Harvest and postharvest factors.

2021 ◽  
pp. 268-290
Author(s):  
Lynette Morgan
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Agricultural Practices ◽  
Greenhouse Crops ◽  
Postharvest Handling ◽  
Fresh Cut ◽  
Safety Systems ◽  
Harvest Maturity ◽  
And Storage ◽  
Robotic Harvesting

Abstract This chapter discusses harvest and postharvest factors. Harvesting involves the gathering or removal of a mature crop, with minimum damage and losses, from where it has been grown and transporting it on either for direct consumption or into the postharvest handling chain for further storage and distribution. Determination of harvest maturity, hand harvesting, robotic harvesting of greenhouse crops, postharvest handling, grading and storage, fresh-cut salad processing, shelf-life evaluation, packaging, postharvest cooling, postharvest handling damage, GAP - Good Agricultural practices in Postharvest Handling, postharvest storage, postharvest disorders, food safety and hygiene, ready-to-eat, minimally processed produce, certification and food safety systems, and postharvest developments are also discussed.

Harvest and postharvest factors.

2021 ◽  
pp. 268-290
Author(s):  
Lynette Morgan
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Agricultural Practices ◽  
Greenhouse Crops ◽  
Postharvest Handling ◽  
Fresh Cut ◽  
Safety Systems ◽  
Harvest Maturity ◽  
And Storage ◽  
Robotic Harvesting

Abstract This chapter discusses harvest and postharvest factors. Harvesting involves the gathering or removal of a mature crop, with minimum damage and losses, from where it has been grown and transporting it on either for direct consumption or into the postharvest handling chain for further storage and distribution. Determination of harvest maturity, hand harvesting, robotic harvesting of greenhouse crops, postharvest handling, grading and storage, fresh-cut salad processing, shelf-life evaluation, packaging, postharvest cooling, postharvest handling damage, GAP - Good Agricultural practices in Postharvest Handling, postharvest storage, postharvest disorders, food safety and hygiene, ready-to-eat, minimally processed produce, certification and food safety systems, and postharvest developments are also discussed.

Food Safety on the Farm: Good Agricultural Practices and Good Handling Practices – Packing Operation Sanitation

EDIS ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesscia A. Lepper ◽  
Aswathy Sreedharan ◽  
Renée Goodrich Schneider ◽  
Keith R. Schneider
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Fruits And Vegetables ◽  
Agricultural Practices ◽  
Good Agricultural Practices ◽  
Produce Safety ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
Safety Rule ◽  
Handling Practices ◽  
Voluntary Program ◽  
Federal Guidelines

Good agricultural practices (GAPs) and good handling practices (GHPs) encompass the general procedures that growers, packers and processors of fresh fruits and vegetables should follow to ensure the safety of their product. GAPs usually deal with preharvest practices (i.e., in the field), while GHPs cover postharvest practices, including packing, storage and shipping. This factsheet covers GAPs relating to packing operation sanitation. There are seven other Florida Cooperative Extension factsheets in the ‘Food Safety on the Farm’ series that focus on specific aspects of the GAPs program and how they relate to Florida crops and practices. Under the new Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), GAPs are a foundation of the Produce Safety Rule (PSR). Other than for round tomatoes in Florida (T-GAPs regulation), GAPs have mainly been a voluntary program. Additionally the PSR mandates all non-exempt operations to follow these new FSMA federal guidelines (6), but all exempt commodities and for those producers exporting to foreign countries, GAPs may still be required. Both the mandatory PSR and GAPs aim to reduce the foodborne illness burden associated with produce.

