<%BANNER%>

Firmness and Storage Characteristics of Crisp-Textured Blueberries

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101119_AAAADY INGEST_TIME 2010-11-19T22:58:42Z PACKAGE UFE0012182_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 132567 DFID F20101119_AACRFE ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH UFE0012182_00001.xml GLOBAL false PRESERVATION FULL MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
e801d89e4077be64034f3fd156c91b66
SHA-1
092920329bbbc401c65581c5617c87196d83b832
2009 F20101119_AACRAH padley_l_Page_33.txt BIT
e6d4ed4f13a61c7974a87de86e06b336
6aaba22764289e836b899cf34ce414fc39b06138
47103 F20101119_AACQYH padley_l_Page_53.pro
b44a92bdebed0e867ffd2b8087ba88c0
65d8cce9a129b7d3c280a5bb2e50923044320051
18370 F20101119_AACQJP padley_l_Page_27.QC.jpg
dfc8b046de19aefe7fb07317d738da8c
0d365785be553efff359c2836ab81fcf76f539d6
110260 F20101119_AACQTK padley_l_Page_46.jp2
0a1f9c7996ab8a6254dad092a849f810
691b5090bacdadef0f7e410c8638292ce9090e60
6117 F20101119_AACQOM padley_l_Page_17thm.jpg
4e2cd32c758c7e2804d1499ece92fdb5
b0b52ed188352f5c528c7dc67e5ab4d002d24232
1759 F20101119_AACRFF padley_l_Page_03thm.jpg
37fe4daff4f70093f9f8d06c4355f685
4a9471b1136fac812d954e3dbe7d793605864cd2
2044 F20101119_AACRAI padley_l_Page_34.txt
22b252935ed67d2c8eaddf3b9482092c
acfba06426488db71d23df89db69a402dde288ab
51561 F20101119_AACQYI padley_l_Page_54.pro
0b61b7cf184a90b1491113b75ccf591f
4af5695c3a92a50300738b83269567c4af4ddc4a
5590 F20101119_AACQJQ padley_l_Page_37thm.jpg
639ddf27f100995b2f62cb67e5feb30c
e5a390aec61a6881cf7d6056a09808cff012d2bf
68238 F20101119_AACQTL padley_l_Page_47.jp2
02373fd78a713626e746d19d4e23a539
04db4d29ee541917a88d19d5c22644ad02a2e21d
23748 F20101119_AACQON padley_l_Page_20.QC.jpg
af2230783f923d8bd70c7f8b9c76caf1
f775ff490124331b7c781544eebc19dc35edf3ee
2760 F20101119_AACRFG padley_l_Page_06thm.jpg
6de67592ab72eea3abbb9f15f4a7ea57
b6fc32688fef92533571c3c6488c0be831906efd
1922 F20101119_AACRAJ padley_l_Page_36.txt
92fcc1dadf1e3a23d764e7c101cd31a8
180b3332c159639bab057a25281f87f652ec1746
41219 F20101119_AACQYJ padley_l_Page_55.pro
379ce850f0a12539cf7a1a24d5d0ae74
5c0a46392f36e9da465b895e861573fc51f55a37
6564 F20101119_AACQJR padley_l_Page_79thm.jpg
b40a5617efdd6a6f756bb3b6fa22d3a1
f78697a49b6913f9afc39cee26ac2e8929a71c9f
88814 F20101119_AACQTM padley_l_Page_48.jp2
5c1f9fb9e0d7075b6c62b7b38d146d3d
2d9ada85470e7ee375f63cbd8f9808690c7c9b1a
787 F20101119_AACQOO padley_l_Page_30.txt
3f01054c935ae7f35b884a9bf020253d
e0880101e0dceffe0a4cd4387913a2b08ba4b574
6958 F20101119_AACRFH padley_l_Page_08thm.jpg
1f86b8e4177e0ac489959462330cd85d
87c26f24b09a46f0d58ab6ef6367004a5d27cbb5
968 F20101119_AACRAK padley_l_Page_37.txt
dc681b3ae67b5daa53723b9feed47500
314b285c83b3c15b266376e9f5661cc810fdd132
54998 F20101119_AACQYK padley_l_Page_56.pro
3df88b981285bc3b7492153cf3d10595
ed2b786ecfec0dc6e5fbbcda21322b08a9c1332e
26832 F20101119_AACQJS padley_l_Page_08.QC.jpg
1b9a6db7545120cfc8f7d7c2be115ca2
5d06ba078837fcc3209f7af2a4ea399b9258c831
101878 F20101119_AACQTN padley_l_Page_50.jp2
3cfd51445abf2d6ed9fb2108a00ea9a7
a51b13a35cc0a53c4f6ef4e3e3c1dba27e21f24e
22890 F20101119_AACQOP padley_l_Page_59.QC.jpg
c62828895aae2a27a443a9715cdb8bc7
ace463c45f447a53218304e03909a92922e63f41
7145 F20101119_AACRFI padley_l_Page_10thm.jpg
4bce19ecba2a14946dbf3f773130a03d
63d3c66311fbcebea18d6eb4809f78dd76eaabdd
2113 F20101119_AACRAL padley_l_Page_38.txt
07ad37c4edc3bc0c2cd40105c50ba549
e4d4d5047959549300fb2dd89eded73249c8a557
51318 F20101119_AACQYL padley_l_Page_57.pro
d52ce1f86574de4a4fdfc3cdc5f7ac78
3d6430a969d214ed37b80a45a5442901b62a76e5
46074 F20101119_AACQJT padley_l_Page_67.pro
0c90c9ae997f09932c146f5c59edf6e6
d365a407d954ff167ad1405c0bf8f004854df593
107777 F20101119_AACQTO padley_l_Page_51.jp2
b72d30fe8329f4e5ce2b0d8ee87510fd
ef73b02813d5fc2974a046c559ee436411fb258f
2327 F20101119_AACQOQ padley_l_Page_51.txt
2fff7409a738ddb105e617a213786ea7
bab87ce975f685930560516e76954a4ccdccf117
9679 F20101119_AACRFJ padley_l_Page_12.QC.jpg
2796d5a48a925713f50bafcc1832331b
05c0a34087208a76029f08081325240693a2372d
1245 F20101119_AACRAM padley_l_Page_39.txt
f9c94ed7d45d974e777759d80cc03f62
a0bb53605a4ca23eba1fff085f2804f89bdd2670
47136 F20101119_AACQYM padley_l_Page_58.pro
8d34455381368461b7ac0cb49d61d0ce
f9e2b184efbdb81d769e45c95514b26252992538
57740 F20101119_AACQJU padley_l_Page_21.jpg
82b3cfe7564e7421209f6e3c6028ea43
a08e30e4ab37480d264188d5a6fb9595444a6929
97416 F20101119_AACQTP padley_l_Page_53.jp2
7c9a387514f75e03ac4135ed63c02aca
1c2e20b1ceeeaa65e7542c22ad6cf9467b0bf10f
53660 F20101119_AACQOR padley_l_Page_18.pro
e1e9ce0e9f416fca16759f22084e5011
7be4c83ca9cebaac2bbef2fabcc2b47cc523da5b
2850 F20101119_AACRFK padley_l_Page_12thm.jpg
b8f7a1ebda725c200de2e3eaa489dd6f
d9d1a5da0e84c2baecb3739a8689c8962c59dcad
2095 F20101119_AACRAN padley_l_Page_41.txt
e3e1f8905b135afe52a27f98ce03369d
647fa0b54f5aa770befaa5674d78eacb7b9176ea
50885 F20101119_AACQYN padley_l_Page_59.pro
17ad19eae1fe450a3670e6abe4143670
460284941c3e863f3a135dd355563c98dd6a6e1c
21118 F20101119_AACQJV padley_l_Page_35.QC.jpg
115e42f86c2854dac47343e0f92f9f87
98a01499bf010ff2163c233d77c299264f9ed58a
103643 F20101119_AACQTQ padley_l_Page_54.jp2
3d644603d7dd7ba2e559433146275536
a4936942a68794a568853b90c9fdf60287a25c77
2466 F20101119_AACQOS padley_l_Page_86.txt
e6448aee165e0d004933d93dff360b80
6c652dba92f049c0b14ba85b64bbbf26b62e87eb
22239 F20101119_AACRFL padley_l_Page_17.QC.jpg
2336ab5a8ff808a5392a4cea9307c4a3
5bb9691506e5b6ed10128d95543e082413f6a6b7
2707 F20101119_AACRAO padley_l_Page_42.txt
ca3c1dfb1a513f15fa77408f506bc3f0
dd9aa4fc8c4ae16637ba37638d5b55d6b4b1a9f9
51006 F20101119_AACQYO padley_l_Page_60.pro
b50e5b3aaac3a9e88225b6a34743f968
abd375f97748959c6c52e62258c17da52f14fb8a
108186 F20101119_AACQJW padley_l_Page_78.jp2
803147a70a5a1ad2d4e3e09f6228023f
62fcfb56055400a0c0e874801327d8569934c6d7
6660 F20101119_AACQOT padley_l_Page_85thm.jpg
d5c98c9be89c3ca11d1e93a83e759ef2
d34e4f3f548bb313c124d62e2095ee8eb7cc9550
23811 F20101119_AACRFM padley_l_Page_22.QC.jpg
9d3151aeaf0e5e4e23704f13e3d13b34
9595f9e34292b335a3b7192b8ed17dfdb69fdcf2
2085 F20101119_AACRAP padley_l_Page_44.txt
9f8a6f30ae625dae5e563d9be39235e2
c8d8e095b1beb71839fcae2c059d430e305ac20b
48402 F20101119_AACQYP padley_l_Page_61.pro
8c61dd588aa73bcbf765d40561191d81
66250519e6ee2ccf9b7a21bbf34a1b6846539a7c
2014 F20101119_AACQJX padley_l_Page_19.txt
9cc6c52687199e6b9496a93573e9253b
da36019fc2636f9e2bc50cacf62d1e1fea7b15c0
97196 F20101119_AACQTR padley_l_Page_58.jp2
9e5a3a302b137457d2bb704d178424bd
c428eefa5cd9fad0f91a4dac1589e0fd85d3745f
64969 F20101119_AACQOU padley_l_Page_07.pro
61c75ea050badba00601f41213edc072
fa9eb7a39713da6e28c5bb33948f6c8f86039bff
22470 F20101119_AACRFN padley_l_Page_29.QC.jpg
6eacfcb8a234e0fdd07931be272cb0dc
3714449fdd43e8261a180cdc0797b862b0979db7
2477 F20101119_AACRAQ padley_l_Page_45.txt
8a94abe4e1d5abcb59fdf1e8680a422b
3d366a31475b3fb3811f884476fbaf9b5de0b863
46772 F20101119_AACQYQ padley_l_Page_62.pro
b71c192fdd09317eab123a2c50c0f414
24a8a6d88fc237c1072c52b94b2960272e47a305
20304 F20101119_AACQJY padley_l_Page_26.QC.jpg
02d54e3dd96da1de38b3c7fc30e58931
0682f941d7fb25426c772b3cdeb57626d5ed1405
111096 F20101119_AACQTS padley_l_Page_60.jp2
4363a7c846d8b4dc58ade954fed73112
4a09e194291f0f91179cab26cbb3d646ec335467
102833 F20101119_AACQOV padley_l_Page_63.jp2
70e6be9f0503a3f17df26c936c4978a8
1745ae75a2061e31e0e7f3144647dbf4533c1b70
4653 F20101119_AACRFO padley_l_Page_30thm.jpg
46fc0657f05dab02378499a8ad2d8168
dea1226b98156cf4c5685d6cd7702d5c4c04970d
2969 F20101119_AACRAR padley_l_Page_46.txt
e44df8f5f3ab1dd421670e9d94fae764
56d4825133d826aec471b0742e39ef4fa9c327cd
43768 F20101119_AACQYR padley_l_Page_65.pro
84535eb2b128db79c5a995ae2d3ab44c
2a734555bfc1b111acbec92732ed760324cb4d74
6779 F20101119_AACQJZ padley_l_Page_31thm.jpg
bdb98b6f69db3ec4ffceac2b13d4ddb9
9255e50a5b907aa20cebad587ef3fc9e65395be8
104391 F20101119_AACQTT padley_l_Page_61.jp2
818fdac36a3cefbb95dd14bf3bbc9924
5ad1acca01c4eb8033c1a7b5ba033f333ef84ec1
50974 F20101119_AACQOW padley_l_Page_23.pro
9bfe801c31081fe799f3b80dfb374900
2c143e2d6b69b1d57cd92f02e7858161ede52bc3
23621 F20101119_AACRFP padley_l_Page_31.QC.jpg
2481ced53fe3cfa3c3f82b01d912c4a5
f9a5d5aa56bded378eac104aae347ada31387a46
1709 F20101119_AACRAS padley_l_Page_48.txt
68208b231e87ab7a17fd3d49402acfbe
b7cc35547f7dfe19335d77a9bd4d9dd8cee9de44
44172 F20101119_AACQYS padley_l_Page_66.pro
6c30adf6362af99b868b77c1b84430e7
a3d731f5a73b8db7b65654b4e954087db20c864d
92156 F20101119_AACQTU padley_l_Page_64.jp2
00dd198afc0ac71ee2063ffe61c59f18
3e8f298157a8f44ad104b2b44fab58809e4cfbca
5188 F20101119_AACQOX padley_l_Page_68thm.jpg
578784d333ce7d7795b55eddad4b0bcb
89b8f0cfb0c63e65b3ae12e567868ee4fa7d06fe
19807 F20101119_AACRFQ padley_l_Page_33.QC.jpg
60c336e419cdbbb38d623c39e7c5ce6a
fc19ef4d8a015abb0cdb44127083dac2ebdbc439
1962 F20101119_AACRAT padley_l_Page_49.txt
c2d3c2cd68941a595389d513f32a6bee
963176e41fe18181233e21b229c7e88b7bd38fef
42485 F20101119_AACQYT padley_l_Page_68.pro
30ea84c1869d4489dbecb7252f2fa9d3
490ef3a96d0607ca999a1458efed31243e6d8acb
93202 F20101119_AACQTV padley_l_Page_66.jp2
df7fd3624260ad616e58ae1b5d93a1f9
52914fa9f4cc6c0f7861a45e29d730a29847d468
71967 F20101119_AACQMA padley_l_Page_19.jpg
cc0db0216c88d2f4d5cd2415dc7765ea
e767c000562400b5d774175feef978f3bd11c0f5
1053954 F20101119_AACQOY padley_l_Page_53.tif
4865eb76b49c6768f9ed508076ec526d
4e6e78a5f2495b16728f7f8d3586a8a2b19735e4
6146 F20101119_AACRFR padley_l_Page_35thm.jpg
13f4a63ea1ceeb3cf199057a6f547004
d83c027237333b2334a62e20ccb6d4f9883856af
1885 F20101119_AACRAU padley_l_Page_50.txt
0426552ba93d3647a6e35847a854d6a7
51828ad70bf9395fd4792c2290f58cbdaca81ba3
44309 F20101119_AACQYU padley_l_Page_69.pro
ebb69fca6f6737c02122f7f9cf92666b
b06c8b8f144c8bd29270757b540159bf632c799b
92570 F20101119_AACQTW padley_l_Page_67.jp2
61f9e33a5778c58005df225a2b8a7681
909e663ea138aef080b49fd1e74b58201d8da795
12402 F20101119_AACQMB padley_l_Page_03.jp2
0876f66b0b37b48ab07ef1662a4dacb1
e6472bca3ab188b8d62c0e5dea8a6829e101ad56
6637 F20101119_AACQOZ padley_l_Page_22thm.jpg
c6e6f3700a53fe4e28612f9ce297546e
1062ae54a68ccd9cfa48d3156a7702e723a931d7
17538 F20101119_AACRFS padley_l_Page_37.QC.jpg
7fb5ccabe3b6036e85db7818bc4abdb7
c096c886e84e3381bff8c2c5ad0b5133630faed4
2366 F20101119_AACRAV padley_l_Page_52.txt
cb6841e2bf83a3abfca6ba2eebf5100c
9225b001106b4134088099485b2b6e3599b9c099
42821 F20101119_AACQYV padley_l_Page_70.pro
3ed4c976920193c1819b95593b237ba8
544ae4df46b0313e80f3dd107dd871e12cb479cb
88249 F20101119_AACQTX padley_l_Page_68.jp2
de632e8d775184d4f5d0f0014d12e772
e2faaa9a0ab0fd1085b16848be86e7b2ab332ca5
109177 F20101119_AACQMC padley_l_Page_76.jp2
ce5bc011af36a33c64d66acb722f845d
29b592efa7e4592540143875d949c7b136e360fe
6636 F20101119_AACRFT padley_l_Page_44thm.jpg
153ac995a454087cd0a34ce069c68ac4
5922b2e6af62a5a8b603408138d55c22bcc68f0b
2053 F20101119_AACRAW padley_l_Page_53.txt
eb132b8cadea53efafa63caab7076dcb
54aa574223c60830bee824f2cbd6ad5d16c6fe2a
91882 F20101119_AACQTY padley_l_Page_69.jp2
d132a9bde972e3f47d3d961385cb14ad
d5ea7c12fcb9c5c2bfbbc779e27b893be351488b
51004 F20101119_AACQMD padley_l_Page_63.pro
5aa13283ec0a5692482821221b425454
1f28624fb7428bcabb5d85a7393cd7ddb2f38530
71497 F20101119_AACQRA padley_l_Page_49.jpg
653144fc7ae8bff232a2b85097979bf8
489743d687f6ed17802b429c1c9ee640d6f2ea57
21131 F20101119_AACRFU padley_l_Page_45.QC.jpg
15179d7a51bedaffa0482f7a174ec4d8
cc05cced6822b54e599018a549da63dc222049c9
2435 F20101119_AACRAX padley_l_Page_56.txt
fd5efbe5b7147e9f62703a80dda8f674
77635845de3acdb31c762d0913d59e31d83a32e3
42788 F20101119_AACQYW padley_l_Page_71.pro
b262a27083e07df3115bc940f0da244b
8414a8920eb43fe1b1060b0a7ac9ad7fbec99ae1
90282 F20101119_AACQTZ padley_l_Page_70.jp2
521ca00b925d5aff436fa294059baf6c
0d8aed17b6ba153169ad4b530f70d0f9f8c1fb69
22973 F20101119_AACQME padley_l_Page_41.QC.jpg
4431e8ce7cb894312a4c75b381ed7924
9a5c205e48d6e0a3f8df27fc71f9295178fe904b
76739 F20101119_AACQRB padley_l_Page_51.jpg
f989dc7991164b2a44e165daf99f6607
414f7141d660c583e7736119fd61989a19896b43
6550 F20101119_AACRFV padley_l_Page_49thm.jpg
691442c13cdcef9df0f879b045bcd3c1
2715a088d3ed97f1d90fb08d0739461ea3b164af
2127 F20101119_AACRAY padley_l_Page_57.txt
eee24ca61dbec81bd5112ab8f458ffcc
d90251edeccee9597cdd863fa1f4ce28ca179f2e
45005 F20101119_AACQYX padley_l_Page_72.pro
5be583a392466e745a62470ca492ca6e
abc3d7fef173ec616b3f057480ef91069f4d03bc
6236 F20101119_AACQMF padley_l_Page_36thm.jpg
8b27c6115afc92db68f6ec8929b74087
9dd5ac12f16e68bbcfdbd8cfdc4cf73b26fca6f9
68599 F20101119_AACQRC padley_l_Page_53.jpg
191b45d25632f8e6f9176d058625e442
be20d43ae00690211459c10eeb2c51c1214d5db3
24165 F20101119_AACRFW padley_l_Page_56.QC.jpg
c1d341ede20a761f4df7a1400f1a5314
407cde130a5be4c30f2aec5c6a10113a3b482d25
2099 F20101119_AACRAZ padley_l_Page_58.txt
661057bbdda3798f32ef6b0587860129
c8cdd5f6fb510cc8f6fdbd171ec202e2154f6a8e
41962 F20101119_AACQYY padley_l_Page_73.pro
19ec820f09bc783d56c75f3e889d6a4d
3c3f555fb0da5e74ccd4dc3815eb6f4ba51fae74
5270 F20101119_AACQMG padley_l_Page_64thm.jpg
1f27eb11b82bea481317e84ebcf948ed
c9e9bb1667786917b446a5a6180bd73deb7c58bf
F20101119_AACQWA padley_l_Page_56.tif
1e4e663bde40574205c17c14de1206e5
02dc56752ebffe4c3e3d037229db44e3472db029
64131 F20101119_AACQRD padley_l_Page_55.jpg
6a188fa585c7f7c4486f4c749918b0e3
fe0080db076f7b719da42eaa15c39bcabcd16998
5847 F20101119_AACRFX padley_l_Page_58thm.jpg
f1d8f126ae5218f1d43f2921766676d5
91c8922d0f6fba0b978ca4ee972fd532c689641f
42534 F20101119_AACQYZ padley_l_Page_74.pro
bc99ab1bbcdecf56d8ffa3c27820d210
d86657122e89be5e88fc87d93d8b8d4aefd1ff1b
25271604 F20101119_AACQMH padley_l_Page_21.tif
48aa580c103e68c7ca0c0096994b4b65
aafd51ec54a4b33ce62148f70702d8b8fdf5f5dd
F20101119_AACQWB padley_l_Page_57.tif
485e1b22b3828c046101a3475baf5f0b
303f01d157d273fdac09e796df3748aa7ce519cf
79520 F20101119_AACQRE padley_l_Page_56.jpg
816d5a33c6c73a4f1087aa249afdd8f6
9493223b369ac5143369278c9f5a11fce30bd74e
24095 F20101119_AACRFY padley_l_Page_60.QC.jpg
4355c8a3cac1a1291730a58529aa779d
84359123897247a9f5653cdc06ac1623d18defc4
46152 F20101119_AACQMI padley_l_Page_34.pro
2eb50d212758278c30caf20c531f2280
d13a9c4811993add6d0176c4b0ab519edb056bb1
F20101119_AACQWC padley_l_Page_60.tif
d2b95b17b5b96f7632868c3a1cdd5894
27345d200ef4e34c83a678becdf86dc1780647c3
73770 F20101119_AACQRF padley_l_Page_57.jpg
98d6616553657ded22b9709e45503e54
9bdf559105b1c21d76fa74df0c09ca8b36d0ba0d
22233 F20101119_AACRFZ padley_l_Page_63.QC.jpg
3e0d2c8fba7cafd7a86f199dc83be06e
e3ad3d6d36b7828b2e765016e37cde87b658b3fb
6351 F20101119_AACRDA padley_l_Page_87thm.jpg
346440ecaa925c03d1c0462ff9d50af5
9e643c0f880cfd1c5a60e233335aea06c7f4fcbc
93778 F20101119_AACQMJ padley_l_Page_71.jp2
0d0e90ab814573434b2d548d01a3dc3f
1cacf771808276bb9ddc1e14f38b7cb0c429372b
F20101119_AACQWD padley_l_Page_61.tif
3dd844edc9641615b67875a80cb8a892
d6e2385a2ebd2a15ca283a6412610711a6ffb5b2
72555 F20101119_AACQRG padley_l_Page_58.jpg
6834543e37a67a331e7b769ff7d21fe3
9a9a01455071543c1ee820afa94483cce79c8f4e
6061 F20101119_AACRDB padley_l_Page_32thm.jpg
5dc63744f9cfcf5380ba482f69464920
3b6306d8cc44196e20b19b93ae5d6c260562f554
F20101119_AACQWE padley_l_Page_62.tif
e498fd03afdb13372c32fbde4ec12a3a
a0fd8f0e8d14ef0e96a158db9e6e7761489b24b0
77637 F20101119_AACQRH padley_l_Page_59.jpg
c20587886f0583553f2b77f91510cf13
f66280dfb62e721999caaf6c50c46dbce1a64990
F20101119_AACRDC padley_l_Page_04thm.jpg
a621bafc753564a37f8003e1de364558
e7240dcda886a75fe4f0ee8320c51d8dfb044d82
F20101119_AACQMK padley_l_Page_55.tif
564bad0fc78ae2be3c7f51ec78d3ce53
eb109c4ccbd6aa1670a700492fa61d3fab62dda2
F20101119_AACQWF padley_l_Page_63.tif
11a55f7c03b3bd6d5e36638eecdd4f31
f5ce364d469e93c15a4eba64dabcbcd48414e122
73230 F20101119_AACQRI padley_l_Page_60.jpg
96df93ce4ff3f49fb64fa5ed203e2df5
a069b44c7b1728e3eb2dffce4a9210d4f05d10ad
23001 F20101119_AACRDD padley_l_Page_49.QC.jpg
d70ba2573b6a863c14207527d3f7f549
ca4502b81766a845233fbacf183bda81becfb30e
50460 F20101119_AACQML padley_l_Page_19.pro
79fd9e03667697116368b6ab03e5a77c
3bce0191c59fd0d2d6e4522ab4d371e0ba316e96
F20101119_AACQWG padley_l_Page_67.tif
6fe6ad0204cfdf82745e82d8ff1e74f8
a612328bb318c261167704ddeafed3a8cd11db3b
69261 F20101119_AACQRJ padley_l_Page_61.jpg
b59446f2a88f648fda2dd2d853ed20b5
0d67fd09792d3c00ec2f3a652e224e80bd83aad9
20214 F20101119_AACRDE padley_l_Page_71.QC.jpg
05ca168ae2781a7eb9981d8067f1a9c2
17d800704de781aa1848ad4dbe9fdc9509e55c2c
86098 F20101119_AACQMM padley_l_Page_73.jp2
6ba2bb3db8c8a1e25799e96d2ca0b182
6188f78ef4fde8ee8f1e297c702c39d4646aacad
F20101119_AACQWH padley_l_Page_71.tif
d11442ae87415368ba507d73770eb5a9
43c9960b0ff54e130fc499582c9a9b2a47f0c216
67558 F20101119_AACQRK padley_l_Page_62.jpg
2944b712284529dfdd24cfe524ef0d9f
499b278f1b26ff93ea6ad881b2ddd47062a32ba5
10102 F20101119_AACRDF padley_l_Page_88.QC.jpg
6a486f8e6230549033ad3da754689206
5b9b4fccfad17ac661a5e3f537f48916381d2142
6537 F20101119_AACQMN padley_l_Page_23thm.jpg
d8514bdf06fe358e171db75e3d30ca7e
63ee5668b33a8421a8361dae62977a300e333cd0
F20101119_AACQWI padley_l_Page_73.tif
6efa340837a7ecb6b1af03670caaee29
cb61d4b360cccf60690253c8d80767d309d0bca5
74969 F20101119_AACQRL padley_l_Page_63.jpg
b0cc8a740ef994bbdb8e56c26e8da8f9
d01ce8206f0bc33cf5ba7d131dec4f1af636bf77
7068 F20101119_AACRDG padley_l_Page_01.QC.jpg
6495e1f54934f427535756c1c4723108
f3acad592b141450e22d7b1b7987d2a857205989
120962 F20101119_AACQMO padley_l_Page_86.jp2
8536f1aacb6002febeec49b3d52ece40
fa6506aa12952b3383f6f0a7f46acbf3c96d617e
F20101119_AACQWJ padley_l_Page_74.tif
cf60e4d0fc5d5382a4e5694811ad2fca
6f0a581c389b0fcceeebf80e21679bdab397592a
66425 F20101119_AACQRM padley_l_Page_64.jpg
f4be615245f88743d9fcd04625b6d973
12aabad0a5996f793eed00289858afe1b9a98c24
5794 F20101119_AACRDH padley_l_Page_53thm.jpg
e3855639c91116a82f621a5cc57e0cf6
51db14edc0a48c3642a987930d7835519deb8368
86442 F20101119_AACQMP padley_l_Page_55.jp2
c7985d9536271d89f9faadc69d7a9c64
36eca14f2696cf2b81cb58f8586aa3ab4d4eb248
F20101119_AACQWK padley_l_Page_75.tif
2902a8299e75b846ca1ecf37e9623f6f
a36a8493b78bb6d9e08ea3107cf709830991e13d
68433 F20101119_AACQRN padley_l_Page_67.jpg
d9eeb7b3ecac574f703841301af2a92a
1894a88227722747b5a5ec472b233773a929e8df
24072 F20101119_AACRDI padley_l_Page_87.QC.jpg
497794a9e55648cfd21d23556f490c41
2a5b8c0695ef44356dd943fe578eee8eaa2f4331
55957 F20101119_AACQMQ padley_l_Page_29.pro
15b5e3bd2e7866ae8b10193e2ace2c9c
7cb92bd3a741a8ff0f6c37444d871dffb21c2729
F20101119_AACQWL padley_l_Page_77.tif
6ec05acab23b8173cec96981549bc698
9b5b1c63c303f8d706817e70e683181c2a74e4b8
65296 F20101119_AACQRO padley_l_Page_68.jpg
935daf5f307bc0a5e27a43aff8cd28ba
3c8b2f963f671b8c3da121fd5b8784cff46de7ce
26664 F20101119_AACRDJ padley_l_Page_10.QC.jpg
80a57a8c184c8fd8394b27475bb160f3
81b177ca80e3408c9715fba77bbe4a2138204839
16915 F20101119_AACQMR padley_l_Page_88.pro
8cb9b3a384fc48b5d2b98a68203993b2
7de2ff4af267d9fe9d93df8e92d9909980c9c579
F20101119_AACQWM padley_l_Page_79.tif
25e19bffb2d3272dd45cf4f515764782
19fddde869e2133afb26a6ebd933b73042750ebf
5345 F20101119_AACRDK padley_l_Page_70thm.jpg
94db6d6eeffb1bf24df9adb2e8204e3e
55c943ee9b715ceebe1610227547b463596deed7
69382 F20101119_AACQMS padley_l_Page_05.jpg
fac45194f0a2d075ada287930629bc70
cf13c5a9ce5e4ae7c6a6ca396af36d36ed608e01
F20101119_AACQWN padley_l_Page_80.tif
01fe5058bc5ab3fc601a92939b3b3d4b
1e30f6f1850253f2817e0ebdbbf4ee21b394d56a
66876 F20101119_AACQRP padley_l_Page_69.jpg
077e9f3cdb9253daacd8979d70a2d7e6
1f2c8fc3077af186eaee81c0f97a4e84f30f3b7e
5234 F20101119_AACRDL padley_l_Page_66thm.jpg
596ea752fadb805709b4032c057b98c7
e83448728592b4bcaf57ac51d5b62483aec72b4e
6688 F20101119_AACQMT padley_l_Page_04.QC.jpg
985ac0b31a611cd4a983f9954008e9f4
daa541f32832b9b7d2cae8a80d925456df88f079
F20101119_AACQWO padley_l_Page_81.tif
b05515012a505a2056d9c2cf734bffb9
575782351ce33e83037354d46cd244b656063803
66781 F20101119_AACQRQ padley_l_Page_70.jpg
18efc7944a9a9be8646898fbd5e285b5
c5d75bcbb2aa22dbea656f7f2c8518b1f3f848d6
5882 F20101119_AACRDM padley_l_Page_15thm.jpg
7758ac530d25886b6ccb4ea154e71c0b
292e15a5951675e6f0e2221bd5f29e893f4c506c
61699 F20101119_AACQMU padley_l_Page_46.pro
5a8b1584825d9c0c6cd9addaaf45775d
a4f1b4d5a6c5ff49ad10a6bc1bf3a1024704c1dd
F20101119_AACQWP padley_l_Page_82.tif
8eeb958f5b3989b8f2cbe74328a5d457
46e155549c045548539a8e56865b7a0d4753c59b
62449 F20101119_AACQRR padley_l_Page_71.jpg
9c278a7e3ccf25252f6a4a6283dd041d
a54a30360e8ccde150cb4f97cb6704b6b36159a6
3163 F20101119_AACRDN padley_l_Page_88thm.jpg
8c6ef14b24056bda04e043a5c3c642d3
397131dfdddb024b3aad216e642297c5763a27ce
23961 F20101119_AACQMV padley_l_Page_52.QC.jpg
6f96e5469c24febde117d780ecab2339
641603a2381c90c3ba6e79687634f06af1ced855
F20101119_AACQWQ padley_l_Page_83.tif
f068cfdaddddfc36af486abe0ca5637c
450e6d61c4d933fbb9425fa56fe448a1f836230f
68033 F20101119_AACQRS padley_l_Page_72.jpg
14dc14048ff5bfb317847073737d0afe
09c7936f2bdf28a24ddfd20cf8ea363a137e80c9
6589 F20101119_AACRDO padley_l_Page_16thm.jpg
7bd722f27f363eea69043d0015aafa48
71c32afc163de55b79a1aaadcc267af817e346b5
111863 F20101119_AACQMW padley_l_Page_56.jp2
59e63c4c25f3373a3aa9277cf2108d65
d57873421fda6487de563972c53abd1a60237a70
F20101119_AACQWR padley_l_Page_84.tif
5c03c1ca142e5345530c3380d13d5728
4db98990f5303c6b5bd5fa2dde004e5162a1e31d
65263 F20101119_AACQRT padley_l_Page_73.jpg
c682822cd182bfedd6965f07f38a1e8b
ffe8e2619dcad4dee028da6413553845c2378d7e
21417 F20101119_AACRDP padley_l_Page_58.QC.jpg
d695c8bfc31283b14839f0b1a17642e9
9d41ed8cee9b847f076eeb2dce0251525ac65393
104894 F20101119_AACQMX padley_l_Page_80.jp2
d1eb49d28b82f69e948eb0300edd46c1
b4e1769138ee7c1a90f7bbbdc40f8fbad09a325f
F20101119_AACQWS padley_l_Page_85.tif
a217932337e42f5fe194f4cdbe30e96c
cd5cb4da6858abf6d999e46b30c2cf99e1dac644
68440 F20101119_AACQRU padley_l_Page_75.jpg
f02e04835e0f99bfade82bf118b5171b
9d975b161b1fb05378a4801fbb5f94ba7babe71f
17841 F20101119_AACRDQ padley_l_Page_21.QC.jpg
a7d02904f49cd523b931b21bbc49e519
71e2c0975b0cf842a52720e68647aaeb833b7fd2
1224 F20101119_AACQMY padley_l_Page_47.txt
056ff82ecc6669a380b35899f3ce030c
833155c725da4583f081c1b9171ea45cffa002b9
F20101119_AACQWT padley_l_Page_86.tif
fc89e3192a751feea64d50e840a6072e
6ca3c05fa8018ed58e903c4df2efc7e885e681fc
78440 F20101119_AACQRV padley_l_Page_76.jpg
1e5b74d9daaa58e1fb1e9e4e6d326075
704ca4f40fee1ae900b21424466922bc1525ddb4
20138 F20101119_AACQKA padley_l_Page_72.QC.jpg
5700cbb1633cadae69b4fccc22a9d1d5
486e7b47e47d490c013e1bbae6edacef9ad4a4bc
5453 F20101119_AACRDR padley_l_Page_69thm.jpg
b4f52dd24803b1e4e0fa9260f009bb33
91ab13cf9371629e87cdb4de2404397fe1d47788
23523 F20101119_AACQMZ padley_l_Page_79.QC.jpg
8e2dc1e220f7121f587f0589e1a79ad5
394c18f1636701713872b4e3aca3c7357bc9fed5
80912 F20101119_AACQRW padley_l_Page_78.jpg
45893f865cae336ca121e5125fb8c858
501c767a29e3adb2302037dc72545c82a0044b51
F20101119_AACQKB padley_l_Page_68.tif
0a53bdca4246910e3ae9a10b6f044958
169754dd2c39a0044816cc3df55d738982a203af
4716 F20101119_AACRDS padley_l_Page_05thm.jpg
e68fefeedad838cd4fd72e367fb9e604
e2825a8feaf5b2d52bb55fcb87a9d83c5b2713c4
F20101119_AACQWU padley_l_Page_87.tif
11cfacd0d438e305df855c067c848297
2e965ce296c1d73a467f58482b9228f8d688333e
69076 F20101119_AACQRX padley_l_Page_80.jpg
284aad8c9ac93d3889c7d4e6fd1e94d2
e9a6a685ae70ebda0ef88d52ef1b11d86e4a4d98
25802 F20101119_AACQKC padley_l_Page_27.pro
16ca77cc3ea3808739231aaa97408b42
90026d0305767968a94d3a96623feba43bc106b8
8955 F20101119_AACRDT padley_l_Page_06.QC.jpg
b19fd93f9d3eaa353c904ea9a79d1ad0
5fef55db72f7c31afd65ad9f411e9f1dfd770220
4304 F20101119_AACQWV padley_l_Page_03.pro
bff8dad8f8b25db9e74cb0cb194f91cf
300f4dcaea891064829b46fbaf37cfddc018ec55
111289 F20101119_AACQPA padley_l_Page_52.jp2
338d3aefb6ce508a6d163e784a195a85
d622b33aa0d3ba13735e02c0b4686614eb269d62
65036 F20101119_AACQRY padley_l_Page_82.jpg
901b65b78cc7e3140367bf43c1ce1b23
0a42af07a2559647f40e54e84e466d94825c07f8
5382 F20101119_AACQKD padley_l_Page_34thm.jpg
d7547c97d2f2f1252b6057475784ed80
44829c3096a6af4af4f5b8237c71f2a591a2f954
6420 F20101119_AACRDU padley_l_Page_61thm.jpg
4f5d23f0618b721722cef4afdf6f5ab8
8362add2bddb68375de90a294de5fe849d5aef84
9289 F20101119_AACQWW padley_l_Page_04.pro
8fe5e35e6b8d6ef7e7b86bbf1377998b
93846d9839411ce8395138fc035038afeb4c62cf
2224 F20101119_AACQPB padley_l_Page_59.txt
3919e72b63acffcb189b4496706f8586
014dbe79037ff7c1cd2a110c28d2deb04685d435
69187 F20101119_AACQRZ padley_l_Page_84.jpg
7dcd8da4605fadebb2e1fe4da1e963f3
64d99733e4a2d8e71918486ee8cbded7b45571b3
5437 F20101119_AACQKE padley_l_Page_02.jp2
2b1cddf309560a52fcfb6249a458304f
db73c87784ec7357a67ca6048774e51fc60266ed
5181 F20101119_AACRDV padley_l_Page_73thm.jpg
03bc102c570e0036a345685c9294235f
0dc51b525f44aa8a5a26d1015f65bf941ef1e442
83013 F20101119_AACQWX padley_l_Page_05.pro
e159d4198c3c7e586bb526e75ff5834a
1979da95e6a1a46470780157fea7190ceebaa68d
68247 F20101119_AACQPC padley_l_Page_17.jpg
0000258631b103663a3a2bc7993eaa60
16c4f3977c4bec17ae0f87cd7caf0d43dfb63875
19081 F20101119_AACQKF padley_l_Page_34.QC.jpg
ba5c0aeb9c9bdf30e42b2475020af44c
3d6ba008f9bd204cd4d979efa87977d20a0c722e
F20101119_AACRDW padley_l_Page_24thm.jpg
b95456c1962cd65cf834c0d8b2630229
b805b7381ed58b0ac8f58a78cc07cebdeb327162
39722 F20101119_AACQWY padley_l_Page_06.pro
91c48738e9f86b5c568e31e2bfcacbe6
a619d8e4c209ba168b18d11bc1780ec96e6c143e
24228 F20101119_AACQPD padley_l_Page_16.QC.jpg
b11c43d77588529c75356d92ac1282f3
7d6161fba6bdb2f3b337184698197504d5d64165
23435 F20101119_AACQKG padley_l_Page_51.QC.jpg
96ea24ff694b5c5a402c6e6c99316b5e
1d9db3a1527c2cd8d75f89ca3c96e4fab863954f
90497 F20101119_AACQUA padley_l_Page_72.jp2
f700cee1bf72ccf0fa0532b9fce97c14
7f92fb2d0006a9dae7162e3bf99fc4808a2c5678
5269 F20101119_AACRDX padley_l_Page_13thm.jpg
6242a079b6e6f4bba9db3feb696328fe
6478fbb774159bee2f89c72ed36c816e91a56ee1
79613 F20101119_AACQWZ padley_l_Page_08.pro
2f98c5fcaa1ad35eea19f0539c756909
3233e035aaecf0a825bb857537ee31297f5233ea
F20101119_AACQPE padley_l_Page_88.tif
ac6114a9e6e9dbdb10ac7fd8c76cca79
62955fd9bbbe36d8f0c8d132e5bf69de6d80768a
4227 F20101119_AACQKH padley_l_Page_03.QC.jpg
27bfc1788269274938f30e343d5e190d
9e358c43b75fd70f956bc2ce2e8f69d68cbce43d
88689 F20101119_AACQUB padley_l_Page_74.jp2
f2fd3a0ccc8206d4b4a189f26f95c58e
b5a27dc38536a56fa81efa9464571dbede7dad88
7363 F20101119_AACRDY padley_l_Page_09thm.jpg
3a58952dcfd5e8d0761dd50df0dcdf05
a4d9f78d561f7b2ef9073ec18338058f4e8c5e71
F20101119_AACQPF padley_l_Page_02.tif
4d447c09897c60dad0cdbf4aafa7e88d
32a6c9e27388da6bb4cdff0650cce49dab754014
93324 F20101119_AACQUC padley_l_Page_75.jp2
6327fbfe6b5a6f520e4a2ec7abbe514c
5bd9b1b65c668fdaa94c87442eba6882c00dd7ab
5683 F20101119_AACRDZ padley_l_Page_26thm.jpg
33312068c4628c3acff3ac783e0da9ac
c949f0380415a303535f6496bb950c68283b03ef
2007 F20101119_AACRBA padley_l_Page_60.txt
023adb259359d9a50b18b24569da8bb8
66484ce070d3565dba9cf5c9a7496ab19ccc7291
52654 F20101119_AACQZA padley_l_Page_78.pro
3051a90601b9be9b84f3e33c0e31fe94
3051108939b9994c52c58d3deb36869e35ccd6a1
107758 F20101119_AACQPG padley_l_Page_49.jp2
d3d1035d3776140741a08f9549b85ece
bd9dab1068e9043b7be51025f89818591493c3f9
44103 F20101119_AACQKI padley_l_Page_75.pro
ed4cb671e1e6ddab8abbcf352143ccfe
1f7022264a94ee3e5ab4fbc29bf8e9bafc72517a
122121 F20101119_AACQUD padley_l_Page_77.jp2
b685144bf23bfcb0a3f0c42ba6fc7500
65b1b18551a86f22d82aadf1b508bd7c36866da9
1909 F20101119_AACRBB padley_l_Page_61.txt
afee2090b04e6707dd74c65e8ad9503e
db9658fda11c0cff40af4e59ce36f940957345d0
54196 F20101119_AACQZB padley_l_Page_79.pro
b95d9c720538ae9ee7249f9dbac10e60
4c21e7a45c85d7fc298067cd161d6a777d5a65e4
1051972 F20101119_AACQPH padley_l_Page_09.jp2
c7cf170df05bfea10fcc94db6f923dc1
07c2f81688b8bdbcb3af822ef32115f82d337f0f
F20101119_AACQKJ padley_l_Page_31.tif
84b42b516fe84adc772e710a496542f5
a28ff31f534ad8a6495ca389922e7b606bcc0449
112947 F20101119_AACQUE padley_l_Page_79.jp2
b0a2debd11196e4c0e1dc9782c6488c8
f8a038a533a9983783b95c8a78286ab71c77bb3d
5102 F20101119_AACRGA padley_l_Page_65thm.jpg
7f1256c07ed58c7360b5f4561f57bd40
e60132bcb2373c1979a2432372d55835f57b9c03
1863 F20101119_AACRBC padley_l_Page_62.txt
6e1180e07d24eb9a5cf26586e34b00ed
b45781a3dab028855e354698c30af2e5cef45793
45528 F20101119_AACQZC padley_l_Page_82.pro
c03883b13125e4ad4d1a9fd3ec9523fa
9c36409151c578a3f50dc5b6213a765c5da9aed7
5815 F20101119_AACQPI padley_l_Page_45thm.jpg
abcbc6700cdc13eb46e9ee1df4c5e6f1
55476710bc097189d5d51423974ec40dde3663a8
F20101119_AACQKK padley_l_Page_65.tif
256333d7d28aaaca5f4560589ab3e04f
57af2a582249da87871e0ba0d2a28da03319b66c
23520 F20101119_AACQUF padley_l_Page_81.jp2
5d6f667a499daeb7c51f2b1b03ec67cc
16c1cf64b60705508184fe909de2552663c998f8
20028 F20101119_AACRGB padley_l_Page_66.QC.jpg
29f254ab5c5a549d32541a5575c53c82
05d5cbc883d86d08e6206d9194399218cb037543
2297 F20101119_AACRBD padley_l_Page_63.txt
01ff209b7301b46238ed5d9c28780612
6e26142b806c876eaffbf6a874e6fec4d58b1f9c
28442 F20101119_AACQZD padley_l_Page_83.pro
65a1f1d803d91cb74ca214a91cc8e314
ab64f8507103e7d93dffafa3e871c724fe9f0f77
5115 F20101119_AACQPJ padley_l_Page_25thm.jpg
82e78f78e25e6c98ffb520e905184277
4d71daf3157231edaac8179dc7c42da0162106a6
1135 F20101119_AACQKL padley_l_Page_83.txt
654dbffbab34cd556f5b63f51eb11a6a
84d8611568f1708fca76611773c93d62fe587aa4
97623 F20101119_AACQUG padley_l_Page_82.jp2
7d1e9efe6a46efcf75c8984966f0f950
05e9266da925431a0c162d78012c9d3b5c798ae8
5341 F20101119_AACRGC padley_l_Page_67thm.jpg
94ffa069394a38b62ece3a5d1e57e9d4
c9be5bd8bb4fbed1f35c0ea97dbbf2086f6bfa00
1865 F20101119_AACRBE padley_l_Page_65.txt
3457bc546f9c6f7efbc9611a575dae0f
f53a3c887fd4af232ea67dd412e05f4d1e39bc6a
64396 F20101119_AACQZE padley_l_Page_85.pro
f991c293e5e57a561cd367b9e886828f
84b036c32f2d4b14107767961d8fd632e53dd7c8
56667 F20101119_AACQPK padley_l_Page_87.pro
1ee9359e7edb9926dff61a43058e4dec
893ef9e5f1e8534f906ac0f5a33c9dc8167e0d46
22110 F20101119_AACQKM padley_l_Page_24.QC.jpg
9774c390e880621f2aa4bb52d279a9e9
f4c84faae7d239cbb46c6b967e22e00de33c71f8
62345 F20101119_AACQUH padley_l_Page_83.jp2
af98dd9873283635e5a7e15f14b4769f
92c7979621955428ef83ccc9f9e1f33d4476f287
F20101119_AACRBF padley_l_Page_66.txt
c0bb64c710ea85c3aec30452428e943b
3d1dbf5b43ee1f07eba98a2c0afc88ee4a2a5bf8
59136 F20101119_AACQZF padley_l_Page_86.pro
4dfc846947f0618ee18f6c9a8ae36229
d9b29a61fb394c469ec853bb62c9ba3f1c7ad1a5
102561 F20101119_AACQPL UFE0012182_00001.mets
d38d582e4bdbcae3065586acf54cb3b8
21e0de11dd08f28a6b1c7eb55e01b3e9c7952e4b
105223 F20101119_AACQKN padley_l_Page_40.jp2
1482cf38db22821c082d2ab8a5a114ed
c47165182a2a9f62e6607be847194afd0d7b4141
99982 F20101119_AACQUI padley_l_Page_84.jp2
acd7efc7ac6585b8e768f3b2a4cb31da
c09c0ef5687f0145ad746bee5443d81434c82525
20384 F20101119_AACRGD padley_l_Page_70.QC.jpg
e847fe484bee43682a85fde3585afe0f
6acf061774c66ef315553c1395daab6e697c6631
2189 F20101119_AACRBG padley_l_Page_67.txt
822240ab6ad5f134321d7d4472c77b06
76f0a993f57f4a0e44b862c909855c4b06ef4f4e
110 F20101119_AACQZG padley_l_Page_02.txt
5126e74e9960d1cbdbe3ee5353508c0c
c15f51c6440b587187045665ad0c482751ae6117
3260 F20101119_AACQKO padley_l_Page_02.QC.jpg
d45497ab374d6d76a04502f180184252
7ad815c0589f0733fd3b3fc83a7610c35f0a1e4e
117268 F20101119_AACQUJ padley_l_Page_87.jp2
8eb23856908ae3ab6c3f7b14478f45c0
cad40da04db2ff177808bc26e192697d60fe552a
24028 F20101119_AACRGE padley_l_Page_76.QC.jpg
b29c7f342bf93806ac0ec250df87489d
cb5ff3d37d63bf9a847e2674a3fd90400833922e
1818 F20101119_AACRBH padley_l_Page_68.txt
0685caf68f6ac675ce2c0ea74c91c7e8
06d3cee793af9dd87c2f4f4d54d028141469f3fc
227 F20101119_AACQZH padley_l_Page_03.txt
3a79bcfd6300b8c6a127b3433b111b15
ae1c605040274a73df1e3204bf154a5c74235d2b
69283 F20101119_AACQKP padley_l_Page_66.jpg
dcab06e95cc33a589c70bb4f29ba8f0d
964726471b734347bfdf07c83df89fcff35857b2
40373 F20101119_AACQUK padley_l_Page_88.jp2
74990be24a6916f5daf980c33306e178
24fc813bb495647a4f989b68025c7db4ab4b6014
25384 F20101119_AACRGF padley_l_Page_77.QC.jpg
0d3dc01ad8824f2d19a1f44223d01027
3cc468af1805e8035c165a28b27a638f513f5028
1825 F20101119_AACRBI padley_l_Page_70.txt
7de46816b50ca0979f20c9f23ea4504f
7664b1348562ac39321cae88a83d4173dba69ac7
418 F20101119_AACQZI padley_l_Page_04.txt
2bdbd4f6c8b2c946fb441aa8ab98a88f
179cee92628f660f8abe3c2690db7db4fdc6d73a
F20101119_AACQKQ padley_l_Page_64.tif
17b36d62b98122e792fc9ad509771076
7793c97938f23f6fbe60ec2796cdceb7bcd51477
F20101119_AACQUL padley_l_Page_01.tif
f2c9021dc1f12f53c6ea9f36ef787170
ae0fc57d28ca07db005ac0df2f9ce3f74f11a330
23544 F20101119_AACRGG padley_l_Page_78.QC.jpg
fa7f987305d53c21ba1ba298df073c1b
425acf1b79a14395fb7c8b4d78846e37cb0e1745
1717 F20101119_AACRBJ padley_l_Page_71.txt
b1985d3620b1fe786f10a44632278ccc
47e0b757e7b73ff907865332b3100ccdde5f9585
3473 F20101119_AACQZJ padley_l_Page_05.txt
992c39a6f975156d29e72368c785d726
3c47ee8a757d5cf2971dcd25f9caabd4719c95c0
22979 F20101119_AACQPO padley_l_Page_01.jpg
510f9cbf70dce67ca678f75c07a6ad81
aac208d438e8fece45e6482bbd1a6a9e620874f3
6631 F20101119_AACQKR padley_l_Page_81.QC.jpg
aa87575565b1cab42f4f58fcdf227b68
6c176b76d12a233058c61fe7ad49a7fd3fd4225c
F20101119_AACQUM padley_l_Page_04.tif
ed3c346855d7ccdde78a5e4c2eac9796
96ffd637035bbfd19b6be48f5a16c86e28c74133
21159 F20101119_AACRGH padley_l_Page_82.QC.jpg
8af80ef3d5e936de3dbafd6a616001f4
5d63faf023712ecdf5e732955cde0db2e88377d7
2070 F20101119_AACRBK padley_l_Page_72.txt
4ff47fd51b497e912a1dc5e8387cb5bb
fb0e8c17841dd46444071a5af32f1a73274dadd0
1609 F20101119_AACQZK padley_l_Page_06.txt
92b856e6705df45ed611c9280f397c82
3e743ecf89897c44ae3779ae9b8e6ea4e8ecd5b6
10185 F20101119_AACQPP padley_l_Page_02.jpg
01638806c352c1000e3b2660defb0142
f774d8c613d4eae93e80799764c367e094e001bd
23612 F20101119_AACQKS padley_l_Page_19.QC.jpg
54ac66835d09729ace7b3d670d749752
ea8153c4be695872d0144cbc227437b02f52d1dc
F20101119_AACQUN padley_l_Page_05.tif
1bc6950171dd585b01a639a593fed3a5
0afa6205551fd01cee72829e1c06e19b40885024
14379 F20101119_AACRGI padley_l_Page_83.QC.jpg
643c22089a8b0b076aedd4e816839bbe
672316a98566e58be17f1f7ed044c427296485ca
1933 F20101119_AACRBL padley_l_Page_73.txt
a4a8584eccc24eb29a8a6c4a43d02b9b
6db3b5691d50c0a325c68cd9e92787aee67c9e1f
3187 F20101119_AACQZL padley_l_Page_08.txt
809ab61cdc7b9ea5f473f3a0cd65f5fe
6e908aa761bb23770f5c8aa470472d6f6df3c4d3
14825 F20101119_AACQPQ padley_l_Page_03.jpg
51d7e5bea19fe97ff2b1be5f1f960d6b
42b1ddc5ad5589843e87617a337f67a59ec267ff
19395 F20101119_AACQKT padley_l_Page_74.QC.jpg
3c821dce8864529a783b55a11047aa7e
30d00ee909462cbf5bcaf3a31e359749d3aeff7a
F20101119_AACQUO padley_l_Page_06.tif
8ca9ac9b2e3b4d38fe23c9924844bc98
a9c9b3e68e35954c182841376a6ce050426b84fc
4282 F20101119_AACRGJ padley_l_Page_83thm.jpg
3943a39c2ba9a849d19773741803660a
1c76cff03bffde2cf7a8fd9d54fe2d74a3f91488
1857 F20101119_AACRBM padley_l_Page_74.txt
63831a2b87da583d2a9d131c1ae60f8a
379d60b3da9e468a746c3da171db2ff9cf266968
3123 F20101119_AACQZM padley_l_Page_09.txt
b7dfded74d979a595db3c4aa7f7b97c7
b2e53f1bb7704500ca972a8bbce6bfcb8db7204d
34163 F20101119_AACQPR padley_l_Page_06.jpg
8a84c5427a7788f51a738a2c42a8b1af
945b8885f2c2a7cd492efe51537b19406ad11371
24065 F20101119_AACQKU padley_l_Page_46.QC.jpg
4d3506467dcbec43502b86336039c519
44b6dfefa9ad0d3516c4d27e297008f9c809a02f
F20101119_AACQUP padley_l_Page_07.tif
1a39abf35b473ce3b626cf15b9bd73b9
32eabd03b605e1865fdea6ff8a88aaf3b2fb09ee
1911 F20101119_AACRBN padley_l_Page_75.txt
d6d946177884e4752b70287cd924faf0
f5012f8e209a814b4dfcb121e8d087dbb5c68c4a
3246 F20101119_AACQZN padley_l_Page_10.txt
ccac703dcad0945bab012062a06a0f3d
cdfe9af1d53a74a19cb49b0ea9a98b6ddd1d91be
85917 F20101119_AACQPS padley_l_Page_07.jpg
7b2e47330180df99b92947db273669f3
cf9a00250c040b72760ef7e311af4b8b9678f9d6
54903 F20101119_AACQKV padley_l_Page_76.pro
3e67e3dc85eeef1e179d537e6669b285
b8bd6bbab5c856630a2386bcf07f0a51f38f8264
F20101119_AACQUQ padley_l_Page_08.tif
1a9896085caaaefe9e28441b5ea0770e
3a6823030908fdaadfe0b5e9792bc0aac71e4207
2486 F20101119_AACRBO padley_l_Page_77.txt
ed2c1818461d07c9fac5042692c8c1af
e0a9895fcfccb55d634e8cbe5d3d6b88a6bc18b6
387 F20101119_AACQZO padley_l_Page_11.txt
0ad2c2b13c4c796bf99f78f8a5018e89
ac3f183e3b6f0df658e3e966162dd0347f55c54a
96968 F20101119_AACQPT padley_l_Page_08.jpg
9dadbb5d3eea93d7edbeeb091aca5008
ecd1179d23babab03597d6fca9ef5168a39af7ee
57119 F20101119_AACQKW padley_l_Page_13.jpg
6232d8463c1c93c8f88237364288f403
b809ce9470cf2595a5a0a8cc7fca5762e3a67bd1
F20101119_AACQUR padley_l_Page_10.tif
67ce05da93517465709839275b8d04ac
96dd26b7ba009584b6a62222cc23105d9178dd46
2352 F20101119_AACRBP padley_l_Page_78.txt
9edba0ae7f2ffb569e99bb86512442b8
25c04292f7edd48489060f10f03fc46ee834bf70
824 F20101119_AACQZP padley_l_Page_12.txt
4fc3b63bf76f611e9492f61a49d89df5
24302ee23351e1808bdda7480dc84e1eb5e745b2
97106 F20101119_AACQPU padley_l_Page_09.jpg
8efc658babdc9d74f7c5609fb8bc6692
77a89a50599faf1146ab25523bec5011053e468b
1051967 F20101119_AACQKX padley_l_Page_07.jp2
