THE RELATION OF THE NUTRIENT ELEMENT CONTENT OF THE LEAVES AND FRUITS TO THE STORAGE QUALITY OF JONATHAN APPLES IN REGULAR AND CONTROLLED ATMOSPHERES By GERHARD BUNEMANN AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Horticulture 1958 ° " ■ Approved ProQuest Number: 10008566 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10008566 Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 Gerhard Bunemann 1 ABSTRACT A survey was conducted on 16 fruit farms in Kent county, Michigan, to investigate the effects of mineral nutrient levels on the storage quality of Jonathan apples in regular refrigerated storage and in controlled atmosphere storage. Comparative lots of fruit from individual trees were held at 35-36° F. in regular storage and at 32® F . , 2.5% CO^ and 3% 0^ in controlled atmosphere storage. Fruit observations before storage (in October), after regular storage (in March), and after con­ trolled atmosphere storage (in May) included flesh firmness, ground color, breakdown development, Jonathan spot and related epidermal disorders. Respiratory activity was determined at each of these examination periods for the apples of 6 orchards in 1956 and 5 orchards in 1957. Methods for obtaining well-dried, non-caking and non­ caramelized dry matter of mature fruits were devised. The complexo- metric determination with ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) was satisfactorily adapted for measuring the calcium content of the fruit tissue. The survey showed that the selected orchards received essentially similar spray programs, but varied in age of the trees and in soil management and fertilizer practices. Leaf analyses gave a reliable basis for the description of the nutritional status of the orchards with respect to nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium and manganese. The fruit analyses data were used for comparison with quality changes in the fruit during storage. Gerhard Bunemann 2 Foliar[applications of calcium nitrate in 1957 on selected trees increased the calcium content of the fruit and had a slight effect upon the formation of a darker ground color. They did not affect the storage quality of the fruit. The firmness of the fruit tissue was decreased with an in­ creased nitrogen content of the fruit to the extent that a highly significant correlation existed. in 1957, but not in 1956. Magnesium was of similar effect Leaf nitrogen was negatively correlated with firmness in many cases. Flesh firmness at harvest gave no indication of breakdown which subsequently occurred during storage. The soluble solids content of the expressed juice of the fruits was lowest at the highest nitrogen levels. There was a highly significant positive correlation of soluble solids to the incidence of water core in the fruit. The respiratory activity of the fruit was generally uniform with the exception of the two orchards in which a high incidence of breakdown was observed in 1957. The potassium level in the leaves and fruits of the trees in these orchards was low. Certain trees produced fruit susceptible to breakdown in 1957 which appeared consistently in both regular and controlled atmosphere storage, as well as in subsequent holding tests. Al­ though primarily associated with large fruit size, it occurred in apples of all sizes. Jonathan spot did not occur with equal intensity on the same trees in both years. discovered* No relation to nutritional factors was A closely related epidermal disorder, previously Gerhard Bunemann 3 believed to be controlled atmosphere storage injury, was found on fruit in regular storage. It was not prevented by controlled atmosphere storage. The survey led to the conclusion that mineral analyses of the fruit can be a valuable supplement to the leaf analyses when the storage behavior of apples is studied. THE RELATION OF THE NUTRIENT ELEMENT CONTENT OF THE \ LEAVES AND FRUITS TO THE STORAGE QUALITY OF JONATHAN APPLES IN REGULAR AND CONTROLLED ATMOSPHERES By GERHARD BUNEMANN A THESIS Submitted to the School for Advanced GraduateStudies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Horticulture 1958 S - J ' ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author expresses his appreciation for the encourage­ ment of Dr. H. B. Tukey, head of the Department of Horticulture, and extends his sincere gratitude to Dr. D. H. Dewey and Dr. A. L. Kenworthy for their constant aid, encouragement and guidance throughout this study. The writer is also greatly indebted to Dr. E. J. Benne, Mr. S. T. Bass, and staff of the Department of Agricultural Chemistry for carrying out chemical and spectrographical analyses on leaf and fruit samples, and for their assistance in adapting the EDTA method for calcium analysis in fruit tissue; and to Dr. H. C. Beeskow for assistance in editing the manuscript and for his services on the guidance committee. Grateful acknowledgment is accorded the following Michigan apple growers, whose cooperation made these experiments possible: Vernon Bull, Carol and Herrick Chase, John Coffee, Clarence Crawford, Ellis Gilson, Mark and Bernett Hersey, Lloyd Hill, Erwin Klenk, George Kober, Merlin Kraft, Carl May, Carl Momber, Wilbur Reister, Arnold Schaefer, Sr., Arnold Schaefer, Jr., and William and John Schaefer. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION..................... 1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE......................................... 3 METHODS AND MATERIALS . ................... . . . . . . . . 16 Procedure of the survey and storage operation. . . . . 16 Leaf and fruit analyses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Fruit firmness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Ground color . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soluble solids ........ ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respiration 30 31 31 Storage disorders ....................... 32 Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Jonathan spot . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 . . . . . . . . 33 Statistical RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . ............... ............................................ Leaf and fruit analyses 35 ...................... 35 Survey and storage operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Fruit firmness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Ground color 48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Storage disorders. . . . . . . . . . . Breakdown . . 51 .............................. ........ 51 . . . . . . . . 55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Jonathan spot . . . . . . Respiration ........... D I S C U S S I O N ......................................... SUMMARY AND C O N C L U S I O N S ...................................... LITERATURE CITED............................................ A P P E N D I X ....................................... 62 71 75 82 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. PAGE Age, source of nursery stock, and planting distance of trees in experimental plots. . . . . . . . . . . 17 Soil management and fertilizer practices in experi­ mental orchards . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . 18 3. Spray materials used in experimental orchards . . . . 20 4. The average leaf composition values in 1956 and 1957, compared with the standard values used for the nutrient element balance chart.................... 2. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 35 Correlations of the leaf analyses of 1956 and 1957 for the individual elements (17 orchards) . . . . . 36 Correlations of the leaf content at midseason with the fruit content at harvest and after controlled atmosphere storage, and of the fruit analyses be­ fore and after storage. 18 samples 1956 . . . . . 37 Correlations of the nutrient contents of leaves, ..................... immature and mature fruit Calcium content of immature fruit harvested prior to the calcium nitrate applications; 1957. . . . . . . 38 39 Effects of calcium nitrate treatments upon the calcium, magnesium, and nitrogen content of mature fruits; 1957 Correlation of the calcium content of immature and mature fruit; 1957, ......................... 40 Correlations between the pressure test readings at harvest, after regular storage, and after con­ trolled atmosphere storage, . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Correlations between fruit flesh firmness and nutrient element contents of fruits and leaves. 47 , . Correlations between the ground color values at harvest, after regular storage, and after controlled atmosphere storage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 The effect of three spray applications of calcium nitrate on the average ground color of the fruit; 1957 . 49 LI,ST OF TABLES— Continued TABLE 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. PAGE Correlations between fruit soluble solids and water core, firmness, and nutrient element levels. . . . 50 The effect of calcium nitrate sprays upon the soluble solids level; 1957 . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Example for the predisposition of the fruit to breakdown; 1957 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Comparison of the soluble solids content at harvest and the development of internal breakdown in storage; 1957. .............................. 52 Breakdown susceptibility compared to size, water core, firmness, and nutrient levels; 1957. . . . . 53 Comparison of the ^ ratios of the fruit with the incidence of breakdown; 1957 . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Classification of the orchards according to the severeness of Jonathan spot and skin browning in 1956 and 1957........................................ The relation of fruit and leaf potassium content to fruit respiration at harvest and to breakdown in storage ................................ 55 57 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. 2. 3. 4. PAGE Storage operation in 1956-57 (first season). Weekly averages of atmosphere composition and fruit tem­ peratures at thermocouples no. 5 and no, 6. . . . . 42 Storage operation in 1957-58 (second season). Weekly averages of atmosphere composition and fruit tem­ peratures at thermocouples no. 5 and no. 6. . . . . 44 Respiration of apples from orchard 16 (approximately normal potassium level) and orchard 4 (low potassium level) at harvest and following regular and controlled atmosphere storage . . . . . . . . . 59 Respiration of apples from orchard 3 (approximately normal potassium level) and orchard 4 (low potassium level) at harvest and following regular and controlled atmosphere storage . . . . . . . . . 61 LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Leaf aruilyses. 2. Leaf analyses. Orchard averages, 1957. , ............. 84 3. Element balance chart indexes for 1956 and 1957 leaf analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85 4. Apple fruit analyses. 86 5. Apple fruit analyses at harvest. 6. Immature fruit analyses. 7. Calcium analyses (complexometric titration) of immature and mature fruit; 1957 ............ 89 8. Controlled atmosphere storage data; 1956-57 and 1957-58 91 9. Fruit firmness expressed as average pressure readings on the Magness-Taylor pressure tester in pounds. . • 93 10. Ground color. 96 11. Respiration measured at 75° F. as mg CO^ evolved per kg fruit per hour; 1956. . . . . . ................. 97 Respiration measured at 75® F. as mg CO^ evolved per kg fruit per hour; 1957.............. 98 Breakdown development in storage, 1956 and 1957, and in holding tests, in 1957. . . . . . . . ........... 99 12. 13. 14. Orchard averages, 1956. .......... . Orchard averages, 1956 . . . . . Orchard averages,1957 Orchard averages, 1957. . . . Orchard averages 83 87 88 Observations and analytical data grouped according to the incidence of breakdown; 1957. . .......... 102 15. Average Jonathan spot and skin browning by orchards . , 105 16. Skin disorders compared with the nutrient contents of Jonathan apples. Orchard averages, 1956 . . . . . . 106 Skin disorders compared with the nutrient contents of Jonathan apples. Orchard averages, 1957 . . . . . . 107 17.. INTRODUCTION Numerous surveys have been made to determine the nutrient supply of orchards in relation to fruit yields and vegetative growth of the trees. In Michigan, the interpretation of leaf analyses for fertilizer recommendations in orchards (Kenworthy, 1949) has become a standard practice for apples. The consideration of the effect different nutrient levels may have on the general keeping quality and upon the formation of storage disorders is an essential application of this research. A leading apple variety in Michigan is Jonathan. According to the Michigan Cooperative Crop Reporting Service (1957) Jonathan has ranged from 18 to 29% of the total Michigan crop for the years 1950-57. In annual production of Jonathan apples, Michigan ranks first, with one-fourth to one-third of the total yield of this variety in the United States. Therefore, Jonathan apples have found extensive use for various purposes on Midwestern markets. They were generally marketed before February when stored in regular refrigerated storage. Controlled atmosphere storage methods have extended the potential marketing period by three or more months. To determine the influence of nutrition upon the keeping qualities of Jonathan in regular and in controlled atmosphere storage, it appeared advantageous to select orchards in which climatic and soil conditions were similar, and which were managed properly to produce high grade fruit. 1 Personal factors on the part 2 of the individual operator were the greatest single reason for differences in management of the orchards. Spraying, soil management and pruning were generally quite uniform, whereas fertilizer applications showed the greatest variations in the selected orchards. Deficiency symptoms were neither visible nor previously reported in any of the orchards. With these trees it was attempted to determine the effect of individual nutrients upon measurements used in the evaluation of fruit quality, as well as upon occurrence of storage disorders. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Most research on the nutritional factors influencing the keeping quality of tree fruits has been conducted on the effects of nitrogen, potassium, and boron. Haynes and Archbold (1926) studied the effect of the nitrogen level upon the respiratory consumption of carbohydrates and acids. The loss of total sugars, alcohol insoluble residues, and acids (as malic acid) per unit of nitrogen was constant, al­ though the absolute values varied widely. This confirmed a pre­ vious suggestion by Archbold (1925) that high nitrogen values in the fruit are usually associated with a high respiratory activity. According to Magness and Overley (1929) and Weinberger (1930) nitrogen fertilizers without the addition of other nutrients resulted in equally firm fruit as complete (NPK) or partly com­ plete Nl^ PK) fertilizer treatment. Their results were substantiated by Degman (1930) who found no consistent change in the keeping quality of Stayman, York Imperial, and Williams, as indicated by pressure tests and storage counts of breakdown. However, other orchard practices such as pruning, irrigation, etc., which result in excessively large fruits adversely affected the keeping quality. Gourley and Hopkins (1930) showed a marked increase of the nitrogen content in the fruits, in many cases well over 100%, with increased amounts of nitrogen fertilizers. The increase was constant up to an application of 8 lbs of N per tree; further augmentation of the 4 nitrogen fertilizer quantities did not further increase the nitrogen of the fruit in the same proportion, but sometimes resulted in a smaller increase. Respiration, specific gravity of the juice, and acidity did not show any significant correlation. In storage trials with Jonathan apples for 3 seasons no significant differences in keeping quality or in development of disorders were observed. Similar results were obtained on the Winesap variety. Nitrate application in the month of August, according to Aldrich (1931), caused a slightly more pronounced decrease of the firmness during storage as compared with the control fruit in the variety York Imperial, but did not affect Stayman Winesap and Rome Beauty. When repeated the following season, no effect upon the keeping quality was observed. Magness et al. (1940) studied the influence of nitrogen on the fruit color and concluded that nitrogen applications should be no greater than is necessary for satisfactory growth and yield. Trees receiving their nitrogen after leaf fall the preceding year developed high fruit color, but the leaf nitrogen content of such trees was low, indicating a possible loss from the root zone. The addition of potassium apparently did not affect color development. On Cortland apples a reduction of scald by increased nitrogen fertilizer applications was observed by Savage (1941). Although brown core in McIntosh apples could not be correlated with the fertilizer practices by Smith (1942), Smock and Boynton (1944) found that under certain circumstances this disorder can be increased with increased applications of nitrogen fertilizer. No effect was 5 observed on scald. They present evidence for lower fruit firmness, higher respiration rate, and greener ground color with higher nitrogen. Similar observations were made in a comprehensive study by Eaves (1947-51); he concluded that high nitrogen caused delayed maturity, increased size, reduced red color, and more rot in storage, but that it resulted in less scald. On both McIntosh and Northern Spy he associated good fruit quality with leaf nitrogen contents below 2.1%. Hill et al. (1950) established a '’quality score” for flavor, texture, appearance and miscellaneous factors (hardness, "greasi­ ness” , and ground color of the fruit), and compared it with the nitrogen content of the leaves. They found that a low quality score was generally associated with high nitrogen levels in the leaves. Foliar applications of urea-nitrogen increased the yield, leaf size, tree growth, and fruit bud development, according to Blasberg (1953). Fruits from sprayed trees were less firm than from trees fertilized with nitrogen through the soil. Fruit from sprayed trees had a lower level of soluble solids, but there were considerable seasonal fluctuations. On the plots receiving nitrogen the fruit color was decreased one year, improved the next year, as compared with the checks. Generally, no accurate statement of the influence of nitro­ gen on the keeping quality of apples can be made, in spite of the fact that most research on the influence of the nutrient level has been concerned with this element. 