1 Mention of firm names or trade products in this paper does not constitute a recommendation by the USDA nor does it imply registration under FIFRA.
At digging, peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) plants were placed in shaded and conventional (inverted) windrows to determine if peanut quality could be improved. Florigiant and NC 6 cultivars were dug and placed in the two windrow types on days when freezing temperatures or frost were predicted. All peanuts were dug with a conventional digger-inverter. The shaded windrows were hand formed by placing a layer of peanuts on the inverted windrow so that the peanuts were protected from direct exposure to the sky. The peanut temperature in the conventional windrow reached the lowest temperature in the nighttime and highest temperature in the daytime and fluctuated from the lowest to highest level compared to the shaded windrow and the ambient temperature. Peanut temperatures in the conventional and shaded windrows were approximately 0C or below for a short duration during the windrow curing period. The average maximum peanut temperature from 12 to 5 p.m. was 3.7C higher for the conventional than the shaded windrows for all tests. From 2 to 7 a.m., the average "minimum" peanut temperature was 1.1C lower for the conventional than the shaded windrow. The peanut moisture content in the shaded windrow averaged 7.3% higher at combining than peanuts in the conventional windrow. In a test where the ambient temperature dropped below freezing for two nights following digging, the alcohol headspace meter readings were above the rejection level for freeze damage in the conventional windrow. The shaded windrow provided minimal freeze protection over the conventional windrow and shading is not recommended in the Virginia-Carolina production area.
Full Article Available as PDF only - Use Download Feature
Keywords: Arachis hypogaea L, freeze damage, moisture content, Temperature
How to Cite:
Wright, F. & Porter, D., (1997) “Shaded Windrow Curing for Peanuts in Virginia¹”, Peanut Science 24(2), p.78-80. doi: https://doi.org/10.3146/i0095-3679-24-2-3