Lxunnn:
A 84 M COLLEGE,
CAZHPUS .

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR

COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS

BULLETIN NO. 576 AUGUST 1939

DIVISION OF RURAL HOME RESEARCH
AND »
DIVISION OF HORTICULTURE

\

LENGTHENING THE STORAGE
PERIOD OF CUCUMBERS

 

AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS
T. O. WALTON, President ‘

l. l s RCA R Y
Agricultural & Mechanical College nl Texas
College Station, Texas.

[Blank Page in Original Bulletin]

c::u;
“.5

Cucumbers wrapped in a moisture-proof (M. T.) grade of
Cellophane took about four times as long to lose 15 per cent in
weight as did unwrapped fruits, in common storage. Consid-
ering only loss of weight the period of common storage was
increased from 1 to 7 weeks. When other factors such as
palatability are taken into account, M. T. Cellophane wrapped
cucumbers‘ remained in good condition only about 10 days
compared with 7 days for those unwrapped. Under refrigera-
tion unwrapped fruits remained in good condition about 10
days and those wrapped in M. T. Cellophane about 14 days.
For home refrigerator storage, a ventilated pan was found
to be as elfective as moisture-proof Cellophane. Lining
crates or other containers with moisture-proof Cellophane was
found to be as satisfactory as wrapping the individual fruits.
Wrappers that retain moisture and thus reduce loss from
evaporation tend to favor loss from mold, which disinfecting
the cucumbers before wrapping did not control. Results of a
number of other treatments are presented.

" 96070

CONTENTS

Page
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
Tests Made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Result?» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
Loss in Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9

Time for Individual Cucumbers to Reach 9O Per Cent and 85
Per Cent of Original Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9

Loss of Weight by Individual Cucumbers During Storage of
Two Weeks and Three Weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Cucumbers Weighed in Bulk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Other Changes Affecting Salability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14

Decay and Mold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14

Yellowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Effect of Storage on Eating Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15

Method of Judging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15

Time During Which Different Treatments Held Cucumbers
in Good Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15

Changes in Factors Affecting Quality During Regularly
Lengthened Periods of Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

BULLETIN NO. 576 AUGUST 1939

LENGTHENING THE STORAGE PERIOD OF CUCUMBERS

Jessie Whitacre, Chief, Division of Rural Home Research
Leslie R. Hawthorn, Horticulturist, Substation No. 19, Winter Haven
S. H. Yarnell, Chief, Division of Horticulture

There are in Texas some 7,000 acres planted annually to cucumbers.
It is a localized industry; four counties——Brooks, Jim Wells, San Patricio,
and Nueces—produce about 85% of the entire spring crop. In the seven
years, 1931-37 inclusive, a total of 2,683,000 bushels were harvested in
the state, with a farm value of approximately $2,560,940. Tendency of
the industry to grow in value was well defined; the 1937 crop alone was
worth nearly half a million dollars.*

Practical problems with which both growers and distributors must
contend are the marked perishability of fresh cucumbers and the highly
seasonal character of the crop. In 1938, shipments of the Texas crop
began April 29 and ended June 15. But in eight consecutive days, May
2 to 9, approximately half the shipments were made and one-third of the
total was moved in the following eight days. Hence, measures that will
preserve the freshness of cucumbers for a period of eight days to two
weeks may be of considerable economic value. They may aid greatly in
keeping the cucumbers in good condition during transit, especially in
the case of long hauls or re-routing to market. They may extend the
period during which cucumbers may be offered for sale in the retail
market, thus enabling stores to handle them more effectively, and so in-
crease the distribution through smaller stores.

TESTS MADE

This project, begun in 1933 at Substation No. 19 at Winter Haven in
the Winter Garden region of Texas, at first gave attention primarily to
marketability; for this reason emphasis was placed on maintenance of
fresh weight, turgidity, color, and odor. With extension of the work to
College Station in 1935, factors of eating quality—good texture, flavor, and
palatability—were given more emphasis. The last data, those of the
fifth consecutive season, were collected in the summer of 1937.

Among the treatments giving protection .to individual fruits, were
wrappers of four grades of Cellophane? (P. T., plain transparent, S. S. T.
and S. A. T. intermediate grades; M. T. moisture-proof transparent), waxed
paper such as is used for bread; disinfecting with a solution of chlorinated

‘information on locality, acreage, yield, and farm values was secured through the cour-
tesy of Mr. J. C. Mackey, Division of Crop and Live Stock Estimates, State Department of
Agriculture, Austin, Texas; that upon shipments, from Mr. W. D. Googe, U. S. Bureau of
Agricultural Economics, Brownsville, Texas.

TCellophane is the registered trade name of the cellulose film made by E. I. du Pont
de Nemours and Company, Inc., who furnished the Cellophane used in these tests.

6 BULLETIN NO. 576, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

lime before wrapping in M. T. Cellophane, the stem having been removed
from some fruits during harvest but not others; spraying with paraffin.
In bulk storage of unwrapped fruits protection was afforded by the con-
tainer,—a refrigerator humidifier (covered and slightly ventilated enamel
pan, standard equipment with a mechanical household refrigerator), or
a shipping container (bushel size wood crate, half-bushel splint basket,
or corrugated paper carton) lined with moisture-proof Cellophane. Places
of storage were an open shelf in the laboratory (room temperature), a
ventilated pantry (somewhat lower than room temperature), and electric
refrigerators regulated as for household use (35° to 40°F.). In each
place where individually wrapped fruits were stored, unwrapped ones
were used as controls.