d0058cabcd17e76d40c90d6afea1b1db
555e3133b4d984b2805bcb5011756b4f68a38b59
1899 F20101119_AACRBQ padley_l_Page_80.txt
910340b53a9b208b3af6ddd11c07fdc7
546ce75d90742cbd4b666b2d757d5dbe14f9f0ae
1746 F20101119_AACQZQ padley_l_Page_13.txt
52b307aaffe0a80f9c7ce95dbd556ad3
144820106789e902a01a9aa92661f332835b1195
96599 F20101119_AACQPV padley_l_Page_10.jpg
24440905d5fb55282ff0830cf6f703d1
63e3c1df9bbc0fb819759fe358e52b61a1753163
2329 F20101119_AACQKY padley_l_Page_54.txt
57450164bd3d6b4ac9fc14d13ae6b9eb
9fa0e452eea8751b8f894ea826d3d772e18950d2
F20101119_AACQUS padley_l_Page_11.tif
9b9b74071a280d7df1b0571130e21dfc
3c13ae64a1ef653cb609d44afe1fa16a6300af6a
1880 F20101119_AACRBR padley_l_Page_82.txt
491190d9f099a2de63fdfbade68e6ebd
4a6d156a9b56e3a00dceb8caea35ee8b1b02e4d7
1573 F20101119_AACQZR padley_l_Page_14.txt
6b69bbe84ca88ec01459cc421c4d8a71
5bd2efd47e6b156c0281aaa6e7ab93957d384558
5542 F20101119_AACQKZ padley_l_Page_27thm.jpg
023de852e2c618cc97802f154e57ed83
bc842f71b69fb5017be242af731afd600b9586ba
F20101119_AACQUT padley_l_Page_12.tif
45eba5659510f4094022e02de5d8796f
4a4d4ebd20bbd91bdde21debfef9bb11c4ca7ec3
18920 F20101119_AACQPW padley_l_Page_11.jpg
8b18f75552ba74cfaa1ec478337e1909
3ec86ef936d8925191c993fb7ebf5d265a5e987e
2005 F20101119_AACRBS padley_l_Page_84.txt
9e197762274941793df04cd64cc0ac5e
5b4aea7079c6b62469fe01590dc7e7fa59764796
1868 F20101119_AACQZS padley_l_Page_15.txt
7988adf6f3d32d31d8685f674abe49bf
4da2d94ab78ad53f93eba81124c592b99f47e6c3
F20101119_AACQUU padley_l_Page_14.tif
41e3b85cfe691207e12005a05c206251
7698d5e9ed97f1e2c79795f0771aa31b5a0fb459
58925 F20101119_AACQPX padley_l_Page_14.jpg
201b58c1b1d75ebf7432e25c03f3812b
aef8be09b927ab8378c77829c43b7bc2e02b6433
2666 F20101119_AACRBT padley_l_Page_85.txt
5f587fadd190b98df7f6b4b9f6247272
13c09fed8bfb0bd3dd133bf0bbbff4e6e255991f
2062 F20101119_AACQZT padley_l_Page_16.txt
b56d2a712549c539ce17210ad8e05bff
f5ecda4c34ef5195a9253f9292602c85f63ff2b6
F20101119_AACQUV padley_l_Page_15.tif
5dbd7f3c8f76071b8cda1b14dc14fcb7
1bdb9570e1ed630ac09504649c93f357e1595385
20056 F20101119_AACQNA padley_l_Page_67.QC.jpg
a54b606ace6e500bdd56e6feae08c550
2fafd83a1aefa740ac1a8689ceb6237d7985bd11
65845 F20101119_AACQPY padley_l_Page_15.jpg
d274aa94075417341866548476473176
a71a32abd12f990bee1ecab62136eaa0e3c2f21e
2373 F20101119_AACRBU padley_l_Page_87.txt
dd6d1cbf04a97c13b1ca355a7082236c
161d9cf96a76c198bf150813be038e4c26cb1022
1892 F20101119_AACQZU padley_l_Page_17.txt
631708dc65ca2635cc7057595a5adf08
3b8ce491187b1f7c90bdf4abe0b107baa879a4d6
F20101119_AACQUW padley_l_Page_16.tif
0cdfe27a501ad3a6b2984802ace5f623
56c21f2b6bb8146664a93bf6d5f02b1e20ec7396
5920 F20101119_AACQNB padley_l_Page_63thm.jpg
f485f492dd3fad4a0298da78ae9189a3
6a8e613f637a929b5d8fbcf107c859c50d0745ed
73821 F20101119_AACQPZ padley_l_Page_16.jpg
7b54141699ed73deb0dbbeb477ace75d
dab6c5d377a28a3c81c1e9dafbf47e2a1001fc7c
460970 F20101119_AACRBV padley_l.pdf
745e564cfa6e0309cf38b3c210c14243
4eb1c78ec5728a0cfe5c4ee169238010f410cf02
2104 F20101119_AACQZV padley_l_Page_18.txt
2081d964ce657334382cf83708a95e3c
f50502da714b151ee0c590a09bfadaf172542c21
F20101119_AACQUX padley_l_Page_17.tif
a065f5c5885a185d9dea5caa425e0902
dedd7c7276e2fd96a46da0e94715bee8770514f4
22805 F20101119_AACQNC padley_l_Page_28.QC.jpg
e5d069f398abece156d80e1b8e5ab488
51b9192ed590586a74e780888ac61e3a00392bb5
19781 F20101119_AACRBW padley_l_Page_75.QC.jpg
e33cc7ff86e431ad03d9a070df31b936
ff2afa4b8f3cc9057ee2b3711762f4117c8bd71b
2025 F20101119_AACQZW padley_l_Page_20.txt
040bda52dc7f877705d170784e3f0fd3
39e47fff50488f1fef777da0b5d326a9a2fd741f
78900 F20101119_AACQSA padley_l_Page_86.jpg
227eba03e020918fdd6536f21fca5295
c091e8f513f5c31fb576d81349eaa952722fb04b
F20101119_AACQUY padley_l_Page_18.tif
42da070ee62ba207ca3b979b1f417f16
c07c626fc213105e4d250485967adcb2855d9cd9
22621 F20101119_AACQND padley_l_Page_01.jp2
946409c46b363b03dea16d5bc75ab902
501a847164ff0c18b2738c6c804ab128036422bd
19629 F20101119_AACRBX padley_l_Page_65.QC.jpg
cfb416ba96f695bf9f1253bf4367cc2a
02ab7750a8086d6d587de99410314e0269411264
80757 F20101119_AACQSB padley_l_Page_87.jpg
4b2dbdd409b3e13346db30ef2c8ba30b
0b883eaf0f12d3da3dc7cc5e28e6e1a7ac90e293
F20101119_AACQUZ padley_l_Page_19.tif
72295ed55466a049122793dccb34909e
91092b2c2b839bd742d6e5b981f005b92b954156
F20101119_AACQNE padley_l_Page_30.tif
132684769961a9b6070898df6897c491
c67fbdc6c09e5ef68f395c39f42aad863a6fe298
23846 F20101119_AACRBY padley_l_Page_23.QC.jpg
b4a55a38492b9b1d6bf264baaa6b0ce9
796bb0f5ae5646d63a5803d948515d25e6539fee
1160 F20101119_AACQZX padley_l_Page_21.txt
bfb5fa510a2102e8f4a3480e2e82f9cf
0be23072c1c13ae869187baf398f28fec1477488
31096 F20101119_AACQSC padley_l_Page_88.jpg
2735bd334b967419949ccb4a4964014c
c575c44785f90086b26300295828db8386552594
7577 F20101119_AACQNF padley_l_Page_01.pro
3dd10cadefe01d254bf5696a7cc4aa07
758d3e467f1785d8b0348c6e056f446ae349f72b
6259 F20101119_AACRBZ padley_l_Page_50thm.jpg
791d9a88e7ae5bc6ba49f6793a606e9b
0e95ea0814225a20eb2bd938804027fb23a78710
2050 F20101119_AACQZY padley_l_Page_22.txt
9ec03e07b367d0b63a72b781942b2b9d
1c8aa19a0d3098f72ee2687fc89ed48b1ad68232
23676 F20101119_AACQSD padley_l_Page_04.jp2
18ef58bc3c1505872185f416a5550c76
5bb4df23561076d92d82b3ab537cd0c20d4eabc0
22494 F20101119_AACQNG padley_l_Page_61.QC.jpg
cb42dda4aed59dd6ccd3ba6360ebec6b
2ed58b3cff199dc770cdad677e26b6cc49bd120f
79119 F20101119_AACQXA padley_l_Page_09.pro
01be8ea7843756e9db6c22d38b23491b
aabcc8d757863d2d6367b3d08c64d2509b1cdfe4
2006 F20101119_AACQZZ padley_l_Page_23.txt
ef16ef157c452e2ae0f2b0ec049d23d1
e61678fd80284220925fdd2b08ed1822936d44bf
F20101119_AACQSE padley_l_Page_05.jp2
2a3b50039392617ae729286c2987f0cf
e2eb334a9ce0924fe88545e1f7d7f32b610b491c
F20101119_AACQNH padley_l_Page_33.tif
ab3cf593f3bf666b9e24ceac8a1dbc09
265a10bdd7b2433ba1596c989cc52b073ed8122c
82102 F20101119_AACQXB padley_l_Page_10.pro
e32f1800cbd45408458a93eaad6ed30a
39d1ee6b5147b9d9791a56f4b9b2fd0252a03b4d
5293 F20101119_AACREA padley_l_Page_72thm.jpg
69a1afe52131a464e724e6296890ba32
26d0ddab9cac3a9a3d0a9243222f3f51ef92a151
774526 F20101119_AACQSF padley_l_Page_06.jp2
f416c6ee17f496855424d2e75590c8c4
597ea9c2b714e5ebf874425944d7af6ac998ce27
43462 F20101119_AACQNI padley_l_Page_64.pro
9803fe1ec36a6f495a9ad4c5b82258ab
2670b9e8e46b6d5f3466507c2b7b1d8d5834759b
9542 F20101119_AACQXC padley_l_Page_11.pro
4825ed0b29a69fa47e412300a0f217ed
f7cfee1b71067c0d555562c3ac4dd2f80af64c74
341312 F20101119_AACQSG padley_l_Page_11.jp2
447310a378e89018248e00d9ad3a0809
e65f647a034d4aa8d8b9f77705529aed8cb941e7
726 F20101119_AACQNJ padley_l_Page_88.txt
0a965fed4c715fce15089ab71b693ad5
8041bbedbd50a209e25a75b01be5ef5a76b25ae3
19292 F20101119_AACQXD padley_l_Page_12.pro
b8fd0cb0b65b4481f9857ae139e3748c
d65d43a818327c8e8f85ecd77ae8eae9e51cc50d
5897 F20101119_AACREB padley_l_Page_54thm.jpg
6ffb543fc6b9d75d34529d3f67effe86
d02e6a5f0e47fa3e7bfbb45932fdb15d593f7ba9
747535 F20101119_AACQSH padley_l_Page_12.jp2
041422491162ade2589bc5f122550d31
f07b43c4094e044a71e8b96bb0ef5c5b8d7633e4
9869 F20101119_AACQNK padley_l_Page_81.pro
3033fd988ac57be985a691a0ff463fef
abe3d389e99d83b630e87b5ab6e23d7ab781a2a5
38060 F20101119_AACQXE padley_l_Page_13.pro
75b711b48266e56c3b1a1f97004a258c
c861e3b122688abd22c7bee9b03b3fc71dcfd871
6523 F20101119_AACREC padley_l_Page_28thm.jpg
dacf690554af035006d3ff79ce45622f
578d3442ec8d1540ed6463a2794965cf1e88482c
82941 F20101119_AACQSI padley_l_Page_13.jp2
0088f4cd1542ecf136171fe97c696a6a
d0af28b287af03927923165cd4d99e470445184c
39669 F20101119_AACQXF padley_l_Page_14.pro
8e4f05394defa73cec2dd73e38acbb7c
f75f930096a116c6f192479e662281550d09f23c
2291 F20101119_AACQIN padley_l_Page_79.txt
4c1e6121c39f484f3aeb7106f03e1aca
a19aff3e666608444fd689eccf9cf04cf84776b5
6247 F20101119_AACRED padley_l_Page_51thm.jpg
28c32b36812a52e0a2d8d2d414939a95
465ca434c1aa5f6f072562e217a21537902d57aa
87007 F20101119_AACQSJ padley_l_Page_14.jp2
d94fd0d2f48a37f9d9c6832c2b2b54a8
58b7e06f14e8458b82221e77b7e83ca3d501e673
5620 F20101119_AACQNL padley_l_Page_48thm.jpg
65af7d321ba7ccdce169304c0a465aec
acc697f27fa51ddc6a67b60ded2e668d37321eb8
51546 F20101119_AACQXG padley_l_Page_16.pro
5e81b58195bcdbedc339e31a81416f56
7ff07963efcf12426eda9ce3051ac43af11bef30
6094 F20101119_AACQIO padley_l_Page_57thm.jpg
5079bfd5753ce7dd16336da3df1eea73
eed2c531f5f0258ae5d62a5f973d3150ab072b37
5583 F20101119_AACREE padley_l_Page_11.QC.jpg
ef4bd7140fc572cddf24f1d226c2a524
22527cc23c4bba1922820e55b59c1affb465386e
96872 F20101119_AACQSK padley_l_Page_15.jp2
a6568af0e1fae638f65797ec59d2b773
2dc3c2f076d098129b1ca9ff5d2ba60c8379452d
F20101119_AACQNM padley_l_Page_13.tif
e4d225c5de65c22a1ddf9449f2a8fd31
f884fadd72c1d870757a857f36653e09efa054c5
47855 F20101119_AACQXH padley_l_Page_17.pro
6dfdf4c7bde27429159c515d8c2a3628
427a73e4fb9a13dafbfa7923aa86a027d1cb37bc
54864 F20101119_AACQIP padley_l_Page_42.pro
7c94ba89e5237e8db8083b6b391f6675
70ccb4a387e1dce28d30fd8b9b2ae774abb1ea2e
6329 F20101119_AACREF padley_l_Page_59thm.jpg
7e1aa32bbab069e37f838cdd22c7fd22
415b70b78dafc217327d227c46fc518340ee121a
110548 F20101119_AACQSL padley_l_Page_16.jp2
de46690ed60e811eeebeceb8125028c9
b612e99429a8e35135f319e0df36c034791468a8
23719 F20101119_AACQNN padley_l_Page_07.QC.jpg
71bc43c1504ba325813ebbb817ea23dd
801a90273aa323e071b740324b8791ec16462fca
51460 F20101119_AACQXI padley_l_Page_20.pro
9d7458ff4395e59b3fc0862d095f37e3
4b904d9262ad2d411a126eae3b4be4365bc8d3ec
F20101119_AACQIQ padley_l_Page_36.tif
423109168bc761c11d4a15618de439d9
2f6fff29b6e8781c09c3408216ef1afb998806c6
17366 F20101119_AACREG padley_l_Page_05.QC.jpg
6deb38d84736b07f7cdc1c9afb74975b
76dde2321f3b47237261b42e3de457b9539a4b7c
104154 F20101119_AACQSM padley_l_Page_17.jp2
d18b2be9098a0ddcedcf9859b1deb28d
6f486161a8a5bdd6a7fa5ab3cf7e58b598b8b887
F20101119_AACQNO padley_l_Page_76.tif
8d5c0c8cc4a10ae21a1ac1faf775f43f
6d8b509c5c3c290a93755a83c04d991a34e871bf
27785 F20101119_AACQXJ padley_l_Page_21.pro
3a90ea0af1be47190bca4a17974231bb
0b0b856f296cff1e580b296cb48132e0dc8340ab
F20101119_AACQIR padley_l_Page_69.tif
68680c1e327973ed94db95476e1b14de
03b6ca401570c8600ff1dbdd1e2e07782e1121e1
5931 F20101119_AACREH padley_l_Page_29thm.jpg
1eff9a26e03f5a6095e811c0731a8721
12584f73a8ae6ec85f9770f14d83382184da66e1
113925 F20101119_AACQSN padley_l_Page_18.jp2
7ea6c20d07484a00f1ebcfa092360b3e
195bd215a2a7f7526e387fd807b0e3022ac4ec2c
6704 F20101119_AACQNP padley_l_Page_77thm.jpg
3d8ab6cab3526bbdeabef951fe7663c3
e0579510be3df4e70fc107caea2c474303442f20
52268 F20101119_AACQXK padley_l_Page_22.pro
69488385937d257b9a40aee7c184c9a9
0b95192dd6761dc472859bac623ea7467669a44c
62183 F20101119_AACQIS padley_l_Page_34.jpg
fd397341c0eca69ba63ff4d5e138a207
23afeb9a3acc5232ca2595e2ac2b3d1d8b9ff1f2
21980 F20101119_AACREI padley_l_Page_62.QC.jpg
12041f127c7e36ddc9c4162462a9ac38
84e3c86fb516f4c963087b9b1f030c19961a6544
108131 F20101119_AACQSO padley_l_Page_20.jp2
2f61c160360562da3683f2785512df3b
85e236f7db8b6f5a62a0e5bf2e90ceeae825dc5e
19317 F20101119_AACQNQ padley_l_Page_68.QC.jpg
3f75fda6d86915aaa69ab3e1d818a58d
53368b5ae894b4101b03c58e0965166a1462fe61
48053 F20101119_AACQXL padley_l_Page_24.pro
7100011a368554c4aa77fca96f461315
0c8efb4e4e375ff3a7074afba09e99cc189d2141
67388 F20101119_AACQIT padley_l_Page_65.jpg
a9c447dc991f09e599ecbcb6b2f88f97
3950a1548cddaf05f524b1818a91bd06aaec0c12
4951 F20101119_AACREJ padley_l_Page_55thm.jpg
4d5942b5df5853625c3f2adc58305d67
6a8db1018a0e602e7c55d35f9e638cc26ca0519d
112300 F20101119_AACQSP padley_l_Page_22.jp2
e775306bf0fdbfe4713c4f903e0c0150
4019ca419bb140696c9b6b1631d69930e8333a76
48048 F20101119_AACQNR padley_l_Page_80.pro
d272b63e8677356bbcd975aea0b8127e
33e127b843b3c0609754e1bcce31f839370e0a74
36733 F20101119_AACQXM padley_l_Page_25.pro
d28780def0a7ff3c368d2a027be66055
3fa7977b3c064696c2596712366203a884a75942
71904 F20101119_AACQIU padley_l_Page_20.jpg
61d23b4288158534dbd88dddf4170b70
737ceaadb86cb6e15bd059082a9e58682c2116dc
26895 F20101119_AACREK padley_l_Page_09.QC.jpg
ed9206f3906314433833e0cf7ff0d312
eb57d4b4dc4a9376c825abaf303d5d1d97400072
23070 F20101119_AACQNS padley_l_Page_36.QC.jpg
1776146f110de51d4bf2d6c5c951efc7
e167ac2fda94d26471e6fa16d15be6d2cba455f3
40127 F20101119_AACQXN padley_l_Page_26.pro
94b74b1c18c565c028d218d1725cfdc2
820e02fbad5df89da309a777ecb908774ee26558
22185 F20101119_AACQIV padley_l_Page_43.QC.jpg
5be2dc589112a7cc86872bd81d14c208
94d8fdf23608abfb4dd231168328b3fd2080376f
5138 F20101119_AACREL padley_l_Page_74thm.jpg
f464f07eb608eea8bccbd1eaa166a065
7c9ba991fac7f95bc3d02a3f6c1cc24b1edf51eb
109854 F20101119_AACQSQ padley_l_Page_23.jp2
ae8f095b98220ec43c354f7cd8284c23
840ed19f60f283a69aceb12329dc9ca7b8aab64e
88252 F20101119_AACQNT padley_l_Page_85.jpg
0f28bd38569322352678980931dbf5a7
ae1cc6d1aa9b830d1bd6e4686569924a14a8db97
49800 F20101119_AACQXO padley_l_Page_28.pro
fb35b28590419e9a1128dcda7457c5de
1145e70baaf21c133432d7b7433cc305c640dff4
2457 F20101119_AACQIW padley_l_Page_76.txt
ebea930a29548f8371ef73f90f731ae5
98ab42076b5fa604fd2b3ab4975a7719abcd9660
19300 F20101119_AACREM padley_l_Page_14.QC.jpg
b5c6953b7396995498ea6c98fdfffc04
c33f48169ed8a05f7619b81c0982141d397572be
104212 F20101119_AACQSR padley_l_Page_24.jp2
869a4838ba90494a72e39bd3a91333ce
8dc59cdd8dfd247b82231e357b9ac392f2dcc01b
68713 F20101119_AACQNU padley_l_Page_50.jpg
90419cb2a8c2fd7caf9c35b2a9fc2498
16e4662a9c9dba6167e346669a53d3ccd719df97
17694 F20101119_AACQXP padley_l_Page_30.pro
87b67bc8e9c0e317bcb3fda793006a93
1ac1632fcc2b2fc11e5b0434d48fed0b2a19fcb2
53209 F20101119_AACQIX padley_l_Page_51.pro
f71f740ff19adc1e452b0f76c594e0bb
64c6221c6712b8ef72695b78d86ecaace4c1030e
20305 F20101119_AACREN padley_l_Page_84.QC.jpg
50b5b6d82dc349dab23849a65638eda2
b6bb1c20bdbc997f30592986136566f088440474
43794 F20101119_AACQNV padley_l_Page_83.jpg
a8fd34c07182e5290dbb871d148b4688
bcc4f6e1f85e24d41801a6a257f7b7343282391c
50370 F20101119_AACQXQ padley_l_Page_31.pro
79e487bdc416d84296bf27da6b6c7fad
b01d74741777a282ef8df13db929513a0ff17dde
1051985 F20101119_AACQIY padley_l_Page_08.jp2
0da210187d057c2065339823ba62adf7
4ddc893a4ed7e6d7ba6105574494467e02985c6d
80824 F20101119_AACQSS padley_l_Page_25.jp2
44f82d8a8934cdb7bb410ea0a3b0b99e
28f68512d9a8f345b2b13bfed61885e72acadd1b
19653 F20101119_AACREO padley_l_Page_38.QC.jpg
287c3449e19b9858c3b240f22c87f319
03036c06dc3b40cca2912f85ffe88dd684c473a4
20607 F20101119_AACQNW padley_l_Page_81.jpg
b9837f226f287a6c342f39359cdc7f7e
58575e5692e49957d6864d2f5db4426a752b635a
44046 F20101119_AACQXR padley_l_Page_32.pro
944aaf41c60498946f7d65b562c10281
d758dbd635b6b503855c735cdb663c15fc953c5f
F20101119_AACQIZ padley_l_Page_72.tif
e296ee204194df74edd4928eeb8ecf3a
6464e1ecd0d38d3de03b964c31dcc38afef06344
87940 F20101119_AACQST padley_l_Page_26.jp2
a79dd34b721855cf3ecb08a554591b8d
f94fc62095711413806baf810e726ff6dc948825
24284 F20101119_AACREP padley_l_Page_18.QC.jpg
f408ed75ae94bf64bf264e592545f58c
07b62fa08e91c38c4406e0a980616eadb2785e23
F20101119_AACQNX padley_l_Page_46.tif
bd11019677b5dadf0ed6d5dd8da16efc
8942e81fe899408c49cf70aad7d8aaa96f8d613b
45727 F20101119_AACQXS padley_l_Page_33.pro
ecf43db2cdaf6ffb41c5f66fcb7a84ef
0b6fc6347616c58b1d0b36b66d0c23331cbc2b42
967424 F20101119_AACQSU padley_l_Page_27.jp2
759f029e00182f91b2e82511faac8f5f
862504712959bf5080f0cb3d5db4f54fd05ae5f1
14346 F20101119_AACREQ padley_l_Page_39.QC.jpg
2cc9e181ad500e9ca44e6c3aa61bf6e2
8b3af2e057293472fbc366c96c80b324b27f9f8a
48411 F20101119_AACQLA padley_l_Page_40.pro
94c975d1034068d3c1cb6fec14fe9ffa
8e0b17fe9efeeb34a27c3c8ecf44f272aa57883d
2571 F20101119_AACQNY padley_l_Page_07.txt
82e3503e204e15a5c975d2d0c803cbb0
aa3f52803c7615d6a77c9c30440590d056c6cc38
45456 F20101119_AACQXT padley_l_Page_35.pro
1bf90fb61c9c1c2989912c25f2afa5cd
2f4c9626e92937564a1147e33914c07df73a7394
106098 F20101119_AACQSV padley_l_Page_28.jp2
01574b2c6abd74dc8578ff47627aecbe
73832b76dbcd0483f5b9fabf4deb07cbb0968835
23950 F20101119_AACRER padley_l_Page_44.QC.jpg
0cd315a7f18e4027ae7d94922ae813af
88300f2b262915602539472f5f51eb445cb3cfbf
F20101119_AACQLB padley_l_Page_09.tif
59093601a3333bb968123e42caa71978
0332ea687600b56e5ed32ae17ec6874ecb686af3
6301 F20101119_AACQNZ padley_l_Page_56thm.jpg
ce14e3d40675db94229479c2ddc83c91
727f895b2c735907f65256aa8865cc7f97681701
48589 F20101119_AACQXU padley_l_Page_36.pro
55737a95de0dafcfdf5c760d9c86a9e6
8897db954823ee1e78ed5a3c190bbcc0dab693e2
118118 F20101119_AACQSW padley_l_Page_29.jp2
4837e21ebac8b1e7a7f44b53351f4084
8f52f080a7a96f6aa06baa28301a9e650360dde5
19103 F20101119_AACRES padley_l_Page_55.QC.jpg
63353ee246adf71ef250e38823f79033
30fc3d4fa6b84e0749b115abf9373517a53ec7cf
442 F20101119_AACQLC padley_l_Page_81.txt
8f6e1d95381efed66216c9e1d6cce3d9
83149a6b0433bc3006557299dcff4d226d1204a5
107962 F20101119_AACQSX padley_l_Page_31.jp2
c24e475eb581968afe259bb08954f97c
e5f4b485adf5a3360e313a6b47bf1a16f0e2c5e1
6658 F20101119_AACRET padley_l_Page_52thm.jpg
9430dc2cf62e7042212c037f174be5d6
ccb71bf5f8785c8a89dc2db1cea799df1226b09e
6108 F20101119_AACQLD padley_l_Page_43thm.jpg
21f74ec89085d39230c7d4c35c304ca8
984be52d1823f27c019025f06a5d5b8255187e7f
20984 F20101119_AACQXV padley_l_Page_37.pro
845c055a6690137b96d93379bc9b4ad6
0b24632072759d88e0170be6cf58f7f1f94b4828
74706 F20101119_AACQQA padley_l_Page_18.jpg
a397252d41cb1db23c4244521c5fe729
0d039a14d4b6f066713dfea58f5a5b6beefe255a
95608 F20101119_AACQSY padley_l_Page_32.jp2
62dffe367e2377ea551be6cb7dad5c3b
ad93e3007a8380a46348a288c2b145e14fa4f7a4
6181 F20101119_AACREU padley_l_Page_42thm.jpg
248a9f22efaa184442e349d8d390f2c6
460dc509fdd48b0b3bfffc7aebed93bdb2710541
F20101119_AACQLE padley_l_Page_29.tif
82a2e70c502b2243d0bfe54c52985d7d
cf306a283ff746cbee43edf860c99a66dddbbb06
48080 F20101119_AACQXW padley_l_Page_38.pro
659ff5e451b8b1b61957bcd360ccc0fe
ba1970026354779741d509cbca412fe5c5715fca
74076 F20101119_AACQQB padley_l_Page_22.jpg
11f31e5914320acb9503a2d053bad8c1
10ac39e23f314174b1a48edcffe7e7230a9cc1c5
90635 F20101119_AACQSZ padley_l_Page_33.jp2
0edf6fd19459b7c17dc69e341bba7794
f7e8a8f0c38cf8cccef691b05a48e996b75f513a
19500 F20101119_AACREV padley_l_Page_64.QC.jpg
31aced8d0359d50d18e9ab357b5349ef
b6bfadcf1fced7c47269877ef25496a3f5d47c69
20389 F20101119_AACQLF padley_l_Page_32.QC.jpg
e2f9b658c1917d08de75714b9f1391ba
23adc8dc11316ccf7b1a501db058d735fd609dfc
25321 F20101119_AACQXX padley_l_Page_39.pro
107014c9672bf61fd2fd3c4b8022fe53
e64dd0b7309e3147611ebb7c80b02713756c8a12
72869 F20101119_AACQQC padley_l_Page_23.jpg
779e72bcca0e0352e3f9cdf3cf80bcba
d6563c70ebca8155bb6d2b067ded79e4689b4032
19371 F20101119_AACREW padley_l_Page_48.QC.jpg
9fe106e5a51d1a5952df1758d215887b
f2604d64bbb402983b97abedcd8799081c268853
F20101119_AACQVA padley_l_Page_20.tif
f1f9e5b9d41e3b2d9ba622a9f5efa83d
7d7c9ad1607da496731a83522b1c941179e951f6
51020 F20101119_AACQXY padley_l_Page_41.pro
5bb20973058cd6f859ad05cfdae7db2f
cb257b62f0be272be475bf6e8c9318a0ea53becc
68988 F20101119_AACQQD padley_l_Page_24.jpg
7e0339f0d9f31b3e37b36d9362d320e8
214e5c0a38b25965c21f037d8e71e043cc5b5dfe
77986 F20101119_AACQLG padley_l_Page_52.jpg
8652fe5190c5e334e467e70746bd89c0
1f171875133d96aaa9b66c3b51565dcaa72a71d6
4570 F20101119_AACREX padley_l_Page_47thm.jpg
2f4f4dfaef5ce2c642afddb59efa4352
933571f45cbce9e1e3e05af724acbd5fee9a013b
49825 F20101119_AACQXZ padley_l_Page_43.pro
bfa9dd42e74300a356908c9e3ea59167
a018c51c549d1211a2c660fced58b36fdc40afa4
F20101119_AACQVB padley_l_Page_22.tif
8d09ea55bd73504e92bda5980f9ff24d
d501257001e94354a6b1f48cddef4fff7c920feb
54633 F20101119_AACQQE padley_l_Page_25.jpg
0a47504032c4c3a438ef7e56f7dd633a
efbcf446193c2635266e289eb272569157e3e550
F20101119_AACQLH padley_l_Page_03.tif
9d78e5ebb7f2e8c16dfbc0d026463fd9
4741040ce3b38d00be48eaabc0c74c3480d91fe8
6647 F20101119_AACREY padley_l_Page_46thm.jpg
75fcc339da24883bab3e9f997c4b7945
617273a23308ada32f87f762b15869c164282963
F20101119_AACQVC padley_l_Page_23.tif
01de1de1cfc40d27c2c27b4e74ff9e8c
27e5efcd287a1841fad84105630c69807a48c3bf
60065 F20101119_AACQQF padley_l_Page_26.jpg
ddf3b4e973251d3e5859e7b431661f28
403cb155049d17ae387ae5c4bcc74c3f89551920
430 F20101119_AACQLI padley_l_Page_01.txt
c9aea163c07cc221f1faa726e35a8aba
073cf11b29ad70c374ac899c9f55984b24a8edd2
5358 F20101119_AACREZ padley_l_Page_14thm.jpg
f200ca520a88d52e81b73ed09ab67b21
613cd52c513e4b256b430facb74255abbec6f3d0
6461 F20101119_AACRCA padley_l_Page_20thm.jpg
a9b82153dca0802100fcb9a768316b88
5ed07aaa5540d938489dfe86d466152de8ba1e2a
F20101119_AACQVD padley_l_Page_24.tif
09be368ad450129dd769c248f12871ab
e78fa0012e4dad5d520585c4b9e9353f8c19cbaa
57737 F20101119_AACQQG padley_l_Page_27.jpg
9eaf98d9107506f6ab7f4333da709fac
162a0a81de6eb32006d298860169aee6326b7863
22487 F20101119_AACRCB padley_l_Page_54.QC.jpg
8145c1cc5a2a5a4079b23600d8812b5e
46152cb65f5855c20b5cf6c27f8b32a9babc5580
F20101119_AACQVE padley_l_Page_25.tif
eaf5b72d35bb2ae6c194f027d30492c5
eedbfa945e6b896292d3b62b64c49f5fef0f17ed
71202 F20101119_AACQQH padley_l_Page_28.jpg
5db4a0a12684197d3bb3a85eafdcef38
8078291a7f72c28cd9f1e72e0ccacc63056a6d42
F20101119_AACQLJ padley_l_Page_66.tif
c9be26672b450d325e024392008d6372
b8bf84db0d824ddb37205c3a1279d5bb456346a2
5843 F20101119_AACRCC padley_l_Page_71thm.jpg
e0dd886e7425aff6e7a7b164756d7573
116fd097b96d764edd866c050993ce5e7302f9e5
F20101119_AACQVF padley_l_Page_26.tif
f57659bad32df1a42257f5bd933dd75c
5c462f7ef30008a79dfa1c61fad0d104e30572ec
78799 F20101119_AACQQI padley_l_Page_29.jpg
e2fb2c2822d11c2cbd444a16e61d91ad
458be5da0d79527172ea91c4ccca1064d390dcd2
22996 F20101119_AACQLK padley_l_Page_42.QC.jpg
a7692bcb6ea8085e83c0012c70c5ca80
237eaf43a7b4f034e57291be40df366188ec9649
2295 F20101119_AACRCD padley_l_Page_81thm.jpg
f80d2838a6b4215eea0a8bbdefac683a
8026de1a5b51b4712dd5ad92ee5f1f0252fc0aca
F20101119_AACQVG padley_l_Page_27.tif
b278225a63a46de938dc335caf88e130
5e2db912e26457ac3c09284cbad367951900f06f
50564 F20101119_AACQQJ padley_l_Page_30.jpg
1f2a842dddebce910c30e1ba2a4d1333
7788cf308bebae47919efdd7cf4d2741fa9316b1
2211 F20101119_AACQLL padley_l_Page_43.txt
73aa53e85719f8acc2134c194fae9069
f572a650200e4481d759e40dfdb80b99cb60da22
15559 F20101119_AACRCE padley_l_Page_30.QC.jpg
eeb01c3722af262e3d6e0d8726fb8f4d
a6248fa39fa9a55df1968e6f8664bd321ec40000
F20101119_AACQVH padley_l_Page_28.tif
2acd4ec5977f8a0ea5de42e84b3fbe74
9cc925f3e02ecfac4c056659c5d7ce5dff1e509a
71525 F20101119_AACQQK padley_l_Page_31.jpg
7dacd536cf82f2159afa2301433f6e70
78011c0f4ffcc139898f2c44654779514ed4b542
5475 F20101119_AACQLM padley_l_Page_38thm.jpg
ac3b9268ebb42d6cf3dfcc7e7e152886
eea3ba518d8dcd9492c7e45eb8748a67e40acb1b
19095 F20101119_AACRCF padley_l_Page_73.QC.jpg
6d7b28c020122153bb7a398ac5a72bd1
a2bdb7ca4b1768842ffdd1e26d2230568f4a8ae8
F20101119_AACQVI padley_l_Page_32.tif
c51afd94d8b79dfb5e9a7a794a23dc5d
8b5ae9db2c76fb43579b87c3197aa8300c9b0586
64967 F20101119_AACQQL padley_l_Page_32.jpg
1ded6c86f4a05e6d5d8e8813096dd0c8
6d547069a8d97088776a392e77ace7e839a0cc9d
1846 F20101119_AACQLN padley_l_Page_64.txt
4c51dde760ee12dd208171ccb3621a51
9fef54ff91f05ef8db72b02b333cb1c6d7b80a6a
1375 F20101119_AACRCG padley_l_Page_02thm.jpg
6079e322da694a7c3fcc34e730691bed
48b3a00f1929a3fadd55e770d5409e80b937e0f5
F20101119_AACQVJ padley_l_Page_34.tif
442623b7a6c5a129f91472a3ec8f477c
7a01d361c50df785120c065a15ee1b5eedb76f3d
61717 F20101119_AACQQM padley_l_Page_33.jpg
4a8ace3793510caa6a793953ec1153c1
9fa714cc667c2fb9ab52c238b3a60f51cf8a7dea
20591 F20101119_AACQLO padley_l_Page_69.QC.jpg
89aa3ed343647aedbdbe86c4044c795f
b6cfac7ce38307350e3c89555c03b356783dea91
23002 F20101119_AACRCH padley_l_Page_57.QC.jpg
09eaf8265da87c04fb41831d83417acf
4a734e1162497ca44b7ca0e38f2255d4c8c6c764
F20101119_AACQVK padley_l_Page_35.tif
b2adb3e1c5cff9868f292826fbdc7d23
2c03dadeabf4ab9ef1626d10d67a2fe4d2bcfa45
65329 F20101119_AACQQN padley_l_Page_35.jpg
e2353f1161c112111ec856e14d3fafa6
ecef0cd64fc0436a8adeb52369fda542b64a188d
59122 F20101119_AACQLP padley_l_Page_77.pro
29dbe33c112c0254f3ece6fafa5e4a2d
0b773d919e46e0f5677d80c013de0434ba3a3eca
6543 F20101119_AACRCI padley_l_Page_60thm.jpg
3b7da89da916cd9d03200fd5ec5c7c79
3d6a007351e80fc1f39afa640514f7daea78517c
F20101119_AACQVL padley_l_Page_37.tif
b6beb25fa3ff61a5b327b163e674612d
00b0dd656076733dee459d82ae26116cff3af510
998397 F20101119_AACQLQ padley_l_Page_37.jp2
2a5ee29e77602ef9449df767fae63ad6
740b75578dccd163c27a05bb59dd8324bc0c762c
6691 F20101119_AACRCJ padley_l_Page_19thm.jpg
4a5c9063d0ea119d37fc0062c8768980
edc4fc84e0a620ce334dd58c6ccd0524ed6d0722
F20101119_AACQVM padley_l_Page_38.tif
b81b4450be6afe4df833c0a55bebad89
857a69d9d72e6a601c814d8b63db43ac5974ab24
70374 F20101119_AACQQO padley_l_Page_36.jpg
fca068b2caa3a626beb14d0a9ecd61cd
2ee9a64dc2103175b25a14125cc7365edb05a41a
5739 F20101119_AACQLR padley_l_Page_84thm.jpg
a8cc3006e9d4445dfe86b47611c3702b
892dea846383984acd904dcc505576b75e8cad17
6433 F20101119_AACRCK padley_l_Page_76thm.jpg
b6edaa83551195077d3afd08178df83a
1d556961f25f9353569073bd81ff4c27cb8971e0
F20101119_AACQVN padley_l_Page_39.tif
9d94e145437e7e9b47615b9753566d0b
bd53e4f916a47e7bd49cef0f20e52f48288e87e3
54631 F20101119_AACQQP padley_l_Page_37.jpg
2ab647fccd2d8eb615bb2c636adc1887
cee3d71538c512b2a1d8ed84be4684ac75266894
92274 F20101119_AACQLS padley_l_Page_65.jp2
9005ccb51a40d2fe56b75845a7de125a
f909983853513eff84791c631e3a5cda35005141
24198 F20101119_AACRCL padley_l_Page_86.QC.jpg
537994e8f34519ac43e3dafd9f1c23b1
76e595edc9ab82167a74abecb8662a243dbf6bca
F20101119_AACQVO padley_l_Page_40.tif
e4039c4ab3183a0f9f6ec21d0408eb8c
426feba1870681ae64c7c56813d533c87d2ae5a8
63026 F20101119_AACQQQ padley_l_Page_38.jpg
f4042a3653c7260a7f7b842b8e1f46f1
670a17bd46ea2f25dcc40ba78419ea62434782ef
995010 F20101119_AACQLT padley_l_Page_21.jp2
d0f57d0a5ab56d2fc16fb07d70394ab5
67ccbe8d4ca813b3efefea71a7b67ffa13e122af
23052 F20101119_AACRCM padley_l_Page_50.QC.jpg
08ee6393fa822f8a5a543ba76119a7f3
bf4b7aee240e6ee0ba448e44ac08dd3b954efe3b
46045 F20101119_AACQQR padley_l_Page_39.jpg
d80dacef7058b46b69fcf279901fcb17
a47a828703444152c0ab097bce3980866a8c94d1
106758 F20101119_AACQLU padley_l_Page_59.jp2
6f8c88dfab40448b8806d5a6faf59e02
908e88348e0e570c458c35fd942f11c8f132dd06
F20101119_AACQVP padley_l_Page_41.tif
ce5ae08b9e83bbc968c68688330cc403
4135104847b7d118771e717b773478888973f0ad
5212 F20101119_AACRCN padley_l_Page_75thm.jpg
6e72683fc95fbf8794ece629080fcaad
eabfdbd251214ee87a609d1bc1a6841d339770b5
69577 F20101119_AACQQS padley_l_Page_40.jpg
80dd902d3842a84ec8e15a1616b89537
80b38452264431bf7dfb9a626bc2b298ffbce716
18476 F20101119_AACQLV padley_l_Page_13.QC.jpg
406d0b9db367b6aaa3d75f5fa7ebf2e0
8d9ebde66e7ff5fc43345dcb101c53f4c3adc95b
F20101119_AACQVQ padley_l_Page_43.tif
a67d4feba3ab266934668b3bea23b1d7
fcca14c6941e62b8eb1a9dd58e7c1d53f731cca3
6093 F20101119_AACRCO padley_l_Page_82thm.jpg
6fb3e7cd355cb4fc963efd8130303b0d
34e5e44ecb80df8dd0fdf53b9ac7456d6520d977
73734 F20101119_AACQQT padley_l_Page_41.jpg
75af83b2daf552ab21337936004fd07b
dbdda8911f71c743d88b9fe96940b75518169a47
79978 F20101119_AACQLW padley_l_Page_79.jpg
f3d150a8d5609996b21309b97a9cb0ab
715ba522d37af4c4e74a8a2f7ff85daec0900642
F20101119_AACQVR padley_l_Page_44.tif
603fa7e52b286c0db0656fc5a3b0ad75
e5a86e83ddf196ef8e8fef3ebedc8faf4084bc29
6685 F20101119_AACRCP padley_l_Page_86thm.jpg
ffb1bbfa8f5bcac50eb25d08b669911d
c1cc5e0cec8f644fe221b4366b31f3bdc147f8c3
71000 F20101119_AACQQU padley_l_Page_42.jpg
e13ec639e95578db66674e59221c39bc
dd3e551c8c11c2550018d87e67de977542c8a654
67411 F20101119_AACQLX padley_l_Page_74.jpg
273305ceaa03272822ce6613494aa8a4
30613a63613d0c935ee2d0caa54d896f5c9e6daa
F20101119_AACQVS padley_l_Page_45.tif
07064d15543da895276722b09a53448b
1f87a06b70b9e28e8791c0a3518a6e74800ce7bb
2035 F20101119_AACRCQ padley_l_Page_11thm.jpg
2011e8d570a1b58a10baa9237830fabb
bb6936a843d1e963d7364a488689b2e20b008393
68354 F20101119_AACQQV padley_l_Page_43.jpg
2f7a58cec09e8e7fcd0a365b8580cc50
747f8e10968c0246d2a5dcd5c42cdf969b9edd5d
107841 F20101119_AACQJA padley_l_Page_57.jp2
02bb82ba0b1222c3d704b50115cbae44
174659c6c67e042e00252b8d68eff2b66362d243
1873 F20101119_AACQLY padley_l_Page_55.txt
eff82a13ed8cb77e0834285ea2a03137
52a331035e566165879b844ef6736d871b55bd49
22946 F20101119_AACRCR padley_l_Page_40.QC.jpg
9c99e68fb8ded9b94eeb8cbd2bad481e
d88a54b001e09b3a609949bccbb4b7238ee10687
74600 F20101119_AACQQW padley_l_Page_44.jpg
d8bff86584f663af98b2237f80f3e35a
6e91235363eb6270ff0a08af15a56e7152630be6
5580 F20101119_AACQJB padley_l_Page_33thm.jpg
53fa1aaaa65ee434c718e279e43f13fb
6901a29c6a8be94af5e90caafbad1d6b747afd88
F20101119_AACQLZ padley_l_Page_78.tif
e6c3691bbce7ee419a34b2ac4468308a
bfaaf5236c109d7627f8795a19aca78433581630
F20101119_AACQVT padley_l_Page_47.tif
2ec7630341336d3391d994a8e6b34b2e
f07aca83b38c141a9b8a63bce43d2725a775bd25
15405 F20101119_AACRCS padley_l_Page_47.QC.jpg
e3352227ca89867a75ba1b56a1b2fc90
b4f951fe531c99cd03d3a09ea4675761855cb02e
65392 F20101119_AACQQX padley_l_Page_45.jpg
904feb5d17aaee19dd2358392204b45d
ab1d17fac9ba69c2c2270036722bbe102572424f
F20101119_AACQJC padley_l_Page_10.jp2
1dc6dd8e305627ee8bafa8e1593c8c4a
8ea3fd9e5bb20ecafd55b59e3a1a3bc113bca05f
F20101119_AACQVU padley_l_Page_48.tif
186fa1ebb1f65e6ad54bb54533370f31
a3f02ce27207ca4648f1533c4a16042e60a81541
22315 F20101119_AACRCT padley_l_Page_80.QC.jpg
3f9f111dcea99f0f4c003c96980583e7
5ef0c9f9c2348736690ca6fe9b1bed6c284b47b8
6321 F20101119_AACQOA padley_l_Page_41thm.jpg
d4fdbd09e8848f26d93fa42e415983fb
24e21e660d65b439a4849a196c5228095815e048
78959 F20101119_AACQQY padley_l_Page_46.jpg
3678a24585348665893fbc41be1787a5
7741e3da25de53fdc2a1fa5b5f7be917239a8ccc
1893 F20101119_AACQJD padley_l_Page_24.txt
1c04b569a02cd12babf88ab4f9725245
a2b3e436732af20b6fc0b6fcaff2dd1681ffaf2d
F20101119_AACQVV padley_l_Page_49.tif
379b0d8d03d602f12ab44c0a7fc685cf
c8ee2228ab3d424a1e1f3eb2c30170cf5fa58d03
25987 F20101119_AACRCU padley_l_Page_85.QC.jpg
2e60729282cfa2760dc6919eff132aaf
b50a7d5ac4d6db9b304a7a0306243c95a5570b36
128449 F20101119_AACQOB padley_l_Page_85.jp2
b31511a2f1ae31d94ad7314fb5429611
4af8e1ab6152247275f5be498105dce515c652ea
F20101119_AACQQZ padley_l_Page_47.jpg
6691923683ba5b961ff65c0cffec530c
6551670149bb108a5a1473fa013cf2630cb36669
F20101119_AACQJE padley_l_Page_59.tif
49a28805ffa5dc38133ac4813ff81944
e7d69e034ac0350cae33bfb09a021d47b2e36e3c
F20101119_AACQVW padley_l_Page_50.tif
ca827f5d37ab5188a0b1da8e3d48f2ff
58656ee8bf19754bfac43c114251f7197383c59d
21375 F20101119_AACRCV padley_l_Page_53.QC.jpg
c1dce10b65fd7fdeaf27bd9ddcb4aa6a
cfafd98f4ed37e667454d56052360fa969a83266
48208 F20101119_AACQJF padley_l_Page_84.pro
daabcedb83aa4098241eeec527b88c60
7062054e63642063acc1ff276c618a1215e766e6
F20101119_AACQVX padley_l_Page_51.tif
ac7dbd448dec21233d0b625d712c47aa
94454ac45101c0025a72d026f3e4c427ff9757cc
F20101119_AACQOC padley_l_Page_42.tif
829c614531dfe20efa975102bce8e095
cf4dccd01333f2750946eb3f0d0b20e6af07044b
6741 F20101119_AACRCW padley_l_Page_18thm.jpg
b2b6f9dcbcc5952d149d1abb6660b1fc
5b4253048e3e996ca0713306e555ddcd2a8a8751
2004 F20101119_AACQJG padley_l_Page_69.txt
06ff4cdfb0dabc631ddfd3c0f397840b
96ea3a0fca9c76947a8f5cfd982f761a02895877
90708 F20101119_AACQTA padley_l_Page_34.jp2
1f55e1c611d85b97314530c8863ed451
cedd3f2359c5f43126a5796eb09ecf48eb5d9175
F20101119_AACQVY padley_l_Page_52.tif
b793896880603ff8a412e185a39e0f6e
5a2c941456ae89209538626d04ee35f3cfc6b14a
84304 F20101119_AACQOD padley_l_Page_77.jpg
eb6b4887a32c6dd6dc422e5b02853f02
82bed391cd2dc5a0c78043c9ddf8e7758cad2b51
6165 F20101119_AACRCX padley_l_Page_62thm.jpg
36f0b58fb36f5fe79b57d6fe4d7a8bc1
a40cd00aac1fe4280925898fb11b087fef0795fa
97784 F20101119_AACQTB padley_l_Page_35.jp2
c0422ccd03d8554c5f23ae6d3451ed09
5c61f7e974560c314f50744980bdc68749112e4b
F20101119_AACQVZ padley_l_Page_54.tif
b4193d6e7bbc90bbb6683de70afff82a
051f04f0cdb3604d61d78b2f7d2714a226c6d689
6141 F20101119_AACQOE padley_l_Page_78thm.jpg
b460beaec9e72a5d0d9b88eb4f5877c0
59c4049909970d913737d10bc37825ff0d93db92
6032 F20101119_AACRCY padley_l_Page_07thm.jpg
44f1c9ba94b83fa51fa30116d980a929
2a5a932ad6910515ff379cef711558764a47a28c
101917 F20101119_AACQJH padley_l_Page_62.jp2
140d848a12e1b39803db36bd873d6c00
480855319bb978e672077f2670a82d116bf7fe2e
105521 F20101119_AACQTC padley_l_Page_36.jp2
1083241e3006d3eb19c19f7d380c5f24
1341dfdfe92b878e769d1b685d480a289ab9bbd2
F20101119_AACQOF padley_l_Page_70.tif
891e7fbd39ae5d1da2bad6fde8410391
cbbac8083784faba75be45835bba8cca637de198
6480 F20101119_AACRCZ padley_l_Page_80thm.jpg
e17443355a86e62ce199f966b287e700
ebdf8023f2e85df5c406183b2d2f0b5125c47527
1500 F20101119_AACRAA padley_l_Page_25.txt
e9ecfe1d59ff2ded5929a61300d4de2c
a0f76cf50ecef2f53166a31d3c67c25406a90ea3
51782 F20101119_AACQYA padley_l_Page_44.pro
8d5cfeb98481de48e00baee50b51b998
3c2463e9fb2ea518025bc0d5402d9e4df16efda6
44831 F20101119_AACQJI padley_l_Page_15.pro
d44e24ed5c8a0eae2b06cc4a1a3fd777
63b6def706209ed2e7c58673c619c6cb09670dba
93908 F20101119_AACQTD padley_l_Page_38.jp2
7500f5d2ddd2c260b78b6ae21901064c
d4ff60d3aa6ef48af6cbd1ab53cb8c45f443e1ad
F20101119_AACQOG padley_l_Page_58.tif
f275bcde871cf751ee8c1de39dd114e4
e50af40337f437aaf7b77c9de67cdfac044a385a
1664 F20101119_AACRAB padley_l_Page_26.txt
ff328baf4e194479a97e4c85f3556195
c8218c53587ede4ffc75f05c43dc4635491a46ac
51383 F20101119_AACQYB padley_l_Page_45.pro
06ccf99b79fbd11d01d11cf07db25b92
93fc5fc389c098e9d237d9538f492de588f259ea
59720 F20101119_AACQJJ padley_l_Page_48.jpg
fd23455dfcffc85e1301bef3e0d6c4f5
6aa30aa0f354cfeebef4340d3a43a2d76bb41b71
571086 F20101119_AACQTE padley_l_Page_39.jp2
c2100b111438d2b359291176293fd484
b5cd7808b3da5a9a25c16dd93a5358d403b03142
1147 F20101119_AACQOH padley_l_Page_02.pro
531cf80d4c92a480dd5466d8530901b8
4f99f3ac9ed3369360be78fee8a69fa190897816
F20101119_AACRFA padley_l_Page_40thm.jpg
7ad917ee5e457c962c6e158dd25ff38f
f91fd2aaee8249fab03fd1a891c17c31129ba987
1022 F20101119_AACRAC padley_l_Page_27.txt
e45f6200969a33d80b9f31ac04d1f01a
1d3f1d4dc401644ab97f4ebf0c5951828e67ad52
30693 F20101119_AACQYC padley_l_Page_47.pro
92a89f66f2c8406cc9d80f77b587eba3
74020e6d45cac59e3e0f640244ec99b4287343ec
2308 F20101119_AACQJK padley_l_Page_01thm.jpg
7284a71aaad671f098e882786197afd0
b913380070c24056d6fae334fdb49f52932195c2
105958 F20101119_AACQTF padley_l_Page_41.jp2
de466e22f15eefbb8e3bbc5fa12a3eae
0cc1312a16ede2a003d33086f09a50ee9e20f5c6
1837 F20101119_AACQOI padley_l_Page_35.txt
0969f7e4da02860d2d3bdb415f477923
e7cc2d44eb401b161e9a19fb886ec02cd045e066
17937 F20101119_AACRFB padley_l_Page_25.QC.jpg
b40e6d3f70256afb87b976afe8973f5c
426d3823f2d7a3287ef45f488a9ee8fee8f3b973
1966 F20101119_AACRAD padley_l_Page_28.txt
63549b49ad948d76efc90b36eac162fd
6a2f5355f78a2e34bc88a4ce0cf1d789146a0e72
40602 F20101119_AACQYD padley_l_Page_48.pro
859669311d30f299981f16eacc9186ac
15bb14337a7be0bb5850c3952f460c54e81d1241
108370 F20101119_AACQJL padley_l_Page_19.jp2
e08031dbe4c8cc80946191b3efcbb5c4
03af2e0968c0f038556b48521c50c255d4820f6b
94509 F20101119_AACQTG padley_l_Page_42.jp2
6052c4e5a76ab99b6e0720c2119d0b57
3ad4e94efa081017a2c9fe08b7e86f3e54102bd4
884641 F20101119_AACQOJ padley_l_Page_30.jp2
48f39131203dc96d02b561721f9984c8
7b4b39b1a304723887bd3121d046a00a4f339fba
2393 F20101119_AACRAE padley_l_Page_29.txt
13b89bcd15934f64d751b854f2db0d86
f9e1b32a7189afde644131be1ad94405c8d99e99
49605 F20101119_AACQYE padley_l_Page_49.pro
a1cd35b6d2cd948c6d822f3409be6a38
66117a7fea56c991d8d16cfc94ee56319c75fc49
1938 F20101119_AACQJM padley_l_Page_40.txt
becebd2c02cf521a0109d4eb09261189
9d7d315aab27c4e1170a07b13c4f52c447c26aea
97988 F20101119_AACQTH padley_l_Page_43.jp2
2a373e28e684a7fdc4a6c260efd9e81e
154fdf9db8dc3e8a46367bb8c5a463b1d0987f62
4522 F20101119_AACQOK padley_l_Page_39thm.jpg
7945c583a8ea6f6e4a3b8706e9d567af
c0f4c4121ec2a96024e0af97fc55c5f336a12185
5299 F20101119_AACRFC padley_l_Page_21thm.jpg
719e58f623eacb24c9fda1ca29d3c76d
a73fe28c09ae3c6d0f2c36e54ff9d20074e12126
F20101119_AACRAF padley_l_Page_31.txt
df91efb7dbcc12897489e409d2eb2951
581283a6b57cef35810cb8d9302653d404e7e54a
47402 F20101119_AACQYF padley_l_Page_50.pro
43358522e0858f7b446e0a66437da431
591fe753a6912c09ad6e5ddf8e640777c8c37271
77248 F20101119_AACQJN padley_l_Page_54.jpg
528d7120c1ceaed3fa6cfa183a0d10e4
3699d1020b0b82a8e0494c8a78038f5866e2b420
109362 F20101119_AACQTI padley_l_Page_44.jp2
4bce9786fe15a40a379936c1a8126e36
b182cb0229d70cd7c5103f3ef42c08d1dbe4e8cf
32428 F20101119_AACQOL padley_l_Page_12.jpg
20a8e89e96439d1553ceb4b40f1e018b
0a72440b4410fada8d643ece13b6c5bf6b184c21
21103 F20101119_AACRFD padley_l_Page_15.QC.jpg
aa9021e6c4d5c475f31824a1e33882db
8951b8ab0be67a72881bcb1aa1ddee7d2ed66086
1757 F20101119_AACRAG padley_l_Page_32.txt
aff4be21e513db02c4502e36e50b8b49
801b5b935a8b2b6c84dde7adf1a05a0e1aed799d
53803 F20101119_AACQYG padley_l_Page_52.pro
1c5aa9251edceb886965fd8c8d330d88
93049c9a23cb112d2feab735bf745a2d7592c67a
20918 F20101119_AACQJO padley_l_Page_04.jpg
8cfe37f0e570a8381a1e8c4211a96d64
d88ed6e1dace464544e980059f9cc3fca5389e5a
88854 F20101119_AACQTJ padley_l_Page_45.jp2
80db5ef3ec57ddea6bdce6db09a23102
1fc65c85f1011da41211e3209304086504159569



