ARTICLES

Intensities of Sensory Attributes in High- and Normal-Oleic Cultivars in the Uniform Peanut Performance Test

Authors: Thomas G. Isleib , Harold E. Pattee , R. Scott Tubbs , Timothy H. Sanders , Lisa O. Dean , Keith W. Hendrix

  • Intensities of Sensory Attributes in High- and Normal-Oleic Cultivars in the Uniform Peanut Performance Test

    ARTICLES

    Intensities of Sensory Attributes in High- and Normal-Oleic Cultivars in the Uniform Peanut Performance Test

    Authors: , , , , ,

Abstract

In order to ascertain whether or not flavor differed between high- and normal-oleic peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.), data from the quality assessment phase of the Uniform Peanut Performance Test (UPPT) were used to compare the mean of 27 high-oleic cultivars with 32 normal oleic cultivars and registered germplasm lines. No difference was detected for any sensory attribute intensity except stale/cardboardy. That difference was minor (0.16 vs. 0.28 flavor intensity units, P = 0.0008) and favored high-oleics. Although there was no detectable difference between high- and normal oleic lines, there was variation among individual lines for oil content, roast color, and several sensory attributes (dark roasted, raw/beany, roasted peanutty, sweet aromatic, sweet, bitter, wood-hulls-skins, and “off flavors” stale/cardboard, fruity/fermented, and plastic/chemical). No variation at all was detected among lines for astringent, earthy, painty, metallic, or sour. The absence of large differences between the two major oleic acid types and the presence of variation among lines within types for some key attributes suggests that it is possible to identify high-oleic cultivars with superior flavor profiles.

Keywords: Arachis hypogaea L., flavor

How to Cite:

Isleib, T. & Pattee, H. & Tubbs, R. & Sanders, T. & Dean, L. & Hendrix, K., (2015) “Intensities of Sensory Attributes in High- and Normal-Oleic Cultivars in the Uniform Peanut Performance Test”, Peanut Science 42(2), p.83-91. doi: https://doi.org/10.3146/0095-3679-42.2.83

134 Views

1 Downloads

Published on
01 Jul 2015
Peer Reviewed

Introduction

The high-oleic fatty acid seed oil trait in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) was discovered in the 1980s by researchers at the Univ. of Florida (Norden et al., 1987). Its inheritance was deduced (Moore and Knauft, 1989; Knauft et al., 1993; López et al. 2001; Isleib et al. 2006d), and the trait was transferred by backcrossing into the runner-type Sunrunner cultivar (Norden et al., 1985). The first high-oleic cultivars were released in the 1990s (Gorbet and Knauft, 1997, 2000). Sunrunner was highly susceptible to the tomato spotted wilt (TSW) caused by Tomato spotted wilt tospovirus, and the new SunOleic cultivars were as well. The shortcomings of the first high-oleic cultivars and the need to pay a royalty to the Univ. of Florida due to their ownership of a US Utility Patent on the high-oleic trait made peanut growers reluctant to adopt high-oleic cultivars in spite of their clear advantages in terms of finished peanut products, particularly with respect to shelf life (Mozingo, 2004). Processors prefer high-oleic peanuts for some products, and most US peanut breeders have adopted elevated oleic acid level as an objective in their programs.

As more high-oleic peanut cultivars are released in the USA, processors and shellers have inquired whether or not flavor differences exist between high-oleic cultivars and normal ones. The Uniform Peanut Performance Test (UPPT) program provides a mechanism whereby advanced breeding lines of the runner or virginia market type from all three of the major US production regions are compared directly (Branch et al., 2014). Many UPPT entries are released as cultivars subsequent to their testing in the UPPT. In the years from 2001 through 2013, many high- and normal-oleic cultivars have been UPPT entries that were tested for flavor profile by the USDA-ARS Market Quality and Handling Research Unit (MQHRU) in Raleigh, NC. Even though not all cultivars were tested every year, there was sufficient overlap among entries between years, and check cultivars Florunner (Norden et al., 1969) and NC 7 (Wynne et al., 1979) were included in most individual UPPT tests, allowing comparison among the larger group of cultivars.

