PRECOOLING OF FRUIT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 28 May 1930, Page 3

PRECOOLING OF FRUIT

DISCUSSED BY ORCHARDISTS ADDRESS RV MR SUTHERLAND At a meeting of representatives of the fruitgrowing industry held yesterday at tile instance of the Advisory Hoard to discuss matters relating to cool, storage, Mr Sutherland, cool storage expert from Australia, who has recently been attached to the Horticultural Division of the Agricultural, Department, gave an address on precooling of fruit. Mr Dicker, chairman of the Advisory Board, was in the chair. At the morning session Air Dicker explained that the meeting had been called as the outcome of a resolution of the Harbour Board asking for a conference with representatives of the industry in connection with providing additional facilities for the handling of fruit.

At the afternoon session Mr Sutherland gave iiis address. The question of precooling, said Mr Sutherland, had been discussed for many years, but up to the present time the advisability of pre-cooling had not been fully appreciated. They were in the same stage as they were many years ago, when many growers took the point of view that because fruit could be held in their barns for a considerable period precooling was not a necessity. They had got to take into consideration conditions prevailing on board ship, where large quantities of fruit were stowed closely together in a refrigerator, efficient to refrigerate produce, but was not capable of reducing the temperature of fruit rapidly. 11l discussing the possibility of building a large shed it had to be taken into consideration that large quantities of fruit stowed closely perspired very rapidly and produced heat. In building a shed to hold 75,000 to 80,000 cases, to reduce that quantity of fruit to 35degs, in 24 hours it would take approximately 500 tons of refrigeration. If a shed was erected to hold that quantity growers would be courting disaster, as by the time it was removed some of it would be overripe. The only way to overcome this difficulty, therefore, was to build a cool store of not less than 50,000 cases capacity for Nelson, and a larger one if financial conditions allowed. But to adopt any other scheme than a cool store or precooling depot would, he thought, be courting disaster. A boat might be delayed a week and the fruit would have to stay there to its detriment. The main aim should be lo place fruit on board a ship in ideal conditions, and not ask the ship to produce ideal conditions because it was impossible for it to do so. If precooling was adopted there would he no doubt" about it landing on the Home market in good condition. At present only a portion of the fruit was procooled, and the portion was assisting the non-precooling portion. It was really necessary that a condition should he brought about safeguarding the whole of the industry. Emit had to he transported to sheds under variable conditions. and it was absolutely necessary that it should be precooled. The question was, what was required for Nelson? In the first place they had to take into consideration the number of vessels. Was it necessary to build a cool store where fruit could be concentrated at the port ready for each vessel as it arrived? Nelson would not get additional vessels unless preceding stores were erected. If ibis was done there would be the possibility of 'getting other vessels to come here. Larger steamers would be built in the future, and this meant improvements to the wharves and harbour. If facilities were not provided he did not think'additional steamers would visit the port. The Chairman: If fruit is coming forward in such large quantities so rapidly is there any necessity for stoi--age? Is there any real danger of deterioration of fruit if put in the ship straight away? Mr Sutherland replied that if fruit came forward at the rate of 12,000 cases a day the ship’s refrigerating machinery could not reduce the temperature rapidly enough. Therefore if precooled it would go into the hold in ideal condition.

DIFFERENCE OF OPINION In the course of a subsequent discussion it was stated that excellent results bad been obtained from fruit which bad gone Home without being precooled. In reply to this it- was stated that better results still might be obtained if the fruit was precooled. Mr Thorp (orchard instructor) urged that, from a departmental point of view, tlie first thing to do was to obtain additional shed accommodation. What was wanted was a shed big enough to receive fruit, stack it up for the various ports, and then bo inspected. Til reply to a question as to what about rejected fruit, Mr Thorp, replied that this season it amounted to only 2.04 per cent. Nelson could assemble snflieient fruit to load a vessel every ten davs in the season.

Mr Chisnall said that science had proved that precooling was necessary. Mr McKee: Only a portion of the fruit is being precooled. He added that the urgent necessity was to have a shed on the wharf for next season. Nelson so far had not suffered any loss from the lack of precooling facilities. There were facilities in the district for the precooling of -85,000 cases. He moved “That the Harbour Board he requested to proceed with the erection of a concrete store at Nelson wharf in which a minimum of 75,000 bushel cases can be handled, such shed to be ready for use by the end of January next; and that if possible provision lie made for the erection of a cool store at a later date.” The chairman said he had authority for saying that if the Board provided the facilities additional ships would be sent to Nelson.

Mr Nottage seconded Hie motion, as lie considered no time should be lost in going on with the shed. As to a cool store, he suggested that, the Control Hoard had the necessary power to finance such an undertaking.

ATTITUDE OF CONTROL BOARD

At the suggestion of the chairman, Mr Hubert.son, acting-chairman of the Control Hoard, who was present, addressed the meeting at this stage. He remarked that in the local press there, had appeared an article which stated that the Control Hoard was now taking a bettor view, or something to that effect, concerning loading at Nelson. "Eighty from the beginning, and never at any time,” continued the speaker, “have we opposed the loading at Nelson. Every member of the Board has always been very willing to have loading done at Nelson. Arrangements were made with the Wellington Harbour Board and we bad trouble in making those arrange ments. as it did not want the business and we iiad to push them to make arrangements for a cool store. ’ Mr

Robertson wont on to oxplnin how tlu’ Board had helped flawkes Bay growers to finance an assembly shed, for which a levy of Id a ease had been made, and it was hoped to wipe off the loan within a few years. Perhaps the same thin" could be done here with the Harbour Board. If growers had any proposal lo put before (lie Control Board it would bo very willing to assist in every possible way. (Applause). Mr Higbet (Stoke) staled that if nothing eventuated Ids district would .probably make arrangements for a pooling scheme and take over f ile freezer at Stoke. At the present time his district could not supply the necessary amount of fruit to command freight and would need the assistance of' Ihe Central area. .Mr Jackson suggested that the Control Board should he asked to finance the erection of a cool store the growers being responsible for all charges, interest, sinking fund, etc, Mr Robertson said the Federation really made arrangements for (he financing of the ITawkes Bay shed. So far as he could see the Federation had no money for this purpose, but there was, ho believed, provision allowing a loan to lie raised.

The chairman remarked that the Wellington Harbour Board bad entered into a contract for cool storage of fruit. Why not ask the Nelson Board to do the same? If a boat loaded a cargo of precooled fruit at Nelson it would be an additional reason for more boats coining here. A Delegate: If we have the goods the Board should provide ns with facilities for handling. Tiie chairman said that in fairness to the Board it should he remembered that fruitgrowers had got n 'good deal they bad asked for, but not all. Mr Brunt asked Mr Sutherland if shipping companies could be asked for a reduction in freight if fruit was precooled before being placed on board. Mr Sutherland did not think such a concession would be granted. But the bettor condition in which the. fruit arrived at the other end would compensate for this.

During some further discussion Mr N'ottage remarked that if the harbour was deepened it would be (lie very best tiling for the industry. The motion was then put and declared carried with only one dissentient. A further motion, moved by Mr McKee was carried to the effect that the Harbour Board he asked to go into the question of adopting mechanical apparatus for the handling of fruit from the ship’s side to the holds. After delegates had been appointed to confer with the Harbour Board today the meeting adjourned.