The specific treatments are shown in the following list:

Wrapping Disinfecting Container Place of Storage
(1) None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laboratory shelf

(2) None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pantry shelf

(3) None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refrigerator

(4) None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . Humidifier . . . . . . . .  Refrigerator

(5) None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . Bushel basket . . . . . . Laboratory floor

(6) None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . Shipping containers
lined with M
Cellophane . . . . . . . Refrigerator

(7) P. T. Cellophane . . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laboratory shelf

(8) S. S. T. Cellophane . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laboratory shelf

(9) S. A. T. Cellophane. . .. . . . None . . . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laboratory shelf

(10) M. T. Cellophane. . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laboratory shelf

(11) M. T. Cellophane . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pantry shelf

(12) M. T. Cellophane . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refrigerator

(13) Waxed paper . . . . . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laboratory shelf

(14) Waxed paper . . . . . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refrigerator

(15) Paraffin s ray . . . . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . , . . . None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laboratory shelf

(l6) M. T. Cel ophane . . . . . . . . Chlorinated lime None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laboratory shelf

(17) hi. T. Cellophane . . . . . . . . Chlorinated lime.

stem removed None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refrigerator

(18) M. T. Cellophane . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . Bushel basket . . . . . . Laboratory floor

Fig. 1 illustrates the method of wrapping and the appearance of
wrapped and unwrapped fruits after one day in storage.

Twisting the

wrapper tightly at each end of a fruit served to hold it in place during
subsequent handling. The fruits were not sealed in the wrappers;
usually there was an air passage where the edges of wrappers over-
lapped. In Fig. 2 are shown the containers of suitable size for shipping
lined with moisture-proof Cellophane held in place by strips of Scotch
drafting tape.

The cucumbers stored at Winter Haven were grown in that locality
either on the Substation farm or by a commercial producer. All of the
wrapped cucumbers stored at College Station and most of the unwrapped,
were shipped from the Substation; the remainder were grown on the
Main Station farm at College Station. The same field in the Winter
Garden region supplied the fruits for storage at both Winter Haven and
College Station in any one of the three seasons when storage was done
at both places.

LENGTHENING THE STORAGE PERIOD OF CUCUMBERS 7

Fruits from a varietal trial of cucumbers at the Substation were used
the first season, but each variety was equally distributed through all
treatments. Only two varieties, Early Fortune and Kirby Stays Green,
equally distributed, were employed the second season. Thereafter but one
variety, either Kirby Stays Green or Early Fortune was used any season,
with the possible exception of some mixing in the commercial seed used.

In all cases the fruits were weighed, labeled, and placed in storage
as promptly as possible; locally grown fruits were stored within a few
hours after harvesting. Fruits prepared at Winter Haven for storage
at College Station were shipped by express on the day of harvesting and
were received at College Station some 48 hours later. They were promptly
reweighed individually and placed in storage. q

In each storage period, the cucumbers handled individually were weighed
at frequent intervals—at Winter Haven daily as they neared 90%, and
again as they neared 85% of original weight; at College Station fruits
were weighed every other day for the first two weeks, and thereafter twice
weekly until they were considered unsalable and for this reason discarded.
In 1937, the fruits stored in shipping containers at College Station were
weighed by the same schedule as was used there for the individual fruits.

Fig.1. Appearance of wrapped and unwrapped cucumbers one day after placing in
storage on laboratory shelf. Left, unwrapped; middle, wrapped in plain
trainsparent cellophane; right, wrapped in moisture-proof cellophane. Note
condensation of water on the inner side of the moisture-proof cellophane
wrapping, but not within the plain transparent cellophane.

s BULLETIN NO. 57s, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT S'I‘A'I‘ION

Fig. 2. Containers lined with
moisture-proof cellophane, suit-

able for shipping fresh cu-
cumbers.

A. Standard wood crate, bushel
size.

B. Splint basket, half-bushel
ze.

C. Corrugated paper carton
used originally for shipping
glass fruit jars.

X

W

so - '
i

a1

‘D

‘.1

LENGTHENING THE STORAGE PERIOD OF CUCUMBERS 9

At Winter Haven in the same year all the fruits in a given treatment were
weighed as one lot, in most instances every other day, but a few times
after an interval of 3 to 5 days. Sample fruits from each treatment
were taken from time to time for tasting and judging the several points
of quality desired by producer, distributor, and consumer.

RESULTS
Loss in Weight

The first tests at Winter Haven showed that unwrapped fruits which
had lost 15% of their original weight were usually unfit for use, and some
had a decided lack of turgidity which made them unsalable. Therefore,
a loss of 15% in weight was made the basis for discarding fruits at the
Substation, and record was kept to determine when they had lost only
10% in weight. At College Station, fruits were discarded when they
were considered in unsalable condition regardless of what the loss in
weight might be, or how long they had been in storage.

Time for Individual Cucumbers to Reach 90 Per Cent
and 85 Per Cent of Original Weight

A report of the work in the first two seasons, when tests were made
only at Winter Haven, has been published elsewhere (2). The relationship
between loss in weight and the time which elapsed during that loss for
each of four seasons at Winter Haven is shown in Table 1. In Table 2
are recorded the mean temperature and relative humidity during the
months in which the cucumbers were in storage. From the figures in
Table 1 it is apparent that the plain transparent (P. T.) Cellophane and
the intermediate grades of this material (S. S. T. and S. A. T.) were but
little if any better in maintaining weight than no wrapper at all. The
average time for unwrapped fruits and for those in plain transparent and
for either of the intermediate grades of Cellophane to reach 90% of orig-
inal weight was 3 to 5% days. But in moisture-proof transparent (M. T.)
Cellophane approximately 5 to 12 times as long was required to effect a
similar loss. The average time in three seasons for the M. T. wrapped
fruits to reach 90% weight level was 50 days. The high efficiency of M. T.
Cellophane wrappers for maintaining weight was thus demonstrated.
Disinfecting alone, and after removal of the stem during harvest in M. T.
Cellophane (M. T. D. and M. T. D.—stem) extended this period to 59.6
and 63.8 days respectively. Paraffin spray and also waxed paper, each
tried two seasons, gave an average of only 19.2 and 22.2 days respectively
for comparable results. These two treatments while much more effective
for maintaining weight than were the plain and intermediate Cellophanes
were much inferior to wrappers of M. T. Cellophane.