There has been some review of the relative flavor profiles of high-and normal-oleic breeding lines (Isleib et al., 2006a) including a direct comparison of the near-isogenic cultivars, NC 7 and Brantley (Isleib et al., 2006c). Based on that limited data, there were not large differences in flavor between the two groups of breeding lines and cultivars. More data are available now. It was the objective of this work to use the UPPT flavor data to determine whether or not systematic differences exist between normal- and high-oleic peanut cultivars with respect to their flavor profiles.

Materials and Methods

The UPPT is a trial series that has continued for decades (Branch et al., 2014) although collection of composition and sensory data did not begin until the 2001 trials. Each year, participants in the UPPT program grow a replicated field trial of breeding lines contributed by programs in southern US states including state-funded programs in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas and Virginia and USDA-ARS programs in Georgia and Oklahoma. Test sites include three in the Virginia-Carolina production area (Suffolk, VA, Lewiston, NC, and Blackville, SC), three in the Southeastern area (Tifton, GA, Marianna, FL, and Headland, AL), and six in the Southwestern area (Brownfield, TX, La Mesa, TX, Seminole, TX, Pearsall, TX, Stephenville, TX, and Fort Cobb, OK). No more than three locations in the Southwest were used in a single year. After pods from the field reps were graded by the participants, a sample of pods was composited across reps and sent to the USDA-ARS National Peanut Research Laboratory at Dawson, GA, where an extensive array of physical properties were measured on pods and seeds. Samples of the predominating fractions of the shelled seeds (extra-large kernels or “ELK” for virginia-type breeding lines and jumbo or medium kernels for runner-type lines) were sent to the USDA-ARS MQHRU in Raleigh, NC.

Personnel in the USDA-ARS MQHRU roasted the peanuts to a Hunter L value of 49±1, ground the roasted peanuts to paste to eliminate kernel size and texture as sensory criteria, and presented the paste samples to a trained descriptive sensory panel that scored an array of sensory attributes or “flavor notes” using the lexicon developed by Johnsen et al. (2007). This lexicon has a continuous scale of intensity from 0 (no perception of the flavor) to 15 (most intense flavor). Paste color (brightness) was measured on the Hunter L scale on room-temperature paste using a Hunter Laboratories DP-9000 colorimeter equipped with a D25 L optical sensor (Hunter Associates Laboratories, Reston, VA).

Since the inception of the sensory evaluation of UPPT samples in 2001, sensory intensity scores for samples from the UPPT have been accumulated in a database maintained by the NCSU peanut breeding program. This database includes data on the fatty acid profiles of the various samples as well as the names assigned to breeding lines that were released as cultivars after inclusion in the program either as “official” entries, i.e., ones grown in all UPPT tests that year, or as “local options,” i.e., entries grown at one or a few locations at the discretion of the individual participant. Local options often include cultivars commonly grown commercially in the area. If a cultivar was tested in the UPPT prior to inception of the flavor assessment program, it may appear in the database as a local option.

Thirty-two normal- and 27 high-oleic cultivars were identified on the basis of fatty acid concentrations measured as part of the UPPT quality assessment, their data extracted from the database, and the data subjected to an unbalanced analysis of variance using the general linear models procedure (PROC GLM) of SAS Ver. 9.3 (SAS Inst., Cary, NC). For the roasted peanut, sweet aromatic, sweet, and bitter sensory attributes, roast color linear and quadratic effects and the intensity of the fruity attribute were tested as covariates. The model selected for final use included any covariates found to be simultaneously significant (P ≤ 0.05). Means adjusted to a common environmental effect were computed for the oleic acid groups and for individual lines within groups using the “least squares means” (LSMEAN) option. Means were separated using t-tests (P ≤ 0.05).

Results and Discussion

There was no indication that normal- and high-oleic cultivars differed in any sensory trait except stale/cardboard (Tables 1, 2). The difference for that trait was very small (0.28 vs. −0.16 flavor intensity units (fiu), P = 0.0008) and favored high-oleics. Although statistically different, the intensity scores for both groups were close to zero, i.e., most often imperceptible, so it is questionable whether or not the statistically significant difference rises to the level of biological or economic significance. For UPPT samples, it is customary to assess flavor as quickly as possible after processing, and if paste samples must be stored, they are usually held at −15 C, a temperature at which oxidation and generation of the stale/cardboard flavor are negligible (Pattee et al., 2002). Another experiment might be designed to assess flavor in samples of normal- and high-oleic cultivars maintained over longer periods of time at higher temperatures, but the effect of the high-oleic trait on retardation of the onset of rancid flavor is well known (Mozingo, 2004), and the apparent effect of the high-oleic trait on the other sensory attributes was not detected. Several of the negative sensory attributes such as raw beany or dark roast or so-called “off flavors” such as wood-hulls-skins, astringent, earthy, painty, metallic, and sour exhibited no genotypic variation whatever after accounting for the average effects of specific tests.

