= ';_.\r\v- TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A. B. CONNER, Director College Station, Texas BULLETIN NO. 651 JULY 1944 HARVESTING AND CURING OF GARLIC TO PREVENT DECAY H. P. SMITH, G. E. ALTSTATT, M. H. BYROM Division 0f Agricultural Engineering Division of Plant Pathology and Physiology . AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS GIBB GILCHRIST, President D-20-744-4M [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] LIBRARY BINDING COMPANY I WACO, TEXAS use 1 s 194a ‘i? W’ _ I i F J I A. -~J °‘~_J The production of garlic as a commercial crop commenced on a small scale about 1929 in Lavaca and Fayette counties of Texas. Within two or three years production increased until some 20 car- loads of garlic were being shipped annually. The crop gave the farmers of that area an annual cash income of approximately $50,000. The planting of poor seed and harvesting before the crop had fully natured caused the garlic to decay badly and resulted in severe losses among shipments in transit. In 1935 experiments were begun to determine the causes of poor stands and the decay of garlic at harvest and in transit to market. A total of 25 strains and varieties of garlic were planted to compare the resistance to decay of the bulbs produced. A number of well known fungicides were used to treat garlic cloves (seed pieces) to determine their effect on stand of plants and ultimate keeping quality of the bulbs produced from the treated seed. Five methods of curing garlic bulbs were tested and compared in an effort to find a method that would give a uniform high quality of ‘garlic for the market. Most’ of the foreign strains that were tried either gave poor yields due to small bulbs or they matured too late to be of com- mercial importance. The Mexican and Louisiana Italian strains matured ten to fifteen days earlier than the Texas White variety, but produced small bulbs and lower yields. Delayed germination, poor stands, and lower yields were gen- erally obtained when fungicides were applied either in the furrow or to the seed piece before planting, as compared to stands and yields obtained with well selected, sound, nearly disease-free seed pieces. Garlic decayed less during 31/2 months storage when cured 10 to 14 days on wire racks either in an open shed or in a barn loft than when cured on floor of barn, left in field, or cured by arti- ficial heat. These studies indicate that to obtain best yields and a good quality of garlic, sound, disease-free seed pieces should be planted on low ridges, in October and early November and harvested when most of the tops have turned brown, then cured under shelter on open racks from 10 to 14 days. 162806 _ CONTENTS Page Introduction ............................................................................................................... .. 5 Information obtained from survey ......................................... .......................... .. 5 Diseases, insects, and organisms associated with bulb decay ...................... .. 6 Materials and methods in field and curing experiments .............................. .. 7 Studies with garlic varieties ................................................................................ ..12 Effect of fertilizer on yield .................................................................................. ..13 Application of fungicide in furrow .................................................................... ..15 Pre-planting treatment of garlic cloves ............................................................ ..15 Various methods of curing garlic ...................................................................... ..16 Field curing of garlic .................................................................................... Curing on wire racks in open shed .......................................................... ..18 Curing in barn loft ........................................................................................ ..19 Drying experiments with artificial heat .................................................. ..20 Chemical treatment of bulbs previous to storage .......................................... _.23 Selection of sound seed reduces decay .............................................................. .23 Further studies on garlic Mosaic ........................................................................ ..24 Recommendations for culture and curing of garlic ...................................... ..25 Acknowledgements ............. n, ................................................................................. ..27 Summary and conclusions ...................................................................................... ..27 HARVESTING AND CURING OF GARLIC TO PREVENT DECAY H. P. Smith,‘ G. E. Altstatt,” and M. H. Byrom“ In Lavaca and Fayette counties of Texas, the production of garlic as a commercial crop commenced about 1929 on a small-acreage basis. The acreage was increased until some twenty carloads of garlic were being shipped annually. In this area, garlic was a winter crop that provided cash in early summer when there were no sales of other crops. Unfortunately, farmers of the area made a practice of selling the best garlic and keeping for seed the poor quality bulbs which were often in- fested with decay organisms. As a result by 1933, poor stands and low yields were common, much garlic was lost by decay shortly after harvest, and many losses occurred among shipments due to spoilage in transit. Consequently, in 1935, certain