Index

Abstract

This study was conducted at the farmer’s field of Jashore Sadar Upazila, Bangladesh during the Rabi seasons of 2020-2021 to evaluate pre-harvest foliar application effects of mineral nutrients on yield, quality and shelf life of broccoli. The experiment was designed in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD), including three replications and seven treatments for field study which were: T1=control, T2=Ca@o.30%, T3=B@o.30%), T4= Zn@o.30%, T5=Mo@o.30%, T6=Mn@o.30%, and T7= (Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30%. In order to determine the shelf life of broccoli, a Completely Randomized Design (CRD) was conducted with three replications considering three factors; (i) pre-harvest foliar application of mineral nutrient sources; (ii) room temperature along with storage materials, and (iii) cold storage along with storage materials that were used accordingly. Findings revealed that the effects of pre-harvest foliar application of mineral nutrients had a significant influence on the yield, post-harvest quality, and shelf life of broccoli. The treatment T7 (Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30% produced significantly in all respects of yield contributing attributes denoting curd length, diameter, and marketable curd yield of broccoli. The same treatment effectively increased post-harvest quality attributes such as color, compactness, texture, dry matter, fats, carbohydrates, energy, vitamin C, antioxidants, and phenols content in the curd. In addition, the treatment also recorded the highest shelf life of 7.25 days at room temperature (14-240c with RH 60-65%) and 24.33 days at cold storage (40c with RH 90-95%) conditions within a High-Density Polyethylene (HDP; 15 micron) Vacuum pack.

Keywords: Broccoli, Mineral nutrients, Pre-harvest, Quality, Shelf life, Yield.

Received: 6 December 2021 / Revised: 20 June 2022 / Accepted: 8 July 2022/ Published: 4 August 2022

Contribution/ Originality

This study is one of very few studies which have investigated to evaluate pre-harvest foliar application effects of mineral nutrients on yield, quality and shelf life of broccoli. As a new concept, the study is original.

1. INTRODUCTION

Broccoli is one of the most important high-value and nutrient-rich vegetables of Cole crops belonging to the family Brassicaceae, and has a reputation as a supper food, known to be a healthy and delectable vegetable. Broccoli is a nutritional powerhouse full of vitamins, minerals, fibers, and antioxidants that support many elements of human health (Cartea, Velasco, Obregón, Padilla, & De Haro, 2008; Faller & Fialho, 2009; Yvette, 2012), and is also considered low on the Glycemic Index (GI=10) for diabetics (Nagraj, Anita, Swarna, & Amit, 2020). Global production of broccoli was 27 million tons in 2019, 73% of which was produced in China and India. The rest of production was in USA, Mexico, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Bangladesh, Poland, and France (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2020). Farmers of Bangladesh are very much interested to produce and extent broccoli for its high value. 

Application of balanced fertilizers is essential to produce high-quality for achieving maximum returns (Ahirwar & Nath, 2020). Most of the farmers in Bangladesh are not aware of the use of balanced fertilizers and as such produce vegetables without maintaining proper dosages of fertilizers to test the soil. Generally, in an effort to increase yield, the farmers use chemical fertilizers without addition of sufficient quantities of organic manures which are responsible for the improvement of soil health as well as vegetables’ high value and shelf life (Mal, Chatterjee, & Nimbalkar, 2014). Chemical fertilizers may accelerate the crops yield initially but it has adverse effects later on Gupta, Swami, and Rai (2019). On the other hand, most of the soils in Bangladesh are deficient in essential mineral nutrients such as calcium, boron, zinc, molybdenum and manganese due to crop intensification. Insufficient supply of these essential nutrients in the soil is having a negative impact on the yield, quality, and shelf life of vegetables. In addition to the application of chemical fertilizers in the soil, foliar application of essential mineral nutrients is understood to be very important to overcoming this problem. Foliar application of essential mineral nutrients is the most effective and simplest way to improving the quality and shelf life of broccoli and other vegetables. Among the essential mineral nutrients, especially calcium, boron, zinc, molybdenum and manganese are appropriate for maintaining the quality and shelf life of broccoli. For these reasons, the researcher has included the issue of foliar application of essential mineral nutrients in this study. Preservation capability of broccoli is comparatively poor than other Cole crops like cabbage and cauliflower and farmers are not aware about the impacts of shelf life of any other vegetables. As well as the indiscriminate use of chemical fertilzers, it is known that farmers even mix two or more chemicals as cocktail formulation to achieve better yield. Consequently, the storage quality of broccoli reduces. There appears to be no education storage aspect after harvesting of broccoli and they do not adopt any steps in this regard. So, they used to sell the broccoli at a reduction price on the day of harvesting from the field. It will take time to increase the number of cold storage in Bangladesh, especially for this type of crop. At the grower as well as entrepreneurs level, such problem leads to serious financial loss, therefore it is essential to improve post-harvest quality and extending the shelf life of the crop. The investigator opined that foliar application of essential mineral nutrients is the most effective and simplest way of keeping the quality of broccoli and other vegetables intact while increasing their shelf life. This study also focuses on low cost technology such as Low-Density Polyethylene (LDP; 35 micron) bags, High-Density Polyethylene (HDP; 15 micron) Vacuum pack, 2% egg shell powder, and 2% ascorbic acid solution to enhance shelf life of broccoli both at room temperature as well as in cold storage conditions. Few investigators has partially studied the matter, but in-depth research on the matter remains particularly scarce. Considering the above, the investigator would like to take an in-depth study on "pre-harvest foliar application effects of mineral nutrients on yield, quality and shelf life of broccoli".

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

The field study was conducted in the Rabi seasons at Jashore Sadar Upazila of Bangladesh during the year 2020-2021. Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) has been followed including seven treatments and three replications for the field study which were; T1=control, T2=Ca@o.30%, T3=B@o.30%), T4=Zn@o.30%, T5=Mo@o.30%, T6=Mn@o.30%, and T7=(Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30%. The soil test-based chemical fertilizers N115P30K75Zn3B1Kgha-1 was applied in all treatments including control plot. The  ‘Green Crown’ variety of broccoli was used for conducting the field experiment. Before sowing on the nursery bed, seeds were treated with Thiram @ 2.5g per kg of seeds. Seedlings at a healthy and appropriate age (21 days) had been transplanted to the experimental plots of size 3m by 2m at spacing of 50cm by 40cm as per the layout on the 16th November 2020. All TSP, Gypsum, Zinc sulphate (mono), and Boric acid had been used as basal in the respective plots. Urea and MOP fertilizers were used as equal three splits at 15, 30 and 45 days after transplanting. Fresh solution of minerals Calcium sulphate(CaSO4), Boric acid(H3BO3), Zinc sulphate(ZnSO4), Ammonium hepta molybdate tetra hydrate((NH4)6Mo7O2.4H2O), and Manganese sulphate (MnSO4) was applied as foliar spray. Spraying was done at 15 days after transplanting and then at 30, 45 and 60 days after transplanting. Improved intercultural operations were pursued in all the research plots. The crop was irrigated and pests were managed through biological methods. Broccoli curds were harvested before the buds opened between 19 and 28 January 2021. The observation associated with yield and its contributing characteristics; curd length and diameter, gross weight of plant (g), gross yield per plot (kg), gross yield ton per hectare, marketable curd weight (g), marketable yield per plot (kg), marketable yield ton per hectare. The results were recorded after taking five plants randomly from each experimental plot in each replication. Quality indices of broccoli were as follows: colour, compactness and texture detected in fresh and stored condition. The numerical ratings for broccoli quality indices were quantified on a scale from 1 to 5 (Ranganna, 1986). In order to determine different nutrient contents in fresh and stored broccoli curd, samples of each treatment were analyzed in the laboratory of Nutrition and Food Technology, Jashore University of Science and Technology, Jashore, Bangladesh. The methods and procedures which had been used to ascertain the respective nutrient at each level of treatment are as follows:

Dry matter (%): The sample of broccoli curd for each treatment was taken and fresh weight was recorded. The samples were then oven dried at 60ºC for 72 hours and weighed again.