Most fruits in losing weight from the 90% to the 85% level required
more than half as much time as for the loss to 90% of original weight.
Obviously, the rate of moisture loss decreased somewhat as~the storage
period lengthened.

1O BULLETIN NO. 576, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

     

 

 

Table 1. Summary of time for individual cucumbersjn the various treatments to reach
90 per cent, then 85 per cent of their original weight without decaying
(Stored on laboratory shelf at Winter Haven)
1933 1934 1935 1936 I Average
1933-1936
Treatment». Days to reach 90 per cent
Range Av. Range l Av. i Range Av Range 4v Range 4v
Unwrapped . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2- 7 4.2 i 2-23 6 2 3- 9 5 9

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-6 3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

s.s.¥ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-s 4.9{ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .

S. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 8 5.2 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Paraffin Spray... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 1-65 30 .2 4-12 8.2 5 .s-ss.5 19.2

Waxed Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-36 ‘ 18.4 ' 15-33 26.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.0-34.5 22.2

M. .1.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18-38 ‘ 26.3 65-88 72.7 35-71 51.0 39.3-65.6 50.0

M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..- . . . . .. 45-83 67.1 38-66 52.2 41.5-74.5 59.6

M. T. D.-Stem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . .1 56-83 72.3 44-70 55.3 50.0-76.5 63 S
Days to reach 85 per cent

iii. iii l____i_i___ {iii ii Y l i

[Tnwrapped 2-10 5.0 3-14 8.2 . 3-49 13.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 7-243 8 9

P. T. . . . . . . . . .. 3-11 5.1 3-10 5.01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 0-105 5 0

s. s. '1". . . . . . . .. 5-14 1s 5-13 1.5 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. s 0-135 7 1

S.A.fl'il‘..s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6—11 I 7.8 ,.,i8..§6.. hi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

ara n pray... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Waxed Paper... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-54 32.8 i 26-65 40.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 0-595 36.4

 . . . . . . . . . .. 18-42 26 4 26-50 34.6 _ 74-103  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39 3-65.0 49 8

M. . D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 -9 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

M. T. D.-Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 74-103 88.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
1

*P. T. means plain transparent Cellophane,

S. S. T. and S. A. T. are intermediate Cellophanes,

Waxed paper, such as is used for wrapping bread,

M. T., moisture-proof transparent Cellophane,

M. T. D., disinfected before wrapping in moisture-proof Cellophane,

M. T. D.-Stem, moisture-proof Cellophane wrapper after removal of stern and disinfecting.

Table 2. Mean outside temperature* and relative humidity at Winter Haven during months
in storage periods
1
1933 l 1934 1935 193s
‘Alonth ' -'

Temp. R H l Temp. i R H Temp R. H. Temp R. H.
hlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79.0 60.4 78.5 67.5 76.6 75.2
June . . . . . . . . . .. 83.4 55.7 86.9 54.1 81:7 76.8 85.4 65.4
July . . . . . . . . . .. 88.2 60.1 87.2 59.2 85.2 66.7 85.5 64.4
August......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86.4 61.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

*Observations 0n several occasions indicated that the temperature in the laboratory was
5° to 6° F. lower than outside. Doors and windows of the laboratory were open during all
daylight hours permitting free circulation of air.

The small differences in mean relative humidity and mean temperature
during the months in which the storage periods fell in the different years
(Table 2) do not appear to be related to the differences in length of time
required to make the stated losses. Laboratory doors and windows were
left open during all daylight hours permitting a free circulation of air.
Observations on several occasions indicated that indoor temperatures were
usually 5 to-6 degrees lower than outside.

 

l
1

LENGTHENING THE STORAGE PERIOD OF CUCUMBERS 11

Loss of Weight by Individual Cucumbers During
Storage 0f Two Weeks and Three Weeks

All losses of weight in cucumbers stored at College Station were cal-
culated as percentage of the net weight at the time of placing in storage.
For cucumbers grown at College Station, fresh weight at harvest and net
weight at storage were the same. But for fruits shipped from Winter
Haven, the net weight at storage was less than the weight at harvest by
the amount of the loss of weight in transit. This loss in transit was
exceedingly small for all treatments using M. T. Cellophane (seven lots),
the average losses ranging from 0.19% to 0.42% of the individual weight.
Fruits wrapped in waxed paper (one lot) showed an average loss of 0.94%
during transportation. Such losses are regarded as negligible. Unwrapped
fruits (nine lots) while in transit lost on the average in the three seasons
from 2.15% to 3.98% of weight.

The total lengths of storage periods at College Station in the three
successive seasons were 39, 41, and 30 days for fruits handled individually.
But for comparison of loss of weight in the different treatments, two
shorter periods of time were chosen. Two weeks is about the upper limit
of time that the fruits in the most successful treatments were rated good
to excellent in eating quality; beyond three weeks eating quality ratings
were considerably lowered and deterioration occurred rapidly in features
of quality other than weight. Storage periods of 13 to 15 days, and of 20
to 22 days were chosen therefore, and calculations of losses were made
for all fruits held through the longer period. Data collected at Winter
Haven in 1933 and 1936 upon fruits in M. T. wrappers permitted making
calculations similar to those for cucumbers stored at Colleg-e Station.
Table 3 summarizes results on loss of weight in a given time, for the two
most effective treatments of individual fruits, as compared with their
controls.