farmers and merchants of this area asked the Experiment Station to investigate the causes of the poor stands and decay in garlic and to work out control measures, in order to save what once had been a profitable crop. A State appropriation was obtained for this work and a cooperative project was set up in 1936 between the Division of Plant Pathology and Physiology and the Division of Agricul- tural Engineering. INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM SURVEYS In June 1935 surveys were made of farms producing garlic and of garlic merchants in Lavaca and Fayette counties. It was learned that the growers made a common practice of selling the best quality garlic and saving for seed the poor, unmarketable garlic which resulted in a decline in quality of succeeding crops and that the farmers were probably in- creasing and spreading decay organisms as well as decreasing the yields. There was a tendency to harvest garlic before it had fully matured. The produce merchants, therefore, suffered a large portion of the shrinkage or drying loss together with the risk of decay before and after shipment. The merchants became cautious and the market demand declined. It was fur- ther found that the general practice of harvesting consisted in plowing the garlic out with a sweep attached to a sweep stock and collecting the garlic into piles along the rows. These piles were often left in the field for a day or two or until the garlic could be removed and spread in windrows on a meadow (Fig. 1). The garlic was then left in the meadow in contact with the ground and exposed to the hot sun for a week or more until it had dried sufficiently to be topped and cleaned. After cleaning, it was usually placed several inches deep on the floor of a poorly ventilated barn loft. If the garlic was fairly green and piled deeply on the floor, it would sweat and create a condition highly favorable for the development of decay organisms. These surveys indicated a need for research on the causes of the un- due amount of decay in the garlic crop, on the improvement of stands, and the prevention of after-harvest deterioration. ‘Chief, Division of Agricultural Engineering. gPlant Pathologist (resigned August 15, 1942). “Agricultural Engineer (resigned May 19, 1942). 6 BULLETIN NO. 651, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Figure 1. This garlic has been pulled an-d carried to a meadow where it is spread in wind- rows to dry. This is a method of curing that is frequently used by farmers. EDISEASES, INSECTS, AND ORGANISMS ASSOCIATED WITH BULB DECAY The various diseases and insect pests encountered in this work are described in Texas Station Circular 98.‘ The diseases include pink root, mosaic, southern blight, and various bulb rots; the insect pests are listed as thrips, white grubs, weevil, and bulb mite. Many of these troubles, however, are found only occasionally. The trouble occurring most con- sistently has been the decay of seed cloves either before or after planting and the decay- of bulbs following removal from the ground at harvest. Most of the research work has involved the identification and control of the or- ganisms causing these bulb decays and the prevention of circumstances in handling the crop that result in the development of favorable conditions for decay. ' In studying the causes of garlic bulb decay, many routine laboratory cultures were made of partly decayed bulbs and records were kept of the different organisms isolated. Samples of garlic in various stages of decay were collected from fields, barns, and merchants’ warehouses. Beginning of decay was often indicated by a brownish discoloration that started in the neck of the plant and extended into the tissues separating the cloves in the bulb. Once decay begins, the breakdown is rapid and results in badly discolored, partially rotten or often completely spoiled bulbs. Often bulbs were found in which only one of the several cloves was affected while . ‘Alstatt, G. E. and Smith, H. P. Production, diseases and insects of garlic in Texas. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 98. 1942. T".‘t~.4"“"¥"I-l;§~.-_¢j;M ‘_,',-,, q, . i , (i, . y‘ i. . _ . HARVESTING AND CURING OF GARLIC TO PREVENT DECAY 7 other bulbs were wholly decayed and consisted of only a dry, black, smutty L mass. N0 particular fungous or bacterial species was found with sufficient (frequency to associate any single organism with the common types of de- cay. The fungi most frequently obtained in culture from decaying garlic (‘included species of Aspergillus, Diplodia, Fusarium, Helminthosporium, lPenicillium, and Trichoderma, together with Sclerotium bataticola Taub. and Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc. Bacterial growth of various types were also ‘common in the cultures; Bacillus carotovorus L. RnJones being the only §_ species readily recognized and identified. MATERIALS AND METHODS IN FIELD AND CURING EXPERIMENTS The garlic used in most of these experiments was grown on 2 acres "of leased land at the Joe Stary farm about 3 miles south of Moulton, 3 Texas, in Lavaca county. A different part of the field was used each year ‘ to avoid residual effects of a single crop. The soil was a black clay of l the Houston-Wilson series. Plantings were usually made from October 15 _to November 15 and the crop was harvested from May 20 to June 5. The "Texas White variety was used almost exclusively in the experimental plantings, although other varieties were also tested. The different meth- ods of handling the crop at harvest are