Dry matter was expressed in percentage using the following formula:

Vitamin C(mg/100g): vitamin C content in the curd was determined by diluting the known volume with 3% metaphosphoric acid(HPO3) and titrating with 2, 6-dichlorophenol-indo-phenol solution, until the faint pink colour persisted. The vitamin C (mg/100g) was calculated by the following formula:

Where, a = Vitamin-C content as mg/100g.
b= Titration value for sample.
c=Dye factor =0.125.
d=Volume made up 100ml.
e=aliquot extract.
f= weight of sample.

Protein(g): Protein was determined by using the Kjeldahl method. At first, 0.5-2g samples were taken in a Kjeldahl Digestion unit flask and 6.0g K2SO4,0.4g CuSO4 and added to 20 ml 98% H2SO4. Then, digestion at 4200C for 1 h 30 min. After cooling, 10 ml distilled water was added to hydro-lysates before neutralization and titration with 0.1 N.HCl. The blank solution was made in the same way. The amount of total nitrogen in the curd multiplied with conversion factor of 6.25 in order to determines total protein content. Protein Calculated by the following formula:

Anti-oxidants (mg/100g): Anti-oxidants were determined according to the method of DPPH free radical scavenging activity reported by Brand-Williams, Cuvelier, and Berset (1995). The stock solution of the radical was prepared by dissolving 24 mg DPPH in 100 ml methanol and was kept in a refrigerator until further use. The working solution of the radical was prepared by diluting the DPPH stock solution with methanol to obtain an absorbance of about 0.98 (±0.02) at 517 nm. In a test tube, 3 ml DPPH working solution was mixed with 100 μl curd extract (1 mg/ml) or the standard solution. The absorbance was measured at 517 nm for a period of 30 min. The percent antioxidant or radical scavenging activity was calculated using the following formula:

Where Ac and As are the absorbance of control and sample, respectively. The control contained 100 μl methanol in place of the curd sample.

Phenols (mg/100g): phenols content in curd was estimated according to the method of Slinkard and Singleton (1977). Each curd sample was prepared by dissolving 4.3 mg in 10 ml methanol. The mixture was sonicated for 5 minutes to obtain a homogenized solution. Then, 300 μl of this solution taken in a test tube with 1 ml methanol, 3.16 ml distilled water and 200 μl Folin-Ciocalteu reagent added. After 8 minutes incubation at room temperature, 600 μl sodium carbonate solution (10%) was added and the test tube was covered with aluminum foil and incubated in a hot water bath at 40 °C for 30 minutes. A blank was prepared using the same procedure but replacing the curd extract with an equal volume of methanol. The absorbance of the sample was determined using a UV visible spectrophotometer at 765 nm. The standard curve of Gallic acid was obtained using the same procedure. Phenol content was expressed as μg of Gallic acid equivalents (GAE) per ml, which was calculated using the formula, y =m x+ c where, y is the absorbance at 765 nm and x is the amount of Gallic acid equivalent (μg/ml).
To ascertain the shelf life for the said crop the following methodology was followed:
Statistical design: Completely Randomized Design (CRD).
Number of replication:  3
Flow chart of the details of the experimental design:

Visual and sensory quality, physiological weight loss (PLW), and marketability were observed on a daily basis at room temperature conditions and on a 5-days basis at cold storage condition and cumulative results were recorded. The change of curd color was observed by eye estimation and to ascertain the shelf life of curd both at room temperature and cold storage condition. The recorded data of various characters were analyzed with the help the of Statistical Tool for Agricultural Research (STAR) Program and the mean values of all the treatments had been adjudged by Tukeye's test at 5% level of probability for interpretation. Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) for each treatment was calculated based on the present market prices of inputs and outputs in order to find out the maximum profitable treatment.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Yield and Yield Attributing Characteristics

3.1.1. Curd Length and Diameter 

Table 1 revealed that a maximum curd length 19.45 cm and diameter 21.25 cm were observed in the treatment T7(Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30% as compared to other treatments. Whereas, minimum curd length 14.33 cm and curd diameter 15.69cm were noted in the control sample. As a result of increased the rate of photosynthesis and carbohydrates accumulation in the curd, length and diameter accelerated due to the synergistic action of different mineral nutrient sources mentioned above. These findings corroborate with the findings of Choudhury and Sikder (2017) in broccoli; Chaudhari, Patel, Tandel, and Vibhuti (2017) in cauliflower.

3.2. Marketable Curd Weight

Table 1 revealed a marketable maximum curd weight 570.20 g recorded in the treatment T7(Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30%) as compared to other treatments. Whereas, a marketable minimum curd weight 455.07g was noted from T1(control). These findings are in concordance with Singh, Sarvanan, Jalam, and Bhanwar (2016), Choudhury and Sikder (2017) in broccoli; Chaudhari et al. (2017) in cauliflower.

3.3. Marketable Yield

Table 1 revealed a maximum marketable curd yield 28.51 t ha-1 recorded in the treatment T7 (Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30% followed by 26.63 t ha-1 in T3 (B@o.30%) and 26.17 t ha-1in T4(Zn@o.30%), whereas, a minimum marketable curd yield 22.75t ha-1 noted in T1 (control).. This might be due to the combined foliar application of Ca, B, Zn, Mo, and Mn in accelerating the advanced physiological functions in plants such as  cell division and elongation, amino acid formation, chlorophyll and protein synthesis, carbohydrate metabolism, sugar translocation, and various enzymatic reactions which led to more carbohydrate accumulation in curds resulting in an increased yield. These findings corroborate with the findings of Singh et al. (2016); Shatis et al. (2018) in broccoli; Chaudhari et al. (2017) in cauliflower.

3.4. Quality Attributes

3.4.1. Physioco-Chemical Analysis of Fresh Broccoli

3.4.1.1. Sensory Evaluation of colour, Compactness and Texture

Table 3 revealed that pre-harvest foliar application effects of mineral nutrient sources significantly influenced the quality attributes (colour, compactness, and texture) of broccoli. Ranganna's (1986), one to five point hedonic scale was produced as follows: maximum colour rating 4.85, compactness rating 4.69, and texture rating 4.81 in the treatment T7 (Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30% followed by T3 (B@o.30%) with colour rating 4.49, compactness rating 4.54, and texture rating 4.67, and T4 (Zn@o.30%) with colour rating 4.45, compactness rating 4.51, and texture rating 4.58 respectively. Treatment T1 (control), however, produced a minimum colour rating of 3.69, compactness rating of 3.25, and a texture rating of 3.29..This finding corroborates with Li and Gao (2000); Chingtham and Banik (2019).

Table 1. Pre-harvest foliar application effects of mineral nutrients on yield and yield contributing attributes of broccoli.
Yield attributes
Treatment
Curd length
(cm)
Curd diameter (cm)
Gross plant weight(g)
Gross yield
polt-1 (kg)
Gross
yield (t ha-1
Marketable
curd weight (g)
Marketable yield plot-1 (kg)
Marketable yield(t ha-1)
T1
14.33d
15.69c
945.13c
28.35c
47.26c
455.07e
13.65d
22.75e
T2
16.29bcd
16.14c
975.87abc
29.28abc
48.79abc
474.35cde
14.23cd
23.72cde
T3
18.55ab
19.04ab
1025.25ab
30.76ab
51.26ab
532.53ab
15.98ab
26.63ab
T4
17.33abc
18.10bc
1015.45abc
30.46abc
50.77abc
523.36abc
15.70abc
26.17abc
T5
16.47bcd
16.44bc
990.47abc
29.71abc
49.52abc
510.25bcd
15.31bc
25.51bcd
T6
15.58cd
15.85c
965.16bc
28.95bc
48.26bc
469.29de
14.08cd
23.46de
T7
19.45a
21.25a
1045.33a
31.36a
52.27a
570.20a
17.10a
28.51a
SEm
0.6930
0.8271
20.32
0.6094
1.02
15.41
0.4632
0.7705
HSD(P=0.05)
1.01
1.01
1.38
1.38
1.38
1.11
1.11
1.11
Note: Here, these letters a, b, c, d, e indicate the significant treatment among all the treatments. Means with the same letter are not significantly different, T1=control,T2=Ca@o.30%,T3=B@o.30%),T4=Zn@o.30%,T5=Mo@o.30%,T6=Mn@o.30% and T7=(Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30%.