PAGE 1

FIRMNESS AND STORAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF CRISP-TEXTURED BLUEBERRIES By LES PADLEY JR. A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Les Padley Jr.

PAGE 3

This document is dedicated to my wife and both of my families who have been there for me since the beginning, encouraging me and helping me along the way.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Straughn farms Inc. fo r providing the blueberry plots used in these studies. I would also like to thank Dr Paul Lyrene, Dr. Steven Sargent and Dr. Jeffrey Brecht for giving me the opportunity to obtain this degree. Finally, I would like to thank Kim Cordasco for helping me with my research along the way.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................xii ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................xi ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 History of Blueberries in Florida..................................................................................1 Blueberry Breeding.......................................................................................................2 Growth and Fruit Development of Blueberries............................................................5 Harvest and Postharvest of Blueberries........................................................................7 Crisp-Textured Blueberries........................................................................................11 2 QUALITY DETERMINATIONS OF FRESH BLUEBERRY CLONES.................12 Relative Berry Firmness of 99 Clones........................................................................12 Materials and Methods........................................................................................12 Results.................................................................................................................14 Discussion............................................................................................................14 Firmness Changes During Fruit Development...........................................................17 2003 Materials and Methods...............................................................................17 2003 Results........................................................................................................18 2004 Materials and Methods...............................................................................18 2004 Results........................................................................................................19 Discussion............................................................................................................20 Shear-Cell Testing......................................................................................................21 Materials and Methods........................................................................................22 Results.................................................................................................................22 Discussion............................................................................................................25 Consumer Sensory Panel Study..................................................................................26 2003 Materials and Methods...............................................................................26 2003 Results........................................................................................................27 2004 Materials and Methods...............................................................................29

PAGE 6

vi 2004 Results........................................................................................................29 Discussion............................................................................................................32 3 POSTHARVEST STORAGE TEST..........................................................................34 2003 Study..................................................................................................................34 Materials and Methods........................................................................................34 Results.................................................................................................................36 2004 Study..................................................................................................................45 Materials and Methods........................................................................................45 Results.................................................................................................................47 Discussion...................................................................................................................65 4 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................68 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................70 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................74

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table page 2.1 Meanz force (N) required to deform berri es by 2mm for 99 blueberry clones ranked from lowest to highest sampled in 2003.......................................................15 2.2 Meanz deformation force (2mm deformation) of fruit for eight blueberry clones sampled at 9 stages of maturity in 2003...................................................................19 2.3 Meanz deformation force of fruit for nine blueberry clones sampled at three stages of maturity in 2004........................................................................................20 2.4 ANOVA for mean deformation force of fr uit for 9 blueberry clones sampled at three stages of maturity in 2004...............................................................................20 2.5 Shear-cell meansz for 10 clones sampled at two different times during the 2004 growing season.........................................................................................................24 2.6 Questions asked for the 2003 taste panel study........................................................27 2.7 Overall appearance of panelists of four blueberry clone s on a scale from 1 (dislike extremely) to 9 (lik e extremely) (n=90; 2003 study)..................................28 2.8 Overall texture/firmness of panelists of four blueberry clones on a scale from 1 (dislike extremely) to 9 (lik e extremely) (n=90; 2003 study)..................................28 2.9 Overall sweetness of panelists of four blueberry clones on a scale from 1 (dislike extremely) to 9 (like extremely) (n=90; 2003 study)...............................................28 2.10 Overall flavor of panelists of four bl ueberry clones on a scale from 1 (dislike extremely) to 9 (like extremely) (n=90; 2003 study)...............................................28 2.11 Overall acceptability of pa nelists of four blueberry clones on a scale from 1 (dislike extremely) to 9 (lik e extremely) (n=90; 2003 study)..................................29 2.12 Questions asked for the 2004 taste panel study........................................................29 2.13 Previous blueberry eating e xperience of the 95 panelists whom were part of the evaluation panel in 2004..........................................................................................30 2.14 Firmness ranking of 4 blueberry clones by 95 panelists from 1 (softest sample) to 4 (crunchiest sample)...........................................................................................31

PAGE 8

viii 2.15 Desirability of the berry firmness of 4 blueberry clones evaluated on a scale from 1 (dislike extremely) to 9 (like extremely) by 95 panelists.............................31 2.16 Overall desirability of the berry qual ity of 4 blueberry clones evaluated by 95 panelists....................................................................................................................31 2.17 Desirability of berry firmness and overall desirability of be rries of 4 blueberry clones as judged by panelists with diffe ring blueberry consumption histories........32 3.1 Mean deformation forcez at 2mm depth for 8 blueberry clones stored in air for 8 weeks at 2C in 2003................................................................................................37 3.2 ANOVA for mean deformation force need ed at 2mm for 8 blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in 2003.......................................................................................37 3.3 Incidence of decay (%) for eight bluebe rry clones stored for 8 weeks at 2C in 2003..........................................................................................................................3 8 3.4 ANOVA for incidence of decay (%) of eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in 2003......................................................................................................................38 3.5 Incidence of leaking (%) for eight bluebe rry clones stored for 8 weeks at 2C in 2003..........................................................................................................................3 9 3.6 ANOVA for incidence of leaking (%) for eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in 2003...........................................................................................................40 3.7 Incidence of weight loss (%) of eight bl ueberry clones stored for 8 weeks at 2C in 2003. Values for each week are the cumulative weight loss from week 0 to the week stated.........................................................................................................40 3.8 ANOVA for incidence of weight loss (%) of eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in 2003...........................................................................................................40 3.9 Incidence of shriveling ( %) for eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks at 2C in 2003......................................................................................................................41 3.10 ANOVA for incidence of shriveling (%) of eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in 2003...........................................................................................................41 3.11 Incidence of shrivel severityz of eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks at 2C in 2003......................................................................................................................42 3.12 ANOVA for Incidence of shrivel severity of eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in 2003...........................................................................................................42 3.13 Meanz pH of eight blueberry clones stored at 2C over 8 weeks in 2003................43

PAGE 9

ix 3.14 ANOVA for mean pH of ei ght blueberry clones stored at 2C over 8 weeks in 2003..........................................................................................................................4 4 3.15 Meanz SSC of eight blueberry clones stored at 2C over 8 weeks in 2003.............44 3.16 ANOVA for mean SSC of eight blueberry clones stored at 2C over 8 weeks in 2003..........................................................................................................................4 4 3.17 Meanz TTA of eight blueberry clones stored at 2C over 8 weeks in 2003.............45 3.18 ANOVA for mean TTA of eight blueberry clones stored at 2C over an 8 weeks in 2003......................................................................................................................45 3.19 Mean deformation forcez at 2mm depth for 10 blueberry clones stored in air for 8 weeks at 2C in 2004.............................................................................................49 3.20 ANOVA for mean force needed to defo rm the berries by 2mm for 10 blueberry clones stored for 6 weeks in 2004. (air atmosphere)................................................49 3.21 Incidence of decay (%) for 10 blueberry cl ones stored for 6 weeks in air storage at 2C in 2004...........................................................................................................50 3.22 ANOVA for incidence of decay (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 6 weeks in air storage in 2004................................................................................................50 3.23 Incidence of leaking (%) for 10 bluebe rry clones stored for 6 weeks in air storage at 2C in 2004..............................................................................................51 3.24 ANOVA for incidence of leaking (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 6 weeks in 2004......................................................................................................................51 3.25 Incidence of shriveling ( %) for 10 blueberry clones st ored for 6 weeks in air storage at 2C in 2004..............................................................................................52 3.26 ANOVA for incidence of shriveling (%) of 10 blueberry clones stored at 2C for 6 weeks in 2004........................................................................................................52 3.27 Incidence of shrivel severityz of 10 blueberry clones st ored for 6 weeks in air storage at 2C in 2004..............................................................................................53 3.28 ANOVA for incidence of shrivel severity of 10 blueberry clones stored for 6 weeks at 2C in 2004................................................................................................53 3.29 Meanz pH of 10 blueberry clones in an ai r atmosphere over 6 weeks in 2004........54 3.30 ANOVA for mean pH of 10 blueberry clone s in an air atmosphere over 6 weeks in 2004......................................................................................................................54 3.31 Meanz SSC 10 blueberry clones in an air atmosphere over 6 weeks in 2004..........55

PAGE 10

x 3.32 ANOVA for mean SSC of 10 blueberry cl ones in an air atmosphere over 6 weeks in 2004...........................................................................................................55 3.33 Meanz TTA of 10 blueberry clones in an air atmosphere over 6 weeks in 2004.....56 3.34 ANOVA for mean TTA of 10 blueberry cl ones in an air atmosphere over 6 weeks in 2004...........................................................................................................56 3.35 Mean deformation forcez at 2mm depth for 10 blueberry clones stored in C.A. for 8 weeks at 2C in 2004.......................................................................................58 3.36 ANOVA for deformation for ce at 2mm for 10 blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in 2004...........................................................................................................58 3.37 Incidence of decay (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in C.A. storage at 2C in 2004..............................................................................................59 3.38 ANOVA for incidence of decay (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in C.A. storage in 2004.............................................................................................59 3.39 Incidence of leaking (%) for 10 bluebe rry clones stored for 8 weeks in C.A. storage at 2C in 2004..............................................................................................60 3.40 ANOVA for incidence of leaking (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in 2004......................................................................................................................60 3.41 Incidence of shriveling ( %) for 10 blueberry clones st ored for 6 weeks in air storage at 2C in 2004..............................................................................................61 3.42 ANOVA for incidence of shriveling (%) of 10 blueberry clones stored at 2C for 8 weeks in 2004........................................................................................................61 3.43 Incidence of shrivel severityz of 10 blueberry clones st ored for 8 weeks in C.A. storage at 2C in 2004..............................................................................................62 3.44 ANOVA for incidence of shrivel severity of 10 blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks at 2C in 2004................................................................................................62 3.45 Meanz pH of 10 blueberry clones in a c ontrolled atmosphere over 8 weeks in 2004..........................................................................................................................6 3 3.46 ANOVA for mean pH of 10 blueberry cl ones in a controlled atmosphere over 8 weeks in 2004...........................................................................................................64 3.47 Meanz SSC of 10 blueberry clones in a c ontrolled atmosphere over 8 weeks in 2004..........................................................................................................................6 4 3.48 ANOVA for mean SSC of 10 blueberry clon es in a controlled atmosphere over 8 weeks in 2004...........................................................................................................64

PAGE 11

xi 3.49 Meanz TTA of 10 blueberry clones in a c ontrolled atmosphere over 8 weeks in 2004..........................................................................................................................6 5 3.50 ANOVA for mean TTA of 10 blueberry cl ones in a controlled atmosphere over 8 weeks in 2004........................................................................................................65

PAGE 12

xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1.1 Blueberries at white, pink and blue stages after the start of fina l swell (stage 3)......7 2.1 Instron machine with 8 mm probe............................................................................13 2.2 Histogram of mean firmness of 99 test bl ueberry clones. Class Interval 0.10 N. The value for each clone was the average of 10 berries individually tested............16 2.3 Instron 8600 with sh ear-cell attached.......................................................................23 2.4 Relationship between shear-cell forces of nine selected blueberry cultivars and clones harvested at the blue stage in th e first and second sampling dates of 2004..25

PAGE 13

xiii Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science FIRMNESS AND STORAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF CRISP-TEXTURED BLUEBERRIES By Les Padley Jr. December 2005 Chair: Paul Lyrene Major Department: Horticultural Science During the 1980s and 1990s several cultivar s with a firm texture were released from blueberry breeding programs, exemplif ied by Reveille from North Carolina and Bluecrisp from Florida. University of Florida blueberry breeders, along with local growers, considered Bluecrisp to have a unique crisp texture that had not been encountered up to that date. Since the discove ry of Bluecrisp, several new clones with crisp-texture were found in the te st plots of the University of Floridas breeding program. This research was designed to compare th e crisp clones, Bluecrisp, FL 97-136, FL 98-325, FL 00-59, FL 00-180 and FL 00-270, for crisp-texture and storage life to standard non-crisp clones Emerald, Millennia, Star, and Windsor. Firmness testing was first conducted on 99 bl ueberry clones, including the crisp clones Bluecrisp FL97-136, and FL 98-325, using an Instron 8600 with a 10N load cell. The firmness test, deformation to 2 mm, reveal ed that the crisp characteristic could not be determined using Instron firmness test ing. A test studying the firmness changes

PAGE 14

xiv during fruit development did not show differences between the crisp and non-crisp clones using Instron measurements of berries at the white, pink and blue stages of maturity. Berries of all vari eties became much softer duri ng the transition from white to blue. However, shear cell testing, simu lating chewing, conducted in 2004 on the two groups of clones showed that Bluecrisp , FL 97-136, FL 00-59 and FL 00-180 were distinctively different from all of the ot her clones in maximum force required for the blades to slice the berries. A consumer sensory panel study in 2004 showed that the crisp clones Bluecrisp and FL 00-59 could be distinguished as crisp in comparison with the non-crisp clones Star and Wi ndsor. The average consumer, though, did not have a preference for the crisp-textured blue berries when compared with the standard non-crisp blueberries. Postharvest storage tests in 2004 showed that, when held in air storage, the clones Bluecrisp, FL 00-59, and FL 00-180 had superior storage life compared with the other crisp and non-crisp clones. Th e shear cell test in 2004 also separated these three crisp clones from th e other clones tested. A correlation that separates crisp and non-crisp clones usi ng shear cell values and postharvest storage life might exist. When the same crisp and non-crisp clones were stored in a controlled atmosphere of 2% O2 plus 15% CO2, the distinction between Bluecrisp, FL00-59 and FL 00180 and the other clones was lost.

PAGE 15

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION History of Blueberries in Florida The commercial blueberry industry is prof itable and fast growing. In 2002 North America produced 390 million pounds of bluebe rries with a total wholesale value of about $310 million. Cultivated blueberries repr esented $210 million of the total and wild blueberries $100 million. Of the 2002 nationa l total, Florida contributed $18.5 million from approximately 809 hectares of cultivat ed blueberries (10, 50). Florida has the potential to greatly increa se blueberry acreage and produc tion without flooding the market (2). Florida, with its early Ap ril to early May market window (20), has the capability of playing a major role in the expansion of this industry. Cultivated blueberries ( Vaccinium section Cyanococcus) are native to eastern North America and were first commercialized there. At first, production was mainly located in the northern United States and was base d on the northern highbush blueberry ( Vaccinium corymbosum) These highbush blueberry cultivars produced high yields and large fruit when planted on soils with high organic matte r and low pH in areas that provided high chilling hours (50). Florida began bluebe rry production in the early 1900s using the native Florida blueberry species V. ashei commonly called rabbiteye blueberry. The plants were transplanted from the wild in to cultivated fields. By 1930, over 2000 acres of commercial blueberries were in production in North Florida (30, 41). This production did not last long due to poor fruit quality a nd marketing problems (9, 50). Over the next several decades the blueberry indu stry in Florida went into se rious decline (30). Northern

PAGE 16

2 highbush blueberries were tried in Florida during this time, but the plants did not fare well. Lack of chill hours, low soil organic matter and subtropical diseases made it hard for the northern plants to survive so far south (25). In 1984, the blueberry market for the United States was expanding rapidly but there were no blueberries available until late May, when harvest began in eastern North Carolina (28, 42). Florida Agricultural Experi ment Station horticulturalist Ralph Sharpe believed that Florida could produce blueberries as early as late April (42). What was needed to create this industry was high yiel ding, large fruited, ear ly ripening blueberry varieties. To breed these va rieties, Sharpe propagated se veral Florida evergreen lowbush wild blueberry bushes ( V. darrowi) that he found growing around a lake near Winter Haven, Florida. These bushes produced unusually large berries with a powdery blue color. He crossed these plants with northern hi ghbush cultivars. This was the first step in breeding a type of low-chill, heat-toleran t highbush called southern highbush (25, 28). Southern highbush revitalized Florida’s bluebe rry industry by allowing Florida blueberry growers to harvest during the early market window of March 20 to May 20 (42). The new industry took decades to develop, but by 1985 there was 1058 acres of blueberries in Florida, and by 1989 the blueberry acreage in Florida had nearly doubled to 2106 acres (8, 9). In 2003, Florida ranked as the 7th largest state in cultivated blueberry acreage for the U.S. with around 1900 acres (48). Blueberry Breeding Blueberry breeding started in the United States around 1910, and at the University of Florida (U. F.) about 1950 (42). Florida’ s breeding program mainly concentrated on the development of low-chill, early ripening, tetraploid, southern highbush cultivars. These southern highbush cultivars were obt ained by hybridization of Florida native

PAGE 17

3 blueberries (mainly Vaccinium darrowi ) and highbush cultivars ( V. corymbosum ) from Michigan, New Jersey and North Carolina. The original crosses were followed by a program of recurrent selection. Ralph Sharpe and Wayne Sherman continue d this program of recurrent selection untill Sharpe’s retirement in 1976. The program was continued Sherman, who was joined by Paul Lyrene in 1977. Sherman retirement in 2003, and the program is now under the direction of Lyrene. As currently practiced in the U. F. blue berry breeding program, by Dr. Paul Lyrene, each cycle of selection is begun by cro ssing 200 plants to obtain 12,000 seedlings. Pollination is done by emasculating the flowers before anthesis, and pollen is transferred by thumbnail as described by Edwards, Sherma n and Sharpe (13). The seedlings from these crosses are grown and eval uated for numerous characterist ics that are important in a cultivar. Desired characteristics included a vigorous, upright plant, high yield potential, resistance to various insects and diseases, adaptation to Florida soils and climates, and large, sweet, firm berries that are easy to harvest and have a long shelf life (17). From the original 12,000 plants, 200 are selected and us ed as parents to begin the next cycle of selection. As this process continues, each generation of selection brings better seedling populations. The seedlings are also the sour ce of new varieties, which are propagated asexually. In evaluating genotypes for the U. F. breed ing program, seedlings are first fruited in a high density nursery (Stage 1). The plants are examined for fruit size, color, picking scar size, firmness, flavor, time of ripening and freedom from majo r visible defects of bush or berry (27). From the 12,000 seedli ngs, 500 are selected and the rest are

PAGE 18

4 discarded. The selected plants are grown for 2 more years (Stage 2 test). During the first of the 2 years, the bushes and berries are eval uated for the same characteristics that were evaluated in stage 1, and 100 to 150 plants ar e selected for propagation. In the second year the plants are reexamined to find plan ts showing the desirable qualities that did not appear in the first year, and an additional 20 to 50 plants are selected. For each plant selected in Stage 2, 40 softwood cuttings are taken. Based on the rooting ability of the cuttings and growth characteristics of the ramets, 120 to 150 clones per year are planted into a commercial field in plots of 20 plants pe r clone (Stage 3). Here they received the care and maintenance recommended for commer cial blueberries in Florida (27). The plants are left in the field for 2 to 10 year s, depending on the performance of each clone. Each year, the clones are examined for plan t vigor and survival, leafing and flowering characteristics, and berry yield and quality (27). Approximately 12 clones are selected from each stage 3 test, and ramets are propaga ted from each clone. The selected clones are planted in 100-plant plots in a commercial field. These pl ots are examined for 3 to 6 years, and the best one to two selections become cultivars (27). The characteristics that make a successf ul blueberry cultivar have been studied for decades by people such as Sharpe ( 13, 42), Sherman (13, 42), Ballinger (4, 5), Ballington (6), Lyrene (27, 28) and Finn (17). The heritability of ce rtain characteristics has also been studied. Edwards, Sherman a nd Sharpe (13) determined that there was a high heritability estimate for fruit size, a m oderate heritability for fruit color, a low heritability for fruit firmness and picking scar si ze and an even lower heritability for plant vigor. They also determined that additive gene action was high for fruit size, color, and firmness, and plant vigor, and plants should transmit these tr aits to their progeny. Finn,

PAGE 19

5 and Luby (17) confirmed this additive gene acti on in blueberries as it pertains to fruit color. They also concluded that highbus h x highbush segregati on patterns indicated predominately additive gene action. These studies, along with others, have helped blueberry breeders improve their breeding programs. Growth and Fruit Development of Blueberries Growing blueberries in Florida is a ch allenging business. Blueberries are a deciduous, perennial, long lived woody shrub wi th a fibrous root system that requires high organic matter and acidic so ils to thrive. Selecting the proper site is a key to growing commercial blueberries. A site must have well drained soil at least 40 cm deep, a pH between 3.5 and 5.5 and 2 to 3% organic matter. The area must also have enough cool weather during the winter to satisfy the chilling requir ement of the variety, but the frequency of late winter a nd early spring freezes should be low(49). Once a site is chosen, southern highbush blueberries are plan ted 1 m apart in rows 3 m apart. Two or more cultivars are inter-pla nted for cross-pollination. Blueberry plants require at least 100 cm of water yearly to be productive (49). Overhead irrigation is the most common and practical way of applying water to the plants in Florida. Overhead irrigati on is also used to protect fl ower buds from February, March and April freezes (28). Fertilizer (12-4-8-2) is applied frequently beginning about midApril and ending in August or September. Bushes are pruned during the summer after final harvest. Pruning of southern highbush plan ts is needed to keep the desirable size and shape of the plant, to increase plant vigor and to promote good fruit development in next year’s crop (49). Blueberries require several hundred hours of chilling (between 0C and 7C) in the winter to stimulate the sprou ting of floral and vegetative buds in the spring. The amount

PAGE 20

6 of chilling required varies from one cultivar to another. Chilling hours begin in the fall after the plants go dormant. Previous to th e chilling season, some axillary (vegetative) buds are inverted into flower buds. This tr ansformation is complete by January and the swollen flower buds can be distinguished fr om the vegetative buds on the bush. Plants must have a proper balance between vege tative and flower buds to produce maximum yields and quality (49) In north Florida, flower b uds open during February (Lyrene, personal communication). Blueberry flowers consist of a corolla tube (white or pink colored), a pistil and anthers. The corolla tube is the most visibl e part of the flower and is made up of five fused petals. The pistil extends to the end of the corolla tube, but th e anthers are situated in such a way that sonication by an insect, primarily bees, is needed to efficiently remove pollen from the flower. Sonication occurs wh en a bee places its he ad into the corolla tube and moves its wing muscles at high fre quencies causing the polle n to fall out of the flower. Pollen lands on the bee’s head, and so me of it is taken to other flowers, where it may be left on the stigfmas. For optimum fruit set and berry size, it cross-pollination (pollen from one variety being placed on th e stigma of another) is desirable (49). After pollination, the flower takes 45 to 120 days to develop into a ripened blueberry (Lyrene, personal communication) Blueberry fruit development follows a double-sigmoid curve that consists of three stages (12). In stage I fruit size increases through cell division. Stage II is character ized by a rapid increase in embryo and endosperm growth with little or no increase in berry size. In St age III cells enlarge without cell division until matur ity (12). In the final days of development the blueberry undergoes a ripening process in which acid de creases while pH, sugar and berry weight

PAGE 21

7 increase (3). As berry color changes from gr een to white to pink to blue (Figure 1.1) the berries increase dramatically in size (final swell) (3, Lyrene, pers onal communication). It takes about 5 days for the berr ies to undergo this ripening pro cess for a climacteric fruit, physical maturity is reached at mature green stage (i.e., when it can ripen on or off the plant). to become fully ripened, physiologi cally mature blueberries (Lyrene, personal communication). Figure 1.1. Blueberries at white, pink and blue stages after th e start of fina l swell (stage 3). Harvest and Postharvest of Blueberries Florida blueberries are harvested, packed and shipped to many parts of the world from March 20 to May 20 (46). Worldwid e shipment of fresh berries requires good cultivars, and a first-rate packing and storage system. The process of producing blueberries that pack and store well begins in the field before th e berries are picked. Blueberries must be ripe, firm and have a small, dry picking scar to su rvive the trip to the

PAGE 22

8 market. A picking scar that is small and dry is especially important, because a wet picking scar, caused by the skin of the berry te aring as it is removed from the stem, is a primary locus of fungus infection (7, 19, 29, 46). In the field, the berries are picked into buckets and poured into field lugs, which are kept shaded. Great care must be taken during the harvesting and handling process to avoid dropping or bruising the berries, which would lead to decay. In the packi ng house, the berries are placed on a conveyer belt, and unripe, overripe or damaged berries are removed, along with leaves and twigs. Berries must be firm to avoid bruising or ju ice leakage during this process. The sorted berries are placed in plastic clamshells, 125 to 400 g per clamshell. These are typically packed in 12-unit cart ons for shipping. After packing, the berries are placed into a storage unit at 0 to 5C with relative humidity of 95% (5, 15, 23, 24, 35). Under these conditions, blueberries can be stored for 2 weeks without decay (5, 31, 36, 38, 46). Bluebe rries have been stored using modified atmosphere (MA) since 1919. Research on st orage conditions has primarily focused on the quality of the blueberries. Quality para meters have included weight loss, number of defective berries, firmness, color, and decay (23, 29). As expected, weight loss, number of defective berries and decay increase over time, whereas firmness decreases and color becomes darker. Further research has shown that many of the cha nges that occur on the outside of the blueberry are due to internal changes in the berry. As fruit develop and mature, total titratable acidity (TTA) decrea ses while weight, pH, soluble solids content (SSC), sugar, and SSC/TTA ratio increase (3, 20, 26). Blueberries with low pHs of 3.5 or less tend to have slower rate s of decay (3, 19, 38). These changes in acid, weight, pH, TTA, SSC, sugar and SSC/TTA occur naturall y as a blueberry matures, ripens and

PAGE 23

9 senesces. Controlled atmospheres (CA) are us ed in blueberry storage to reduce the rate of senescence in the berries. CA storage consists of altering the concentrations of CO2, O2 and N in the storage units containing the blueberries. Using CA for blueberries began in the ear ly 1980s when it was discovered that high CO2 and low O2 levels helped prevent th e decay of the fruit (7, 46). Much research has been done since then. Optimum levels for th ese gases have been found to be 2 to 5% O2, 15 to 20% CO2 and nitrogen as a filler gas to make the atmosphere 100% (7, 24, 46 ). At these levels, blueberries harves ted at the blue maturity st age can be stored for over a month at 1C with little decay or damage to th e outside of the berries. At least one study, though, has shown that high levels of CO2 in the CA may cause internal changes in blueberries that produce an ‘off flavor’ (7). The reasons for the development of this flavor are yet unknown. Of the variables that have been studied in the postharvest storage of blueberries, firmness has been found to be a key indicator of berry quality change during storage (25). Early methods of determining blueberry fi rmness included squeezing the berry between the fingers and judging the resistance, or j udging firmness by masticating the berry (4, 29, 45). These methods gave variable results from one person to another (45). In 1973, Ballinger and associates (4) modified an Inst ron Universal Testing machine (resistance to compression) to measure the firmness of bluebe rry fruit. The Inst ron Universal Testing machine had been previously used in determ ining the firmness of other fruit (4, 37). Instron tests determined that blueberry firmne ss can vary from one harvest to another and from one year to another. It was also dete rmined that the greatest decrease in firmness during berry development came as the berry went from the green to the pink stage (4).

PAGE 24

10 Since the initial tests in 1 973 many more studies have conf irmed that the Instron is a reliable indicator of blueberry firmness (14, 15, 16, 23, 32). Variations in berry firmness among harvests and among years as well as dramatic decreases in firmness from the green to pink stage of development were also confirmed through other studies (14, 33, 34, 46). Although many studies have used an Instron to determine firmness, a set of standard guidelines for measuring berry fi rmness have still not been developed, except concerning where the berries should be comp ressed. It has been determined that compressing the berry along its lateral axis gives smoother, more consistent force deformation curves than compressing the fr uit in the axial dire ction (4, 14, 15, 16). Studies have determined that blueberry firm ness decreases over time in storage and that this decrease can be slowed but not st opped by lower temperature (8, 14, 16, 38). A study done from 1998 to 2000 surveyed berry firmness in 87 highbush culivars and species-introgressed highbush bl ueberry cultivars (14). This study determined that 1.34 N/mm deflection force was average for thes e cultivars, and that values above 1.57 N/mm were considered superior. Crisp-texture has been studied in other be rries such as the grape (41). The crisptexture in grapes can be traced back to the native North American grapes that were added to the European grape gene pool The hybrid grapes, call V. labrusca can be distinguished as crisp-textured by means of puncture testing. In th e puncture testing the deformation at first breakdown (DFP) and the maximum peak of force (MF) separate the “crisp” from the soft cultivars. A grape that has a small DFP and a large MF is considered “crisp”, whereas berries with la rge DFP and small MF are considered soft

PAGE 25

11 (41). No known research has been done on the DFP or the MF of blueberries as it relates to “crisp” or soft texture. Crisp-Textured Blueberries During the 1980s and 1990s, several bluebe rry cultivars with very firm texture were released from breeding programs, exem plified by ‘Reveille’ from North Carolina and ‘Bluecrisp’ from Florida. ‘Bluecrisp’ wa s considered by U.F.’s blueberry breeder, as well as local growers, to have a unique crisp-texture. This texture can best be described as biting into an apple. In recent years, several other clones with crisp-textured berries have been found in test plots in Florida. What makes this characteristic even more unique is that there is no co mmon ancestry between any of th ese crisp-textured clones. To determine how these new clones compare in crisp-texture and storage life with various commercial cultivars, several experi ments were conducted. In this study, which describes these experiments, clones ‘Blu ecrisp’, FL 97-136, FL 98-325, FL 00-59, FL 00180 and FL 00-270 will be referred to as “cr isp” clones, and the commercial clones ‘Emerald’, ‘Millennia’, ‘Star’, and ‘Windsor’ will be referred to as “non-crisp” clones. These designations were based on the percep tion of the breeder at the start of these experiments, and as will be seen, were not always supported by the objective tests that were made in the course of these experiments.

PAGE 26

12 CHAPTER 2 QUALITY DETERMINATIONS OF FRESH BLUEBERRY CLONES Relative Berry Firmness of 99 Clones In the first set of experiments, various ch aracteristics of blueberry clones that had been selected for crisp-texture were compared with the same characteristics in standard commercial varieties. For this test, 99 blueberry clones were use d, of which three clones, ‘Bluecrisp’, FL 97-136, and FL 98-325, had previously been cl assified as crisp based on informal observations in the field. The purpose of this test was to determine if the berries from these clones were firmer then these of standard commercial cultivars. Materials and Methods On May 2, 2003, berries from 99 clones of southern highbush blueberries were harvested from a variety test planted in a commercial blueberry planting at Straughn Farms Inc. in Windsor, Florida (Alachua C ounty). The clones were advanced selections from the U. F. breeding program. During earl ier stages of selection, clones had been eliminated if the berries were small, dark, had wet picking scars, or were soft. The plants were growing in 15-plant clonal plots and were about two meters tall. Approximately 20 ripe berries were gathered from each clone and placed in paper bags. Two separate samples were taken for the firm cultivar ‘Bluecrisp’. The bags were placed in a cooler and transported to a 2 C storage unit. Fi rmness was measured the next day by removing the berries from 10 clones at a time from th e cooler and placing them on a grading table

PAGE 27

13 for 90 minutes to allow the berries to reach room temperature (about 22C). Once at room temperature, the berries were inspect ed for leaking, collapse, decay or other damage. Damaged berries were discarded, af ter which 10 berries were randomly selected from each clone for firmness testing. An In stron 8600 with a 10 N load cell was used to test firmness. Each berry was placed onto a washer with an outer diameter of 2.2 cm and an inner diameter of 1 cm to keep it stable The berries were placed on their sides with the calyx end to the left and the stem end to the right. An 8 mm probe attached to the Instron was then lowered from above until it pressed onto the equato r of the berry, using an initial contact force not exceeding .03N (Fig. 2.1). Using a crosshead speed of 50 mm/min, each berry was deformed and the 3 mm deformation at 1 mm, 2 mm, and 3 mm depth were recorded (10 berries/clone). Figure 2.1. Instron machine with 8 mm probe.

PAGE 28

14 Results When berry firmness was plotted as a hi stogram (Fig. 2.2) the 99 clones appeared to give a normal distribution, except that the sample for FL 98-325 was separated from the others at the high end of the distribu tion. Firmness of FL 97-136, FL 98-325 and FL 00-270 fell within the top 10% of the array in firmness measured by the Instron (Table 2.1). One ‘Bluecrisp’ sample also was in the top 10% in firmness, but the other ‘Bluecrisp’ sample was less firm with a ra nking of 71 out of 100 samples. FL 98-325, a crisp-textured clone, was firmest and appeared to separate out from the rest of the clones in the histogram on page 31. A Tukey te st was preformed on the top 10% of the histogram to confirm these observations. The te st showed all clones to be similar to each other, except FL 98-325, at the five percent le vel. The unusual firmness of FL 98-325 in this test was not confirmed in subsequent tests (Table 2.2 and 2.3). It is not known why the firmness of FL 98-325 was so high in this test. Discussion Firmness is an important quality factor in blueberry. Several studies (4, 13, 16, 33, 34, 45) have been done on blueberry firmness, and methods of measuring firmness have varied. These studies have confirmed that blueberry firmness changes from harvest to harvest and from year to year. In ou r study, berry firmness of 99 southern highbush blueberry clones showed a bell-shaped distri bution. For the 99 clone s, the means force required to deform the berries 2 mm in an Instron instrument was 3.17 N (Table 2.1). Ehlenfeldt and Martin studied berry fi rmness in 87 highbush blueberry clones and hybrids using a FirmTech 1 firmness tester They found an average firmness of 1.34 N/mm deflection and values above 1.57 N/mm were considered superior (14). Our 99 clone test used an Instron 8600 to determine firmness, and got an average of 1.59 N/mm.