Table 1.
Table 1.

Registration articles or other references to cultivars.

Table 2.
Table 2.

Adjusted mean paste oil, color, and sensory attribute scores for high- and normal oleic cultivars tested in the Uniform Peanut Performance Test. Means adjusted to a common environmental effect.

Table 2.
Table 2.

Continued

Table 3.
Table 3.

Adjusted means for negative sensory attribute (“flavor note”) scores for high- and normal oleic cultivars tested in the Uniform Peanut Performance Test. Means adjusted to a common environmental effect.

Table 2.
Table 2.

Continued

It is of interest that there was statistically significant variation among lines within oleic acid groups for the generally positive sensory attributes roasted peanutty, sweet aromatic, and sweet and for the generally negative ones bitter, fruity/fermented, stale/cardboard, and plastic/chemical. Roasted peanutty intensities ranged from 3.92 to 5.15 fiu for high-oleics and 4.26 to 4.89 fiu for normal-oleics. Sweet aromatic intensities ranged from 2.41 to 3.24 fiu for high-oleics and 2.71 to 3.24 fiu for normal-oleics. Sweet intensities ranged from 1.91 to 2.70 fiu for high-oleics and 2.02 to 2.70 fiu for normal-oleics. Bitter intensities ranged from 2.35 to 3.05 fiu for high-oleics and 2.30 to 3.05 fiu for normal-oleics. Wood/hulls/skins intensities ranged from 2.96 to 3.21 fiu for high-oleics and 2.95 to 3.21 fiu for normal-oleics. Stale/cardboardy intensities ranged from 0.13 to 0.38 fiu for high-oleics and −0.07 to 0.38 fiu for normal-oleics. Fruity/fermented intensities ranged from 0.11 to 0.62 fiu for high-oleics and −0.44 to 0.62 fiu for normal-oleics. Plastic/chemical intensities ranged from 0.17 to 0.44 fiu for high-oleics and −0.04 to 0.44 fiu for normal-oleics.

In each case, if it was a positive sensory attribute, the upper limit for the high-oleic cultivars was greater than or statistically equivalent to that for the normal-oleics; if it was a negative attribute, then the lower limit for the high-oleics was less than or statistically equivalent to the limit for normal-oleics. This suggests that it is possible to identify high-oleic cultivars with superior flavor profiles, at least as good as profiles of normal-oleic cultivars.

Literature Cited

Balota Mozingo M.R.R.W. Coffelt T.A. Isleib T.G. Beahm B.R. Pittman H.G. Bryant F.S. Copeland P.A. Daughtrey C.J. Kennedy B.C. Shokes F.M. Ashburn R.D. Whitt D.L. and Redd D.A. 2011 Registration of ‘Titan’ peanut J. Plant Regist. 5 : 282 – 288 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2010.09.0531crc )

Banks D.J Kirby J.S. and Sholar J.R. 1989 Registration of ‘Okrun’ peanut Crop Sci. 29 : 1574 . doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1989.0011183X002900060066x) )

Baring M.R López Y. Simpson C.E. Cason J.M. Ayers J. and Burow M.D. 2006a Registration of ‘Tamnut OL06’ peanut Crop Sci 46 : 2720a – 2721a . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2006.06.0412 )

Baring M.R Simpson C.E. Burow M.D. Black M.C. Cason J.M. Ayers J. López Y. and Melouk H.A. 2006b Registration of ‘Tamrun OL07’ peanut Crop Sci 46 : 2721 – 2722 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2006.06.0413 )

Branch W.D. 1996 Registration of ‘Georgia Green’ peanut Crop Sci. 36 ( 3 ): 806 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1996.0011183X003600030051x )

Branch W.D. 2003 Registration of ‘Georgia-02C’ peanut Crop Sci. 43 : 883 – 1884 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2003.1883 )