Table 2. Description of numerical ratings for broccoli quality (According to 1 to 5 point hedonic scale (Ranganna, 1986)*
Scale
Ranges of Scores
Rating for Quality attributes of broccoli
Color
Compactness
Texture
1
4.50-5.00
Dark green
Very compact
Highly crispy
2
3.50-4.49
Green
Compact
Crispy
3
2.50-3.49
Light green
Medium compact
moderately crispy
4
1.50-2.49
Light yellow
Slightly loose
Soft
5
1.00-1.49
Very yellow
Loose
Very soft
Note: *Refer to Table 2 for rating and indicating quality of broccoli

Table 3. Quality indices of fresh broccoli as influenced by pre-harvest foliar application effects of mineral nutrient sources.
Treatment
Quality indices of fresh broccoli
Color
Compactness
Texture
Rating Score
Level of
Color
Rating Score
Level of
Compactness
Rating
Score
Level of
Texture
T1
3.69b
Green
3.25c
Medium compact
3.29c
Moderately crispy
T2
3.95b
Green
3.67c
Compact
3.75bc
Crispy
T3
4.49ab
Green
4.54ab
Very compact
4.67ab
Highly crispy
T4
4.45ab
Green
4.51ab
Very compact
4.58ab
Highly crispy
T5
4.17ab
Green
3.85bc
Compact
4.49ab
Crispy
T6
3.83b
Green
3.52c
Compact
3.34c
Moderately crispy
T7
4.85a
Dark Green
4.69a
Very compact
4.81a
Highly crispy
HSD (P=0.05)
0.35
0.02
0.03

Note: Here, these letters a, b, c indicate the significant treatment among all the treatments. Means with the same letter are not significantly different, T1=control,T2=Ca@o.30%,T3=B@o.30%),T4=Zn@o.30%,T5=Mo@o.30%,T6=Mn@o.30% and T7=(Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30%.

3.4.2. Chemical Analysis of Fresh Broccoli Curds

3.4.2.1. Dry Matter

Table 4 revealed a maximum dry matter of 15.27% recorded in the treatment T7 (Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30% followed by T3(B@o.30%) with 14.73% and T4 (Zn@o.30%) with 14.45%, whereas a minimum dry matter of 10.47% was noted in treatment T1(control). Maximum dry matter content in the above treatments might be due to optimum uptake in the vegetative growth related nutrients from the different mineral nutrient sources. The findings of the study related to dry matter content in broccoli curd corroborates with Shatis et al. (2018) in broccoli.

3.4.2.2. Protein

Protein content related data in the Table 4 revealed a maximum protein content of 3.53g recorded in the treatment T5(Mo@o.30%). Minimum protein of 2.49 g was observed from T1(control). This might have been due to the involvement of absorption of nitrogen and nitrogen metabolism which led to higher protein content. This finding of present investigation in respect of protein content in broccoli curd corroborates with the findings of Singh, Singh, Singh, Kumar, and Mohrana (2018) and Sharma (2012) in broccoli.

3.4.2.3. Fats

Table 4 revealed a maximum fats content of 0.4385g was recorded in the treatment T7 (Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30% followed by T4 (Zn@o.30%) with 0.4357 g and T3 (B@o.30%) with 0.4325g. Minimum fats content of 0.3825g was noted in treatment T1 (control).

3.4.2.4. Carbohydrates

Table 4 revealed a maximum carbohydrates content of 5.25g recorded in the treatment T7 (Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30% followed by T4(Zn@o.30% with 4.45g and T3(B@o.30%) with 4.13g. Minimum carbohydrates content of 2.89g was noted from treatment T1 (control), possibly due to the better performance on potential vegetative growth and higher metabolic activities which influenced in the deposition of more carbohydrate accumulation in curd due to adequate supply of different mineral nutrients from the said sources. These findings are supported by Sharma (2012) and Singh et al. (2018).

3.4.2.5. Energy

Table 4 revealed a maximum energy of 37.91kcal recorded in the treatment T7 (Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30% followed byT4(Zn@o.30%) with 35.28 kcal and T3 (B @o.30%) with32.19kcal. Maximum energy in the said treatment might be due to accumulated fats in the curd from sources of mineral nutrients broken down into energy molecule Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP), resulting in maximum energy produced in the broccoli curds. Minimum energy of 24.96 kcal was recorded in treatment T1 (control).

3.4.2.6. Vitamin C

Table 4 revealed a maximum vitamin C content of 88.45 mg/100g recorded in the treatment T7 (Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30% followed by T4 (Zn@o.30%) with86.37 mg/100g and T3 (B@o.30%) with 85.43 mg/100g. A minimum vitamin C content 71.26mg/100g was noted from treatment T1 (control). This could be due to synergistic effects of Ca,B,Zn,Mo and Mn with inorganic nutrient sources that helped to absorbed need-based nutrients to plants and enhanced the rate of photosynthesis during growth and development of the broccoli bunches, leading to a mobilizing of the biosynthesis of ascorbic acid and consequently increased vitamin C in broccoli curd. The findings of the present investigation in respect of vitamin C content in broccoli curd corroborates with the findings of Singh et al. (2016); Choudhury and Sikder (2017); Pankaj, Kujur, and Saravanan (2018) in broccoli.

3.4.2.7. Antioxidants

Table 4 revealed a maximum antioxidant content of 73.43mg/100g recorded in the treatment T7 (Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30% followed by T4 (Zn@o.30%) with 70.56 mg/100g and T3(B@o.30%) with 68.34 mg/100g, while a minimum antioxidant content 56.23 mg/100g was recorded in treatment T1 (control). This might be due to stimulating effects of mineral sources of nutrients which enhanced biosynthesis of phenol in the curd resulting possessed high-potential activity of antioxidants as compared to other treatments. The findings of present investigation in respect of antioxidant content in broccoli curd corroborates with the findings of Rice-Evans, Miller, and Paganga (1997).

3.4.2.8. Phenols

Table 4 revealed a maximum phenol content of 40.95mg/100g in broccoli curd recorded in the treatment T7 (Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30% followed by T4 (Zn@o.30%) with 40.15mg/100g and T3 (B@o.30%) with 38.38 mg/100g. Minimum phenol content of 27.39mg/100g was recorded in treatment T1 (control). This finding defends with Zaki, Abdelhafez, El-dewiny, and Camilia (2009) in broccoli florets.

Table 4. Pre-harvest foliar application effects of mineral nutrient sources on nutrient content in fresh broccoli curd.
  Treatment
Nutrients content in fresh broccoli curd.
Dry
Matter (%)
Protein
(g)
Fat
(g)
Carbohy-
drates(g)
Energy
(kcal)
Vitamin c (mg/100g)
Antioxidants
(mg/100g)
Phenol
(mg/100g)
T1
10.47c
2.49c
0.3825c
2.89d
24.96d
71.26d
56.23d
27.39d
T2
13.36abc
2.65bc
0.4237ab
3.67bcd
29.09bcd
75.53cd
60.19cd
31.23cd
T3
14.73ab
2.87abc
0.4325ab
4.13bc
32.19abc
85.43ab
68.34ab
38.38ab
T4
14.45ab
3.39ab
0.4357a
4.45ab
35.28ab
86.37ab
70.56ab
40.15ab
T5
12.25bc
3.53a
0.4175ab
3.46bcd
31.72abc
82.25abc
65.17bc
35.17abc
T6
11.82bc
2.55c
0.4033bc
3.24cd
26.78cd
78.36bcd
63.25bcd
33.56bcd
T7
15.27a
3.24abc
0.4385a
5.25a
37.91a
88.45a
73.43a
40.95a
SEm
0.8493
0.225
0.0084
0.3147
1.87
2.48
2.14
1.98
HSD
(P=0.05)
0.09
0.21
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.02
Note: Here, these letters a, b, c, d indicate the significant treatment among all the treatments. Means with the same letter are not significantly different, T1=control, T2=Ca@o.30%, T3=B@o.30%), T4=Zn@o.30%, T5=Mo@o.30%, T6=Mn@o.30% and T7=(Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30%.