PAGE 29

15 Table 2.1. Meanz force (N) required to deform berri es by 2mm for 99 blueberry clones ranked from lowest to highest sampled in 2003. Cloney Mean (N) Standard deviation (N) Clone Mean (N) Standard deviation (N) Clone Mean (N) Standard deviation (N) FL 98-352 1.79 0.56 FL 98-375 3.04 0.43 FL 98-370 3.84 0.50 FL 98-17 2.06 0.44 FL 98-25 3.05 0.31 FL 98-370 3.90 0.43 FL 98-357 2.09 0.34 FL 95-209B 3.06 0.30 FL 98-385 3.92 0.50 FL 99-54 2.15 0.22 FL 96-96 3.12 0.45 FL 95-174 3.93 0.55 FL 96-90 2.20 0.31 FL 99-60 3.12 0.34 Bluecrisp2* 4.01 0.42 FL 99-74 2.25 0.25 FL 99-69 3.13 0.45 FL 98-384 4.04 0.39 FL 98-337 2.34 0.41 FL 99-51 3.13 0.29 Misty 4.08 0.38 FL 91-16 2.34 0.22 FL 98-369 3.13 0.65 FL 97-136* 4.17 0.48 FL 98-339 2.36 0.48 FL 95-50 3.14 0.38 FL 99-55 4.18 0.19 FL 98-338 2.38 1.03 Emerald 3.14 0.46 FL 98-363 4.22 0.48 FL 99-66 2.44 0.19 FL 98-402 3.16 0.52 Magnolia 4.35 0.58 FL 98-341 2.46 0.15 FL 95-174 3.19 0.66 FL 99-37 4.35 0.44 FL 98-351 2.47 0.28 FL 98-438 3.20 0.62 FL 98-436 4.50 1.39 FL Jewel 2.51 0.51 FL 98-433 3.22 0.17 FL 98-325* 5.49 0.62 FL 98-365 2.56 0.82 FL 98-388 3.25 0.66 Sapphire 2.59 0.20 FL 98-411 3.26 0.25 FL 98-437 2.60 0.30 FL 98-342 3.27 0.27 FL 99-48 2.63 0.22 FL 98-29 3.30 0.51 Overall Average 3.17 0.45 FL 99-59 2.66 0.39 FL 98-303 3.30 0.28 FL 99-56 2.66 0.40 FL 90-91 3.31 0.34 FL 99-65 2.67 0.30 FL 96-24 3.32 0.29 FL 98-423 2.67 0.51 FL 98-427 3.33 0.30 FL 98-401 2.67 0.32 FL 86-19 3.33 0.27 FL 98-27 2.67 0.37 FL 92-166-N 3.39 0.40 FL 97-118 2.68 0.54 FL 98-18 3.44 0.44 FL 98-414 2.69 0.32 FL 98-371 3.49 0.57 FL 98-415 2.71 0.30 FL 98-430 3.51 0.34 FL 98-372 2.72 0.27 Bluecrisp1*x 3.54 0.39 FL 98-421 2.72 0.30 FL 00-270 3.55 1.07 FL 98-428 2.74 0.36 FL 97-63 3.57 0.27 FL 98-431 2.78 1.07 Southern Bell 3.57 0.53 FL 96-43 2.82 0.57 FL 98-358 3.59 0.65 FL 99-45 2.83 0.63 FL 98-381 3.62 0.20 Legacy 2.84 0.48 FL 98-297 3.62 0.32 FL 98-125 2.87 0.37 Star 3.62 0.27 FL 95-197 2.90 0.40 FL 99-50 3.64 0.25 FL 98-416 2.90 0.28 FL 98-356 3.64 0.60 FL 98-439 2.98 0.26 FL 95-173 3.72 0.40 FL 93-171 3.00 0.33 Millennia 3.74 0.69 Sebring 3.00 0.26 FL 98-420 3.77 0.46 Sharpblue 3.02 0.34 FL 93-221 3.78 0.31 FL 98-383 3.03 0.49 FL 97-79 3.80 0.58 Windsor 3.03 0.41 FL 99-71 3.82 0.33 z Mean of 10 berries individually sampled. y The symbol following the clone name indicates th at it had been considered a crisp-textured clone previous to this experiment. x Bluecrisp 1 and 2 were from 2 different fields.

PAGE 30

16 Figure 2.2 Histogram of mean firmness of 99 test blueberry clones. Cl ass Interval 0.10 N. The value for each clone was the averag e of 10 berries individually tested. A direct comparison between the two e xperiments can not be made because different testers were used, but the averag e firmness, measured as N/mm deflection, for

PAGE 31

17 our 99 clone test was larger then the valu e Ehlenfeldt and Martin of the 87 highbush blueberry test considered to be superior in their tests. Further southern highbush testing using an Instron machine is needed to confirm the results from this test. Firmness Changes During Fruit Development Blueberry fruit change dramatically during final swell as the color changes from green to blue. Weight and SSC increase a nd TTA (26) and firmness decrease. Firmness decreases most between the white and pink stag es and less significantly thereafter. It had been hypothesized by Dr. Paul Lyrene that the crisp-textured clones soften more slowly then standard commercial clones. The purpose of this test was to determine if this hypothesis was right. For this experiment, normal and crisp text ured blueberries were harvested during several of the final stages of ripening and for several days afterward. Berries from four crisp-textured clones were used: ‘Bluecr isp’, FL 97-136, FL 98-325, and FL 00-59, and four commercial cultivars were used: ‘Emera ld’, ‘Millennia’, ‘Star’ and ‘Windsor’. 2003 Materials and Methods Five to eight bushes of the clones ‘Bluecrisp’, FL 97-136, FL 98-325, FL 00-59, ‘Emerald’, ‘Millennia’, ‘Star’ and ‘Windso r’ were netted (to exclude birds and berry harvesters) in a variety test attached to a commercial field. Once the berries had reached the white stage of development, 20 berries fr om each clone were harvested, placed into clamshells and transported in a cooler of ice back to the lab. At the lab the berries were warmed up to room temperature and their firm ness was tested. The white stage was after final swell had begun and 1 to 2 days before the berries turned pink then purple. Blueberries were also harveste d at the pink and blue stages of development (Fig. 1.1). The skins of some blueberries were marked w ith the date they first became blue using a

PAGE 32

18 paint marker (uniPAINT fine line PX21). Twenty berries were harvested from each clone at each of six sampling times: 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, and 15 days after they first turned blue. Berry firmness was tested using an Inst ron 8600 as described previously. All twenty berries harvested for each clone at each maturity level were tested for firmness. 2003 Results The firmness testing during fruit devel opment for 2003 was interrupted by pickers and some data were lost (Table 2.2). From the remaining data shown in Table 2.2 it can be seen that a dramatic decrease in firmne ss occurred from the white to pink stages of berry development. Changes in firmness afte r the pink stage of be rry development were small. Both “crisp” and “non-crisp” clones softened significantly during the transition from white to pink. The data failed to s how a major difference be tween the “crisp” and “non-crisp” clones in the soften ing that occurred as the berries went from white to blue. It had been hypothesized earlier that the high firmness of the “crisp” berries when fully ripe might be the result of less loss of firmne ss during the final stages of ripening, but this seems not to have been the case. ‘Bluecris p’ and FL 98-325 were less firm at the pink stage (Table 2.2) than in the fully ripened blue stage Table 2.1. This indicates that one or more non-genetic factors have a la rge effect on Instron firmness. 2004 Materials and Methods In 2004, FL 00-180 and FL 00-270 were added to the test as possible crisp-textured clones. Five to eight bushes of the cl ones ‘Bluecrisp’, FL 98-325, FL 00-59, FL 00-180, FL 00-270, ‘Emerald’, ‘Millennia’, ‘Sta r’ and ‘Windsor’ were netted in a

PAGE 33

19 Table 2.2. Meanz deformation force (2mm deformation) of fruit for eight blueberry clones sampled at 9 stages of maturity in 2003. 2mm Deformation Force (N) at Maturity Stage Cloney White Pink Blue Day 3x Day 7 Day 9 Day 12 Day 15 Bluecrisp* 7.77 ab 2.83 a 2.14 2.17 a 2.30 FL 97-136* 10.24 a 2.51 a 2.41 1.70 FL 98-325* 10.57 a 2.56 ab 2.82 2.97 FL 00-59* 9.03 abw 2.85 a 2.71 a Emerald 5.85 b 1.70 Millennia 8.34 ab 2.67 Star 9.88 a 1.73 b 0.84 Windsor 8.98 ab 1.77 b 2.12 a P > F 0.013 0.001 0.045 z Mean of 20 berries individually sampled. y Clones followed by a had been considered crisp textured x Days after berry first turned blue w Within columns means followed by th e same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. commercial field and allowed to ripen. Once the berries had reached the white stage of development, 20 berries from each clone were harvested, and their firmness was tested as previously described. Blueberries were also harvested at the pink and blue stages of development. To test the firmness of the be rries an Instron 8600 te sting machine with a 10 N load cell was used. The procedure was the same as previously described. 2004 Results All clones softened significantly between the white and pink stages (Table 2.3). The six “crisp” clones did not differ conspic uously in the pattern of firmness loss from the four “non-crisp” cultivars. Analysis of variance (Table 2.4) showed that clones, stages of ripening, and clone x stage interact ion all contributed signi ficantly to variances in the firmness of the samples.

PAGE 34

20 Table 2.3. Meanz deformation force of fruit for nine blueberry clones sampled at three stages of maturity in 2004. 2mm Deformation force(N) at maturity stage Cloney White Pink Blue Bluecrisp* 7.52 ab 3.20 abc 2.81 ab FL 98-325* 5.51 ab 3.76 a 2.80 ab FL 00-59* 7.79 abx 3.69 a 3.30 a FL 00-180* 7.32 ab 2.64 bc 2.39 bc FL 00-270* 7.27 ab 3.39 abc 1.87 c Emerald 4.78 b 2.45 c 1.97 c Millennia 9.24 a 3.49 ab 1.86 c Star 9.08 ab 2.84 abc 2.44 bc Windsor 5.06 ab 2.64 bc 2.14 bc Stage means 7.06 3.12 2.40 P > F 0.009 0.000 0.000 zMeans of 10 berries individually sampled. yClones followed by a are crisp textured x Within columns means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. Table 2.4. ANOVA for mean deformation force of fruit for 9 blueberry clones sampled at three stages of maturity in 2004. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 26 53.32 15.70 <0.0001 Clones 8 13.41 3.95 0.0002 Stages 2 566.95 166.93 <.0001 Stages x Clones 16 9.08 2.67 0.0007 Error 243 3.40 Discussion When “crisp” blueberries were originally observed by Dr. Lyrene theorized that the crisp texture in these new blueberries coul d be caused by a lack of polygalacturonase (PG) in the final stages of fruit developmen t (Lyrene, personal communication). PG is an enzyme that helps breaks down pectin, causing the cell walls to soften (39). Production of PG in other fruits has been inhibite d through genetic engineering, or by breeding creating such fruit as the non-melting flesh p each and the Flavor-Savor tomato (18, 43).

PAGE 35

21 Several studies (4, 46, 39) have shown th at during the final days of ripening blueberries soften as they change color from white to blue. The greatest decrease in firmness occurs from the pink to the blue st age and is caused by the synthesis of PG in the berry (39). The tests done in 2003 and 2004 showed a decrease in firmness of all clones as they ripened from white to blue, confirming previous studies. The fact that the “crisp” berries lost firmness rapidly ass they matured from green to blue suggests that PG levels are not related to the crisp textur e in “crisp” blueberri es. Further studies examining changes in PG levels as “crisp ” and “non-crisp” clones mature should be conducted to confirm these results. Shear-Cell Testing In an effort to detect a difference between berries of “crisp” and “non-crisp” clones, berries were tested using a Kramer shear-cell attached to the Instron. The Kramer shearcell is a multi-bladed fixture designed to produce shear stress in a spec imen that relates to firmness (22). The specimen is placed in to a metal box (82.5 mm x 98 mm) with a lid. The top and the bottom of the box have slits designed to allow ten, 3-mm blades to pass through them. The blades penetrate the t op of the box and then push through to the bottom. As the blades are moved through the box, the specimen is first compressed, then extruded, and finally sheared as the blades pe netrate the bottom slots (22). The forces needed for the blades to move through the box relate to berry text ure (22). The purpose of this experiment was to determine the ma ximum force needed to shear blueberries and to determine if this force is different for crisp textured selections and some standard cultivars.

PAGE 36

22 Materials and Methods In 2004, three clamshells of ripe berries (approximately 125 g of berries in each) were collected from April 30 through May 6 for each of the following clones: ‘Bluecrisp’ FL 97-136, FL 98-325, FL 00-59, FL 00-180, FL 00-270, ‘Emerald’, ‘Star’, ‘Windsor’ and ‘Millennia’. The clamshells were pla ced in a cooler and br ought to the lab where each clamshell was inspected to eliminate damaged or leaki ng berries. Approximately 70 g of sound berries were randomly selected and placed into a shear-cell box to make approximately two layers of berries. The sh ear-cell box, the lid and th e blades to the box were set in place on an Instron 8600 (Fig. 2.3). At a crosshead speed of 50 mm/min the blades were passed through the box of berries until they penetrated through to the other side of the box. The maximum force needed for the blades to pass through the box of berries was recorded. This procedure was repe ated for the other two clamshells of berries for a total of three re petitions per clone. On May 18 and May 19 of the same year the shear-cell procedure was repeated using the same clones and technique to obtai n a second set of data for each clone. The berries were harvested from the same bushes. The bushes had been harvested periodically before the samples were taken to insure that only newly ripened berries were included in the second samples. Means we re obtained from these repetitions and compared to the earlier shear-cell test results. Results There was good agreement between the shea r-cell tests run April 30 to May 6 and those run May 18 and 19 (Table 2.5, Fig. 2.4) ‘Bluecrisp’, FL 97-136 FL 00-59 and FL 00-180 had high shear-cell readings and FL 00-270, ‘Millennia’, ‘Star’ and ‘Windsor’ had lower readings (Table 2.5). The shearcell testing was done on six putative crisp-

PAGE 37

23 textured blueberry clones and four standard co mmercial clones. In th e early harvest, the firmest four clones in descending order we re FL 97-136, ‘Bluecrisp’, FL 00-59 and FL 00-180 (Fig. 2.4). At the 5% level ‘Bluecris p’, FL 97-136, and FL 00-59 were different from all other clones except FL 00-180. FL 00-59 was not significantly Figure 2.3. Instron 8600 with shear-cell attached. different from FL 00-180 but wa s significantly different from th e rest of the clones. The rest of the clones merge together and are not easily distinguished as seen from Tukey testing in Table 2.5. In the late season ha rvest there were not enough berries to do shearcell testing on FL 97-136, but all other clones were tested. In th e late-season shear-cell

PAGE 38

24 tests, ‘Bluecrisp’, FL 00-180 and FL 00-59 we re the top three clones and differed from the other clones at the 5% level of a Tukey test. There was a close relationship between the shear-cell force on the 1st and 2nd sample dates for the 9 clones that were sa mpled twice (Fig. 2.4). Clones FL 98-325 and FL 00-270, which had been thought to be cris p, had relatively low shear force, but the other four “crisp” clones were very high in shear-cell force. Although the second samples were harvested approximately 2 week s later in the season, shear-cell force did not dramatically change betw een the two sample dates (Tab le 2.5). Tukey testing done on the mean sample times confirmed ‘Bluecr isp’, FL 00-59 and FL 180 as the top three clones through out shear ce ll testing (Table 2.5). Table 2.5. Shear-cell meansz for 10 clones sampled at two different times during the 2004 growing season. Max force (N) Cloney First sample timex Second sample timew Mean sample times Bluecrisp* 458.0 av 433.7 a 445.84 a FL 00-59* 418.9 ab 393.7 a 406.34 ab FL 97-136* 477.5 a FL 98-325* 308.6 cdef 325.8 b 317.20 c FL 00-180* 360.4 bc 401.6 a 381.01 b FL 00-270* 270.1 def 293.5 bcd 281.79 cd Emerald 317.0 cd 313.2 bc 315.09 c Millennia 246.8 ef 288.0 bcd 267.38 d Star 219.9 f 252.5 d 236.21 d Windsor 269.1 def 257.8 cd 263.44 d P > Fu 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 zMean of 3 shear-cell tests. y Clones followed by a had been considered crisp textured. xTime period was April 30 to May 6. wTime period was May 18 to May 19. vMeans followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. uProbability that the clones di d not differ in shear force.

PAGE 39

25 Discussion The Kramer shear cell was built to study th e texture of materials through a process of compression, extrusion and shearing of the ma terial. It has been used to assess the texture of many fruits and vegetables (1, 21, 22, 47), but extensive work with the shear cell has not been done with blueberries. A study published in 2005 examined shear stress in rabbiteye and highbush blueberries and dete rmined that rabbiteye blueberries (482 N) require more force then highbush berries ( 290 N) (44). A combination of certain 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 050100150200250300350400450500 Second date force (N)First date force (N) Bluecrisp FL 00-180 FL 00-59 FL 98-325 Emerald FL 00-270 Millennia Windsor Star Figure 2.4. Relationship between sh ear-cell forces of nine se lected blueberry cultivars and clones harvested at the blue stage in the first and second sampling dates of 2004.

PAGE 40

26 rabbiteye genes in the southe rn highbbush may be creating th e crisp texture. Further shear cell testing on southern and northern highbush, rabbiteye and lowbush blueberries should be conducted to determine if this is true. Standard deviations (SD) among berries within samples averaged 6% of the means, for shear-cell testing compared to eleven percent of the means for firmness testing. Furthermore, shear cell means fluctuated less from harvest to harvest than Instron firmness means (Table 2.1, 3.1) (4). Shear ce ll testing may be a more consistent way of comparing blueberries than firmness testing. Consumer Sensory Panel Study The crisp-textured clones had been sele cted based on the subjective opinions of growers and the blueberries bree ders at the University of Florida. To determine if the untrained public could distinguish the differe nce between the crisp-textured berries and standard commercial bluebe rries a consumer sensory panel study was conducted. ‘Bluecrisp’ and FL 00-59 repres ented crisp textured blueberr ies, and ‘Emerald’ and ‘Star’ represented standard co mmercial blueberries. 2003 Materials and Methods In a commercial field, 500 blueberries we re gathered from each of the following clones: ‘Bluecrisp’, FL 00-59, ‘Emerald’ and ‘S tar’. The berries from each clone were placed into 4-liter zip lock bags and placed on ice in a cooler for transport to a 2 C storage chamber where they we re kept overnight. The next day, the berries were taken out of storage and allowed to reach room temp erature (22 C). Each berry was inspected to eliminate immature and overripe berries and berries with cuts and leaks. The remaining berries were placed in zip lock ba gs and taken to the sensory panel facility operated by the University of Florida, Depart ment of Food Science and Human Nutrition.

PAGE 41

27 Each clone was assigned a random four-dig it number. The four-digit numbers were then randomly assigned to either the top left top right, bottom left or bottom right of a tray that was presented to the evaluators. For each clone, four berries were randomly selected and placed into a cup. The four c ups were randomly placed on the tray. Saltine crackers and a glass of water were also placed on the tray to cleanse the panelist’s palate between samples. When a panelist entered th e sensory panel chamber, he/she was seated at a booth that had a computer and a sma ll sliding window. The window was opened and a worker presented a tray with the cups of berries. The panelist then sampled the berries and answered the questions (listed in Tabl e 2.6) about each group of berries using the computer. Table 2.6. Questions asked for the 2003 taste panel study. Question number Berry attribute evaluated Evaluation scale 1 Appearance Ranked 1 (extremely disliked) to 9 (extremely liked) by number 2 Texture/firmness Ranked 1 (extremely disliked) to 9 (extremely liked) by number 3 Sweetness Ranked 1 (extremely disliked) to 9 (extremely liked) by number 4 Flavor Ranked 1 (extremely disliked) to 9 (extremely liked) by number 5 Overall acceptability Ranked 1 (extremely disliked) to 9 (extremely liked) by number 2003 Results The panelists preferred some clones over ot hers with respect to fruit appearance, texture/firmness, and sweetness, but showed no clonal preferences regarding flavor (Tables 2.7-2.11). In 2003, the pane lists tended to prefer the te xture of the “crisp” clones over that of ‘Emerald’ and ‘Star’ (Table 2.8). The questions presented with the 2003 samples were ambiguous in that they did not reveal whether the pa nelists could detect differences among the clones or whether they co uld detect differences but did not prefer one texture over another.

PAGE 42

28 Table 2.7. Overall appearance of panelists of four blueberry clones on a scale from 1 (dislike extremely) to 9 (lik e extremely) (n=90; 2003 study). Rating Clone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean Standard Deviation Tukey Test Bluecrisp 1 z 7 10 18 24 24 6 6.70 1.41 b FL 00-59 1 3 11 7 22 31 15 7.21 1.43 a Emerald 2 6 9 14 18 34 7 6.89 1.49 ab Star 2 8 8 15 12 19 18 8 6.18 1.87 c z The number of panelist who rated the clone. Table 2.8. Overall texture/firmness of panelists of four blueberry clones on a scale from 1 (dislike extremely) to 9 (lik e extremely) (n=90; 2003 study). Rating Clone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean Standard Deviation Tukey Test Bluecrisp 1z 3 8 7 17 31 15 8 6.54 1.57 ab FL 00-59 2 6 8 10 25 24 15 7.00 1.61 a Emerald 1 3 1 11 6 22 24 16 6 6.29 1.73 bc Star 2 2 3 9 10 27 22 10 5 6.02 1.72 c z The number of panelist who rated the clone. Table 2.9. Overall sweetness of panelists of four blueberry clones on a scale from 1 (dislike extremely) to 9 (lik e extremely) (n=90; 2003 study). Rating Clone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean Standard Deviation Tukey Test Bluecrisp 1z 1 4 12 13 8 26 16 9 6.30 1.84 Ab FL 00-59 1 1 4 7 7 10 13 29 18 6.92 1.92 A Emerald 1 3 7 7 10 19 21 18 4 6.08 1.84 B Star 5 7 11 10 22 15 18 2 5.82 1.83 B z The number of panelist who rated the clone. Table 2.10. Overall flavor of pane lists of four blueberry clones on a scale from 1 (dislike extremely) to 9 (like extremely) (n=90; 2003 study). Rating Clone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean Standard Deviation Tukey Test Bluecrisp 5z 4 10 11 17 17 18 8 6.16 1.91 A FL 00-59 1 4 4 7 6 15 19 15 19 6.59 2.06 A Emerald 3 4 5 3 17 17 18 15 8 6.03 2.02 A Star 1 3 6 8 14 18 16 16 8 6.08 1.91 A z The number of panelist who rated the clone.

PAGE 43

29 Table 2.11. Overall acceptability of panelists of four blueberr y clones on a scale from 1 (dislike extremely) to 9 (lik e extremely) (n=90; 2003 study). Rating Clone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean Standard Deviation Tukey Test Bluecrisp 1z 4 9 13 16 24 16 7 6.33 1.65 Ab FL 00-59 2 5 4 8 12 24 20 15 6.78 1.79 A Emerald 1 1 4 6 15 21 19 19 4 6.23 1.65 Ab Star 1 3 2 10 14 24 23 10 3 5.94 1.62 B z The number of panelist who rated the clone. 2004 Materials and Methods To resolve this ambiguity of the 2003 se nsory panel, the 2004 questionnaire was changed to directly ask each panelist if th ey could distinguish between the “crisp” and commercial berries. The 2004 panel was c onducted using the cris p-textured clones ‘Bluecrisp’ and FL 00-59, and the standard clon es ‘Star’ and ‘Windsor’. Each clone was placed through the same harvesting and tast e panel procedure that was used in 2003 except the questions were different (Table 2.12). Table 2.12. Questions asked fo r the 2004 taste panel study. Question number Question topic Evaluation scale 1 How often do you eat blueberries 1 (never), 2 (1-2 times a year), 3 (3-10 times a year), 4 (> 10 times a year) 2 Place in order solely based on firmness each group of berries 1 (softest) to 4 (crunchiest) by number 3 Rank each group of berries on texture/firmness. 1 (extremely disliked) to 9 (extremely liked) by number 4 Rank overall quality of each group of berries 1 (extremely disliked) to 9 (extremely liked) by number 2004 Results Forty four percent of the panelists w ho participated in the 2004 panel ate blueberries 1 to 2 times a year, 32% ate blueberr ies 3 to 10 times a year and the rest either never ate blueberries or ate them more then ten times a year (Table 2.13). From these

PAGE 44

30 data it could be said that most of these test subjects we re not regular blueberry eaters. The second question asked the panelist to ra nk the groups from softest to crunchiest. This question separated ‘Bluecrisp’ and FL 00-59 as being the crunchiest and ‘Emerald’ and ‘Star’ as being softer (Table 2.14). Base d on a sample of four berries per clone about 78% of the panelists chose one of the two “crisp” clones as bei ng crunchiest and only 22% chose one of the other two clones ( Ta ble 2.14). The third question (Table 2.15) asked panelists to indicate how well they liked the firmness of the gr oups of berries on a scale from one (extremely disliked) to nine (e xtremely disliked). Here the texture of the two crisp clones received the highest pr eference ratings (Table 2.15), although the preference for ‘Bluecrisp’ texture was not signif icantly higher than for ‘Star’. The forth and final question (Table 2.16) asked each paneli st to rank the overall de sirability of each group of blueberries. This question di d not reveal any major differenced among the groups, although FL 00-59 was ranked sign ificantly higher than ‘Star’. The difference between “crisp” and “non-crisp” clones was more consistent in firmness ranking than for firmness desirability (Table 2.14 versus Table 2.15). This implies that some panelist who could recognize crisp texture did not prefer it. Table 2.17 showed that how often a panelist ate blue berries was not correlated w ith the recognition of “crisp” berries. Overall, from these results it co uld be said that “crisp” berries can be distinguishable from regular commercial berrie s, and are often but not always considered more desirable than “non-crisp” berries. Table 2.13. Previous blueberry eating experience of the 95 panelists whom were part of the evaluation panel in 2004. Number of panelist w ho had eaten blueberries never 1-2 times/year 3-10 times/year >10 times/year 6 42 31 16

PAGE 45

31 Table 2.14. Firmness ranking of 4 blueberry cl ones by 95 panelists from 1 (softest sample) to 4 (crunchiest sample). Rank Clone 1 2 3 4 Rank total Tukey test Bluecrisp 10z 15 33 37 287 ay FL 00-59 9 16 32 38 289 a Star 30 39 17 9 195 b Windsor 46 25 13 11 179 b z Number of people who ranked the clone at that position. yTotals followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. Table 2.15. Desirability of the berry firmness of 4 blueberry clones evaluated on a scale from 1 (dislike extremely) to 9 (like extremely) by 95 panelists. Desirability Clone 1z 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean Standard deviation Tukey test Bluecrisp 2 y 3 4 10 9 13 23 21 10 6.34 1.982 abx FL 00-59 1 1 3 2 9 21 22 21 15 6.82 1.669 a Star 3 3 12 9 14 9 18 18 9 5.85 2.188 bc Windsor 2 6 8 16 11 16 15 12 9 5.63 2.124 c z Scale from 1(dislike extremely) to 9(like extremely) y Number of people who ranked the clone at that position. x Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. Table 2.16. Overall desirability of the berry qu ality of 4 blueberry clones evaluated by 95 panelists. Desirability Clone 1z 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean Standard deviation Tukey test Bluecrisp 5x 3 2 8 14 17 22 14 10 6.07 2.074 aby FL 00-59 3 2 6 9 21 18 20 16 6.71 1.768 a Star 1 1 7 12 9 23 15 17 10 6.17 1.877 ab Windsor 1 9 2 13 11 17 15 12 15 6.00 2.183 b z Scale from 1(dislike extremely) to 9(like extremely) y Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. x Number of people who ranked the clone at that position.

PAGE 46

32 Table 2.17. Desirability of berry firmness a nd overall desirability of berries of 4 blueberry clones as judged by panelists with differing blueberry consumption histories. Firmness rank Desirability of firmness Overall desirability Clone Panelistsz Mean Standard dev. Tukey test Mean Standard dev. Tukey test Mean Standard dev. Tukey test FL 00-59 Never 2.67 1.37 a 6.00 1.26 a 6.00 2.28 a FL 00-59 1-2 times 3.00 0.96 a 6.67 1.95 a 6.45 1.84 a FL 00-59 3-10 times 2.97 0.91 a 7.48 1.23 a 7.39 1.45 a FL 00-59 > 10 times 3.31 1.08 a 6.25 1.39 a 6.31 1.70 a Bluecrisp Never 3.00 0.89 a 5.50 2.07 a 4.33 1.51 a Bluecrisp 1-2 times 3.12 0.99 a 6.10 1.66 a 6.07 1.67 a Bluecrisp 3-10 times 3.23 0.96 a 6.61 2.12 a 6.16 2.22 a Bluecrisp > 10 times 2.50 0.89 a 6.75 2.41 a 6.56 2.68 a Star Never 2.33 1.03 a 4.50 1.87 a 4.00 2.10 b Star 1-2 times 2.10 0.91 a 5.74 1.98 a 6.07 1.67 a Star 3-10 times 1.77 0.84 a 6.10 2.27 a 6.58 1.75 a Star > 10 times 2.38 1.09 a 6.19 2.61 a 6.44 2.13 a Windsor Never 2.00 1.26 a 4.67 2.66 a 4.17 3.06 a Windsor 1-2 times 1.79 1.02 a 5.29 2.04 a 5.81 1.95 a Windsor 3-10 times 2.03 1.08 a 5.90 2.20 a 6.58 2.13 a Windsor > 10 times 1.81 0.98 a 6.38 1.86 a 6.06 2.26 a zPrevious blueberry eating experience in a year Discussion Very little work has been done on blueberry taste as it pertains to consumer sensory panels. The Dave Wilson Nursery has done a taste panel study every year since 1992. In 2002 blueberries were added to this panel, and it was determined that new cultivars ‘Southmoon’, ‘Jubilee’, ‘Misty’ and ‘Ozark Blue ’ (scores ranging from 5.5 to 6.3 on their 10 point scale) tasted better than the older standard cultivars ‘O’Neal’, ‘Georgia Gem’ and ‘Bluecrop’ (scores ra nging from 4.8 to 5.4) (11). In the 2003 sensory panel study the “crisp” cl ones could not be distinguished from the “non-crisp” clones in any of the questions This was probably because panelists did not prefer the “crisp” clones over the “non-crisp” clones. Panelists were not asked

PAGE 47

33 whether they could distinguish between “crisp” and “non-crisp” clones. The 2004 sensory panel study directly asked the panelist s if they could detect a difference between the “crisp” and “non-cris p” clones, and if they preferred one type over another. We were able to determine that panelists could tell a difference but did not al ways prefer the crisptextured clones over the standard cultivars. The blueberries in our study were harveste d the day before each consumer sensory panel was conducted and kept in an ideal st orage condition until they were used. Most fresh blueberries eaten by consumers are sh ipped across the countr y, kept on the grocery shelf for several days and possibly stored in the home refrigerator for several more days before they are eaten. If the crisp-te xtured clones retain their “just-picked” characteristics longer than sta ndard commercial varieties, se nsory panel evaluations done on berries that had been subjected to commerc ial packing, transport, and sales might have separated the “crisp” and normal berries better than our test with just-picked berries. Further research should be conducted to determine if this is the case.

PAGE 48

34 CHAPTER 3 POSTHARVEST STORAGE TEST It was hypothesized that the “crisp” bluebe rries might store longer then standard commercial blueberries. Standa rd commercial blueberries can be stored at 2C in air for up to 2 weeks without serious degradation. To determine if “crisp” blueberries store longer then standard commercial berries, sel ected quality parameters of four “crisp” clones and four “non-crisp” clones determin ed during air and CA cold storage for 8 weeks in 2003 and 2004. 2003 Study Materials and Methods Five to eight blueberry plants of the “crisp” clones ‘Bluecrisp’, FL 00-59, FL 97136, FL 98-325 and the “non-crisp” clones ‘Emera ld’, ‘Millennia’, ‘Star’ and ‘Windsor’ were netted in a commercial field at the beginning of th e harvest season in April 2003. As the berries from each clone matured, they we re harvested at the blue stage and placed in 125 g plastic clamshells donated by Straughn farms Inc. For each harvest a minimum of three clamshells per clone were taken. A total of 15 clamshells were needed for each clone. The name of the clone, date of harves t and a storage time of 0, 2, 4, 6 or 8 weeks was written on each clamshell. The berries we re then placed in a cooler with ice for transport to a 2 C storage unit where they we re separated based on storage time. Berries harvested for 0 week storage were evaluated fo r initial quality factor s. Berries harvested for evaluations after 2, 4, 6 and 8 weeks storage were placed in the 2 C storage room for their designated length of time.

PAGE 49

35 At the end of the designated storage peri ods each blueberry was taken out of the clamshell and checked for mold, incident of shri vel, severity of shrivel, leaking/collapse, weight loss and firmness. To check for decay, each blueberry was visually inspected, and the total number of berries with decay was r ecorded. For incident of shrivel, each berry was examined for signs of shrivel starting at the scar end and going around the berry. The severity of shrivel was rated for each berr y using a 9 point scale, from 1 (no signs of shriveling) to 9 (severely shriveled). To ex amine leaking/collapse, the blueberries were checked for fluid leakage and cellular collapse not caused by decay. To check for weight loss, each clamshell was weighed before being placed into storage. When removed from storage the clamshells were reweighed and weight loss was obtained. To examine the firmness, ten blueberries were randomly taken from each clamshell and force deformation measurements with an Inst ron 8600 testing machine, as previously described, were taken. This process was re peated on all 10 berries for each group of berries that came out of cold storage. Once examined, the berries were poured into zip lock freezer bags and placed in a freezer at -30 C. The pH, SSC and TTA were later determined. All percentage data wa s converted to arcsin for analysis. To determine pH, SSC and TTA, the blueberr ies were taken out of -30 C storage, eight bags at a time. The frozen berries from each bag were placed in a glass jar. The jars were sealed and placed in a large plastic container with approximately 2 inches of tap water to thaw the berries. The berries were left in the containers for 1.5 hours to reach room temperature. Once at room temperat ure, the berries were blended for 10 s until reaching a paste-like consistence. Fifty grams was then placed into a tube and

PAGE 50

36 centrifuged at 34.02 gn for 20 minutes. The supernatant was then poured through cheese cloth into a small vial. From this supern atant, the pH, SSC and TTA were determined. Results Firmness of newly harvested blueberries differed among clones (Table 3.1). FL 98-325 was distinctively firmer than all other clones (Table 3.1). Of the four “crisp” clones, only ‘Bluecrisp’ had a firmness mean similar to the four “non-crisp” clones. Firmness declined for all clones during st orage (Table 3.1). The mean rate of softening ranged from 0.11 to 0.21 N per week for the eight clones. The “crisp” clones appeared to lose firmness as fast as the “non-crisp” cl ones. Overall there was a significant week x clone intera ction, but, the “crisp” clones did not maintain firmness better than the “non-crisp”. This is show n both by the slopes in Table 3.1 and by the Tukey test for firmness at week 8. All clones except ‘Star’ had some decayed be rries after 2 weeks storage at 2 C. Decay incidence increased in all clones over ti me during the storage te st (Table 3.3). The rate of increase in decay in cidence ranged from 0.08% to 2.86% per week (Table 3.3). Even though the week x clone interaction was significant the “crisp” clones did not show any consistent differences in the rate of decay development compared to the “non-crisp” clones. This is shown in the slopes a nd Tukey testing in Table 3.3. Clones FL 00-59 (“crisp”), ‘Emerald’ and ‘Mil lennia’ (“non-crisp”) had less decay over time th an the other clones (Tables 3.3 and 3.4). The number of leaking berries increase d with each clone over time during the storage test (Table 3.5). The Tukey test on week 8 and the sl opes reveled that the “crisp” clones did not develop leaking berries signifi cantly slower then th e “non-crisp” clones

PAGE 51

37 Table 3.1. Mean deformation forcez at 2mm depth for 8 blueberry clones stored in air for 8 weeks at 2C in 2003. 2mm Deformation Force (N) Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 my Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 2.37 dx 2.21 cd 1.95 b 1.36 c 1.17 c -0.16 bcw 0.0001 FL 97-136 3.02 bc 2.80 b 2.47 b 1.96 bc 1.79 b -0.17 b 0.0001 FL 98-325 4.18 a 4.55 a 4.18 a 3.72 a 2.74 a -0.19 cd 0.0017 FL 00-59 3.07 b 2.55 bc 2.35 b 2.11 b 1.74 b -0.15 bc 0.0001 Emerald 2.31 d 2.08 d 2.01 b 1.63 bc 1.26 bc -0.12 a 0.0001 Millennia 2.67 bcd 2.83 b 2.05 b 1.63 bc 1.26 bc -0.20 d 0.0001 Star 2.59 cd 2.65 b 1.89 b 1.52 bc 1.05 c -0.21 d 0.0001 Windsor 2.27 d 2.12 d 2.24 b 1.79 bc 1.36 bc -0.11 a 0.0014 P > F <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0001 zMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells. ym is the estimated change in force(N) per week based on linear regression analysis. xWeek means followed by the same letter are not significantly diffe rent (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. wSlopes followed by the same letter are not si gnificantly different (P <0.05) by two-sample t-tests Table 3.2. ANOVA for mean deformation force needed at 2mm for 8 blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in 2003. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 39 2.00 37.84 <.0001 Clones 7 6.87 129.76 <.0001 Weeks 4 6.68 126.11 <.0001 Weeks x Clones 28 0.119 2.25 0.0026 Error 80 0.053 R-Square 0.95 (Table 3.5). The week x clone interaction was not significant (Table 3.5). Overall there was an increase in leaking berries over ti me, but not significant interaction with the clones over time. All of the clones lost weight over time (Table 3.7). The week x clone interaction was significant showing that there were differences amongst the clones over time (Table 3.8). From the Tukey test and the slopes, ther e were no differences in the rate of weight

PAGE 52

38 loss between the “crisp” clones and the “ non-crisp” clones (Table 3.7). FL 00-59, ‘Emerald’ and ‘Millennia’ showed less weight loss than the other clones. Table 3.3. Incidence of decay (%) for eight blue berry clones stored for 8 weeks at 2C in 2003. Decay (%) Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 mz Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 0.00y 0.38 cx 4.08 ab 7.35 a 18.6 ab 2.22 abw <.0001 FL 97-136 0.00 0.81 c 5.20 ab 6.26 a 12.81 bc 1.55 c <.0001 FL 98-325 0.00 0.81 c 7.62 ab 9.46 a 24.31 ab 2.86 a <.0001 FL 00-59 0.00 7.80 ab 3.27 b 4.01 a 2.74 d 0.08 e 0.2928 Emerald 0.00 2.61 ab 7.44 ab 3.11 a 5.96 cd 0.62 de 0.0201 Millennia 0.00 14.24 a 8.56 ab 11.71 a 10.25 bcd 0.90 d 0.0167 Star 0.00 0.00 c 13.42 a 9.49 a 10.64 bcd 1.53 bc 0.0006 Windsor 0.00 14.24 a 4.57 ab 11.39 a 29.35 a 2.79 abc 0.0005 P > F <.0001 0.0951 0.1692 0.0004 zm is the estimated change in the percent of d ecaying berries per week based on linear regression analysis. yMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells. xWeek means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. wSlopes followed by the same letter are not si gnificantly different (P <0.05) by two-sample t-tests Table 3.4. ANOVA for incidence of decay (%) of eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in 2003. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 39 252.03 13.84 <.0001 Clones 7 149.10 8.19 <.0001 Weeks 4 1500.86 82.40 <.0001 Weeks x Clones 28 99.36 5.46 <.0001 Error 80 18.21 R-Square 0.87 The number of shriveled berries increa sed dramatically over time during the storage test (Table 3.9). The week x clone interaction was significan t showing that there were differences amongst the clones over time (Table 3.10). However, in examining the Tukey test results and the slope s, these differences did not di stinguish the “crisp” clones

PAGE 53

39 from the “non-crisp” clones (Table 3.9). Over all, the amount of shriveling increased over time, but the “crisp” clones we re not significantly different from the “non-crisp” clones. The severity of shrivel for each clone incr eased over time during this storage test (Table 3.11). At week 2, “crisp” clones ‘Bluecrisp’, FL 97-136 and FL 98-325 showed less severity of shriveling then the other cl ones. This distincti on did not continue as storage time lengthened (Table 3.11). The week x clone inter action for shriveling severity was significant. Th e “crisp” clones did not devel op less shriveling than the “non-crisp” clones. Table 3.5. Incidence of leaking (%) for eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks at 2C in 2003. Leaking (%) Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 mz Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 0.00 y 0.00 ax 1.41 a 3.92 a 8.80 ab 1.08 cw <.0001 FL 97-136 0.00 0.00 a 0.74 a 2.52 a 10.61 ab 1.19 bd 0.0002 FL 98-325 0.00 0.00 a 3.86 a 5.54 a 18.26 ab 2.10 a <.0001 FL 00-59 0.00 0.00 a 0.65 a 5.97 a 6.24 b 0.92 d <.0001 Emerald 0.00 0.00 a 2.30 a 3.14 a 10.16 ab 1.17 bd 0.0008 Millennia 0.00 1.32 a 6.29 a 7.86 a 18.28 ab 2.15 a <.0001 Star 0.00 0.00 a 4.00 a 8.08 a 14.14 ab 1.82 ab <.0001 Windsor 0.00 1.32 a 3.94 a 9.58 a 25.65 a 2.98 a <.0001 P > F 0.0196 0.4777 0.3069 0.0337 zm is the estimated change in the percent of l eaking berries per week based on linear regression analysis. yMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells. xWeek means followed by the same letter are not significantly diffe rent (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. wSlopes followed by the same letter are not si gnificantly different (P <0.05) by two-sample t-tests.

PAGE 54

40 Table 3.6. ANOVA for incidence of leaking (%) for eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in 2003. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 39 222.43 10.11 <.0001 Clones 7 108.01 4.91 0.0001 Weeks 4 1841.62 83.72 <.0001 Weeks x Clones 28 19.72 0.90 0.6169 Error 80 21.99 R-Square 0.83 Table 3.7. Incidence of weight loss (%) of eight blueberry cl ones stored for 8 weeks at 2C in 2003. Values for each week are the cumulative weight loss from week 0 to the week stated. Clone Week 0z Week 2z Week 4z Week 6z Week 8z My Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 0.0x 2.0 dw 3.4 c 5.2 c 7.5 cd 0.91 cv <0.0001 FL 97-136 0.0 4.3 ab 5.6 a 7.7 a 9.3 bcd 1.09 b <0.0001 FL 98-325 0.0 4.4 ab 5.2 a 6.5abc 9.7 bc 1.08 b <0.0001 FL 00-59 0.0 3.7bc 5.6 a 5.7 bc 7.7 cd 0.87 d <0.0001 Emerald 0.0 3.4 bc 3.9 bc 5.3 bc 6.7 d 0.77 d <0.0001 Star 0.0 2.8 cd 5.9 a 7.7 a 10.5 ab 1.30 a <0.0001 Windsor 0.0 5.4 a 4.9 ab 7.3 a 12.7 a 1.37 a <0.0001 Millennia 0.0 5.4 a 5.2 a 6.6 ab 8.2 bcd 0.88 d <0.0001 P > F <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0001 zLoss from original weight at week 0. ym is the estimated change in weight(g) per week based on linear regression analysis. xMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells. wWeek means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. vSlopes followed by the same letter are not signi ficantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample ttests. Table 3.8. ANOVA for incidence of weight loss (%) of eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in 2003. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 39 31.264 104.01 <.0001 Clones 7 10.341 34.40 <.0001 Weeks 4 267.89 891.23 <.0001 Weeks x Clones 28 2.691 8.95 <.0001 Error 80 0.301 R-Square 0.98

PAGE 55

41 Table 3.9. Incidence of shriveling (%) fo r eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks at 2C in 2003. Number of berries per 100 Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 Mz Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 0.00y 20.25 bx 88.95 bc 93.07 bc 99.58 ab 13.60 abw <.0001 FL 97-136 0.00 11.17 bc 75.30 bcd 84.32 c 96.45 bc 13.30 a <.0001 FL 98-325 0.00 2.08 c 58.57 d 42.91 d 90.07 c 11.05 bc <.0001 FL 00-59 0.00 12.93 bc 77.82 bc 94.00 abc 98.64 ab 13.92 bc <.0001 Emerald 0.00 26.33 b 73.71 cd 87.17 c 98.16 ab 12.86 c <.0001 Millennia 0.00 66.30 a 99.44 a 99.42 a 100.00 a 11.66 ab <.0001 Star 0.00 16.10 bc 90.39 b 98.97 ab 99.44 ab 14.09 ab <.0001 Windsor 0.00 66.30 a 79.23 bc 94.89 abc 100.00 a 11.43 abc <.0001 P > F <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0001 zm is the estimated change in number of shrive led berries per week ba sed on linear regression analysis. yMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells. xWeek means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. wSlopes followed by the same letter are not significan tly different (P<0.05) by two-sample t-tests. Table 3.10. ANOVA for incidence of shriveling (%) of eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in 2003. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 39 3345.82 193.57 <.0001 Clones 7 1174.40 67.94 <.0001 Weeks 4 29112.66 1684.31 <.0001 Weeks x Clones 28 207.70 12.02 <.0001 Error 80 17.29 R-Square 0.99

PAGE 56

42 Table 3.11. Incidence of shrivel severityz of eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks at 2C in 2003. Index values Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 my Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 1.00x 1.51 cw 3.05 abc 3.60 bc 5.10 ab 0.62 av 0.0001 FL 97-136 1.00 1.23 c 2.74 bc 3.07 c 4.41 b 0.53 b 0.0001 FL 98-325 1.00 1.04 c 2.19 c 2.11 d 4.50 b 0.50 cd 0.0001 FL 00-59 1.00 3.95 a 2.85 bc 3.63 bc 4.34 b 0.42 d 0.0012 Emerald 1.00 3.93 a 2.96 bc 3.48 bc 4.85 ab 0.46 cd 0.0005 Millennia 1.00 4.23 a 4.03 a 4.49 a 5.60 a 0.57 abcd 0.0001 Star 1.00 3.11 b 3.55 ab 4.26 ab 5.13 ab 0.57 abc 0.0001 Windsor 1.00 4.24 a 2.99 bc 4.63 a 5.65 a 0.59 abc 0.0001 P > F <.0001 0.0008 <.0001 0.0011 zEach berry was rated on a scale from 1 ( no shriveling) to 9 (extreme shriveling). ym is the estimated change in shrivel severity per week based on linear regression analysis. xMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells. wWeek 8 means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. vSlopes followed by the same letter are not si gnificantly different (P <0.05) by two-sample t-tests. Table 3.12. ANOVA for Incidence of shrivel severi ty of eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in 2003. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 39 6.781 83.17 <.0001 Clones 7 5.103 62.59 <.0001 Weeks 4 49.080 601.94 <.0001 Weeks x Clones 28 1.157 14.20 <.0001 Error 80 0.0815 R-Square 0.98 The pH, SSC and TTA for each clone at each week were tested. No significant differences were found between the “crisp” and “non-crisp” clones. For the pH, all clones increased slightly except ‘Windsor’, which decreased, but had a high probability of having a slope of zero (Table 3.13). All clones started with similar pHs and after 8 weeks differences among the clones could be seen, but the “crisp” and “non-crisp” clones did not stand out from each other (Table 3.13, 3.14).

PAGE 57

43 SSC of the freshly-picked berries ra nged from 7.47 to 12.83 among the clones (Table 3.15). SSC did not separate the “crisp” from the “non-crisp” clones (Table 3.15). There were no significant interactions among th e storage times and clones with respect to SSC (Table 3.16). All but three of the slope s showed a decrease in SSC with slopes not significantly different from zero, except for FL 97-136 and FL 98-325, which had a tendency to increase with time (Table 3.15). The initial TTA values ranged from 0.22 to 1.45 for the clones (Table 3.17). There was no distinction between the “crisp” and “noncrisp” clones. Only four clones showed significant changes in TTA over time (Table 3.17). The TTA decreased over time for these four. There were differences over storage time and clones and a significant variance for clones x weeks of storage (Table 3.18). Table 3.13. Meanz pH of eight blueberry clones stored at 2C over 8 weeks in 2003. Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 my Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 3.84 ax 3.84 a 4.06 a 3.96 a n/a 0.029 dw 0.0336 FL 97-136 3.45 bc 3.68 ab 3.73 bc 3.72 bc 3.83 b 0.043 cd 0.0047 FL 98-325 3.65 ab 3.85 a 3.92 ab 3.94 ab 4.06 a 0.047 cd 0.0124 FL 00-59 3.37 c 3.44 c 3.45 de 3.50 cd 3.63 cd 0.021 cd 0.0231 Emerald 3.11 d 3.20 d 3.22 e 3.24 e 3.23 e 0.019 b 0.0236 Millennia 3.47 bc 3.14 d 3.42 de 3.50 cd 3.54 cd 0.018 bc 0.4239 Star 3.38 c 3.51 bc 3.64 cd 3.60 cd 3.67 bc 0.039 cd 0.0066 Windsor 3.46 bc 3.68 ab 3.46 de 3.50 de 3.48 d -0.010 a 0.5135 P > F <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 zMean of 3 clamshells individually sampled. ym is the estimated change in pH per week based on linear regression analysis. xWeek means followed by the same letter are not significantly diffe rent (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. wSlopes followed by the same letter are not signi ficantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample ttests.