A very conspicuous feature of these results is the small losses (ranging
from 1.5% to 6.9% during two weeks in storage) by all the Wrapped fruits
and by the unwrapped ones in the refrigerator pan (humidifier) in contrast
to the much larger losses (range 6.9% to 15.0%) by all other unwrapped
fruits. At three weeks, the comparison is 2.3% to 7.7% loss for ten of
eleven lots of the wrapped fruits and the unwrapped in refrigerator pan,
against 10.5% to 19.5% for unwrapped fruit on the laboratory shelf, in
the pantry, and on the refrigerator shelf. For a given treatment tried
more than once, the results are fairly consistent. The difference between
the losses in 1936 of fruits grown at Winter Haven for storage at College
Station and those grown at College Station while probably significant
appears greater than it really was because weight at storage, two days
subsequent to harvesting, was the base for Winter Haven fruits, while
weight at harvest was the base for College Station cucumbers. Adding
to the losses for Winter Haven fruits the loss in transit of these lots,
(2.63% for those on the laboratory shelf, 3.98% for those in the pantry)
would bring total losses much closer together. Loss of those from Winter

12 BULLETIN NO. 576, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Haven stored on the laboratory shelf would still be a little less (12.73‘7’@
vs. 15.01%), but of those stored in the pantry slightly more (13.96% vs.
12.87%) than of those grown at College Station and stored under com-
parable conditions.

Table 3. Eflect of storage on weight of cucumbers
(Fruits weighed individually)

 

Av. net
Number wt. at Av. loss in storage

Conditions of Place Place of storage as % of net wt. Av.

Year storage grown stored fruits ——— -— —————~—- Temp.
14 or 15 21 or 22
Grams days days
__,_____
Unwrapped

1936 Laboratory shelf W H* C S* 28 285.8 10.10 13.28 87.6
1936 CS CS 14 253.3 15.01 19.53 87.6
1937 WH CS 16 321.4 13.75 18.38 89.7
1936 Pantry W H C S 28 280.2 9.98 13.20 69.4
1936 CS C S 17 217.2 12.87 16.29 69.4
1935 Refrigerator shelf W H C S 19 292.1 6.94 10.48 38.3
1936 WH CS 21 271.4 10.61 15.17 41.6
1937 W H C S 30 323.1 9.36 15.25 40.1
1935 Refrigerator pan W H C S 13 263.8 3.32 4.84 38.3
1936 (humidifier) W H C S 7 309.8 3.18 3.99 41.6
1937 WH CS 7 319.8 2.95 4.37 40.1

Wrapped in moisture-proof transparent (M. T.) Cellophane

1933 Laboratory shelf W H W H 21 214 5 6.94 10.8 88.11
1936 W W H 25 341.9 . . . . . . .. 3.631’ 84.71
1936 W H C S 35 309 1 4.90 7.49 87 6
1937 W H C S 8 328 2 5.08 7.67 89 7
1936 Pantry W H C S 25 269 9 3.12 4.60 69.4
1935 Refrigerator shelf W H C S 39 273 2 3.75 5.88 38.3
1936 W H C S 32 288 6 1.53 2.30 41.6
1937 WH CS 21 344 2 3.60 5.88 40.1

*W H =Winter Haven; C Sr-College Station.
TStored 20 days.
IThese are outside temperatures.

Fruits wrapped in M. T. Cellophane lost roughly one and one-half times
as much one season and three times as much another season when stored
on the laboratory shelf as when held in the refrigerator the same length
of time. But the effect of refrigeration was less consistent with respect
to the unwrapped fruits. One season, the loss of those on the laboratory
shelf and of those in the refrigerator was the same after two weeks in
storage, the next season, less for those in the refrigerator. At the end
of three weeks’ storage, losses by the unwrapped fruits in the refrigerator
were in one season more, in the next less, than with unwrapped ones on the
laboratory shelf. These inconsistencies in the loss of weight of the un-
wrapped cucumbers stored elsewhere than in the humidifier are in contrast
to the more consistent losses of those in the humidifier and in the M. T.
Cellophane wrappers.

LENGTHENING THE STORAGE PERIOD OF CUCUMBERS 13

The very similar results obtained with cucumbers in M. T. wrappers
on the refrigerator shelf, and unwrapped fruits in the refrigerator pan is
noteworthy. Unwrapped fruits in the refrigerator pan 10st slightly less
weight in two out of three seasons than did fruits in M. T. wrappers on
a shelf of the same refrigerator. The humidifier may be especially rec-
ommended to the housewife and individual Wrappers of moisture-proof
Cellophane along with refrigeration may serve either in commercial use
or in the home, to prolong the freshness of cucumbers.

With treatments tested at College Station other than the three included
in Table 3 and discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, results were secured
in line with those in comparable tests at Winter Haven, although difference
between treatments in the refrigerator (College Station tests) were smaller
than those at room temperature (Winter Haven tests). M. T. Cellophane
proved a somewhat more efficient wrapper than waxed paper for fruits
stored in the refrigerator, loss of weight in waxed paper (one season)
after two weeks storage being 4.6% and after three weeks 6.8% in con-
trast with a range (three seasons) of 1.5% to 3.8% in two weeks and
2.3% to 5.9% in three weeks for the fruits in M. T. Cellophane. Disin-
fecting had no effect on loss of weight in the tests at College Station,
losses being 1.9% at two weeks, 2.8% at three weeks storage compared
with losses of 1.5% and 2.3% by fruits not disinfected.

Cucumbers Weighed in Bulk

Only in 1937 were stored cucumbers weighed in bulk. At Winter Haven
two treatments were used—-unwrapped, and M. T. wrappers on individual
fruits. Bothlwere stored in bushel baskets in the laboratory. The un-

'wrapped fruits after being held for 19 days lost 28.6% of their original

weight, whereas those in the M. T. Cellophane at the end of 31 days had
lost only 17.6% of their original weight.