3.5. Physioco-Chemical Analysis of Stored Broccoli

3.5.1. Sensory Evaluation of Colour, Compactness and Texture

Table 5 revealed that pre-harvest foliar application of mineral nutrient sources along with storage materials significantly influenced the quality of the colour, compactness, and texture of broccoli, both at room temperature (14-240c with RH 60-65%) and cold storage (40c with RH 90-95%) conditions. Ranganna’s one to five point hedonic scale produced the following: maximum colour rating of 3.75, compactness rating of 3.87, and texture rating of 3.73 in relation to the treatment T7 (Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30% in the High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Vacuum pack after 20 days in cold storage (40c with RH 90-95%) followed by a Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE) bag with a colour rating of 3.69, compactness rating of 3.75, and texture rating of 3.65 in the same treatment after 15 days in cold storage (40c with RH 90-95%). The minimum colour rating was 1.95, compactness rating 2.05, and texture rating 1.93 for treatment T1 (control) after11 days at open place condition within cold storage.

Similarly, when broccoli curds were stored at room temperature (14-240c with RH 60-65%), the maximum colour had a rating of 3.63, compactness rating was 3.75, and the texture rating was 3.65 in the same treatment T7 (Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30% within High-Density Polyethylene (HDP; 15 micron) Vacuum packs after 5 days followed by Low-Density Polyethylene (LDP; 35 micron) bag with a colour rating of 3.07, compactness rating of 3.15, and texture rating of 2.95 in the same treatment after 5 days at room temperature (14-240c with RH 60-65%). Minimum colour rating of 1.69, compactness rating of 2.15, and texture rating of 1.39 were noted in treatment T1 (control) after 3 days at room temperature (14-240c with RH 60-65%). This finding corroborates with Chingtham and Banik (2019).

3.5.2. Chemical Analysis of Post-Storage Broccoli Curds

Table 6 revealed that High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Vacuum packs in combination with cold storage condition (40c with RH 90-95%) were significantly effective in maintaining the quality of broccoli in keeping its nutrients at maximum shelf life stage. Maximum appreciable amount of nutrients of fats at 0.4375g, carbohydrates at 5.19g, vitamin C at 80.57mg/100g, antioxidants at 71.26mg/100g, and phenols 39.49mg/100g were found to be retained in the treatment T7(Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@ 0.30% along with High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Vacuum packs in cold storage (40c with RH 90-95%) up to a maximum of 24.33 days which is less than the nutrients in fresh brocolli by 0.23%,1.14%, 8.91%, 2.96%, and 3.57% as mentioned in Table 4. Similarly, when broccoli curds were stored at room temperature (14-240c with RH 60-65%), the various nutrients of fats at 0.4317g, carbohydrates at 4.73g, vitamin C at 77.16mg/100g, antioxidants at 66.03mg/100g, and phenols at 37.31mg/100g remained intact even after the broccoli curds were kept within High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Vacuum packs for a maximum of 7.25 days in the same treatment which is less than the nutrients in fresh brocolli by 1.55%, 9.90%, 12.76%, 10.08%, and 8.89% as mentioned in Table 4. This finding corroborates with Li and Gao (2000); Chingtham and Banik (2019) and Manisha and Rajkumari (2020).

Table 5. Effects of pre-harvest foliar application of mineral nutrient sources and storage condition along with each level of storage materials on quality attributes in stored broccoli curd at maximum shelf life stage.
A) Within Low- Density Polyethylene (LDP) bag.
Treatment
Quality indices of stored broccoli after 5 days at room temperature
Quality indices of stored broccoli after 20 days  at cold storage condition
Color
Compactness
Texture
Color
Compactness
Texture
Score
Level
Score
Level
Score
Level
Score
Level
Score
Level
Score
Level
T1
2.29c
Light  yellow
2.41c
Slightly
loose
2.45c
Soft
2.25d
Light  yellow
2.36c
Slightly
loose
2.29c
Soft
T2
2.85abc
Light
green
3.13abc
Medium
compact
3.03abc
Moderately
crispy
2.56bcd
Light
green
2.91bc
Medium
compact
2.73bc
Moderately
crispy
T3
3.41ab
Light
green
3.67a
Compact
3.33ab
Moderately
crispy
3.27ab
Light
green
3.65ab
Compact
3.17ab
Moderately
crispy
T4
3.25ab
Light
green
3.45ab
Medium
compact
3.17abc
Moderately
crispy
3.13abc
Light
green
3.49ab
Medium
compact
3.25ab
Moderately
crispy
T5
3.07ab
Light
green
3.15abc
Medium
compact
2.95abc
Moderately
crispy
3.19ab
Light
green
3.33ab
Medium
compact
2.93abc
Moderately
crispy
T6
2.71bc
Light
green
2.73bc
Medium
compact
2.69bc
Moderately
crispy
2.43cd
Light  yellow
2.51c
Medium
compact
2.59bc
Moderately
crispy
T7
3.55a
Green
3.73a
Compact
3.55a
Crispy
3.69a
Green
3.75a
Compact
3.65a
Crispy
HSD (P=0.05)
0.10
0.04
0.38
0.02
0.01
0.07
Note: Here, these letters a, b, c, d indicate the significant treatment among all the treatments. Means with the same letter are not significantly different, T1=control, T2=Ca@o.30%, T3=B@o.30%), T4=Zn@o.30%, T5=Mo@o.30%, T6=Mn@o.30% and T7=(Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30%.

B) Within High -Density Polyethylene (HDP) Vacuum pack.
Treatment
Quality indices of stored broccoli after 5 days at room temperature
Quality indices of stored broccoli after 15 days  at cold storage condition
Color
Compactness
Texture
Color
Compactness
Texture
Score
Level
Score
Level
Score
Level
Score
Level
Score
Level
Score
Level
T1
2.37c
Light  yellow
2.45c
Slightly
loose
2.47c
Soft
2.45c
Light  yellow
2.39c
Slightly
loose
2.36c
Soft
T2
2.96abc
Light
green
3.16abc
Medium
compact
3.13abc
Moderately
crispy
2.69bc
Light
green
3.15ab
Medium
compact
2.85bc
Moderately
crispy
T3
3.53a
Green
3.71a
Compact
3.41ab
Moderately
crispy
3.33ab
Light
green
3.81a
Compact
3.21ab
Moderately
crispy
T4
3.33ab
Light
green
3.55ab
Compact
3.25ab
Moderately
crispy
3.17abc
Light
green
3.61a
Compact
3.36ab
Moderately
crispy
T5
3.17ab
Light
green
3.33ab
Medium
compact
3.13abc
Moderately
crispy
3.35ab
Light
green
3.49ab
Medium
compact
3.17ab
Moderately
crispy
T6
2.77bc
Light
green
2.87bc
Medium
compact
2.75bc
Moderately
crispy
2.49c
Light  yellow
2.75bc
Medium
compact
2.81bc
Moderately
crispy
T7
3.63a
Green
3.75a
Compact
3.65a
Crispy
3.75a
Green
3.87a
Compact
3.73a
Crispy
HSD (P=0.05)
0.09
0.05
0.24
0.03
0.01
0.09
Note: Here, these letters a, b, c indicate the significant treatment among all the treatments. Means with the same letter are not significantly different, T1=control, T2= Ca@o.30%, T3=B@o.30%), T4=Zn@o.30%, T5=Mo@o.30%, T6=Mn@o.30% and T7=(Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30%.