PAGE 58

44 Table 3.14. ANOVA for mean pH of eight blueberry clones stored at 2C over 8 weeks in 2003. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 39 0.176 31.39 <.0001 Clones 8 0.724 129.13 <.0001 Weeks 4 0.155 27.55 <.0001 Weeks x Clones 27 0.026 4.65 <.0001 Error 76 0.006 R-Square 0.94 Table 3.15. Meanz SSC of eight blueberry clones st ored at 2C over 8 weeks in 2003. Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 my Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 12.83 ax 14.27 a 14.37 a 12.67 a n/a -0.020 abcw 0.9531 FL 97-136 9.00 abc 9.40 b 11.00 a 11.77 a 9.80 ab 0.495 bc 0.0092 FL 98-325 8.47 bc 12.77 ab 12.47 a 12.07 a 13.05 a 0.525 c 0.0232 FL 00-59 11.83 ab 11.30 ab 11.30 a 11.20 a 12.30 a -0.095 bd 0.6377 Emerald 7.47 c 8.43 b 9.80 a 8.93 a 7.60 b 0.288 b 0.2774 Millennia 12.13 ab 10.73 ab 11.30 a 10.47 a 9.10 ab -0.222 a 0.0928 Star 8.93 bc 10.70 ab 12.47 a 10.60 a 10.40 ab 0.338 bc 0.1705 Windsor 9.60 abc 11.33 ab 10.67 a 10.65 a 8.77 ab 0.022 ad 0.9254 P > F 0.0012 0.0176 0.1736 0.3142 0.0143 zMean of 3 clamshells individually sampled. ym is the estimated change in SSC per week based on linear regression analysis. xWeek means followed by the same letter are not significantly diffe rent (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. wSlopes followed by the same letter are not signi ficantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample ttests. Table 3.16. ANOVA for mean SSC of eight blueberry clones stored at 2C over 8 weeks in 2003. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 39 8.47 3.00 <.0001 Clones 8 25.04 8.87 <.0001 Weeks 4 9.08 3.21 0.0171 Weeks x Clones 27 3.19 1.13 0.3323 Error 76 2.82 R-Square 0.61

PAGE 59

45 Table 3.17. Meanz TTA of eight blueberry clones st ored at 2C over 8 weeks in 2003. Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 my Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 0.22 dx 0.28 d 0.21 d 0.25 c n/a 0.003 aw 0.6538 FL 97-136 0.52 bcd 0.37 cd 0.47 c 0.45 c 0.46 bc -0.005 ab 0.6493 FL 98-325 0.42 cd 0.36 cd 0.31 cd 0.30 c 0.28 c -0.020 de 0.0074 FL 00-59 0.58 bcx 0.51 c 0.48 c 0.43 c 0.47 bc -0.025 c 0.0010 Emerald 1.45 a 0.71 b 0.76 ab 0.81 a 0.95 a -0.093 e 0.0288 Millennia 0.61 bc 1.16 a 0.85 a 0.76 ab 0.80 ab 0.007 abcd 0.8389 Star 0.75 b 0.50 c 0.47 c 0.51 bc 0.48 bc -0.038 e 0.0299 Windsor 0.48 bcd 0.41 cd 0.52 bc 0.40 c 0.38 c -0.007 bcd 0.4907 P > F <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0013 zMean of 3 clamshells individually sampled. ym is the estimated change in TTA per week based on linear regression analysis. xWeek means followed by the same letter are not significantly diffe rent (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. wSlopes followed by the same letter are not si gnificantly different (P <0.05) by two-sample t-tests. Table 3.18. ANOVA for mean TTA of eight blueberry clones stored at 2C over an 8 weeks in 2003. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 39 0.198 17.69 <.0001 Clones 8 0.723 64.72 <.0001 Weeks 4 0.079 7.06 <.0001 Weeks x Clones 27 0.060 5.41 <.0001 Error 77 0.011 R-Square 0.90 In 2004, to better determine if crisp-textured blueberries are different from commercial blueberries, two atmospheres were used – one being normal air and the other a low O2 / high CO2 CA. Two new clones were also added that were believed to have crisp texture: FL 00-180 and FL 00-270. 2004 Study Materials and Methods Five to eight blueberry plants of each of the clones ‘Bluecrisp’, FL 97-136, FL 98325, FL 00-59, FL 00-180, FL 00-270, ‘Emerald’, ‘Millennia’, ‘Star’ and ‘Windsor’ were

PAGE 60

46 netted in a commercial field at Windsor, Florida at the begi nning of the harvest season. As the berries from each clone matured they we re harvested at the blue stage and placed in 125 g clamshells. For each harvest a minimum of three clamshells per clone were taken. A total of 15 clamshells per clone we re needed for the CA storage test, and 15 clamshells were needed for the air storage test The name of the clone, date of harvest, storage environment and the storage time were written on each clamshell. The clamshells were placed in a cooler of ice for transpor t to a 2 C storage unit, where they were separated based on storage environment and st orage time. Storage time for air was 2, 4, 5, and 6 weeks and CA storage was for 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks. All the berries for a particular storage environment and storage time were placed into a sealed 5 gallon (79.49 L) bucket, which had one intake and one outlet hose attached to it. The buckets for the same atmosphere were then hooked together and a minimum flow rate of 81ml/min was established through the buckets using pressurized gasses and needle value flow meters to prevent CO2 buildup. For the CA, a mixture of 15% CO2, 2% O2 and 83% N with a relative humidity of 90–95% was delivered to th e buckets. For the air atmosphere, a pure flow of air with a relative humidity of 90–95% was delivered to the buckets. The outlet tubes from the end of the bucket lines were checked each day for flow rate, CO2 and O2 concentrations. As each storage time ended, the lids of the buckets were taken off and the clamshells were removed for post-storage ex amination. Berries harvested for week 0 storage were examined without storage. For evaluation, 10 blueberries were ra ndomly taken from each clamshell and checked for decay, number of berries that were shriveled, severity of shriveling, leaking/collapse and firmness. To check for decay, each blueberry was visually

PAGE 61

47 inspected. Of the 10 berries examined, the number with mold was recorded. The same berries were examined for signs of shrive ling, starting at the s car end and going around the berry. Berries were recorded as shriveled or not shriveled. The severity of shriveling was recorded for each berry using a 9 point scale, from 1 (no signs of shriveling) to 9 (severely shriveled). Ten random berries pe r clamshell were visually examined for leaking fluids or cellular colla pse not caused by disease. For firmness testing, a set of 10 different blueberries were placed through the same Instron testing procedure that was done in 2003. The pH, SSC and TTA for berries in each clamshell were determined using the same procedures as in 2003. Results Before storage, FL 00-59 was the firm est clone (Table 3.19). As a group, the “crisp” clones were not exceptionally firm at the beginning of the storage test. By week 2 “crisp” clones ‘Bluecrisp’, FL 98-325 and FL 00-59 had a higher firmness then the other clones. At week 6, Tukey’s test s howed three (‘Bluecrisp’, FL 00-59 and FL 00180) of the four “crisp” clones sampled at th at time to be significantly firmer than the “non-crisp” clones (Table 3.19). As indicate d by the slopes (Table 3.19), some clones became firmer during storage, others less firm ‘Bluecrisp’ gained the most in firmness and ‘Millennia’ lost the most. Decay incidence in the air atmosphere storage increased over time for all clones except FL 00-59, which still had no decay af ter 6 weeks (Table 3.21). The week x clone interaction showed significance, but the week 6 Tukey’s test and the slopes showed that the “crisp” clones did not fare better th e “non-crisp” clones (Tables 3.21 and 3.22). Among the slopes FL 00-59 was the only clone th at differed significantly from the others (Table 3.21).

PAGE 62

48 The percent of leaking berries increased in all clones over time, except for FL 0059, which had only one leaking berry in all th e samples (Table 3.23). The week x clone interaction was significant for number of leak ing berries, but the week 6 Tukey’s test and the slopes showed no consistent differences between the “crisp” and “non-crisp” clones (Tables 3.23 and 3.24). Among the slopes th e only clone to stand out as being significantly different from the rest was FL 00-59. The incidence of shriveling in the air atmo sphere increased with storage time in all clones (Table 3.25). The week x clone inte raction was significa nt, but the week 6 Tukey’s test and the slopes showed no cons istent differences amongst the “crisp” and “non-crisp” clones (Tables 3.25 and 3.26). ‘Bluecrisp’, FL00-59 and FL00-180 had the lowest rates of shriveling when compared to slopes of the other clones (Tables 3.25). The same trend could be seen in the severity of shrivel over time as was seen in the frequency of shriveled berries over time (Tables 3.27 and 3.28). The pH, SSC and TTA for the blueberries stored in the air atmosphere did not differ significantly for the “cris p” and “non-crisp” clones (T able 3.29). Slopes indicated that there were only small and inconsistent pH changes during th e weeks of storage (Table 3.29). The ‘weeks’ component of the ANOVA analysis for pH was nonsignificant (Table 3.30). There were significant differe nces in SSC among the clones at week 0 (Table 3.31), and these differences were maintained throughout. SSC was not a factor that distinguished the “crisp” from the standard clones. All slopes for the clones had high probabilities of being zero and there was not a significant clone x week interaction (Tables 3.31 and 3.32).

PAGE 63

49 Clones varied widely in TA at the beginning of the storag e test (Table 3.33). As a group, the six crisp clones had lower TA than the four standard clones. Overall there were only minor changes in TA during storage. Table 3.19. Mean deformation forcez at 2mm depth for 10 bluebe rry clones stored in air for 8 weeks at 2C in 2004. 2mm Deformation Force (N) Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 my Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 2.50 bcdx 3.49 a 3.66 a 3.53 a 3.13 a 0.20 aw 0.0022 FL 97-136 2.26 cde 2.58 b 2.04 d 2.39 bcd M* 0.02 b 0.5897 FL 98-325 2.88 b 3.51 a 3.33 ab 2.57 bc M -0.04 d 0.6251 FL 00-59 3.42 a 3.49 a 3.06 bc 2.96 ab 3.51 a -0.11 cd 0.0009 FL 00-180 2.35 cde 2.64 b 2.52 cd 2.46 bc 3.19 a 0.02 b 0.5337 FL 00-270 1.89 f 1.78 c 1.65 e 1.85 de 1.75 b -0.02 d 0.4183 Emerald 2.01 ef 2.18 bc 2.05 de 2.17 cd 1.93 b 0.02 e 0.5131 Millennia 2.09 def 2.40 b 1.82 e 1.36 e 2.07 b -0.15 e 0.0206 Star 2.54 bc 2.66 b 2.52 cd 2.31 cd 2.06 b -0.04 f 0.3348 Windsor 2.19 def 2.66 b 2.05 de 2.55 bc 1.72 b 0.02 bc 0.7014 P > F <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0001 zMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of 3 clamshells. ym is the estimated change in force(N) per week based on linear regression analysis. xWeek means followed by the same letter are not significantly diffe rent (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. wSlopes followed by the same letter are not si gnificantly different (P <0.05) by two-sample t-tests *Data missing Table 3.20. ANOVA for mean force needed to deform the berries by 2mm for 10 blueberry clones stored for 6 w eeks in 2004. (air atmosphere). Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 47 1.051 18.61 <.0001 Clones 9 4.253 75.28 <.0001 Weeks 4 0.538 9.53 <.0001 Weeks x Clones 34 0.259 4.59 <.0001 Error 96 0.056 R-Square .90

PAGE 64

50 Table 3.21. Incidence of decay (%) for 10 blue berry clones stored for 6 weeks in air storage at 2C in 2004. Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 mz Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 0.00 y 0.00 ax 13.33 a 13.33 cd 10.00 cde 2.39 ew 0.0176 FL 97-136 0.00 6.67 a 13.33 a 60.00 a 63.33 ab 11.18 ab 0.0002 FL 98-325 0.00 6.67 a 10.00 a 40.00 ab 83.33 a 11.95 a 0.0003 FL 00-59 0.00 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 d 0.00 e 0.00 f FL 00-180 0.00 0.00 a 0.00 a 30.00 abc 3.33 de 2.44 e 0.1510 FL 00-270 0.00 0.00 a 13.33 a 53.33 ab 36.67 abcd 8.13 bc 0.0009 Emerald 0.00 0.00 a 13.33 a 23.33 abcd 33.33 bcd 5.69 c 0.0012 Millennia 0.00 0.00 a 23.33 a 26.67 abcd 43.33 abc 7.30 bc 0.0012 Star 0.00 0.00 a 6.67 a 16.67 abcd 20.00 bcde 3.56 de .0217 Windsor 0.00 0.00 a 0.00 a 3.33 cd 30.00 bcd 3.60 d 0.0554 P > F .0087 0.2514 .0002 <0.0001 zm is the estimated change in the percentage of de caying berries per week ba sed on linear regression analysis. yMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of 3 clamshells. xWeek 6 means followed by the same letter are not significantly differe nt (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. wSlopes followed by the same letter are not signifi cantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample t-tests Table 3.22. ANOVA for incidence of decay (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 6 weeks in air storage in 2004. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 49 929.40 10.27 <.0001 Clones 9 1068.95 11.81 <.0001 Weeks 4 5949.10 65.72 <.0001 Weeks x Clones 36 336.77 3.72 <.0001 Error 100 90.52 R-Square 0.83

PAGE 65

51 Table 3.23. Incidence of leaking (%) for 10 bl ueberry clones stored for 6 weeks in air storage at 2C in 2004. Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 mz Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 0.00 y 3.33 bcx 6.67 b 20.00 abc 16.67 bc 3.22 dw 0.0040 FL 97-136 0.00 30.00 a 16.67 ab 53.33 ab 50.00 ab 7.90 bc 0.0017 FL 98-325 0.00 20.00 ab 10.00 b 63.33 a 70.00 a 11.26 a 0.0004 FL 00-59 0.00 0.00 c 3.33 b 0.00 c 0.00 c 0.00 g 0.7920 FL 00-180 0.00 0.00 c 3.33 b 20.00 abc 30.00 c 1.84 f 0.1818 FL 00-270 0.00 0.00 c 46.67 a 53.33 ab 30.00 abc 8.25 ab 0.0039 Emerald 0.00 3.33 bc 13.33 ab 30.00 abc 20.00 abc 4.45 cde 0.0017 Millennia 0.00 0.00 c 46.67 a 46.67 ab 26.67 abc 7.41 bc 0.0056 Star 0.00 3.33 bc 10.00 ab 16.67 abc 16.67 abc 3.08 ef 0.0297 Windsor 0.00 0.00 c 10.00 ab 10.00 bc 56.67 ab 7.30 bc 0.0087 P > F <.0001 0.0016 0.0004 0.0002 zm is the estimated change in the percent of leaking berries per week based on linear regression analysis. yMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells. xWeek 6 means followed by the same letter ar e not significantly diffe rent (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. wSlopes followed by the same letter are not si gnificantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample t-tests. Table 3.24. ANOVA for incidence of leaking (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 6 weeks in 2004. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 49 952.39 10.56 <.0001 Clones 9 1322.88 14.67 <.0001 Weeks 4 5397.03 59.84 <.0001 Weeks x Clones 36 365.92 4.06 <.0001 Error 100 90.19 R-Square 0.84

PAGE 66

52 Table 3.25. Incidence of shriveling (%) for 10 bl ueberry clones stored for 6 weeks in air storage at 2C in 2004. Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 mz Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 0.00 y 3.33 abx 16.67 ab 33.33 bc 33.33 cd 6.26 dw 0.0001 FL 97-136 0.00 30.00 a 53.33 ab 86.67 a 83.33 ab 14.89 a 0.0001 FL 98-325 0.00 20.00 ab 16.67 ab 76.67 ab 86.67 a 14.22 ab 0.0001 FL 00-59 0.00 0.00 b 3.33 b 6.67 c 0.00 e 1.55 e 0.2875 FL 00-180 0.00 0.00 b 6.67 b 63.33 ab 6.67 de 5.29 d 0.0993 FL 00-270 0.00 10.00 ab 63.33 a 86.67 a 63.33 abc 14.11 ab 0.0002 Emerald 0.00 3.33 ab 26.67 ab 46.67 abc 53.33 abc 9.68 bc 0.0001 Millennia 0.00 0.00 b 70.00 a 60.00 ab 63.33 abc 13.05 abc0.0002 Star 0.00 6.77 ab 26.67 ab 66.67 ab 40.00 bcd 9.37 c 0.0029 Windsor 0.00 6.77 ab 40.00 ab 50.00 ab 76.67 abc 12.67 b 0.0001 P > F .0104 .0024 <.0001 <0.0001 zm is the estimated change in the percent of shriveled berries per week based on linear regression analysis. yMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells. xWeek 6 means followed by the same letter ar e not significantly diffe rent (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. wSlopes followed by the same letter are not si gnificantly different (P <0.05) by two-sample t-tests. Table 3.26. ANOVA for incidence of shriveling (%) of 10 blueberry clones stored at 2C for 6 weeks in 2004. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 49 1843.39 16.37 <.0001 Clones 9 2132.30 18.94 <.0001 Weeks 4 13789.26 122.47 <.0001 Weeks x Clones 36 443.85 3.94 <.0001 Error 100 112.59 R-Square 0.89

PAGE 67

53 Table 3.27. Incidence of shrivel severityz of 10 blueberry clones st ored for 6 weeks in air storage at 2C in 2004. Index values Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 my Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 1.00 x 1.13 bcw 1.50 abc 1.73 e 2.03 cd 0.17 dv 0.0021 FL 97-136 1.00 2.13 a 2.57 bc 5.70 a 4.60 ab 0.71 ab 0.0001 FL 98-325 1.00 1.87 ab 1.47 bc 4.43 abc 6.13 a 0.77 a 0.0002 FL 00-59 1.00 1.00 c 1.10 c 1.13 e 1.00 d 0.01 e 0.3732 FL 00-180 1.00 1.00 c 1.13 c 3.10 cde 1.17 d 0.17 d 0.1424 FL 00-270 1.00 1.10 bc 3.17 ab 4.90 ab 4.00 abc 0.66 b 0.0004 Emerald 1.00 1.13 bc 2.23 abc 2.70 cde 2.30 bcd 0.33 c 0.0001 Millennia 1.00 1.00 c 3.77 a 4.03 abcd 3.50 bcd 0.56 b 0.0004 Star 1.00 1.17 bc 1.63 bc 2.53 cde 2.37 bcd 0.27 c 0.0025 Windsor 1.00 1.07 c 2.00 abc 2.07 de 4.30 abc 0.48 b 0.0003 P > F 0 .0002 0.0004 <.0001 <.0001 zEach berry was rated on a scale from 1 ( no shriveling) to 9 (extreme shriveling). ym is the estimated change in shrivel severity per week based on linear regression analysis. xMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells. wWeek 8 means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. vSlopes followed by the same letter are not signi ficantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample ttests. Table 3.28. ANOVA for incidence of shrivel severi ty of 10 blueberry clones stored for 6 weeks at 2C in 2004. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 49 5.90 16.98 <.0001 Clones 9 0.35 23.4 <.0001 Weeks 4 8.14 94.62 <.0001 Weeks x Clones 36 32.90 6.74 <.0001 Error 100 2.34 R-Square 0.89

PAGE 68

54 Table 3.29. Meanz pH of 10 blueberry clones in an air atmosphere over 6 weeks in 2004. Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 my Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 4.10 abx 4.05 b 4.05 ab 3.99 a 4.09 a -0.013 cdew 0.5636 FL 97-136 4.41 a 4.40 a 4.08 ab n/av n/a -0.073 a 0.0272 Fl 98-325 4.16 ab 4.37 a 4.26 a n/a n/a 0.019 def 0.6462 Fl 00-59 3.95 bc 3.86 bc 3.79 bc 3.81 ab 3.82 b -0.041 bc 0.1162 FL 00-180 3.55 cd 3.46 gf 3.66 cd 3.54 c 3.54 c 0.029 e 0.2422 FL 00-270 3.65 cd 3.68 cde 3.63 cd 3.63 bc 3.61 bc -0.004 cde 0.7421 Emerald 3.61 cd 3.79 cd 3.67 cd 3.60 c 3.58 bc 0.015 d 0.4940 Millennia 3.65 cd 3.30 g 3.51 cd 3.62 c 3.51 c -0.036 cde 0.4707 Star 3.46 d 3.60 def 3.54 cd 3.61 c 3.68 bc 0.020 f 0.2797 Windsor 3.49 d 3.56 ef 3.42 d 3.27 d 3.42 c -0.016 b 0.4805 P > F <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 zMean of three clamshells individually sampled. ym is the estimated change in titratable acid per week based on linea r regression analysis. xWeeks followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. wSlopes followed by the same letter are not signifi cantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample t-testsvBerries were too decayed to obtain any data. Table 3.30. ANOVA for mean pH of 10 blueberry clones in an air atmosphere over 6 weeks in 2004. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 45 0.248 23.12 <.0001 Clones 9 1.070 99.75 <.0001 Weeks 4 0.014 1.26 0.2931 Weeks x Clones 32 0.028 2.60 0.0002 Error 89 0.011 R-Square 0.92

PAGE 69

55 Table 3.31. Meanz SSC 10 blueberry clones in an ai r atmosphere over 6 weeks in 2004. Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 my Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 12.70 abx 12.90 a 12.23 a 12.20 ab 11.70 ab -0.117 bcw 0.6620 FL 97-136 14.50 a 12.97 a 12.10 ab n/av n/a -0.600 de 0.1292 FL 98-325 10.13 bc 12.13 a 9.73 abcd n/a n/a -0.100 abcd 0.7843 FL 00-59 12.20 abc 12.00 a 11.50 abc 12.30 a 12.90 a -0.175 a 0.4884 FL 00-180 8.27 c 7.00 b 8.03 d 8.03 c 7.80 d -0.058 ab 0.7967 FL 00-270 9.87 bc 8.93 ab 9.13 cd 8.40 ac 8.83 cd -0.183 bc 0.4450 Emerald 11.30 abc 11.77 a 9.20 bcd 9.63 abc 9.00 cd -0.525 d 0.0705 Millennia 11.87 abc 11.50 a 10.37 abcd 12.07 ab 10.93 abc -0.375 bc 0.0891 Star 10.33 bc 11.93 a 10.33 abcd 10.87 abc 10.60 abc 0.000 abc 1.0000 Windsor 10.27 bc 10.70 ab 9.43 abcd 9.10 bc 9.80 bcd -0.208 ce 0.2189 P > F 0.0015 0.0009 0.0006 0.0012 <.0001 zMean of three clamshells individually sampled. ym is the estimated change in SSC per week based on linear regression analysis. xWeeks followed by the same letter are not significan tly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. wSlopes followed by the same letter are not signifi cantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample t-tests vBerries were too decayed to obtain any data. Table 3.32. ANOVA for mean SSC of 10 blueberry clones in an air atmosphere over 6 weeks in 2004. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 45 8.24 5.87 <.0001 Clones 9 33.12 23.61 <.0001 Weeks 4 5.30 3.77 0.0070 Weeks x Clones 32 1.38 0.98 0.5054 Error 89 1.40 R-Square 0.75

PAGE 70

56 Table 3.33. Meanz TTA of 10 blueberry clones in an air atmosphere over 6 weeks in 2004. Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 my Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 0.24 bcdx 0.23 de 0.26 def 0.31 c 0.26 b 0.003 dw 0.6885 FL 97-136 0.14 d 0.13 e 0.20 ef n/av n/a 0.015 cd 0.0777 FL 98-325 0.15 d 0.13 e 0.14 f n/a n/a -0.003 e 0.4974 FL 00-59 0.23 cd 0.31 cde 0.31 cdef 0.29 c 0.35 b 0.021 c 0.0701 FL 00-180 0.30 abcd 0.55 b 0.35 bcdef 0.43 bc 0.46 ab 0.013 bcde 0.6631 FL 00-270 0.29 abcd 0.4 bcd 0.44 abcd 0.13 bc 0.47 ab 0.027 b 0.0008 Emerald 0.44 ab 0.35 cd 0.41 abcde0.48 b 0.46 ab -0.007 cd 0.5744 Millennia 0.42 abc 0.90 a 0.54 ab 0.51 b 0.65 a 0.03 bcde 0.5852 Star 0.46 a 0.43 bc 0.49 abc 0.42 bc 0.43 ab 0.006 e 0.7353 Windsor 0.43 abc 0.40 bcd 0.56 a 0.76 a 0.36 ab 0.027 a 0.2646 P > F <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.010 zMean of three clamshells individually sampled. ym is the estimated change in TTA per week based on linear regression analysis. xWeeks followed by the same letter are not signi ficantly different (P<0.0 5) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. wSlopes followed by the same letter are not signifi cantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample t-tests vBerries were too decayed to obtain any data. Table 3.34. ANOVA for mean TTA of 10 blueberry clones in an air atmosphere over 6 weeks in 2004. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 49 0.105 13.69 <.0001 Clones 9 0.423 55.28 <.0001 Weeks 4 0.025 3.24 0.0152 Weeks x Clones 36 0.034 4.46 <.0001 Error 100 0.008 R-Square 0.87

PAGE 71

57 In the C.A., the clones over time tended to decrease (Table 3.35). Examining the clones at week 0 showed no difference between the “crisp” clones and the “non-crisp” clones, except FL 00-59 was firmer than all other clones (Table 3.35). By week 8, however, the five firmest clones were all “cr isp”, and of the “crisp” clones, only FL 00270 was quite soft. Week x clone interaction was significant with respect to firmness in a C.A. (Table 3.36). Very few berries developed decay in th e C.A. (Table 3.37). The ANOVA showed significant differences in weeks and clones but no week x clone intera ction (Table 3.38). Under controlled atmosphere storage, the number of leaking berries did not increase significantly over time except in ‘Emerald’, ‘Millennia’ and ‘Windsor’ (Table 3.39). Clone, week and week x clone interac tion were all significant, but no difference could be seen between the “crisp” and “non-cr isp” clones at week 8 or in the slopes (Tables 3.39 and 3.40). The lack of decay a nd leaking berries after the C.A. storage indicates that the high CO2 and low O2 con centrations retarded berry degradation and mold growth (Tables 3.37, 3.38, 3.39 & 3.40). The number of shriveled berries increased for each clone over time (Table 3.41). The clone effect and the week x clone intera ction was significant, but the “crisp” clones did not stand out as being bette r when compared to the “non-crisp” at week 8 or in the rate of shriveling as indicated by the sl opes (Tables 3.41 and 3.42). The severity of shrivel for each clone (Table 3.44) followed the same trend as the number of shriveled berries (Table 3.43).

PAGE 72

58 Table 3.35. Mean deformation forcez at 2mm depth for 10 blueberry clones stored in C.A. for 8 weeks at 2C in 2004. 2mm Deformation Force (N) Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 my Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 2.50 bcdx 3.15 a 3.15 a 3.22 a 2.99 a 0.05 abw 0.1585 FL 97-136 2.26 cdef 2.07 bcd 2.07 b 1.75 bc 2.12 bc -0.03 bc 0.4125 FL 98-325 2.88 b 3.11 a 2.73 a 1.93 b 2.22 bc -0.12 cdef 0.0015 FL 00-59 3.42 a 3.16 a n/a 3.16 a 2.70 ab -0.07 cde 0.0124 FL 00-180 2.35 cde 2.31 b M* 1.69 bcd 2.33 abc -0.03 a 0.2765 FL 00-270 1.89 f 1.79 cd M 1.23 de 1.20 de -0.10 cde 0.0001 Emerald 2.01 ef 1.67 d 1.24 c 0.96 e 0.99 e -0.14 cde 0.0001 Millennia 2.09 def 2.30 b M 1.35 cde 1.08 de -0.15 ef 0.0002 Star 2.54 bc 2.45 b M 1.39 cde 0.90 e -0.22 f 0.0001 Windsor 2.19 def 2.22 bc 2.00 b 1.95 b 1.74 cd -0.06 d 0.0021 P > F <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0001 zMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells. ym is the estimated change in force(N) per week based on linear regression analysis. xWeeks followed by the same letter are not signi ficantly different (P<0.0 5) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. wSlopes followed by the same letter are not significan tly different (P<0.05) by two-sample t-tests. data missing Table 3.36. ANOVA for deformation force at 2 mm for 10 blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in 2004. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 44 1.40 22.72 <.0001 Clones 9 4.69 76.41 <.0001 Weeks 4 2.47 40.14 <.0001 Weeks x Clones 31 0.30 4.81 <.0001 Error 90 0.06 R-Square 0.92

PAGE 73

59 Table 3.37. Incidence of decay (%) for 10 bluebe rry clones stored for 8 weeks in C.A. storage at 2C in 2004. Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 Mz Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 0.00 y 0.00 bx 0.00 a 3.33 a 0.00 a 0.17 bw 0.5000 FL 97-136 0.00 0.00 b 6.67 a 6.67 a 0.00 a 0.33 ab 0.4455 FL 98-325 0.00 6.67 a 10.00 a 10.00 a 0.00 a 0.17 b 0.8162 FL 00-59 0.00 0.00 b 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.0 b FL 00-180 0.00 0.00 b 3.33 a 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.0 b 1.0000 Fl 00-270 0.00 0.00 b 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.0 b Emerald 0.00 0.00 b 0.00 a 3.33 a 0.03 a 0.50 a 0.1230 Millennia 0.00 0.00 b 3.33 a 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.17 b 0.5000 Star 0.00 0.00 b 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.0 b Windsor 0.00 0.00 b 6.67 a 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.0 b 1.0000 P > F 0.0047 0.1444 0.1165 0.4711 zm is the estimated change in the fraction of molding berries per week based on linear regression analysis. yMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells. xWeeks followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. wSlopes followed by the same letter are not si gnificantly different (P <0.05) by two-sample t-tests. Table 3.38. ANOVA for incidence of decay (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in C.A. storage in 2004. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 49 61.30 2.21 0.0004 Clones 9 106.68 3.84 0.0003 Weeks 4 152.27 5.48 0.0005 Weeks x Clones 36 39.84 1.43 0.0834 Error 100 27.79 R-Square 0.52

PAGE 74

60 Table 3.39. Incidence of leaking (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in C.A. storage at 2C in 2004. Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 mz Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 0.00 y 3.33 ax 6.67 a 6.67 ab 6.67 a 0.83 cw 0.2323 FL 97-136 0.00 13.33 a 13.33 a 23.33 ab 16.67 a 2.17 bc 0.1023 FL 98-325 0.00 16.67 a 13.33 a 20.00 ab 3.33 a 0.50 ce 0.6265 FL 00-59 0.00 0.00 a 0.00 a 3.33 ab 0.00 a 0.17 de 0.5000 FL 00-180 0.00 0.00 a 10.00 a 6.67 ab 10.00 a 1.33 bcd 0.1130 FL 00-270 0.00 16.67 a 16.67 a 10.00 ab 0.00 a -0.33 e 0.7442 Emerald 0.00 6.67 a 6.67 a 23.33 ab 13.33 a 2.17 b 0.0111 Millennia 0.00 3.33 a 10.00 a 36.67 a 16.67 a 3.33 a 0.0108 Star 0.00 10.00 a 10.00 a 3.33 ab 20.00 a 1.67 bcd 0.1280 Windsor 0.00 3.33 a 6.67 a 0.00 b 20.00 a 1.83 bc 0.0207 P > F 0.0611 0.5941 0.0105 0.233 zm is the estimated change in the fraction of leaking berries per week based on linear regression analysis. yMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells. xWeeks followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. wSlopes followed by the same letter are not si gnificantly different (P <0.05) by two-sample t-tests Table 3.40. ANOVA for incidence of leaking (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in 2004. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 49 302.82 2.91 <.0001 Clones 9 365.21 3.51 0.0008 Weeks 4 1269.06 12.21 <.0001 Weeks x Clones 36 179.87 1.73 0.0175 Error 100 103.93 R-Square 0.59

PAGE 75

61 Table 3.41. Incidence of shriveling (%) for 10 bl ueberry clones stored for 6 weeks in air storage at 2C in 2004. Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 mz Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 0.00y 3.33 bcx 13.33 ab 10.00 c 20.00 cd 2.33 fgw 0.0135 FL 97-136 0.00 23.33 ab 33.33 a 70.00 a 63.33 a 8.67 a 0.0001 FL 98-325 0.00 6.67 abc 16.67 ab 26.67 abc 30.00 bcd 3.50 eg 0.0040 FL 00-59 0.00 0.00 c 0.00 b 6.67 c 13.33 d 1.67 g 0.0008 FL 00-180 0.00 0.00 c 13.33 ab 13.33 bc 20.00 cd 2.67 d 0.0002 FL 00-270 0.00 26.67 a 33.33 ab 53.33 ab 43.33 abc 5.67 bcde 0.0006 Emerald 0.00 13.33 abc 20.00 ab 36.67 abc 50.000 ab 6.17 bc 0.0001 Millennia 0.00 3.33 bc 10.00 ab 36.67 abc 20.00 cd 3.67 cdef 0.0059 Star 0.00 10.00 abc 10.00 ab 16.67 bc 33.33 abcd 3.67 def 0.0001 Windsor 0.00 6.67 abc 13.33 ab 30.00 abc 50.00 ab 6.17 b 0.0001 P > F 0.0007 0.0239 0.0002 <0.0001 zm is the estimated change in the fraction of shrive led per week based on linear regression analysis. yMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of 3 clamshells. xWeeks followed by the same letter are not signi ficantly different (P<0.0 5) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. wSlopes followed by the same letter are not si gnificantly different (P <0.05) by two-sample t-tests. Table 3.42. ANOVA for incidence of shriveling (%) of 10 blueberry clones stored at 2C for 8 weeks in 2004. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 49 784.49 12.77 <.0001 Clones 9 1089.61 17.73 <.0001 Weeks 4 5929.63 96.49 <.0001 Weeks x Clones 36 136.53 2.22 0.0010 Error 100 61.46 R-Square 0.86

PAGE 76

62 Table 3.43. Incidence of shrivel severityz of 10 blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in C.A. storage at 2C in 2004. Index values Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 my Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 1.00 x 1.07 aw 1.13 a 1.33 b 1.40 ab 0.05 ev 0.0326 FL 97-136 1.00 1.63 a 1.87 a 3.37 a 2.13 a 0.20 a 0.0096 FL 98-325 1.00 1.70 a 1.83 a 1.93 ab 1.47 ab 0.06 cdf 0.2302 FL 00-59 1.00 1.00 a 1.00 a 1.10 b 1.13 b 0.02 g 0.0024 FL 00-180 1.00 1.00 a 1.43 a 1.30 b 1.53 ab 0.07 cef 0.0220 FL 00-270 1.00 1.73 a 1.77 a 2.33 ab 1.77 ab 0.11 bef 0.0499 Emerald 1.00 1.27 a 1.50 a 1.10 b 1.90 ab 0.11 bd 0.0001 Millennia 1.00 1.07 a 1.20 a 2.10 ab 1.63 ab 0.12 bc 0.0005 Star 1.00 1.20 a 1.20 a 1.23 b 1.53 ab 0.06 e 0.0041 Windsor 1.00 1.27 a 1.40 a 1.50 b 2.27 a 0.14 b 0.0001 P > F 0.0069 0.0316 0.0009 0.0060 zEach berry was related on a scale from 1 ( no shriveling) to 9 (extreme shriveling). ym is the estimated change in the shrivel i ndex value per week based on linear regression analysis. xMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of 3 clamshells. wWeeks followed by the same letter are not si gnificantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. vSlopes followed by the same letter are not si gnificantly different (P <0.05) by two-sample t-tests. Table 3.44. ANOVA for incidence of shrivel severi ty of 10 blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks at 2C in 2004. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 49 0.66 6.25 <.0001 Clones 9 1.19 11.23 <.0001 Weeks 4 2.93 27.67 <.0001 Weeks x Clones 36 0.28 2.63 <.0001 Error 100 0.11 R-Square 0.75 No differences in the pH, SSC and TTA c oncentration were found that consistently separated the “crisp” from the “non-crisp” clones. The pH di d separate the three “crisp” clones ‘Bluecrisp’, FL 97-136 and FL 98-325 fr om the other seven clones at week 0 (Table 3.45). By the end of the 6 weeks in C.A. storage, the differences between these

PAGE 77

63 three clones and the others were no longer sign ificant (Table 3.45). Changes in pH with time in storage were inconsistent fr om one clone to another (Table 3.45). There were differences in the SSC of th e various clones (Table 3.47), but these did not consistently separate th e “crisp” clones from the “noncrisp” clones. Although SSC did not change greatly during the storage period, there was a highly significant week effect (Table 3.47) and the tendency was for SSC to decline slowly over time. Acid concentrations did not separate the “crisp” from the “non-crisp” clones at week 0, but in Table 3.49 (C.A.) as in Tabl e 3.33 (air storage e xperiment) the “crisp” clones ‘Bluecrisp’, FL 97-136, FL 98-325 and FL 00-59 and were much lower in TTA then ‘Emerald’, ‘Millennia’, ‘Star’ and ‘Windsor’. The ‘weeks’ effect was highly significant (Table 3.50), and most clones tended to increase in TTA over time, but this was not consistent among clones. Table 3.45. Meanz pH of 10 blueberry clones in a c ontrolled atmosphere over 8 weeks in 2004. Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 my Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 4.10 abx 3.91 b 3.78 bcd 3.82 bc 3.95 bc -0.016 dw 0.3126 FL 97-136 4.41 a 4.35 a 3.93 b 4.10 b 4.22 b -0.033 ef 0.4213 FL 98-325 4.16 ab 4.36 a 4.47 a 4.57 a 4.61 a 0.053 a 0.0062 FL 00-59 3.95 bc 3.69 bc 3.65 bcde 3.67 c 3.62 de -0.036 f 0.0088 FL 00-180 3.55 cd 3.35 de 3.44 e M* 3.42 e -0.010 cde 0.3669 FL 00-270 3.65 cd 3.49 cde 3.42 e M 3.52 de -0.012 de 0.1983 Emerald 3.61 cd 3.68 bc 3.83 bc 3.68 c 3.79 cd 0.024 b 0.0467 Millennia 3.65 cd 3.24 e 3.57 de 3.64 c 3.59 de 0.008 bc 0.7053 Star 3.46 d 3.50 cde 3.45 de M 3.34 e -0.018 de 0.0271 Windsor 3.49 d 3.54 cd 3.33 e 3.27 d 3.40 e -0.015 ef 0.2195 P > F <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 zMean of three clamshells individually sampled. ym is the estimated change in titratable acid per week based on linea r regression analysis. xWeeks followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. wSlopes followed by the same letter are not si gnificantly different (P <0.05) by two-sample t-tests. Missing data

PAGE 78

64 Table 3.46. ANOVA for mean pH of 10 blueberry clones in a controlled atmosphere over 8 weeks in 2004. Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 46 0.390 27.87 <.0001 Clones 9 1.757 125.54 <.0001 Weeks 4 0.060 4.32 0.0030 Weeks x Clones 33 0.054 3.83 <.0001 Error 94 0.014 R-Square 0.93 Table 3.47. Meanz SSC of 10 blueberry clones in a controlled atmosphere over 8 weeks in 2004. Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 my Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 12.70 abx 13.63 ab 12.37 a 11.80 ab 12.73 a -0.040 bcw 0.7219 FL 97-136 14.50 a 13.83 a 12.20 ab 12.97 a 12.40 ab -0.274 d 0.0215 FL 98-325 10.13 bc 10.47 cd 11.00 abc 10.47 abc 10.43 abcd -0.100 ab 0.4132 FL 00-59 12.20 abc 11.87 abc 12.60 a 12.43 ab 12.23 ab 0.024 a 0.7538 FL 00-180 8.27 c 8.40 d 7.77 d M* 8.10 d -0.034 bc 0.7010 FL 00-270 9.87 bc 9.93 cd 9.20 cd M 8.97 cd -0.128 c 0.1667 Emerald 11.30 abc 10.20 cd 9.50 cd 10.03 bc 8.73 cd -0.309 d 0.0072 Millennia 11.87 abc 12.07 abc 11.17 abc 12.10 ab 10.07 bcd -0.250 cd 0.0343 Star 10.33 bc 10.73 cd 10.93 abc M 9.63 cd -0.099 abc 0.5232 Windsor 10.27 bc 11.23 bc 9.33 cd 8.80 c 10.93 abc 0.031 bc 0.7512 P > F 0.0015 <.0001 <.0001 0.0008 <.0001 zMean of three clamshells individually sampled. ym is the estimated change in SSC per week based on linear regression analysis. xWeeks followed by the same letter are not significan tly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. wSlopes followed by the same letter are not significan tly different (P<0.05) by two-sample t-tests. Missing data Table 3.48. ANOVA for mean SSC of 10 blueberry clones in a controlled atmosphere over 8 weeks in 2004. Source DF Mean SquareF value Pr > F Model 46 7.76 7.55 <.0001 Clones 9 33.19 32.30 <.0001 Weeks 4 3.88 3.78 0.0068 Weeks x Clones 33 1.26 1.22 0.2251 Error 94 1.03 R-Square 0.79

PAGE 79

65 Table 3.49. Meanz TTA of 10 blueberry clones in a controlled atmosphere over 8 weeks in 2004. Clone week 0 week 2 week 4 week 6 week 8 my Prob m = 0 Bluecrisp 0.24 bcdx 0.26 cd 0.34 bc 0.30 cd 0.28 ef 0.004 dw 0.4769 Fl 97-136 0.14 d 0.15 d 0.31 bc 0.24 de 0.19 f 0.008 cdfg0.2948 Fl 98-325 0.15 d 0.13 d 0.12 c 0.12 e 0.12 f 0.004 e 0.0586 Fl 00-59 0.23 cd 0.32 bc 0.31 bc 0.34 cd 0.44 cde 0.025 b 0.0001 FL 00-180 0.30 abcd 0.45 b 0.40 ab M* 0.51 bcd 0.022 bc 0.0364 FL 00-270 0.29 abcd 0.44 b 0.45 ab M 0.41 cde 0.011 cdg 0.2002 Emerald 0.44 ab 0.37 bc 0.36 bc 0.46 bc 0.38 de -0.005 ef 0.4194 Millennia 0.42 abc 0.88 a 0.55 ab 0.51 ab 0.55 bc 0.001 eg 0.9773 Star 0.46 a 0.44 b 0.52 ab M 0.77 a 0.042 a 0.0024 Windsor 0.43 abc 0.39 bc 0.65 a 0.63 a 0.61 ab 0.021 b 0.0873 P > F <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 zMean of three clamshells individually sampled. ym is the estimated change in TTA per week based on linear regression analysis. xWeeks followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. wSlopes followed by the same letter are not si gnificantly different (P <0.05) by two-sample t-tests *Missing data Table 3.50. ANOVA for mean TTA of 10 blueberry clones in a controlled atmosphere over 8 weeks in 2004. Source DF Mean SquareF value Pr > F Model 46 0.087 17.93 <.0001 Clones 9 0.329 67.90 <.0001 Weeks 4 0.058 12.04 <.0001 Weeks x Clones 33 0.025 5.06 <.0001 Error 94 0.005 R-Square 0.90 Discussion Postharvest storage of blue berries has been studied extensively over the past several decades (3, 5, 7, 30, 31, 35, 38, 46). From these studies it has been determined that low temperatures and CA storage can delay senescence in blueberries by several weeks. Our 2004 CA storage study confirms thes e results with the lack of decay (Table 3.37) and reduced severity of shrivel (Table 3.43) on blueberr ies during the 8 weeks they

PAGE 80

66 were stored. The 2004 air storage experiment (Table 2.31) confirms past research (4, 25, 29, 30, 32, 37) showing that blueberries kept at 1 to 5C in an air atmosphere can store for 2 weeks without decay. Air storage tests were done in 2003 and 2004. With respect to decay rates, the 2003 air experiment more closely resembles pr evious studies (5, 7, 23, 31) than the 2004 study. The constant air flow through the bucke ts in 2004 may be the reason for the lack of decay. Weight loss increased over time in the 2003 air storage test. The same was found by Miller and Mcdonald (30), and Sm ittle and Miller in 1988 (46). Firmness decreased over time in the 2003 air storage test and in the 2004 CA storage, as had been previously seen by Ferraz (15). Comparing the air and CA storage tests done in 2004 shows that the blueberries stored in air decayed faster (Tables 3.21 and 3.37) and shriveled more than berries stored in CA. These results agree with Ceponis and Cappellini’s study done in 1985 (7) and the Smittle and Miller study done in 1988(46). Co mparing the different parameters in each storage treatment to each other did not reve al any connection between them. Clone FL 00-59 was the only blueberry that did not s how any signs of decay (Tables 3.21 and 3.37) in the air and CA storage test. The clone also had the lowest levels of leaking and shriveling in both the air and CA storage tests. Reasons for its exceptional storage life are yet unknown. A few studies (30, 31) have shown that diffe rences in the storage life of blueberry clones can best be seen if the berries are kept at room temperature for a few days before examination. Tests should be conducted to determine if the “crisp” clones could be distinguished more easily from the “non-cris p” clones if this procedure was followed.

PAGE 81

67 The properties that cause the crisp textur e in blueberries is yet unknown. When the skin of one of the “crisp” clones is pealed away, the pulp has a cons istency very similar to that of “non-crisp” clones. Examination of the “crisp” and “noncrisp” blueberries at the cellular level could help uncover the prope rties responsible for the crisp texture in blueberry.

PAGE 82

68 CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS One of the major goals of these experiments was to find some objective test that could distinguish the six clone s that had been subjectively identified as being “crisp” from other blueberry cultivars that had been identified as not “crisp”. The consumer sensory panel study in 2004 confirmed that most untrained subjects could recognize “crispness” in blueberries, alt hough they did not necessarily pref er it. This indicates that there is some objective realit y to the “crisp” phenotype. Shear-cell testing appeared to be the most promising objective test for the “crisp” phenotype clones. These tests had good repe atability over two sample dates and gave good separation between the “crisp” clones ‘Bluecrisp’, FL 00-59 and FL 00-180 and other clones in the test. However, putativ ely crisp clones FL 98-325 and FL 00-270 were not separated from conventional cultivars by shea r-cell testing. Another goal of the experiments was to see if “crisp” clones, when compared with “non-crisp” clones, showed a uni que softening pattern as they went from white to blue on the plant. Firmness decreased from white to pink stages among all clones, with a similar pattern for all the clones. This decrease in firmness matc hes that of previous studies done on blueberry ripening. In this study it was hypot hesized that “crisp” berries would soften less as they ripened when compared with “ non-crisp” clones, but th is was not the case. The next objective of this study was to see if the “crisp” texture could be distinguished by firmness testing. The resist ance to deformation of 99 clones was tested along with four of the six “crisp” clones. Th e only clone that was st atistically different

PAGE 83

69 from the other clones by this measure was th e “crisp” clone FL 98-325. From this it can be seen that the crisp characteristic is not closely associated with the resistance to deformation of the blueberry. The final objective of this study was to determine if the “cris p” characteristics contributed to longer postharvest life. In 2003, the “crisp” cl ones did not store longer in air than the “non-crisp” clones. In 2 004, the “crisp” clone FL 00-59 had a longer postharvest life than any of th e other clones in air storage. Also, the same “crisp” clones that distinguished themselves in the shearcell tests, ‘Bluecrisp’, FL 00-59 and FL 00180, also showed great resistan ce to shriveling in air storag e. A correlation between high shear-cell values and low shriveling during stor age is possible. Comparing the air storage and C.A. storage tests of 2004 showed that if the “crisp” characteris tic contributes to a longer postharvest life, it is onl y in an air atmosphere. When the “crisp” blueberries were placed into C.A. storage, their adva ntage over regular clones was lost.

PAGE 84

70 LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Abbott, J. A. and F. R. Harker. Textur e. Produce quality and safety laboratory. USDA. Last accessed 8/5/2005. www.ba .ars.usda.gov/hb66/021texture.pdf. 2. Adams, F. H. The uphill thrill of blueberri es. SunnyRidge farm, Inc. Last accessed 9/18/2004. http://www.sunnyridge.com/aboutus /uphill_thrill_of_blueberries.htm. 3. Ballinger, W. E. and L. J. Kushman. 1970. Relationship of stage of ripeness to composition and keeping quality of highbush bl ueberries. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 95:239-242. 4. Ballinger, W. E., L. J. Kushman and D. D. Hamann. 1973. Factors affecting the firmness of highbush blueberries. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 98:583-587. 5. Ballinger, W. E., E. P. Maness and W. F. McClure. 1978. Relationship of stage of ripeness and holding temperature to decay development of blueberries. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 103:130-134. 6. Ballington, J. R., W. E. Ballington. Fr uit quality characteristics of 11 Vaccinium species. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 109:684-689. 7. Ceponis, M. J., and R. A. Capellini. 1985. Reduce decay in fresh blueberries with controlled atmospheres. Hortscience. 20:228-229. 8. Crocker, T. E. and P. M. Lyrene. 1985. Su rvey of blueberry acreage in Florida. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 98:162-164. 9. Crocker, T. E. and L. Willis. 1989. Surv ey of southern highbush and rabbiteye blueberries in Florida. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 102:204-206. 10. Cross, Becky. 2002. Blueberry Statistic s. USDA Publication. Last accessed 9/18/2004. http://www.nass.usda .gov/nj/intern et0302info.pdf. 11. Dave Wilson Nursery. 2004. Fruit Tas ting Report. Last accessed 8/5/2005. www.davewilson.com/2004TasteReport.pdf. 12. Edwards, Jr., T. W., W. B. Sherman and R. H. Sharpe. 1970. Fruit development in short and long cycle blueberr ies. Hortscience. 5:274-275.