discussed separately under methods of curing. The bulbs were cleaned by hand. The dry and loose leaf bases cover- ing the bulbs were pulled off with the fingers, while the roots Were trimmed off with a Knife. A typical garlic cleaning scene and cleaned, un- graded garlic bulbs are shown in Figure 2. - "~*1""“'-‘ 74L H i - .. ’ i‘ Most of the studies in curing were conducted at Moulton and a part of the cured garlic was brought to College Station for storage tests in a well-ventilated shed during the summer. Final data on the various treat- ments were taken following the storage period, usually in October. Since many micro-organisms, both bacteria and fungi, may be trans- y mitted and carried from one year to the next on “seed pieces” used in l‘ vegetative propagation, experiments Were conducted to determine if the I decay of garlic could be controlled by treatment of the seed piece or ,1 “clove” (Fig. 3). Several of the well known germicidal and fungicidal chemicals were used in three ways. First, the chemical was placed in the I furrow before dropping the seed. Second, they were used to treat the seed piece prior to planting in an effort to kill the decay organism before the a i} seed were placed in the soil. Third, chemicals were used to treat garlic bulbs, as soon after harvesting as possible, to destroy the organisms, which '% caused decay while in storage and leave the seed piece free of diseases. Equipment used in the curing experiments consisted of (1) open Wire Jacks (total drying area nearly 600 square feet) under a sheet-iron roof (Fig. 4). The racks consisted of 1-inch hexagonal poultry netting, (2) gwire racks in a barn loft (Fig. 5), and (3) a small experimental hot-air drier with a capacity of about 1200 pounds of fresh garlic (Figs. 5-7 ). The drier, constructed in the spring of 1936, consisted mainly of a 15- foot vertical chute, 3-feet square inside; a work room, which also housed furnace and fan; and outside stairways and work platforms. In the 8 BULLETIN NO. 651, TEXlAlS AGRICX.4TI,I1‘I,TR'AIJ EXPERIMENT STATION s; . vywiu-vsnz-wfsy Figure 2. Above: Hand cleaning of garlic following curing. Below: Cleaned garlic bulbs ready for grading and the market or storage. original construction, three racks of half-inch hardware cloth were built in through the mass was retarded too much for good drying results. Conse- quently, for the later experiments, these racks were replaced with a HARVEISTING AND CURING OF GARLIC TO PREVENT DECAY 9 Figure 3. Italian (Louisiana) and Texas White (right) strains of garlic showing cured and cleaned bulbs ready for market, also the cloves separated from single bulb of each strain. These separated cloves are the parts used for planting and are referred to as “seed-pieces” or “seed” cloves. Figure 4. Open shed with wire poultry netting racks loaded with garlic bulbs. Note that air may circulate above, below, and around the bulbs, hastening curing and drying. l0 Figure 5 Garlic bulbs drying 0n Wire racks in loft of ham‘ floor also cured Well and did not sweat. BULLETIN NO. 651, TEXAS ‘AAGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The garlic on the trays on the Figure 6. Left: The thermomet garlic drier in ope er at top of drier. foreground and furnace in bac ration; note worke Right: View of in kground.. rs inspecting garlic and checking side of work room showing fan in r0‘ I HARVESTING AND CURING 0F GARLic i=0 PREVENT DECAY i1 FURNACE, rpm, mo STORE ROOM 1° "T SPROCIKET ID. 45 POOR CHAIN METHOD FOR CONTOLLING AND ’ SYNCHRONIZING TRAY CHAINS FLOOR PLAN mo onv ncconomc rneauoucrcn sures N045 HOOK CHAN SECTION A-A /\ TRAYS SECTION C'C SECTION B-B @ C O O ROSS-SECTION OF ~ @ _g*O@3Q uaxrma TUBES atowea’ |2" PIPE 0Q 0O Figure 7. Cross-sectional view 0f experimental garlic drier, showing fan, furnace, lugged chains supporting trays in chute, and method of controlling and synchronizing tray chains. top of the drier. In loading the trays, some 25 pounds of garlic were spread on each tray and lowered with the chains by turning the handle on the worm gear, until the lugs were in position for another tray. This pro- cedure was continued until the chute was filled with about 48 trays. After studying the various types of furnaces available for drying vegetable crops a satisfactory furnace was designed and constructed from sheet metal (Figs. 6 and 7). A total of 24 tubes were made from 18- gauge sheet metal. These tubes were approximately 2 feet long and 4 inches in diameter. End plates, to hold the tubes in position, were made by cutting 24 holes, in a staggered arrangement, in two pieces of sheet metal. After the tubes were welded to the end plates, a housing was built 12 BULLETIN NO. 651, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION around them so that a fan could force air through the tubes into the chute. The air passing through the tubes was heated by large gas burn- ers placed close under the tubes. The flames from the burners passed be- tween and around the tubes. The fumes were conducted away by means of a 6-inch flue extending from the furnace housing through the roof. A fan having a capacity of 2800 cubic feet per minute was used to force air through the furnace tubes, through the garlic and out of the top of the chute (Fig. 7). A small portable Hauck burner was used as the heating unit in 1936 and 1937. This type of burner, however, was not able to furnish a constant heat supply, consequently the in-going air could not be held at a uniform temperature. In 1938 a butane gas system* with two burners was installed. The gas burners could be adjusted so that a fairly uniform temperature was maintained for a 24-hour period. This system required little attention, as the drier was left in operation overnight with- out an attendant. Recording thermometers were installed at both the bottom and top of the drier chute to determine the temperature of the in-going and the out- going air. The temperature of the out-going air and its relative humidity was recorded by a hygrometer installed at the top of the chute (Fig. 8). THIS SIDE OF ROOF l5 HINOED FOR OPCNGNG QECORDWG LEFT oec~ TO EXHAUST TH£RMOM£Tgg uor ma ‘ LE?i___ _ .