C) Treatment with 2%egg shell powder solution
Treatment
Quality indices of stored broccoli after 3 days  at room temperature
Quality indices of stored broccoli after 15 days  at cold storage condition
Color
Compactness
Texture
Color
Compactness
Texture
Score
Level
Score
Level
Score
Level
Score
Level
Score
Level
Score
Level
T1
2.05d
Light  yellow
2.39c
Slightly
loose
2.33c
Soft
2.07c
Light  yellow
2.15d
Slightly
loose
2.25c
Soft
T2
2.75bcd
Light
green
3.05abc
Medium
compact
2.95abc
Moderately
crispy
2.35bc
Light
yellow
2.73bcd
Medium
compact
2.66bc
Moderately
crispy
T3
3.31ab
Light
green
3.44a
Medium
compact
3.20ab
Moderately
crispy
3.17a
Light
green
3.41ab
Medium
compact
3.04ab
Moderately
crispy
T4
3.04abc
Light
green
3.23ab
Medium
compact
3.05abc
Moderately
crispy
3.03ab
Light
green
3.19ab
Medium
compact
2.95abc
Moderately
crispy
T5
2.91abc
Light
green
2.93abc
Medium
compact
2.75abc
Moderately
crispy
3.05ab
Light
green
3.07abc
Medium
compact
2.57bc
Moderately
crispy
T6
2.43cd
Light
yellow
2.56bc
Medium
compact
2.49bc
Soft
2.16c
Light  yellow
2.33cd
Slightly
loose
2.45bc
Soft
T7
3.51a
Green
3.49a
Medium
compact
3.43a
Moderately
crispy
3.57a
Green
3.69a
Compact
3.56a
Crispy
HSD (P=0.05)
0.03
0.14
0.27
0.01
0.01
0.10
Note: Here, these letters a, b, c, d indicate the significant treatment among all the treatments. Means with the same letter are not significantly different, T1=control,T2=Ca@o.30%, T3=B@o.30%), T4=Zn@o.30%, T5=Mo@o.30%, T6=Mn@o.30% and T7=(Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30%.

D) Treatment with 2% Ascorbic acid solution
Treatment
Quality indices of stored broccoli after 3 days at room temperature
Quality indices of stored broccoli after 15 days  at cold storage condition
Color
Compactness
Texture
Color
Compactness
Texture
Score
Level
Score
Level
Score
Level
Score
Level
Score
Level
Score
Level
T1
1.97d
Light yellow
2.33c
Slightly
loose
2.25c
Soft
1.95d
Light  yellow
2.05d
Slightly
loose
1.93c
Soft
T2
2.69bcd
Light  green
2.95abc
Medium
compact
2.73abc
Moderately
crispy
2.27bcd
Light
yellow
2.67bcd
Medium
compact
2.53bc
Moderately
crispy
T3
3.27ab
Light  green
3.41a
Medium
compact
3.13ab
Moderately
crispy
3.01ab
Light
green
3.33ab
Medium
compact
2.93ab
Moderately
crispy
T4
2.96abc
Light green
3.15ab
Medium
compact
2.96abc
Moderately
crispy
2.75abc
Light
green
3.05ab
Medium
compact
2.87ab
Moderately
crispy
T5
2.83abc
Light
green
2.86abc
Medium
compact
2.69abc
Moderately
crispy
2.89ab
Light
green
2.87bc
Medium
compact
2.56bc
Moderately
crispy
T6
2.36cd
Light
yellow
2.49bc
Slightly
loose
2.41bc
Soft
2.13cd
Light  yellow
2.25cd
Slightly
loose
2.39bc
Soft
T7
3.46a
Light
green
3.41a
Medium
compact
3.33a
Moderately
crispy
3.45a
Light
green
3.63a
Compact
3.47a
Moderately
crispy
HSD (P=0.05)
0.02
0.14
0.30
0.01
0.01
0.04
Note: Here, these letters a, b, c, d indicate the significant treatment among all the treatments. Means with the same letter are not significantly different, T1=control, T2=Ca@o.30%, T3=B@o.30%), T4=Zn@o.30%, T5=Mo@o.30%, T6=Mn@o.30% and   T7=(Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30%.

E) Control (at open place)
Treatment
Quality indicesr of stored broccoli after 3 days  at room temperature
Quality indices of stored broccoli after 11 days  at cold storage condition
Color
Compactness
Texture
Color
Compactness
Texture
Score
Level
Score
Level
Score
Level
Score
Level
Score
Level
Score
Level
T1
1.69c
Light yellow
2.15c
Slightly
loose
1.39c
Very soft
1.95d
Light  yellow
2.05d
Slightly
loose
1.93c
Soft
T2
2.07abc
Light yellow
2.73abc
Medium
compact
2.49ab
Soft
2.27bcd
Light
yellow
2.67bcd
Medium
compact
2.53bc
Moderately
crispy
T3
2.57ab
Light  green
3.33a
Medium
compact
2.83ab
Moderately
crispy
3.01ab
Light
green
3.33ab
Medium
compact
2.93ab
Moderately
crispy
T4
2.35abc
Light yellow
3.07ab
Medium
compact
2.69ab
Moderately
crispy
2.75abc
Light
green
3.05ab
Medium
compact
2.87ab
Moderately
crispy
T5
2.17abc
Light yellow
2.69abc
Medium
compact
2.56ab
Moderately
crispy
2.89ab
Light
green
2.87bc
Medium
compact
2.56bc
Moderately
crispy
T6
1.95bc
Light
yellow
2.33bc
Slightly
loose
2.25b
Soft
2.13cd
Light  yellow
2.25cd
Slightly
loose
2.39bc
Soft
T7
2.76a
Light
green
3.33a
Medium
compact
3.21a
Moderately
crispy
3.45a
Light
green
3.63a
Compact
3.47a
Moderately
crispy
HSD (P=0.05)
0.44
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
Note: Here, these letters a, b, c, d indicate the significant treatment among all the treatments. Means with the same letter are not significantly different, T1=control, T2=Ca@o.30%, T3=B@o.30%), T4=Zn@o.30%, T5=Mo@o.30%, T6=Mn@o.30% and  T7=(Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30%.

Table-6. Pre-harvest foliar application effects of mineral nutrients and storage condition along with each level of packaging materials on nutrients content in stored broccoli curd at maximum shelf life stage A) Within Low- Density Polyethylene (LDP) bag
    Treatment
Nutrients content
At room temp.(14-240c with RH 60-65%)
Nutrients content
At cold storage (40c with RH 90-95%)
Dry
Matter (%)
Protein
(g)
Fat
(g)
CHO
(g)
Vitamin c (mg/100g)
Antioxidants
(mg/100g
Phenol
(mg/100g
Dry
Matter (%)
Protein
(g)
Fat
(g)
CHO
(g)
Vitamin c (mg/100g)
Antioxidant
(mg/100g
Phenol
(mg/100g
T1
9.25c
2.21c
0.3735c
2.49d
54.54d
44.25c
20.47d
10.37d
2.36d
0.385c
2.75d
60.23e
52.17d
24.16c
T2
11.93abc
2.36abc
0.4147ab
3.08bcd
60.75cd
50.76bc
24.75bcd
13.18abcd
2.53bcd
0.4193ab
3.49bcd
64.53de
55.63cd
28.33bc
T3
13.05ab
2.53abc
0.4259a
3.63abc
71.23abc
57.33ab
31.36ab
14.53ab
2.77abcd
0.4307a
4.01bc
74.17abc
64.36abc
35.17ab
T4
12.62ab
3.01ab
0.4253a
3.95ab
73.44ab
59.45ab
33.17a
14.15abc
3.28ab
0.4315a
4.29ab
76.14ab
67.19ab
37.48a
T5
10.83abc
3.13a
0.4056ab
2.96bcd
66.48abc
52.26bc
29.46abc
11.96bcd
3.46a
0.4135ab
3.33bcd
70.16bcd
60.45abcd
31.23ab
T6
10.33bc
2.27bc
0.3942bc
2.75cd
63.26bcd
49.53bc
24.23cd
11.54cd
2.43cd
0.3996bc
3.11cd
66.33cde
58.36bcd
29.19bc
T7
13.56a
2.86abc
0.4305a
4.36a
75.33a
64.27a
35.16a
15.09a
3.15abc
0.4369a
5.14a
79.26a
70.17a
38/15a
HSD
(P=0.05)
0.24
0.61
0.02
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.01
0.10
0.15
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.01
Note: Here, these letters a, b, c, d, e indicate the significant treatment among all the treatments. Means with the same letter are not significantly different, T1=control, T2=Ca@o.30%, T3=B@o.30%),T4=Zn@o.30%, T5=Mo@o.30%, T6=Mn@o.30% and T7=(Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30%.
B) High- Density Polyethylene (HDP) Vacuum pack
    Treatment
                               Nutrients content
At room temp. (14-240c with RH 60-65%)
Nutrients content
At cold storage(40c with RH 90-95%)
Dry
Matter (%)
Protein
(g)
Fat
(g)
CHO
(g)
Vitamin c (mg/100g)
Antioxidants
(mg/100g
Phenol
(mg/100g)
Dry
Matter (%)
Protein
(g)
Fat
(g)
CHO
(g)
Vitamin c (mg/100g)
Antioxidant
(mg/100g
Phenol
(mg/100g
T1
9.37c
2.35b
0.3756c
2.61d
57.23c
47.56c
23.35c
10.43c
2.41c
0.3813c
2.81d
61.37d
54.13d
25.17c
T2
12.02abc
2.39b
0.4165ab
3.33bcd
63.91bc
53.17bc
27.01bc
13.25abc
2.59bc
0.4215ab
3.57bcd
65.76cd
57.75cd
29.46bc
T3
13.26ab
2.58ab
0.4276a
3.74abc
74.36ab
59.25ab
33.49ab
14.57ab
2.82abc
0.4309a
4.07bc
75.47ab
65.49abc
36.13ab
T4
12.71ab
3.06ab
0.4273a
4.05ab
76.45a
61.69ab
35.33a
14.23ab
3.33ab
04333a
4.35ab
77.25a
68.37ab
38.55a
T5
11.03abc
3.18a
0.4073ab
3.11bcd
69.56ab
55.47bc
31.59ab
12.07bc
3.49a
0.4156ab
3.37bcd
72.19abc
62.16abcd
33.16ab
T6
10.64bc
2.30b
0.3975bc
2.92cd
66.37abc
52.65bc
27.46bc
11.63bc
2.51c
0.4012bc
3.17cd
68.46bcd
60.43bcd
30.63bc
T7
13.75a
2.92ab
0.4317a
4.73a
77.16a
66.03a
37.31a
15.17a
3.18abc
0.4375a
5.19a
80.57a
71.26a
39.49a
HSD
(P=0.05)
 
