CHEMICALS FOR CONTROL OF POSTHARVEST DECAY OF VEGETABLES

When I began thinking of this paper, my original preconception was that this is a much neglected area of research. Then as an evaluation of current literature developed, I had some doubts about the original thoughts when the review of Eckert and Sommer (2), for example, contained 327 references. Closer examination, however, reveals that much of the research that has been reported was concerned with the responsible pathogens per se or with products horticulturally classified as fruits.

This apparent disparity of effort exists in spite of estimates placing postharvest losses of vegetables due to decay in the hundreds of millions of dollars in the United States. World wide-estimates of losses for specific vegetables range upward to 30 to 50 per cent of the crop produced. In this era of population pressures, food needs, and the obvious but often overlooded role of vegetables in meeting dietary requirements, such losses are intolerable.

Decay losses of vegetables arriving in Pittsburg, Pa., during the period 1957 to 1961 were compiled from estimates by the USDA (18) as follows:

		Decay
Product	Maximum%	Average%	Predominant Cause
Asparagus	44	3	BSR, Phytophtora
Beans, Snap	44	8	Sclerotinia, Rhizoctonia
Broccolli	10	0.5	BSR, Botrytis
Brussels Spr.	39	2	BSR
Cabbage	26	1	BSR
Carrots	50	1(12)x	BSR
Celery	50	2	Sclerotinia, BSR
Cucumbers	24	2	BSR, Phythium
Escarole	50	17	BSR
Lettuce	50	3	BSR
Muskmelon	50	1	Cladosporium
Onions	50	4	BSR, Botrytis
Peppers	50	3	BSR, Rhizopus
Potatoes	50	1	BSR
Strawberries	50	5	Botrytis, Rhizopus
Tomatoes	50	1.5(12)xx	BSR, Rhizopus, Alternaria

x Storage for 2–4 months for processing

xx Ripening and repacking