“My Roommates Would Laugh at me”: Young Males Reveal Embarrassment over Lack of Food Skills

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Kristen Simonds ◽  
Lucy Yixuan Zhang ◽  
June I. Matthews
Keyword(s):  
Young Adults ◽  
Food Safety ◽  
Parental Influence ◽  
Comparative Method ◽  
Food Selection ◽  
Young Men ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Young Males ◽  
Solid Foundation ◽  
And Storage

Purpose: This descriptive qualitative study explored young males’ perceptions of food skills in 3 domains: food selection and planning, food preparation, and food safety and storage. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method. Results: Forty-four young men (aged 17–35) reported varying levels of food skills, from little/no confidence to very confident and skilled. Most participants learned food skills from their mothers. Greater involvement in food selection and planning at a young age appeared to be related to parental influence and encouragement, exposure to food skills at school, and interest in food-related activities, which, in turn, provided a solid foundation for being confident cooks as young adults. Most notable was the lack of knowledge about, or confidence in, food safety and storage. Young men with low self-perceived food skills were deeply embarrassed about this deficiency in front of peers who had higher levels of confidence and skills. Conclusions: Future interventions or curricula should emphasize food safety and storage. This research also illustrates the importance of the home environment in teaching food skills to youth and ensuring that food skills are taught well before young adults begin living independently.

scholarly journals Microbial Biocontrol as an Alternative to Synthetic Fungicides: Boundaries between Pre- and Postharvest Applications on Vegetables and Fruits

Fermentation ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 60
Author(s):  
Vincenzo Michele Sellitto ◽  
Severino Zara ◽  
Fabio Fracchetti ◽  
Vittorio Capozzi ◽  
Tiziana Nardi
Keyword(s):  
Crop Production ◽  
Fruits And Vegetables ◽  
Control Plant ◽  
Agricultural Practices ◽  
Plant Diseases ◽  
Postharvest Quality ◽  
Crucial Point ◽  
Production Chain ◽  
Vegetables And Fruits ◽  
And Storage

From a ‘farm to fork’ perspective, there are several phases in the production chain of fruits and vegetables in which undesired microbial contaminations can attack foodstuff. In managing these diseases, harvest is a crucial point for shifting the intervention criteria. While in preharvest, pest management consists of tailored agricultural practices, in postharvest, the contaminations are treated using specific (bio)technological approaches (physical, chemical, biological). Some issues connect the ‘pre’ and ‘post’, aligning some problems and possible solution. The colonisation of undesired microorganisms in preharvest can affect the postharvest quality, influencing crop production, yield and storage. Postharvest practices can ‘amplify’ the contamination, favouring microbial spread and provoking injures of the product, which can sustain microbial growth. In this context, microbial biocontrol is a biological strategy receiving increasing interest as sustainable innovation. Microbial-based biotools can find application both to control plant diseases and to reduce contaminations on the product, and therefore, can be considered biocontrol solutions in preharvest or in postharvest. Numerous microbial antagonists (fungi, yeasts and bacteria) can be used in the field and during storage, as reported by laboratory and industrial-scale studies. This review aims to examine the main microbial-based tools potentially representing sustainable bioprotective biotechnologies, focusing on the biotools that overtake the boundaries between pre- and postharvest applications protecting quality against microbial decay.

Comparing the Microbiological Status of Pre- and Postharvest Produce from Small Organic Production

2015 ◽  
Vol 78 (6) ◽  
pp. 1072-1080 ◽  
Author(s):  
AIXIA XU ◽  
DONNA M. PAHL ◽  
ROBERT L. BUCHANAN ◽  
SHIRLEY A. MICALLEF
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Organic Production ◽  
Wash Water ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Organic Farms ◽  
Production Scale ◽  
Safety Risk ◽  
Leafy Greens ◽  
Postharvest Handling ◽  
Food Safety Risk

Consumption of locally, organically grown produce is increasing in popularity. Organic farms typically produce on a small scale, have limited resources, and adopt low technology harvest and postharvest handling practices. Data on the food safety risk associated with hand harvesting, field packing, and packing-house handling with minimal treatment, at this production scale, are lacking. We followed produce from small organic farms from the field through postharvest handling and packing. Pre- and postharvest produce (177 samples) and water (29 samples) were collected and analyzed quantitatively for Escherichia coli, total coliforms (TC), aerobic bacteria (APC), yeasts, molds (M), and enteric pathogens. No pathogens were recovered. E. coli was detected in 3 (3.6%) of 83 preharvest produce samples, 2 (6.3%) of 32 unwashed and 0 of 42 washed postharvest produce samples, and 10 (34.5%) of 29 water samples. No correlation was found between bacterial levels in irrigation water and those on produce. Postharvest handling without washing was a factor for APC and M counts on tomatoes, with lower frequencies postharvest. Postharvest handling with washing was a factor for leafy greens for TC counts, with higher frequencies postharvest. APC (P = 0.03) and yeast (P = 0.05) counts were higher in preharvest than in unwashed postharvest tomatoes. Washed postharvest leafy greens had higher M counts (P = 0.03) and other washed produce had higher TC counts (P = 0.01) than did their preharvest counterparts. Barriers were found to the use of sanitizer in wash water for leafy greens among small farms using organic practices. Hand harvesting and dry handling did not appear to be associated with a significant food safety risk, but washed leafy greens carried higher levels of some microbial indicators, possibly because of the lack of sanitizer in the wash water. The development of resources and materials customized for this sector of growers could enhance dissemination of information on best practices for handling of leafy greens.

