Optimizing Pre-Harvest Fruit Quality Sara Serra

Transcription

1 Optimizing Pre-Harvest Fruit Quality Sara Serra Washington State University, TFREC, Wenatchee, WA

2 Definition of quality: Degree of excellence or superiority" (Kader et al., 1985) Fitness for purpose (Juran, 1989, Hewett, 2006) To meet the expectation of the consumer (Hewett, 2006) Degree of fulfillment of a number of conditions that determine its acceptance by the consumer" (Akhtar, 2015) Quality to the specific use, such as "industrial quality", "nutritional quality", "export quality", "edible quality", etc. (Lopez, 2004).

3 Orchard to market chain FARM to TABLE Producer needs: Cultivar w/ high productivity Cultivar w/ resistance to pests Fruit with good appearance Few defects Easy to harvest and good shipping quality Consumer needs: Fruit with good appearance Firmer fruit Good flavor Nutritional value Good eating experience to buy again (Barman et al., 2015)

4 EXTERNAL QUALITY (appearance) COLOR SHAPE SIZE ABSENCE OF DEFECTS?

5 INTERNAL QUALITY (eating quality) TEXTURE SWEETNESS ACIDITY AROMA SHELF-LIFE FLAVOR NUTRITIONAL VALUE

6 SENSORY PROPERTIES APPEARENCE, TEXTURE, AROMA, TASTE NUTRITIVE VALUES SAFETY AND DEFECTS FRUIT QUALITY MECHANICAL PROPERTIES Influenced by Environment Orchard management Picking time/maturity Post-harvest storage practices

7 Pre-harvest factors affecting fruit quality Training system/ planting density Rootstock Irrigation Nutrition Climateameliorating techniques Pruning Girdling Crop load/ thinning PGR

8 Fruit maturity depends on pre-harvest temperature (4-6 weeks) (Palmer et al., 2003) Exposed fruit ripen faster than shaded ones (Kliewer and Lider, 1970) Peel color development is promoted by low temperatures (Koshita, 2014) Firmness higher at lower temp (Sams, 1999) High temp + light intensity faint color (Barman et al., 2015) Sunburn major cause of fruit losses (Racsko and Schrader, 2012) Watercore is associated with temp, dysfunction of carbohydrates physiology (Ferguson, 1999). Frost can cause russeting (calyx ring) (Fellman, 1996).

9 Most important signal tree is sensitive to Different in color and phenolic contents between exposed and shaded side (Jakopic et al., 2009) (Jakopic et al., 2009) limiting factor for fruit coloration (inner/lower canopy) reflective mulches improve anthocyanin synthesis (red color skin) best result on red color with material with great % of UV and IR reflectivity (Ju et al., 1995). bleaching of chlorophyll, pigment degradation, up to cellular death and collapse (sunburn) Moderate/Severe sunscald showed higher IEC early in the season. Shape and firmness altered by sun exposure (Torres et al., 2013).

10 Photo credit : S. Musacchi

11 Open vase canopy light intensity map at different heights before harvest: Internal vs. External Considerable variability in fruit maturity exists within the large canopy of an open vase tree [Zhang et al., submitted]

12 + maturity - (Costa et al., 2009) DA meter measures a new parameter Index of Absorbance Difference (I AD )= A 670nm -A 720nm

13 Anjou, open vase, 2 canopy positions: fruit distribution in I AD classes (harvest, Sept 2014) I AD distributions for internal and external canopy fruit were different at harvest.

14 Canopy position Weight (g) T0 I DA index T0 Hue Chroma Diameter (in) Firmnes s (lb) SSC (Brix) ph TA (% malic acid) External 241 a 1.73 b 112 b a a 3.95 b 0.38 a Internal 213 b 1.89 a 115 a b b 4.04 a 0.36 b significance *** *** *** ns *** ns *** ** p<0.05, *; p<0.01, **; p<0.001, ***; ns, not significant Arithmetic means are presented; post hoc tests were done with LSMEANS option and the Bonferonni post hoc means comparisons * Well-lit fruit: Higher DM, SSC and darker red peel (apple) higher occurrence of bitter pit, internal breakdown and rotting after storage Shaded fruit: transpiration + shriveling in storage +cracks, disorganization of epidermal waxes in the shade side (Corelli-Grappadelli, 2003).

15 evaporate cooling white coating products photo-protective (colored) nets to reduce the incidence of environmental stresses (less sunburn). (Shahak et al., 2008)

16 Skin blushed area (%) was not affected by netting. Netting decreased incidence of sunburn (-12%), bitter pit (-26 %) and fruit fly. Netting did not affect fruit density, russet severity (Amarante et al., 2011)

17 depend on: Alterations in mineral absorption leads to DEFICIENCY or EXCESS physiological disorders + poor fruit quality Best result when nutrients are available in a balanced and timely manner (Barman et al., 2015) Understanding nutritional needs Climatic condition Tree age Type of soil macro micro Fertilizing system Moisture profile of the root zone

18 Mineral content greatly affects fruit quality Element Effect on quality (Bramlage, 1993) Excess N Low Ca High K High Mg Low P High B (micro) Larger, softer, poorer colored fruit, subject to drop, higher ethylene production, prone to develop cork spot, bitter pit, internal breakdown and browning, scald and more susceptible to pathogens bitter pit, cork spot earlier softening, short post-harvest life prone to develop cork spot, bitter pit, senescent breakdown and more susceptible to pathogens. Ca antagonist Ca deficiency Ca antagonist Ca deficiency Susceptibility to low temp and senescent breakdown / uncommon Earlier ripe and can cause pre-harvest drop Low B (micro) Low SSC and acids (Shear and Faust, 1980) Increasing N fertilization: in Anjou flavor rating, lower N trt had smaller fruit size In McIntosh apple increases volatile production (Mattheis and Fellman, 1999).