0.26
 
0.72
 
0.02
 
0.03
 
0.06
 
0.08
 
0.01
 
0.10
 
0.19
 
0.02
 
0.01
 
0.01
 
0.11
 
0.01
Note: Here, these letters a, b, c, d indicate the significant treatment among all the treatments. Means with the same letter are not significantly different, T1=control, T2=Ca@o.30%,  T3=B@o.30%), T4=Zn@o.30%, T5=Mo@o.30%, T6=Mn@o.30% and T7=(Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30%.

C) Treatment with 2%egg shell powder solution
    Treatment
                               Nutrients content
At room temp. (14-240c with RH 60-65%)
Nutrients content
At cold storage (40c with RH 90-95%)
Dry
Matter (%)
Protein
(g)
Fat
(g)
CHO
(g)
Vitamin c
(mg/100g)
Antioxidants
(mg/100g)
Phenol
(mg/100g
Dry
Matter (%)
Protein
(g)
Fat
(g)
CHO
(g)
Vitaminc
(mg/100g)
Antioxidant
(mg/100g
Phenol
(mg/100g)
T1
8.37c
2.16c
0.3716c
2.42d
51.82d
41.78d
18.23c
10.25abc
2.29c
0.3743c
2.69d
57.31d
50.13d
23.17d
T2
11.75ab
2.33abc
0.4138ab
3.03bcd
59.16cd
49.21bcd
22.86bc
12.87a
2.48bc
0.4177ab
3.45bcd
61.25cd
53.75cd
26.15cd
T3
12.83ab
2.50abc
0.4251a
3.58abc
69.24abc
55.97abc
29.25ab
14.09ab
2.71abc
0.4281a
3.96abc
70.67abc
62.27abc
34.23ab
T4
12.02ab
2.98ab
0.4241a
3.87ab
71.95ab
58.04ab
31.45a
13.95ab
3.25ab
0.4288a
4.23ab
74.33ab
65.13ab
36.19a
T5
10.46abc
3.09a
0.4030ab
2.93bcd
64.34abc
50.87bcd
27.33ab
11.05bc
3.41a
0.4113ab
3.17bcd
67.45abcd
59.16abcd
30.25sbc
T6
10.05bc
2.24bc
.0.3923bc
2.71cd
61.18bcd
47.42cd
22.36bc
10.83c
2.39c
0.3967bc
2.96cd
62.75bcd
56.43bcd
27.46bcd
T7
13.17a
2.84abc
0.4297a
4.30a
73.95a
62.92a
33.37a
14.87a
3.03abc
0.4356a
5.03a
77.37a
68.15a
37.13a
HSD
(P=0.05)
0.12
0.57
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.06
0.15
0.01
0.01
0.11
0.06
0.01
Note: Here, these letters a, b, c, d indicate the significant treatment among all the treatments. Means with the same letter are not significantly different, T1=control, T2=Ca@o.30%, T3=B@o.30%), T4=Zn@o.30%, T5=Mo@o.30%, T6=Mn@o.30% and T7=(Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30%.
D) Treatment with 2% ascorbic acid solution
    Treatment
                               Nutrients content
At room temp. (14-240c with RH 60-65%)
Nutrients content
At cold storage (40c with RH 90-95%)
Dry
Matter (%)
Protein
(g)
Fat
(g)
CHO
(g)
Vitamin c (mg/100g)
Antioxidants
(mg/100g
Phenol
(mg/100g
Dry
Matter (%)
Protein
(g)
Fat
(g)
CHO
(g)
Vitamin c(mg/100g)
Antioxidant
(mg/100g
Phenol
(mg/100g)
T1
8.25c
2.12c
0.3708c
2.38d
49.64c
40.45d
16.25c
9.73c
2.13c
0.3705c
2.61d
55.44c
47.25d
21.35d
T2
11.69ab
2.27abc
0.4129ab
2.97bcd
56.98bc
47.93bcd
20.99bc
12.05abc
2.36bc
0.4156ab
3.39bcd
59.39bc
50.43cd
24.47cd
T3
12.75ab
2.44abc
0.4233a
3.50abc
67.29ab
54.94abc
27.33ab
13.86a
2.63abc
0.4235a
3.83abc
67.25abc
60.25abc
32.66ab
T4
11.89ab
2.93ab
0.4237a
3.81ab
70.04a
56.88ab
29.46a
13.64ab
3.19a
0.4259a
4.05ab
71.46ab
63.37ab
34.29a
T5
10.39abc
3.03a
0.4018ab
2.81bcd
61.82abc
48.96bcd
25.16ab
10.75bc
2.91abc
0.4095ab
3.07bcd
63.25abc
56.13abcd
29.13abc
T6
9.93bc
2.19bc
0.3913bc
2.61cd
59.17abc
45.23cd
20.43bc
10.33c
2.25bc
0.3916bc
2.85cd
60.13bc
53.47bcd
26.14bcd
T7
13.03a
2.79abc
0.4293a
4.19a
71.06a
62.13a
31.45a
14.56a
2.97ab
0.4343a
4.91a
74.36a
66.33a
35.16a
HSD
(P=0.05)
0.12
0.60
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.32
0.01
0.01
0.19
0.03
0.01
Note: Here, these letters a, b, c, d indicate the significant treatment among all the treatments. Means with the same letter are not significantly different, T1=control, T2=Ca@o.30%, T3=B@o.30%), T4=Zn@o.30%, T5=Mo@o.30%, T6=Mn@o.30% and T7=(Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30%.
E) Control (at open place)
    Treatment
Nutrients content
At room temp. (14-240c with RH 60-65%)
Nutrients content
At room temp(40c with RH 90-95%)
Dry
Matter (%)
Protein
(g)
Fat
(g)
CHO
(g)
Vitamin c (mg/100g)
Antioxidants
(mg/100g
Phenol
(mg/100g
Dry
Matter (%)
Protein
(g)
Fat
(g)
CHO
(g)
Vitamin c (mg/100g)
Antioxidant
(mg/100g
Phenol
(mg/100g)
T1
7.75c
2.08a
0.3686c
2.24c
47.56d
37.85d
15.49e
8.75b
1.85c
0.3673
2.49d
53.25b
45.33d
20.33d
T2
9.53abc
2.21ab
0.4099ab
2.79bc
55.06cd
46.24bcd
19.76cde
10.46ab
2.26abc
0.4075
3.17bcd
57.27b
48.26cd
23.27cd
T3
11.36ab
2.40ab
0.4197a
3.28abc
65.35abc
52.91abc
25.46abc
11.67ab
2.49abc
0.4141
3.65abc
65.33ab
57.75abc
31.56ab
T4
10.16abc
2.87ab
0.4221a
3.69ab
67.95ab
54.98ab
27.20ab
11.33ab
2.97a
0.4210
3.93ab
70.17a
61.43ab
33.37a
T5
9.25abc
2.98a
0.3996ab
2.73bc
58.42abcd
47.03bcd
23.17bcd
9.45b
2.76ab
0.4017
2.87bcd
61.36ab
54.25abcd
28.17abc
T6
8.63bc
2.14b
0.3817 bc
2.45c
56.27bcd
43.20cd
17.37de
9.17b
2.05bc
0.3824
2.77cd
59.21ab
51.26bcd
25.23bcd
T7
12.05a
2.76ab
0.4260a
4.07a
69.16a
59.92a
30.35a
13.25a
2.83ab
0.4315
4.56a
71.35a
63.45a
34.36a
HSD
(P=0.05)
0.35
0.61
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.20
0.22
0.01
0.03
0.23
0.04
0.01
Note: Here, these letters a, b, c, d indicate the significant treatment among all the treatments. Means with the same letter are not significantly different, T1=control, T2=Ca@o.30%, T3=B@o.30%, T4=Zn@o.30%, T5=Mo@o.30%, T6=Mn@o.30% and T7=(Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30%.