PAGE 85

71 13. Edwards Jr., T. W., W. B. Sherman and R. H. Sharpe. 1974. Evaluation and inheritance of fruit color, size, scar, firmness and plant vigor in blueberry. Hortscience. 9:20-22. 14. Ehlenfeldt, M. K., and R. B. Martin Jr 2002. A survey of fruit firmness in highbush blueberry and species-introgressed bluebe rry cultivars. Hortscience. 37:386-389. 15. Ferraz, A. C. O., S. A. Sargent and A. J. Fox. 2000. Delays to cooling and postharvest quality of fres h, Florida blueberries. Proc Fla. State Hort. Soc. 113:268-271. 16. Ferraz, A. C. O., S. A. Sargent and A. J. Fox. 2000. A nondestructive method for measuring firmness of blueberry fruit. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 114:138-142. 17. Finn, C. E., and J. J. Luby. 1992. Inheritance of fruit quality traits in blueberry. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 117:617-621. 18. Food Directorate. Supressed polyga lacturonase activity Flavr SavrTM tomato. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Last accessed 8/5/2005. http://www.hcsc.gc.ca/food-aliment/mh-dm/ofb-bb a/nfi-ani/e_ofb-095-048-a.html. 19. Galletta, G. J., W. E. Ballinger, R. J. Monroe, and L. J. Kushman. 1971. Relationship between fruit acidity and sol uble solids levels of highbush blueberry clones and fruit keeping quality. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 96:758-762. 20. Giacalone, G., C. Peano, A. Guarinoni, G. Beccaro, and G. Bounous. 2002. Ripening curve of early, midseason, a nd late maturing highbush blueberry cultivars. Acta Hort iculturae. 574:119-121. 21. Harker, F. R., M. G. H. Stec, I. C. Hallett and C. L. Bennett. 1997. Texture of parenchymatous plant tissue: a comparison between tensile and other instrumental and sensory measurements of tissue streng th and juiciness. Postharvest Biology and Technology. 11:63-72. 22. Instron. Food texture fixtures Kramer shear cell. Instron Corper ation. Last accessed 8/5/2004. www.instron.com/wa/libra ry/streamfile2.aspx?sdoc=360. 23. Jackson, E. D., K. A. Sandfor, R. A. Lawrence, K. B. McRae and R. Stark. 1999. Lowbush blueberry quality changes in re sponse to prepacking delays and holding temperatures. Postharvest Bi ology and Technology. 15:117-126. 24. Kader, A. A, ed. Postharvest technology of horticultural crops. Oa kland: California. University of California Agricult ure and Natural Resources. 2002. 25. Kays, J. A Research Cornucopia. Ex plore. Fall 2003 vol. 8. Last accessed 9/18/2004. http://rgp.ufl.edu/publicati ons/explore/v08n2/feature_02.html.

PAGE 86

72 26. Kushman, L. J. and W. E. Ballinger. 1968. Acid and sugar changes during ripening in ‘Wolcott’ blueberries. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 92:290-295. 27. Lyrene, P. M. 2002. Breeding southern hi ghbush blueberries in Florida. Acta Horticulturae. 574:149-152. 28. Lyrene, P. M. and W. B. Sherman. 1988. Cultivation of highbush blueberry in Florida. Proc. Fla. St ate Hort. Soc. 101:269-272. 29. Miller, W. R. and D. A. Smittle. 1987. Storage quality of hand and machine harvested rabbiteye blueberries. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 112:487-490. 30. Miller, W.R., R. E. McDonald and T. E. Crocker. 1988. Fruit quality of rabbiteye blueberries as influenced by weekly ha rvests, cultivars, and storage duration. Hortscience. 23:182-184. 31. Miller, W. R. and R. E. McDonald. 1993. Quality of two Florida blueberry cultivars after packag ing and storage. Hortscience. 28:144-147. 32. Miller, W. R., E. J. Mitcham, R. E. McDonald, and J. R. King. 1994. Postharvest storage quality of Gamma-irradiated ‘Clim ax’ rabbiteye blueberries. Hortscience. 29:98-101. 33. NeSmith, D. S., S. E. Prussia and G. Krewer. 1999. Firmness of ‘Brightwell’ rabbiteye blueberry in response to vari ous harvesting and handling procedures. Blueberry Research at th e University of Georgia. Research Report No. 662. pp.1216. 34. NeSmith, D. S., S. Prussia, M. Tetteh and G. Krewer. 2002. Firmness of rabbiteye blueberries ( Vaccinium ashei Reade) during harves ting and handling. Acta Horticulturae. 574:287-293. 35. Nunes, M. C. N., J. P. Emond, and J. K. Brecht. 2004. Quality curves for highbush blueberries as a function of the storage termperature. Proc. 9th North Amer. Blueberry Research Conf. 423-439. 36. Oregon State University. Postharvest Hand ling of Blueberry. Northwest Berry and Grape Information Network. Lasted accessed 9/18/2004. http://berrygrape.oregonstat e.edu/fruitgrowing/berrycr ops/blueberry/postharv.htm. 37. Ourechy, D. K., and M. C. Bourne. 1968. Measurement of strawberry texture with an Instron Machine. Proc Am er. Soc. Hort. Sci. 93:317-325. 38. Perkins-Veazie, P., J. R. Clark, J. K. Collins and J. Magee. 1995. Southern highbush blueberry clones differ in postha rvest fruit quality. Fruit Variety Journal. 49:46-52.

PAGE 87

73 39. Proctor, Andrew and Terrence J. Miesle. 1991. Polygalacturonase and Pectinmethylesterase activities in deve loping highbush blueberries. Hortscience. 26:579-581. 40. Saltveit, M. E. and W. E. Ballinger. 1 983. Effects of anaerobic nitrogen and carbon dioxide atmospheres on ethanol production and postharvest quality of blueberries. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 108:459-462. 41. Sato, Akihiko and M. Yamada. 2003. Berry texture of table wine, and dual-purpose grape cultivars quantified. Hortscience. 38:578-581. 42. Sharpe, R. H., and W. B. Sherman. 1971. Breeding blueberries for low-chilling requirements. Hortscience. 6:144-161. 43. Sherman, Wayne. New plants for Florida: stone fruit. EDIS. Florida Cooperative Extension Service Publication. Last accessed 8/5/2004. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/AG209. 44. Silva, Juan L., E. Marroquin, F. B. Matta, J. O. Garner Jr., and J. Stojanovic. 2005. Physicochemical, carbohydrate and sens ory characteristics of highbush and rabiteye blueberry cultivars. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 85:1815-1821. 45. Slaughter, D. C. and R. P. Rohrb ach. 1985. Developing a blueberry firmness standard. Transactions of the ASAE. 28:986-992. 46. Smittle, D. A. and W. R. Miller. 1988. Rabbiteye blueberry storage life and fruit quality in controlled atmospheres and ai r storage. J. Amer. Soc Hort. Sci. 113:723728. 47. Sousa, M. B. W. Canet, M. D. Alvarez and M. E. Torosa. 2005. The effect of the pre-treatment and long-term frozen stor age on the quality of raspberry (cv. Heritage). European Food Res earch and Technology. 221: 132-144. 48. U.S.D.A. Noncitrus fruits and nuts 2003 su mmary. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Last accessed 8/4/2005. http://jan.mannlib.cornell.edu/repo rts/nassr/fruit/pnf -bb/ncit0704.txt 49. Williamson, J. G. and P. M. Lyrene. 1991. Commercial blueberry production in Florida. Florida Cooperative Extens ion Service Publication, IFAS. 50. Williamson, J. G. and P. M. Lyrene. Bluebe rry varieties for Florida. EDIS, Florida Cooperative Extension Service Publi cation HS21500. Last accessed 9/18/2004. http://www.edis.ifas.ufl.edu/HS215.

PAGE 88

74 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Les Padley Jr. was born in Largo, Flor ida, on January 9, 1980, to Les and Pam Padley. He graduated high school from the Center for Advanced Technologies in 1998, and received his Bachelor of Science de gree from Florida Southern College in environmental horticultural and business. Moving to Gainesville in 2002, he began studies for his Master of Scie nce degree in plant breeding at the University of Florida. On November 20, 2004, Les Padley Jr. was married to Michelle Cook in Gainesville, Florida. He plans on continuing his education with a PhD in the field of Horticulture studying plant breeding in cucurbits.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0012182/00001

Material Information

Title: Firmness and Storage Characteristics of Crisp-Textured Blueberries
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0012182:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0012182/00001

Material Information

Title: Firmness and Storage Characteristics of Crisp-Textured Blueberries
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0012182:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












FIRMNESS AND STORAGE CHARACTERISTICS
OF
CRISP-TEXTURED BLUEBERRIES















By

LES PADLEY JR.


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005

































Copyright 2005

by

Les Padley Jr.

































This document is dedicated to my wife and both of my families who have been there for
me since the beginning, encouraging me and helping me along the way.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Straughn farms Inc. for providing the blueberry plots used in

these studies. I would also like to thank Dr. Paul Lyrene, Dr. Steven Sargent and Dr.

Jeffrey Brecht for giving me the opportunity to obtain this degree. Finally, I would like

to thank Kim Cordasco for helping me with my research along the way.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST O F TA BLE S ............................................................ .............. vii

L IST O F FIG U R E S .... ....... ...................... ........................ .... ...... .. ............. xii

A B S T R A C T ......... .................................. ...................................................x iii

CHAPTER

1 IN TR O D U C T IO N ............................................................. .. ......... ...... .....

H history of Blueberries in Florida.................................................... ...... ...............
B lueberry B reeding......................................... ............................. 2
Growth and Fruit Development of Blueberries .......................................................5
Harvest and Postharvest of Blueberries...................................... .. ..................7
Crisp-Textured Blueberries .............................................................. ............. 11

2 QUALITY DETERMINATIONS OF FRESH BLUEBERRY CLONES .................12

Relative Berry Firm ness of 99 Clones .............................. .................... 12
M materials and M ethods .......................................................... ............... 12
R e su lts ......................................................................... 1 4
D iscussion............... .................. .. ......................... .. .... ........ 14
Firmness Changes During Fruit Development..........................................................17
2003 M materials and M ethods ........................................... .......................... 17
2 0 0 3 R esu lts ....................................................................... 18
2004 M materials and M ethods ........................................... .......................... 18
2 004 R esu lts ....................................................................... 19
D iscu ssio n ...................................... .............................. ................ 2 0
S h e ar-C ell T e stin g ................................................................................................. 2 1
M materials and M ethods ............................................... ............................... 22
R e su lts ............................................................................................................ 2 2
D iscu ssio n .................................................................................. 2 5
Consum er Sensory Panel Study........................................................ ............... 26
2003 M materials and M ethods ............................................ ......................... 26
2 0 0 3 R esu lts .......................................................................2 7
2004 M materials and M ethods ............................................ ......................... 29


v









2 0 0 4 R esu lts ................................................................2 9
D iscu ssion .............................................................................................. ....... 32

3 POSTHARVEST STORAGE TEST ........................................ ........................ 34

2003 Study ............. ................................................................34
M materials an d M eth od s ........................................ ...........................................34
R e su lts ............................................................................................................ 3 6
2004 Study ............. ................................................................45
M materials an d M eth od s ........................................ ...........................................4 5
R e su lts ............................................................................................................ 4 7
D iscu ssion ......... ...... ............ .................................... ............................65

4 C O N C L U SIO N S ........................ .... .... .................... .. .. ........ .... ... .......68

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ......................................... .......... ................. .......................... 70

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH ...................................................................... ..................74















LIST OF TABLES


Tablege

2.1 Meanz force (N) required to deform berries by 2mm for 99 blueberry clones
ranked from lowest to highest sampled in 2003........ ............................................... 15

2.2 Meanz deformation force (2mm deformation) of fruit for eight blueberry clones
sampled at 9 stages of maturity in 2003 ..... ......... ........................................ 19

2.3 Meanz deformation force of fruit for nine blueberry clones sampled at three
stages of m aturity in 2004. .............. ............. .......... ................... 20

2.4 ANOVA for mean deformation force of fruit for 9 blueberry clones sampled at
three stages of m aturity in 2004. ............. ............ ......... ............ ........ 20

2.5 Shear-cell means for 10 clones sampled at two different times during the 2004
grow ing season. ........................................................................24

2.6 Questions asked for the 2003 taste panel study ....................................................27

2.7 Overall appearance of panelists of four blueberry clones on a scale from 1
(dislike extremely) to 9 (like extremely) (n=90; 2003 study). ..............................28

2.8 Overall texture/firmness of panelists of four blueberry clones on a scale from 1
(dislike extremely) to 9 (like extremely) (n=90; 2003 study). ..............................28

2.9 Overall sweetness of panelists of four blueberry clones on a scale from 1 (dislike
extremely) to 9 (like extremely) (n=90; 2003 study). ...................... ...............28

2.10 Overall flavor of panelists of four blueberry clones on a scale from 1 (dislike
extremely) to 9 (like extremely) (n=90; 2003 study). ...................... ...............28

2.11 Overall acceptability of panelists of four blueberry clones on a scale from 1
(dislike extremely) to 9 (like extremely) (n=90; 2003 study). ..............................29

2.12 Questions asked for the 2004 taste panel study.......................................................29

2.13 Previous blueberry eating experience of the 95 panelists whom were part of the
evaluation panel in 2004. .............................................. ............................... 30

2.14 Firmness ranking of 4 blueberry clones by 95 panelists from 1 (softest sample)
to 4 crunchiestt sam ple). .......................................... .. .. ...... .......... .... .... 1









2.15 Desirability of the berry firmness of 4 blueberry clones evaluated on a scale
from 1 (dislike extremely) to 9 (like extremely) by 95 panelists...........................31

2.16 Overall desirability of the berry quality of 4 blueberry clones evaluated by 95
panelists. ................................................................ ... ..... ......... 3 1

2.17 Desirability of berry firmness and overall desirability of berries of 4 blueberry
clones as judged by panelists with differing blueberry consumption histories........32

3.1 Mean deformation force at 2mm depth for 8 blueberry clones stored in air for 8
w weeks at 20C in 2003 ......... .. ..... ............. .................... ... 37

3.2 ANOVA for mean deformation force needed at 2mm for 8 blueberry clones
stored for 8 w weeks in 2003 ................ ............................................. ....................37

3.3 Incidence of decay (%) for eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks at 20C in
2003 .................................. ......... ........ .............................. . ................. 38

3.4 ANOVA for incidence of decay (%) of eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks
in 2 0 0 3 ...................................... ......................................................3 8

3.5 Incidence of leaking (%) for eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks at 20C in
2003 .................................. ........ ......... .............................. . ................. 39

3.6 ANOVA for incidence of leaking (%) for eight blueberry clones stored for 8
w weeks in 2003 ............................................................... ... .... ........ 40

3.7 Incidence of weight loss (%) of eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks at 20C
in 2003. Values for each week are the cumulative weight loss from week 0 to
the w eek stated. .......................................................................40

3.8 ANOVA for incidence of weight loss (%) of eight blueberry clones stored for 8
w weeks in 2003 ............................................................... ... .... ........ 40

3.9 Incidence of shriveling (%) for eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks at 20C
in 2 0 0 3 ...................................... ......................................................4 1

3.10 ANOVA for incidence of shriveling (%) of eight blueberry clones stored for 8
w weeks in 2003 ............................................................... ... .... ........ 4 1

3.11 Incidence of shrivel severity of eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks at 20C
in 2 0 0 3 ...................................... ......................................................4 2

3.12 ANOVA for Incidence of shrivel severity of eight blueberry clones stored for 8
w weeks in 2003 ............................................................... ... .... ........ 42

3.13 Meanz pH of eight blueberry clones stored at 20C over 8 weeks in 2003 ..............43









3.14 ANOVA for mean pH of eight blueberry clones stored at 20C over 8 weeks in
2003 .................................... ...... ........................................... 44

3.15 Meanz SSC of eight blueberry clones stored at 20C over 8 weeks in 2003. ............44

3.16 ANOVA for mean SSC of eight blueberry clones stored at 20C over 8 weeks in
2003 ................................. ........... ..... .............................. . . ............... 44

3.17 Meanz TTA of eight blueberry clones stored at 20C over 8 weeks in 2003.............45

3.18 ANOVA for mean TTA of eight blueberry clones stored at 20C over an 8 weeks
in 2003 ................................................................. ........ ........... 45

3.19 Mean deformation force at 2mm depth for 10 blueberry clones stored in air for
8 weeks at 20C in 2004............... .. .... ...................... .. ......49

3.20 ANOVA for mean force needed to deform the berries by 2mm for 10 blueberry
clones stored for 6 weeks in 2004. (air atmosphere)............... ............................49

3.21 Incidence of decay (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 6 weeks in air storage
at 20C in 2004 ................................................... ................. 50

3.22 ANOVA for incidence of decay (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 6 weeks
in air storage in 2004 ........................ .... ...................... .... ........ ................50

3.23 Incidence of leaking (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 6 weeks in air
storage at 2 C in 2004. .................................................... ........ .. ...... ............51

3.24 ANOVA for incidence of leaking (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 6 weeks
in 2 0 0 4 ...................................... ................................... ................ 5 1

3.25 Incidence of shriveling (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 6 weeks in air
storage at 20C in 2004. ....................................... ............. .... ....... 52

3.26 ANOVA for incidence of shriveling (%) of 10 blueberry clones stored at 20C for
6 w eek s in 2 0 0 4 .................................................... ................ 52

3.27 Incidence of shrivel severity of 10 blueberry clones stored for 6 weeks in air
storage at 2 C in 2004. ............................ ........................ ........ .. ...... ............53

3.28 ANOVA for incidence of shrivel severity of 10 blueberry clones stored for 6
w weeks at 20C in 2004 ............................................... .. .... .. .. ........ .... 53

3.29 Meanz pH of 10 blueberry clones in an air atmosphere over 6 weeks in 2004........54

3.30 ANOVA for mean pH of 10 blueberry clones in an air atmosphere over 6 weeks
in 2 0 0 4 ...................................... ................................... ................ 5 4

3.31 Meanz SSC 10 blueberry clones in an air atmosphere over 6 weeks in 2004..........55









3.32 ANOVA for mean SSC of 10 blueberry clones in an air atmosphere over 6
w eek s in 2 0 04 ......................................................................................... 5 5

3.33 Meanz TTA of 10 blueberry clones in an air atmosphere over 6 weeks in 2004.....56

3.34 ANOVA for mean TTA of 10 blueberry clones in an air atmosphere over 6
w weeks in 2004.................................................... ...................... ..... ........ 56

3.35 Mean deformation force at 2mm depth for 10 blueberry clones stored in C.A.
for 8 w eeks at 20C in 2004. ...... ........................... ....................................... 58

3.36 ANOVA for deformation force at 2mm for 10 blueberry clones stored for 8
w weeks in 2004.................................................... ...................... ..... ........ 58

3.37 Incidence of decay (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in C.A.
storage at 2 C in 2004. ............................ ........................ ........ .. ...... ............59

3.38 ANOVA for incidence of decay (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks
in C .A storage in 2004 ............. ......................................................... .... .... ... .. 59

3.39 Incidence of leaking (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in C.A.
storage at 2 C in 2004. ............................ ........................ ........ .. ...... ............60

3.40 ANOVA for incidence of leaking (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks
in 2 0 0 4 ...................................... ................................... ................ 6 0

3.41 Incidence of shriveling (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 6 weeks in air
storage at 20C in 2004. ......................... .......... ............... .... ....... 61

3.42 ANOVA for incidence of shriveling (%) of 10 blueberry clones stored at 20C for
8 w eek s in 2 0 0 4 .................................................... ................ 6 1

3.43 Incidence of shrivel severity of 10 blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in C.A.
storage at 2 C in 2004. ............................ ........................ ........ .. ...... ............62

3.44 ANOVA for incidence of shrivel severity of 10 blueberry clones stored for 8
w weeks at 20C in 2004 ........................................... .. ..... ................. 62

3.45 Meanz pH of 10 blueberry clones in a controlled atmosphere over 8 weeks in
2 0 04 .................................................................................6 3

3.46 ANOVA for mean pH of 10 blueberry clones in a controlled atmosphere over 8
w weeks in 2004............................................................... .. ... ......... 64

3.47 Meanz SSC of 10 blueberry clones in a controlled atmosphere over 8 weeks in
2 0 04 .................................................................................64

3.48 ANOVA for mean SSC of 10 blueberry clones in a controlled atmosphere over 8
w weeks in 2004............................................................... .. ... ......... 64









3.49 Meanz TTA of 10 blueberry clones in a controlled atmosphere over 8 weeks in
2 0 04 .................................................................................6 5

3.50 ANOVA for mean TTA of 10 blueberry clones in a controlled atmosphere over
8 w eek s in 2 0 0 4 .................................................... ................ 6 5















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure pge

1.1 Blueberries at white, pink and blue stages after the start of final swell (stage 3). .... 7

2.1 Instron m machine w ith 8 m m probe....................................... ......................... 13

2.2 Histogram of mean firmness of 99 test blueberry clones. Class Interval 0.10 N.
The value for each clone was the average of 10 berries individually tested............16

2.3 Instron 8600 with shear-cell attached................................ ......................... 23

2.4 Relationship between shear-cell forces of nine selected blueberry cultivars and
clones harvested at the blue stage in the first and second sampling dates of 2004..25














Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

FIRMNESS AND STORAGE CHARACTERISTICS
OF
CRISP-TEXTURED BLUEBERRIES

By

Les Padley Jr.

December 2005

Chair: Paul Lyrene
Major Department: Horticultural Science

During the 1980s and 1990s several cultivars with a firm texture were released

from blueberry breeding programs, exemplified by 'Reveille' from North Carolina and

'Bluecrisp' from Florida. University of Florida blueberry breeders, along with local

growers, considered 'Bluecrisp' to have a unique crisp texture that had not been

encountered up to that date. Since the discovery of 'Bluecrisp', several new clones with

crisp-texture were found in the test plots of the University of Florida's breeding program.

This research was designed to compare the "crisp" clones, 'Bluecrisp', FL 97-136, FL

98-325, FL 00-59, FL 00-180 and FL 00-270, for crisp-texture and storage life to

standard "non-crisp" clones 'Emerald', 'Millennia', 'Star', and 'Windsor'.

Firmness testing was first conducted on 99 blueberry clones, including the "crisp"

clones 'Bluecrisp' FL97-136, and FL 98-325, using an Instron 8600 with a 10N load cell.

The firmness test, deformation to 2 mm, revealed that the "crisp" characteristic could not

be determined using Instron firmness testing. A test studying the firmness changes









during fruit development did not show differences between the "crisp" and "non-crisp"

clones using Instron measurements of berries at the white, pink and blue stages of

maturity. Berries of all varieties became much softer during the transition from white to

blue. However, shear cell testing, simulating chewing, conducted in 2004 on the two

groups of clones showed that 'Bluecrisp', FL 97-136, FL 00-59 and FL 00-180 were

distinctively different from all of the other clones in maximum force required for the

blades to slice the berries. A consumer sensory panel study in 2004 showed that the

"crisp" clones 'Bluecrisp' and FL 00-59 could be distinguished as "crisp" in comparison

with the "non-crisp" clones 'Star' and 'Windsor'. The average consumer, though, did not

have a preference for the crisp-textured blueberries when compared with the standard

"non-crisp" blueberries. Postharvest storage tests in 2004 showed that, when held in air

storage, the clones 'Bluecrisp', FL 00-59, and FL 00-180 had superior storage life

compared with the other "crisp" and "non-crisp" clones. The shear cell test in 2004 also

separated these three "crisp" clones from the other clones tested. A correlation that

separates "crisp" and "non-crisp" clones using shear cell values and postharvest storage

life might exist. When the same "crisp" and "non-crisp" clones were stored in a

controlled atmosphere of 2% 02 plus 15% CO2, the distinction between 'Bluecrisp',

FLOO-59 and FL 00180 and the other clones was lost.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

History of Blueberries in Florida

The commercial blueberry industry is profitable and fast growing. In 2002 North

America produced 390 million pounds of blueberries with a total wholesale value of

about $310 million. Cultivated blueberries represented $210 million of the total and wild

blueberries $100 million. Of the 2002 national total, Florida contributed $18.5 million

from approximately 809 hectares of cultivated blueberries (10, 50). Florida has the

potential to greatly increase blueberry acreage and production without flooding the

market (2). Florida, with its early April to early May market window (20), has the

capability of playing a major role in the expansion of this industry.

Cultivated blueberries (Vaccinium section Cyanococcus) are native to eastern North

America and were first commercialized there. At first, production was mainly located in

the northern United States and was based on the northern highbush blueberry (Vaccinium

corymbosum). These highbush blueberry cultivars produced high yields and large fruit

when planted on soils with high organic matter and low pH in areas that provided high

chilling hours (50). Florida began blueberry production in the early 1900s using the

native Florida blueberry species V. ashei, commonly called rabbiteye blueberry. The

plants were transplanted from the wild into cultivated fields. By 1930, over 2000 acres of

commercial blueberries were in production in North Florida (30, 41). This production

did not last long due to poor fruit quality and marketing problems (9, 50). Over the next

several decades the blueberry industry in Florida went into serious decline (30). Northern









highbush blueberries were tried in Florida during this time, but the plants did not fare

well. Lack of chill hours, low soil organic matter and subtropical diseases made it hard

for the northern plants to survive so far south (25).

In 1984, the blueberry market for the United States was expanding rapidly but

there were no blueberries available until late May, when harvest began in eastern North

Carolina (28, 42). Florida Agricultural Experiment Station horticulturalist Ralph Sharpe

believed that Florida could produce blueberries as early as late April (42). What was

needed to create this industry was high yielding, large fruited, early ripening blueberry

varieties. To breed these varieties, Sharpe propagated several Florida evergreen lowbush

wild blueberry bushes (V darrowi) that he found growing around a lake near Winter

Haven, Florida. These bushes produced unusually large berries with a powdery blue

color. He crossed these plants with northern highbush cultivars. This was the first step in

breeding a type of low-chill, heat-tolerant highbush called southern highbush (25, 28).

Southern highbush revitalized Florida's blueberry industry by allowing Florida blueberry

growers to harvest during the early market window of March 20 to May 20 (42). The

new industry took decades to develop, but by 1985 there was 1058 acres of blueberries in

Florida, and by 1989 the blueberry acreage in Florida had nearly doubled to 2106 acres

(8, 9). In 2003, Florida ranked as the 7th largest state in cultivated blueberry acreage for

the U.S. with around 1900 acres (48).

Blueberry Breeding

Blueberry breeding started in the United States around 1910, and at the University

of Florida (U. F.) about 1950 (42). Florida's breeding program mainly concentrated on

the development of low-chill, early ripening, tetraploid, southern highbush cultivars.

These southern highbush cultivars were obtained by hybridization of Florida native









blueberries (mainly Vaccinium darrowi) and highbush cultivars (V. corymbosum) from

Michigan, New Jersey and North Carolina. The original crosses were followed by a

program of recurrent selection.

Ralph Sharpe and Wayne Sherman continued this program of recurrent selection

until Sharpe's retirement in 1976. The program was continued Sherman, who was

joined by Paul Lyrene in 1977. Sherman retirement in 2003, and the program is now

under the direction of Lyrene.

As currently practiced in the U. F. blueberry breeding program, by Dr. Paul Lyrene,

each cycle of selection is begun by crossing 200 plants to obtain 12,000 seedlings.

Pollination is done by emasculating the flowers before anthesis, and pollen is transferred

by thumbnail as described by Edwards, Sherman and Sharpe (13). The seedlings from

these crosses are grown and evaluated for numerous characteristics that are important in a

cultivar. Desired characteristics included a vigorous, upright plant, high yield potential,

resistance to various insects and diseases, adaptation to Florida soils and climates, and

large, sweet, firm berries that are easy to harvest and have a long shelf life (17). From

the original 12,000 plants, 200 are selected and used as parents to begin the next cycle of

selection. As this process continues, each generation of selection brings better seedling

populations. The seedlings are also the source of new varieties, which are propagated

asexually.

In evaluating genotypes for the U. F. breeding program, seedlings are first fruited

in a high density nursery (Stage 1). The plants are examined for fruit size, color, picking

scar size, firmness, flavor, time of ripening and freedom from major visible defects of

bush or berry (27). From the 12,000 seedlings, 500 are selected and the rest are









discarded. The selected plants are grown for 2 more years (Stage 2 test). During the first

of the 2 years, the bushes and berries are evaluated for the same characteristics that were

evaluated in stage 1, and 100 to 150 plants are selected for propagation. In the second

year the plants are reexamined to find plants showing the desirable qualities that did not

appear in the first year, and an additional 20 to 50 plants are selected. For each plant

selected in Stage 2, 40 softwood cuttings are taken. Based on the rooting ability of the

cuttings and growth characteristics of the ramets, 120 to 150 clones per year are planted

into a commercial field in plots of 20 plants per clone (Stage 3). Here they received the

care and maintenance recommended for commercial blueberries in Florida (27). The

plants are left in the field for 2 to 10 years, depending on the performance of each clone.

Each year, the clones are examined for plant vigor and survival, leafing and flowering

characteristics, and berry yield and quality (27). Approximately 12 clones are selected

from each stage 3 test, and ramets are propagated from each clone. The selected clones

are planted in 100-plant plots in a commercial field. These plots are examined for 3 to 6

years, and the best one to two selections become cultivars (27).

The characteristics that make a successful blueberry cultivar have been studied

for decades by people such as Sharpe (13, 42), Sherman (13, 42), Ballinger (4, 5),

Ballington (6), Lyrene (27, 28) and Finn (17). The heritability of certain characteristics

has also been studied. Edwards, Sherman and Sharpe (13) determined that there was a

high heritability estimate for fruit size, a moderate heritability for fruit color, a low

heritability for fruit firmness and picking scar size and an even lower heritability for plant

vigor. They also determined that additive gene action was high for fruit size, color, and

firmness, and plant vigor, and plants should transmit these traits to their progeny. Finn,









and Luby (17) confirmed this additive gene action in blueberries as it pertains to fruit

color. They also concluded that highbush x highbush segregation patterns indicated

predominately additive gene action. These studies, along with others, have helped

blueberry breeders improve their breeding programs.

Growth and Fruit Development of Blueberries

Growing blueberries in Florida is a challenging business. Blueberries are a

deciduous, perennial, long lived woody shrub with a fibrous root system that requires

high organic matter and acidic soils to thrive. Selecting the proper site is a key to

growing commercial blueberries. A site must have well drained soil at least 40 cm deep,

a pH between 3.5 and 5.5 and 2 to 3% organic matter. The area must also have enough

cool weather during the winter to satisfy the chilling requirement of the variety, but the

frequency of late winter and early spring freezes should be low(49). Once a site is

chosen, southern highbush blueberries are planted 1 m apart in rows 3 m apart. Two or

more cultivars are inter-planted for cross-pollination.

Blueberry plants require at least 100 cm of water yearly to be productive (49).

Overhead irrigation is the most common and practical way of applying water to the plants

in Florida. Overhead irrigation is also used to protect flower buds from February, March

and April freezes (28). Fertilizer (12-4-8-2) is applied frequently beginning about mid-

April and ending in August or September. Bushes are pruned during the summer after

final harvest. Pruning of southern highbush plants is needed to keep the desirable size

and shape of the plant, to increase plant vigor and to promote good fruit development in

next year's crop (49).

Blueberries require several hundred hours of chilling (between 0C and 70C) in the

winter to stimulate the sprouting of floral and vegetative buds in the spring. The amount









of chilling required varies from one cultivar to another. Chilling hours begin in the fall

after the plants go dormant. Previous to the chilling season, some axillary (vegetative)

buds are inverted into flower buds. This transformation is complete by January and the

swollen flower buds can be distinguished from the vegetative buds on the bush. Plants

must have a proper balance between vegetative and flower buds to produce maximum

yields and quality (49). In north Florida, flower buds open during February (Lyrene,

personal communication).

Blueberry flowers consist of a corolla tube (white or pink colored), a pistil and

anthers. The corolla tube is the most visible part of the flower and is made up of five

fused petals. The pistil extends to the end of the corolla tube, but the anthers are situated

in such a way that sonication by an insect, primarily bees, is needed to efficiently remove

pollen from the flower. Sonication occurs when a bee places its head into the corolla

tube and moves its wing muscles at high frequencies causing the pollen to fall out of the

flower. Pollen lands on the bee's head, and some of it is taken to other flowers, where it

may be left on the stigfmas. For optimum fruit set and berry size, it cross-pollination

(pollen from one variety being placed on the stigma of another) is desirable (49).

After pollination, the flower takes 45 to 120 days to develop into a ripened

blueberry (Lyrene, personal communication). Blueberry fruit development follows a

double-sigmoid curve that consists of three stages (12). In stage I fruit size increases

through cell division. Stage II is characterized by a rapid increase in embryo and

endosperm growth with little or no increase in berry size. In Stage III cells enlarge

without cell division until maturity (12). In the final days of development the blueberry

undergoes a ripening process in which acid decreases while pH, sugar and berry weight









increase (3). As berry color changes from green to white to pink to blue (Figure 1.1) the

berries increase dramatically in size (final swell) (3, Lyrene, personal communication). It

takes about 5 days for the berries to undergo this ripening process for a climacteric fruit,

physical maturity is reached at mature green stage (i.e., when it can ripen on or off the

plant). to become fully ripened, physiologically mature blueberries (Lyrene, personal

communication).






















Figure 1.1. Blueberries at white, pink and blue stages after the start of final swell (stage
3).

Harvest and Postharvest of Blueberries

Florida blueberries are harvested, packed and shipped to many parts of the world

from March 20 to May 20 (46). Worldwide shipment of fresh berries requires good

cultivars, and a first-rate packing and storage system. The process of producing

blueberries that pack and store well begins in the field before the berries are picked.

Blueberries must be ripe, firm and have a small, dry picking scar to survive the trip to the









market. A picking scar that is small and dry is especially important, because a wet

picking scar, caused by the skin of the berry tearing as it is removed from the stem, is a

primary locus of fungus infection (7, 19, 29, 46). In the field, the berries are picked into

buckets and poured into field lugs, which are kept shaded. Great care must be taken

during the harvesting and handling process to avoid dropping or bruising the berries,

which would lead to decay. In the packing house, the berries are placed on a conveyer

belt, and unripe, overripe or damaged berries are removed, along with leaves and twigs.

Berries must be firm to avoid bruising or juice leakage during this process. The sorted

berries are placed in plastic clamshells, 125 to 400 g per clamshell. These are typically

packed in 12-unit cartons for shipping.

After packing, the berries are placed into a storage unit at 00 to 50C with relative

humidity of 95% (5, 15, 23, 24, 35). Under these conditions, blueberries can be stored for

2 weeks without decay (5, 31, 36, 38, 46). Blueberries have been stored using modified

atmosphere (MA) since 1919. Research on storage conditions has primarily focused on

the quality of the blueberries. Quality parameters have included weight loss, number of

defective berries, firmness, color, and decay (23, 29). As expected, weight loss, number

of defective berries and decay increase over time, whereas firmness decreases and color

becomes darker. Further research has shown that many of the changes that occur on the

outside of the blueberry are due to internal changes in the berry. As fruit develop and

mature, total titratable acidity (TTA) decreases while weight, pH, soluble solids content

(SSC), sugar, and SSC/TTA ratio increase (3, 20, 26). Blueberries with low pHs of 3.5 or

less tend to have slower rates of decay (3, 19, 38). These changes in acid, weight, pH,

TTA, SSC, sugar and SSC/TTA occur naturally as a blueberry matures, ripens and









senesces. Controlled atmospheres (CA) are used in blueberry storage to reduce the rate

of senescence in the berries. CA storage consists of altering the concentrations of CO2,

02 and N in the storage units containing the blueberries.

Using CA for blueberries began in the early 1980s when it was discovered that high

CO2 and low 02 levels helped prevent the decay of the fruit (7, 46). Much research has

been done since then. Optimum levels for these gases have been found to be 2 to 5% 02,

15 to 20% CO2 and nitrogen as a filler gas to make the atmosphere 100% (7, 24, 46 ). At

these levels, blueberries harvested at the blue maturity stage can be stored for over a

month at 10C with little decay or damage to the outside of the berries. At least one study,

though, has shown that high levels of CO2 in the CA may cause internal changes in

blueberries that produce an 'off flavor' (7). The reasons for the development of this

flavor are yet unknown.

Of the variables that have been studied in the postharvest storage of blueberries,

firmness has been found to be a key indicator of berry quality change during storage (25).

Early methods of determining blueberry firmness included squeezing the berry between

the fingers and judging the resistance, or judging firmness by masticating the berry (4,

29, 45). These methods gave variable results from one person to another (45). In 1973,

Ballinger and associates (4) modified an Instron Universal Testing machine (resistance to

compression) to measure the firmness of blueberry fruit. The Instron Universal Testing

machine had been previously used in determining the firmness of other fruit (4, 37).

Instron tests determined that blueberry firmness can vary from one harvest to another and

from one year to another. It was also determined that the greatest decrease in firmness

during berry development came as the berry went from the green to the pink stage (4).









Since the initial tests in 1973 many more studies have confirmed that the Instron is a

reliable indicator of blueberry firmness (14, 15, 16, 23, 32). Variations in berry firmness

among harvests and among years as well as dramatic decreases in firmness from the

green to pink stage of development were also confirmed through other studies (14, 33,

34, 46). Although many studies have used an Instron to determine firmness, a set of

standard guidelines for measuring berry firmness have still not been developed, except

concerning where the berries should be compressed. It has been determined that

compressing the berry along its lateral axis gives smoother, more consistent force

deformation curves than compressing the fruit in the axial direction (4, 14, 15, 16).

Studies have determined that blueberry firmness decreases over time in storage and that

this decrease can be slowed but not stopped by lower temperature (8, 14, 16, 38). A

study done from 1998 to 2000 surveyed berry firmness in 87 highbush culivars and

species-introgressed highbush blueberry cultivars (14). This study determined that 1.34

N/mm deflection force was average for these cultivars, and that values above 1.57 N/mm

were considered superior.

Crisp-texture has been studied in other berries such as the grape (41). The crisp-

texture in grapes can be traced back to the native North American grapes that were added

to the European grape gene pool. The hybrid grapes, call V. labrusca, can be

distinguished as crisp-textured by means of puncture testing. In the puncture testing the

deformation at first breakdown (DFP) and the maximum peak of force (MF) separate the

"crisp" from the soft cultivars. A grape that has a small DFP and a large MF is

considered "crisp", whereas berries with large DFP and small MF are considered soft









(41). No known research has been done on the DFP or the MF of blueberries as it relates

to "crisp" or soft texture.

Crisp-Textured Blueberries

During the 1980s and 1990s, several blueberry cultivars with very firm texture

were released from breeding programs, exemplified by 'Reveille' from North Carolina

and 'Bluecrisp' from Florida. 'Bluecrisp' was considered by U.F.'s blueberry breeder, as

well as local growers, to have a unique crisp-texture. This texture can best be described

as biting into an apple. In recent years, several other clones with crisp-textured berries

have been found in test plots in Florida. What makes this characteristic even more

unique is that there is no common ancestry between any of these crisp-textured clones.

To determine how these new clones compare in crisp-texture and storage life with

various commercial cultivars, several experiments were conducted. In this study, which

describes these experiments, clones 'Bluecrisp', FL 97-136, FL 98-325, FL 00-59, FL 00-

180 and FL 00-270 will be referred to as "crisp" clones, and the commercial clones

'Emerald', 'Millennia', 'Star', and 'Windsor' will be referred to as "non-crisp" clones.

These designations were based on the perception of the breeder at the start of these

experiments, and as will be seen, were not always supported by the objective tests that

were made in the course of these experiments.














CHAPTER 2
QUALITY DETERMINATIONS OF FRESH BLUEBERRY CLONES



Relative Berry Firmness of 99 Clones

In the first set of experiments, various characteristics of blueberry clones that had

been selected for crisp-texture were compared with the same characteristics in standard

commercial varieties.

For this test, 99 blueberry clones were used, of which three clones, 'Bluecrisp', FL

97-136, and FL 98-325, had previously been classified as crisp based on informal

observations in the field. The purpose of this test was to determine if the berries from

these clones were firmer then these of standard commercial cultivars.

Materials and Methods

On May 2, 2003, berries from 99 clones of southern highbush blueberries were

harvested from a variety test planted in a commercial blueberry planting at Straughn

Farms Inc. in Windsor, Florida (Alachua County). The clones were advanced selections

from the U. F. breeding program. During earlier stages of selection, clones had been

eliminated if the berries were small, dark, had wet picking scars, or were soft. The plants

were growing in 15-plant clonal plots and were about two meters tall. Approximately

20 ripe berries were gathered from each clone and placed in paper bags. Two separate

samples were taken for the firm cultivar 'Bluecrisp'. The bags were placed in a cooler

and transported to a 20 C storage unit. Firmness was measured the next day by removing

the berries from 10 clones at a time from the cooler and placing them on a grading table







for 90 minutes to allow the berries to reach room temperature (about 220C). Once at
room temperature, the berries were inspected for leaking, collapse, decay or other
damage. Damaged berries were discarded, after which 10 berries were randomly selected
from each clone for firmness testing. An Instron 8600 with a 10 N load cell was used to
test firmness. Each berry was placed onto a washer with an outer diameter of 2.2 cm and
an inner diameter of 1 cm to keep it stable. The berries were placed on their sides with
the calyx end to the left and the stem end to the right. An 8 mm probe attached to the
Instron was then lowered from above until it pressed onto the equator of the berry, using
an initial contact force not exceeding .03N (Fig. 2.1). Using a crosshead speed of 50
mm/min, each berry was deformed and the 3 mm deformation at 1 mm, 2 mm, and 3 mm
depth were recorded (10 berries/clone).



1...1I.I -_


figure 2. 1. Instron machine witn 5 mm prooe.









Results

When berry firmness was plotted as a histogram (Fig. 2.2) the 99 clones appeared

to give a normal distribution, except that the sample for FL 98-325 was separated from

the others at the high end of the distribution. Firmness of FL 97-136, FL 98-325 and FL

00-270 fell within the top 10% of the array in firmness measured by the Instron (Table

2.1). One 'Bluecrisp' sample also was in the top 10% in firmness, but the other

'Bluecrisp' sample was less firm with a ranking of 71 out of 100 samples. FL 98-325, a

crisp-textured clone, was firmest and appeared to separate out from the rest of the clones

in the histogram on page 31. A Tukey test was preformed on the top 10% of the

histogram to confirm these observations. The test showed all clones to be similar to each

other, except FL 98-325, at the five percent level. The unusual firmness of FL 98-325 in

this test was not confirmed in subsequent tests (Table 2.2 and 2.3). It is not known why

the firmness of FL 98-325 was so high in this test.

Discussion

Firmness is an important quality factor in blueberry. Several studies (4, 13, 16, 33,

34, 45) have been done on blueberry firmness, and methods of measuring firmness have

varied. These studies have confirmed that blueberry firmness changes from harvest to

harvest and from year to year. In our study, berry firmness of 99 southern highbush

blueberry clones showed a bell-shaped distribution. For the 99 clones, the means force

required to deform the berries 2 mm in an Instron instrument was 3.17 N (Table 2.1).

Ehlenfeldt and Martin studied berry firmness in 87 highbush blueberry clones and

hybrids using a FirmTech 1 firmness tester. They found an average firmness of 1.34

N/mm deflection and values above 1.57 N/mm were considered superior (14). Our 99

clone test used an Instron 8600 to determine firmness, and got an average of 1.59 N/mm.











Table 2.1. Meanz force (N) required to deform berries by 2mm for 99 blueberry clones
ranked from lowest to highest sampled in 2003.

Standard Standard Standard
Mean deviation Mean deviation Mean deviation
Cloney (N) (N) Clone (N) (N) Clone (N) (N)


FL 98-352
FL 98-17
FL 98-357
FL 99-54
FL 96-90
FL 99-74
FL 98-337
FL 91-16
FL 98-339
FL 98-338
FL 99-66
FL 98-341
FL 98-351
FL Jewel
FL 98-365
Sapphire
FL 98-437
FL 99-48
FL 99-59
FL 99-56
FL 99-65
FL 98-423
FL 98-401
FL 98-27
FL 97-118
FL 98-414
FL 98-415
FL 98-372
FL 98-421
FL 98-428
FL 98-431
FL 96-43
FL 99-45
Legacy
FL 98-125
FL 95-197
FL 98-416
FL 98-439
FL 93-171
Sebring
Sharpblue
FL 98-383
Windsor


1.79
2.06
2.09
2.15
2.20
2.25
2.34
2.34
2.36
2.38
2.44
2.46
2.47
2.51
2.56
2.59
2.60
2.63
2.66
2.66
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.68
2.69
2.71
2.72
2.72
2.74
2.78
2.82
2.83
2.84
2.87
2.90
2.90
2.98
3.00
3.00
3.02
3.03
3.03


FL 98-370
FL 98-370
FL 98-385
FL 95-174
Bluecrisp2*
FL 98-384
Misty
FL 97-136*
FL 99-55
FL 98-363
Magnolia
FL 99-37
FL 98-436
FL 98-325*


Overall
Average


0.50
0.43
0.50
0.55
0.42
0.39
0.38
0.48
0.19
0.48
0.58
0.44
1.39
0.62


FL 98-375
FL 98-25
FL 95-209B
FL 96-96
FL 99-60
FL 99-69
FL 99-51
FL 98-369
FL 95-50
Emerald
FL 98-402
FL 95-174
FL 98-438
FL 98-433
FL 98-388
FL 98-411
FL 98-342
FL 98-29
FL 98-303
FL 90-91
FL 96-24
FL 98-427
FL 86-19
FL 92-166-N
FL 98-18
FL 98-371
FL 98-430
Bluecrispl*
FL 00-270
FL 97-63
Southern Bell
FL 98-358
FL 98-381
FL 98-297
Star
FL 99-50
FL 98-356
FL 95-173
Millennia
FL 98-420
FL 93-221
FL 97-79
FL 99-71


z Mean of 10 berries individually sampled.
Y The symbol following the clone name indicates that it had been considered a crisp-textured clone
previous to this experiment.
x Bluecrisp 1 and 2 were from 2 different fields.


0.43
0.31
0.30
0.45
0.34
0.45
0.29
0.65
0.38
0.46
0.52
0.66
0.62
0.17
0.66
0.25
0.27
0.51
0.28
0.34
0.29
0.30
0.27
0.40
0.44
0.57
0.34
0.39
1.07
0.27
0.53
0.65
0.20
0.32
0.27
0.25
0.60
0.40
0.69
0.46
0.31
0.58
0.33


3.17 0.45








16





Number of Clones


DB'I-8 IB

D.'E1 I.D

Di'E' I-1'
DE-" I-E'
O31' I.ET"

DBo.,' PI."
119'EZ 1VB


DIB'E- ,"'


DD'r, B'I. Z



D'E" L, E
D'E" E EE


DB'E '

DBTE IBE




D011" LBE
Do." IL :'










DI'P" L H'
r'9- DB9
D '9 I- '9
DE'3" 1.14 '
ngE;9L!


- -


- -
--- -
-- -
---


---
--- -
---
-- -


--

--


Figure 2.2 Histogram of mean firmness of 99 test blueberry clones. Class Interval 0.10 N.
The value for each clone was the average of 10 berries individually tested.


A direct comparison between the two experiments can not be made because


different testers were used, but the average firmness, measured as N/mm deflection, for









our 99 clone test was larger then the value Ehlenfeldt and Martin of the 87 highbush

blueberry test considered to be superior in their tests. Further southern highbush testing

using an Instron machine is needed to confirm the results from this test.

Firmness Changes During Fruit Development

Blueberry fruit change dramatically during final swell as the color changes from

green to blue. Weight and SSC increase and TTA (26) and firmness decrease. Firmness

decreases most between the white and pink stages and less significantly thereafter. It had

been hypothesized by Dr. Paul Lyrene that the crisp-textured clones soften more slowly

then standard commercial clones. The purpose of this test was to determine if this

hypothesis was right.

For this experiment, normal and crisp textured blueberries were harvested during

several of the final stages of ripening and for several days afterward. Berries from four

crisp-textured clones were used: 'Bluecrisp', FL 97-136, FL 98-325, and FL 00-59, and

four commercial cultivars were used: 'Emerald', 'Millennia', 'Star' and 'Windsor'.

2003 Materials and Methods

Five to eight bushes of the clones 'Bluecrisp', FL 97-136, FL 98-325, FL 00-59,

'Emerald', 'Millennia', 'Star' and 'Windsor' were netted (to exclude birds and berry

harvesters) in a variety test attached to a commercial field. Once the berries had reached

the white stage of development, 20 berries from each clone were harvested, placed into

clamshells and transported in a cooler of ice back to the lab. At the lab the berries were

warmed up to room temperature and their firmness was tested. The white stage was after

final swell had begun and 1 to 2 days before the berries turned pink then purple.

Blueberries were also harvested at the pink and blue stages of development (Fig. 1.1).

The skins of some blueberries were marked with the date they first became blue using a









paint marker (uniPAINT fine line PX21). Twenty berries were harvested from each

clone at each of six sampling times: 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, and 15 days after they first turned blue.

Berry firmness was tested using an Instron 8600 as described previously. All

twenty berries harvested for each clone at each maturity level were tested for firmness.

2003 Results

The firmness testing during fruit development for 2003 was interrupted by pickers

and some data were lost (Table 2.2). From the remaining data shown in Table 2.2 it can

be seen that a dramatic decrease in firmness occurred from the white to pink stages of

berry development. Changes in firmness after the pink stage of berry development were

small. Both "crisp" and "non-crisp" clones softened significantly during the transition

from white to pink. The data failed to show a major difference between the "crisp" and

"non-crisp" clones in the softening that occurred as the berries went from white to blue.

