Agricultural Science Digest

  • Chief EditorArvind kumar

  • Print ISSN 0253-150X

  • Online ISSN 0976-0547

  • NAAS Rating 5.52

  • SJR 0.156

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Agricultural Science Digest, volume 28 issue 4 (december 2008) : 265 - 267

POST HARVEST FUNGAL SPOILAGE IN SWEET ORANGE (CITRUS SINENSIS) AND ACID LIME (CITRUS AURENTIFOLIA SWINGLA) AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF MARKETING

V. Bali Reddy, G. Bindu Madhavi, V. Chenga Reddy, K. Gurava Reddy, M. Chandrasekhar Reddy
1Regional Agricultural Research Station (ANGRAU), Lam, Guntur-522 034, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Reddy Bali V., Madhavi Bindu G., Reddy Chenga V., Reddy Gurava K., Reddy Chandrasekhar M. (2024). POST HARVEST FUNGAL SPOILAGE IN SWEET ORANGE (CITRUS SINENSIS) AND ACID LIME (CITRUS AURENTIFOLIA SWINGLA) AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF MARKETING. Agricultural Science Digest. 28(4): 265 - 267. doi: .

ABSTRACT

A systematic survey was conducted during the year 2005–06 to estimate the losses caused by post harvest fungal diseases in sweet orange and acid lime at field, wholesale, retails and consumer levels. The extent of loss due to the post harvest fungal spoilage was varied at different stages of marketing. The post harvest fungal spoilage was mostly due to green mold (Pencillium digitatum), black mold (Aspergillus niger) and sour rot (Geotrichum candidum) while the other diseases were only to limited extent. Generally the fungal spoilage was more in sweet orange compared to acid lime. The extent of damage was high at retail level which is 43.8% in sweet orange and 36.8% in acid lime respectively.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Adisa, V.A. and Fajola, A.O. (1982). Indian Phytopath., 35: 595-603.
    2. Dasgupta, M.K. and Mandal, N.C. (1989). Post Harvest Pathology of Perishables Oxford and IBH Publishing Co.
    3. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. pp.623.
    4. Mandal, N.C.(1981). Ph.D.Thesis, Visva Bharathi Bhidan Chandra Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Kalyani,
    5. West Bengal, pp 210.
    6. Naavi, S.A.M.H. (1990). Annual Report of NRC for Citrus 1989-1990. Nagpur. pp.33.
    7. Naavi, S.A.M.H. and Dass, H.C. (1994). Plant Disease Res. 9: 215-218.
    8. Rose, D.H.(1974). Bull. US. Dep. Agric., 1253:24.
    9. Satyanarayana,G. et al.,( 1994). Citrus Cultivation and Protection, APAU, Dept. of Horticulture, Govt. of A.P.
    10. Sharma, R.L. and Kaul, J.L. (1975). Indian Phytopath, 29: 214-215.
    11. Ullasa, B.A. (1986) Indian Phytopath., 39: 477-478.
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)