£il ls. lNSPECTION i' 1 PLATFORM- oooas/i:::: -*- ;€fltAc.cAR $10040 ! l’! i. | , | p U 1 | i? l 4 l '- u A "§l Q rid‘ -‘ §fi° mop ' ; ,5 . , 6' ‘1='»~~ I c/ K M; n a L M.’ " ‘Vif - g ' . "l ,» , ‘m ..»»g. i ¢‘l,, t/;§1Q5p¢¢1e~ h n- l 1 L - P. ,t?' l l ‘l a l} v ‘ Ii , I l l: i P H ,____ Figure 8. Front view (on left) of experimental garlic drier, showing work room, chute, in- spection doors, location of thermometers, stairways ,and work platforms. On right: Side view of garlic drier, showing underside of stairways, chute, and work room. Both the dry and wet bulbs of the hygrometer were mounted over the center of the chute, where the expelled air could flow around them. When the garlic and the chute became thoroughly heated, and reached a constant temperature, there was a difference of about 14 degrees between the in- going and the out-going air." STUDIES WITH GARLIC VARIETIES In order to compare the keeping qualities of different kinds of garlic, a collection of strains and varieties was obtained through the cooperation *This equipment‘ was leased to the Experiment Station by the Edward's Gas Appliance Company, San Antonio, Texas. HARVESTING AND CURING OF GARLIC TO PREVENT DECAY 13 0f the California Agricultural Experiment Station.* Some 0f these types of garlic came from China, India, Bulgaria, Algeria, Germany, Egypt, Yu- goslavia, and Italy. In addition, other strains were obtained such as the Louisiana Italian, Creole, Mexican, and the Texas White. Most of the foreign strains either gave poor yields due to small bulbs, or they matured too late to be of commercial importance. A Manchurian strain, even though it produced a small bulb, matured two to three weeks earlier than the large-bulb Texas White. The Mexican and the Louisiana Italian strains also matured 10 to 15 days earlier than the Texas White variety but they produced small bulbs. The Texas White garlic (possibly a strain of the Creole variety) is the most commonly grown variety in Lavaca and Fay- ette counties of Texas. Certain of the small bulb varieties appeared to decay less readily than some of the larger-bulb types but they usually produced low yields under the conditions at Moulton. Figure 9 shows a close-up view of the thick stemmed, Texas White garlic together with the slender, narrow-leaved Louisiana Italian variety. The Louisiana Italian garlic with slender stalks was ready for harvest much earlier than the Texas White variety with the thick heavy stalk. Figure 9. Two strains of garlic: Texas White on left and early Italian (Louisiana) strain on right. Photograph taken about 2 weeks before harvest of the earlier strain. EFFECTS OF FERTILIZERS ON YIELD Some experiments were conducted in 1937 and 1938 with fertilizer ap- plications to garlic planted on black-land soil near Moulton. In 1937, three different fertilizer formulas were used and applied in the furrow before ‘tVal-ieties of garlic grown in California are described in California Agricultural Extension Service revised circular No. 84. 14 BULLETIN NO. 651, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION planting at the rate of 300, 600, and 900 pounds per acre. Each fertilizer and rate was replicated four times. The highest yield of 1689 pounds per acre was obtained when the 4-12-4 fertilizer was applied at the rate of 900 pounds per acre. This was only slightly better than the yield obtained when 600 and 300 pounds per acre were applied. With 6-12-6 fertilizer, the 300-pound application gave the highest yield while the 900-pound rate gave the lowest yield, 1672 and 1276 pounds per acre, respectively. The 6-18-6 fertilizer applied at the rate of 600 pounds per acre gave the high- est yield of 1628 pounds of garlic per acre as compared to 1381 for the 300-pound rate and 1221 for the 900-pound rate. Plats that received no fertilizer yielded 1601 pounds of garlic per acre—only 83 pounds per acre less than the highest yield obtained for any of the fertilizers and rates of application. This slight increase in yield was not enough to justify the cost of the fertilizer and the labor required for the application. Table 1. Effect of fertilizer on yield of garlic. I937 I 1938 Rate Yield Rate Yield Fertilizer lb. lb. Fertilizer Placement lb. lb. per per per per acre‘ acre acre acre Check None 1601 Check ' None 1438 4-12-4 300 1533 2" to each side 4-12-4 600 1670 4-12-4 and 11/3" below seed S00 1646 4-12-4 900 1689 level? 6-12-6 300 1672 Mixed in soil 6-12-6 600 1502 4-12-4 11%;" below Seed? 800 1382 6-12-6 900 1276 6-18-6 300 1381 Side dressed 5" 6-18-6 600 1628 6-16-6 to each side and 1" 1000 1502 6-18-6 900 1221 below seed level3 ‘Applied in furrow, by hand, before planting November 23, 1936. 