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 25 issue 2 (june 2005) : 79 - 84

EFFECT OF POST-HARVEST TREATMENTS ON SHELF UFE AND QUAUTY OF MANGO CV. KESAR IN COOL STORAGE AND AMBIENT CONDITIONS

J, K. Dhemre, D.P. Waskar, S.D. Masalkar, R.S. Gaikwad
1Department of Horticulture, Mahatma Phtile Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri - 413722, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- J, Dhemre K., Waskar D.P., Masalkar S.D., Gaikwad R.S. (2024). EFFECT OF POST-HARVEST TREATMENTS ON SHELF UFE AND QUAUTY OF MANGO CV. KESAR IN COOL STORAGE AND AMBIENT CONDITIONS. Agricultural Science Digest. 25(2): 79 - 84. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Freshly harvested Kesar mango fruits were subjected to treatments of wax (6%), wax coupled with carbendazim (0.1%), captan (0.2%). These fruits and untreated lot (as control) were kept for storage at room temperature (24.18–30.57°C with 47.50–74.00% RH) and in cool storage (10°C with 90.095.0% RH). Results indicated that the Kesar mango fruits treated with wax coupled with carbendazim (0.1%) could be kept upto 50 days in cool storane as against 20 days at room temperature. Data on shelf life, physiological loss in weight (PLW), TSS, acidity and total sugars indicated that the cool storage might be an ideal storage facility in order to increase the domestic as well as export marketing of Kesar mango fruits.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Amerine. M.A. et al. (1965). Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food. Academic Press, New York and London.
    2. AOAC. (1975). Official Methods of Analysis. Associations of Agricultural Chemists 12th Ed. Washington, D.C. 20044.
    3. Badar, RS. (1990). M.Sc. (AgrL) Thesis submitted to KKV, Dapoli (M.S.).
    4. ~ole, RS. (1986). M.Sc. (AgrL) Thesis submitted to KKV, Dapoli (M.S.).
    5. IlIangantileke, S. et aJ. (1989). Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., 89: 16.
    6. Krishnamurthy, S. (1986). Annual Report of "HR, Bangalore, 1986. pp. 47.
    7. Lane, J.H. and Eynon. L (1923). J. Soc. Chem. India, 42: 327.
    8. Patil, M.N. (1996). M.Sc. (AgrL) Thesis submitted to KKV., Dapoli (M:S.).
    9. Salunkhe. OK and Desai, B.B. (1984). Post-Harvest Biotechnology of Fruits Vol. 1 and 2, CRC Press, Boca Raton, United States of America.
    10. Snedecor, GW. and Cochran, WG. (1994). Statistical Methods. Rajkamal Electric Press, New Delhi, India, pp. 297.
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)