6 The second single nutrient in importance among previous investigations is potassium. According to Brown (1929) good keeping quality was associated with high percentages of potassium and phosphate in the apple. However, the author does not present sufficient evidence from the results of her own work. Weinberger (1930) found no significant differences in firmness at harvest time between half K, single K (= 5 lbs. KC1 per tree), double K, or nitrogen only. Decay and storage scald showed no marked dif­ ference except in Home Beauty; in this variety potassium sulfate and potassium magnesium sulfate applications resulted in less scald than an application of nitrogen only. The effect of potassium fertilizers upon the firmness and keeping quality was studied by Beaumont and Chandler (1933). In apples and peaches they found that a deficiency of potassium tended to make both fruits firmer at picking time, but hastened softening during storage. A study on a more complex basis was only recently conducted by Weeks et al. (1952) on the effect of rates and sources of nitro­ gen, phosphorus, and potassium on the mineral composition of McIntosh foliage and fruit color. Some observations on the quality were included in their work. sociated with increased color. Increases in leaf nitrogen were as­ At high nitrogen levels potassium may determine the intensity of red color development. Phosphorus may become limiting with high rates of inorganic nitrogen; the fruit yield was increased with high rates of inorganic nitrogen, but the yield of fancy fruit was decreased. Trees with a high 7 nitrogen level gave the softest fruit, the ones with a low nitrogen supply had the hardest fruit at harvest. Seasonal trends in the supply of several nutrients must also be considered. Research by Rogers et al. (1953) gives some information on the migration of mineral nutrients to leaves. and from the The only elements continuously accumulated were calcium and magnesium, whereas nitrogen, phosphorus, and to a minor extent potassium were translocated from the leaves before abscission, and therefore presumably constitute an important source of supply for the following season's growth. A seasonal effect was also reported by Wilkinson (1957) on the Cox’s Orange Pippin apples from a NPK fertilizer trial. The potassium content of the apples was increased 12% and 15%, respectively, in the two years of the investigation, but the appli­ cation of superphosphate had no effect on any of the constituents measured. Grass cover (sod) increased the phosphorus concentration about 30%, and also increased the potassium and magnesium contents when no nitrogen was applied simultaneously. It was noted in this work that a wide range of differences between seasons, orchards, and samples may be expected. Some investigators were concerned with the influence of boron on storage disorders and general keeping quality. Burbel (1937) and Degman et al. (1937) reduced the formation of internal cork , but Burbel noted an increase of bitter pit formation on Red Spy and Wealthy after the boron application. Batjer and Haller (1942) applied borax to Jonathan and other apple varieties and 8 caused slightly faster softening in storage. Jonathan from the borax plots removed from storage in January and post-ripened at 70* F. for one week had 50% spoilage from breakdown and decay, whereas check fruit had only 20%. Fruits on boron-fertilized trees developed color earlier than checks. Quite similar results were reported by Wilcox and Woodbridge (1943) who define the optimum range of boron content in the apple fruit to be 7 to 24 ppm (dry weight basis). Fruit containing boron in excess of this range invariably showed a considerably higher percentage of water core which, according to the authors, is a frequent origin of breakdown. Recently, the element calcium received considerable atten­ tion by Garman and Mathis (1956). They published results of studies on the mineral balance as related to the occurrence of Baldwin spot (bitter pit). They observed a higher calcium content for fruits free of this disorder than for affected fruit. Injection treatments with calcium or ammonium salts did not produce any spot, whereas potassium and magnesium salts produced spot on 9 and 20% of the fruit respectively. A spray application of calcium nitrate re­ duced the amount of Baldwin spot considerably. The influence of heavy mulch on the mineral content of foliage and fruit was investigated by Wander and Gourley (1943). The mulch resulted in an appreciable increase in potassium, a slight increase in phosphorus, and a decrease in calcium, magnesium, and boron in the leaves. Approximately the same trend was found in the fruit, except for magnesium, which was somewhat higher in fruit grown under mulch treatment than under clean cultivation. 9 This review indicates there are numerous assumptions, but few indisputable proofs, for effects of most of the nutrients, except nitrogen, on general fruit qualities before or after storage. Specific investigations have been carried out to determine the cause and origin of various "physiological storage disorders" such as Jonathan spot and related disorders on other varieties, Jonathan breEikdown or internal breakdown, and other forms of parenchymatic disorders. Other disorders, such as soft scald and storage scald, and various quality aspects of commercial or academic interest have been included. The Jonathan spot disorder was discussed in the literature about fifty years ago, when several attempts were made to explain its cause. Norton (1913) assumed that in storages using ammonia as a refrigerant the spot is caused by the minute amount of ammonia gas which will always be present in such rooms. He subjected fruit in a 4 liter container to the fumes produced by one drop of ammonia (NH_) and produced an epidermal spot disorder. He realized, however, that ammonia was not the only cause, because spots were occasionally observed on the fruit before harvest. Scott (1914) assumed the spot to be a surface injury produced by arsenic, whereas Cook and Martin (1914) believed it to be caused by an Alternaria fungus. A similar fruit spot on the variety Wealthy, however, could be induced only with infection after a needle puncture (Stakman and Rose, 1914). A detailed description of Jonathan spot was presented in the Manual of Fruit Diseases by Hesler and Whetzel in 1920. Numerous causal theories were given, like gas, physiological causes, sulfur, 10 ammonia, fungal growth (e. g . , Alternaria), and influence of a preceding dry season. The authors recommended avoiding over­ maturity at harvest, storage without delay, and consumption of the fruit in a few days after removal from storage as means of avoiding spot development. Another manual (Heald, 1926) distinguished Jonathan spot from "Jonathaa Freckle." Spot is described as "circular depressed spots, minute to 1/4 inch in diameter, always centering at lenticels, with a shallow area of necrotic tissues, but no internal necrotic areas as in bitter pit." The "freckle," on the other hand, con­ sisted of "circular areas of discolored tissue up to 1/4 inch in diameter, only skin deep and not becoming depressed." It was men­ tioned that this type of disorder appeared only in storage. According to Pentzer (1925) the bluish black color of the Jonathan spot was related to the pH of the cell sap. He found the tissue adjacent to the spots had a pH 4.7, and normal tissue a pH 3.8. In an extensive study Plagge (1942) found that storing Jonathan apples in a carbon dioxide concentration of approximately 7% extended the feasible storage period until the first of June. The acidifying effect of carbon dioxide on the tissues was used as an explanation for the absence of the spot. This, however, seems to be contrary to findings of Thornton (1933) which showed the response of the various plant tissues, such as tulip bulbs, potatoes, carrots, apples, etc., to storage in 0 % to 75% CO^. These tissues increased in pH of the extracted juice with above normal C0_. M However, if the oxygen was removed during the CO fa 11 treatment, the pH of the cell sap was decreased. of this remarkable reduction in acidity when CO As an explanation was applied in the presence of oxygen, Thornton suggests there may be an "indirect effect when living tissue is exposed to carbon dioxide" in the presence of oxygen, whereby the sap becomes more alkaline. Plagge and Maney (1941) supposed that storage in pliofilm box liners re­ sulted in an environment which tended to promote the acidity and thereby prevented the formation of spots. This leads back to Pentzer*s (1925) assumption that an acidifying medium such as wrappers acidified with a harmless acid could help prevent Jonathan spot. The apparent discrepancies cannot be resolved completely, but it should be emphasized that the paper by Thornton (1933) is the only one in which data of pH determinations are given. Spot disorders of the fruit are described not only for the Jonathan variety, but for Northern Spy (Smock, 1947), Red Rome (Baker and Maxie, 1952), and Wealthy (Stakman and Rose, 1914). Corresponding to Plagge’s (1942) results on Jonathan, Smock (1947) prevented the spot on Northern Spy by controlled atmosphere storage (10% CO. + 2% 0 A at 40° F). The spot on Red Rome was reduced M with activated charcoal air purifiers in the storage and also with 1/2 lb. of shredded oil paper per crate of apples in experiments conducted by Baker and Maxie (1952). Keijer and Dijsterhuis (1956) emphasized the distinction between lenticel spot and storage spot on Jonathan. The occurrence of lenticel spot was greater after the application of sulfur 12 containing fungicides, whereas organic mercury sprays tended to increase the storage spot. Trout et al. (1940) mentioned, very briefly, an injury which they call "superficial scald" on Jonathan. It "sometimes occurs in the less mature fruit and in some forms is similar to Jonathan spot." Their description of this disorder closely re­ sembled that of "Jonathan Freckle" (Heald, 1926). Ballinger (1955) and Dewey et al. (1957) confirmed the findings of Plagge (1942) that controlled atmosphere storage pre­ vents the occurrence of Jonathan spot when the apples are held under these conditions up to seven months. The breakdown observed on Jonathan apples is mostly to be classified as internal breakdown (Palmer, 1931; Rose et al., 1951). Brooks and Fisher (1926) noted in a fertilizer trial that only apples from unfertilized plots developed internal breakdown. They associated the occurrence of water core in the fall with the de­ velopment of internal breakdown in storage, particularly in the largest apples. Magness (1929) likewise warned of producing too large Jonathan apples because of possible storage troubles. Gourley and Hopkins (1931) found that ample moisture condi­ tions during the last two months of the growing season favored the development of breakdown, whereas a moisture deficiency resulted in firm small apples which were seldom affected. Heavy pruning, a light crop, and overmaturity seemed to favor the trouble. No immediate relation was found consistently between nitrate fertilizer applications and decay or breakdown. 13 The influence of soil moisture was stressed by Haller and Harding (1938). The fruit obtained from irrigated trees was 55% larger than from non-irrigated trees. Irrigated apples were softer than non-irrigated ones and more susceptible to breakdown during storage. Overley and Overholser (1932) demonstrated an influence of fertilizer treatments upon the fruit size, and the effect of fruit size, in turn, upon the firmness, whereas potassium decreased the size and increased the firmness. Breakdown development depended on the seasons, but fertilizer treatments seemed to have some in­ fluence. Plots with potassium fertilization, alone or in combina­ tion with phosphorus (to a lesser degree even in combination with nitrogen) reduced breakdown in years with medium or great suscepti­ bility. Nitrogen alone clearly promoted the disorder. It was not quite clear whether the cause was merely the fertilizer program or rather the fruit size produced in the respective treatment. Batjer and Haller (1942) reported that a considerable in­ crease of breakdown resulted with the application of borax to the trees. Gourley and Hopkins (1930) unsuccessfully tried to induce breakdown with nitrogen fertilization. Shear and Horsfall (1948) could not find any significant difference in breakdown of Stayman apples as related to varying nitrogen contents of the leaves. Early picking increased the percentage of breakdown some­ what, according to nailer (1943); preharvest drop preventing sprays likewise increased the occurrence of breakdown, but the different 14 materials did not give significant differences. There was as great a variability between replicate lots as between treatments. Brooks and Harley (1934) state that breakdown as well as soft scald are greatly increased by delayed storage. They recom­ mend carbon dioxide treatments as a basis for practical control of both disorders. It was confirmed by Trout et al. (1940) that breakdown developed more readily in fruit of larger size and of more advanced maturity. It occurred at all storage temperatures, but was more readily produced at 32° F, according to these authors. Plagge (1942) attempted to control breakdown as well as Jonathan spot by controlled atmosphere storage. He found breakdown occurred at 32° F. even though more than 7% CO^ was employed. This disorder was retarded by controlled atmosphere storage in experiments of Dewey et a l . (1957), but it was not prevented completely. Soft scald seems to be the least investigated of the three main disorders of Jonathan. It appears as blister-like sunken areas that extend in irregular patterns over the fruit; it is never found in temperatures above 38° F . , and therefore Wright (1953) classiiied it as a cold temperature injury. Brooks and Harley (1934) recommended exposure of the apples to 20% CO for a few days, if they are to be stored at 32° F . , in order to prevent soft scald. This treatment has been reported by these authors to have beneficial effects upon firmness with no objectionable effect upon flavor or quality of the fruit. 15 Soft scald was produced experimentally by Carrick (1929) by enclosing apples in a glass jar at room temperature for several days. In storage, a temperature of 30° favored the development of this disorder. Haller and Lutz (1941) reduced greatly the percentage of soft scald at a storage temperature of 36° F. as compared to 32° F . , but the higher temperature increased the amount of Jonathan spot. They did not observe a consistent difference of the two temperatures in the amount of decay or breakdown. No significant influence of preharvest drop prevention sprays on scald could be observed by Haller (1943); Dewey et al. (1953) substantiated these findings in a trial in Michigan. METHODS AND MATERIALS Procedure of the survey and storage operation Commercial orchards concentrated in an area southwest of Sparta, Michigan, were selected as sources of experimental material for this study. The proximity of the plots to each other made it possible to obtain fruit grown under relatively similar microclimatic influences. Thus, the fruit could be harvested at a similar stage of maturity on any given day. Sixteen of the 18 orchards chosen were located between the Kent-Ottawa county line and 1/2 mile east of Peach Ridge Avenue, and between 9 Mile Road in the south and 1/2 mile north of 10 Mile Road in the north. The other two orchards were about 8 miles north, near Casnovia. Five trees in each orchard were selected for uniformity of appearance and fairly representative growth and development for the orchard. The age, source of nursery stock and methods of cul­ tivation were recorded and are summarized in Table 1. Most of the trees were of medium age, and only four different sources of the planting material were named by the farmers. The more pertinent facts of orchard management techniques are shown in Tables 2 and 3. They indicate that there were some different practices in the soil and fertility management, whereas the spray schedule and the materials employed were rather uniform. Samples of approximately 100 leaves from the periphery of the tree were collected on August 3 and 4, 1956, 16 They were taken 17 TABLE 1 AGE, SOURCE OF NURSERY STOCK AND PLANTING DISTANCES OF TREES IN EXPERIMENTAL PLOTS Orchard Age 1956 (years) Source of Trees8 (nursery) Planting Distance (feet) Soil Description 1 14 Greening 40 X 40 silt loam 2 20 Greening 40 X 40 clay loam 3 35 Ilgenfritz 30 X 30 silty clay loam 4 16 Ilgenfritz 35 X 35 silt loam 5 16 Greening 28 X 28 silty clay loam 6a 29 Hallman 40 X 40 silt loam 6b 21 Stark 26 X 26 silt loam 7 14 Greening 28 X 28 silt loam 8 17 Greening 28 X 28 clay loam 9 18-20 Stark 28 X 28 loam/clay loam 10a 30-35 Greening 40 X 40 silty clay loam 10b 30-35 Greening 40 X 40 silty clay loam 11 6 Greening 18 X 18 silt loam 12 38 Greening 32 X 32 clay loam 13 21 Ilgenfritz 40 X 40 silty clay loam 14 22 Greening 40 X 40 silt loam 15 22 Greening 40 X 40 silty clay loam 16 22 Greening 40 X 40 silty clay loam aGreening*s Nurseries, Monroe, Michigan. Ilgenfritz Nurseries, Monroe, Michigan. Hallman, Benton Harbor, Michigan (not in business now). Stark Bros., Louisiana, Missouri. 