2Fertilizer applied with special machine at time of planting October 28, 19737. “Side dressed February l1, 1938. In 1938, the 4-12-4 fertilizer was applied by mixing it with the soil 11/2 inches below the seed and also by applying it two inches to each side and 11/2 inches below the seed level, at the time of planting. It may be seen in Table 1 that the side application at the rate of 800 pounds per acre produced 1646 pounds of garlic per acre. When mixed in the soil be- low the seed the yield was 1382 pounds per acre as compared with 1438 pounds for the check (no fertilizer). Fertilizer (6-16-6) was applied in another test as a side dressing on February 11, 5 inches to each side and one inch below the seed level at the rate of 1000 pounds per acre. Fer- tilizer applied in this manner gave a yield of 1502 pounds of garlic per acre. These results indicate that better results were obtained when the fertilizer was applied to the side and below the seed level, either at the time of planting or as a side dressing. However, the increase of 208 pounds of garlic per acre by the application of fertilizer was not enough to justify the extra expense at the prevailing price that year. These results cannot be taken as conclusive as the tests on the effects of the different fertilizer formulae and rates of application and the effects of the placement of fertilizers were based on one year’s work. HARVESTING AND CURING OF GARLIC TO PREVENT DECAY 15 APPLICATION OF FUNGICIDES IN FURROW In 1936, sulphur and Cuprocide were applied as separate treatments in the furrow at rates 0f 400 and 800 pounds and 200 and 400 pounds per acre respectively. After these chemicals were distributed by hand in the furrow, the garlic cloves were dropped in the same furrow in direct con- tact with the chemical. A sweep was used to fill the furrow and cover the seed and chemical. Plant counts showed that these furrow treatments de- layed germination, reduced the stand materially, and caused lower yields. PRE-PLANTING TREATMENT OF GARLIC CLOVES Experiments were begun in the fall of 1937 to determine the effects of treating the garlic cloves (seed pieces) with chemical disinfectants or fungicides on the stand of plants and possible benefits following harvest of the crop. The chemicals used included sulphur, Cuprocide, Ceresan, mercuric chloride, formaldehyde, Semesan, malachite green, and Phemer- nite. The bulbs were first separated into individual cloves which were then dusted with sulphur, Ceresan, Semesan, and Cuprocide, or dipped for about 1 minute in solutions of mercuric chloride (1:1000), formaldehyde (1 pt. per 15 gal.), malachite green, and Phemernite, and dried before planting. The treatment of garlic cloves for seed appeared in most cases to re- tard and reduce stands as compared with stands obtained with non-treated seed pieces (Table 2). Semesan was the only treatment that gave, on the Table 2. Effect of chemical treatment of garlic seed (cloves) on number of plants per 100 feet of row. l l Phemernite 139 ' l l l l l Treatment ll 1939 yl 1940 ll 1941 1942 1943 l AV. l l l l l l (‘heck _ 143 l 131 151) l » ~-~ , 133 1C9 Sulphur ‘ 144 I 80 l W» a f -— Q i’, l 112 (‘ugivocide l 125 l l~1 l »~ W» l 113 Cuprocide 54 I 126 l 114 l ' K Y I l 120 Ceresan 2'} l 145 l 123 l ~ l ~ - l ~- l 134 Mercuric chloride l 134 l 127 l 126 l - l 147 l 134 Iforinalcleiiyde l 141 l 60 l 133 l —— l ~ ——— l 111 Semesan l 158 l 141 l 152 l - | 1T0 l 155 Malachite green l 148 l 116 l T” y~~a —~~ i‘ 132 l l l l ~ § 141; Iilfl’ average, better stands than the checks. When the various treatments were inspected at the time of emergence it was observed that plants from the Cuprocide, sulphur, mercuric chloride, and formaldehyde showed some- what slower emergence indicating that these treatments retarded germina- tion. The data in Table 3 show that the treatment of the seed-piece did not increase the average yield over that of the checks, although during the period 1938-1940 some treatments showed slightly higher yields than the check. This was apparently due in part to the poor seed stocks that were used before selected seed was available. For the period 1941-1943 none of the treatments gave yields as high as those obtained with non-treated cloves. It was observed that the mature bulbs from the mercuric chloride treatments had a yellowish tinge and that the outer scales of the bulb were loose, somewhat shriveled, partly disintegrated and crumbly. The 16 BULLETIN NO. 651, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION highest average yields were obtained with mercuric chloride, Ceresan, and Semesan (2246, 2183, and 2158 pounds per acre, respectively). The aver- age acre yield for the check, non-treated seed was 2344 pounds per acre, or 98 pounds per acre more than was obtained with the best chemical treatment. Table 3. Effect of treatment of garlic seed (cloves) on yield— pounds per acre. I I I I I I Treatment I 1938 I 1939 1940 1941 I 1942 I 1943 I Av. I I I I I I I I Check I 2303 1932 1281 2722 2379 I 2722 2344 Sulphur I 2149 1978 641 j ———- 1816 Cuprocide I 2031 1620 644 ———- ~—— I l 1645 Cuprocide 54 2029 1469 819 ——— ——— 1653 Ceresan 2% 2432 1995 1355 ——— ——— I 2183 Mercuric chloride I 2540 I 1912 1246 I 2369 233 I 2273 2246 Formaldehyde I —~— 1866 380 I 2440 I ——~ 1562 Semesan I —— I 2363 1274 I 2295 2175 I 2681 2158 Malachite green I —— I 2165 1176 I —— I ——— 1670 Phemernite l ——— I ——— 1250 I 2457 I i I ——— 1854 I Samples of the garlic produced in the various seed-piece treatments were cured in the drier and on racks in the open shed previous to the usual 3% months’ storage period. Table 6 shows that there was a higher percentage of decay for all treatments when the bulbs were dried with hot air than in curing in the open shed. This is attributed to the fact that there was more