1-percent level (.01) or 5-percent level (.05). 



-18- 



Table 4. --Mean rind 


breakdown index""" per box 


in test shipments of Florida Valencia 




oranges, Rotterdam, The 


Netherlands, 


1957 


Treatments 


Shipment 
No. 


Inspection 




Upon 


After 2 
weeks at 


After 1 
week at 


Average of 
treatment 






arrival 


40° F. 


room tem- 


means 








storage 


perature 






1 


0.90 


1.15 


1.39 






2 


1.01 


1.31 


1.54 




Untreated 


3 


2.34 


2.93 


3.59 


1.76 




4 


2.11 


2.40 


3.26 






5 


0.27 


0.54 


1.61 






Average 


1.33 


1.67 


2.28 






1 


0.81 


0.98 


1.37 






2 


1.13 


1.37 


1.56 




Biphenyl 


3 


2.40 


2.77 


3.45 


1.63 




4 


1.97 


2.19 


2.91 






5 


0.18 


0.40 


1.05 






Average 


1.30 


1.54 


2.07 






1 


1.14 


1.34 


1.63 






2 


1.18 


1.55 


1.72 




DH 


3 


2.47 


2.95 


3.56 


1.83 




4 


2.16 


2.42 


3.12 


- 




5 


0.22 


0.42 


1.52 






Average 


1.43 


1.74 


2.31 






1 


0.92 


1.16 


1.42 






2 


1.17 


1.41 


1.49 




Biphenyl + DH 


3 


2.29 


2.73 


3.50 


1.67 




U 


1.94 


2.20 


2.95 






5 


0.19 


0.43 


1.18 






Average 


1.30 


1.59 


2.11 





Average of inspection 
means 



1.34 



1.63 



2.19 



LSD 
It 



^ for treatment means 

II 11 M 

" inspection " 



.01 = 0.14 
.05 = 0.10 
.01 = 0.18 
.05 = 0.13 



""" Each mean represents the average rind breakdown index per box in oranges from 12 
boxes except those means in the first shipment representing fruit treated with biphenyl 
and untreated fruit, in which case the average was taken from 10 boxes of oranges. For 
statistical analyses, ratings were given for the amount of rind breakdown observed on 
each orange: None - 0, trace = 1, slight = 2, moderate = 3, and severe = 4. The numeri- 
cal ratings of individual, undecayed oranges in each box were added and then averaged. 
This procedure gave one value, a rind breakdown index on a per-fruit basis, for each box 
of oranges. 

^ LSD - Difference required for significance between treatment or inspection means at 
1-percent level (.01) or 5-percent level (.05). 

-19- 



Table 5. --Mean rind breakdown index^ per box in test shipments of Florida Marsh Seedless 

grapefruit, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1957 





Shipment 
No. 


Inspection 




Treatments 


Upon 
arrival 


After 2 

weeks at 

40° F. 


After 1 

week at 
room tem- 


Average of 

treatment 

means 








storage 


perature 






1 


0.05 


0.20 


0.40 






2 


0.32 


0.48 


0.74 




Untreated 


3 


0.55 


0.85 


1.39 


0.55 




4 


0.13 


0.30 


1.02 






5 


0.27 


0.44 


1.06 






Average 


0.26 


0.45 


0.92 






1 


0.05 


0.24 


0.45 






2 


0.32 


0.45 


0.69 




DH 


3 


0.51 


0.75 


1.24 


0.49 




4 


0.12 


0.23 


0.77 






5 


0.23 


0.36 


0.89 






Average 


0.25 


0.41 


0.81 





Average of inspection 
means 



0.25 



0.43 



0.87 



LSD^ for treatment means = n.s. 



Inspection 



.01 = 0.44 
.05 = 0.32 



■'■ Each mean represents the average rind breakdown index per box in grapefruit from 24 
boxes.. For statistical analyses, ratings were given for the amount of rind breakdown ob- 
served in each grapefruit: None = 0, trace = 1, slight = 2, moderate = 3, and severe = 4. 
The numerical ratings of individual, undecayed, grapefruit in each box were added and then 
averaged. This procedure gave one value, a rind breakdown index on a per-fruit basis, for 
each box of grapefruit. 

^ LSD = Difference required for significance between inspection means at 1-percent 
level (.01) or 5-percent level (.05). 



<fU. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1958 O -479747 



-20-