18 TABLE 2 SOIL MANAGEMENT AND FERTILIZER PRACTICES IN EXPERIMENTAL ORCHARDS Orchard Trees in Sod Since Additional Organic Material Soil Fertilizer Practice (per tree basis) Urea Sprays 1956a 1 1955 mulch none since 1954 1 2 1946 mulch 1.3 lb N 1 3 1935 mulch 3 lb N 1 lb P 1 lb K 3 4 1948 ------- 1.7 lb N — 5 1947 mulch every three years 6a 1936 mulch dolomitic (occasionally) limestone 6b 1938 mulch (occasionally) ,5 lb N .5 lb P .5 lb K 7 1949 mulch every 2 yrs; manure ev. y r . .2 lb N .8 lb P .8 lb K 3 8 1948 .65 lb N 1 9 1944 .5 lb N .5 lb P .5 lb K 3 10a 1944 -------- 1 lb N — 10b 1944 ------- 1 lb N — manure ev. 2-3 yrs. .65 lb N (cover crop) 12 1935 manure every year; mulch ev. 4 yrs. .3 lb N 1.4 lb P 1.4 lb K 13 1948 manure ev. 4-5 yrs. 1.8 lb N 1.8 lb P 1.8 lb K M — .7 lb N .7 lb P .7 lb K 11 « 1 5 19 TABLE 2--Continued Orchard Trees in Sod Since Additional Organic Material Soil Fertilizer Practice (per tree basis) 14 1937 mulch ev. 4 yrs. .3 lb N 1.0 lb P 1.0 lb K 15 1937 mulch ev. 2-3 yrs. .3 lb N 1.0 lb P 1.0 lb K 16 1937 mulch ev. 3 yrs. .5 lb N 2.0 lb P 2.0 lb K Urea Sprays 1956a — — aOnly 1956 data, because small crop in 1957 did not call for foliar application of urea. 20 TABLE 3 SPRAY MATERIALS USED IN EXPERIMENTAL ORCHARDS Orchard Fungicides 1 sulfur, glyodin, fermate Lead arsenate, parathion 2 sulfur, phygon, captan DDT, lead arsenate, dieldrin, malathion 3 sulfur, captan, mercury DDT, parathion, acaricides, TEPP 4 captan, mercury DDT, lead arsenate, acaricides'5 5 sulfur, glyodin, fermate DDT, TEPP, parathion, acaricides 6a, 6b Insecticides DDT, DDD, TEPP, parathion, copper, sulfur, phygon, captan , mercury, glyodin lead arsenate, acaricides 7 sulfur, captan, phygon DDT, TEPP, parathion, ovotran 8 sulfur, phygon, ferbam, glyodin DDT, DDD, BHC, parathion, malathion 9 sulfur, glyodin DDT, parathion, malathion 10a, 10b sulfur, captan, glyodin, mercury DDT, DDD, malathion, dieldrin, parathion, acaricides 11 sulfur, copper, captan DDT, parathion, malathion 12 sulfur, captan, phygon, mercury DDT, lead arsenate, TEPP, acaricides 13 sulfur, phygon, glyodin, mercury DDT, parathion, systox, lead arsenate 14 sulfur, captan DDT, parathion, acaricides 15 sulfur, captan DDT, parathion, acaricides 16 sulfur, captan, mercury DDT, TEPP, parathion, malathion, dieldrin, rothane, acaricides aOrchards 5, 7, 1 2 t 13, 14, 15, 16 received iron containing materials as fungicides in 1957. **Acaricides are all agents which specifically control mites, such as EPN 300, Araraite, Systox, Dimite, Ovex, Chlorobenzilate, and Kelthane. 21 from shoots at least 10 inches in length, chosen at random, and within easy reach from the ground. To remove dust and spray resi­ dues, the leaves were briefly washed in distilled water with the addition of a small quantity of a common detergent, then dried at 105* C. until brittle, and ground in a Wiley mill in preparation for spectrograph, flame photometer and Kjeldahl analyses. The 1957 leaf samples were taken on July 27 in the same manner as in the previous year from the same trees. In 1957 fruit samples of approximately 15-20 young fruits were collected on June 20 and 22 in all orchards with a sufficiently promising fruit set. These immature fruits were used to ascertain the mineral supply of fruits as compared to that of leaves and of mature fruits. Three foliar applications of calcium nitrate, Ca(N0 ) , 3 2 were given in 1957 at the rate of 6-7 gal. of .125% solution per tree on the second and fourth tree in each of the selected orchard lots. The calcium nitrate sprays were applied June 24, August 3, and September 14, 1957; the total amount applied was approximately 3 oz. per tree. The mature fruit for storage tests was harvested into eastern apple boxes October 5, 6, and 7, in 1956. There was a good crop on all the trees, and the fruit were picked from the ground and equally from all sides of the tree. The apples were immediately placed into cold storage for removal of the field heat. From each tree one bushel was used for controlled atmosphere storage and one for regular refrigerated storage. The fruit for 22 regular storage was stored until late February in a well-managed commercial storage at approximately 35° F, and 85-90% relative humidity. The fruit for controlled atmosphere storage was cooled in the same room and then transported by truck to East Lansing upon completion of the harvest operation. It was stored in a tilt-up storage building (Pflug et al., 1957) designed and con­ structed for controlled atmosphere purposes. Whenever the carbon dioxide concentration increased above 2.5%, the excess was absorbed with sodium hydroxide (Pflug et al., 1957). If the oxygen was decreased below 3%, an air pump was employed to raise it slightly above that level. The temperature was to be about 32° F. for the storage air; approximately the same fruit temperature was expected after a certain period of cooling. The temperatures at the top and on the bottom of the stack of the controlled atmosphere fruit were recorded daily from thermo­ couples. After completion of the storage period, in the latter part of February in both storage seasons, the fruit stored in the regu­ lar commercial storage was shipped to East Lansing by truck and was placed into a storage room at 32-33° F. A few fruit samples were taken from the boxes at harvest time in 1956 for a tentative mineral analysis. When it seemed feasible to carry out such an analysis, a complete set of fruit samples from the same season was prepared upon inspection of the controlled atmosphere fruit in Hay 1957. 23 In fall 1957, the fruit was harvested on September 28-30, about 3-5 days before the commercial harvest in most orchards. Since the yield in most orchards was considerably smaller than in 1956, fruit had to be taken not only at easy reach from the ground, but also from inside the tree and from the upper part of its periphery. For obtaining a more accurate and truly representative fruit sample for mineral analysis with a high degree of compara­ bility between trees, six fruits were taken from each tree 4-5 days before the actual harvest. The fruits were picked around the trees from twigs and spurs which were assumed to have been pointing downward throughout most of the season. Thus, more uni­ form material (except for a response to the foliar nutrient appli­ cations) was hoped to have been obtained. The 6 fruits were cut into 1/4 to 1/8 inch pieces suitable for drying. After pre-drying at temperatures between 80-90® C . , the samples were finally dried at 100° C until completely dry. caramelization. This procedure of drying minimized The samples were taken from the oven individually and were ground while still hot. They were placed into 2 oz. wide mouth sample jars and these were closed tightly immediately, so as to avoid caking of the ground substance. At harvest, after regular storage and after controlled atmosphere storage samples of 20 fruits in 1956, and 15 fruits in 1957 were tested for ground color with the Cornell Color Chart (Southwick and Hurd, 1948). Firmness readings were obtained with the Magness-Taylor pressure tester (Magness and Taylor, 1925), and 24 soluble solids readings with a Zeiss-Opton hand refractometer. The fruit was cut along the equatorial plane, and internal abnormal­ ities were recorded. The visual inspection was to include observa­ tions of Jonathan spot, skin browning, len'ticel spot, soft scald, and decay; furthermore, after cross-cutting, water core, breakdown, brown core, and possible internal injuries attributable to storage conditions were recorded. At each inspection time, i.e., in fall, after regular storage, and after controlled atmosphere storage, a composited sample of approximately 30 apples from six orchards in 1956 and from five orchards in 1957 was used for respiration studies. The fruit were initially weighed and placed into 5-gallon wide-mouth pickle jars and closed with an air-tight lid. The respiratory activity of the fruit was measured by CO^ evolution according to the method described by Claypool and Keefer (1947). Flavor ratings proved unsuccessful because of the large quantity of fruit involved. A holding study upon removal from storage was made with the 1957 fruit to check the possible inherent differences in shelf life of the fruit from the individual trees. Twenty fruit from each tree were placed into drawers of ripening cabinets held at room temperature of 70-75° F. for 10 days. The fruits were then inspected carefully and all external and internal disorders which had developed were recorded. 25 Leaf and fruit analyses The mineral analyses of leaf and fruit tissues were made in the Agricultural Chemistry laboratories of Michigan State University. The material was prepared as described before: the nitrogen content was determined by the Kjeldahl method, potassium on the flame photometer, and the other elements on the spectrograph ac­ cording to a modified spark method of the A.O.A.C, (1955). It was suspected the calcium content of the fruits was below the lower useful range of the spectrographic method used, because it is present only in very small amounts (below 1% of dry matter) in apple fruits as compared to leaves (Gorman and Mathis, 1956) and to other fruits (Strachan et al., 1951). Therefore, another method was applied by the author which would yield reliable data even at very low levels of calcium. Since the magnesium readings were available from the spectrographic determination, the complexometric titration of Ca + Mg with ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) and subse­ quent subtraction of Mg seemed to be very promising. No reports were found in the literature (Barnard et al., 1956, 1957; Biedermann and Schwarzenbach, 1948; Diehl et al., 1950; Diehl and Ellingboe, 1956; Hildebrand and Reilley, 1957) that calcium has been determined in fruit tissues. Therefore, a detailed outline of the relatively simple procedure was included here, as it has proved most efficient and of a very satisfactory degree of reproducibility. Since magnesium data were available from the spectrograph readings, no differential titration was needed; accordingly, the method pre­ sented here was modified for the determination of calcium only. 26 The complexometric titration was based upon the property of EDTA (ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid) to complex selectively the ions of calcium and magnesium. The amount of divalent ions present in one gram of dry matter was found by dissolving the ash in acid solution and subsequently titrating at a buffered pH of 10.0 to 10,5. At first the EDTA complexes all the calcium ions present, and then all the magnesium ions, and finally the magnesium which is part of the indicator. This exchange of the magnesium from the indicator for sodium from the EDTA causes the color change of the indicator from pink or purple to pure blue. The titration was carried to an endpoint which did not retain the slightest purple tinge. fruit samples was necessary. Practice on both standards and The calcium value was obtained by subtracting the meq Mg++ in 1 g of dry matter, as determined spectrographically, from the total meq cations. Materials needed: 1. EDTA ("Versenate" or "Versene") = ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (disodium-dihydrogen salt): 2 g in 1 liter HgO (approximately). 2. Indicator: 0.5 g Eriochrome Black T (Baker, F 241) was mixed with 4.5 g Hydroxylamine «■ HC1 and was dis­ solved in 120 ml ethanol. A new solution was made up every three weeks. 3. Calcium standards: generally, a calcium chloride standard was recommended, but calcium oxalate seemed more suitable in this work, since it gave an endpoint 27 more similar to the one obtained with the fruit samples. Descriptions of both standards follow: a) Calcium oxalate standard, 1 g of calcium oxalate was dried overnight at 80° C, and then stored in a desiccator. It was dissolved in H O , with the ad- dition of approx. 10 ml HC1 (1:1) and approx. 5 ml IINO^ (conc. ) and made up to 500 ml in a volumetric flask. This standard contained 3.12 mg or .1557 meq Ca in 5 ml solution. For standardizing the EDTA 1 mg (= .0822 meq) of Mg^ was added to the 5 ml aliquot of the calcium solution, giving: + .1557 meq of Ca .0822 meq of Mg .2379 meq of Ca + Mg in standard. The equivalence of the EDTA solution was calculated from the number of ml EDTA used to titrate the above mixture at a pH of 10.0-10.5; e. g . , ave. 21.94 ml EDTA u s e d : * 21.94 = .0109 meq cations per ml of EDTA H b) Calcium chloride standard (Diehl et al., 1950). 125.1 mg CaCO^ (dry) was dissolved with a minimum of HC1 necessary to bring it completely in solution, and made up to 500 ml in a volumetric flask. This ^As MgClg solution; amount calculated according to the normality of the solution. 28 gave an actual amount of 50.1 mg Ca in 500 ml • solution. 1 One ml contained — 500 = = .1001 mg calcium. .005 meq/ml solution The titration of this standard with EDTA was carried out using 1 mg of magnesium in solution (= .0082 meq), and 6, 10, 12, 14 ml of the calcium chloride standard, containing ,03, .04, .05, .06, .07 meq Ca, respectively. On the average .01037 meq of divalent cations were found to correspond to 1 ml of EDTA solution. Because of greater similarity of the endpoint between calcium oxalate standards and fruit samples, the value .0109 meq cations per ml EDTA was used as a basis for calculating the percent of Ca in the dry matter of fruit. 4. Buffer: 135 g of C. P. ammonium chloride was dissolved in 1140 ml conc. NH.OII and diluted to 2000 ml with 4 distilled and de-ionized water. gave a pH of about 10.5. This buffer solution Occasionally this was checked on a pH meter. 5. Magnetic stirring equipment; the stirrer was run fast enough to produce a whirlpool of 1-2 inch depth. This facilitated the accurate observation of the color change, 6. Fluorescent light and a background against which the color change can be observed conveniently. 29 Procedure: 1 g of carefully dried and ground fruit sample was ashed in a small porcelain crucible at 55° C overnight. The ash was transferred into a 250 ml beaker. The crucible was rinsed quantitatively with 0.5 ml 1:1 HC1 into the beaker and was washed quantitatively with distilled and deionized water. About 100-125 ml distilled and deionized water were added. Then sufficient ammonium buffer solution was added to bring the pH up to 10.0-10.1 (10 ml buffer should do). The water had to be added before the to avoid undesirable precipitations. buffer About 60 drops of Eriochrome Black T indicator were used and the titration was carried out quickly, to reach a clear blue endpoint exactly like the one achieved on the standard solution. Two parallel samples were run to check the agreement. The amount of calcium in the fruit was calculated according to the following example: .0109 (meq/ml) x 6.6 (ml used) = .0719 meq Mg + Ca .0719 - ,0452 (meq Mg, spectrograph determination) = ,0267 meq Ca .0267 meq Ca x 20,04 =,5150 mg Ca in 1 g dry wt. = »052% Ca in fruit sample. Interferences may be expected from any divalent ions; there­ fore, the quality of the distilled water was found to be of utmost importance. Metal ions, such as F e , Mn, and C u , which might 30 interfere with the endpoint were present in the fruit in such small amounts that they were neglected in the calculation* This method was also suitable to determine the Ca + Mg in immature fruit samples. Because of the higher concentration of these elements as well as of interfering substances, and because of the possibility of precipitations it seemed advisable to reduce the weighed amount to .250 g in order to work with the same con­ centration of EDTA solution as in the determination of mature fruit contents. Fruit firmness The pressure readings as a measurement of flesh firmness were made with the Magness-Taylor pressure tester (Magness and Taylor, 1925; Haller, 1941) with a 7/16 inch plunger. Three pressure tests at pared surfaces were taken on each fruit of a sample of 20 (1956) or 15 (1957) fruits. All readings were made by the author. Ground color Ground color was numerically rated by comparison with the McIntosh Color Chart (Southwick and Hurd, 1948), on which the color variations between yellow and green are numbered from 1 to 5. The number of fruits in each of these color categories was re­ corded, and an average color value per tree computed. A fruit completely covered with red color was disregarded in the computa­ tion of the average. In 1956 the average was partly obtained from composite fruit samples (5 trees); in 1957 all trees were checked 31 individually, as far as sample material was available, and the orchard averages computed from at least four, but usually five, trees. Soluble solids The soluble solids in the fruit juice are used as an indication of the sugar content of the fruit. The readings were taken to determine whether the level of soluble solids was in­ fluenced by nutritional factors, and whether they had any influence upon the prevention or promotion of storage disorders and upon the general storage quality of the fruit. The soluble solids content was determined with a ZeissOpton hand refractometer on the fruit juice obtained during the pressure testing. According to Strachan et al. (1951) the actual sugar content of Jonathan apples amounts to about 855^ of the soluble solids reading. Respiration The respiratory activity of the fruit the CO as indicated by evolution was measured by the method of Claypool and Keefer (1942) before storage, after regular storage, and after controlled atmosphere storage. In 1956 fruit from six orchards, in 1957 fruit from five orchards were selected which were 2-1/4 inch and larger and met the minimum requirements of US #1 grade. The fruit were sealed into wide mouth 5-gallon glass jars at the rate of approximately 3.000 to 3.500 kg of fruit per jar (28-35 fruits depending on 32 size). The jars were connected with a flow board as described by Claypool and Keefer (1942), and an air flow of 200-300 ml was passed through the jars and into bubbling