moisture remaining in the neck of the bulb and in the thin partition skins of the bulbs in the hot air treated lots, a condition more favorable for the development of decay organisms. The lowest percent- ages of decay, following curing in the open shed were found in the mer- curic chloride and Semesan treatments and in the non-treated check. Only the mercuric chloride treatment gave a lower percentage of decay than the check and this difference was not great. It appears from the results obtained, therefore, that chemical treatment of the seed-piece did not in- crease the stands, plant growth or yields and little effect on decay in storage was noted when the seed (cloves) were taken from selected bulbs. VARIOUS METHODS OF CURING GARLIC In an attempt to find a method of curing that would give a uniformly high quality of garlic for the market, experiments were undertaken using several methods of curing. Heating and drying of the bulbs was at first tried. Later, less expensive methods of curing that would be available to farmers were tried, such as that of drying the bulbs on wire racks either in an open shed or in a barn loft (Figs. 4 and 5). For comparison, un- topped garlic bulbs were left in windrows in the field, as was commonly practiced by many growers. Data were collected to show the effects of these methods of curing on the percentage loss by shrinkage in drying, cleaning, and decay in storage. Field Curing of Garlic Certain growers in the Moulton area have made it a practice to leave the garlic plants in piles in the field for a few days following pulling, then hauling them to a meadow or barnyard where the untopped plants were HARVESTING AND "CURING OF GARLIC TO PREVENT DECAY 1'7 spread in windrows and left until dry enough to top and clean. Under these conditions, the garlic did not cure uniformly, as the bulbs underneath were in contact with the damp ground and partially covered, while those on top were exposed to the hot sunshine and subject to scald. Data were . collected on the percentage loss through shrinkage and decay in cleaning and storing of garlic handled in this fashion as compared with the other methods of curing. No data were obtained on the loss of weight during curing as the tops were left on the bulbs until they were ready to be i, cleaned. The garlic was left in the field from 8- to 14 days (Table 4). As Table 4. Average curing time for different treatments of garlic. Method of curing Year On ground On floor On wire On wire In hot-air in field of barn racks in racks in drier ft shed barn (days) (days) (days) (days) (hours) 1931 l —— l --— ~— — l 20 1938 l -— l ~— 32* ~— l 14 1939 l 8 I — l 8 | —- I 18 1940 I l0 l l5 ~ V 24 1941 I 14 l2 I lll 12 29 1942 l 14 ~ l 14 l 14 l 24 1943 I — »~ l 13 l 13 l 24 Av. l 11.5 l 12.0 l 12.6 l 13.0 l 21.9 "-‘Garlic was placed on wire racks without removing tops and there- fore required more time to dry shown in Table 5, the loss in cleaning garlic that was left in the field averaged 12 per cent for the 4-year period 1939-1942. This was 5 percent more than the loss sustained when the garlic was dried in the drier and 6 percent more than the open-shed curing. This higher loss in cleaning of garlic left in the field can be attributed to at least three factors: First, considerable damp soil that could not be shaken off clung to the roots. Second, the husks (or shucks) and roots of the bulbs in contact with the ground were damp. Third, more of the shuck or sheath of the bulb was removed in cleaning because of the damp and stained condition. Many bulbs were often “soil-stained” so deeply that the most careful cleaning did not remove the discoloration. Exposure to damp soil, rains or dew caused the bulbs to become stained and dark brownish in color. The stems were often partially decomposed and ragged under these conditions. In general, a poor quality of marketable garlic resulted from this method of curing. . When garlic was left on the ground to cure, the average shrinkage loss after 31/2 months of storage was 24 per cent for the No. 1 grade and 22 per cent for the No. 2 grade (Table 6). The average loss by this method of curing was almost identical to that of the hot air method, but approximately 2% to 5 per cent more than occurred with either the open shed racks or barn rack methods. This indicates that the garlic left in the field was not dried as thoroughly as comparable lots that were cured in the shed or barn on racks before being placed in storage. In Table 6, it may be seen that there was an average of 9 per cent decay during storage with the No. 1 grade and 6 per cent with the No. 2 grade, when garlic was left in the field to cure. This amount of decay was slightly less than that which occurred with the hot air treatment but 18 BULLETIN NO. 651, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 5. Percentage loss in weight and in curing and cleaning 0f garlic as affected by different methods of curing. On ground On floor of On wire racks On wire racks In hot-air Year in field barn loft in shed in barn drier Cure IClean Cure IClean Cure IClean Cure IClean Cure IClean . I I ' ‘ I I I I 1 19s? I ~ I — I _ ~- I _ ~ » I I _ I 13 , 7 I M I »- , ~ I - I -~ I _ I e I W I 11 I 1o 1939 I - I 11 I _ I _ I 7 I 6 I H I w I 7 I 10 1940 I I 10 I W I ‘A I 25 I e I _ I e I 20 I s 1941 I —— I 15 I 18 I 8 I 24 6 I 23 I 5 I 25 6 1942 I ~— I 1U I —— I —— I 19 I 5 1 2O I 5 I l9 I 5 1943 I v I 1/» I — I ~~ 1s I e I 1s I 7 I 5 I ~ l ) l8 8 I 19 6 20 I I T it was considerably more than occurred when the garlic was cured on racks