It had been hypothesized earlier that the high firmness of the "crisp" berries when fully

ripe might be the result of less loss of firmness during the final stages of ripening, but this

seems not to have been the case. 'Bluecrisp' and FL 98-325 were less firm at the pink

stage (Table 2.2) than in the fully ripened blue stage Table 2.1. This indicates that one or

more non-genetic factors have a large effect on Instron firmness.

2004 Materials and Methods

In 2004, FL 00-180 and FL 00-270 were added to the test as possible crisp-textured

clones. Five to eight bushes of the clones 'Bluecrisp', FL 98-325, FL 00-59, FL 00-180,

FL 00-270, 'Emerald', 'Millennia', 'Star' and 'Windsor' were netted in a









Table 2.2. Meanz deformation force (2mm deformation) of fruit for eight blueberry clones
sampled at 9 stages of maturity in 2003.
2mm Deformation Force (N) at Maturity Stage


Cloney White Pink Blue Day 3' Day 7 Day 9 Day 12 Day 15
Bluecrisp* 7.77 ab 2.83 a 2.14 2.17 a 2.30
FL 97-136* 10.24 a 2.51 a 2.41 1.70
FL 98-325* 10.57 a 2.56 ab 2.82 2.97
FL 00-59* 9.03 abw 2.85 a 2.71 a
Emerald 5.85 b 1.70
Millennia 8.34 ab 2.67
Star 9.88 a 1.73 b 0.84
Windsor 8.98 ab 1.77 b 2.12 a
P>F 0.013 0.001 0.045
z Mean of 20 berries individually sampled.
Y Clones followed by a had been considered crisp textured
x Days after berry first turned blue
wWithin columns means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by
ANOVA and Tukey's test.

commercial field and allowed to ripen. Once the berries had reached the white stage of

development, 20 berries from each clone were harvested, and their firmness was tested as

previously described. Blueberries were also harvested at the pink and blue stages of

development. To test the firmness of the berries an Instron 8600 testing machine with a

10 N load cell was used. The procedure was the same as previously described.

2004 Results

All clones softened significantly between the white and pink stages (Table 2.3).

The six "crisp" clones did not differ conspicuously in the pattern of firmness loss from

the four "non-crisp" cultivars. Analysis of variance (Table 2.4) showed that clones,

stages of ripening, and clone x stage interaction all contributed significantly to variances

in the firmness of the samples.










Table 2.3. Meanz deformation force of fruit for nine blueberry clones sampled at three
stages of maturity in 2004.
2mm Deformation force(N) at maturity stage
Cloney White Pink Blue
Bluecrisp* 7.52 ab 3.20 abc 2.81 ab
FL 98-325* 5.51 ab 3.76 a 2.80 ab
FL 00-59* 7.79 ab" 3.69 a 3.30 a
FL 00-180* 7.32 ab 2.64 bc 2.39 bc
FL 00-270* 7.27 ab 3.39 abc 1.87 c
Emerald 4.78 b 2.45 c 1.97 c
Millennia 9.24 a 3.49 ab 1.86 c
Star 9.08 ab 2.84 abc 2.44 bc
Windsor 5.06 ab 2.64 bc 2.14 bc
Stage means 7.06 3.12 2.40
P > F 0.009 0.000 0.000
zMeans of 10 berries individually sampled.
YClones followed by a are crisp textured
"Within columns means followed by the same letter are not
significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey's
test.

Table 2.4. ANOVA for mean deformation force of fruit for 9 blueberry clones sampled at
three stages of maturity in 2004.
Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 26 53.32 15.70 <0.0001
Clones 8 13.41 3.95 0.0002
Stages 2 566.95 166.93 <.0001
Stages x Clones 16 9.08 2.67 0.0007
Error 243 3.40


Discussion

When "crisp" blueberries were originally observed by Dr. Lyrene theorized that the

crisp texture in these new blueberries could be caused by a lack of polygalacturonase

(PG) in the final stages of fruit development (Lyrene, personal communication). PG is an

enzyme that helps breaks down pectin, causing the cell walls to soften (39). Production

of PG in other fruits has been inhibited through genetic engineering, or by breeding

creating such fruit as the non-melting flesh peach and the Flavor-Savor tomato (18, 43).









Several studies (4, 46, 39) have shown that during the final days of ripening

blueberries soften as they change color from white to blue. The greatest decrease in

firmness occurs from the pink to the blue stage and is caused by the synthesis of PG in

the berry (39). The tests done in 2003 and 2004 showed a decrease in firmness of all

clones as they ripened from white to blue, confirming previous studies. The fact that the

"crisp" berries lost firmness rapidly ass they matured from green to blue suggests that PG

levels are not related to the crisp texture in "crisp" blueberries. Further studies

examining changes in PG levels as "crisp" and "non-crisp" clones mature should be

conducted to confirm these results.

Shear-Cell Testing

In an effort to detect a difference between berries of "crisp" and "non-crisp" clones,

berries were tested using a Kramer shear-cell attached to the Instron. The Kramer shear-

cell is a multi-bladed fixture designed to produce shear stress in a specimen that relates to

firmness (22). The specimen is placed into a metal box (82.5 mm x 98 mm) with a lid.

The top and the bottom of the box have slits designed to allow ten, 3-mm blades to pass

through them. The blades penetrate the top of the box and then push through to the

bottom. As the blades are moved through the box, the specimen is first compressed, then

extruded, and finally sheared as the blades penetrate the bottom slots (22). The forces

needed for the blades to move through the box relate to berry texture (22). The purpose

of this experiment was to determine the maximum force needed to shear blueberries and

to determine if this force is different for crisp textured selections and some standard

cultivars.









Materials and Methods

In 2004, three clamshells of ripe berries (approximately 125 g of berries in each)

were collected from April 30 through May 6 for each of the following clones: 'Bluecrisp'

FL 97-136, FL 98-325, FL 00-59, FL 00-180, FL 00-270, 'Emerald', 'Star', 'Windsor'

and 'Millennia'. The clamshells were placed in a cooler and brought to the lab where

each clamshell was inspected to eliminate damaged or leaking berries. Approximately 70

g of sound berries were randomly selected and placed into a shear-cell box to make

approximately two layers of berries. The shear-cell box, the lid and the blades to the box

were set in place on an Instron 8600 (Fig. 2.3). At a crosshead speed of 50 mm/min the

blades were passed through the box of berries until they penetrated through to the other

side of the box. The maximum force needed for the blades to pass through the box of

berries was recorded. This procedure was repeated for the other two clamshells of berries

for a total of three repetitions per clone.

On May 18 and May 19 of the same year the shear-cell procedure was repeated

using the same clones and technique to obtain a second set of data for each clone. The

berries were harvested from the same bushes. The bushes had been harvested

periodically before the samples were taken to insure that only newly ripened berries were

included in the second samples. Means were obtained from these repetitions and

compared to the earlier shear-cell test results.

Results

There was good agreement between the shear-cell tests run April 30 to May 6 and

those run May 18 and 19 (Table 2.5, Fig. 2.4). 'Bluecrisp', FL 97-136 FL 00-59 and FL

00-180 had high shear-cell readings and FL 00-270, 'Millennia', 'Star' and 'Windsor'

had lower readings (Table 2.5). The shear-cell testing was done on six putative crisp-










textured blueberry clones and four standard commercial clones. In the early harvest, the

firmest four clones in descending order were FL 97-136, 'Bluecrisp', FL 00-59 and FL

00-180 (Fig. 2.4). At the 5% level 'Bluecrisp', FL 97-136, and FL 00-59 were different

from all other clones except FL 00-180. FL 00-59 was not significantly



2.14 1...
... .. ... .



























Figure 2.3. Instron 8600 with shear-cell attached.

different from FL 00-180 but was significantly different from the rest of the clones. The

rest of the clones merge together and are not easily distinguished as seen from Tukey

testing in Table 2.5. In the late season harvest there were not enough berries to do shear-

cell testing on FL 97-136, but all other clones were tested. In the late-season shear-cell









tests, 'Bluecrisp', FL 00-180 and FL 00-59 were the top three clones and differed from

the other clones at the 5% level of a Tukey test.

There was a close relationship between the shear-cell force on the 1st and 2nd

sample dates for the 9 clones that were sampled twice (Fig. 2.4). Clones FL 98-325 and

FL 00-270, which had been thought to be crisp, had relatively low shear force, but the

other four "crisp" clones were very high in shear-cell force. Although the second

samples were harvested approximately 2 weeks later in the season, shear-cell force did

not dramatically change between the two sample dates (Table 2.5). Tukey testing done

on the mean sample times confirmed 'Bluecrisp', FL 00-59 and FL 180 as the top three

clones through out shear cell testing (Table 2.5).

Table 2.5. Shear-cell means for 10 clones sampled at two different times during the 2004
growing season.
Max force (N)
Cloney First sample time Second sample time" Mean sample times
Bluecrisp* 458.0 av 433.7 a 445.84 a
FL 00-59* 418.9 ab 393.7 a 406.34 ab
FL 97-136* 477.5 a
FL 98-325* 308.6 cdef 325.8 b 317.20 c
FL 00-180* 360.4 bc 401.6 a 381.01 b
FL 00-270* 270.1 def 293.5 bcd 281.79 cd
Emerald 317.0 cd 313.2 bc 315.09 c
Millennia 246.8 ef 288.0 bcd 267.38 d
Star 219.9 f 252.5 d 236.21 d
Windsor 269.1 def 257.8 cd 263.44 d
P > F" 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
zMean of 3 shear-cell tests.
Y Clones followed by a had been considered crisp textured.
xTime period was April 30 to May 6.
'Time period was May 18 to May 19.
VMeans followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by
ANOVA and Tukey's test.
"Probability that the clones did not differ in shear force.











Discussion

The Kramer shear cell was built to study the texture of materials through a process

of compression, extrusion and shearing of the material. It has been used to assess the

texture of many fruits and vegetables (1, 21, 22, 47), but extensive work with the shear

cell has not been done with blueberries. A study published in 2005 examined shear stress

in rabbiteye and highbush blueberries and determined that rabbiteye blueberries (482 N)

require more force then highbush berries (290 N) (44). A combination of certain


600




500




400-

z)

a
1-
3 300




200 -




100 -


0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Second date force (N)


350 400 450 500


*Bluecrisp

*FL 00-5'


*FL 00-180

Emerald FL8-3


VVndsor *FL 00-270
Millennia
SStar


Figure 2.4. Relationship between shear-cell forces of nine selected blueberry cultivars
and clones harvested at the blue stage in the first and second sampling dates of
2004.









rabbiteye genes in the southern highbbush may be creating the crisp texture. Further

shear cell testing on southern and northern highbush, rabbiteye and lowbush blueberries

should be conducted to determine if this is true.

Standard deviations (SD) among berries within samples averaged 6% of the means,

for shear-cell testing compared to eleven percent of the means for firmness testing.

Furthermore, shear cell means fluctuated less from harvest to harvest than Instron

firmness means (Table 2.1, 3.1) (4). Shear cell testing may be a more consistent way of

comparing blueberries than firmness testing.

Consumer Sensory Panel Study

The crisp-textured clones had been selected based on the subjective opinions of

growers and the blueberries breeders at the University of Florida. To determine if the

untrained public could distinguish the difference between the crisp-textured berries and

standard commercial blueberries a consumer sensory panel study was conducted.

'Bluecrisp' and FL 00-59 represented crisp textured blueberries, and 'Emerald' and 'Star'

represented standard commercial blueberries.

2003 Materials and Methods

In a commercial field, 500 blueberries were gathered from each of the following

clones: 'Bluecrisp', FL 00-59, 'Emerald' and 'Star'. The berries from each clone were

placed into 4-liter zip lock bags and placed on ice in a cooler for transport to a 20 C

storage chamber where they were kept overnight. The next day, the berries were taken

out of storage and allowed to reach room temperature (220 C). Each berry was inspected

to eliminate immature and overripe berries and berries with cuts and leaks. The

remaining berries were placed in zip lock bags and taken to the sensory panel facility

operated by the University of Florida, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition.









Each clone was assigned a random four-digit number. The four-digit numbers were

then randomly assigned to either the top left, top right, bottom left or bottom right of a

tray that was presented to the evaluators. For each clone, four berries were randomly

selected and placed into a cup. The four cups were randomly placed on the tray. Saltine

crackers and a glass of water were also placed on the tray to cleanse the panelist's palate

between samples. When a panelist entered the sensory panel chamber, he/she was seated

at a booth that had a computer and a small sliding window. The window was opened and

a worker presented a tray with the cups of berries. The panelist then sampled the berries

and answered the questions (listed in Table 2.6) about each group of berries using the

computer.

Table 2.6. Questions asked for the 2003 taste panel study.
Question Berry attribute Evaluation
number evaluated scale
1 Appearance Ranked 1 (extremely disliked) to 9 (extremely liked) by number
2 Texture/firmness Ranked 1 (extremely disliked) to 9 (extremely liked) by number
3 Sweetness Ranked 1 (extremely disliked) to 9 (extremely liked) by number
4 Flavor Ranked 1 (extremely disliked) to 9 (extremely liked) by number
5 Overall acceptability Ranked 1 (extremely disliked) to 9 (extremely liked) by number

2003 Results

The panelists preferred some clones over others with respect to fruit appearance,

texture/firmness, and sweetness, but showed no clonal preferences regarding flavor

(Tables 2.7-2.11). In 2003, the panelists tended to prefer the texture of the "crisp" clones

over that of 'Emerald' and 'Star' (Table 2.8). The questions presented with the 2003

samples were ambiguous in that they did not reveal whether the panelists could detect

differences among the clones or whether they could detect differences but did not prefer

one texture over another.









Table 2.7. Overall appearance of panelists of four blueberry clones on a scale from 1
(dislike extremely) to 9 (like extremely) (n=90; 2003 study).
Rating Standard Tukey
Clone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean Deviation Test
Bluecrisp 1 7 10 18 24 24 6 6.70 1.41 b
FL 00-59 1 3 11 7 22 31 15 7.21 1.43 a
Emerald 2 6 9 14 18 34 7 6.89 1.49 ab
Star 2 8 8 15 12 19 18 8 6.18 1.87 c
z The number of panelist who rated the clone.

Table 2.8. Overall texture/firmness of panelists of four blueberry clones on a scale from 1
(dislike extremely) to 9 (like extremely) (n=90; 2003 study).
Rating Standard Tukey
Clone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean Deviation Test
Bluecrisp 1z 3 8 7 17 31 15 8 6.54 1.57 ab
FL 00-59 2 6 8 10 25 24 15 7.00 1.61 a
Emerald 1 3 1 11 6 22 24 16 6 6.29 1.73 bc
Star 2 2 3 9 10 27 22 10 5 6.02 1.72 c
z The number of panelist who rated the clone.

Table 2.9. Overall sweetness of panelists of four blueberry clones on a scale from 1
(dislike extremely) to 9 (like extremely) (n=90; 2003 study).
Rating Standard Tukey
Clone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean Deviation Test
Bluecrisp 1z 1 4 12 13 8 26 16 9 6.30 1.84 Ab
FL 00-59 1 1 4 7 7 10 13 29 18 6.92 1.92 A
Emerald 1 3 7 7 10 19 21 18 4 6.08 1.84 B
Star 5 7 11 10 22 15 18 2 5.82 1.83 B
z The number of panelist who rated the clone.

Table 2.10. Overall flavor of panelists of four blueberry clones on a scale from 1 (dislike
extremely) to 9 (like extremely) (n=90; 2003 study).
Rating Standard Tukey
Clone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean Deviation Test
Bluecrisp 5z 4 10 11 17 17 18 8 6.16 1.91 A
FL 00-59 1 4 4 7 6 15 19 15 19 6.59 2.06 A
Emerald 3 4 5 3 17 17 18 15 8 6.03 2.02 A
Star 1 3 6 8 14 18 16 16 8 6.08 1.91 A


The number of panelist who rated the clone.









Table 2.11. Overall acceptability of panelists of four blueberry clones on a scale from 1
(dislike extremely) to 9 (like extremely) (n=90; 2003 study).
Rating Standard Tukey
Clone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean Deviation Test
Bluecrisp 1z 4 9 13 16 24 16 7 6.33 1.65 Ab
FL 00-59 2 5 4 8 12 24 20 15 6.78 1.79 A
Emerald 1 1 4 6 15 21 19 19 4 6.23 1.65 Ab
Star 1 3 2 10 14 24 23 10 3 5.94 1.62 B
SThe number of panelist who rated the clone.


2004 Materials and Methods

To resolve this ambiguity of the 2003 sensory panel, the 2004 questionnaire was

changed to directly ask each panelist if they could distinguish between the "crisp" and

commercial berries. The 2004 panel was conducted using the crisp-textured clones

'Bluecrisp' and FL 00-59, and the standard clones 'Star' and 'Windsor'. Each clone was

placed through the same harvesting and taste panel procedure that was used in 2003

except the questions were different (Table 2.12).

Table 2.12. Questions asked for the 2004 taste panel study.
Question
number Question topic Evaluation scale
How often do you eat 1 (never), 2 (1-2 times a year),
1 blueberries 3 (3-10 times a year), 4 (> 10 times a year)
Place in order solely based
on firmness each group of 1 (softest) to 4 crunchiestt) by number
2 berries
Rank each group of berries 1 (extremely disliked) to 9 (extremely liked)
3 on texture/firmness. by number
Rank overall quality of 1 (extremely disliked) to 9 (extremely liked)
4 each group of berries by number

2004 Results

Forty four percent of the panelists who participated in the 2004 panel ate

blueberries 1 to 2 times a year, 32% ate blueberries 3 to 10 times a year and the rest either

never ate blueberries or ate them more then ten times a year (Table 2.13). From these









data it could be said that most of these test subjects were not regular blueberry eaters.

The second question asked the panelist to rank the groups from softest to crunchiest.

This question separated 'Bluecrisp' and FL 00-59 as being the crunchiest and 'Emerald'

and 'Star' as being softer (Table 2.14). Based on a sample of four berries per clone about

78% of the panelists chose one of the two "crisp" clones as being crunchiest and only

22% chose one of the other two clones ( Table 2.14). The third question (Table 2.15)

asked panelists to indicate how well they liked the firmness of the groups of berries on a

scale from one (extremely disliked) to nine (extremely disliked). Here the texture of the

two crisp clones received the highest preference ratings (Table 2.15), although the

preference for 'Bluecrisp' texture was not significantly higher than for 'Star'. The forth

and final question (Table 2.16) asked each panelist to rank the overall desirability of each

group of blueberries. This question did not reveal any major difference among

the groups, although FL 00-59 was ranked significantly higher than 'Star'. The

difference between "crisp" and "non-crisp" clones was more consistent in firmness

ranking than for firmness desirability (Table 2.14 versus Table 2.15). This implies that

some panelist who could recognize crisp texture did not prefer it. Table 2.17 showed that

how often a panelist ate blueberries was not correlated with the recognition of "crisp"

berries. Overall, from these results it could be said that "crisp" berries can be

distinguishable from regular commercial berries, and are often but not always considered

more desirable than "non-crisp" berries.

Table 2.13. Previous blueberry eating experience of the 95 panelists whom were part of
the evaluation panel in 2004.
Number of panelist who had eaten blueberries
never 1-2 times/year 3-10 times/year >10 times/year
6 42 31 16










Table 2.14. Firmness ranking of 4 blueberry clones by 95 panelists from 1 (softest
sample) to 4 crunchiestt sample).
Rank Rank Tukey
Clone 1 2 3 4 total test
Bluecrisp 10z 15 33 37 287 ay
FL 00-59 9 16 32 38 289 a
Star 30 39 17 9 195 b
Windsor 46 25 13 11 179 b
ZNumber of people who ranked the clone at that position.
YTotals followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by
ANOVA and Tukey's test.

Table 2.15. Desirability of the berry firmness of 4 blueberry clones evaluated on a scale
from 1 (dislike extremely) to 9 (like extremely) by 95 panelists.

Desirability Standard Tukey
Clone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean deviation test
Bluecrisp 2y 3 4 10 9 13 23 21 10 6.34 1.982 abx
FL 00-59 1 1 3 2 9 21 22 21 15 6.82 1.669 a
Star 3 3 12 9 14 9 18 18 9 5.85 2.188 bc
Windsor 2 6 8 16 11 16 15 12 9 5.63 2.124 c
z Scale from 1(dislike extremely) to 9(like extremely)
Y Number of people who ranked the clone at that position.
x Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by
ANOVA and Tukey's test.

Table 2.16. Overall desirability of the berry quality of 4 blueberry clones evaluated by 95
panelists.

Desirability Standard Tukey
Clone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean deviation test
Bluecrisp 5x 3 2 8 14 17 22 14 10 6.07 2.074 aby
FL 00-59 3 2 6 9 21 18 20 16 6.71 1.768 a
Star 1 1 7 12 9 23 15 17 10 6.17 1.877 ab
Windsor 1 9 2 13 11 17 15 12 15 6.00 2.183 b
z Scale from 1(dislike extremely) to 9(like extremely)
Y Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05)
by ANOVA and Tukey's test.
xNumber of people who ranked the clone at that position.










Table 2.17. Desirability of berry firmness and overall desirability of berries of 4
blueberry clones as judged by panelists with differing blueberry consumption
histories.

Firmness rank Desirability of firmness Overall desirability
Standard Tukey Standard Tukey Standard Tukey
Clone Panelistsz Mean dev. test Mean dev. test Mean dev. test
FL 00-59 Never 2.67 1.37 a 6.00 1.26 a 6.00 2.28 a
FL 00-59 1-2 times 3.00 0.96 a 6.67 1.95 a 6.45 1.84 a
FL 00-59 3-10 times 2.97 0.91 a 7.48 1.23 a 7.39 1.45 a
FL 00-59 > 10 times 3.31 1.08 a 6.25 1.39 a 6.31 1.70 a
Bluecrisp Never 3.00 0.89 a 5.50 2.07 a 4.33 1.51 a
Bluecrisp 1-2 times 3.12 0.99 a 6.10 1.66 a 6.07 1.67 a
Bluecrisp 3-10 times 3.23 0.96 a 6.61 2.12 a 6.16 2.22 a
Bluecrisp > 10 times 2.50 0.89 a 6.75 2.41 a 6.56 2.68 a
Star Never 2.33 1.03 a 4.50 1.87 a 4.00 2.10 b
Star 1-2 times 2.10 0.91 a 5.74 1.98 a 6.07 1.67 a
Star 3-10 times 1.77 0.84 a 6.10 2.27 a 6.58 1.75 a
Star > 10 times 2.38 1.09 a 6.19 2.61 a 6.44 2.13 a
Windsor Never 2.00 1.26 a 4.67 2.66 a 4.17 3.06 a
Windsor 1-2 times 1.79 1.02 a 5.29 2.04 a 5.81 1.95 a
Windsor 3-10 times 2.03 1.08 a 5.90 2.20 a 6.58 2.13 a
Windsor > 10 times 1.81 0.98 a 6.38 1.86 a 6.06 2.26 a
zPrevious blueberry eating experience in a year

Discussion

Very little work has been done on blueberry taste as it pertains to consumer sensory

panels. The Dave Wilson Nursery has done a taste panel study every year since 1992. In

2002 blueberries were added to this panel, and it was determined that new cultivars

'Southmoon', 'Jubilee', 'Misty' and 'Ozark Blue' (scores ranging from 5.5 to 6.3 on their

10 point scale) tasted better than the older standard cultivars 'O'Neal', 'Georgia Gem'

and 'Bluecrop' (scores ranging from 4.8 to 5.4) (11).

In the 2003 sensory panel study the "crisp" clones could not be distinguished from

the "non-crisp" clones in any of the questions. This was probably because panelists did

not prefer the "crisp" clones over the "non-crisp" clones. Panelists were not asked









whether they could distinguish between "crisp" and "non-crisp" clones. The 2004

sensory panel study directly asked the panelists if they could detect a difference between

the "crisp" and "non-crisp" clones, and if they preferred one type over another. We were

able to determine that panelists could tell a difference but did not always prefer the crisp-

textured clones over the standard cultivars.

The blueberries in our study were harvested the day before each consumer sensory

panel was conducted and kept in an ideal storage condition until they were used. Most

fresh blueberries eaten by consumers are shipped across the country, kept on the grocery

shelf for several days and possibly stored in the home refrigerator for several more days

before they are eaten. If the crisp-textured clones retain their "just-picked"

characteristics longer than standard commercial varieties, sensory panel evaluations done

on berries that had been subjected to commercial packing, transport, and sales might have

separated the "crisp" and normal berries better than our test with just-picked berries.

Further research should be conducted to determine if this is the case.














CHAPTER 3
POSTHARVEST STORAGE TEST

It was hypothesized that the "crisp" blueberries might store longer then standard

commercial blueberries. Standard commercial blueberries can be stored at 20C in air for

up to 2 weeks without serious degradation. To determine if "crisp" blueberries store

longer then standard commercial berries, selected quality parameters of four "crisp"

clones and four "non-crisp" clones determined during air and CA cold storage for 8

weeks in 2003 and 2004.

2003 Study

Materials and Methods

Five to eight blueberry plants of the "crisp" clones 'Bluecrisp', FL 00-59, FL 97-

136, FL 98-325 and the "non-crisp" clones 'Emerald', 'Millennia', 'Star' and 'Windsor'

were netted in a commercial field at the beginning of the harvest season in April 2003.

As the berries from each clone matured, they were harvested at the blue stage and placed

in 125 g plastic clamshells donated by Straughn farms Inc. For each harvest a minimum

of three clamshells per clone were taken. A total of 15 clamshells were needed for each

clone. The name of the clone, date of harvest and a storage time of 0, 2, 4, 6 or 8 weeks

was written on each clamshell. The berries were then placed in a cooler with ice for

transport to a 20 C storage unit where they were separated based on storage time. Berries

harvested for 0 week storage were evaluated for initial quality factors. Berries harvested

for evaluations after 2, 4, 6 and 8 weeks storage were placed in the 20 C storage room for

their designated length of time.









At the end of the designated storage periods each blueberry was taken out of the

clamshell and checked for mold, incident of shrivel, severity of shrivel, leaking/collapse,

weight loss and firmness. To check for decay, each blueberry was visually inspected, and

the total number of berries with decay was recorded. For incident of shrivel, each berry

was examined for signs of shrivel starting at the scar end and going around the berry.

The severity of shrivel was rated for each berry using a 9 point scale, from 1 (no signs of

shriveling) to 9 (severely shriveled). To examine leaking/collapse, the blueberries were

checked for fluid leakage and cellular collapse not caused by decay. To check for weight

loss, each clamshell was weighed before being placed into storage. When removed from

storage the clamshells were reweighed and weight loss was obtained. To examine the

firmness, ten blueberries were randomly taken from each clamshell and force

deformation measurements with an Instron 8600 testing machine, as previously

described, were taken. This process was repeated on all 10 berries for each group of

berries that came out of cold storage. Once examined, the berries were poured into zip

lock freezer bags and placed in a freezer at -300 C. The pH, SSC and TTA were later

determined. All percentage data was converted to arcsin for analysis.

To determine pH, SSC and TTA, the blueberries were taken out of -30 C storage,

eight bags at a time. The frozen berries from each bag were placed in a glass jar. The

jars were sealed and placed in a large plastic container with approximately 2 inches of tap

water to thaw the berries. The berries were left in the containers for 1.5 hours to reach

room temperature. Once at room temperature, the berries were blended for 10 s until

reaching a paste-like consistence. Fifty grams was then placed into a tube and









centrifuged at 34.02 gn for 20 minutes. The supernatant was then poured through cheese

cloth into a small vial. From this supernatant, the pH, SSC and TTA were determined.

Results

Firmness of newly harvested blueberries differed among clones (Table 3.1). FL

98-325 was distinctively firmer than all other clones (Table 3.1). Of the four "crisp"

clones, only 'Bluecrisp' had a firmness mean similar to the four "non-crisp" clones.

Firmness declined for all clones during storage (Table 3.1). The mean rate of

softening ranged from 0.11 to 0.21 N per week for the eight clones. The "crisp" clones

appeared to lose firmness as fast as the "non-crisp" clones. Overall there was a

significant week x clone interaction, but, the "crisp" clones did not maintain firmness

better than the "non-crisp". This is shown both by the slopes in Table 3.1 and by the

Tukey test for firmness at week 8.

All clones except 'Star' had some decayed berries after 2 weeks storage at 20 C.

Decay incidence increased in all clones over time during the storage test (Table 3.3). The

rate of increase in decay incidence ranged from 0.08% to 2.86% per week (Table 3.3).

Even though the week x clone interaction was significant the "crisp" clones did not show

any consistent differences in the rate of decay development compared to the "non-crisp"

clones. This is shown in the slopes and Tukey testing in Table 3.3. Clones FL 00-59

("crisp"), 'Emerald' and 'Millennia' ("non-crisp") had less decay over time than the other

clones (Tables 3.3 and 3.4).

The number of leaking berries increased with each clone over time during the

storage test (Table 3.5). The Tukey test on week 8 and the slopes reveled that the "crisp"

clones did not develop leaking berries significantly slower then the "non-crisp" clones









Table 3.1. Mean deformation force at 2mm depth for 8 blueberry clones stored in air for
8 weeks at 20C in 2003.
2mm Deformation Force (N)


Clone


Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6


Week 8


mY Prob m = 0


Bluecrisp 2.37 dx 2.21 cd 1.95 b 1.36 c 1.17 c -0.16 be" 0.0001
FL 97-136 3.02 bc 2.80 b 2.47 b 1.96 bc 1.79b -0.17 b 0.0001
FL 98-325 4.18 a 4.55 a 4.18 a 3.72 a 2.74 a -0.19 cd 0.0017
FL 00-59 3.07 b 2.55 be 2.35 b 2.11 b 1.74 b -0.15 be 0.0001
Emerald 2.31 d 2.08 d 2.01 b 1.63 be 1.26 be -0.12 a 0.0001
Millennia 2.67 bcd 2.83 b 2.05 b 1.63 be 1.26 be -0.20 d 0.0001
Star 2.59 cd 2.65 b 1.89 b 1.52 be 1.05 c -0.21 d 0.0001
Windsor 2.27 d 2.12 d 2.24 b 1.79 be 1.36 be -0.11 a 0.0014
P > F <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0001
ZMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells.
Ym is the estimated change in force(N) per week based on linear regression analysis.
xWeek means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA
and Tukey's test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample
t-tests


Table 3.2.


ANOVA for mean deformation force needed at 2mm for 8 blueberry clones
stored for 8 weeks in 2003.


Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 39 2.00 37.84 <.0001
Clones 7 6.87 129.76 <.0001
Weeks 4 6.68 126.11 <.0001
Weeks x Clones 28 0.119 2.25 0.0026


Error


0.053


R-Square 0.95


(Table 3.5). The week x clone interaction was not significant (Table 3.5). Overall there

was an increase in leaking berries over time, but not significant interaction with the

clones over time.

All of the clones lost weight over time (Table 3.7). The week x clone interaction

was significant showing that there were differences amongst the clones over time (Table

3.8). From the Tukey test and the slopes, there were no differences in the rate of weight









loss between the "crisp" clones and the "non-crisp" clones (Table 3.7). FL 00-59,

'Emerald' and 'Millennia' showed less weight loss than the other clones.

Table 3.3. Incidence of decay (%) for eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks at 20C in
2003.


Clone


Decay (%)
Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8


mz Prob m = 0


Bluecrisp 0.00 0.38 cx 4.08 ab 7.35 a 18.6 ab 2.22 ab" <.0001
FL 97-136 0.00 0.81 c 5.20 ab 6.26 a 12.81 be 1.55 c <.0001
FL 98-325 0.00 0.81 c 7.62 ab 9.46 a 24.31 ab 2.86 a <.0001
FL 00-59 0.00 7.80 ab 3.27 b 4.01 a 2.74 d 0.08 e 0.2928
Emerald 0.00 2.61 ab 7.44 ab 3.11 a 5.96 cd 0.62 de 0.0201
Millennia 0.00 14.24 a 8.56 ab 11.71 a 10.25 bcd 0.90 d 0.0167
Star 0.00 0.00 c 13.42 a 9.49 a 10.64 bcd 1.53 be 0.0006
Windsor 0.00 14.24 a 4.57 ab 11.39 a 29.35 a 2.79 abc 0.0005
P>F <.0001 0.0951 0.1692 0.0004
Zm is the estimated change in the percent of decaying berries per week based on linear regression
analysis.
YMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells.
xWeek means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and
Tukey's test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample
t-tests


Table 3.4.


ANOVA for incidence of decay (%) of eight blueberry clones stored for 8
weeks in 2003.


Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 39 252.03 13.84 <.0001
Clones 7 149.10 8.19 <.0001
Weeks 4 1500.86 82.40 <.0001
Weeks x Clones 28 99.36 5.46 <.0001


Error


18.21


R-Square 0.87

The number of shriveled berries increased dramatically over time during the

storage test (Table 3.9). The week x clone interaction was significant showing that there

were differences amongst the clones over time (Table 3.10). However, in examining the

Tukey test results and the slopes, these differences did not distinguish the "crisp" clones









from the "non-crisp" clones (Table 3.9). Overall, the amount of shriveling increased over

time, but the "crisp" clones were not significantly different from the "non-crisp" clones.

The severity of shrivel for each clone increased over time during this storage test

(Table 3.11). At week 2, "crisp" clones 'Bluecrisp', FL 97-136 and FL 98-325 showed

less severity of shriveling then the other clones. This distinction did not continue as

storage time lengthened (Table 3.11). The week x clone interaction for shriveling

severity was significant. The "crisp" clones did not develop less shriveling than the

"non-crisp" clones.

Table 3.5. Incidence of leaking (%) for eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks at 20C
in 2003.
Leaking (%)
Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 mz Prob m = 0
Bluecrisp 0.00y 0.00 ax 1.41 a 3.92 a 8.80 ab 1.08 c" <.0001
FL 97-136 0.00 0.00 a 0.74 a 2.52 a 10.61 ab 1.19bd 0.0002
FL 98-325 0.00 0.00 a 3.86 a 5.54 a 18.26 ab 2.10 a <.0001
FL 00-59 0.00 0.00 a 0.65 a 5.97 a 6.24 b 0.92 d <.0001
Emerald 0.00 0.00 a 2.30 a 3.14 a 10.16 ab 1.17 bd 0.0008
Millennia 0.00 1.32 a 6.29 a 7.86 a 18.28 ab 2.15 a <.0001
Star 0.00 0.00 a 4.00 a 8.08 a 14.14 ab 1.82 ab <.0001
Windsor 0.00 1.32 a 3.94 a 9.58 a 25.65 a 2.98 a <.0001
P > F 0.0196 0.4777 0.3069 0.0337
Zm is the estimated change in the percent of leaking berries per week based on linear regression
analysis.
YMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells.
xWeek means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA
and Tukey's test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample
t-tests.









Table 3.6.


ANOVA for incidence of leaking (%) for eight blueberry clones stored for 8
weeks in 2003.


Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 39 222.43 10.11 <.0001
Clones 7 108.01 4.91 0.0001
Weeks 4 1841.62 83.72 <.0001
Weeks x Clones 28 19.72 0.90 0.6169


Error


21.99


R-Square 0.83


Table 3.7. Incidence of weight loss (%) of eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks at
2C in 2003. Values for each week are the cumulative weight loss from week
0 to the week stated.
Clone Week 0O Week 2z Week 4z Week 6z Week 8z MY Prob m = 0
Bluecrisp 0.0x 2.0 dw 3.4 c 5.2 c 7.5 cd 0.91 cv <0.0001
FL 97-136 0.0 4.3 ab 5.6 a 7.7 a 9.3 bcd 1.09 b <0.0001
FL 98-325 0.0 4.4 ab 5.2 a 6.5abc 9.7 bc 1.08 b <0.0001
FL 00-59 0.0 3.7bc 5.6 a 5.7 bc 7.7 cd 0.87 d <0.0001
Emerald 0.0 3.4 bc 3.9 bc 5.3 bc 6.7 d 0.77 d <0.0001
Star 0.0 2.8 cd 5.9 a 7.7 a 10.5 ab 1.30 a <0.0001
Windsor 0.0 5.4 a 4.9 ab 7.3 a 12.7 a 1.37 a <0.0001
Millennia 0.0 5.4 a 5.2 a 6.6 ab 8.2 bcd 0.88 d <0.0001
P>F <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0001
zLoss from original weight at week 0.
Ym is the estimated change in weight(g) per week based on linear regression analysis.
XMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells.
"Week means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by
ANOVA and Tukey's test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample t-
tests.


Table 3.8.


ANOVA for incidence of weight loss (%) of eight blueberry clones stored for
8 weeks in 2003.


Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 39 31.264 104.01 <.0001
Clones 7 10.341 34.40 <.0001
Weeks 4 267.89 891.23 <.0001
Weeks x Clones 28 2.691 8.95 <.0001


Error


0.301


R-Square 0.98










Table 3.9. Incidence of shriveling (%) for eight blueberry clones stored for
8 weeks at 20C in 2003.
Number of berries per 100
Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 Mz Prob m = 0
Bluecrisp O.OO0 20.25 bx 88.95 bc 93.07 bc 99.58 ab 13.60 abw <.0001
FL 97-136 0.00 11.17 bc 75.30 bcd 84.32 c 96.45 bc 13.30 a <.0001
FL 98-325 0.00 2.08 c 58.57 d 42.91 d 90.07 c 11.05 bc <.0001
FL 00-59 0.00 12.93 bc 77.82 bc 94.00 abc 98.64 ab 13.92 bc <.0001
Emerald 0.00 26.33 b 73.71 cd 87.17 c 98.16 ab 12.86 c <.0001
Millennia 0.00 66.30 a 99.44 a 99.42 a 100.00 a 11.66 ab <.0001
Star 0.00 16.10 bc 90.39 b 98.97 ab 99.44 ab 14.09 ab <.0001
Windsor 0.00 66.30 a 79.23 bc 94.89 abc 100.00 a 11.43 abc <.0001
P>F <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0001
Zm is the estimated change in number of shriveled berries per week based on linear regression
analysis.
YMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells.
xWeek means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and
Tukey's test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample t-tests.

Table 3.10. ANOVA for incidence of shriveling (%) of eight blueberry clones stored for
8 weeks in 2003.
Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 39 3345.82 193.57 <.0001
Clones 7 1174.40 67.94 <.0001
Weeks 4 29112.66 1684.31 <.0001
Weeks x Clones 28 207.70 12.02 <.0001


Error


17.29


R-Square 0.99









Table 3.11. Incidence of shrivel severity of eight blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks at
2C in 2003.
Index values
Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 mY Prob m = 0
Bluecrisp 1.00 1.51 c" 3.05 abc 3.60 bc 5.10 ab 0.62 av 0.0001
FL 97-136 1.00 1.23 c 2.74 bc 3.07 c 4.41 b 0.53 b 0.0001
FL 98-325 1.00 1.04c 2.19 c 2.11 d 4.50 b 0.50 cd 0.0001
FL 00-59 1.00 3.95 a 2.85 bc 3.63 bc 4.34 b 0.42 d 0.0012
Emerald 1.00 3.93 a 2.96 bc 3.48 bc 4.85 ab 0.46 cd 0.0005
Millennia 1.00 4.23 a 4.03 a 4.49 a 5.60 a 0.57 abcd 0.0001
Star 1.00 3.11 b 3.55 ab 4.26 ab 5.13 ab 0.57 abc 0.0001
Windsor 1.00 4.24 a 2.99 bc 4.63 a 5.65 a 0.59 abc 0.0001
P>F <.0001 0.0008 <.0001 0.0011
zEach berry was rated on a scale from 1 (no shriveling) to 9 (extreme shriveling).
Ym is the estimated change in shrivel severity per week based on linear regression analysis.
XMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells.
"Week 8 means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by
ANOVA and Tukey's test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample
t-tests.

Table 3.12. ANOVA for Incidence of shrivel severity of eight blueberry clones stored for
8 weeks in 2003.
Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 39 6.781 83.17 <.0001
Clones 7 5.103 62.59 <.0001
Weeks 4 49.080 601.94 <.0001
Weeks x Clones 28 1.157 14.20 <.0001
Error 80 0.0815

R-Square 0.98

The pH, SSC and TTA for each clone at each week were tested. No significant

differences were found between the "crisp" and "non-crisp" clones. For the pH, all

clones increased slightly except 'Windsor', which decreased, but had a high probability

of having a slope of zero (Table 3.13). All clones started with similar pHs and after 8

weeks differences among the clones could be seen, but the "crisp" and "non-crisp" clones

did not stand out from each other (Table 3.13, 3.14).









SSC of the freshly-picked berries ranged from 7.47 to 12.83 among the clones

(Table 3.15). SSC did not separate the "crisp" from the "non-crisp" clones (Table 3.15).

There were no significant interactions among the storage times and clones with respect to

SSC (Table 3.16). All but three of the slopes showed a decrease in SSC with slopes not

significantly different from zero, except for FL 97-136 and FL 98-325, which had a

tendency to increase with time (Table 3.15). The initial TTA values ranged from 0.22 to

1.45 for the clones (Table 3.17). There was no distinction between the "crisp" and "non-

crisp" clones. Only four clones showed significant changes in TTA over time (Table

3.17). The TTA decreased over time for these four. There were differences over storage

time and clones and a significant variance for clones x weeks of storage (Table 3.18).

Table 3.13. Meanz pH of eight blueberry clones stored at 20C over 8 weeks in 2003.
Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 mY Prob m = 0
Bluecrisp 3.84 ax 3.84 a 4.06 a 3.96 a n/a 0.029 dw 0.0336
FL 97-136 3.45 bc 3.68 ab 3.73 bc 3.72 bc 3.83 b 0.043 cd 0.0047
FL 98-325 3.65 ab 3.85 a 3.92 ab 3.94 ab 4.06 a 0.047 cd 0.0124
FL 00-59 3.37 c 3.44 c 3.45 de 3.50 cd 3.63 cd 0.021 cd 0.0231
Emerald 3.11 d 3.20 d 3.22 e 3.24 e 3.23 e 0.019 b 0.0236
Millennia 3.47 bc 3.14 d 3.42 de 3.50 cd 3.54 cd 0.018 bc 0.4239
Star 3.38 c 3.51 bc 3.64 cd 3.60 cd 3.67 bc 0.039 cd 0.0066
Windsor 3.46 bc 3.68 ab 3.46 de 3.50 de 3.48 d -0.010 a 0.5135
P > F <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001
zMean of 3 clamshells individually sampled.
Ym is the estimated change in pH per week based on linear regression analysis.
xWeek means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA
and Tukey's test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample t-
tests.









Table 3.14. ANOVA for mean pH of eight blueberry clones stored at 20C over 8 weeks in
2003.
Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 39 0.176 31.39 <.0001
Clones 8 0.724 129.13 <.0001
Weeks 4 0.155 27.55 <.0001
Weeks x Clones 27 0.026 4.65 <.0001


Error


0.006


R-Square 0.94


Table 3.15. Meanz SSC of eight blueberry clones stored at 20C over 8 weeks in 2003.


Clone


Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8


mY Prob m = 0


Bluecrisp 12.83 ax 14.27 a 14.37 a 12.67 a n/a -0.020 abc" 0.9531
FL 97-136 9.00 abc 9.40 b 11.00 a 11.77 a 9.80 ab 0.495 bc 0.0092
FL 98-325 8.47 bc 12.77 ab 12.47 a 12.07 a 13.05 a 0.525 c 0.0232
FL 00-59 11.83 ab 11.30 ab 11.30 a 11.20 a 12.30 a -0.095 bd 0.6377
Emerald 7.47 c 8.43 b 9.80 a 8.93 a 7.60 b 0.288 b 0.2774
Millennia 12.13 ab 10.73 ab 11.30 a 10.47 a 9.10 ab -0.222 a 0.0928
Star 8.93 bc 10.70 ab 12.47 a 10.60 a 10.40 ab 0.338 bc 0.1705
Windsor 9.60 abc 11.33 ab 10.67 a 10.65 a 8.77 ab 0.022 ad 0.9254
P>F 0.0012 0.0176 0.1736 0.3142 0.0143
ZMean of 3 clamshells individually sampled.
Ym is the estimated change in SSC per week based on linear regression analysis.
XWeek means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA
and Tukey's test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample t-
tests.

Table 3.16. ANOVA for mean SSC of eight blueberry clones stored at 20C over 8 weeks
in 2003.
Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 39 8.47 3.00 <.0001
Clones 8 25.04 8.87 <.0001
Weeks 4 9.08 3.21 0.0171
Weeks x Clones 27 3.19 1.13 0.3323


Error


2.82


R-Square 0.61









Table 3.17. Meanz TTA of eight blueberry clones stored at 20C over 8 weeks in 2003.
Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 mY Prob m = 0
Bluecrisp 0.22 dx 0.28 d 0.21 d 0.25 c n/a 0.003 a" 0.6538
FL 97-136 0.52 bcd 0.37 cd 0.47 c 0.45 c 0.46 be -0.005 ab 0.6493
FL 98-325 0.42 cd 0.36 cd 0.31 cd 0.30 c 0.28 c -0.020 de 0.0074
FL 00-59 0.58 bcx 0.51 c 0.48 c 0.43 c 0.47 be -0.025 c 0.0010
Emerald 1.45 a 0.71 b 0.76 ab 0.81 a 0.95 a -0.093 e 0.0288
Millennia 0.61 be 1.16 a 0.85 a 0.76 ab 0.80 ab 0.007 abcd 0.8389
Star 0.75 b 0.50 c 0.47 c 0.51 be 0.48 be -0.038 e 0.0299
Windsor 0.48 bcd 0.41 cd 0.52 be 0.40 c 0.38 c -0.007 bcd 0.4907
P > F <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0013
ZMean of 3 clamshells individually sampled.
Ym is the estimated change in TTA per week based on linear regression analysis.
xWeek means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA
and Tukey's test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample
t-tests.

Table 3.18. ANOVA for mean TTA of eight blueberry clones stored at 20C over an 8
weeks in 2003.
Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 39 0.198 17.69 <.0001
Clones 8 0.723 64.72 <.0001
Weeks 4 0.079 7.06 <.0001
Weeks x Clones 27 0.060 5.41 <.0001


Error


0.011


R-Square 0.90


In 2004, to better determine if crisp-textured blueberries are different from

commercial blueberries, two atmospheres were used one being normal air and the other

a low 02 / high C02 CA. Two new clones were also added that were believed to have

crisp texture: FL 00-180 and FL 00-270.

2004 Study

Materials and Methods

Five to eight blueberry plants of each of the clones 'Bluecrisp', FL 97-136, FL 98-

325, FL 00-59, FL 00-180, FL 00-270, 'Emerald', 'Millennia', 'Star' and 'Windsor' were









netted in a commercial field at Windsor, Florida at the beginning of the harvest season.

As the berries from each clone matured they were harvested at the blue stage and placed

in 125 g clamshells. For each harvest a minimum of three clamshells per clone were

taken. A total of 15 clamshells per clone were needed for the CA storage test, and 15

clamshells were needed for the air storage test. The name of the clone, date of harvest,

storage environment and the storage time were written on each clamshell. The clamshells

were placed in a cooler of ice for transport to a 20 C storage unit, where they were

separated based on storage environment and storage time. Storage time for air was 2, 4,

5, and 6 weeks and CA storage was for 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks. All the berries for a

particular storage environment and storage time were placed into a sealed 5 gallon (79.49

L) bucket, which had one intake and one outlet hose attached to it. The buckets for the

same atmosphere were then hooked together and a minimum flow rate of 81ml/min was

established through the buckets using pressurized gasses and needle value flow meters to

prevent C02 buildup. For the CA, a mixture of 15% C02, 2% 02 and 83% N with a

relative humidity of 90-95% was delivered to the buckets. For the air atmosphere, a pure

flow of air with a relative humidity of 90-95% was delivered to the buckets. The outlet

tubes from the end of the bucket lines were checked each day for flow rate, C02 and 02

concentrations. As each storage time ended, the lids of the buckets were taken off and the

clamshells were removed for post-storage examination. Berries harvested for week 0

storage were examined without storage.

For evaluation, 10 blueberries were randomly taken from each clamshell and

checked for decay, number of berries that were shriveled, severity of shriveling,

leaking/collapse and firmness. To check for decay, each blueberry was visually









inspected. Of the 10 berries examined, the number with mold was recorded. The same

berries were examined for signs of shriveling, starting at the scar end and going around

the berry. Berries were recorded as shriveled or not shriveled. The severity of shriveling

was recorded for each berry using a 9 point scale, from 1 (no signs of shriveling) to 9

(severely shriveled). Ten random berries per clamshell were visually examined for

leaking fluids or cellular collapse not caused by disease. For firmness testing, a set of 10

different blueberries were placed through the same Instron testing procedure that was

done in 2003. The pH, SSC and TTA for berries in each clamshell were determined

using the same procedures as in 2003.

Results

Before storage, FL 00-59 was the firmest clone (Table 3.19). As a group, the

"crisp" clones were not exceptionally firm at the beginning of the storage test. By week

2 "crisp" clones 'Bluecrisp', FL 98-325 and FL 00-59 had a higher firmness then the

other clones. At week 6, Tukey's test showed three ('Bluecrisp', FL 00-59 and FL 00-

180) of the four "crisp" clones sampled at that time to be significantly firmer than the

"non-crisp" clones (Table 3.19). As indicated by the slopes (Table 3.19), some clones

became firmer during storage, others less firm. 'Bluecrisp' gained the most in firmness

and 'Millennia' lost the most.