flasks. The readings were taken at approximately 24 hour intervals. Storage disorders Breakdown. The presence of breakdown was detected by gently applying pressure with the hand as the fruit was inspected. Doubtful cases were verified by cutting the fruit. The number of fruits affected was added to that found in the small sample from the same box which was cut for internal inspection (20 samples in 1956, 15 in 1957) upon removal from storage. To substantiate these observations, a sample of 20 fruits was selected in 1957 which met the requirements for US #1 grade; these were placed into ripening chambers at 70-75° F for two weeks. By adding the per­ centage values of the affected samples (i. e., after regular storage, after holding at 75° F . ; after controlled atmosphere storage, after holding at 75° F . ) a numerical "score" value was computed for use in all further comparisons and evaluations. Jonathan spot. This disorder was observed and recorded in both years as the fruit was removed from regular storage. A single spot on a fruit was classified as affected, although it may have been commercially acceptable. The Jonathan spot was care­ fully distinguished from the lenticel spot in both years, whereas another disorder, called skin browning in the present work, was recorded as Jonatnan spot in the first season. During the second 33 season spot and skin browning were recorded separately, and the total recorded as Mtotal skin disorders." Statistical The statistical methods applied for evaluation of the results were selected according to the type of data available, and according to the layout of the survey (Wilcox, 1950). The correlation analysis with the determination of the r-value (Fisher, 1948) served as a useful tool in evaluating the data, even when some data became unavailable due to crop failure in certain orchards or on individual trees. Yearly analytical data were related by correlation co­ efficients. Similarly, the influence of the nutrients upon fruit firmness, soluble solids, and storage disorders was tested bycorrelation coefficients. According to the availability of fruit quantities from the individual trees the number of degrees of freedom varied from one calculation to the other; the significance depending on the degrees of freedom available for the respective calculation, was indicated by one or two asterisks for the 5/6 and 1% levels, respectively. When a treatment with calcium nitrate was introduced in the second year it was applied on 2 trees in every group of five trees. Therefore, a t-test with non-paired variables (Goulden, 1952) was employed to determine whether a difference between groups of treated and non-treated trees was reflected significantly in the averages of the two groups. The effect of the calcium nitrate 34 spray upon ground color and soluble solids was tested by the same method. Internal breakdown and its relation to other factors was investigated by setting up groups of the "score" values used as an expression of the severity of the disorder in any given lot. A t-test could be applied to determine if differences in means of any factor were significant between the non-affected lots and those with the recorded incidence of breakdown. Any significance above the 5% level was accepted as sufficient. The possibility of transformation by ^ x + 1/2 (Cochran, 1938; and Bartlett, 1947) was investigated on data which contained a large number of zero values, such as the data of breakdown and skin disorders. This transformation served to remove any zero values and to reduce the skewness of the distribution curve. RESULTS Leaf and fruit analyses The nutrient element levels of the leaves, as determined by the Kjeldahl method for nitrogen, on the flame photometer for potassium, and spectrographically for phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, iron, manga­ nese, boron, and copper, are given as orchard averages in Appendix tables 1 and 2. Converted into chart indexes they are presented in Appendix table 3, with an index of 100 as the standard value used by Kenworthy (1949). It is shown in Table 4 that most of the average values obtained in this study are slightly below the values found by Kenworthy (1949). TABLE 4 THE AVERAGE LEAF COMPOSITION VALUES IN 1956 AND 1957, COMPARED WITH THE STANDARD VALUES USED FOR THE NUTRIENT ELEMENT BALANCE CHART N (°/o) P K (%) (%) Ca (°/o) Mg (%) Fe (%) 1956 2.20 .198 1.49 1,46 .402 .016 67a 28 18 1957 2.15 .206 1.62 1.18 ,364 .022 58 39 19 2.33 .266 1,53 1,40 ,408 ,022 98 42 23 standard B Mn Cu (ppm )(ppm ) (ppm) a0rchard 3 omitted (cf. Appendix table 2) No acute deficiency or excess of any element was noted in any of the orchards. The young trees of orchard 7 had a nitrogen index value above 100 in both years, whereas the average for all orchards was lower than the standard value. With the exception of orchards 16 and 9, phosphorus was generally at the standard level or slightly below it. A low level of potassium was observed in both 35 36 s-easons in orchard 4, with index values of 73 and 83 in 1956 and 1957, respectively. The highest levels for potassium were found in orchards 5 and 8 with index values above 110. While the potassium values in 1957 were generally higher than in 1956, the reverse was the case with the leaf content of calcium and magnesium. Neither one of the latter two elements was present in excessive or deficient levels. The index value of 267 for manganese for orchard 3 in 1956 was a consequence of spray applications of manganese sulfate to recommendations in the year previous to this survey. no after-effect was visible any more. were also found for iron and boron. according In 1957 Notable seasonal differences Both showed a considerable in­ crease in several orchards from 1956 to 1957. TABLE 5 CORRELATIONS OF THE LEAF ANALYSES OF 1956 AND 1957 FOR THE INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS (17 ORCHARDS) N ,809* * Fe P .724** Mn K .753** H NS Ca .510* Cu NS Mg- .663** NS .819* *a Orchard 3 was omitted because excessive levels of manganese occurred in 1956 due to a spray treatment with MnS04 in 1955, Correlation coefficients between the indexes of the two seasons are presented in Table 5. The values indicate the general reliability of the foliar analysis data for nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and manganese with respect to **significant at 1% level •significant at 5% level 37 analytical results as well as possible seasonal changes in nutrient availability and uptake. Preliminary trials were made in the fall of 1956 to determine the nutrient composition of the fruit. The analytical results for the fruit at harvest are shown in Appendix table 4, Appendix table 4 also includes the analyses for all lots of fruit after removal from controlled atmosphere storage, and indicated considerable differences in nutrient levels between the two samplings. The fruit analyses at harvest in 1957 are tabulated correspondingly in Appendix table 5 as orchard averages, the immature fruit analyses in Appendix table 6. TABLE 6 CORRELATIONS OF THE LEAF CONTENT AT MIDSEASON WITH THE FRUIT CONTENT AT HARVEST AND AFTER CONTROLLED ATMOSPHERE STORAGE, AND OF THE FRUIT ANALYSES BEFORE AND AFTER STORAGE 18 SAMPLES 1956 Nutrient At harvest After C-A storage Fruit before storage vs. fruit after C-A N .741** .721** .470* P .732** .628** .495* K .768** .623** .604** Ca Mg Fe Mn NSa .550** NS .547* NSb NSb NS NS NS NS NS NS B NS NS Cu NS NS .743** NS aBased on EDTA determination of calcium in fruit. bBased on spectrographic determination of calcium in fruit. Correlation coefficients were computed for the leaf and fruit analyses using the 18 individual trees employed for tentative 38 fruit analyses. The correlation coefficients for the leaf content vs, the fruit analysis and for analyses of fruit before and after storage are given in Table 6. A significant correlation of leaf and fruit content was obtained both before and after storage only for nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. The correlation coefficients for the nutrient element contents of the leaves, immature fruits, and mature fruits are pre­ sented in Table 7. The correlation coefficients on 18 samples and on 90 samples between leaf and mature fruit differed considerably for all elements except for nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, and indicated the importance of improving sampling and analytical tech­ niques. TABLE 7 CORRELATIONS OF THE NUTRIENT CONTENTS OF LEAVES, IMMATURE AND MATURE FRUIT 1956 1957 At harvest After C-A leaf and mature fruit leaf and mature fruit Between Years mature fruit At harvest leaf and mature fruit leaf and immature fruit Nutrient 18 trees 90 trees 83 trees 70 trees N P K Ca Mg Fe Mn B Cu .741** .732** .768** NS .550* NS .547*a NS NS .247* .336** .429** NS NS NS NSa .406** —— .394** .423** .668** NS NS ,255* .779** .250* NS .737** .333** .680** NS NS NS .678** NS NS imma­ ture and mature fruit 70 trees 82 trees ,521** NS .517** NS NS NS .579** NS NS NS .322** .431** NS NS NS NS .409* NS Does not include orchard 3 which had been sprayed with KnSO^ the previous year. 39 The 1956 values of calcium are based upon spectrographic values (Appendix table 4); in 1957 the corresponding calculations were carried out on the orchard averages, because a calcium nitrate treatment had been applied on two out of every five trees. Table 7 shows that nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and manganese were consistently correlated in leaf and fruit contents; the other elements did not always yield significant correlations: the r-values for boron were significant in two of the five comparisons. Iron contents of leaf and mature fruit were significant at the 5% level in one season; in other comparisons there were no significant correlations. Significant correlations in nutrient element content of the mature fruit for the two seasons occurred only for phosphorus, potassium, and boron. The results from the corrplexometric titration with EOT A adapted by the author for the determination of calcium in the fruit are tabulated in detail in Appendix table 7. The immature fruit samples had been collected prior to the first application of calcium nitrate. As shown in Table 8, the trees selected as controls and for treatments were similar in their calcium content at that time. TABLE 8 CALCIUM CONTENT OF IMMATURE FRUIT HARVESTED PRIOR TO THE CALCIUM NITRATE APPLICATIONS; 1957 Av. calcium content (% of dry matter) Treatment n-1 Control 41 .27 + .047 Calcium nitrate 28 .25 + .049 t NS 40 The calcium content of mature fruit was significantly higher in apples from treated trees than from untreated trees, as shown by t-test in Table 9. TABLE 9 EFFECTS OF CALCIUM NITRATE TREATMENTS UPON THE CALCIUM, MAGNESIUM, AND NITROGEN CONTENT OF MATURE FRUITS;: 1957 Nutrient Untreated (51 samples) Treated (33 samples) Calcium .0577 + .0115 .0685 + .0102 4. 534* Magnesium .0466 + .0059 .0450 + .0057 NS Potassium .9138 + .0821 .9106 + .0919 NS Nitrogen .3089 + .0716 .3056 + .0591 NS {% of dry matter) t Regardless of whether only the values for the controls, or only those for the treated trees, or all the fruit were used, there were no significant correlations between the calcium contents of immature and mature fruits (Table 10). TABLE 10 CORRELATION OF THE CALCIUM CONTENT OF IMMATURE AND MATURE FRUIT; 1957 Control .194 NS Treatments .0006 NS All fruit .0635 NS The comparison of the magnesium and potassium contents of the fruit from trees treated and untreated with calcium nitrate (Table 9) showed that there were no depressing effects of the calcium on the levels of these two elements in the fruit. A comparison of the fruit nitrogen levels included in Table 9 indicated that the calcium nitrate spray did not have any influence on the level of this element either. 41 Survey and storage operation General observations of the growth and development of the trees during the two seasons indicated that climatic influences were similar in all orchards. Furthermore, in each orchard, the five trees selected for the survey proved to be of satisfactory uniformity in vegetative growth, crop size and general appearance throughout the experiment. Data from tree no. 43 in orchard 9, however, had to be discarded because the tree was damaged by rodents. The controlled atmosphere storage records of the two seasons are summarized as weekly averages on Appendix table 8 and graphically in figures 1 and 2. The curves on the figures indicate a greater variability in storage conditions during the first season of operation than in the second. The increase 1956 season was caused by failure matically. inoxygen in the sixth week of the of the air pump to shut off auto­ Another severe increase of the oxygen concentration occurred in the 22nd and 23rd week; this was due to a leak in the absorber. curves. In 1957 the operation resulted in considerably smoother At the end of the season, in the 25th week, the air pump was disconnected and oxygen was added by opening the porthole. rise in The the oxygen concentration in the26th week was caused by leaving the porthole open for 24 hours. The fruit was cooled to 40° F. within the first week, then six to eight weeks were required to reduce the fruit temperature to 32-33° F. After cooling, fruit temperatures generally vary more than one degree F. did not 42 Figure 1 Storage operation in 1956-57 (first season). Weekly averages of atmosphere composition and fruit temperatures at thermocouples no. 5 and 6. 1956- C-A WEEKS 57 STORAGE Figure 2 Storage operation in 1957-58 (second season). Weekly averages of atmosphere composition and fruit temperatures at thermocouples no. 5 and 45 o ro ro CM CM CM UJ cvi O CM WEEKS CO IO CM in CO 46 Fruit firmness Firmness data, expressed as averages for 20 or 15 fruits, for the 1956 and 1957 seasons, respectively, are shown in Appendix table 9, The averages show the fruit at harvest were of approximately equal firmness in the two seasons. Equal changes took place in storage both years, with softening amounting to 4.7-5.9 pounds in regular storage and 3.8-4.5 pounds in controlled atmosphere storage. TABLE 11 CORRELATIONS BETWFJ3N THE PRESSURE TEST READINGS AT HARVEST, AFTER REGULAR STORAGE, AND AFTER CONTROLLED ATMOSPHERE STORAGE Correlations r Harvest 1957 vs. reg. storage 1957 .371** Harvest 1957 vs. C-A storage 1957 .532** Reg. storage 1957 vs. C-A storage 1957 .522** NS Harvest 1956 vs. harvest 1957 Reg. storage 1956 vs. C-A storage 1956 .931** The correlations in Table 11 were calculated from the pressure totals of the individual trees to facilitate the process of computation. Firmness after regular storage in 1956 showed a highly significant correlation with firmness after controlled atmos­ phere storage in the same season. The correlations of fruit firmness at harvest and after the two methods of storage showed high signifi­ cance on the complete set of data collected in 1957. Between years, however, there was no correlation in the firmness of fruit from individual trees at harvest. The only nutrient element consistently correlated with the pressure test readings was the nitrogen in fruit and leaf 47 (Table 12). The limited number of pressure readings at harvest time in 1956 did not show a significant correlation with fruit nitrogen. However, when the fruit was removed from regular and controlled atmosphere storage, additional readings were made and a significant negative correlation was found. This negative relation­ ship between the nitrogen content of fruit and flesh firmness also existed in 1957. Agreement of the negative correlations of leaf nitrogen and firmness, as shown in Table 12, with those of fruit nitrogen and firmness were expected in view of the relationship of fruit and leaf nitrogen levels. The correlation between leaf nitro­ gen and firmness after controlled atmosphere storage in the 1956 season was not significant. The data of 1957 showed highly signifi­ cant correlation coefficients for leaf nitrogen and fruit firmness. TABLE 12 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FRUIT FLESH FIRMNESS AND NUTRIENT ELEMENT CONTENTS OF FRUITS AND LEAVES [ PRESSURE Analyses f harvest 1956 reg. stor . TESTS C-A harvest mature fruit -.279** -.547** 1957 reg. stor. -.459** C-A -.374** N NS -.304* P NS NS NS NS NS NS K -.635** NS -.353** NS NS -.269* NS NS NS Ca NS NS NS Mg NS -.329* NS N -.400* NS NS K NS NS -.271** N — — immature fruit — | -.559** -.375** -.400** leaf i -.708** -.655** .262* .218* — -.493** -.486** .265* — The phosphorus content of both leaf and fruit was not significantly correlated with fruit firmness. 