either in an open shed or in the barn. The high percentage of decay in 1941 was probably due to the heavy rainfall While garlic was on the ground in the field. Curing on Wire Racks in Open Shed In 1938, garlic in both topped and untopped conditions was placed on the wire racks of the open shed dried (Fig. 4) and left for 32 days. This garlic became well cured and kept well, showing a low percentage of decay when held in storage for a period of about 31/2 months. The data in Table 5 show that garlic bulbs cured in the open shed for an average of approximately 13 days lost on the average about 19 per cent moisture. This was 3 per cent more than the amount lost by bulbs dried in the drier with hot air for an average of 21.9 -hours (Tables 4 and 5). This indicates that the bulbs in the open shed dried more thoroughly than those that were cured in the hot air drier. It may be seen in Table 5 that there was approximately 1 per cent less loss in the cleaning of garlic bulbs cured in the open shed than for those dried by hot air. There was very little difference in the loss from cleaning of bulbs that were cured in the open shed and those cured on wire racks in the barn loft. No. 1 grade garlic cured in the open shed lost by shrinkage an average of 19 per cent Table 6. Percentage loss in weight of garlic during 31/2 months of storage as influenced by different methods of curing. On ground On floor of On wire racks On wire racks In hot-air Year in field barn loft in shed in barn drier N0.1* I No. 2 No.1 I No. 2 No.1 I No. 2 No.1 I No. 2 No. l I No. Loss due to shrinkage 1937 e —~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ 24 19 1938 '9” / / // 1 l8 —— > 16 20 1939 3O 30 -—- ~~ 31 29 ‘ ~- 30 21 1940 l7 13 —— —— 11 8 —— —— l6 lo‘ 1941 33 35 29 28 ‘74 21 25 21 26 2) 1942 15 _ 12 —— —— 14 12 14 12 l4 12 1943 ~~- _ —~ ~ — 25 z: 25 19 __41 44 Av. 24 22 29 28 19 18.5 21.3 l7 6 Z4 2 ’ Additional loss due to decay 193s i” ~ ~ ~ < 5 7 ~- 19 32 1939 8 7 ~ — 8 6 W- —- 8 6 1940 4 2 — — 0 1 ~ ~ 1 1 1941 21 15 3 0 2 1 1 0 11 4 1942 l O — ~— O 1 O l O (l 1943 7-» __ 1 — 1 O 0 0 l6 28 Av. I s» s s I 11 I a I a 0.4 11.4 9 1: "Grade of garlic. HARVESTING AND CURING OF GARLIC TO PREVENT DECAY 19 in. 3% months’ storage. This was a slightly lower amount than occurred with any of the other methods of curing (Table 6). The shrinkage for ‘the No. 2 grade was also lower except for that cured on wire racks in the barn loft. This again indicates that the bulbs wiere more thoroughly dried 1n the open shed. In storage, the average loss from decay following this treatment was about the same (3 per cent) for both the No. 1 and No. 2 grades of garlic (Table 6). Lots of comparable bulbs dried by hot air lost 9 and 12 per cent of their weight respectively for the No. 1 and 2 grades. _ Curing in Earn Loft On wire racks: liixtieriments on the drying of garlic on wire racks in a barn were undertaken in order’ to compare results obtained by drying in an enclosed building with those obtained in the open shed. The use of a barn might also make unnecessary the construction of a drying shed which might be used for only two or three weeks each year. Several hundred. pounds of garlic was cured on wire racks inside the barn (Fig. 5) each. year during the period 1941-1943. A study of the data in Table 5 shows: that garlic bulbs kept on wire racks in a barn for 13 days lost on the average 20 per cent of its original weight through loss of moisture. This was only slightly less (1 per cent) than the amount lost by comparable bulbs in the open shed, indicating that the rate of drying may be slightly slower in the barn. This difference, however, was not consistent, as in 1942 there Was slightly greater loss in the barn than in the shed. There was very little difference in the loss by cleaning of bulbs cured in the open shed and those cured in the barn (Table 5). Examination of the data in Table 6, considering only the 3-year period 1941-1943, shows that there is also but little difference in the shrinkage of garlic bulbs when cured in an open shed and in a barn. This was true for both the No. 1 and No. 2 grades. Garlic cured by these two methods showed less shrink- age while in storage for 31/2 months than the garlic cured either in the drier, in the barn, or left in the field. _ Decay in storage (Table 6), for the 3-year period 1941-1943, was slightly less when the garlic was cured by drying on racks in a barn than in the open shed, or by any other method. On floor: Garlic growers in Lavaca and Fayette counties often place their garlic on the floor of a barn loft, after cleaning, to allow it to dry before marketing. It was observed that garlic treated in this manner was often brownish in color, instead of clear-White as desired by buyers. There- fore, in 1941, several hundred pounds of garlic was spread three to four bulbs thick on the loft floor of a barn, The walls of the barn were not tight as there was no batten over the cracks between the vertical 12-inch boards. Doors on a level with the floor on the south and north sides were left open for ventilation. When the garlic was removed 12 days later it was so damp from condensed moisture (sweating) that it was carried to the drier and dried for about two hours before it could be readily cleaned. The bulbs were brownish in color and gave a poor appearance after clean- _ing. The sweating of the bulbs was apparently due to several factors; lack of circulation of air under and through the bulbs; high moisture from bulbs underneath. Sweating can be prevented by construction