o 



from a regular 32 storage were wiped sufficiently to remove visible residue. 



Treatment A consisted of six groups of five apples 3 to 3-1/4 inches in diameter. 

 An equal number of apples was left unwiped for checks. Treatment B was composed 

 of twenty-two apples 2-1/2 to 2-3/4 inches in diameter. A similar number of 

 apples was left unwiped. Treatment C consisted of six groups of six apples 2-3/4 

 to 3 inches in diameter. Each group of apples was placed in polyethylene bags. 

 Similar lots of apples were used for checks. 



The fruits were pressure tested at the beginning and end of the demonstration. 

 The amount of moisture loss was determined daily from January 11 to 18. Table 1 

 shows the pressure tests and percentage of weight loss from the wiped and unwiped 

 apples. It can be noted that wiped fruit lost weight more rapidly than unwiped 

 stock. 



At the end of the demonstration there was no difference in flesh firmness as 

 indicated by the pressure tester or any observable difference except for cleanli- 

 ness between the wiped and unwiped apples. 



Table 1 - Fruit firmness and per cent weight loss from wiped and unwiped U. S. 



Fancy Mcintosh Apples left at room temperature from January 11-18, 1961 



Treatment Fruit Firmness % Total Weight 7. Increase 



Lost Jan. 11-18 Over Unwiped 



Fruit 



A. unwiped 3 to 3-1/4" apples 9.4 8.9 4.08) 



A. wiped 3 to 3-1/4" apples 9.4 8.7 4.33) 



B. unwiped 2-1/2 to 2-3/4" apples 9.5 8.4 4.84) 



B.wiped 2-1/2 to 2-3/4" apples 9.5 8.5 5.27)" * 



C. unwiped 2-3/4 to 3" apples in 



polyethylene bags 9.5 8.3* 2.92) 



C. wiped 2-3/4 to 3" apples in ) 9.2 



polyethylene bags 9.5 8.1* 3.19) 



♦Pressure tested January 23, 1961 



II Machine, Wiping - CA Apples 



The demonstration was repeated on March 15, 1961 using U. S. Fancy CA 

 Mcintosh apples. Selected lots of 2-1/2 to 2-3/4 inch and 2-3/4 to 3 inch apples 

 were placed on the receiving table of a commercial grader and were allowed to 

 pass under a rotating cloth wiper. The apples were recovered after passing 

 through the wiper. Any fruit damaged in the process were eliminated. 



Twelve groups of six apples of each size (2-1/2 to 2-3/4 and 2-3/4 to 3 

 inches) that had been wiped were placed on a table at room temperature after 

 weighing. An equal number of unwiped apples was used as checks. The demonstr- 

 tional set-up was repeated with apples placed in polyethylene bags. 



The 2-1/2 to 2-3/4 inch apples pressure tested 12.3 pounds and the 2-3/4 to 

 3 inch fruit 11.4 pounds at the beginning of the demonstration. 



Table 2 shows that there was no consistent difference in moisture loss or 