The primary object of the bulk weighing tests at College Station was
to determine the practicability of M. T. Cellophane-lined containers for
shipping cucumbers under refrigeration. This test was suggested by the
success with the refrigerator pan for storing unwrapped fruits. All
packed shipping containers, (Fig. 2) and the refrigerator humidifier as
a control, were held at an average temperature of about 40°F. Results
with the several containers were essentially the same. The weight losses
are illustrated by those observed for the lined crate and the refrigerator
pan. After storage for 22 days, the fruits in the pan had lost only 2.5%
of their original weight. After 9 to 15 days storage (time variation due
to the necessity of piecemeal packing) those in the crate had lost 1.2%,
and after 19 to 25 days, the loss was but 1.8%. Preservation of weight
of unwrapped cucumbers in containers lined with M. T. Cellophane was
as good as of the fruits Wrapped individually.

14 BULLETIN NO. 576, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Other Changes Aifecting Salability
Decay and Mold

In contrast to the excellent maintenance of weight by moisture-proof
wrappers, was the greater readiness with which the fruits in them decayed.
This was noted each season and for fruits under all conditions of storage.
After a period of three weeks, decay was especially marked with M. T.
Cellophane whether or not the fruits were disinfected before wrapping.
Of the 25 fruits in M. T. Cellophane wrappers stored yearly at Winter
Haven, the number decaying before weight was reduced to 90% of original,
was for five consecutive seasons 3, 2, 21, 11, and 9. This variation is
probably due to differences in rainfall around the time of harvest. The
precipitation was light the first two seasons, heavy the last three. The
number of the disinfected fruits, both with and without the stem, de-
caying was 18 out of 25 the third season (the first time of trial for these
treatments), and 13 out of 25 the next year. The humid condition inside
the wrappers no doubt encourages decay. Water of condensation within
the M. T. Cellophane wrappers (Fig. 1) was usually visible for some 20
days. No decay in unwrapped fruit ever occurred at Winter Haven dur-
ing the period of the experiment and in but very few of them stored at
College Station on the laboratory shelf and in the ventilated pantry.
Unwrapped fruits in the refrigerator pan and in the containers lined
with M. T. Cellophane withstood decay for about 20 days. Mold usually
appeared also at the time signs of bacterial attack were noted.

Although moisture-proof Cellophane and the humidifier did afford
conditions favorable to the growth of bacteria and mold, deterioration
caused by these organisms did not occur before other changes which
made the fruits unacceptable had taken place. Hence the observations
regarding decay and mold in no way change the recommendation of the
use of M. T. Cellophane and the humidifier for preserving the freshness
of cucumbers.

Yellowing

One of the most consistently occurring changes in stored cucumbers
was yellowing of the outside in certain of the treatments. In the tests
at College Station, at the time of discarding the fruits, either tiny yellow
spots or larger yellow areas were noted on most of them both wrapped
and unwrapped and not stored in the refrigerator. But in the refrigerator
there were only a few fruits that did not retain good color for from three
to four weeks. Considerable difference in respect to yellowing was noted
at Winter Haven between wrapped and unwrapped fruits. In the 1937
season, for example, only 12%% of the wrapped fruits, but 52% of the
unwrapped, yellowed within 14 days. At College Station the same year,
a few of the M. T. wrapped fruits on the laboratory shelf showed the
first indication of yellow at 14 days, but only one of the M. T. wrapped
fruits in the refrigerator yellowed even up to the time of discarding at

LENGTHENING THE STORAGE PERIOD OF CUCUMBERS 15

28 days. Delay of yellowing is an important advantage of refrigerating
fruit. '
Elfect of Storage on Eating Quality

Method 0f Judging

Sample fruits of every treatment both at Winter Haven and College
Station were tasted at intervals. Observations at Winter Haven were
in the nature of an over-all judgment of palatability while those at College
Station dealt with the several qualities individually. Four aspects of
quality— turgidity (firmness), texture (crispness and tenderness), flavor,
and palatability (flavor, texture, turgidity, odor, considered together) were
rated independently by each of six judges using a score card especially
devised for the purpose. Color, salability, and edibility were not given a
score but each judge recorded his observations on these items. The
predominating color inside and outside was noted and any departure
from the judge’s idea of normal color was mentioned. Salability was con-
sidered to be no departure from normal shape, color, odor, and firmness
that would prevent the cucumber being bought in the market. Edibility
was thought of as being fit to be eaten, whether or not the fruit was more
or less pleasing t0 the palate. Results are illustrated by data obtained
in 1937.

Time During Which Dilferent Treatments
Held Cucumbers in Good Condition

Of the 37 fruits from Winter Haven judged, from 5 to 9 were in each
treatment. These fruits had been in storage for periods ranging as fol-
lows: in M. T. Cellophane wrappers,—on the laboratory shelf 3 to 25
days, on the refrigerator shelf 1 to 29 days; unwrapped,-—-in the refrig-
erator pan 3 to 16 days, on the refrigerator shelf 1 to 29 days, on the
laboratory shelf 3 to 25 days. Only 9 of the entire number were in storage
more than 14 days. Hence, three-fourths of those stored were judged
within the period in which, according to previous findings, more fruits
in acceptable condition were to be expected.

The summary of results pertaining to preservation of quality in these
fruits is given in part in Table 4. The data were inspected to determine
the greatest number of days any fruit in each treatment remained in
good condition. The criterion of “good condition” on the qualities scored
was an average of better than two-thirds of the perfect score; that on
qualities not scored, unanimous agreement of the judges or not more than one
of them dissenting. With very few exceptions, all the fruits in each treat-
ment were in good condition up to the number of days shown in Table 4. In
general, the fruits judged at the next longer storage period showed a
distinct drop in acceptability. The data in Table 4 readily show that
the most consistently effective treatment was storage of unwrapped
fruits in the refrigerator pan, all qualities having remained in “good
condition” for 16 days. A treatment nearly as effective was individual

16 BULLETIN NO. 576, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

wrappers of M. T. Cellophane and storage in the refrigerator, with
turgidity good for 18 days‘ and other qualities for 14 days.