Decay incidence in the air atmosphere storage increased over time for all clones

except FL 00-59, which still had no decay after 6 weeks (Table 3.21). The week x clone

interaction showed significance, but the week 6 Tukey's test and the slopes showed that

the "crisp" clones did not fare better the "non-crisp" clones (Tables 3.21 and 3.22).

Among the slopes FL 00-59 was the only clone that differed significantly from the others

(Table 3.21).









The percent of leaking berries increased in all clones over time, except for FL 00-

59, which had only one leaking berry in all the samples (Table 3.23). The week x clone

interaction was significant for number of leaking berries, but the week 6 Tukey's test and

the slopes showed no consistent differences between the "crisp" and "non-crisp" clones

(Tables 3.23 and 3.24). Among the slopes the only clone to stand out as being

significantly different from the rest was FL 00-59.

The incidence of shriveling in the air atmosphere increased with storage time in all

clones (Table 3.25). The week x clone interaction was significant, but the week 6

Tukey's test and the slopes showed no consistent differences amongst the "crisp" and

"non-crisp" clones (Tables 3.25 and 3.26). 'Bluecrisp', FLOO-59 and FLOO-180 had the

lowest rates of shriveling when compared to slopes of the other clones (Tables 3.25).

The same trend could be seen in the severity of shrivel over time as was seen in the

frequency of shriveled berries over time (Tables 3.27 and 3.28).

The pH, SSC and TTA for the blueberries stored in the air atmosphere did not

differ significantly for the "crisp" and "non-crisp" clones (Table 3.29). Slopes indicated

that there were only small and inconsistent pH changes during the weeks of storage

(Table 3.29). The 'weeks' component of the ANOVA analysis for pH was nonsignificant

(Table 3.30).

There were significant differences in SSC among the clones at week 0 (Table 3.31),

and these differences were maintained throughout. SSC was not a factor that

distinguished the "crisp" from the standard clones. All slopes for the clones had high

probabilities of being zero and there was not a significant clone x week interaction

(Tables 3.31 and 3.32).









Clones varied widely in TA at the beginning of the storage test (Table 3.33). As a

group, the six crisp clones had lower TA than the four standard clones. Overall there

were only minor changes in TA during storage.

Table 3.19. Mean deformation force at 2mm depth for 10 blueberry clones stored in air
for 8 weeks at 20C in 2004.
2mm Deformation Force (N)
Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 mY Prob m = 0
Bluecrisp 2.50 bcdx 3.49 a 3.66 a 3.53 a 3.13 a 0.20 a" 0.0022
FL 97-136 2.26 cde 2.58 b 2.04 d 2.39 bcd M* 0.02 b 0.5897
FL 98-325 2.88 b 3.51 a 3.33 ab 2.57 bc M -0.04 d 0.6251
FL 00-59 3.42 a 3.49 a 3.06 bc 2.96 ab 3.51 a -0.11 cd 0.0009
FL 00-180 2.35 cde 2.64 b 2.52 cd 2.46 bc 3.19 a 0.02 b 0.5337
FL 00-270 1.89 f 1.78 c 1.65 e 1.85 de 1.75 b -0.02 d 0.4183
Emerald 2.01 ef 2.18 bc 2.05 de 2.17 cd 1.93 b 0.02 e 0.5131
Millennia 2.09 def 2.40 b 1.82 e 1.36 e 2.07 b -0.15 e 0.0206
Star 2.54 bc 2.66 b 2.52 cd 2.31 cd 2.06 b -0.04 f 0.3348
Windsor 2.19 def 2.66 b 2.05 de 2.55 bc 1.72 b 0.02 bc 0.7014
P>F <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0001
ZMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of 3 clamshells.
Ym is the estimated change in force(N) per week based on linear regression analysis.
xWeek means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA
and Tukey's test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample
t-tests
*Data missing

Table 3.20. ANOVA for mean force needed to deform the berries by 2mm for 10
blueberry clones stored for 6 weeks in 2004. (air atmosphere).
Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 47 1.051 18.61 <.0001
Clones 9 4.253 75.28 <.0001
Weeks 4 0.538 9.53 <.0001
Weeks x Clones 34 0.259 4.59 <.0001
Error 96 0.056


R-Square .90









Table 3.21. Incidence of decay (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 6 weeks in air
storage at 20C in 2004.


Clone
Bluecrisp
FL 97-136
FL 98-325
FL 00-59
FL 00-180
FL 00-270
Emerald
Millennia
Star
Windsor
P>F


Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 5


0.00y
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00


0.00 ax
6.67 a
6.67 a
0.00 a
0.00 a
0.00 a
0.00 a
0.00 a
0.00 a
0.00 a
.0087


13.33 a
13.33 a
10.00 a
0.00 a
0.00 a
13.33 a
13.33 a
23.33 a
6.67 a
0.00 a
0.2514


13.33 cd
60.00 a
40.00 ab
0.00 d
30.00 abc
53.33 ab
23.33 abcd
26.67 abcd
16.67 abcd
3.33 cd
.0002


Week 6
10.00 cde
63.33 ab
83.33 a
0.00 e
3.33 de
36.67 abcd
33.33 bcd
43.33 abc
20.00 bcde
30.00 bcd
<0.0001


mz Prob m = 0


2.39 e"
11.18 ab
11.95 a
0.00 f
2.44 e
8.13 bc
5.69 c
7.30 bc
3.56 de
3.60 d


0.0176
0.0002
0.0003

0.1510
0.0009
0.0012
0.0012
.0217
0.0554


Zm is the estimated change in the percentage of decaying berries per week based on linear regression
analysis.
YMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of 3 clamshells.
xWeek 6 means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and
Tukey's test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample t-tests

Table 3.22. ANOVA for incidence of decay (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 6
weeks in air storage in 2004.
Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 49 929.40 10.27 <.0001
Clones 9 1068.95 11.81 <.0001
Weeks 4 5949.10 65.72 <.0001
Weeks x Clones 36 336.77 3.72 <.0001


Error


90.52


R-Square 0.83









Table 3.23. Incidence of leaking (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 6 weeks in air
storage at 20C in 2004.


Clone
Bluecrisp
FL 97-136
FL 98-325
FL 00-59
FL 00-180
FL 00-270
Emerald
Millennia
Star
Windsor
P>F


Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6


0.00y
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00


3.33 bcx 6.67 b
30.00 a 16.67 ab
20.00 ab 10.00 b
0.00 c 3.33 b
0.00 c 3.33 b
0.00 c 46.67 a
3.33 bc 13.33 ab
0.00 c 46.67 a
3.33 bc 10.00 ab
0.00 c 10.00 ab
<.0001 0.0016


20.00 abc
53.33 ab
63.33 a
0.00 c
20.00 abc
53.33 ab
30.00 abc
46.67 ab
16.67 abc
10.00 bc
0.0004


16.67 bc
50.00 ab
70.00 a
0.00 c
30.00 c
30.00 abc
20.00 abc
26.67 abc
16.67 abc
56.67 ab
0.0002


mz Prob m = 0


3.22 dw
7.90 bc
11.26 a
0.00 g
1.84 f
8.25 ab
4.45 cde
7.41 bc
3.08 ef
7.30 bc


0.0040
0.0017
0.0004
0.7920
0.1818
0.0039
0.0017
0.0056
0.0297
0.0087


Zm is the estimated change in the percent of leaking berries per week based on
linear regression analysis.
YMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells.
xWeek 6 means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA
and Tukey's test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample
t-tests.

Table 3.24. ANOVA for incidence of leaking (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 6
weeks in 2004.
Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 49 952.39 10.56 <.0001
Clones 9 1322.88 14.67 <.0001
Weeks 4 5397.03 59.84 <.0001
Weeks x Clones 36 365.92 4.06 <.0001


90.19


R-Square 0.84


Error









Table 3.25. Incidence of shriveling (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 6 weeks in air
storage at 20C in 2004.
Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 mz Prob m = 0


Bluecrisp
FL 97-136
FL 98-325
FL 00-59
FL 00-180
FL 00-270
Emerald
Millennia
Star
Windsor
P>F


3.33 abx 16.67 ab 33.33 bc 33.33 cd 6.26 d" 0.0001


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00


30.00 a
20.00 ab
0.00 b
0.00 b
10.00 ab
3.33 ab
0.00 b
6.77 ab
6.77 ab
.0104


53.33 ab
16.67 ab
3.33 b
6.67 b
63.33 a
26.67 ab
70.00 a
26.67 ab
40.00 ab
.0024


86.67 a
76.67 ab
6.67 c
63.33 ab
86.67 a
46.67 abc
60.00 ab
66.67 ab
50.00 ab
<.0001


83.33 ab
86.67 a
0.00 e
6.67 de
63.33 abc
53.33 abc
63.33 abc
40.00 bcd
76.67 abc
<0.0001


14.89 a
14.22 ab
1.55 e
5.29 d
14.11 ab
9.68 bc
13.05 abc
9.37 c
12.67 b


0.0001
0.0001
0.2875
0.0993
0.0002
0.0001
0.0002
0.0029
0.0001


Zm is the estimated change in the percent of shriveled berries per week based on
linear regression analysis.
YMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells.
xWeek 6 means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA
and Tukey's test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample
t-tests.

Table 3.26. ANOVA for incidence of shriveling (%) of 10 blueberry clones stored at 20C
for 6 weeks in 2004.
Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 49 1843.39 16.37 <.0001
Clones 9 2132.30 18.94 <.0001
Weeks 4 13789.26 122.47 <.0001
Weeks x Clones 36 443.85 3.94 <.0001


Error


112.59


R-Square 0.89









Table 3.27. Incidence of shrivel severity of 10 blueberry clones stored for 6 weeks in air
storage at 20C in 2004.
Index values
Prob m
Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 my = 0
Bluecrisp 1.00" 1.13 bcw 1.50 abc 1.73 e 2.03 cd 0.17 dv 0.0021
FL 97-136 1.00 2.13 a 2.57 bc 5.70 a 4.60 ab 0.71 ab 0.0001
FL 98-325 1.00 1.87 ab 1.47 bc 4.43 abc 6.13 a 0.77 a 0.0002
FL 00-59 1.00 1.00 c 1.10 c 1.13 e 1.00 d 0.01 e 0.3732
FL 00-180 1.00 1.00c 1.13 c 3.10cde 1.17d 0.17 d 0.1424
FL 00-270 1.00 1.10 bc 3.17 ab 4.90 ab 4.00 abc 0.66 b 0.0004
Emerald 1.00 1.13 bc 2.23 abc 2.70 cde 2.30 bcd 0.33 c 0.0001
Millennia 1.00 1.00 c 3.77 a 4.03 abcd 3.50 bcd 0.56 b 0.0004
Star 1.00 1.17 bc 1.63 bc 2.53 cde 2.37 bcd 0.27 c 0.0025
Windsor 1.00 1.07 c 2.00 abc 2.07 de 4.30 abc 0.48 b 0.0003
P>F 0.0002 0.0004 <.0001 <.0001
zEach berry was rated on a scale from 1 (no shriveling) to 9 (extreme shriveling).
Ym is the estimated change in shrivel severity per week based on linear regression analysis.
XMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells.
"Week 8 means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by
ANOVA and Tukey's test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample t-
tests.

Table 3.28. ANOVA for incidence of shrivel severity of 10 blueberry clones stored for 6
weeks at 20C in 2004.
Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 49 5.90 16.98 <.0001
Clones 9 0.35 23.4 <.0001
Weeks 4 8.14 94.62 <.0001
Weeks x Clones 36 32.90 6.74 <.0001
Error 100 2.34


R-Square 0.89









Table 3.29. Meanz pH of 10 blueberry clones in an air atmosphere over 6 weeks in 2004.


Week 0
4.10 abx
4.41 a
4.16 ab
3.95 bc
3.55 cd
3.65 cd
3.61 cd
3.65 cd
3.46 d
3.49 d
<.0001


Week 2 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6


4.05 b
4.40 a
4.37 a
3.86 bc
3.46 gf
3.68 cde
3.79 cd
3.30g
3.60 def
3.56 ef
<.0001


4.05 ab
4.08 ab
4.26 a
3.79 bc
3.66 cd
3.63 cd
3.67 cd
3.51 cd
3.54 cd
3.42 d
<.0001


3.99 a
n/av
n/a
3.81 ab
3.54 c
3.63 bc
3.60 c
3.62 c
3.61 c
3.27 d
<.0001


4.09 a
n/a
n/a
3.82 b
3.54 c
3.61 bc
3.58 bc
3.51 c
3.68 bc
3.42 c
<.0001


mY Prob m
-0.013 cde" 0.5636
-0.073 a 0.0272
0.019 def 0.6462
-0.041 bc 0.1162
0.029 e 0.2422
-0.004 cde 0.7421
0.015 d 0.4940
-0.036 cde 0.4707
0.020 f 0.2797
-0.016 b 0.4805


zMean of three clamshells individually sampled.
Ym is the estimated change in titratable acid per week based on linear regression analysis.
xWeeks followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and
Tukey's test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample t-tests
'Berries were too decayed to obtain any data.

Table 3.30. ANOVA for mean pH of 10 blueberry clones in an air atmosphere over 6
weeks in 2004.
Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 45 0.248 23.12 <.0001
Clones 9 1.070 99.75 <.0001
Weeks 4 0.014 1.26 0.2931
Weeks x Clones 32 0.028 2.60 0.0002


0.011


R-Square 0.92


Bluecrisp
FL 97-136
Fl 98-325
Fl 00-59
FL 00-180
FL 00-270
Emerald
Millennia
Star
Windsor
P>F


Error









Table 3.31. Meanz SSC 10 blueberry clones in an air atmosphere over 6 weeks in 2004.
Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 mY Prob m = 0
Bluecrisp 12.70 abx 12.90 a 12.23 a 12.20 ab 11.70 ab -0.117 bc" 0.6620
FL 97-136 14.50 a 12.97 a 12.10 ab n/aV n/a -0.600 de 0.1292
FL 98-325 10.13 be 12.13 a 9.73 abcd n/a n/a -0.100 abcd 0.7843
FL 00-59 12.20 abc 12.00 a 11.50 abc 12.30 a 12.90 a -0.175 a 0.4884
FL 00-180 8.27 c 7.00 b 8.03 d 8.03 c 7.80 d -0.058 ab 0.7967
FL 00-270 9.87 be 8.93 ab 9.13 cd 8.40 ac 8.83 cd -0.183 be 0.4450
Emerald 11.30 abc 11.77 a 9.20 bcd 9.63 abc 9.00 cd -0.525 d 0.0705
Millennia 11.87 abc 11.50 a 10.37 abcd 12.07 ab 10.93 abc -0.375 be 0.0891
Star 10.33 be 11.93 a 10.33 abcd 10.87 abc 10.60 abc 0.000 abc 1.0000
Windsor 10.27 be 10.70 ab 9.43 abcd 9.10 be 9.80 bcd -0.208 ce 0.2189
P>F 0.0015 0.0009 0.0006 0.0012 <.0001
ZMean of three clamshells individually sampled.
Ym is the estimated change in SSC per week based on linear regression analysis.

xWeeks followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey's test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample t-tests
'Berries were too decayed to obtain any data.


Table 3.32. ANOVA for mean SSC of 10 blueberry clones in an air atmosphere over 6
weeks in 2004.
Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 45 8.24 5.87 <.0001
Clones 9 33.12 23.61 <.0001
Weeks 4 5.30 3.77 0.0070
Weeks x Clones 32 1.38 0.98 0.5054


Error


1.40


R-Square 0.75









Table 3.33. Meanz TTA of 10 blueberry clones in an air atmosphere over 6 weeks in
2004.


Week 0 Week 2 Week 4


0.23 de 0.26 def
0.13 e 0.20 ef
0.13 e 0.14 f
0.31 cde 0.31 cdef
0.55 b 0.35 bcdef
0.4 bcd 0.44 abcd
0.35 cd 0.41 abcde
0.90 a 0.54 ab
0.43 bc 0.49 abc
0.40 bcd 0.56 a
<.0001 <.0001


Week 5 Week 6


0.31 c
n/av
n/a
0.29 c
0.43 bc
0.13 bc
0.48 b
0.51 b
0.42 bc
0.76 a
<.0001


0.26 b
n/a
n/a
0.35 b
0.46 ab
0.47 ab
0.46 ab
0.65 a
0.43 ab
0.36 ab
0.010


zMean of three clamshells individually sampled.
Ym is the estimated change in TTA per week based on linear regression analysis.
xWeeks followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA
test.


and Tukey's


"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample t-tests
'Berries were too decayed to obtain any data.


Table 3.34. ANOVA for mean TTA of 10 blueberry clones in an air atmosphere over 6
weeks in 2004.
Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 49 0.105 13.69 <.0001
Clones 9 0.423 55.28 <.0001
Weeks 4 0.025 3.24 0.0152
Weeks x Clones 36 0.034 4.46 <.0001


Error


0.008


R-Square 0.87


Clone
Bluecrisp
FL 97-136
FL 98-325
FL 00-59
FL 00-180
FL 00-270
Emerald
Millennia
Star
Windsor
P>F


0.24 bcdx
0.14 d
0.15 d
0.23 cd
0.30 abcd
0.29 abcd
0.44 ab
0.42 abc
0.46 a
0.43 abc
<.0001


0.003 dw
0.015 cd
-0.003 e
0.021 c
0.013 bcde
0.027 b
-0.007 cd
0.03 bcde
0.006 e
0.027 a


Prob m = 0
0.6885
0.0777
0.4974
0.0701
0.6631
0.0008
0.5744
0.5852
0.7353
0.2646









In the C.A., the clones over time tended to decrease (Table 3.35). Examining the

clones at week 0 showed no difference between the "crisp" clones and the "non-crisp"

clones, except FL 00-59 was firmer than all other clones (Table 3.35). By week 8,

however, the five firmest clones were all "crisp", and of the "crisp" clones, only FL 00-

270 was quite soft. Week x clone interaction was significant with respect to firmness in a

C.A. (Table 3.36).

Very few berries developed decay in the C.A. (Table 3.37). The ANOVA showed

significant differences in weeks and clones but no week x clone interaction (Table 3.38).

Under controlled atmosphere storage, the number of leaking berries did not

increase significantly over time except in 'Emerald', 'Millennia' and 'Windsor' (Table

3.39). Clone, week and week x clone interaction were all significant, but no difference

could be seen between the "crisp" and "non-crisp" clones at week 8 or in the slopes

(Tables 3.39 and 3.40). The lack of decay and leaking berries after the C.A. storage

indicates that the high C02 and low 02 concentrations retarded berry degradation and

mold growth (Tables 3.37, 3.38, 3.39 & 3.40).

The number of shriveled berries increased for each clone over time (Table 3.41).

The clone effect and the week x clone interaction was significant, but the "crisp" clones

did not stand out as being better when compared to the "non-crisp" at week 8 or in the

rate of shriveling as indicated by the slopes (Tables 3.41 and 3.42). The severity of

shrivel for each clone (Table 3.44) followed the same trend as the number of shriveled

berries (Table 3.43).









Table 3.35. Mean deformation force at 2mm depth for 10 blueberry clones stored in C.A.
for 8 weeks at 20C in 2004.
2mm Deformation Force (N)
Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 my Prob m = 0
Bluecrisp 2.50 bcdx 3.15 a 3.15 a 3.22 a 2.99 a 0.05 ab" 0.1585
FL 97-136 2.26 cdef 2.07 bcd 2.07 b 1.75 bc 2.12 bc -0.03 bc 0.4125
FL 98-325 2.88 b 3.11 a 2.73 a 1.93 b 2.22 bc -0.12 cdef 0.0015
FL 00-59 3.42 a 3.16 a n/a 3.16 a 2.70 ab -0.07 cde 0.0124
FL 00-180 2.35 cde 2.31 b M* 1.69 bcd 2.33 abc -0.03 a 0.2765
FL 00-270 1.89 f 1.79 cd M 1.23 de 1.20 de -0.10 cde 0.0001
Emerald 2.01 ef 1.67 d 1.24 c 0.96 e 0.99 e -0.14 cde 0.0001
Millennia 2.09 def 2.30 b M 1.35 cde 1.08 de -0.15 ef 0.0002
Star 2.54 bc 2.45 b M 1.39 cde 0.90 e -0.22 f 0.0001
Windsor 2.19 def 2.22 bc 2.00 b 1.95 b 1.74 cd -0.06 d 0.0021
P > F <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0001
ZMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells.
Ym is the estimated change in force(N) per week based on linear regression analysis.
xWeeks followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey's
test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample t-tests.
data missing

Table 3.36. ANOVA for deformation force at 2mm for 10 blueberry clones stored for 8
weeks in 2004.
Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 44 1.40 22.72 <.0001
Clones 9 4.69 76.41 <.0001
Weeks 4 2.47 40.14 <.0001
Weeks x Clones 31 0.30 4.81 <.0001
Error 90 0.06


R-Square 0.92









Table 3.37. Incidence of decay (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in C.A.
storage at 20C in 2004.
Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 Mz Prob m = 0
Bluecrisp 0.00y 0.00 bx 0.00 a 3.33 a 0.00 a 0.17 b" 0.5000
FL 97-136 0.00 0.00 b 6.67 a 6.67 a 0.00 a 0.33 ab 0.4455
FL 98-325 0.00 6.67 a 10.00 a 10.00 a 0.00 a 0.17b 0.8162
FL 00-59 0.00 0.00 b 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.0 b
FL 00-180 0.00 0.00 b 3.33 a 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.0 b 1.0000
Fl 00-270 0.00 0.00 b 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.0 b
Emerald 0.00 0.00 b 0.00 a 3.33 a 0.03 a 0.50 a 0.1230
Millennia 0.00 0.00 b 3.33 a 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.17b 0.5000
Star 0.00 0.00 b 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.0 b
Windsor 0.00 0.00 b 6.67 a 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.0 b 1.0000
P>F 0.0047 0.1444 0.1165 0.4711
Zm is the estimated change in the fraction of molding berries per week based on linear
regression analysis.
YMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells.
xWeeks followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and
Tukey's test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample
t-tests.

Table 3.38. ANOVA for incidence of decay (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 8
weeks in C.A. storage in 2004.
Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 49 61.30 2.21 0.0004
Clones 9 106.68 3.84 0.0003
Weeks 4 152.27 5.48 0.0005
Weeks x Clones 36 39.84 1.43 0.0834
Error 100 27.79


R-Square 0.52









Table 3.39. Incidence of leaking (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in C.A.
storage at 20C in 2004.


Clone
Bluecrisp
FL 97-136
FL 98-325
FL 00-59
FL 00-180
FL 00-270
Emerald
Millennia
Star
Windsor
P>F


Week 0 Week 2 Week 4
0.00y 3.33 ax 6.67 a
0.00 13.33 a 13.33 a
0.00 16.67 a 13.33 a
0.00 0.00 a 0.00 a
0.00 0.00 a 10.00 a
0.00 16.67 a 16.67 a
0.00 6.67 a 6.67 a
0.00 3.33 a 10.00 a
0.00 10.00 a 10.00 a
0.00 3.33 a 6.67 a
0.0611 0.5941


Week 6
6.67 ab
23.33 ab
20.00 ab
3.33 ab
6.67 ab
10.00 ab
23.33 ab
36.67 a
3.33 ab
0.00 b
0.0105


Week 8
6.67 a
16.67 a
3.33 a
0.00 a
10.00 a
0.00 a
13.33 a
16.67 a
20.00 a
20.00 a
0.233


mZ
0.83 c"
2.17 bc
0.50 ce
0.17 de
1.33 bcd
-0.33 e
2.17b
3.33 a
1.67 bcd
1.83 bc


Prob m
0.2323
0.1023
0.6265
0.5000
0.1130
0.7442
0.0111
0.0108
0.1280
0.0207


Zm is the estimated change in the fraction of leaking berries per week based on linear
regression analysis.
YMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of three clamshells.
xWeeks followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and
Tukey's test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample
t-tests

Table 3.40. ANOVA for incidence of leaking (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 8
weeks in 2004.
Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 49 302.82 2.91 <.0001
Clones 9 365.21 3.51 0.0008
Weeks 4 1269.06 12.21 <.0001
Weeks x Clones 36 179.87 1.73 0.0175


Error


103.93


R-Square 0.59









Table 3.41. Incidence of shriveling (%) for 10 blueberry clones stored for 6 weeks in air
storage at 20C in 2004.


Week 0 Week 2


0.00y
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00


3.33 bcx
23.33 ab
6.67 abc
0.00 c
0.00 c
26.67 a
13.33 abc
3.33 bc
10.00 abc
6.67 abc
0.0007


Week 4 Week 6 Week 8


13.33 ab
33.33 a
16.67 ab
0.00 b
13.33 ab
33.33 ab
20.00 ab
10.00 ab
10.00 ab
13.33 ab
0.0239


10.00 c
70.00 a
26.67 abc
6.67 c
13.33 bc
53.33 ab
36.67 abc
36.67 abc
16.67 bc
30.00 abc
0.0002


20.00 cd
63.33 a
30.00 bcd
13.33 d
20.00 cd
43.33 abc
50.000 ab
20.00 cd
33.33 abcd
50.00 ab
<0.0001


mz Prob m = 0


2.33 fg"
8.67 a
3.50 eg
1.67 g
2.67 d
5.67 bcde
6.17 bc
3.67 cdef
3.67 def
6.17b


0.0135
0.0001
0.0040
0.0008
0.0002
0.0006
0.0001
0.0059
0.0001
0.0001


Zm is the estimated change in the fraction of shriveled per week based on linear regression analysis.
YMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of 3 clamshells.
xWeeks followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey's
test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample
t-tests.

Table 3.42. ANOVA for incidence of shriveling (%) of 10 blueberry clones stored at 20C
for 8 weeks in 2004.
Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 49 784.49 12.77 <.0001
Clones 9 1089.61 17.73 <.0001
Weeks 4 5929.63 96.49 <.0001
Weeks x Clones 36 136.53 2.22 0.0010


Error


61.46


R-Square 0.86


Clone
Bluecrisp
FL 97-136
FL 98-325
FL 00-59
FL 00-180
FL 00-270
Emerald
Millennia
Star
Windsor
P>F









Table 3.43. Incidence of shrivel severity of 10 blueberry clones stored for 8 weeks in
C.A. storage at 20C in 2004.
Index values
Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 mY Prob m = 0
Bluecrisp 1.00" 1.07 aw 1.13 a 1.33 b 1.40 ab 0.05 ev 0.0326
FL 97-136 1.00 1.63 a 1.87 a 3.37 a 2.13 a 0.20 a 0.0096
FL 98-325 1.00 1.70 a 1.83 a 1.93 ab 1.47 ab 0.06 cdf 0.2302
FL 00-59 1.00 1.00 a 1.00 a 1.10b 1.13b 0.02 g 0.0024
FL 00-180 1.00 1.00 a 1.43 a 1.30 b 1.53 ab 0.07 cef 0.0220
FL 00-270 1.00 1.73 a 1.77 a 2.33 ab 1.77 ab 0.11 bef 0.0499
Emerald 1.00 1.27 a 1.50 a 1.10 b 1.90 ab 0.11 bd 0.0001
Millennia 1.00 1.07 a 1.20 a 2.10 ab 1.63 ab 0.12 bc 0.0005
Star 1.00 1.20 a 1.20 a 1.23 b 1.53 ab 0.06 e 0.0041
Windsor 1.00 1.27 a 1.40 a 1.50 b 2.27 a 0.14 b 0.0001
P>F 0.0069 0.0316 0.0009 0.0060
zEach berry was related on a scale from 1 (no shriveling) to 9 (extreme shriveling).
Ym is the estimated change in the shrivel index value per week based on linear regression
analysis.
XMean of 30 berries individually sampled, 10 from each of 3 clamshells.
"Weeks followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and
Tukey's test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample
t-tests.

Table 3.44. ANOVA for incidence of shrivel severity of 10 blueberry clones stored for 8
weeks at 20C in 2004.
Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 49 0.66 6.25 <.0001
Clones 9 1.19 11.23 <.0001
Weeks 4 2.93 27.67 <.0001
Weeks x Clones 36 0.28 2.63 <.0001
Error 100 0.11

R-Square 0.75

No differences in the pH, SSC and TTA concentration were found that consistently

separated the "crisp" from the "non-crisp" clones. The pH did separate the three "crisp"

clones 'Bluecrisp', FL 97-136 and FL 98-325 from the other seven clones at week 0

(Table 3.45). By the end of the 6 weeks in C.A. storage, the differences between these









three clones and the others were no longer significant (Table 3.45). Changes in pH with

time in storage were inconsistent from one clone to another (Table 3.45).

There were differences in the SSC of the various clones (Table 3.47), but these did

not consistently separate the "crisp" clones from the "non-crisp" clones. Although SSC

did not change greatly during the storage period, there was a highly significant week

effect (Table 3.47) and the tendency was for SSC to decline slowly over time.

Acid concentrations did not separate the "crisp" from the "non-crisp" clones at

week 0, but in Table 3.49 (C.A.) as in Table 3.33 (air storage experiment) the "crisp"

clones 'Bluecrisp', FL 97-136, FL 98-325 and FL 00-59 and were much lower in TTA

then 'Emerald', 'Millennia', 'Star' and 'Windsor'. The 'weeks' effect was highly

significant (Table 3.50), and most clones tended to increase in TTA over time, but this

was not consistent among clones.

Table 3.45. Meanz pH of 10 blueberry clones in a controlled atmosphere over 8 weeks in
2004.
Clone Week 0 Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 mY Prob m = 0
Bluecrisp 4.10 abx 3.91 b 3.78 bcd 3.82 bc 3.95 bc -0.016 d" 0.3126
FL 97-136 4.41 a 4.35 a 3.93 b 4.10 b 4.22 b -0.033 ef 0.4213
FL 98-325 4.16 ab 4.36 a 4.47 a 4.57 a 4.61 a 0.053 a 0.0062
FL 00-59 3.95 bc 3.69 bc 3.65 bcde 3.67 c 3.62 de -0.036 f 0.0088
FL 00-180 3.55 cd 3.35 de 3.44 e M* 3.42 e -0.010 cde 0.3669
FL 00-270 3.65 cd 3.49 cde 3.42 e M 3.52 de -0.012 de 0.1983
Emerald 3.61 cd 3.68 bc 3.83 bc 3.68 c 3.79 cd 0.024 b 0.0467
Millennia 3.65 cd 3.24 e 3.57 de 3.64 c 3.59 de 0.008 bc 0.7053
Star 3.46 d 3.50 cde 3.45 de M 3.34 e -0.018 de 0.0271
Windsor 3.49 d 3.54 cd 3.33 e 3.27 d 3.40 e -0.015 ef 0.2195
P>F <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001
zMean of three clamshells individually sampled.
Ym is the estimated change in titratable acid per week based on linear regression analysis.
xWeeks followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and
Tukey's test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample
t-tests.
Missing data









Table 3.46. ANOVA for mean pH of 10 blueberry clones in a controlled atmosphere over
8 weeks in 2004.
Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 46 0.390 27.87 <.0001
Clones 9 1.757 125.54 <.0001
Weeks 4 0.060 4.32 0.0030
Weeks x Clones 33 0.054 3.83 <.0001


Error


0.014


R-Square 0.93


Table 3.47. Meanz SSC of 10 blueberry clones in a controlled atmosphere over 8 weeks
in 2004.


Week 0 Week 2 Week 4


12.70 abx
14.50 a
10.13 bc
12.20 abc
8.27 c
9.87 bc
11.30 abc
11.87 abc
10.33 bc
10.27 bc
0.0015


13.63 ab
13.83 a
10.47 cd
11.87 abc
8.40 d
9.93 cd
10.20 cd
12.07 abc
10.73 cd
11.23 bc
<.0001


12.37 a
12.20 ab
11.00 abc
12.60 a
7.77 d
9.20 cd
9.50 cd
11.17 abc
10.93 abc
9.33 cd
<.0001


Week 6 Week 8


11.80 at
12.97 a
10.47 at
12.43 at
M*
M
10.03 b<
12.10 at
M
8.80 c
0.0008


12.73 a
12.40 ab
10.43 abcd
12.23 ab
8.10d
8.97 cd
8.73 cd
10.07 bcd
9.63 cd
10.93 abc
<.0001


mY Prob m = 0


-0.040 bcw
-0.274 d
-0.100 ab
0.024 a
-0.034 bc
-0.128 c
-0.309 d
-0.250 cd
-0.099 abc
0.031 bc


0.7219
0.0215
0.4132
0.7538
0.7010
0.1667
0.0072
0.0343
0.5232
0.7512


ZMean of three clamshells individually sampled.
Ym is the estimated change in SSC per week based on linear regression analysis.
xWeeks followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and Tukey's test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample t-tests.
* Missing data

Table 3.48. ANOVA for mean SSC of 10 blueberry clones in a controlled atmosphere
over 8 weeks in 2004.
Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 46 7.76 7.55 <.0001
Clones 9 33.19 32.30 <.0001
Weeks 4 3.88 3.78 0.0068
Weeks x Clones 33 1.26 1.22 0.2251


Error


1.03


R-Square 0.79


Clone
Bluecrisp
FL 97-136
FL 98-325
FL 00-59
FL 00-180
FL 00-270
Emerald
Millennia
Star
Windsor
P>F









Table 3.49. Meanz TTA of 10 blueberry clones in a controlled atmosphere over 8 weeks
in 2004.


Clone
Bluecrisp
Fl 97-136
Fl 98-325
Fl 00-59
FL 00-180
FL 00-270
Emerald
Millennia
Star
Windsor
P>F


week 0
0.24 bcdx
0.14 d
0.15 d
0.23 cd
0.30 abcd
0.29 abcd
0.44 ab
0.42 abc
0.46 a
0.43 abc
<.0001


week 2 week 4 week 6 week 8


0.26 cd 0.34 bc
0.15 d 0.31 bc
0.13 d 0.12 c
0.32 bc 0.31 bc
0.45 b 0.40 ab
0.44 b 0.45 ab
0.37 bc 0.36 bc
0.88 a 0.55 ab
0.44 b 0.52 ab
0.39 bc 0.65 a
<.0001 <.0001


0.30 cd
0.24 de
0.12 e
0.34 cd
M*
M
0.46 bc
0.51 ab
M
0.63 a
<.0001


0.28 ef
0.19 f
0.12 f
0.44 cde
0.51 bcd
0.41 cde
0.38 de
0.55 bc
0.77 a
0.61 ab
<.0001


mY Prob m = 0


0.004 dw
0.008 cdfg
0.004 e
0.025 b
0.022 bc
0.011 cdg
-0.005 ef
0.001 eg
0.042 a
0.021 b


0.4769
0.2948
0.0586
0.0001
0.0364
0.2002
0.4194
0.9773
0.0024
0.0873


zMean of three clamshells individually sampled.
Ym is the estimated change in TTA per week based on linear regression analysis.
xWeeks followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by ANOVA and
Tukey's test.
"Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05) by two-sample
t-tests
*Missing data

Table 3.50. ANOVA for mean TTA of 10 blueberry clones in a controlled atmosphere
over 8 weeks in 2004.
Source DF Mean Square F value Pr > F
Model 46 0.087 17.93 <.0001
Clones 9 0.329 67.90 <.0001
Weeks 4 0.058 12.04 <.0001
Weeks x Clones 33 0.025 5.06 <.0001


Error


0.005


R-Square 0.90

Discussion

Postharvest storage of blueberries has been studied extensively over the past

several decades (3, 5, 7, 30, 31, 35, 38, 46). From these studies it has been determined

that low temperatures and CA storage can delay senescence in blueberries by several

weeks. Our 2004 CA storage study confirms these results with the lack of decay (Table

3.37) and reduced severity of shrivel (Table 3.43) on blueberries during the 8 weeks they









were stored. The 2004 air storage experiment (Table 2.31) confirms past research (4, 25,

29, 30, 32, 37) showing that blueberries kept at 1 to 50C in an air atmosphere can store

for 2 weeks without decay.

Air storage tests were done in 2003 and 2004. With respect to decay rates, the

2003 air experiment more closely resembles previous studies (5, 7, 23, 31) than the 2004

study. The constant air flow through the buckets in 2004 may be the reason for the lack

of decay. Weight loss increased over time in the 2003 air storage test. The same was

found by Miller and Mcdonald (30), and Smittle and Miller in 1988 (46). Firmness

decreased over time in the 2003 air storage test and in the 2004 CA storage, as had been

previously seen by Ferraz (15).

Comparing the air and CA storage tests done in 2004 shows that the blueberries

stored in air decayed faster (Tables 3.21 and 3.37) and shriveled more than berries stored

in CA. These results agree with Ceponis and Cappellini's study done in 1985 (7) and the

Smittle and Miller study done in 1988(46). Comparing the different parameters in each

storage treatment to each other did not reveal any connection between them. Clone FL

00-59 was the only blueberry that did not show any signs of decay (Tables 3.21 and 3.37)

in the air and CA storage test. The clone also had the lowest levels of leaking and

shriveling in both the air and CA storage tests. Reasons for its exceptional storage life

are yet unknown.

A few studies (30, 31) have shown that differences in the storage life of blueberry

clones can best be seen if the berries are kept at room temperature for a few days before

examination. Tests should be conducted to determine if the "crisp" clones could be

distinguished more easily from the "non-crisp" clones if this procedure was followed.






67


The properties that cause the crisp texture in blueberries is yet unknown. When the

skin of one of the "crisp" clones is pealed away, the pulp has a consistency very similar

to that of "non-crisp" clones. Examination of the "crisp" and "non-crisp" blueberries at

the cellular level could help uncover the properties responsible for the crisp texture in

blueberry.














CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS

One of the major goals of these experiments was to find some objective test that

could distinguish the six clones that had been subjectively identified as being "crisp"

from other blueberry cultivars that had been identified as not "crisp". The consumer

sensory panel study in 2004 confirmed that most untrained subjects could recognize

"crispness" in blueberries, although they did not necessarily prefer it. This indicates that

there is some objective reality to the "crisp" phenotype.

Shear-cell testing appeared to be the most promising objective test for the "crisp"

phenotype clones. These tests had good repeatability over two sample dates and gave

good separation between the "crisp" clones 'Bluecrisp', FL 00-59 and FL 00-180 and

other clones in the test. However, putatively crisp clones FL 98-325 and FL 00-270 were

not separated from conventional cultivars by shear-cell testing.

Another goal of the experiments was to see if "crisp" clones, when compared with

"non-crisp" clones, showed a unique softening pattern as they went from white to blue on

the plant. Firmness decreased from white to pink stages among all clones, with a similar

pattern for all the clones. This decrease in firmness matches that of previous studies done

on blueberry ripening. In this study it was hypothesized that "crisp" berries would soften

less as they ripened when compared with "non-crisp" clones, but this was not the case.

The next objective of this study was to see if the "crisp" texture could be

distinguished by firmness testing. The resistance to deformation of 99 clones was tested

along with four of the six "crisp" clones. The only clone that was statistically different









from the other clones by this measure was the "crisp" clone FL 98-325. From this it can

be seen that the crisp characteristic is not closely associated with the resistance to

deformation of the blueberry.

The final objective of this study was to determine if the "crisp" characteristics

contributed to longer postharvest life. In 2003, the "crisp" clones did not store longer in

air than the "non-crisp" clones. In 2004, the "crisp" clone FL 00-59 had a longer

postharvest life than any of the other clones in air storage. Also, the same "crisp" clones

that distinguished themselves in the shear-cell tests, 'Bluecrisp', FL 00-59 and FL 00-

180, also showed great resistance to shriveling in air storage. A correlation between high

shear-cell values and low shriveling during storage is possible. Comparing the air storage

and C.A. storage tests of 2004 showed that if the "crisp" characteristic contributes to a

longer postharvest life, it is only in an air atmosphere. When the "crisp" blueberries were

placed into C.A. storage, their advantage over regular clones was lost.
















LIST OF REFERENCES


1. Abbott, J. A. and F. R. Harker. Texture. Produce quality and safety laboratory.
USDA. Last accessed 8/5/2005. www.ba.ars.usda.gov/hb66/021texture.pdf.

2. Adams, F. H. The uphill thrill of blueberries. SunnyRidge farm, Inc. Last accessed
9/18/2004. http://www.sunnyridge.com/aboutus/uphillthrill of blueberries.htm.

3. Ballinger, W. E. and L. J. Kushman. 1970. Relationship of stage of ripeness to
composition and keeping quality of highbush blueberries. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.
95:239-242.

4. Ballinger, W. E., L. J. Kushman and D. D. Hamann. 1973. Factors affecting the
firmness of highbush blueberries. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 98:583-587.

5. Ballinger, W. E., E. P. Maness and W. F. McClure. 1978. Relationship of stage of
ripeness and holding temperature to decay development of blueberries. J. Amer.
Soc. Hort. Sci. 103:130-134.

6. Ballington, J. R., W. E. Ballington. Fruit quality characteristics of 11 Vaccinium
species. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 109:684-689.

7. Ceponis, M. J., and R. A. Capellini. 1985. Reduce decay in fresh blueberries with
controlled atmospheres. Hortscience. 20:228-229.

8. Crocker, T. E. and P. M. Lyrene. 1985. Survey of blueberry acreage in Florida.
Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 98:162-164.

9. Crocker, T. E. and L. Willis. 1989. Survey of southern highbush and rabbiteye
blueberries in Florida. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 102:204-206.

10. Cross, Becky. 2002. Blueberry Statistics. USDA Publication. Last accessed
9/18/2004. http://www.nass.usda.gov/nj/intemet0302info.pdf.

11. Dave Wilson Nursery. 2004. Fruit Tasting Report. Last accessed 8/5/2005.
www.davewilson.com/2004TasteReport.pdf.

12. Edwards, Jr., T. W., W. B. Sherman and R. H. Sharpe. 1970. Fruit development in
short and long cycle blueberries. Hortscience. 5:274-275.









13. Edwards Jr., T. W., W. B. Sherman and R. H. Sharpe. 1974. Evaluation and
inheritance of fruit color, size, scar, firmness and plant vigor in blueberry.
Hortscience. 9:20-22.

14. Ehlenfeldt, M. K., and R. B. Martin Jr. 2002. A survey of fruit firmness in highbush
blueberry and species-introgressed blueberry cultivars. Hortscience. 37:386-389.

15. Ferraz, A. C. O., S. A. Sargent and A. J. Fox. 2000. Delays to cooling and
postharvest quality of fresh, Florida blueberries. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc.
113:268-271.

16. Ferraz, A. C. O., S. A. Sargent and A. J. Fox. 2000. A nondestructive method for
measuring firmness of blueberry fruit. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 114:138-142.

17. Finn, C. E., and J. J. Luby. 1992. Inheritance of fruit quality traits in blueberry. J.
Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 117:617-621.

18. Food Directorate. Supressed polygalacturonase activity Flavr SavrTM tomato.
Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Last accessed 8/5/2005. http://www.hc-
sc.gc.ca/food-aliment/mh-dm/ofb-bba/nfi-ani/eofb-095-048-a.html.

19. Galletta, G. J., W. E. Ballinger, R. J. Monroe, and L. J. Kushman. 1971.
Relationship between fruit acidity and soluble solids levels of highbush blueberry
clones and fruit keeping quality. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 96:758-762.

20. Giacalone, G., C. Peano, A. Guarinoni, G. Beccaro, and G. Bounous. 2002.
Ripening curve of early, midseason, and late maturing highbush blueberry
cultivars. Acta Horticulturae. 574:119-121.

21. Harker, F. R., M. G. H. Stec, I. C. Hallett and C. L. Bennett. 1997. Texture of
parenchymatous plant tissue: a comparison between tensile and other instrumental
and sensory measurements of tissue strength and juiciness. Postharvest Biology and
Technology. 11:63-72.

22. Instron. Food texture fixtures Kramer shear cell. Instron Corperation. Last accessed
8/5/2004. www.instron.com/wa/library/streamfile2.aspx? sdoc=360.

23. Jackson, E. D., K. A. Sandfor, R. A. Lawrence, K. B. McRae and R. Stark. 1999.
Lowbush blueberry quality changes in response to prepacking delays and holding
temperatures. Postharvest Biology and Technology. 15:117-126.

24. Kader, A. A, ed. Postharvest technology of horticultural crops. Oakland: California.
University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. 2002.

25. Kays, J. A Research Cornucopia. Explore. Fall 2003 vol. 8. Last accessed
9/18/2004. http://rgp.ufl.edu/publications/explore/v08n2/feature_02.html.









26. Kushman, L. J. and W. E. Ballinger. 1968. Acid and sugar changes during ripening
in 'Wolcott' blueberries. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 92:290-295.

27. Lyrene, P. M. 2002. Breeding southern highbush blueberries in Florida. Acta
Horticulturae. 574:149-152.

28. Lyrene, P. M. and W. B. Sherman. 1988. Cultivation of highbush blueberry in
Florida. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 101:269-272.

29. Miller, W. R. and D. A. Smittle. 1987. Storage quality of hand and machine
harvested rabbiteye blueberries. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 112:487-490.

30. Miller, W.R., R. E. McDonald and T. E. Crocker. 1988. Fruit quality of rabbiteye
blueberries as influenced by weekly harvests, cultivars, and storage duration.
Hortscience. 23:182-184.

31. Miller, W. R. and R. E. McDonald. 1993. Quality of two Florida blueberry
cultivars after packaging and storage. Hortscience. 28:144-147.

32. Miller, W. R., E. J. Mitcham, R. E. McDonald, and J. R. King. 1994. Postharvest
storage quality of Gamma-irradiated 'Climax' rabbiteye blueberries. Hortscience.
29:98-101.

33. NeSmith, D. S., S. E. Prussia and G. Krewer. 1999. Firmness of 'Brightwell'
rabbiteye blueberry in response to various harvesting and handling procedures.
Blueberry Research at the University of Georgia. Research Report No. 662. pp. 12-
16.

34. NeSmith, D. S., S. Prussia, M. Tetteh and G. Krewer. 2002. Firmness of rabbiteye
blueberries (Vaccinium ashei Reade) during harvesting and handling. Acta
Horticulturae. 574:287-293.

35. Nunes, M. C. N., J. P. Emond, and J. K. Brecht. 2004. Quality curves for highbush
blueberries as a function of the storage temperature. Proc. 9th North Amer.
Blueberry Research Conf. 423-439.

36. Oregon State University. Postharvest Handling of Blueberry. Northwest Berry and
Grape Information Network. Lasted accessed 9/18/2004.
http://berrygrape.oregonstate.edu/fruitgrowing/berrycrops/blueberry/postharv.htm.

37. Ourechy, D. K., and M. C. Bourne. 1968. Measurement of strawberry texture with
an Instron Machine. Proc Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 93:317-325.

38. Perkins-Veazie, P., J. R. Clark, J. K. Collins and J. Magee. 1995. Southern
highbush blueberry clones differ in postharvest fruit quality. Fruit Variety Journal.
49:46-52.









39. Proctor, Andrew and Terrence J. Miesle. 1991. Polygalacturonase and
Pectinmethylesterase activities in developing highbush blueberries. Hortscience.
26:579-581.

40. Saltveit, M. E. and W. E. Ballinger. 1983. Effects of anaerobic nitrogen and carbon
dioxide atmospheres on ethanol production and postharvest quality of blueberries.
J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 108:459-462.

41. Sato, Akihiko and M. Yamada. 2003. Berry texture of table wine, and dual-purpose
grape cultivars quantified. Hortscience. 38:578-581.

42. Sharpe, R. H., and W. B. Sherman. 1971. Breeding blueberries for low-chilling
requirements. Hortscience. 6:144-161.

43. Sherman, Wayne. New plants for Florida: stone fruit. EDIS. Florida Cooperative
Extension Service Publication. Last accessed 8/5/2004.
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/AG209.

44. Silva, Juan L., E. Marroquin, F. B. Matta, J. O. Garner Jr., and J. Stojanovic. 2005.
Physicochemical, carbohydrate and sensory characteristics of highbush and
rabiteye blueberry cultivars. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture.
85:1815-1821.

45. Slaughter, D. C. and R. P. Rohrbach. 1985. Developing a blueberry firmness
standard. Transactions of the ASAE. 28:986-992.

46. Smittle, D. A. and W. R. Miller. 1988. Rabbiteye blueberry storage life and fruit
quality in controlled atmospheres and air storage. J. Amer. Soc Hort. Sci. 113:723-
728.

47. Sousa, M. B. W. Canet, M. D. Alvarez and M. E. Torosa. 2005. The effect of the
pre-treatment and long-term frozen storage on the quality of raspberry (cv.
Heritage). European Food Research and Technology. 221: 132-144.

48. U.S.D.A. Noncitrus fruits and nuts 2003 summary. National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Last accessed 8/4/2005.
http://jan.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/fruit/pnf-bb/ncit0704.txt

49. Williamson, J. G. and P. M. Lyrene. 1991. Commercial blueberry production in
Florida. Florida Cooperative Extension Service Publication, IFAS.

50. Williamson, J. G. and P. M. Lyrene. Blueberry varieties for Florida. EDIS, Florida
Cooperative Extension Service Publication HS21500. Last accessed 9/18/2004.
http://www.edis.ifas.ufl.edu/HS215.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Les Padley Jr. was born in Largo, Florida, on January 9, 1980, to Les and Pam

Padley. He graduated high school from the Center for Advanced Technologies in 1998,

and received his Bachelor of Science degree from Florida Southern College in

environmental horticultural and business. Moving to Gainesville in 2002, he began

studies for his Master of Science degree in plant breeding at the University of Florida.

On November 20, 2004, Les Padley Jr. was married to Michelle Cook in

Gainesville, Florida. He plans on continuing his education with a PhD in the field of

Horticulture studying plant breeding in cucurbits.