3.6. Shelf life

Table 7 and 8 revealed that pre-harvest foliar application effects of mineral nutrient sources and storage condition, along with each level of storage materials, had significantly influenced the shelf life of broccoli. The shelf life of broccoli at room condition (14-240c with RH 60-65%) ranged from 1.75 days to 7.25 days. A maximum shelf life of 7.25 days was observed in the treatment T7 (Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30% followed by T3 (B@o.30%) with 6.13 days, and T4 (Zn@o.30%) with 5.75 days where the brocolli was kept in High-Density Polyethylene (HDP;15 micron) Vacuum packs. A minimum shelf life 1.75 days was noted in the treatment T1 (control) at open place conditions. On the other hand, the shelf life of broccoli in cold storage (40C with 90-95% RH) ranged from 11.33 days to 24.33 days. The maximum shelf life at cold storage 24.33 days was observed in the treatment T7 (Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30% followed by T3 (B@o.30%) with 23.45 days, T4 (Zn@o.30%) with 22.67 days and it was kept in a High-Density Polyethylene (HDP; 15 micron) Vacuum pack. This might be due to synergistic effects of pre-harvest foliar application of mineral nutrients and inorganic nutrient sources influenced broccoli longevity through increased nutrients uptake by the plants and enhanced greater development of water conducting tissue which enhanced the shelf life of broccoli. A minimum shelf life of 11.33 days was noted in treatment T1 (control) in open place condition within cold storage. A maximum shelf life in both the storage conditions in a High-Density Polyethylene (HDP; 15 micron) Vacuum pack might be due to its sophisticated techniques which delayed and protected the physiological deterioration of broccoli curd. With High-Density Polyethylene (HDP; 15 micron) Vacuum pack having more control over the gas exchange with the surrounding air, the levels of CO2 and O2 around the produce might have further slowed down conversion of starch to sugars. Curds stored in the cold conditions had maintained a greener color and at the same time no chilling injury symptoms, no decay incidence, and no rot were observed. In addition, storage at low temperature reduced the rate of respiration, and delayed senescence during storage of curds. Pre-harvest foliar application of mineral nutrients in broccoli production and better storage conditions including appropriate use of scientific storage materials like the High-Density Polyethylene (HDP; 15 micron) Vacuum pack might protect the chlorophyll degradation and ethylene production. The synchronized effects of the said treatment might also protect available moisture and minimize the rate of respiration along with strengthening the cell wall in the vegetative parts of broccoli which restricted the yellowing color and reduced weight loss. This might have maintained the shelf life and quality of broccoli. The findings of present investigation in respect of shelf life corroborate with the findings of Jadhav (2018) in broccoli.

Table 7. Shelf life (days) comparison of storage materials at each level of treatment under different storage condition.
    Treatment
Shelf life(days)
At room temperature
(14-24°C) with RH 60-65%)
Shelf life(days)
At Cold Storage
(4°C with RH 90-95%)
storage materials
storage materials
LDP Polyethylene bag
HDP Vacuum pack
2% Egg shell power solution
2% Ascorbic acid solution
Control
LDP Polyethylene bag
HDP Vacuum pack
2% Egg shell power solution
2% Ascorbic acid solution
Control
T1
3.29de
3.85d
2.33ef
2.25ef
1.75f
15.33b
17.25a
12.33c
11.33c
12.25c
T2
4.25e
5.07e
2.67f
2.56f
2.33f
18.45b
20.36a
13.37c
11.66d
13.25c
T3
5.33e
6.13e
3.45f
3.33f
3.05f
21.39b
23.45a
14.47c
12.47d
13.75cd
T4
4.85e
5.75e
3.25f
3.13f
2.55f
20.56b
22.67a
14.16c
12.16d
13.63c
T5
4.37e
5.23e
2.75f
2.45f
1.93f
18.60b
21.54a
13.55c
11.75d
13.25c
T6
3.77de
4.16d
2.49ef
2.33ef
1.85f
16.51b
18.75a
12.79c
11.53c
12.36c
T7
5.53f
7.25e
3.73g
3.69g
3.25g
22.47b
24.33a
15.25c
13.25d
15.17c
LSD(P=0.05)
0.0000
Note: Here, these letters a, b, c, d, e, f, g indicate the significant treatment among all the treatments. Means with the same letter are not significantly different, T1=control, T2=Ca@o.30%, T3=B@o.30%, T4=Zn@o.30%, T5=Mo@o.30%, T6=Mn@o.30% and T7=(Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30%.

Table 8. Shelf life (days) comparison of treatment at each level of storage materials under different storage condition.
  Treatment
Shelf life(days)
At room temperature
(14-24°C) with RH 60-65%)
Shelf life(days)
At Cold Storage
(4°C with RH 90-95%)
Storage materials
Storage materials
LDP Polyethylene bag
HDP Vacuum pack
2% Egg shell power solution
2% Ascorbic acid solution
Control
LDP Polyethylene bag
HDP Vacuum pack
2% Egg shell power solution
2% Ascorbic acid solution
Control
T1
3.29c
3.85d
2.33b
2.25b
1.75b
15.33d
17.25f
12.33c
12.25d
11.33b
T2
4.25abc
5.07bcd
2.67ab
2.56ab
2.33ab
18.45c
20.36d
13.37bc
13.15bcd
11.66b
T3
5.33a
6.13ab
3.45ab
3.33ab
3.05ab
21.39ab
23.45ab
14.47ab
13.75b
12.47ab
T4
4.85ab
5.75b
3.25ab
3.13ab
2.55ab
20.56b
22.67bc
14.16ab
13.63bc
12.16ab
T5
4.37abc
5.23bc
2.75ab
2.45ab
1.93ab
18.60c
21.54cd
13.55bc
13.25bcd
11.75b
T6
3.77bc
4.16cd
2.49ab
2.33b
1.85b
16.15d
18.75e
12.79c
12.36cd
11.53b
T7
5.53a
7.25a
3.73a
3.69a
3.25a
22.47a
24.33a
15.25a
15.17a
13.25a
LSD(P=0.05) 0.0000
Note: Here, these letters a, b, c, d, e, f indicate the significant treatment among all the treatments. Means with the same letter are not significantly different, T1=control, T2=Ca@o.30%, T3=B@o.30%), T4=Zn@o.30%, T5=Mo@o.30%, T6=Mn@o.30% and T7=(Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30%.