19 Key role for fruit development and quality, insufficient moisture reduce mineral absorption -> -> fruit size (Bramlage, 1993). Water management affects photosynthesis and then quality. Extreme = yield, fruit size and quality Mild = (?) yield + (?) quality (time dependent) Water stress Water excess In pre-harvest higher soluble solid content (Crisosto et a., 1994) Braeburn, -40% late season deficit = fruit quality improved in firmness, SSC and DM (Mpelasoka et al., 2001) Bartlett : SSC, firmness, yellow color, fruit size, vegetative growth; no defects in post-harvest (Crisosto et al., 2002). Absent = yield + may postharvest quality Increase vegetation -> shaded fruit -> quality (Lakso, 2003).

20 High level of light interception + homogeneous distribution in the canopy lead to a higher productivity and a more consistent product. How to achieve it (Corelli-Grappadelli, 2003): N/S orientation (more uniform illumination) Training system with high area/volume ratio (optimal leaf density) Narrower canopies (and dwarfing rootstocks), to optimize light interception and photosynthesis more sugars, more DM. Maintaining the shape by pruning. > 90% light interception, just 50% quality fruit (Wertheim et al., 2001). HDP LDP (Source: Baldini, 2001)

21 Kg/tree Modì :Yield (kg/tree) per training systems per bearing wood *** ns 0.29 b 2.41 b 0.41 b 2.8% 23.0% 3.9% % 29.7% Farm M 2 year a 70.3% % 42.2% Spur on branches (2-3-4) Shoot Brindilla Spur on axis 0.00 Bi-axis Spindle 3,030 trees/ha 1,226 trees/a 3,788 trees/ha 1,534 trees/a (Musacchi et al., 2014)

22 Training system Modì : Comparison between training system Avr. fruit weight (g) % red overcolor Chroma Hue Modì : Habit investigation Firmness (lb /cm 2 ) Soluble solid content ( Brix) Titratable acidity (g/l malic acid) Bi-axis 245 a 79 b 30.6 a 12.0 a 17.0 a Spindle 226 b 90 a 27.8 b 10.8 b 15.2 b Significance *** *** *** ** *** ns ns (Musacchi et al., 2014)

23 Rootstock can influence fruit in (apple): Mineral composition, On-tree disease resistance Time of ripening Composition of phenols and antioxidant capacity Post harvest disorders development Dwarfing rootstock can affect fruit maturity: earlier ethylene production, higher SSC earlier starch degradation than vigorous rootstocks (Barrit, 1997). (Ferree, 1998)

24 (Musacchi et al., 2011)

25 Firmness (lb/cm 2 ) Solule solids ( Brix) 2009 Rootstocks ADAMS 9.5 b 14.9 bc BA c 14.1 d BH-MC 10.8 a 16.0 a MC 9.7 b 15.9 a MH 9.7 b 14.6 cd SYDO 9.3 b 15.3 b Significance *** *** (Musacchi et al., 2011)

26 + MATURITY - Anjou (central leader, yr planting 1998): comparison between I AD fruit distribution for 3 different rootstocks at pre-harvest (27 August) and at harvest (2 Sept 2014). PRE-HARVEST HARVEST

27 HC crop load trial: yield 2014 (harvest August 28, 2014) Target number of fruit/tree number efficiency Number of fruit (actual) kg fruit/tree lb fruit/tree fruit weight (g) (number of fruit/tcsa) d 6.6 c 14.6 c a 4.7 c c 8.5 c 18.7 c ab 7.5 c b 12.0 b 26.5 b b 11.3 b b 14.0 b 30.9 b ab 12.5 b a 17.0 a 37.5 a b 16.0 a Signficance *** *** *** * *** fruit size distribution at harvest 2014 [Serra et al., submitted]

28 + MATURITY - Lower I AD values were more frequent in the lowest crop load indicating advanced fruit ripeness. [Serra et al., submitted]

29 Crop load 4.7 fruit/cm fruit/cm fruit/cm fruit/cm 2 Blushed color (%), firmness, titratable acidity, soluble solids content were all higher in the lowest crop loads fruit/cm 2

30 Higher the fruit Dry Matter (DM), greater the consumer acceptability (Palmer et al., 2010). DM suggested as a fruit final quality predictor. + DRY MATTER - - CROP LOAD + [Serra et al., submitted]

31 Quality is a subjective concept. From the grower to the consumer, needs and perceptions are different. Not all the varieties perform well in all environments; a variety is suitable for a site when both internal and external quality are achieved. Environmental factors affecting fruit quality can be mitigated by some protection techniques. Cultural practices must be planned in advance starting with orchard design and maintained by careful management. Any practice inducing vegetative growth is likely to negatively affect fruit quality. Low Ca in fruit leads to post-harvest disorders. Increasing density over certain limits is not always beneficial. Find a compromise between yield and fruit size and external/internal quality

32 Acknowledgment: Stefano Musacchi, Rachel Leisso, Jingjin Zhang, Lee Kalcsits, Luca Giordani