Branch W.D. 2004 Registration of ‘Georgia-03L’ peanut Crop Sci. 44 : 1485a – 1486a . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2004.1485 )

Branch W.D. 2005 Registration of ‘Georgia-04S’ peanut Crop Sci. 45 : 1653a – 1654a . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2004-059 )

Branch W.D. 2006 Registration of ‘Georgia-05E’ peanut Crop Sci. 46 : 2305 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2005.013 )

Branch W.D. Registration of ‘Georgia-06G’ peanut J. Plant Reg. 2007a 1 : 120 . (doi:  http://doi.org/ 10.3198/jpr2006.12.0812crc )

Branch W.D. Registration of ‘Georgia Greener’ peanut J. Plant Reg. 2007b 1 : 121 . (doi:  http://doi.org/ 10.3198/jpr2006.12.0813crc )

Branch W.D. 2009 Registration of ‘Georgia-08V’ peanut J. Plant Reg. 3 : 143 – 145 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2008.11.0657crc )

Branch W.D. 2010 Registration of ‘Georgia-09B’ peanut J. Plant Reg. 4 : 175 – 178 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2009.12.0693crc )

Branch W.D. 2012 Registration of ‘Georgia-11J’ peanut J. Plant Reg. 6 : 281 – 283 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2011.11.0604crc )

Branch W.D. 2013 Registration of ‘Georgia-12Y’ peanut J. Plant Regist. 7 : 151 – 153 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2012.11.0048crc )

Branch W.D. 2014 Registration of ‘Georgia-13M’ peanut J. Plant Regist. 8 : 253 – 256 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2013.11.0071crc )

Branch W.D. and Brenneman T.B. 2008 Registration of ‘Georgia-07W’ peanut J. Plant Reg. 2 : 88 – 91 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2007.12.0682crc )

Branch W.D. and Culbreath A.K. 2011 Registration of ‘Georgia-10T’ peanut J. Plant Reg. 5 : 279 – 281 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2010.11.0635crc )

Branch W.D Balota M. Isleib T.G. Montfort W.S. Bostick J.P. Tillman B.L. Burow M.D. Baring M. and Chamberlin K.D. 2014 Uniform Peanut Performance Tests, 2013 Univ. Georgia Coastal Plain Exp. Stn. Prog. Rep. No. 4–143. 25 p.

Burow M.D Baring M.R. Ayersa J.L. Schubert A.M. López Y. and Simpson C.E. 2014 Registration of ‘Tamrun OL12’ peanut J. Plant Reg. 8 : 117 – 121 . (doi:  http://doi.org/ 10.3198/jpr2013.07.0036crc )

Gorbet D.W. 2006 Registration of ‘Carver’ peanut Crop Sci. 46 : 2713 – 2714 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2006.05.0331 )

Gorbet D.W. 2007a Registration of ‘ANorden’ peanut J. Plant Reg. 1 : 123 – 124 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2007.01.0033crc)

Gorbet D.W. 2007b Registration of ‘Hull’ peanut J. Plant Regist 1 : 125 – 126 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2007.01.0035crc)

Gorbet D.W. and Knauft D.A. 1997 Registration of ‘SunOleic 95R’ peanut Crop Sci. 37 : 1392 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700040081x )

Gorbet D.W. and Knauft D.A. 2000 Registration of ‘SunOleic 97R’ peanut Crop Sci. 40 : 1190 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2000.0032rcv )

Gorbet D.W. and Shokes F.M. 2002 Registration of ‘C-99R’ peanut Crop Sci. 42 : 2207 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2002.2207 )

Gorbet D.W. and Tillman B.L. 2009 Registration of ‘Florida-07’ peanut J. Plant Regist. 3 : 14 – 18 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2008.05.0276crc )

Gorbet D.W. and Tillman B.L. 2011 Registration of ‘York’ peanut J. Plant Regist. 5 : 289 – 294 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2010.11.0644crc )

Holbrook C.C. and Culbreath A.K. 2007 Registration of ‘Tifrunner’ peanut J. Plant Regist. 1 : 124 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2006.09.0575crc )

Holbrook C.C. and Culbreath A.K. 2008 Registration of ‘Georganic’ peanut J. Plant Regist. 2 : 17 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2007.03.0172crc )

Holbrook C.C Timper P. Culbreath A.K. and Kvien C. 2008 Registration of ‘Tifguard’ peanut J. Plant Regist. 2 : 92 – 94 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2007.12.0662crc )