The longest preservation of turgidity and salability, 25 days, was in
the fruits in M. T. Cellophane on the laboratory shelf. But this treat-
ment had the poorest record for preserving palatability. Not one of the
six fruits judged had a rating of “good.” This treatment showed the
greatest irregularities of any in the length of period of good condition
in the different qualities.

Table 4. Number of days stored cucumbers remained in good condition*
(Grown at Winter Haven, stored at College Station, 1937)

Wrapped in
1V1. T. Cellophane Unwrapped
Qualities judged
Laboratory Refri . Refrig. Refri . Laboratory
shelf shel pan shel shelf
_ _ (days) (days) (days) (days) (days)
Turgidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 18 16 10 14
Texture:
Solid portion . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 14 l6 10 7

Seed portion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 14 16 29 7

Total texture . . . . . . . . . . . . 1O 14 16 16 7

Flavor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 14 16 10 10

Palatability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yr 14 16 1O 3

Color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 14 16 l6 12

Salability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 14 16 1O 12

Edibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 14 16 18 10
Total “good-condition-days”. . . . 121 130 144 129 82
Range of loss in weight, per cent
0.8 to 3.3 0.7 to 2.7 1.9 to 3.3 0.9 to 7.8 F 2.2 to 9.9

*Good condition for turgidity, texture, flavor. and palatability means that the average score
was better than two-thirds of the possible (perfect) score; and that in_the unscored qualities~——
color, salability, and edibility—fruits were considered normal by all Judges or not more than
one dissenting.

THighest score 12.4 at 5 days storage.

The unwrapped cucumbers on the refrigerator shelf held up in all
qualities for at least 10 days. Unsalability was due chiefly to marked
wrinkling which was characteristic of this treatment. Except for turgid-
ity, color, and salability, unwrapped fruits on the refrigerator shelf
were preserved in corresponding qualities as well as, or better than, fruits
in M. T. Cellophane on the laboratory shelf.

Aside from turgidity, refrigeration extended the period of “good con-
dition” in scored qualities by 4 to 14 days with the fruits in M. T.
Cellophane and by 3 to 19 days in unwrapped fruits with the one ex-
ception of equally long (10-day) preservation of flavor in two fruits,
one on the laboratory shelf, the other on the refrigerator shelf.

The total number of “good-condition-days” for each treatment (Table

LENGTHENING THE STORAGE PERIOD OF CUCUMBERS l7

4) emphasizes the advantage to be gained by wrapping fruits in M. T.
Cellophane 0r placing them in the humidifier under refrigeration.

Changes in Factors Afiecting Quality During
Regularly Lengthened Periods of Storage

As shown by scores. The 84 cucumbers grown at College Station were
left unwrapped and were divided equally for storage between the covered
pan and the shelf in the refrigerator. Twenty of the fruits were tasted
fresh, after having been in the refrigerator only about 4 hours, just long
enough to be well cooled. The remainder were held for storage of 2 days
or successive multiples thereof up to 14 days inclusive. Table 5 presents
the comparative results of the two treatments in these systematically
graduated storage periods.

The highest possible score for turgidity was 9, for texture, flavor, and
palatability each 18. Bitterness was very prevalent in these cucumbers
and accounts for the low flavor and palatability scores of the fresh cu—
cumbers as well as for the same scores on the two treatments at 10 days
storage. Table 5 shows the better preserved condition of the fruits in
the refrigerator pan with respect to all considerations for storage of 4
days and more. Loss of weight of those in the pan ranged from 1.2%
of original at 4 days to 2.2% at 12 days, and so turgidity remained prac-
tically perfect throughout storage; whereas for those on the refrigerator
shelf for from 2 to 12 days there was a gradual loss of weight from 4.7
to 18.8% and consequently a reduction of turgidity rating from 8.3 to
2.8 points. In texture, fruits in the pan were practically as good as fresh
up to 10 days, and exclusive of the influence of bitterness, nearly as good
in flavor and palatability. There was a much greater decrease in eating
quality of the fruits stored 12 and 14 days on the shelf than in those in the
pan.

The changes in weight and in eating quality of the cucumbers in four
treatments at College Station in 1937 are illustrated graphically in Fig. 3
and Fig. 4. In Fig. 3 the data from the 37 fruits grown at .Winter Haven
and stored at College Station were used. Each point located represents a
single fruit with two exceptions—-the data were averaged for the two
fruits in M. T. Cellophane judged after being in the refrigerator 8 days
and for the two unwrapped fruits on the laboratory shelf 7 days. In
Fig. 4 the 84 fruits grown and stored at College Station are represented‘.
The results were averaged for the 20 fresh fruits, and also for the number
(2, 4, or 6) in each storage period. The trend of the lines in these graphs
indicates the efficiency of both the humidifier for unwrapped cucumbers
and moisture-proof Cellophane wrappers for individual fruits, along with
refrigeration, to prolong the freshness of cucumbers for about two weeks.

The appearance of fresh cucumbers compared with some stored 4 days,
others 15 days, in the refrigerator pan and on the refrigerator shelf
respectively, may be noted in Fig. 5. Excellent turgidity was characteristic
of those in the pan. Wrinkling of those on the shelf was noticeable at
2 days and by 12 days was sufiicient to make the fruit hard to peel.