scholarly journals Optimising storage conditions and processing of sheep urine for nitrogen cycle and gaseous emission measurements from urine patches

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice F. Charteris ◽  
Karina A. Marsden ◽  
Jess R. Evans ◽  
Harry A. Barrat ◽  
Nadine Loick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Freeze Drying ◽  
Storage Conditions ◽  
Chemical Components ◽  
Gaseous Emissions ◽  
Gaseous Emission ◽  
Grazing Systems ◽  
And Storage ◽  
Sheep Urine ◽  
Country Specific

AbstractIn grazing systems, urine patches deposited by livestock are hotspots of nutrient cycling and the most important source of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. Studies of the effects of urine deposition, including, for example, the determination of country-specific N2O emission factors, require natural urine for use in experiments and face challenges obtaining urine of the same composition, but of differing concentrations. Yet, few studies have explored the importance of storage conditions and processing of ruminant urine for use in subsequent gaseous emission experiments. We conducted three experiments with sheep urine to determine optimal storage conditions and whether partial freeze-drying could be used to concentrate the urine, while maintaining the constituent profile and the subsequent urine-derived gaseous emission response once applied to soil. We concluded that filtering of urine prior to storage, and storage at − 20 °C best maintains the nitrogen-containing constituent profile of sheep urine samples. In addition, based on the 14 urine chemical components determined in this study, partial lyophilisation of sheep urine to a concentrate represents a suitable approach to maintain the constituent profile at a higher overall concentration and does not alter sheep urine-derived soil gaseous emissions.

scholarly journals Determination of the Chemical Composition of Tea by Chromatographic Methods: A Review

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandr Ya Yashin ◽  
Boris V. Nemzer ◽  
Emilie Combet ◽  
Yakov I. Yashin
Keyword(s):  
Chemical Composition ◽  
Volatile Compounds ◽  
Black Tea ◽  
Storage Conditions ◽  
Organoleptic Evaluation ◽  
Chromatographic Methods ◽  
Tea Quality ◽  
Processing And Storage ◽  
And Storage

<p>Despite the fact that mankind has been drinking tea for more than 5000 years, its chemical composition has been studied only in recent decades. These studies are primarily carried out using chromatographic methods. This review summarizes the latest information regarding the chemical composition of different tea grades by different chromatographic methods, which has not previously been reviewed in the same scope. Over the last 40 years, the qualitative and quantitative analyses of high volatile compounds were determined by GC and GC/MS. The main components responsible for aroma of green and black tea were revealed, and the low volatile compounds basically were determined by HPLC and LC/MS methods. Most studies focusing on the determination of catechins and caffeine in various teas (green, oolong, black and pu-erh) involved HPLC analysis.</p> <p>Knowledge of tea chemical composition helps in assessing its quality on the one hand, and helps to monitor and manage its growing, processing, and storage conditions on the other. In particular, this knowledge has enabled to establish the relationships between the chemical composition of tea and its properties by identifying the tea constituents which determine its aroma and taste. Therefore, assessment of tea quality does not only rely on subjective organoleptic evaluation, but also on objective physical and chemical methods, with extra determination of tea components most beneficial to human health. With this knowledge, the nutritional value of tea may be increased, and tea quality improved by providing via optimization of the growing, processing, and storage conditions.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document