phenotyping texture and aroma wp5 training session postharvest quality issues and breeding jan...
Post on 14-Apr-2017
738 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Postharvest quality issues and breeding
Wageningen UR - Food&Biobased Research Jan Verschoor
Intro Jan Verschoor
Background: Food Technologist by education (specialty Toxicology)
20 year research experience in PH-Technology at Wageningen UR
● Optimal storage conditions F&V
● Disorder studies: Pome and soft fruits, vegetables
● Fresh product physiology: Fruits, vegetables, ornamentals
● Development of Dynamic Controlled Atmosphere Systems
● Postharvest technology evaluation/development: (ethylene) sensors ,
CO2-and ethylene scrubbers, LED-lighting, 1-MCP, coatings etc.
● Non-chemical Postharvest insect control (CATT)
● Post-harvest training and consultancy
Wageningen UR Campus
Food & Biobased Research
Agrotechnology & Food Sciences
Agrotechnology & Food Sciences
Group
Food & Biobased Research
Agrotechnology & Food Sciences
Agrotechnology & Food Sciences
Group
Structure Wageningen UR
Wageningen International
IMARES
Wageningen Business School
RIKILT
Food & Biobased Research
Livestock Research
Central
Veterinary Institute
Alterra LEI Centre for
Development Innovation
Plant Research International
Applied Plant
Research
Agrotechnology & Food Sciences
Group
Agrotechnology & Food Science
Animal Sciences Environmental Sciences
Social Sciences Plant Sciences
Animal Sciences Group
Environmental Sciences Group
Social Sciences Group
Plant Sciences Group
Supervisory Board
Executive Board
Concern Staff Facilities & Services
Specialized Research Institutes (CRO’s)
Wageningen University
…To explore the potential of nature,
to improve the quality of life…
Presentation overview
• Introduction Postharvest quality
• Postharvest quality issues
• Postharvest quality issues control
Introduction Postharvest Quality
• Depends on (consumer) expectance
• Is cumulative effect of – Initial quality
• Genotype
• Growing conditions
– Postharvest conditions
• Never improves over time
Introduction Postharvest Quality
• ~1/3 of produced products is lost!
– Mechanical, physiological, microbiological reasons
– Overproduction, no buyers, loss of value (feed, processing)
• All inputs (energy, water, nutrients, land use) also lost
• From a nutritional point of view current postharvest crop losses can feed over 2 billion people
The postharvest chain is not optimal
Enormous effort is put into optimizing breeding and cultivation, to increase production, …
• Breeding (pest resistance, production, ..) • Education (agriculture, horticulture) • Advisory networks for growers • 5% production increase is an major challenge
But …. there is a lot to gain by optimizing postharvest handling and distribution
• 5% less postharvest spoilage is a relatively easy goal
• 5% more profit in postharvest is a relatively easy goal
Introduction Postharvest Quality
Qu
alit
y
Phenotype
Genotype
Growing conditions Postharvest
handling
Postharvest quality issues
• Physiological
• Caused by storage conditioning /duration
• Microbial (in fruits mainly fungal)
• Mechanical
• Other
Postharvest quality issue: Bitter pit
Postharvest quality issue: scald
Quality issues: Chilling injury
Postharvest quality issue: Soft scald
Quality issue: senescent breakdown
Postharvest quality issue: Water core
Postharvest quality issue: Water core
Quality issue: Skinspots (Elstar)
Postharvest quality issues: shrivelling
Quality issue: external CO2 injury
Quality issues: internal CO2-injury
Quality issue: Low oxygen injury
Quality issue: freezing injury
Postharvest quality issue: Lenticelspot
Postharvest quality issues control
Storage quality starts with quality at harvest
“Initial quality” • Cultivar!!!!!!