Hsi D.C. 1980 Registration of New Mexico Valencia C peanut (Reg. No. 24) Crop Sci. 20 : 113 – 114 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1980.0011183X002000010033x )

Hsi D.C. and Finkner R.E. 1972 Registration of New Mexico Valencia A peanut (Reg. No. 14) Crop Sci. 12 : 256 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1972.0011183X001200020041x )

Isleib T.G Milla-Lewis S.R. Pattee H.E. Copeland S.C. Zuleta M.C. Shew B.B. Hollowell J.E. Sanders T.H. Dean L.O. Hendrix K.W. Balota M. and Chapin J.W. 2011 Registration of ‘Bailey’ peanut J. Plant Reg. 5 : 27 – 39 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2009.12.0742crc )

Isleib T.G Milla-Lewis S.R. Pattee H.E. Copeland S.C. Zuleta M.C. Shew B.B. Hollowell J.E. Sanders T.H. Dean L.O. Hendrix K.W. Balota M. Chapin J.W. and Monfort W.S. 2015 Registration of ‘Sugg’ peanut J. Plant Regist. 9 : 44 – 52 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2013.09.0059crc )

Isleib T.G Pattee H.E. Sanders T.H. Hendrix K.W. and Dean L.O. 2006a Compositional and sensory comparisons between normal- and high-oleic peanuts J. Agric. Food Chem. 54 : 1759 – 1763 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.1021/jf052353t)

Isleib T.G Rice P.W. Mozingo R.W. Mozingo R.W. and Pattee H.E. 1999 Registration of ‘Gregory’ peanut Crop Sci. 39 : 1526 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1999.0001rcv )

Isleib T.G Rice P.W. Mozingo R.W. Mozingo R.W. Bailey J.E. and Pattee H.E. 2003 Registration of ‘Perry’ peanut Crop Sci. 43 : 739 – 740 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2003.7390 )

Isleib T.G Rice P.W. Mozingo R.W. Copeland S.C. Graeber J.B. Pattee H.E. Sanders T.H. Mozingo R.W. and Coker D.L. 2006b Registration of ‘Phillips’ peanut Crop Sci. 46 : 2308 – 2309 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2005.12.0491)

Isleib T.G Rice P.W. Mozingo R.W. Copeland S.C. Graeber J.B. Novitzky W.F. Pattee H.E. Sanders T.H. Mozingo R.W. and Coker D.L. 2006c Registration of ‘Brantley’ peanut Crop Sci. 46 : 2309 – 2311 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2005.12.0492)

Isleib T.G Wilson R.F. and Novitzky W.P. 2006d Partial dominance, pleiotropism, and epistasis in the inheritance of the high-oleate trait in peanut Crop Sci. 46 : 1331 – 1335 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2005.09-0313)

Johnsen P.B Civille G.V. Vercellotti J.R. Sanders T.H. and Dus C.A. 2007 Development of a lexicon for the description of peanut flavor J. Sensory Studies 3 ( 1 ): 9 – 17 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1988.tb00426.x

Kirby J.S Banks D.J. and Sholar J.R. 1989 Registration of ‘Spanco’ peanut Crop Sci. 29 : 1573 – 1574 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1989.0011183X002900060065x )

Kirby J.S Melouk H.A. Stevens T.E Banks D.J. Sholar J.R. Damicone J.P. and Jackson K.E. 1998 Registration of ‘Southwest Runner’ peanut Crop Sci. 38 : 545 – 546 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1998.0011183X003800020065x )

Knauft D.A Moore K.M. and Gorbet D.W. 1993 Further studies on the inheritance of fatty acid composition in peanut Peanut Sci. 20 : 74 – 76 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3146/i0095-3679-20-2-2 )

López Y Smith O.D. Senseman S.A. and Rooney W.L. 2001 Genetic factors influencing high oleic acid content in Spanish market-type peanut cultivars Crop Sci. 41 : 51 – 56 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2001.41151x )

Melouk H.A Chamberlin K. Godsey C.B. Damicone J. Burow M.D. Baring M.R. Simpson C.E. Dashiell K.E. and Payton M. 2013 Registration of ‘Red River Runner’ peanut J. Plant Regist. 7 ( 1 ): 22 – 25 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2012.03.0174crc )

