APS_April2019

J ournal of the A merican P omological S ociety

92

fruit developed soft scald and less than 1% of fruit showed soggy breakdown in both 2008 and 2009.  Decay incidence varied with orchard in NY. Water core was observed in some fruit, but this also varied by location. Fruit showed a low (< 1%) incidence of brown core in 2008. In 2009, 13-20% of fruit from one harvest date at each orchard (affected harvest date differed by orchard) exhibited brown core after 4.5 months of CA storage with 1-MCP treatment. Fruit stored under CA without 1-MCP treatment did not ex- hibit brown core. Only minor instances of vascular breakdown and water core break- down were observed in 2009, while vascular breakdown was common in fruit harvested in 2008. Shriveling was more prominent in later harvests. Senescent breakdown was observed in 22% of fruit stored in air in 2008, and in 10-20% of fruit from one, but not the other two orchards, stored under CA. In 2009, 10% of fruit of two different harvest dates of one orchard and one harvest date of a different orchard exhibited soggy breakdown. Fruit from the third orchard did not develop soggy breakdown. No soft scald was observed in 2008 or 2009, so delayed cooling is not nec- essary for this cultivar (DeLong et al., 2004). Consumer study. The objective of this part of the study was to compare the effects of har- vest date on consumer liking of ‘Minneiska’. Consumers who participated in the panel did not represent all Americans, given that they were recruited from among students and staff at the University of Minnesota. Compared to the larger U.S. adult population, they were most likely younger, better educated, and had a high familiarity with ‘Honeycrisp’ apples.  The consumers judged ‘Minneiska’samples from the four harvest dates as not different in overall liking, flavor liking, texture liking or juiciness liking (Fig. 1). However, there was a large bias for participants to give high rat- ings to the first sample they tasted, a common observance in taste testing. Thus, data from the first 4 samples (rep 1) were discarded, and data were reanalyzed using only the second

Figure 1 . replicate. Even with the new analysis, harvest date did not influence sensory quality ratings (Fig. 1). However, most of the liking ratings trended upwards with later harvest dates. Be-

Fig. 1. Mean ratings (error bars represent standard errors) of 'Minneiska' apple samples (from the sec- ond replicate only) for overall liking, flavor liking, juiciness liking, and texture liking over 4 harvest dates. Liking ratings are on a scale of 0 = greatest possible dislike, 13 = dislike extremely, 25 = dis- like very much, 39 = dislike moderately, 53 = dis- like slightly, 60 = neither like nor dislike, 67 = like slightly, 81 = like moderately, 93 = like very much, 104 = like extremely, 120 = greatest possible like.