• Harvest maturity
• Experiences of previous seasons
• Other – Soil type, altitude
– Crop load
– Fruit size
– Batch variation
Harvest date
Methods for apples/pears
– Days after full bloom
– Growing-degree hours (model)
– Starch index (lugol staining)
– Sugar content (total soluble solids (ºBrix, refractometer)
– Firmness (penetrometer)
– Streif index (= Firmness / (Suger content x starch index)
– NIR
– Genetic markers
Importance of harvest window
Harvest window
Greasiness Jonagold
Gre
asin
ess
(ra
nge
)
Number of days in 20 oC
relation fruit weight and weight loss
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Fruit weight(g)
Weig
ht
los
s (
g/(
kg
*h)
Harvest 1
Harvest 2
Harvest 3
Effect harvest date on weight loss pears
Consequenses of harvesting later
+ more kg, increased fruit size (can also be negative)
+ higher sugar content/less acid/more aroma
+ more (red) blush colour
+ less sensitive for scald, bitter pit
+ less weight loss
- Less green ground colour, more yellowing
- Lower firmness
- Shorter storability, shelf life
- More sensitive for chilling injury,internal browning, core flush, fungal decay, greasiness
Optimal quality and storage conditions
T. laag T hoog
CO2 hoog CO2 laag
O2 laag O2 hoog
setpoint
Ripening, senescence disorder
Fruit storage and ethylene removal 33
Principle Dynamic CA (DCA):
Interactive Storage Conditioning
Relative respiration
0 % O2 21
ULO
Safety margin to account for biological variation
Fruit storage and ethylene removal 34
Principle Dynamic CA (DCA):
Interactive Storage Conditioning
Reduction of respiration compared to ULO
Relative respiration
0 % O2 21
DCA
• Ethanol (fermentation metabolite) • Respiratory Quotient (CO2 production/O2 consumption) • Fα (Chlorophyll fluorescence)
Used markers to find optimum:
DCA effect on scald
sensitive Italian Granny S. after 8 months + shelflife
Prevention of scald development – good alternative for chemical treatment DPA
DCA ULO
~0,4 % O2 1.2% O2
Postharvest quality issues control
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Fra
cti
n o
f fr
uit
s
Firmness class (per 0.5 kg)
ULO, Smartfresh and DCA firmness distribution Elstar apples after 8 months
storage + 1 week shelflife
Postharvest quality issues control
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Fra
cti
n o
f fr
uit
s
Firmness class (per 0.5 kg)
ULO, Smartfresh and DCA firmness distribution Elstar apples after 8 months
storage + 1 week shelflife
Postharvest quality issues control
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Fra
cti
n o
f fr
uit
s
Firmness class (per 0.5 kg)
ULO, Smartfresh and DCA firmness distribution Elstar apples after 8 months
storage + 1 week shelflife
Postharvest quality issues control
Lenticelspot and water loss (Elstar apples)
Orchard
Ha
rves
t
Percentage lenticelspot:
Weight loss
normal
(2.6-3%)
Weight loss
low
(1.5-1.8%)
A 1e 0 13.2
A 2e 5.2 16.7
B 1e 0 37.1
B 2e 25.3 63.6
Influence waiting period on brown heart teler 1, 1997-1998
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22dagen wachtperiode
ho
l e
n b
ruin
(%
)
teler 2, 1997-1998
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22dagen wachtperiode
ho
l en
bru
in (
%)
Optimal storage conditions
Tools to prevent/limit disorders • Identify risk batches at harvest • Regular quality checks during storage • Monitoring water loss during storage • Optimize storage conditions (research based) Some interventions (depending on product & disorder) • Cooling down in steps • Waiting period before CA • Adjusting optimal T/CO2/O2/water loss • Ethylene control
• Cultivar selection
Breeding selection issues
• Production factors – many
• Consumer and market appeal –Do we know?
• Postharvest factors
Impossible????? Hopeless???
Moneymaker #1 USA apples
Breeding succes improvement
Improvement of prediction of postharvest behaviour will result in less very costly failures
More attention for development and standardization of Postharvest testing protocols is required
Breeding succes improvement
Improvement of prediction of postharvest behaviour will result in less very costly failures
More attention for development and standardization of Postharvest testing protocols is required
Thanks for your attention
top related