of a false- floor of either slats or wire some 2 or 3 inches above the regular floor so 20 BULLETIN NO. 651, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION that air can circulate under and through the bulbs, permitting the escape of evaporated moisture. In these studies, hardware-cloth trays that kept the bulbs about 1 inch off the floor prevented sweating and allowed the garlic to cure “Yell in 1942 and 1943. Drying Experiments with Artificial Heat Preliminary tests with an incubator. In 1935 several hundred pounds of garlic furnished by the merchants of Moulton, Texas, were placed in a Buck-Eye #34 incubator as an emergency measure. The incubator was heated by a hot water coil about which the air was circulated by three twelve-inch fans. These fans merely circulated the air within the incu- bator and did not exhaust the air sufficiently to carry away the moisture from the surface of the garlic. The temperature within the incubator averaged about 10 degrees F. above room temperature. The highest tem- perature obtained in any part of the incubator for any length of time was 102 degrees F; The temperature in the room ranged from 85° F. during the night to 97° during the afternoon. As the incubator was poorly ventilated the garlic was merely heated without sufficient air velocity to carry the moisture out of the incubator. As a result, the garlic subjected to this treatment from 10 to 24 hours showed only a slight loss of moist- ure (3 per cent for bulbs with tops removed, and less than 5 per cent from the garlic with the tops remaining on the bulbs). This test showed than an incubator as such, was not suitable for drying of such material as garlic. Drying with experimental drier in 1936: The experimental drier con- structed at Moulton in the spring of 1936 was used in a number of experi- ments with garlic to determine the range of temperatures that could be safely used Without injury to the market quality. As no garlic was grown by the Station that season, several hundred pounds were purchased on the open market for experimental purposes. The garlic purchased, some of which had not been topped, evidently was har- vested before it reached maturity, as the tops were still green. In drying this rather green garlic with temperatures ranging from 130° to 170° F. the more immature bulbs, after drying for 2 or 3 hours, took on a green- ish-blue tinge, but after 8 or 9 hours when they became fairly dry most of the discoloration had disappeared. At the higher temperatures a yellow- ish sticky substance exuded from the stems of the bulbs. This, however, did not occur with the more mature bulbs. With the greener bulbs, after the outer surface and the cut end of the stem appeared to be dry, a watery liquid could still be squeezed out of the neck, indicating that moisture was removed very slowly from inside the bulb and stem during the drying process. At the higher temperatures, particularly after 4 or 5 hours’ dry- ing, the smaller bulbs began to look as if they were partially cooked. When the garlic, dried at temperatures above 140° F., was stored for a few days, it disintegrated, soon developed an offensive odor, making it neces- sary to discard the entire lot. Table 7 shows that garlic dried at 110° to 120° F. for 16 to 24 hours kept fairly well. These data indicate that tem- peratures could not be used much higher than 125° F. It also appeared that it might be better to commence drying at 100° to 110° F. and grad- ually raise the temperature to around 120° F. at which it should be main- pcsofis can. .882? on» we wzn? 23 was 22% 23 v8 powmww mcmoou 23 25 wowsmu ww>> menu wmnmv .mwmH-vmmH wowwwm »wwm-:w>@w wn» now ww@~wmw vfi we fin wfiowé... Q5 was wfiowé m5 nwmz/Qwn wpspmpomfiw» E Q82. .8 oonopww 4E0 wwmfiz/w cw £26 20.325. wm mmgmww omH “Eons is wfiowé m5 we 35. 8.623225 wwsfirww 23 592 op swamp ma? was“. £53 ucosvownsm 2s E dpomwnwsm. $822,228 33 m cs5 v.85 .3.“ Hm wmofiwww ma.“ .$>o $.25 569:3 3 wwpuwwasm Mn 2.2.22.2: mm 359$ mfisn 22.8w wwawwim: bswwfi 22s wwaém £2 5 a 8 w $22.: 22% 2fi=wewwmxw 2: ass 2&2 mwmvspw zascubmwun mam. "mwmfiémmfi 32w _wficwim.~wnxo at? 3E5? .3. wish; 2.92202. zzwfifiwm .8 >238. w?» was» 25.2% mo pcsofiw o5 van 25% 35cm mo pcsofim map nwmmiwoww S wwiow w?» 33w mi was wwfifipopow ma? wwwuopm 3E3. pswww? 5 $2 wfi 6E5 2%. p4 QQQOQQQ is: wosm =28 cw i 353w was coSfim wwwsov B swxwa 98.5 wcrfiw hfiww zoom E32. pom 3w ps5 02.5w we $2 2E. 622GB d . w w . g w 6 e 1 m d. m Jw 1 de. dk. , mgM m wd _... dar a r .n md w. dw. la 1d d ddm .w. la r s w d. eb .m m . mwew. f _ a yd k-lb M m reofié .3 . h e d“; dbdmmdam am. n R bWredvfldOeme ca i. 1 apelaop r nn upeprflbgniwo ai r Pr... bamawn yasw a.m_ all u Mm amwmmflmflw 20 Z ektkarowknddpt f dsmssoflrsaylalo. o mn nbdamnnlrr cldllloc ilildo-ld 8 uhihuocphkaoaa m OTDTBGOATSBPFB T. u l7 l» 1111111 c dw l1 n h1g1 o 06780999661700 0 uruoam/ 07470586887788 E m?“ 1| |1ii|\| I1l|i\ M wk 213ou1W33426869 f. mm, o 0 Si! 1 ‘‘‘‘ 71111171114 1 11‘ 117111771 % d MW . , 1 0 . rosmfll4040wuj4uu7>l .1 Ldb -»--v-¢.--- O H L aunojflnennv5rdmm_%n/a. 1. D. . 1 1 ¢|| 11,111-], w H g a an 5..,U.A5.JJ.b.2nW£v_.J0.0. r .... m an unmwmuwwmnwwmm w. m. _ AM 1111122222 M m m i111} »»»» 1 w D. 0g . 1 . m e rn UMJJb5JD9TQQANbO2/Hfl g e W r011 510351300327090 f. 8V. 24092420224545 d c1 BM 1 111.119.97.420. n O Fa kSt S l 3n. 1.0K u u w Mwww w www P108 M11 YR %1%1111%_1%o0u111 o 10 E w, 1=“,ln.E.u&0_l.~_,110_.m~0_ wtz D 9 2901 9 211 1a] 7. 1 11 111 £31m ar. e .ud m H“ mwm d 1. T bww mh.r 2-64566U0r06019u2 Vt ufd 11112247 IQNH W0 1. ,1 8 W