48 The potassium content of the fruit was negatively correlated with the pressure readings of fruit from controlled atmosphere storage in the 1956 and 1957 seasons, but in the latter only at a 5% level of significance. Leaf potassium was likewise negatively correlated with the firmness of fruit from controlled atmosphere storage in 1956, but showed a positive correlation for all samples in 1957, The relationship of fruit calcium to flesh firmness was studied after the EDT A method of analysis was adapted. As shown in Table 12, no significant correlation was observed between the calcium content of the fruit and fruit firmness at harvest or after storage. The magnesium content of fruits was not correlated with fruit firmness at harvest or after controlled atmosphere storage in 1956, whereas in 1957 significant negative correlations were found both at harvest and after the two methods of storage. Flesh firmness was not significantly related to average fruit size. Ground color Appendix table 10 records the observations on ground color. Using orchard averages, the correlations between the ground color at harvest and after regular and controlled atmosphere storage were tabulated in Table 13. Also, similar correlation coefficients were determined on individual lots in 1957. The values for ground color were significantly correlated within years, indicating that the change from green to yellow during storage proceeded at approximately the same rate within one type of storage. Ground color at harvest and after controlled atmosphere 49 storage was not significantly Correlated by years. However, ground color for fruit from regular storage was positively correlated for the two years. TABLE 13 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN TIIE GROUND COLOR VALUES AT HARVEST, AFTER REGULAR STORAGE, AND AFTER CONTROLLED ATMOSPHERE STORAGE Orchard Averages 1956 1957 1956 Trees Within Orchards Harvest vs. regular storage .590* — Reg. storage vs. C-A storage .883** — Harvest vs. C-A storage .590* — Harvest vs. regular storage .784** .615** Reg. storage vs. C-A storage .720** .531** Harvest vs. C-A storage .706 * * .345** Harvest NS vs. Reg. storage 1957 C-A storage .668* — — NS No significant correlation between the ground color and the flesh firmness was found. TABLE 14 THE EFFECT OF THREE SPRAY APPLICATIONS OF CALCIUM NITRATE ON THE AVERAGE GROUND COLOR OF THE FRUIT;: 1957 At harvest Control Tmt. 2.54 2.79 Ground color Difference .25 2.79* t After reg. stor. Control Tmt. 1.66 1.69 .03 .298 After C-A stor. Control Tmt. 1.86 2.00 .14 3.63* Apples from trees treated with calcium nitrate in 1957 were significantly greener in ground color than fruit from non-treated trees at harvest and upon removal from controlled atmosphere storage (see Table 14). After regular storage, however, the color values 50 were not significantly different. Soluble solids The percent soluble solids in the juice of fruit from the individual trees before and after storage were significantly corre­ lated in both seasons as shown in Table 15. The fruit with high soluble solids showed an appreciable amount of water core in 1957. No significant correlation was found on flesh firmness, as deter­ mined by pressure tests. TABLE 15 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FRUIT SOLUBLE SOLIDS AND WATER CORE, FIRMNESS, AND NUTRIENT ELEMENT LEVELS At harvest 1956 After reg. storage .643** After C-A storage .673** Water core at harvest __ a Firmness at harvest Mature fruit Leaf NS After C-A 1956 .635** Ai harvest 1957 .621** — .590** — .449** — NS N P — -.399** -.483** — -.234* -.269* K — -.327** NS Ca — NS NS Mg — NS NS B — NS -.253* N — -.261* NS K — NS NS ®No water core observed in 1956. Table 15 shows also the relationship of nutritional factors to soluble solids. In both seasons the nitrogen and phosphorus con­ tents of the fruit were negatively correlated with the soluble solids. Potassium was negatively correlated with soluble solids in 1956, boron in 1957. The leaf nitrogen content, however, was negatively correlated 51 only at the 5% level in the 1956 season,and the leaf potassium in none of the two seasons* Table 16 shows that the calcium spray treatments in 1957 did not affect the soluble solids readings of the harvested fruit. TABLE 16 THE EFFECT GF CALCIUM NITRATE SPRAYS UPON THE SOLUBLE SOLIDS LEVEL; 1957 Treatment n-1 Control Soluble solids 50 t 14.14 + .81 NS Calcium nitrate 32 ....... ! 14.26 + .54 “ Storage disorders Breakdown: The incidence of flesh breakdown of the fruit during regular and controlled atmosphere storage in the 1957 season showed one orchard (no. 4) was highly susceptible to this disorder, whereas all others except for two trees in orchard 2 were relatively free of it. A holding test of two weeks at 75° F. after storage substantiated these results: they showed a high incidence of break­ down for fruit from orchard 4 held in either type of storage. The calculated score values, shown in Appendix table 13, reflect the predisposition of the fruit from individual trees to this disorder in the 1957 season. For example, it is shown in Table 17 that trees 7 and 8 of orchard 2 were consistently susceptible to the disorder, regardless of storage method. Tree 18 in orchard 4 showed consider­ ably less inherent susceptibility to breakdown in 1957 than the other four trees of this orchard. 52 TABLE 17 EXAMPLE FOR THE PREDISPOSITION OF THE FRUIT TO BREAKDOWN (CF, APPENDIX TABLE 13); 1957 Orchard 2 4 Tree Reg. stor. (°/o) holding (%) 6 0 0 2 30 32 7 0 10 23 95 128 8 2 20 12 95 129 9 0 0 0 5 5 10 0 0 0 15 15 16 19 65 13 75 172 17 31 65 27 100 223 18 3 15 1 45 64 19 16 35 24 70 145 20 16 40 15 95 166 C-A stor . (%) holding Total (%) ("score") The mean soluble solids readings at harvest for the indivi dual fruit lots free of internal breakdown were found to be similar to the mean soluble solids of fruit having a high incidence of break­ down. These were compared by the t-test as shown in Table 18. TABLE 18 COMPARISON OF THE SOLUBLE SOLIDS CONTENT AT HARVEST AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNAL BREAKDOWN IN STORAGE; 1957 Soluble solids Classification n-1 Fruit without breakdown 26 14.05 + .78 Fruit with breakdown 55 14.59 + .67 t NS The trees are grouped by the incidence of breakdown in Appendix table 14. The group averages for fruit size, incidence of water core, flesh firmness, and nutrient content are listed in order of increasing amount of breakdown in Table 19. In addition, fruit free of breakdown are compared with affected fruit by t-test in this table. 53 TABLE 19 BREAKDOWN SUSCEPTIBILITY COMPARED TO SIZE, WATER CORE, FIRMNESS, AND NUTRIENT LEVELS; 1957 A. Handling observations Breakdown "score" 0 1 - 7 Size (no. of fruit per box) Water core (in 15 fruits) 174.1 + 14.4 4.5 + 3.1 20.24 + 155.6 + 12.3 7.5 + 4.9 20.61 + 1.05 Firmness (av. pounds) .88 10 - 30 153.3 + 14.5 7.0 + 4.6 20.20 + 1 . 2 2 32 - 90 154.3 + 14.9 7.4 + 5.1 20.11 + 1.45 128 - 223 149.6 + 25.1 11.0 + 4.1 19.99 + 1.27 153.4 + 14.4 7.8 + 4.9 20.29 + 1 . 2 2 All affected lots (av. 1 - 223) Comparison of unaffected and affected lots (t) B. 5.906* NS 2.263* Nutrient levels in fruit tissue Breakdown "score" 0 1 - 7 Ca (%) Fe (ppm) N (%) K (%) .299 + .038 .932 + .068 .067 + .009 37.4 + 11.1 .286 + ,U59 .925 + .079 .060 + .012 <37.1 + 11.8 10 - 30 .320 + .072 .888 + .059 .062 + .012 34.4 + 8.7 32 - 90 .325 + .091 .926 + .072 .057 + .014 35.3 _+ 9.5 128 - 223 .337 + .052 .777 + .051 .060 + .013 27.8 + 8.5 All affected ,313 ^ .073 lots (av, 1 - 223) .898 + .086 .060 + .012 34.5 + 12.4 Comparison of unaffected and affected lots (t) NS NS NS NS 54 The t-test shows that the affected and the non-affected groups of apples differed primarily in fruit size (Table 19). The number of fruit in lots free of breakdown averaged 174 per box and was significantly different from the average number in affected lots (154 apples per box). The six most seriously affected lots had the largest fruit (150 apples per box on the average). Within a suscep­ tible lot of apples, however, the development of breakdown in storage was not limited to the fruit of larger size. Only elements showing a trend possibly related to breakdown were included in Table 19. None of these nutrient elements differed significantly between susceptible and non-susceptible fruit. Although there were no significant effects of potassium content on the incidence of breakdown, it is evident in Table 19 and in Appendix table 14 that very seriously affected lots ("scores" 128-223) generally had potassium contents considerably lower than lots which showed only a minor per­ centage of breakdown ("score" 0-90) at each inspection. In order to statistically evaluate this trend, the "score" values were transformed by y x + 1/2 and correlated to the potassium content. It was found that there was a significant negative corre*- lation (-.372**) between the potassium content of the fruit and the incidence of breakdown. TABLE 20 COMPARISON OF THE ^ RATIOS OF THE FRUIT WITH THE INCIDENCE OF BRExlKDOWN; 1957 Groups n-1 ^ ratio (av.) vd Fruit free of breakdown 26 1.111 + .225 Fruit with breakdown (score 32-223) 55 1.061 + .437 t NS 55 The lack of influence of the ratio upon the incidence of breakdown in storage is shown in Table 20. Trees producing fruit free of breakdown (score 0) showed no significant difference between the average values of the ratios from those with serious break­ down (score 32-223). Jonathan spot? The observations on Jonathan spot and skin browning for the two seasons are summarized on Appendix table 15. In this table the orchards are arranged according to the frequency of occurrence of spot and skin browning in 1957. In most of the orchards the five trees produced a fairly uniform percentage of affected fruit. Wide differences from one tree to the other were noted in a few instances, however, as indicated by the standard devia­ tions. The occurrence of Jonathan spot and accompanying skin browning in the various orchards was dissimilar from one season to the other. This is shown in Table 21 which classified the orchards according to arbitrary groups of "low” (0-10%), '’medium” (10-25%), and "high” (25% and more) incidence. Also, no significant correlation was found for the susceptibility of individual trees from one year to the other. TABLE 21 CLASSIFICATION OF THE ORCHARDS ACCORDING TO THE SEVERENESS OF JONATHAN SPOT AND SKIN BROWNING IN 1956 AND 1957 Orchards Classes Low Med. High ( 0 - 10%) (11 - 25%) (25 %) 1956 3, 4, If 13, 1957 2, 4, 9, 10a, 10b,11,12 12 9, 10a, 10b, 11 3, 5, 7, 8, 13, 16 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1, 6, 14, 15 14 , 15, 16 56 The possible influence of various nutrients upon development of the spot disorder was studied by correlation analysis. With the exception of fruit potassium content (r = + .271*) in 1957, calculated on individual trees, no significant correlation of the mineral content of the fruit to skin disorders was found. This was indicated by grouping the analytical and observational data according to the per­ centage of the skin disorders in the two seasons, as shown in Appendix tables 16 and 17. The orchards with a high percentage of skin disorders had slightly lower ground color ratings in both years, which may suggest a slightly more advanced maturity. Also, a considerably higher pro­ portion of apples from these orchards was covered with red color. However, in 1957, there were several striking exceptions in which the bushy shape of the trees and the resulting light conditions may have adversely affected the color development of the fruit. On the other hand, among the orchards with low incidence of skin disorders in 1957, there were some with a relatively high portion of fruits with a complete red coloration (orchards 2, 4, 16). This can be attributed to the open structure of the trees, and also to the rather light crop of these trees in 1957. The effect of storage methods upon skin disorders is shown in Appendix table 15. Jonathan spot was almost completely prevented by storage in controlled atmosphere. Skin browning, however, occurred to approximately the same ectent in controlled atmospheres as in regular storage. Comparison by the t-test showed that the average occurrence of skin browning during controlled atmosphere storage was not signifi­ cantly different from that on apples in regular storage. There was 57 a high correlation (r = .793**, 81 d« f.) of the incidence of this disorder during regular and controlled atmosphere storage* Respiration The respiratory activity of the fruit is recorded in Appendix tables 11 and 12, and presented in figures 3 and 4. The respiration of the fruit before and after storage was similar in both years for most of the orchards for which the carbon dioxide evolution of the fruit was measured. Generally speaking, there was no noticeable change in respiratory intensity from one year to the other. There were no marked differences in the carbon dioxide production as a result of storage method. TABLE 22 THE RELATION OF FRUIT AND LEAF POTASSIUM CONTENT TO FRUIT RESPIRATION AT HARVEST® AND TO BREAKDOWN IN STORAGE Orchard leaf K% 1956 4 .95 .793 fruit K% 1957 leaf K% 1.16 imm. fruit K% 1.24 mat. fruit K% 1957 C02 at .746 Orchard averages 3 2 1.29 1.66 .823 7 1.52 9 1.57 1.028 1.004 1.37 1.55 1.46 1.50 1.26 1.72 1.49 1.68 .828 .907 .922 75° F. mg/kg/hr (av. •> 41.1 29.4 25.2 28.1 1957 breakdown ("score") 154 62 27 26 aDuring first 10 days following harvest. .988 1.014 25.0 0 58 An orchard (no* 4) with low potassium values in both years showed a high respiratory activity. Orchard 2, the one with the next lowest potassium content, was only slightly higher in respiration intensity than the other three orchards shown in Table 22 for compar­ ison. No development of physiological disorders occurred in the respiration studies at harvest, but after regular and controlled atmosphere storage about half of the fruit in orchards 4 and 2 were affected by internal breakdown. This was verified by the breakdown percentage and "score1' data computed from the entire samples from the individual trees. The average "score" data obtained are included in Table 22 to demonstrate the probable interrelationship of potassium content, respiration, and breakdown development of the fruit in storage in 1957. The upper graphs in figures 3 and 4 represent orchards which produced fruit with a normal respiration rate, and the lower ones the fruit with increased C O e v o l u t i o n . In 1956, when practically no breakdown was observed, fruit of orchard 4 had a respiration inten­ sity similar to that of fruit from other orchards. 59 Figure 3 Respiration of apples from orchard 16 (approxi­ mately normal potassium level) and orchard 4 (low potassium level) at harvest and following regular and controlled atmosphere storage. 60 60r 50 40 mg C02 30 Trees 81-85 Respiration 1956 Temp. 75-76 °F Mg. C02 evolved pr.kg. pr.hour at harvest after reg.storage — after CA storage 20 I day I 60r 50 40 8 Trees 16-20 Respiration 1956 Temp. 75 — 76°F Mg. C02 evolved pr. kg.pr.hour at harvest after reg.storage after CA storage mg co2 30 20 L day I 8 61 Figure 4 Respiration of apples from orchard 3 (approxi­ mately normal potassium level) and orchard 4 (low potassium level) at harvest and following . regular and controlled atmosphere storage. 62 60r Trees 11-15 Respiration 1957 Temp. 75-76 °F Mg. C02 evolved pr.kg.pr.hour at harvest after reg.storage after CA storage 50 40 mg C02 30 Si 20 i day 60 50 8 Trees 16—20 Respiration 1957 Temp. 75 — 76°F Mg. C02 evolved pr.kg. pr.hour at harvest after reg.storage after CA storage 40 mg CO, 30 20 X day I 8 DISCUSSION The leaf composition values obtained in this survey are comparable to those used by Kenworthy (1949) as standards of evalu­ ation for the nutrient element balance chart. In both years the leaf nitrogen content in several orchards was below the minimum levels listed in a survey of Michigan orchards by Kenworthy (1950). No extremely low values were found for phosphorus, whereas in 1956 some potassium values were almost as low as the lowest ones reported in the above survey. The leaf calcium content in 1956 was similar to the standard level, but in 1957 the leaves of several trees had a relatively low calcium content. Magnesium was close to the normal values, iron slightly lower, manganese considerably lower, copper slightly higher, and boron generally below the average value. In comparison with Hill*s (1952) values from grower orchards of McIntosh the nitrogen in the investigated Jonathan trees was high, phosphorus about the same but less variable, potassium about the same, and magnesium considerably higher. Kenworthy's (1950) survey, comparing the two varieties in Michigan, showed lower values in leaves of McIntosh for nitrogen, potassium, and magnesium, whereas phosphorus was present at a higher level than in Jonathan. On the element balance chart the standard index value is 100; an index value below 60 or above 140 must be considered a serious deficiency or excess, respectively. For all nutrients the orchards studied had index values between 70 and 135 on the nutrient element balance chart; the majority were between 80 and 115. This indicates that the deviation from the standard value was within the normal range• 62 63 The leaf contents of 1956 and 1957 were significantly correlated for nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium and manganese. Iron increased in several orchards from 1956 to 1957, probably as a consequence of increased iron carbamate fungicide applications, the boron increase in the second year was attributed to its higher availability with increased moisture in 1957. Preliminary analysis of the fruit from 18 orchards for the same elements as the leaves in 1956 showed that nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, and manganese were present in the fruit at levels which were correlated significantly to the respective leaf content in the summer. The correlations were not so high for the same 18 fruit lots analyzed after controlled atmosphere storage; the corre­ sponding correlation computations of all 90 lots reached only the 5% level of significance for nitrogen, and no significance for mag­ nesium and manganese. The boron analyses after controlled atomsophere, however, were significantly correlated with those of the leaves. To obtain data with a higher comparability, a more accurate sampling method was introduced in 1957, such as picking six fruits for mineral analysis from similar positions and from all around the tree. Further improvement is suggested by selecting the fruit care­ fully with respect to the position on the tree. "Twin" or "triplet" fruits, or neighboring apples on similar positions on a branch should be used for comparative studies on certain treatments and effects. Proper drying of the fruit samples may affect the accuracy of the results. The procedure employed in 1957 yielded a much better sample quality than the method used in 1956. It was possible after a pre-drying period to remove the fruit temporarily in order to 64 liberate space for other fresh fruit samples. When all the material was dried at the first level, the final drying to hard crispness was accomplished with a much greater number of samples per oven load. The extra care and effort in the preparation of samples was compensated by the reduction in time required for weighing and pre­ paring the dried samples for the nitrogen, potassium, and spectrographic analyses. In the present survey it was found that the effect