18 BULLETIN NO. 576, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

£38m B2 @525 Bus» 33 co ~ wan can o5 E w 3 coiufino “o omzwu

wfl ||.\ some Sflzaafiima 502w: ....:$xo~

uQWSO 02a ma? $253 

d H %Z©@w.=5 .5“ 55cm wooful domwi w .31.
Nw Nm
wN mw mv m.» m; v.2 vw ww o ~ o N 052 No.N N N v~
w.N ma w.v m.» v5 wNfl wN vw ~ N o w m}: NN.N w w N~
*2. *o.w w.“ m.“ N.w" 72 av v» N N N v .342 m: v v 
5w NA: NA: m1: Q2 “.2 1m ww m v v w $12 NwA w w x
N.w we w.“ H; mi v12 ma. w.» _ w w w w": £4 w w vlnwla|
wd wfi w Z ~.v_ M72 N4: ww 2w N v w v mww 2Q v |v iiwll.
NS f. vw N.w 9S ~Kv~ mw M; _ N v v vmv £4 v v N |
:22 cam :22 cwk rim ca; :25 an; :22 ca; :25. ca; :25 ca; =22 an; 
kowmwvmmhwvu E Rio? 212m
N.N~ Nwfi i: 8w m; A: 85 oN
wish cwwhh
afiznwfiswh 332m l. ohsfinfi. |l zfiwmmwsu. l; wizw... sl Snfimv. u! S: we w» mist
s1 |l I: l ponEzZ ._onE:Z. is E Swizz
330cm oww$>< _ $3 .>< _So.~.

Chi

Ear-cum ¢m¢==0 “d wvuoam 12a c391“! muons-noun u: 3:55 c: awake? u: 308E .m

~33.

LENGTHENING THE STORAGE PERIOD OF CUCUMBERS 19

  
   
 

 

 

20
15 211411311111
l-———I 1H1‘. rofrig. ch01!‘
\ b———o Unwrapped lab. shelf
12 y,
h‘! \
5 \‘A_
U _"§_A
\
4 \
kiiiii
o _“**
g4sa1o1214f51e2o22242szaso
nus srmxn _-

2o

16 x ruvcna

\  F-i! 1LT. refrig. shelf
12 ‘x....,¢-~”"\ bu“ Um'pp°d m’ “M”
g \
3
8 4'
‘ 4-._____
i
iii§iiité
o I I
2 4 s a 1o 12 14 1s 1e 2o 22 24 2s za"so
nus srau-zn
20
&
1 y‘ ,
12 ““~~
In “5~__
§ mums '\
'-° a X-—-’-—XI.T. rofrig. shelf
A———AUnwrapped lab. I501!‘
4
o l
2 4 s a 10 12
nus srcnm
1s rmzcmrrr
X———'X I-T. rQrrige 811011‘
A--—-—A Unvrrapped lab. shelf

12

a _ ___

‘g ‘k4’ k -___§__
4
X
o
Z 4 s 81012 1416 1a 2022 24 26 2a so
nus swamp
24
mss n1 wsxcnr ,/“
2° Xi-i Li‘. refrig. shelf l/
B-"""-A Unwrapped lab. lhelf l/

s ’/’

1 1/
E ,1
E /’k"
a A’ X
k‘ l/
/ \
o X-""""_"—"_"‘
34 6 s10 12 14 1s 1a 2o 22 24 2s 2a so
nus swamp '
Fig.3. Changes in cucumbers during storage, 1937. Cucumbers grown at

Winter Haven and stored at College Station. Each point located
on the graphs represents one fruit except the average of results
with two fruits at one storage period in each treatment—7 days
for those on the laboratory shelf and 8 days for those wrapped in
M. T. Cellophane and on the refrigerator shelf.

20

BULLETIN NO. 576, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

 

PALATABILITY
16 Q Fresh
hfid Pm
0----0 Shelf
121 /‘\\ _
g /»\\ a szzrrzz"
8 I / s 1' /\ mfa’ r

_ ' \ v /

3 f   n’

4 . §..Q
“g
O
0 2 6 14
DAYS STCRED
16 FLAVW
QFx-esh
q 'I.\\ j-g 
12 ,1 \ . ¢-----. Shelf
I /\' \\ I \

,, a y \_ ~./.'/\~.\ M

g \./ --..,-—-

U)

I ‘V 
4 s?! arm-r \°""°
O
o 2 4 6 8 1O 12 14
DAYS STORE!)
2O
16¢ “pa
fit?‘ \;\ I ’ , ¢ " Q -‘\“
‘i’ c ~‘\

gm "x '~.__

D TEXTURE \' x

m 3 OFresh \°—"“°

0-—-—-e Pan
h----e Shelf
4
o i
0 2 4 6 8 1o 12 14
DAYS STCRED
O Fresh
runcmxrr ""_'Pm
12 a-----eSh811'
s ~ -<:----~-~ e  l
W \
4 _ "".\_
Vcio
O
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
DAYS STQIED
20 IDSS I! WEIGHT
Q Fresh
o----o Pan '/.\‘\.
1a ------ Shall‘
‘l
12 ./° '
s5 f’
a 8 /
4 f’
--"“"~-I
0 "‘°--o-----0—-"""°"r‘
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
DAYS STGIED
Fig. 4. Changes during storage, 1937, in

cucumbers grown and stored at
College Station. All were un-
wrapped and stored in the refrig-
erator, half of them on the shelf,
half in the humidifier. Each point
on the graph represents the aver-
age- for the number of fruits
judged, 20 fresh, and 64 stored—
2, 4, or 6 at each storage period.

LENGTHENING THE STORAGE PERIOD OF CUCUMBERS 21

That loss in weight is not directly associated with eating quality so
long as fruits are desirable at all is evident in both the cucumbers from
Winter Haven and those from College Station (Tables 4 and 5). With
the latter, the scores of fruits on the refrigerator shelf were as good
for texture, flavor, and palatability at 10 days storage when the loss was
13.9% of original as at 2 days with a 4.7% loss. The range of loss of
weight in three of the treatments of fruits from Winter Haven is prac-
tically the same, and the other two treatments resemble each other; but
differences in the time during which the fruits in the five treatments
remained in good condition are clear cut.

