POSTHARVEST TREATMENT AND INDUSTRIAL PROCESSING

A. Monzini, F. Gorini
The authors deal with the problem of postharvest treatments of peaches, in relation with the situation of main producing countries, for marketing purposes.

With this aim, the physiologic characteristics of peach, and its susceptibility to specific disorders and to pathogenic diseases are reviewed.

The behaviour of this fruit during the storage or during different marketing situations, and an outline of packaging and transport techniques are reported.

In a separate chapter the problems of clingstone peaches, their most requested qualities, the problems of their production are discussed.

Peach is becoming the most important fruit for processing, also because it is fit for developing new technologies and new derived products.

The peach is undoubtedly the most admirable fruit among those grown in the temperate zone; it is as tasty and handsome as frail and nondurable. Hence it is a nonpreservable fruit if compared to the apple, whose capability for being preserved is—under certain conditions—outstanding.

If we compare the metabolic pace of the peach with that of the apple, we can ascertain that at 20°C it respires 2.2 times more intensely, at 10°C 2.6 times, whilst at 0°C its respiration intensity is as much as 3 times greater. If we develop a diagram (figure 1) where respiratory intensity is compared with the basic one (respiratory activity at 0°C), we can ascertain that the activity of the peach remains in any case greater than that of the apple, save at temperatures ranging from 0°C to 5°C, where its respiration activity is lesser. It is a remarkable fact that just at these temperatures this fruit is affected by substantially serious metabolic troubles.

Ever since 1929 had Scurti and Pavarino (1930–1931) ascertained the presence of a deep metabolic disorder called breakdown. The Authors highlighted—by way of histo-chemical analyses—its phenomenology caused

Monzini, A. and Gorini, F. (1985). POSTHARVEST TREATMENT AND INDUSTRIAL PROCESSING. Acta Hortic. 173, 449-472
DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.1985.173.52
https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1985.173.52

Acta Horticulturae