3.7. Economic Consideration

Table 9 revealed that maximum gross returns of BDT 427650 ha-1 and maximum net returns of BDT 307854 ha-1 were observed in the treatment T7 (Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@ o.30%  followed by T3 (B @ o.30%) with maximum gross returns of BDT 399450ha-1 and maximum net returns of BDT290580 ha-1, and T4 (Zn@o.30%) with maximum gross returns of BDT 392550ha-1 and maximum net returns of BDT283230 ha-1respectively. Minimum gross returns of BDT 341250 ha-1 and minimum net returns of BDT 233880 ha-1noted were observed in treatmentT1 (control). A maximum Benefit-Cost ratio (BCR) of 3.66 was recorded  in the treatment T3 (B@o.30%), followed by T4 (Zn@o.30%) with BCR 3.58, and T7 (Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30% with BCR 3.57 respectively. This investigation corroborates with Sharma (2012), Singh et al. (2018) and Shatis et al. (2018); in broccoli.

Table 9. Economic of broccoli production by pre-harvest foliar application effects of mineral nutrients.
Treatment
Marketable yield(t ha-1)
Cost of production
(Tk. ha-1)
Gross returns
(Tk. ha-1)
Net returns
(Tk. ha-1)
Benefit Cost ratio.(BCR)
T1
22.75
107370
341250
233880
3.18
T2
23.72
109427
355800
246555
3.25
T3
26.63
109015
399450
290580
3.66
T4
26.17
109510
392550
283230
3.58
T5
25.51
111484
382650
271530
3.43
T6
23.46
109839
351900
242280
3.20
T7
28.51
119796
427650
307854
3.57
Note: Here, T1=control, T2=Ca@o.30%, T3=B@o.30%), T4=Zn@o.30%, T5=Mo@o.30%, T6=Mn@o.30% and T7=(Ca+B+Zn+Mo+Mn)@o.30%.
Sale rate of broccoli @ 15Tk/kg.

4. CONCLUSION

The inference of the present investigation that pre-harvest foliar application of combined mineral nutrients of Ca, B,Zn,Mo and Mn with 0.30% of each concentration performed the best regarding higher yield, gross, and net returns at the grower level. Broccoli also produced through foliar application of the said mineral nutrients is the best for consumption and getting quality attributes and shelf life of broccoli. In addition, use of the High-Density Polyethylene (HDP; 15 micron) Vacuum pack has been considered an effective technology for maintaining the shelf life of broccoli both at room temperature (14-240c with RH 60-65%) and in cold storage (40c with RH 90-95%).

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.  

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ Contributions: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study.

REFERENCES

Ahirwar, & Nath. (2020). Organic broccoli farming: A step towards doubling farmer`s income. Research Today, 2(4), 47-50.

Brand-Williams, W., Cuvelier, M. E., & Berset, C. L. W. T. (1995). Use of a free radical method to evaluate antioxidant activity. LWT-Food science and Technology, 28(1), 25-30.

Cartea, M. E., Velasco, P., Obregón, S., Padilla, G., & De Haro, A. (2008). Seasonal variation in glucosinolate content in Brassica oleracea crops grown in northwestern Spain. Phytochemistry, 69(2), 403-410.

Chaudhari, V. J., Patel, N. K., Tandel, B. M., & Vibhuti, C. (2017). Effect of foliar spray of micronutrients on growth and yield of cauliflower (Brassica oleracea L. var. Botrytis). International Journal of Chemical Studies, 5(6), 1133-1135.

Chingtham, C., & Banik, A. (2019). Studies on effectiveness of packaging on storability of broccoli cv. Aishwarya International Journal of Chemical Studies, 7(2), 5112-5118.

Choudhury, R. S., & Sikder, S. (2017). Study the manifestation of growth and yield attributes of broccoli through application of Boron, Molybdenum, Zinc and their combination treatments in Teraiagro-Ecological Region of West Bengal. Current Agriculture Research Journal, 5(3), 366- 370.

Faller, A. L. K., & Fialho, E. (2009). The antioxidant capacity and polyphenol content of organic and conventional retail vegetables after domestic cooking. Food Research International, 42(1), 210-215. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2008.10.009.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2020). Statistics division, corporate statistical database(FAOSTAT). Retrieved 10 February 2021.

Gupta, R., Swami, S., & Rai, A. P. (2019). Impact of integrated application of vermicompost, farmyard manure and chemical fertilizers on okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L.) performance and soil biochemical properties. International Journal of Chemical Studies, 7, 1714-1718.

Jadhav, P. B. (2018). Extending the storage and Post-Storage life of dragon fruit using a cold room (Ecofrost). International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology, 11(3), 573-577.

Li, Z., & Gao, X. (2000). The effects of storage temperatures on the qualities of broccoli. China Vegetables, 4, 6-9.

Mal, D., Chatterjee, R., & Nimbalkar, K. H. (2014). Effect of vermi-compost and inorganic fertilizers on growth, yield and quality of sprouting broccoli (Brassica oleracea L. var. italica Plenck). International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management, 5(4), 507-512.

Manisha, C., & Rajkumari, A. D. (2020). Influence of packaging material and storage temperature on the shelflife and quality of broccoli: A review. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 9(6), 233-237.

Nagraj, G. S., Anita, C., Swarna, J., & Amit, K. J. (2020). Nutritional composition and antioxidant properties of fruits and vegetables (pp. 5-17). Dublin - City Campus, Dublin, Ireland: Academic Press, School of Food Science and Environmental Health, College of Sciences and Health,  Technological University.

Pankaj, P., Kujur, P. K., & Saravanan, S. (2018). Effect of different micronutrient on plant quality of broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. italica) CV Green Magic. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 2(1), 2825-2828.

Ranganna, S. (1986). Handbook of analysis and quality control for fruits and vegetables products (2nd ed., pp. 497-529). New Delhi, India: Tata McGraw Hill Publication Co. Ltd.

Rice-Evans, C., Miller, N., & Paganga, G. (1997). Antioxidant properties of phenolic compounds. Trends in Plant Science, 2(4), 152-159.

Sharma, P. (2012). Effect of foliar spray of micronutrients on growth, yield and quality of broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. italica)  cv. Pusa KTS-1. (Doctoral Dissertation, Institution of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University), India.  

Shatis, X., Praveen, C., Radhelal, D., Preeti, T., Mithlesh, G., & Sunny, A. T. (2018). Effect of different micronutrients on plant growth and yield of broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica). International Journal of Chemical Studies, 6(4), 979-982.

Singh, V., Singh, A. K., Singh, S., Kumar, A., & Mohrana, D. P. (2018). Impact of foliar spray of micronutrients on growth, yield and quality of broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. italica) cv. Pusa KTS-1. The Pharma Innovation Journal, 7(8), 99-101.

Singh, G. S., Sarvanan, K. S. R., Jalam, S. R., & Bhanwar, L. (2016). Effect of different micronutrients on plant growth, yield and flower bud quality of broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica) cv. Green Bud. International Journal Adv. Res, 4(9), 2018-2043.

Slinkard, K., & Singleton, V. L. (1977). Total phenol analysis: Automation and comparison with manual methods. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 28(1), 49-55.

Yvette, P. (2012). Vacuum pack for maintaining the shelf life of broccoli.Bioscience Horizons. The International Journal of Student Research, 5(4), 23-34.

Zaki, M. F., Abdelhafez, A. A. M., El-dewiny, Y., & Camilia. (2009). Influence of bio-fertilization and nitrogen sources on growth, yield and quality of broccoli (Brassica olercea Var. Italica). Egyptian Journal of Applied Science, 24(3), 86-111.

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), International Journal of Sustainable Agricultural Research shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content.