ARTICLES

Comparison of Selected High Oleic Acid Breeding Lines, Florunner and NC 7 Cultivars for Roasted Peanut, Sweet and Other Sensory Attribute Intensities¹

Authors: H. E. Pattee , D. A. Knauft

  • Comparison of Selected High Oleic Acid Breeding Lines, Florunner and NC 7 Cultivars for Roasted Peanut, Sweet and Other Sensory Attribute Intensities¹

    ARTICLES

    Comparison of Selected High Oleic Acid Breeding Lines, Florunner and NC 7 Cultivars for Roasted Peanut, Sweet and Other Sensory Attribute Intensities¹

    Authors: ,

Abstract

Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) breeding lines with the high oleic fatty acid trait, acceptable yield, and acceptable grade have shelf-life quality characteristics that are much better than existing cultivars, however, the effects of this changed fatty acid composition on peanut sensory attributes are not known. Sensory evaluation of roasted-peanut paste from four high oleic acid breeding lines (F1250, F1315, F1316, F1334), Florunner, and NC 7 indicates that improvement in fatty acid composition of peanut lines does not appear to be associated with changes in roasted peanut attribute intensity. The breeding lines had similar attribute intensity to an accepted industry standard, Florunner, and were significantly better than NC 7 (4.44.8 vs. 3.9, respectively). F1316 and F1334 had higher (though not significantly higher) roasted peanut intensities than the other high oleic acid breeding lines (4.8 vs. 4.44.7, respectively). Comparisons for other sensory attributes, fruity, sweet, bitter, stale, painty, tongue/throat burn, astringent, woody/hulls/skins, and sour were not significantly different from Florunner or NC 7.

Full Article Available as PDF only - Use Download Feature

Keywords: Roasted peanut quality, sensory, high oleic acid, genotypes

How to Cite:

Pattee, H. & Knauft, D., (1995) “Comparison of Selected High Oleic Acid Breeding Lines, Florunner and NC 7 Cultivars for Roasted Peanut, Sweet and Other Sensory Attribute Intensities¹”, Peanut Science 22(1), p.26-29. doi: https://doi.org/10.3146/pnut.22.1.0006

5 Views

4 Downloads

Published on
01 Jan 1995
Peer Reviewed

Author Notes

1The research reported in this publication was a cooperative effort of the Agricultural Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture, the North Carolina Agric. Res. Serv., Raleigh, NC 276957643, and the Univ. of Florida Agric. Exp. Stn., Gainesville, FL 32611. The use of trade names in the publication does not imply endorsement by the United States Department of Agriculture, the North Carolina Agric. Res. Serv., or the Univ. of Florida Agric. Exp. Stn. of the products named, nor criticism of similar ones not mentioned.