International Journal of Horticulture, 2017, Vol.7, No. 19, 154-162
157
Table 3 Interaction effect of different packaging methods used for transportation on spoilage (%) of apple after one month storage
(5±1°C and 95% RH) during 2013-2014
Packaging Methods
Fruit Stalk
Without Fruit Stalk
Ventilation
Without Ventilation Ventilation
Without Ventilation
Deck Plate
Styrofoam
3.92
4.70
1.85
2.62
Without Styrofoam
6.79
8.36
3.63
5.24
Without Deck Plate
Styrofoam
6.78
7.57
5.49
6.09
Without Styrofoam
11.20
12.75
9.38
10.67
Grand Mean 6.99
CV (%) 16.02
LSD (0.05) 2.02
Table 4 Interaction effect of different packaging methods used for transportation on acceptable damage (%) of apple fruits after one
month storage ((5±1°C and 95% RH) during 2013-2014
Packaging Methods
Fruit Stalk
Without Fruit Stalk
Ventilation
Without Ventilation Ventilation Without Ventilation
Deck Plate
Styrofoam
1.58
1.83
1.55
2.09
Without Styrofoam
4.85
3.64
4.72
4.40
Without Deck Plate
Styrofoam
2.85
2.07
2.85
2.52
Without Styrofoam
6.78
6.80
6.77
6.79
Grand Mean 3.88
CV (%) 46.14
SD (0.05) 2.97
Table 5 Interaction effect of different packaging methods used for transportation on equivalent loss (%) of apple fruits after one
month storage (5±1°C and 95% RH) during 2013-2014
Packaging Methods
Fruit Stalk
Without Fruit Stalk
Ventilation
Without Ventilation
Ventilation Without Ventilation
Deck Plate
Styrofoam
0.40
0.47
0.40
0.54
Without Styrofoam
1.24
0.94
1.20
1.13
Without Deck Plate
Styrofoam
0.74
0.63
0.74
0.65
Without Styrofoam
1.74
1.75
1.72
1.74
Grand Mean 1.00
CV (%) 46.19
LSD (0.05) 0.76
Table 6 Interaction effect of different packaging methods used for transportation on total postharvest loss (%) of apple fruits after
one month storage (5±1°C and 95% RH) during 2013-2014
Packaging Methods
Fruit Stalk
Without Fruit Stalk
Ventilation
Without Ventilation
Ventilation Without Ventilation
Deck Plate
Styrofoam
5.77
6.34
3.82
4.32
Without Styrofoam
9.63
10.78
6.44
7.77
Without Deck Plate
Styrofoam
9.00
9.45
7.67
8.04
Without Styrofoam
14.60
18.20
12.77
13.95
Grand Mean 9.14
CV (%) 11.03
LSD (0.05) 1.27
3.2 Fruit damage (%)
Fruit damage was categorized to total fruit damage, marketable fruit damage and unmarketable fruit damage
(spoilage). All the imposed treatments had significant effect on total damage, acceptable damage and spoilage
loss of fruits (Table 2; Table 3; Table 4; Table 7). The trend of damage for all three parameters was similar with