Lack of correlation between rating of odor and palatability is note-
worthy. Although many of the fruits with low palatability scores,

Fig.5. Appearance of fresh cucumbers (left) compared with fruits stored 4 days
(middle) and 15 days (right).
Fruits stored in refrigerator pan, top row: on refrigerator shelf, bottom row.
Note the similarity of all fruits in top row and the wrinkling, especially marked
at 15 days, of those stored on the refrigerator shelf.

22 BULLETIN NO. 576, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

especially those stored long periods had a 10w rating on odor, this was
not consistently so. A number of fruits with high palatability had low
odor rating, and high odor rating sometimes accompanied a low palatabil-
ity score.

As shown by total number 0f objections by judges. A summary was
made of the frequency in use of adjectives to describe the judges’ objec-
tions to the fruits which were rated in 1937. The data for the cucumbers
from Winter Haven were inspected critically to determine at what point
in storage, if any, the number of objections separated the more acceptable
from the less acceptable fruits taken as samples. The time limits for
few objections as distinguished from many objections for the several
treatments were: M. T. wrapped—-on refrigerator shelf 18 days, on
laboratory shelf 10 days; unwrapped—in the refrigerator pan 16 days
(no fruit receiving many objections), on the refrigerator shelf 10 days,
and on the laboratory shelf 10 days. It will be noted that refrigeration
made no difference in the number of objections to unwrapped fruits out-
side of the pan. For the cucumbers grown and stored at College Station,
the average frequency of use of each adjective was determinedfor the
fruits in each storage period of the two treatments. Marked increase in
the number of objections to turgidity, texture, and flavor was found for
the fruits stored 12 and 14 days either in the refrigerator pan or on the
refrigerator shelf. The Well marked increase in the number of objections
to all of the longer-stored cucumbers shows that with sufficiently long
storage, originally turgid cucumbers became progressively limber, soft,
and spongy; a once crisp and tender solid portion became soft, spongy,
and pithy, or rubbery; a tender gelatinous seed portion became watery
and slimy or sometimes dry, and the pleasant characteristic flavor of a
fresh fruit was replaced by one distinctly stale and queer, or possibly
either too mild, or too intense, or by a bity flavor. Bitterness when
present was no worse after longer storage than shorter. Nothing in the
appearance of the fruit gave forewarning of the bitterness; only tasting
detected it.

On the whole, the findings based on the use of objections are in close
agreement with those employing numerical scores. Both approaches
show that wrapping the fruits individually in moisture-proof Cellophane
and placing them unwrapped in a humidifier under refrigeration are equally
good methods of preserving fresh cucumbers. Both descriptive terms and
scores indicate that under these treatments fresh cucumbers remain in
quite good condition in all aspects of eating quality for from 8 or 10 days
to 2 weeks.

No detailed scoring was done on the fruits stored in bulk in the con-
tainers lined with moisture-proof Cellophane and held in the refrigerator,
but their external condition was noted at the times of regular weighing
and, when discarded, several of the fruits were tasted by -two of the
regular judges. Using those in the crate as example, at 9 to 15 days of
storage, out of 90 fruits all but 6 which by accident were frosted in the

LENGTHENING THE STORAGE PERIOD OF CUCUMBERS 23

refrigerator, appeared to be in excellent condition. When discarded,
after 19 to 25 days of storage all were salable but a few which had a
very little mold or bacterial growth. The turgidity was good and the
color good except for slight yellowing of a very few. The seed portion
was becoming watery. The few fruits tasted were rated fair in palatability.

Similar results with the use of moisture-proof Cellophane wrappers
have been obtained by the Georgia Experiment Station (1) with fresh
asparagus and by Stahl and Fifield (3) with citrus fruit in tests at
the Florida Experiment Station. The Florida workers also found the
moisture-proof lining of containers to be as efficient in preserving quality
as the individual wrappers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge with thanks the assistance of Rita
Kraft, Edith Jones, Mable Jones, Jessie Kate Bodenhamer, Mary Anna
Grimes, Sylvia Cover, and Walter S. Flory in judging the cucumbers.
Of these judges, one served during two seasons and two others during
the three seasons of the experiment.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In this study extending over five seasons, cucumbers grown at Winter
Haven and at College Station have been stored for varying periods of
time.

Out of eighteen treatments tried, three were found equally satisfactory
for preservation at once of weight, color, turgidity, texture, flavor, and

palatability of cucumbers held in storage at 40°F. In one treatment

the fresh cucumbers were wrapped individually in moisture-proof Cello-
phane; in another packed unwrapped in large light-weight wood or cor-
rugated paper containers lined with moisture-proof Cellophane; in the
third the unwrapped fruits were placed in a refrigerator humidifier. For
at least 8 to 10 days these methods kept cucumbers practically as good as
fresh and up to 2 weeks quite acceptable though not all of them were in
excellent condition. Since cucumbers constitute a decidedly seasonal crop,
satisfactory methods of preserving freshness may have considerable value
to producer, distributor, and consumer. Use of moisture-proof Cellophane
as individual wrappers or liners in shipping containers may be recom-
mended for commercial purposes; the refrigerator humidifier for use in
the home.
LITERATURE CITED

1. Georgia Experiment Station, (anonymous) 1933. Asparagus packed for profit. Mkt.
Grow. Jour. 52:206-208.

2. Hawthorn, Leslie R., 1934. Cellophane and waxed paper wrappers for storing cucum-
bers. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 32: 578-582.

3. Stahl, Arthur L. and Fifield, Willard M., 1936. Cold storage studies of Florida citrus
fruits. Fla. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. 304.