of nitrogen upon the fruit firmness was more consistently evident from the fruit contents than from the leaf analysis values, even though some indi­ vidual r-values were higher when computed with the values. The leaf nitrogen interpretation of the potassium effect is more difficult, since in 1957 fruit firmness was negatively correlated to leaf content and positively correlated to fruit content; in 1956 firmness was negatively correlated with both leaf and fruit content. The effects of the nitrogen and potassium levels upon the soluble solids were more definite for fruit analysis values than for leaf values. The negative correlation of the fruit nitrogen level with the soluble solids was significant at the 1% level, whereas a leaf nitrogen correlation was found only in the first season and only at the 5% level of significance. The use of immature fruit in a survey or as a diagnostic tool for the prediction of storage quality of the fruit needs con­ siderably more experimentation. Although the nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and manganese of immature fruits were significantly correlated with both leaves and mature fruits, the definite levels needed to predict their influence upon storage defects are not 65 known. Furthermore, the optimum sampling date needed to provide con­ clusive data must be investigated. It is believed that some of the elements present at rather low levels would need to be determined with a higher degree of precision before storage effects could be associated with their concentration level. Only the negative correlation between the nitrogen content of immature fruit and the firmness in the fall was significant. A comparison of the two storage seasons showed that it was possible to reduce the oxygen content in the controlled atmosphere room considerably faster in the second year than in the first year. Quality characteristics as measured here, were similar for the two seasons, indicating that differences in the establishment of the desired atmosphere composition were of minor effect. The beneficial effects of the controlled atmosphere storage over regular storage upon quality was evident with regard to the preservation of firmness, fresh appearance, and greenish ground color. Still more valuable was the complete prevention of Jonathan spot by controlled atmosphere which has been reported previously by Plagge (1942), Ballinger (1955), and Dewey et al. (1957). A skin disorder, referred to in this study as skin browning, which Ballinger (1955) and Dewey et al. (1957) considered to be controlled atmosphere injury was found on fruit in regular storage as well. They perhaps recorded it as Jonathan spot in the control samples from regular storage, because skin browning seemed to be related to Jonathan spot in that the same tissues were affected. more frequently on lots which were susceptible to spot. atmosphere storage did not prevent skin browning. It occured Controlled 66 In spite of the low temperature (32° F . ) in the controlled atmosphere room no soft scald occurred. Contrary to the findings of Trout et al. (1940) internal breakdown was not significantly increased at this temperature. This agreed with the results of Haller and Lutz (1941) who compared storage at 32° F, and 36° F. The intensity of breakdown appearance in individual fruits was re­ tarded, but the percentage of affected fruit was not reduced by controlled atmosphere. In agreement with Gourley and Hopkins (1930), the results of the present survey showed that breakdown was not induced by the higher nitrogen levels encountered. However, the general finding that an excessive leaf nitrogen content adversely affects the keeping quality of fruit (Beaumont and Chandler, 1933; Magness et al., 1940; Eaves, 1947-51; Hill et al., 1950) was not disproved by the results presented here, because no really high nitrogen levels were found in this survey. The relationship of a low potassium level with increased respiratory activity and greater susceptibility of the fruit to breakdown development was found only in the second season. In the first year the excellent growing conditions may have compensated adverse effects of unbalance among nutrients so that scarcely any breakdown development was observed in that season. Such seasonal differences had been shown previously by Haller and Lutz (1941). In 1957, the high respiratory rate at harvest for apples of the two orchards with a low level of potassium was also found after regular and controlled atmosphere storage. A great portion of apparently sound fruit from these orchards invariably developed 67 breakdown symptoms during the respiration studies conducted for two weeks at 75* F. Degman and Weinberger (1934) did not find any relationship between potassium shortage and respiration of apples in storage. Increased respiration was found in smaller sized fruit in experiments of Smock (Smock and Neubert, 1950), whereas in the present survey the fruit affected with breakdown was significantly larger in size than that of completely sound fruit. Within a susceptible lot, breakdown was observed on fruit of all sizes; this excludes the assumption of size as a causal factor. Haller and Lutz (1937) produced a slight climacteric rise in some lots of Jonathan apples at 70° F. with a peak after 4-5 days. The carbon dioxide development in the lot picked first (Sept. 6, near Washington, D. C . ) was 25 mg of CO^ per kg fruit per hour on the first day after harvest and rose to 29 mg. The lot picked 19 days later had a much less pronounced rise, from 24.5 mg on the first day to 26.5 mg on the seventh and eighth day. The last picked lot (Sept. 30) produced 28 mg C02 on the first day and reached the climacteric after 4 days with a C02 evolution of 31 mg per kg fruit per hour. The fruit used in the present survey in 1956 was picked 2-3 days after commercial harvest, and a climacteric was not necessarily expected. In 1957, however, the fruit was har­ vested at a stage of still incomplete abscission, 3-5 days before commercial harvest; a gradual downward line was produced in the respiration studies at 75° F . , beginning with a carbon dioxide evolution of about 40 to 42 mg per kg fruit per hour in the lots not susceptible to breakdown. It is to be noted, however, that the 68 fruit was cooled at 36® F. for three days, before being shipped to Bast Lansing, and the warm-up period during the 3-4 hours of truck transport may have eliminated the possibility of obtaining the small climacteric rise which otherwise could perhaps be observed on Jona­ than apples. Porrit and Fisher (1953) reported that post-climacteric fruit of Jonathan and two other varieties was not correlated with late harvesting. Evidence for storage quality changes attributable to the calcium nitrate treatment, as suggested by Garman and Mathis (1956) for bitter pit on Baldwin apples, was not obtained for Jonathan in 1957. The calcium content in the fruits was significantly increased by this treatment, but no depressing or enhancing effect of the calcium upon other nutrients was noted. The only effect on quality was a slight retardation of yellowing of the ground color. This may have been related to the observation of a change in maturation of the leaves in the fall. No data were collected on this effect, however. The calcium determination by complexometric titration with EDTA proved to be a useful method for analyzing large numbers of fruit samples. An adaptation for differential titration would easily be possible in instances where magnesium values are unavail­ able from other methods of analysis. As long as interfering ions are present only in minute quantities, the method is quite sensitive. The removal of interfering ions, as suggested by Diehl et al. (1950), did not prove necessary for fruit tissues. No pre-harvest factor or group of factors explained the occurrence of Jonathan spot. As indicated on Appendix table 15 by 69 the standard deviations, the five trees in each orchard plot usually showed fairly close agreement in percentage of affected apples, yet there was no definite individual susceptibility of given trees for the two seasons. A pre-harvest influence on the trees, which may vary in intensity and in locality from season to season, seemed to be responsible for the spot formation and also for skin browning. This should be investigated more specifically. The results presented indicated that the deterioration in storage and the development of important storage disorders of Jona­ than apples in certain seasons was primarily a matter of predispo­ sition prior to placement in storage. The general belief (Trout et al., 1940; Smock and Neubert, 1950) that water core is a frequent cause of breakdown could neither be firmly supported nor disproved. A significantly higher rate of water core at harvest was observed in the lots which later produced breakdown, but there were many exceptions. Water core may not be the cause, but merely an associ­ ated factor of breakdown. Upon inspection of the fruit the original water core tissue could sometimes be recognized around the vascular bundles. Regular refrigerated storage (35-36° F.) until the end of the normal marketing period of Jonathan apples, as used in these tests, yielded the higher percentages of disorders and quality de­ fects. Controlled atmosphere storage of commercial duration (7 months) resulted in higher quality except for lots from orchards with a severe incidence of breakdown. Whether potassium or other factors were of greatest influence on the prevention of breakdown could not be clarified beyond doubt during the two seasons of the present 70 work. The consistency with which the disorder occurred in the same lots regardless of the storage methods points out the need for additional research on the problem. 71 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A survey was conducted for two years on 16 Michigan fruit farms to observe effects of the nutritional status of Jonathan apple orchards upon the harvested fruit. The nutrient content of the leaves, which is used in the determination of the nutritional status of Michigan orchards, was compared with the nutrient content of fruit. The results indicated that, for studies of post-harvest behavior of the fruit, the fruit analyses may be more reliable than the leaf analyses. The nutrient elements differed in the extent of effects upon fruit quality factors before and after storage. Correlations of firmness, soluble solids and storage disorders with nutrient element levels in leaves and fruits were attempted, and it was found that the nitrogen level was the most important single nutrient factor. Effects of phosphorus, potassium, and magnesium were like­ wise determined by the correlation method, but less consistency was observed. T-tests were applied to test for differences caused by calcium nitrate spray treatments in 1957. No significant relation­ ships of iron, manganese, boron, and copper to keeping quality in general were found. The Jonathan apples were stored in a farm-operated refrig­ erated storage at 35-36° F . , and comparative samples in an experi­ mental controlled atmosphere storage at 32° F. with. 2.5% CO^ and 3% 0 . The controlled atmosphere storage proved satisfactory in maintaining high fruit quality until May for both seasons. 72 Pressure test readings used as a measure of fruit firmness were significantly correlated by individual trees at harvest and after storage within one season; pressure tests either at harvest or after storage were not significantly correlated for seasons. Nitrogen was the only nutrient element with a consistent influence upon fruit firmness, showing a negative correlation. The loss of flesh firmness in storage was greater for large fruit than for small fruit. The development of breakdown could not be predicted from the pressure test data. The soluble solids content of the fruit juice had a signi­ ficant negative correlation with nitrogen, and, somewhat less, with phosphorus. Potassium was inconsistent in its effects on soluble solids from one season to the other. Different moisture supply, light conditions and temperatures during the two growing seasons may have caused this variation. Water core of the fruit which occurred in 1957 was associated with high soluble solids at the time of harvest. water core disappeared during storage. In most cases, The incidence of internal breakdown was not positively identified with water core, even though a browned water core pattern was sometimes visible in the crosssection of a fruit affected with breakdown upon removal from storage. Breakdown fruit. was more prevalent in large fruit than in small However, susceptible lots contained affected fruit of medium and small size. Controlled atmosphere did not prevent its develop­ ment . Jonathan spot, which is usually the disorder responsible for the greatest economic losses in storage, was not consistently 73 associated with any nutrient element. The fruit of individual trees is predisposed to Jonathan spot at harvest; its development, however, depended upon the conditions under which the fruit was stored. Spot was entirely prevented by controlled atmosphere storage, whereas skin browning occurred in controlled atmosphere as well as in regular storage. The lots of fruit susceptible to Jonathan spot were generally affected by the skin browning regardless of storage method. Variations in susceptibility seemed to be an orchard characteristic rather than of individual trees. The occurrence was unrelated by years, suggest­ ing that nutritional factors alone are not responsible. The storage conditions utilized, 35-36* F. in regular storage and 32* F. in controlled atmospheres, did not favor soft scald develop­ ment. Three calcium nitrate sprays in 1957 increased the calcium content of the fruit but did not alter the keeping quality appreciably. Respiration studies indicated that limited potassium may greatly increase the respiratory activity and the susceptibility of the fruit to internal breakdown. These effects were observed in the 1957 season with less favorable growing conditions. The observations of the potassium level in leaves and fruit and respiratory activity in relation to that of other lots of fruit may lead to a technique of predicting breakdown susceptibility. The results of this survey indicate that the mineral nutrient level in the fruit may influence the storage quality of apples. However, non-nutritional factors, such as temperature, rainfall, and certain cultural methods as well as the storage conditions employed modify these nutritional effects. 74 Further study of some orchard plots utilized in this study is suggested, especially with regard to the influence of the potassium level and different respiratory rates upon the formation of internal breakdown. LITERATURE CITED Aldrich, W. W. 1931. Effect of fall application of sodium nitrate upon the color, keeping quality, and nitrogen content of apples. Maryland Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 326 A. 0. A. C. 1955, Official Methods of Analysis. Eighth edition, pp. 856-859 Archbold, H. K. 1925. Chemical studies in the physiology of apples. II. The nitrogen content of stored apples. Ann. Bot. 39, 97-107 Baker, C. L. and E. C. Maxie. 1952. An apparent retardation of a physiological spot on Red Rome apples in storage by activated charcoal and shredded oiled paper. Proc. ASHS 59: 312-314 Ballinger, W. E. 1955. Storage of Jonathan apples in controlled atmospheres and film crate liners. Unpublished M.S. thesis. Mich. State Univ. Barnard, A. J . , W. C. Broad, H. Flaschka. 1956-57, The EDTA titration: Nature and methods of end point detection. Chemist-Analyst 45: 86, 111; ibid. 46:18, 46,76 Bartlett, M. S. 1947. The use of transformations. Biometrics, March 1947, pp. 39-52 Batjer, L. P. and M. H. Haller. 1942. Fruit maturity and growth of apple trees as affected by boron content (Preliminary report). Proc. ASHS 40: 29-30 Beaumont, J. H. and R. F. Chandler. 1933. A statistical study of the effect of potassium fertilizers upon the firmness and keeping quality of fruits. Proc. ASHS 30: 37-44 Biedermann, W. and G. Schwarzenbach, 1948. Complexons XI: The complexometric titration of alkaline earths and some other metals with Eriochrome Black T. Chimia 2: 56 Blasberg, C. H. 1953. Response of mature McIntosh apple trees to urea foliar sprays in 1950 and 1951. Proc. ASHS 62: 147-153 Brooks, C. and D. F. Fisher. 1926. Water core of apples. Journ. of Agr. Res. 32: 223-260 75 76 Brooks, C. and C. P. Harley. 1934. Soft scald and soggy breakdown of apples. Journ. of Agr. Res. 49: 55-69 Brown, Janet W. 1929. Chemical studies in the physiology of apples. XI. The relation between mineral constitution of apples and the soil on which they are grown. Ann. Bot. 43: 817-831 Burbel, A. B. 1937. Control of internal cork of apple with boron. Proc. ASHS 35: 169-175 Carrick, D. B. 1929. The storage of apples. Cornell Ext. Bul. 189 Claypool, L. L. and R. M, Keefer. 1942. A colorimetric method for CO determination in respiration studies. Proc. ASHS 40: 177-186 Chochran, W. G. 1938. Some difficulties in statistical analysis of replicated experiments. Empire Journ. of Exp. Agr. 6: 157-175 Cook, M. T. and G. W. Martin. 1914. Phytopathology 3: 119-120 The Jonathan spot rot. Degman, E. S. 1930. Firmness and keeping quality of fruits as affected by nitrogen fertilizers. Proc. ASHS 26: 182-186 _______________ L. P. Batjer, L. 0. Regeimbal, and J. R. Magness. 1937. Further investigations on the use of boron for control of internal cork of apples. Proc. ASHS 35: 165-168 ______________ and J. H. Weinberger. 1934. Studies on firmness and keeping quality of certain fruits. Maryland Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 366 Dewey, D. H . , W. E. Ballinger, and I. J. Pflug. 1957. irogress report on the controlled atmosphere storage of Jonathan apples. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bul. 39: 691-700 A. E. Mitchell and R. R. Lipsit. 1953. Storage quality of Jonathan and Delicious apples as affected by growth regulator pre-harvest sprays, Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bul. 36: 3-10 Diehl, H. and J. Ellingboe. 