Moore K.M. and Knauft D.A. 1989 The inheritance of high oleic acid in peanut J. Hered. 80 : 252 – 253 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/82.1.73 )

Mozingo R.W Coffelt T.A. Phipps P.M. and Coker D.L. 2006 Registration of ‘CHAMPS’ peanut Crop Sci. 46 : 711 – 2712 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2005.12.0513 )

Mozingo R.W O'Keefe S.F. Sanders T.H. and Hendrix K.W. 2004 Improving shelf life of roasted and salted inshell peanuts using high oleic fatty acid chemistry Peanut Sci. 31 : 40 – 45 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3146/pnut.31.1.0009 )

Norden A.J Gorbet D.W. and Knauft D.A. 1985 Registration of ‘Sunrunner’ peanut Crop Sci. 25 : 1126 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1985.0011183X002500060061x )

Norden A.J Gorbet D.W. Knauft D.A. and Young C.T. 1987 Variability in oil quality among peanut genotypes in the Florida breeding program Peanut Sci. 14 : 7 – 11 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3146/i0095-3679-14-1-3 )

Norden A.J Lipscomb R.W. and Carver W.A. 1969 Registration of Florunner peanuts (Reg. No. 2) Crop Sci. 9 : 850 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1969.0011183X000900060070x )

Pattee H.E Isleib T.G. Moore K. Gorbet D.W. and Giesbrecht F.G. 2002 Effect of the high-oleic trait and paste storage variables on sensory attribute stability of roasted peanuts J. Agric. Food Chem. 50 : 7366 – 7370 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.1021/jf025853k )

Simpson C.E Baring M.R. Schubert A.M. Black M.C. Melouk H.A. and López Y. 2006 Registration of ‘Tamrun OL02’ peanut Crop Sci. 46 : 1813 – 1814 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2006.02-0125 )

Simpson C.E Baring M.R. Schubert A.M. Melouk H.A. Black M.C. López Y. and Keim K.A. 2003a Registration of ‘Tamrun OL01’ peanut Crop Sci. 43 : 2298 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2003.2298)

Simpson C.E Baring M.R. Schubert A.M. Melouk H.A. López Y. and Kirby J.S. 2003b Registration of ‘OLin’ peanut Crop Sci. 43 : 1880a – 1881a . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2003.1880a)

Simpson C.E Starr J.L. Church G.T. Burow M.D. and Paterson A.H. 2003c Registration of ‘NemaTAM’ peanut Crop Sci. 43 : 1561 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2003.1561)

Smith O.D Simpson C.E. Black M.C. and Besler B.A. 1998 Registration of ‘Tamrun 96’ peanut Crop Sci. 38 : 1403 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1998.0011183X003800050054x )

Tallury S.P Isleib T.G. Copeland S.C. Rosas-Anderson P. Balota M. Singh D. and Stalker H.T. 2014 Registration of two multiple disease-resistant peanut germplasm lines derived from Arachis cardenasii Krapov & W.C. Gregory, GKP 10017 (PI 262141) J. Plant Regist. 8 ( 1 ): 86 – 89 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2013.04.0017crg )

Tillman B.L. and Gorbet D.W. 2015 Registration of ‘FloRun ‘107’ ’ peanut J. Plant Regist. 9 : 162 – 167 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2014.12.0086crc )

Wynne J.C Mozingo R.W. and Emery D.A. 1979 Registration of NC 7 peanut (Reg No. 22). Crop Sci. 19 : 563 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1979.0011183X001900040037x )

Wynne J.C Coffelt T.A. Mozingo R.W. and Anderson W.F. 1991 Registration of ‘NC-V11’ peanut Crop Sci. 31 : 484 – 485 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1991.0011183X003100020062x )

Wynne J.C Mozingo R.W. and Emery D.A. 1986 Registration of ‘NC 9’ peanut Crop Sci. 26 : 197 . (doi:  http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1986.0011183X002600010050x )

Notes

    Author Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Crop Science, Box 7629, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7629.
  2. Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences, 2360 Rainwater Rd., Univ. of Georgia Coastal Plain Exp. Sta., Tifton, GA 31793.
  3. USDA-ARS Market Quality and Handling Research Unit, Box 7624, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7624.
  4. *Corresponding author: tisleib@ncsu.edu.