1956. Indicator for titration of calcium in presence of magnesium using disodium-dihydrogenethylenediamine tetraacetate. Anal. Chemistry 28: 882-884 77 Diehl, H . , C. A. Goetz, and C. Hach, 1950. The versenate titration for total hardness. American Water Works Assn. 42: 40-48 Eaves, C. A. Cold storage and plant nutrition. Canada Dept, of Agr. Exp. Sta. ICentville, N. S. Progress report for 1947-51, pp. 47-58 Fisher, R. A. 1948. Statistical methods for research workers. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh and London, 10th ed. Garman, P. and W. T. Mathis. 1956. Studies of mineral balance as related to occurrence of Baldwin spot in Connecticut. Conn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 601 Goulden, C. H. 1952. Methods of statistical analysis. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Gourley, J. H. and E. F. Hopkins. 1930. Some relations of nitrogen to keeping quality of fruit. Proc. ASHS 2 6 r 167-173 ________________ and E. F. Hopkins. 1931. Nitrate fertilization and keeping quality of apple fruits. Chemical, physiological, and storage studies. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 479 Haller, M. H. 1941. Fruit pressure testers and their practical application. USDA Cir. No. 627 ______________ 1943. Effect of preharvest drop sprays on the storage quality of apples. Proc. ASHS 42: 207-210 ______________ and P. L. Harding. 1938. Relation of soil moisture to firmness and storage quality of apples. Proc. ASHS 35: 205-211 ________ __ anc* Lutz* 1937. Soft scald of Jonathan apples in relation to respiration. Proc. ASHS 34: 173-176 and J. M. Lutz. 1941. A comparative study of storage at 32° and 36° F. of apples grown in the Potomac river valley. USDA Tech. Bul. 776, pp. 17-21 Haynes, D. and H. K. Archbold. 1928. Chemical studies in the physiology of apples. X. A quantitative study of chemical changes in stored apples. Ann. Bot. 42: 965-1017 Heald, F. D. 1926, Manual of plant diseases. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co. 78 Hesler, L. R. and H. H. Whetzel. 1920. Manual of fruit diseases. New York, Macmillan Company Hildebrand, G. P. and C. N. Reilley, 1957, New indicator for complexometric titration of calcium in presence of magnesium. Anal. Chemistry 29: 258-268 Hill, H. 1952. Foliage analysis as a means of determining orchard fertilizer requirements. Rep. Thirteenth Int. Hort. Congr. ___________ F. B. Johnston, H. B. Ileeney, and R. W. Buckmaster. 1950. The relation of foliage analysis to keeping quality of McIntosh and Spy varieties of apples. Scientific Agriculture 30: 518-534 Keijer, E. J. and Dijksterhuis, H. P. 1956. Bewaarziekten bij apples. De invloed van verschillende schurftbestrijdingsmiddelen. Meded. Dir. Tuinb. 19: 810-814 Kenworthy, A. L. 1949. A nutrient element balance chart. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bul. 37: 17-19 ________________ 1950. Nutrient element composition of leaves from fruit trees. Proc. ASHS 55: 41-46 1953, Nutritional conditions of Michigan orchards: A survey of soil analyses and leaf composition. Mich. Ag. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. 237 Magness, J. R. 1929. Relation of leaf area to size and quality in apples. Proc. ASHS 25: 285-288 L. P. Batjer, and L. 0. Regeimbal. 1940. Correlation of fruit color in apples to nitrogen content of leaves. Proc. ASHS 37: 39-42 and F. L. Overley. 1929. storage quality of apples. Proc. ASHS 26: 180-181 Effect of fertilizers on and G. F. Taylor. 1925. An improved type of pressure -tester for the determination of fruit maturity. USDA Cir. 350 Michigan Cooperative Crop Reporting Service. Michigan agricultural statistics. USDA Agr. Marketing service 1957 Mitchell, A. E., A. C. D o w d y , E . J. Klos, and R. H. Fulton. 1955-56. Spraying calendar, Michigan State Univ. Ext. Bul. 154 79 Norton, J. B. S. 1913. Jonathan fruit spot. Phytopathology 3: 99-100 Overley F. L. and E, L. Overholser. 1932. Some effects of fertilizer upon storage response of Jonathan apples. Proc. ASUS 28: 572-577 Palmer, R. C. 1931. Recent progress in the study of Jonathan break­ down in Canada. Scientific Agriculture 11: 243-258 Pentzer >V. T. 1925. Color pigment in relation to the development of Jonathan spot. Proc. ASHS 22: 66-69 Pflug, I. J , , M. W. Brandt and D. II. Dewey. 1957, An experimental tilt-up concrete building for the controlled atmosphere storage of apples. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bul. 39: 505-510 _____ P. Angelini, and D. H. Dewey. 1957. Fundamentals of carbon dioxide absorbtion as they apply to controlled atmosphere storages. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bul. 40: 131-138 Plagge, H. H. 1942. Controlled atmosphere storage for Jonathan apples. Refrig. Engineering 43: 215-220 and Maney, T. J. 1941. Some responses of apples in storage to pliofilm liners and wrappers. Ice and Refrigeration 101: 201-205 Porrit, S. W. and D. V. Fisher. 1953. The physiological condition of apples entering storage. Can. Dept, of Agr. Fruit and Veg. Prod. Res. Ctte. 74-77 Hort. Abstr. 24: 3519, 1954 Rogers, B. L . , L. P. Batjer, and A. H. Thompson. 1953. Seasonal trend of several nutrient elements in Delicious apple leaves expressed on a percent and unit area basis. Proc. ASHS 61: 1-5 Rose, D , L. P. McColloch and D. F. Fisher. 1951. Market diseases of fruits and vegetables. Apples, pears, quinces. USDA Misc. Pub. No. 168 Savage, E. F. 1941. Some factors affecting the storage quality of the Cortland apple. Proc. ASHS 38: 282-288 Scott, W. M. 1914. A new fruit spot on apple Phytopathology 1: 32-34 80 Shear, G. M. and F, Horsfall. 1948. Color as an index of nitrogen content of leaves of York and Staymanapples. Proc. ASHS 52: 57-60 Smith, W. W. 1942. Development of the storage disorder brown core in McIntosh apples. Proc. ASHS 41: 99-103 Smock, R. M. 1947, The Proc. ASHS 50: "spot"disease ofNorthern 95-99 Spy apples. _____________ and D. Boynton. 1944. The effects of differential nitrogen treatments in the orchard on the keeping quality of McIntosh apples. Proc. ASHS 45: 77-86 _____________ and A. M. Neubert. 1950. Apples and apple products. Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York Southwick, F. W. and Melwin Hurd. 1948. Harvesting, handling and packing apples. Cornell Ext. Bul. 750 Stakman, E. C. and R. C. Rose. 1914. A fruit spot of the Wealthy apple. Phytopathology 4: 333-336 Strachan, C. C . , A. W. Moyls, F. E. Atkinson, and J. E. Britton. 1951. Chemical composition and nutritive value of British Columbia tree fruits. Can. Dept, of Agr. Publ. 862 Thornton, N. C. 1933.Carbon dioxide storage. III. The influence of carbon dioxide on the oxygen uptake by fruits and vegetables. Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 5: 371-402 _______________ 1933. Carbon dioxide storage IV. The influence of carbon dioxide on the acidity of plant tissue. Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 5: 403-418 Trout, S. A., G. B. Tindale, and F. E. Huelin. 1940. Investigations on the storage of Jonathan apples grown in Victoria. CSIR Bul. 135, Melbourne Wander, I. W. and J. II. Gourley. 1943. Effect of heavy mulch in an apple orchard upon several soil constituents and the mineral content of foliage and fruit. Proc. ASHS 42: 1-6 Weeks, W. D . , F. V/. Southwick, M. Drake and J. E. Steckel. 1952. The effects of rates and sources of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium on the mineral composition of McIntosh foliage and fruit color. Proc. ASHS 60: 11-21 81 Weinberger, J. H. 1930. The effect of various potash fertilizers on the firmness and keeping quality of fruits. Proc. ASHS 26: 174-179 Wilcox, J. C. 1950. Use of the survey method in horticultural research. Scientific Agriculture 30: 137-149 ______________ and C. G. Woodbridge. 1943. Some effects of excess boron on the storage quality of apples. Scientific Agriculture 23: 332-341 Wilkinson, 13. G. 1957. The effect of orchard factors on the chemical composition of apples. I. Some effects of manurial treatmentsand of grass. Journ. hort. Sci. 32: 74-84 Wright, R. T. 1953. Physiological disorders. Plant diseases. The Yearbook of Agriculture 1953, pp. 830-834 82 APPENDIX 83 APPENDIX TABLE 1 LEAF ANALYSES. ORCHARD AVERAGES, 1956 Orchard B (ppm) Ca (50 Cu (ppm) Nutrient Elements Mg Mn Fe K (%) (ppm) (#) (50 N P (56) (56) 1 17 1.19 14 .017 1.30 .440 57 2.23 .162 2 19 1.05 17 .015 1.29 .368 30 1.99 .176 3 25 1.15 17 .015 1.66 .424 488 2.32 ,226 4 27 1,26 18 .013 0.95 .550 61 2.57 .174 5 38 1.68 21 .015 1.78 .404 47 2.21 .214 6 37 1.51 20 .014 1.72 .354 55 2.08 .214 7 42 1.56 15 .018 1.52 .436 70 2.18 .222 8 34 1.39 21 .015 1.84 .324 79 1.91 .204 9 32 1.79 20 .024 1.57 .415 105 2.56 .250 10a 29 1.63 19 .015 1.43 .398 73 2.14 .160 10b 25 1.65 14 .015 1.51 .406 72 2.08 .180 11 27 1.45 20 .015 1.26 .376 142 2.58 .190 12 28 1.68 20 .015 1.63 .418 98 2.46 .190 13 26 1.57 15 .017 1.45 .390 88 2.11 ,182 14 24 1.59 16 .015 1.33 .378 41 2.01 .186 15 27 1.36 16 .016 1,51 .418 31 1.84 .190 16 23 1.30 23 .012 1.58 .346 27 2.12 .252 84 APPENDIX TABLE 2 LEAF ANALYSES. ORCHARD AVERAGES, 1957 Orchard B Ca (ppm) (°/o) Cu (ppm) Fe (%) Nutrient Elements Mg Mn K (%) (ppm) (%) N {%) P (%) 1 49 1.25 17 .019 1.43 .32 50 2.35 .18 2 44 .96 17 .015 1.37 .34 25 1.82 .20 3 32 1.15 19 .016 1.57 .39 38 2.42 .21 4 32 1.04 22 .020 1.16 .46 85 2.31 .17 5 61 1.14 19 .035 1.97 .36 36 1.96 .21 6 32 1.09 18 .013 1.90 .32 39 2.09 .25 7 42 1.19 18 .037 1.47 .39 72 2.06 .22 8 31 1.32 21 .015 1.82 .36 61 2.08 .22 9 23 1.30 19 .018 1.63 .41 60 2.21 .23 10a 21 1.45 25 .016 1.64 .34 42 2.17 .18 10b 27 1.36 19 .013 1.68 .36 44 2.01 .18 11 26 1.13 18 .017 1.49 .34 129 2,53 .18 12 56 1.16 19 .038 1.52 .37 88 2.29 .22 13 45 1.20 17 .033 1.71 .32 81 2.15 .19 14 61 1.19 19 .024 1.79 .37 49 1.92 .23 15 45 1.04 20 .024 1.79 .38 58 2.00 .19 16 43 1.01 20 .018 1.61 .36 31 2,20 .25 V 05 Hp 05 to 05 to IO IO 05 05 05 05 05 05 00 05 IS CM 05 CO to CM o 05 00 az to O IO Et) 05 V CM to rH iH CO rI-St 05 (H IO to pCO 05 to 05 fa 05 05 ta «5 05 05 rH 05 10 oo 10 CO CO p00 10 00 to 05 05 00 HP 05 05 o o 00 05 p05 rH Hp 05 CO iH rH o to to CO oo CO rH 05 IO V* IS p- 05 05 o p- rH 05 P P Is 05 P 05 CM to to o 05 05 o rH 05 IO 05 o CO CO rH rH rH rH 00 rH 00 to P P CO Hp 00 05 P Hp 00 rH 05 p00 rH o o 05 in to Hp Hp 0 CO 00 to Cl o o 5 o rH 00 CM rH IO CC Hp o to IO in 00 00 00 P 00 rH 05 00 rH rH P 00 P 00 rH CM CO 00 to rH P- to to 00 < &H ■< w is IO 05 rH p c io 2 CM 00 05 Hp 05 p* boto S 05 hp HP 05 05 to C io S 05 IS to Is 05 IO CO 00 T? CO to CO p to to to to to 05 05 IS p rH 00 CO 00 to CM 05 to to to Hp o 05 o CM rH 05 05 IO IS IO o to CO 05 05 00 05 to CO o orH 05 rH rH 00 05 00 00 05 rH 05 00 CM o 05 CM o CO 05 rH CO o 05 00 00 rH (0 HP pCM 00 CM to 05 to CO 00 p. CO CO 05 o co CM rH 05 05 rH rH o o t o 05 rH P rH P 05 00 Hp 05 in CO in in 05 05 Hp 05 rH O p 05 rH rH 00 00 05 00 00 to to in rH Hp rH rH rH 00 o to p 05 05 CM CM 05 o 05 05 05 rH io <0 W 10 tJ 05 « ih -C h a x S M Q W to bOW S 05 rH p10 IO O 05 05 «) iH rH IS 05 00 05 05 to rH rH rH CM to rH o rH IO P O c o 00 rH H rH V CM IO P rH rH O rH 05 05 05 rH O rH 05 00 rH 05 o rH o o rH 05 05 rH m to co o 05 05 05 05 05 05 rH 05 rH CM o CM CM to IO rH o o rH rH rH rH 05 o to to 3 Z 05 00 05 00 05 o rH 05 05 CM o CO 05 rH rH ( 3 3 IS to 05 00 Hp 05 to to to to 05 00 o 05 05 o 05 05 rH fa 05 05 CO OO 05 05 rH 05 rH 05 to o IO 05 rH was H Z H J to HP 00 p00 Z Z IS IO 05 o o to o 00 o rH to 05 05 IO 05 IS CO o |H 05 05 P05 P05 O) V 05 CO o o rH 05 rH 05 00 00 00 05 rH rH 05 00 CO 00 rH 05 05 CO o 05 to 05 HP 05 CC o CM rH 05 O 05 to 05 P rH rH to 05 P 00 *0* in to 00 05 05 rH 00 IS 00 CM 05 ■V 05 HP rH in rH CM o o o in 05 to o in V 05 t to O 05 05 05 05 c CO o 05 05 rH O o 00 |H rH H o z 05 00 rH rH 'O Sk C8 * X V 00 rH index to fa 05 This H to V IO to p- 00 05 to X o o rH rH 85 to 05 to to to rH HP P o o o o o 05 rH rH O 05 rH oo o to CM 00 to P- rH rH CM rH to rH year IO previous Hp 05 in the •«* 05 of MnSO rH 05 spray IS a> io 05 foliar tO to PQ 05 to rH 05 P* IO «3Q 05 rH to CM to in to V IS to P 05 o 05 05 05 05 O) 05 05 by IO 00 00 caused tO 05 value P- 3 10 O rH to < rH fa w > < 86 w h in o in 00 I s- 00 Hf o o oo o o h IO 'O' O) 00 CM c e rH IN to • IO tO IO to IN IO « • « 1956 oo o o o O IO t> to 00 rH 00 OS 00 CO CM OS I"to OS OS OS oo 0 0 0 0 > h 0 C o • « H • . . • to os IO OS to to to to r^ iH 03 03 03 rH os . • « • • • IO IO 03 IO to to to to to 'f IO 'tf 1 I 1 « • IN CO O «3 ' ! ) < L O a O ' t O ) M H IOI/5^i,,^,,^,tOlO,tlO^'^,»^,Tt IQ 0) > rH rH O 0) tw < O 0- 'if IN CO IO to 'tf o o o o o O • « * • • • to n* O CM tO O • o 1957 AVERAGES, APPENDIX TABLE 5 AT HARVEST. ORCHARD « o rH • CM O to o Ev to o • 4 IN o o rH to to rH IO to to o to to Hp to HP -cf to to o 00 <<*< o to o to a Hp hp c c to to CO • IN G 05 • • o to 00 CM • o C5 rH • IN c 05 • to o • 00 • • c- to o ( 05 4 0• « rH o • O • to to o 05 'j* • * to o cO o • CD CM • to S'- • to • rH 4 • to HP • 4 to • CM to o • rH CM « • 4 • • to o to to to • to o * o co o * rH CO rH CO O ♦ to CO o IN 00 05 o • rH o Hp HP IN o • 00 CO CM • CO o to to Hp Hp o to HP o to o 00 05 Hp o IO HP • CM HP o • to co to rH 05 00 00 05 • 05 to 05 * • CM CM 05 • • iH Hp a • • • pH o • 4 o • 4 • r^ • o « to r>CO o • 05 © rH r~ 05 l'© to © to © 4 4 4 05 o to © rH 4 4 • 4 CO to CM • CM 00 to 4 4 4 © 00 CM • to Hp HP • HP CM CM 4 CO 4 o o CO CM 4 CD 4 to to HP rH to to to HP o o HP o 05 to r- to o o © • 00 • 4 4 HP to oc « O rH 05 4 • 10 to 05 • Hp 4 4 00 rH CM 05 4 CM 05 4 rH to to 00 to 05 o to to to t" CM to to to CM to to to to CM IN • IN to 4 • 05 • r~ • to Hp to to * to « to o rH o to to to CO Hp to to r- 00 05 05 • 05 • • HP rH to to • • to « 05 CM CM Hp 4 to to HP 05 IN HP 00 rH • c*« 4* IN CM to Hp o o • to to 05 to APPLE FRUIT ANALYSES to to 10 o o • « rH to 4 HP Hp Hp to 05 to O) 05 [N rH in rH CM to Hp to CO 05 to CO tn rH 4 4 to to Hp to HP HP IN IN rH C'- HP to CM CO rH CO o t- rH to to to «5 O .a o to HP rH rH rH to rH CO rH rH rH CM rH • 4 • 4 ■ HP rH 88 o 8 w o> CM • CM • 05 CM • 1 1 1 GO CM • CM CM . in CM o CM * CM CM • 00 rH • 1 1 1 CM CM « rH CM to CM 05 to • rH 03 05 • 00 C'' 0 rH 1 1 1 1 CO CO « (H 00 t" CP iH CM rH CM rH to CM 05 iH . O CM » IN rH « r^ in » rH CO in CM . rH in CO in CM « * te ft 05 rH o as a s s ■ 0. ft VO |o\ w 0 tn CM . CM 05 CM O to 0 0 0 0 CM CM 0 rH CM iH CM 05 rH 0 rH CM 0 t» rH 0 H O' • rH co 0 rH in rH 0 CM t'• H rH t' 0 rH CO rH CM to to rH CO o Cl *3* rH 0 in • rH 0 0 rH rH 00 in 0 rH 1 1 CO rH rH 05 rH rH CM CO rH C CM • 1 1 1 00 rH • 00 rH O CM 0 0 O CM . CM • rH 0 1 1 1 1 in t'• rH 05 CO 00 CO c 05 C" « rH rf CM • rH rH rH rH rH in to in 1 1 I" in O in CM in to O rH CO to rH to rH rH IN rH 1 1 to rH rH rH crH in rH IN to 00 to to CM CM CM 1 1 IN rjc to to in CO rf IN to iH CM to in CO t" 05 o CO b 0 to CM 0 0 0 c IMMATURE E 0) P. ft 3 O •o u <6 43 O Vi O 0 o 0 0 1 1 1 00 CM 0 1 1 1 CM CM CO rH 1 1 1 1 in rH CM rH 1 1 O rH cO 00 rH 1 1 I 00 rH to 0 CM CM 0 0 rH 0 O 0 0 in rH rH rH 1 1 t 1 0 0 rH 0 o « rH rH CM o CO O 0- CO rH '3* CM in 1 1 CO CO CO rH tn rH CM rH CM rH rH 1 1 CM rH rH CM CO 1 1 05 to o CM CM rH rH CM rH to rH rH CO 0 o 0 CO 0 rH CO 0 00 0 rH Tt w s & n ft s m 00 CM CM 00 0 rH cc FRUIT APPENDIX ANALYSES. TABLE 6 ORCHARD AVERAGES, 1957 0 0 to CM ft ft Cfl 00 rH JO o rH in rH CO rH 89 APPENDIX TABLE 7 CALCIUM ANALYSES (COMPLEXOMETRIC TITRATION) OF IMMATURE AND MATURE FRUIT y 1957 Immature Fruit Control Treatment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 86 87 88 89 90 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 .23 Mature Fruit Control Treatment .31 .30-------- --.25 .29-------- --.21-------- --.22 .26 .22 .043 -.097 .046 -.084 .068 ---.060 --.073 .055--.068 .053--.061------- ---.064 .029------- ---.048 ---.054 --.049 ---.075 ---.047 .052 .054------- ---.062 ---.064 .047 .061 .052 ---.061 ---.062 .072 ---.070 .070 ---.071 ---.051 .081 --.057 .26 ,066 .23 .22 .21 .28 .32 — .28 .23 .25 ,39 .24-------- -.22 .25-------- --.24-------- --.23-------- -.28 — .30 .35 — .23 .28 — ___ __ .27 .27 .21 .062 .27 — ,068 ---.065 --.085 **— — aTrees 26-30 were replaced by trees 86-90 in the same 90 APPENDIX TABLE 7— Continued CALCIUM ANALYSES (COMPLEXOMETRIC TITRATION) OF IMMATURE AND MATURE FRUIT, 1957 Immature Fruit Control Treatment 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 .21 Mature Fruit Control Treatment .073 .081 .25 .034 .074 .20 .27 .071 .043 .061 .25 .056 .25 .067 .22 .072 .050 .31 .067 .28 .052 .25 .083 .18 .055 .057 .26 .29 .070 .08 .041 .29 .060 .24 .054 .055 .38 .31 .068 .25 .060 .34 .068 .29 .056 .063 .26 .30 .064 .31 .060 .33 .078 .27 .071 .059 .29 .35 .063 .30 .070 .27 .076 .32 .087 .061 .33 .057 ,048 .071 .048 .069 .34 .069 .28 .058 .26 .055 .24 .29 .043 APPENDIX TABLE 8 CONTROLLED ATMOSPHERE STORAGE DATA 1956-57 WEEKLY AVERAGES OF DAILY MEASUREMENTS Period_______ Dates Week Temperature T.C. #5 12-18 19-25 Oct. 26- 1 1 2 3 37.5 35.9 2- 8 9-15 Nov. 16-22 23*!-29 4 5 6 7 30- 6 7-13 Dec. 14-20 21-27 T.C. #6 Atmosphere CO. (%) 0 (% 33.9 32.7 1.7 2.4 2.6 14.9 10.0 6.9 36.5 35.5 34.7 34.0 33.7 32.7 32.9 33.0 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.6 4.3 4.7 7.8 4.9 8 9 10 11 32.2 33.0 33,2 32.3 31.6 32.0 31.7 30.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.8 3.2 3.2 3.0 2.8 28- 3 4-10 Jan, 11-17 18-24 25-31 12 13 14 15 16 32.5 32.8 31.4 32.4 32.3 31.2 31.6 30.8 31.5 31.4 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.6 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.6 2.8 1- 7 8-14 Feb. 15-21 22-28 17 18 19 20 32.2 32.4 32.3 32.4 31.2 31.1 31.5 31.3 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.4 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.1 1- 7 8-14 Mar, 15-21 22-28 21 22 23 24 32.2 32.0 33.1 32.7 31.0 30.8 32.1 31.5 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.9 3.8 6.7 4.0 29- 4 8-11 Apr, 12-18 19-25 25 26 27 28 33.0 32.6 33.3 34.5 31.5 31.3 32.7 31.7 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5 3.3 3.7 3.1 3.4 26- 2 29 35.5 32.6 2.4 2.9 May 92 APPENDIX TABLE 8--Continued CONTROLLED ATMOSPHERE STORAGE DATA 1957-58 WEEKLY AVERAGES OF DAILY MEASUREMENTS Period Dates Temperature Atmosphere Week T.C. #5 T.C. #6 4-10 11-17 Oct. 18-24 25-31 1 2 3 4 36.8 34.6 34.7 33.7 35.4 33.5 33.8 32.9 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.4 16.4 10.1 5.2 2.9 1- 7 8-14 Nov, 15-21 22-28 5 6 7 8 33.2 32.9 32.4 32.4 32.6 32.2 31.8 31.8 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.2 3.0 2.9 29- 5 6-12 Dec. 13-19 20-26 9 10 11 12 32.4 32.3 32.1 32.1 31.9 31.7 31.8 31.8 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.5 2.9 3.4 3.1 3.1 27- 2 3- 9 Jan. 10-16 17-23 24-30 13 14 15 16 17 32.2 32.2 31.9 31.9 31.8 31.7 31.8 31.8 31.6 31.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.4 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.1 31- 6 7-13 Feb. 14-20 21-27 18 19 20 21 31.5 31.7 31.6 31.5 31.7 31.7 31.4 31.4 2,4 2.5 2.8 2.7 3.2 3.6 3.5 3.1 28- 6 7-13 Mar. 14-20 21-27 22 23 24 25 31.6 32.1 31.6 32.0 31.4 32.2 31.9 32.1 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 28- 3 4-10 11-17 26 27 28 31.8 32.1 32.6 32.3 32.3 32.9 2.4 2.5 2.5 3.1 4.8 4.1 CO2 (%) 02 {%) 93 APPENDIX TABLE 9 FRUIT FIRMNESS EXPRESSED AS AVERAGE PRESSURE READINGS ON THE MAGNESS-TAYLOR PRESSURE TESTER IN POUNDS. (7/16 INCH PLUNGER) [arvest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 1956 Reg. Storage 13.06 15.34 21.10 — 21.96 22.20 20.99 21.85 21.65 15.98 15.42 15.90 16.87 16.62 - 20.78 — - 19.76 21.08 20.50 20.29 20.35 18.20 18.65 18.75 18.98 21.55 22.01 19.70 20.20 20.90 12.90 14.54 15.95 15.21 14.47 15.91 15.75 14.60 15.76 14.42 17.25 14.46 15.59 15.24 15.94 — mm mm w 20.84 20.97 18.93 19.95 19.30 15.42 16.14 14.90 14.20 14.55 1957 C-A Storage Harvest Reg. Storage C-A Storage 16.07 17.15 16.12 16.65 16.00 15.94 16.60 16.27 17.11 17.95 15.77 16.55 15.50 15.95 16.31 16.20 17.11 16.45 17.14 16.25 15.92 15.83 16.30 15.78 14.90 13.73 15.40 15.74 15.50 16.34 15.81 16.15 16.60 14.97 16.42 16.31 17. U7 15.08 15.55 14.81 20.06 21.80 20.12 20.72 19.17 18.98 22.13 - 15.21 15.50 15.17 15.43 14.17 15.58 17.66 17.12 16.13 16.30 13.46 14.33 13.00 13.35 13.14 14.88 15.47 14.56 14.71 15.15 16.43 17.05 16.47 17.74 17.15 17.01 16.56 16.01 15.51 15.65 17.76 15.98 16.30 18.56 17.38 16.27 16.86 15.60 15.11 15.81 15.50 15.28 15.33 16.03 15.36 16.37 17.01 16.12 16.31 17.68 - - - - - — - - - - - — - 22.22 20.45 19.00 18.27 18.72 18.73 19.42 18.76 19.57 19.22 19.76 19.66 20.28 20.81 20.65 - - 20.97 21.45 21.73 19.23 20.17 19.86 21.25 20.05 - - 15.57 15.75 16.15 15.10 15.41 16.20 16.47 15.33 15.56 16.01 - 16.31 16.82 17.47 15.87 15.97 16.00 17.83 16.65 16.66 16.94 APPENDIX TABLE 9--Continued FRUIT FIRMNESS EXPRESSED AS AVERAGE PRESSURE READINGS ON THE MAGNE5S-TAYL0R PRESSURE TESTER IN POUNDS. (7/16 INCH PLUNGER) 1956 1957 Tree Harvest Reg. Storage C-A Storage Harvest Reg. Storage 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 21.30 21.85 22.80 20.08 20.40 14.03 14.10 15.45 14.10 13.82 19.47 19.17 - - - - - - 15.75 15.50 17.50 15.87 14.80 15.97 16.16 16.30 15.45 16.60 15.31 16.33 16.16 16.73 16.29 15.73 15.30 15.45 16.61 16.75 16.69 14.12 15.64 17.08 13.22 15.83 15.81 15.15 14.46 15.83 16.37 17.80 14.78 16.70 15.61 15.52 14.72 14.07 14.61 13.31 13.77 14.75 14.26 14.06 16.38 15.55 15.61 16.60 15.02 15.58 15.91 15.85 15.97 15.78 16.56 16.76 16.65 16.45 16.56 16.61 - - - — — - _ - _ • _ — _ — — — 18.25 — _ 14.16 — 20.07 66 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 — 16.50 15.57 16.35 16.70 16.75 17.38 17.27 16.92 15.99 16.13 15.53 14.72 14.53 18.46 17.74 16.60 18.09 - - — • 12.21 67 68 13*60 22.32 — mm 11.85 22.62 16.17 23.10 24.20 •* 20.97 19.78 20.88 20.43 20.15 20.35 21.11 22.77 21.02 21.68 21.34 20.72 18.92 18.55 18.60 18.53 19.10 18.95 18.90 18.87 18.53 - 20.14 20.88 20.02 19.21 20.02 21.63 20.86 21.07 21,50 20.98 21.67 21.06 21.30 - 21.42 95 APPENDIX TABLE 9— Continued FRUIT FIRMNESS EXPRESSED AS AVERAGE PRESSURE READINGS ON THE MAGNESS-TAYLOR PRESSURE TESTER IN POUNDS. (7/16 INCH PLUNGER) Tree Harvest 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 _ Average - 1956 Reg. Storage 19.57 19.07 16.34 16.07 15.60 16.03 15.95 15.93 15.46 16.68 14.24 13.97 16.22 16.97 16.97 15.48 16.75 17.12 16.25 17.83 16.83 15.87 20.26 15.53 16.42 21.93 21.77 19.93 20.92 20.90 20.90 21.00 — 16.79 14.85 15.15 13.79 15.45 16.28 15.47 15.90 15.88 15.29 14.91 16.28 16.20 15.59 14.21 14.32 15.11 — 13.95 - 20.77 C-A Storage Harvest - 21.90 1957 Reg. Storage C-A Storage - 96 APPENDIX TABLE 10 GROUND COLOR. ORCHARD AVERAGES At Harvest 1956 After Regular Storage After C-A Storage 1 2.8 1.6 1.8 2 2.7 1.8 3 3.2 4 2.8 1.7 1.7 1.8 2.5 1.8 2.5 -- 1.8 2.7 1.7 2.0 3.0 1.5 1.7 2.9 1.7 2.2 5 2.8 .16 2.0 1.8 1.1 1.7 6a 1.8 1.1 1.2 -- -- -- 6b 2.1 1.5 1.5 2.9 1.6 2.1 7 -- -- 1.8 2.8 1.9 2.1 8 2.7 1.5 1.5 2.4 .16 1.9 9 2.7 1.6 1.8 2.7 1.4 1.7 10a --- 1.8 2.3 1.7 1.9 10b -- -- 1.7 2.6 1.6 1.8 11 3.0 2.2 2.6 3.1 2.2 2.2 12 3.1 1.6 1.7 3.3 2.2 2.4 13 2.6 1.1 2.0 2.1 1.2 1.3 14 --- 1.4 1.6 2.1 1.4 1.5 15 2.0 -- 1.7 2.2 1.7 1.5 16 -- 1.6 2.2 3.0 1.7 2.2 Average 2.7 1.5 1,8 2.6 1.7 1.9 + .11 _+ .18 + .13 + ,13 + .13 • s. d. 00 o After C-A Storage +1 1957 After Regular Storage Orchard At Harvest 97 < 1 u i i i i < • H O) CO 1956 HOUR; £ OilOrJ • W) •d 60 (0 45 u C OP i O P xs o CO tO W n tO N O N O lC ilM o to u lOIOtOi-l05C''tOin*'’4« o> 1 © I fO C\| (M CJ cj CM p (0 > u <0 as «H O > u cs 0) 60 cS b o p to to < 1 o c* 00 00 to to rH 05 CO c> to to to to to to to CJ CJ Cl to to o o> • 60 60 O S 0) u •a rH o h Hi p as u h o to Cl H O C5 00 00 CO co to to to to to to to CJ CJ CJ to to •0 0) u o S-i K co X o n to 1 1 1 C5 05 CO t** oo CO to to 1 CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ 1 1 t p w u p P o 01 (0 a> > rH 05 c- CO co ■H 00 CO to to ro ro CJ CJ CJ CM 45 • 60 60 CC 05 CO ss o u a 75° APPENDIX TABLE 11 F* AS MG C0o EVOLVED PER KG FRUIT PER as in 05 t> to to to CSJ CJ o to to to to to to to to 1 t 05 in > to u cS 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 as • 60 T3 60 (0 h 45 Pi CS pi o p X CQ o u o p to 05 > Pi c0 as 1 1 1 1 NONHOJlO^nO •ct'^'t'ttotototon 1 ^ CJ rH c» oo r » co 1 to to to 00 CJ Jo co o d 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 00 C* CO 1 to CJ Cl u cs X V u c cj o c- IO - t to cq N o c sF r#< r o t o t o t o t o t o t o t o to to HOOOOOtOJHH in p to > cj to u eS as » > < to 45 * 60 60 in rf r f ' t to to to to to to 1 2 3 4 5 6 RESPIRATION MEASURED AT i—t >! CO Q ^ C J t O ^ lO c OO OO Oi O 98 •< t o rH to 0 0 to C 5 0 0 to to O 5 O cOto^rPtotototoCMto 45 bO < <8 bO P xs 1957 p 45 O <8 X

HOUR; 43 P niooi^oiiooicjrtoi cDiOTfTftotororotoeq rH iflNtootowcaccoto oc toto’tf'^totototoCMCM to PER KG FRUIT PER as 1 45 hO « CO 03 hO P P 45 o c3 « -p co 43 o to C 0 * ' t to r-t O OO to to CM CM CM CM CM CM H 1 u 45 hfl ♦ (8 H3 ho P P 45 O P CO (0 c^ CM 00 to to to iH o 05 05 t o t o CM CM CM CM CJ CM rH rH to CM rH t o to O 05 CJ CM CO 45 O O o to CM rH 05 00 o to O IN rf to to CM CM CM CM CM rH rH 05 to M < CO CM p CO 45 CM O O 05 O to t o CM rH rH ■<* to CM CM CM CM CM CM CM 00 CM > P CO 33 IN to to rH rH to CM CM CM CM CM CM CM t-P* RESPIRATION MEASURED AT APPENDIX TABLE 12 75° F. AS MG C0o EVOLVED < I o CM P toHtofooof*-^*to(o ^ ^to tot o C M C M C M C M C M to CMtOCMrHOOlOCMCMCMrH to to to CM CM CM CM CM CM 00 OSCOOO^rHOJCOCDrfrO to at •o • hO cfir)(PN©roo > CO 0) > p CO Tf'TtOtOIOCMCMCMCMOl w >> (8 Q CM >» CO CS HNl Or flO lO ^O OO l C to 99 APPENDIX TABLE 13 BREAKDOWN DEVELOPMENT IN STORAGE, 1956 AND 1957, AND IN HOLDING TESTS, IN 1957. (RECORDED AS % OF THE FRUIT IN EACH BOX AND AS TOTAL "SCORE", SEE TEXT). 1 W Reg. Storage (°/o) C— A Storage Reg. Storage Holding 1957 C-A Storage Holding <30 00 (SO (30 (°/o) 1 2 3 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 45 5 0 10 20 45 5 0 10 av. 16 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 10 20 0 0 2 23 12 0 0 30 95 95 5 15 32 128 129 5 15 av, 62 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 70 5 65 0 5 61 5 65 __0 av. 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 31 3 16 16 65 65 15 35 40 13 27 1 24 15 75 100 45 70 95 172 223 64 145 166 av, 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 2 0 5 5 5 45 10 5 5 5 47 33 av, 19 0 - - — - 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 14 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .5 .5 0 .5 .5 26 27 28 29 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 32 33 34 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .5 0 •• •• “ 10 25 20 30 25 Total ("score" — — — 11 29 20 30 39 av, 26 100 APPENDIX TABLE 13— Continued BREAKDOWN DEVELOPMENT IN STORAGE, 1956 AND 1957, AND IN HOLDING TESTS, IN 1957. (RECORDED AS % OF THE FRUIT IN EACH BOX AND AS TOTAL "SCORE", SEE TEXT). 1956 Tree Reg. Storage (90 C-A Storage Storage (90 (90 Reg. Holding 1957 C-A Total Holding ("score”) Storage (90 (90 (90 36 37 38 39 40 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 15 5 50 0 10 15 14 50 av. 18 41 42 43 44 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 av. 0 0 0 0 0 av. 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 47 48 49 50 1 .5 0 .5 2 2 0 0 0 • * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 45 0 15 5 10 62 0 25 5 11 av. 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 25 1 0 0 1 0 20 10 45 20 65 26 10 45 21 90 av. 38 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 0 0 0 10 av. 3 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 20 4 0 0 3 0 60 0 5 15 5 90 1 5 23 __5 av. 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 52 53 54 55 0 0 0 56 57 58 59 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 62 63 64 65 0 0 6 66 67 68 69 70 .5 0 .5 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 101 APPENDIX TABLE 13— Continued BREAKDOWN DEVELOPMENT IN STORAGE, 1956 AND 1957, AND IN HOLDING TESTS, IN 1957. (RECORDED AS % OF THE FRUIT IN EACH BOX AND AS TOTAL "SCORE", SEE TEXT). 1956 C-A Reg. Holding Storage Storage (%) (%) (%) Reg. Storage (%) 71 72 73 74 75 0 0 76 77 78 79 80 0 0 0 0 0 81 82 83 84 85 0 0 0 0 86 87 88 0 0 o o 11 Total ("score") (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 av. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 LO 5 o 0 0 5 30 5 7 30 0 25 37 av.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 L5 0 0 0 0 2 5 5 0 5 35 5 5 0 5 53 av. 14 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 av. 0 0 .5 Holding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .5 1 0 1957 C-A Storage (%) o o 6 - - - 102 Is J3 ft f' t 'w t- o ~Q C o CM CO CO IS 00 CO ro in Ob iH CO o ro ** to to t0434tOrt4'3i4Hj,Hi4IOtOCM • co« ' C O J I O O O f f i O O ^ n O I O U J O H I O r O f f l H H O C O I O H O ro CM Ob % APPENDIX TABLE 14 GROUPED ACCORDING TO DATA ANALYTICAL AND OBSERVATIONS s ft ' 43 c 4) E 43 fc ft +3 e ft tN*J‘ « J rt t y- - C M C O r - i l N r H H < Cbt'- o o in in in Hi4 in to 4 H4h* Hf o o o o O o o c o o o « * • •

00 IS o o o o o o « • • • ICH^f'MMXlOOOOitOO IS 00 rH CM CM oooooooooooo o o o o T* 4-> 3 rH -fa DO 3 CD -H 33 CM ’S4CO •H : 3 H 43 S iH ro IS Ob IS Ob H O f a fa •> co 00 00 fc, fa H J x< 43 3 fa 43 3 H 43 fa .Q O ftEh w O CM 03 O ^ in in to co ro ro 'M4 CD 03 inin<#CHH £X 43 fa 43 Ht4 in CO rH rH to ’t Ei rH 43 CO H V 3 o 3 Eh Cfl o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O o cq p E (X (X H•O • O O• P•© •< t• H*O «O ©» H•l »O r • t»r »f P » H*n«^ ^ ■ v t o t o t o t o t o t o t o c o T f io t o t o ^ t o t o rrtoC'^W'^tototoin rp £ CX a (OcinwNOfflfflncoacMtoPcono i - ir o r o 'S < t o c M t o o io f r * fr- E NNO'J'lf)OriTilN O ^ O N C O M O I O tocM*fTFCMroCMCM»3 M ^ f ' n i n o H H ® 0 ) i n r > mi no iDH io ion rJi o p co'tcDtDCMtotD'S'oototofr-totoeoinin coiotNintNinGciovo'34 co o o c o o o o o o o o o o o c o o o o o o o o c o o o o IO C tO IO CM rH CO CO ' sf CM oo t O CJ CJ t o t o CM CQ rH 10 o to CM to CO a c to rH rH to fr- O rH 00 rH to CM CO IO C o IN 00 00 HF ** o o IO a o 00 00 a a a a 00 a a a a a a a g <8 *rt X> U -P 3 pH •rl O S*'— ' 00 CM a a to IO O p -p u 3 G CD o c U u •rH fa X CM CM o CM to 00 Cl O o ca a a a •sF rH rH ro to CM in o CM co CO CO CM 00 CM to Cl IO 'Ct' rH rH CM rH rH rH o 00 o 10 to to fr- a O • G U In ^ fa a 3 to a CO o 00 c rH O in CM CO to CM to CO rH IO frfr- tN CO m CO IO T# IO IO rH rH rH i H rH rH rH rH rH i-H rH rH rH rH rH rH ■p O r-' •p rQ O rH Cl rH CM CM 00 CM rH to Cl to ' t IO rH P O h H 1 1 1 rH IO ■P rH •H •H CD 00 HF a a a E-* fa Q) r-» a o u P 3 u p u A o a B — ■ p N 1 1 1 in to 1 1 o "t rH rH O fr­ a IO IO to in ee CO CM rH rH rH rH rH rH rH IO fr* to rH to 1 CM 1 rH p hO 00 to CO IO <£> co fc- a c 0) H-» c o o •rl T o? 'O Hp Hp "p in ID IO CO 05 C- r H l i n r H t O t O H P C - t O r H C D C D r H O C C C ^ l D H p O O CC IO to I GJHpCOlOCOCCOOlOI'-HpHplOlOC'-lOinHP 05 10 to O 00 o CO Hp oo to © C 5H pC JC JtO G D tO C M C inO ID tO H P lO t'- CO co to to IO to *P to tOtDCM CJtO HpCJCM lDW tOHptDrHCJCM CM CM to 05 to rH 00 in to IO Hp HP to O o o o o o • • ft ft • • CM CJ c- o in Hp to Hp c o o o • • • • cc IN —H 00 CO IN in to in Hp c CJ CJ 00 t o in in Hp CM to 1 ^P rH 1—1 C5 05 1 LO CD h P to HP to to 1 O O o c 9 ft 1 c ft ■o o • 3 r» 05 CM in HP in hp o• o• c• Hp c Hp o U c O w c• oft o« c• o• o• o• o• c• o 9 1 C- rH rH 00 to 1 05 HP t o CO HP o 1 1 • ■ • • • CD 10 IO c c c oo c o to f - IO to IO Hp C* o c o coo o c o 05 to rH in IN CO c CD CM 1 00 to rH CJ c CD CO c HP in 05 rH c t- O in IN c to CJ to C Hp to O HP 1 rH to N 05 HP CD 05 oc in CD CM HP C- in c- 05 CM 05 05 1 00 05 o 05 05 C j 00 co 05 05 05 c- CC t'- c- c- Ct*- 35 05 05 05 CO oc * • • 9 • • • • • « • f t • • • • 1 • ft « • • • • ft • • rH rH o in Hp 05 C5 Hp to HP CJ Hp CM to CM t « ft « ft * f rH to rH in tN in in HP CD cD 05 to cto CM CJ rH • • • « 1 05 05 co to in O IO to 05 to o to IN IN 05 rH in 1 c- HP HP LO CD o cj in HP CD to CM CO to o CJ CD 1 to HP to CM CM HP CJ CM *P HP to to CM to ro HP to t ♦ ft • • 9 • » ft ft • » • ft • ft ft 1 f to »o ( 0 rHffl CJ ■P r-v C I- I +J £ 10 « *rt 3 ttJ 3 H CJr--. a o Pi CJ 3 u CJ U x> o an ' w' in in CD in CD CD in CO 05 CC 05 HP LO CC to M CJ CJ CM CJ CM HP HP rH IH to to M « 1 CD HP CD rH t" 1 1N N -H ,C r-N fall, rH rH I CO rH 12 3 +> U to o C P ScU-Hfc 58 24 40 85 CJ rH 0) CC (4 •p o o o Eh CQ H t O CO 05 D O CJ CM CO CJ tO tO ioioi> tO tO tO tO tO 'f't'T to rH in CO in O o 1957 to IO -P H 4) 59 OF BREAKDOWN; APPENDIX TABLE 14— Continued DATA GROUPED ACCORDING TO THE INCIDENCE ANALYTICAL AND • to E „ a cq OBSERVATIONS • Hp 4 4 4 0 E 5 x pa* in T to CJ CD CM CJ HP 00 05 CD IN CD CD CD 05 05 CM CJ rH rH rH rH rH CJ 105 APPENDIX TABLE 15 AVERAGE JONATHAN SPOT AND SKIN BROWNING BY ORCHARDS (%) 1956 Spot and Skin Browning Orchard (Reg.) Storage 1957 Skin Browning (C-A) Total Skin Disorders (Reg. Storage) Skin Spot Browning (Reg. Storage) (Reg. Storage) Skin Browning (C-A) 10a 20 + 5.1 2 4 + 2.3 2 + 1.3 1 1 10b 32 + 9.4 2 5 + 1.8 4 + 1.9 0 2 4 16 + 2.2 2 5 + 4.4 5 + 4.4 0 0 2 37 +15.8 2 6 + 3.6 3 + 1.8 2 6 11 12 + 5.3 5 6 + 1.8 6 + 1.8 0 0 9 12 + 8.6 2 8 + 3.1 7 + 2.7 1 2 12 9 + 5.0 1 8 + 4.4 7 + 3.2 1 1 16 35 + 4.6 2 12 + 9.4 10 + 7.0 2 1 3 7 + 6.0 3 14 + 8.0 13 + 6.8 1 1 8 34 +15.9 2 14 + 2.7 14 + 2.7 0 2 13 27 + 5.4 2 15 + 8.4 14 + 7.7 1 2 7 30 +18.9 3 16 +10.7 14 + 9.9 2 10 5 32 + 9.7 1 25 + 7.8 20 _+ 6.7 5 0 15 37 + 6.9 3 26 +22.9 21 +18.3 4 11 1 34 +16.9 3 40 + 3.9 33 +10.5 7 3 14 61 +10.7 9 43 +14.7 11 + 6.1 33 27 6 32 + 9.4 2 49 +12.8 38 +11.4 11 9 X) 01 c no U •rl -p •rl 3 CO h o ■P Sh •H * 3 O o in IO 55 'C u iH C O • rH 3 i—I > <8 O O < “ 4° rH l> C O C O ^ O O C M < » rH C O lO ^rHlOtOC3rHP#,COHOlSlS *h ,c +3 iH 00 pH rH O rH to © in to 'd o 05 •4* •'t O • IS C3 05' c'S* o C5 00 in CD 00 IO CO 10 to LO Tt< •d* •d1 in CO *s< •d* IO •d 1 •d* in o c O c o o O c o o © O c o C © o • 4 • 4 • 4 4 4 e • 4 * • 4 4 • • in o to ’t •r) «H w w feO £ w WITH THE APPENDIX TABLE 16 NUTRIENT CONTENTS OF JONATHAN APPLES. ORCHARD AVERAGES, 1956 106 cR w CD 00 pH 10 to to rH ■cf o 05 O' CO CD c in o o 00 03 03 to 03 00 •d* iH o i n 00 03 h- to to 05 to to 03 03 03 03 IS o o c o CO 03 O C3 00 00 C3 CO o • 4 • • • 4 4 4 4 m • 4 4 4 4 4 • • rH rH rH rH rH ■H TS 03 03 > o 13 .Q CO 0 CO 03 u 03 5 JC > 05 to t o CD CD C\5 CD to to rfr 03 to 05 03 CD t - CD CO CD LO CD CD CO CO CD in in CO CD * « « • 4 4 6 4 4 ♦ • 4 • 4 4 55 in to to © in in 4 4 4 CO 03 3 o •rl (0 si SKIN DISORDERS iH CO > S>4 H H H N P iN n o n o to io o n io tD K) •H Q T5 P CO • Si o o a: u o 10 •p •H 3 O > £3 fc* CJ CO to M h © iH r-t A CO CO JO rt> © O to C rL O C O iH O O C O C O N lO ^ rl H 107 1957 (0 C CO •H -P 3 u W(0O>10Ht»-l0OI>Tt1HC0C0NcDH't fci oc C M C M C M C M © C M © © C M C M C M C M r H C M © C M C M © o 60 £ + csS rH 05 CD t4- E Cu P« r* Cu & N—' CQ • • « 00 05 IO 00 • • • . ro ro to • o * . « * . • • * * • • © © © M a c c M © © © t ' - © © t 4- o © c 4'C0 oitoiMitnioioio^NionNntoton © © iH CM 00 C4- © r- iH 00 © rH © CM rH CO CO to t- -4* d 4 CO to ts to to to t- © © © © t4* S-i to CM © © d 4 © iH t4- C 00 to to © © © © d 4 d 4 d 4 d 4 d4 to d 4 to d 4 to to d 4 d 4 d4 © © d 4 Tf O O C o o C o o o o © © O c O O O « • • • « • • . . * * • « • • . • CM cc IH CO © to CO to o c c o o « * • a • o 0 o ts CO iH iH © rH rH t4- to CO to to to CO to © © © © C" © © o o © o c o o o o © c . • • • . ♦ • . • « • • WITH COMPARED r- z o CO © CO r* to oc CM CM to CM « • • * © o to O rH to 00 © © CD d 4 to c- CO © o CO c rH CM d 4 to CM CM d 4 to CM to to CM . • . « • » • • « . © © © © « © © « © CO © © CM ts © CM CM ♦ * « IQ Ch 4) G T5 •H Sh X o ^ d 4 to to CO CO c/5 (0' 'H *o cs,o <3 • X O O o Z o o 4> 3 r «W feD4-" Sd 'W' z u o rt T5 « DISORDERS • r— 1 CO © iH CO d4 10 (H CO to t4* « • • • • * . * • » • d4 d* ro d* ro d4 d4 to to V d 4 d 4 rH iH CM CM CC IS rH © © CO 00 © d 4 fH 00 d 4 CM © rH to CM © d 4 c CM © CM © © 00 IS 00 CO o cc © © © © © o © © * * * « • • • « « « • • • . rH (H SKIN • -P •H THE APPENDIX TABLE 17 NUTRIENT CONTENTS OF JONATHAN APPLES. ORCHARD AVERAGES, to CO 00 CM d 4 d 4 to © © © c © © iH p-i iH rH iH CM CM d 4 d 4 d 4 O .O_ ^ OjHO WO CO OOtO M O I—1 O H —’Ji'tO . ■ . ■ I r J3 ■P •H T3 to U to > o o e3 w a> u 0) s X o .3 & 3 £