ARTICLES

Roasted Peanut Flavor Intensity Variations Among U.S. Genotypes¹

Authors: Harold E. Pattee , Francis G. Giesbrecht , Thomas G. Isleib

  • Roasted Peanut Flavor Intensity Variations Among U.S. Genotypes¹

    ARTICLES

    Roasted Peanut Flavor Intensity Variations Among U.S. Genotypes¹

    Authors: , ,

Abstract

Roasted flavor should be a critical factor in the acceptance of a peanut cultivar edible use. A 5-yr study was made on variation in roasted peanut flavor intensity of U.S. peanut cultivars and advanced breeding lines. Sixty-one genotypes were evaluated with sufficient location and replication observations (4) to have a 40% chance of detecting a true difference of 0.5 sensory units in flavor score with P = 0.05. Cultivars Florunner, NC 7, and Pronto were used as comparison standards for the roasted peanut attribute in the runner, Virginia, and Spanish market types, respectively. The adjusted mean difference between control and test germplasm was largest within the Virginia type, with an adjusted mean difference of +0.7 units for roasted peanut attribute intensity. Runner types were next with a difference of +0.3 units and Spanish types were not different. Broad-sense heritability for the roasted peanut attribute among germplasm sources was 9.3%, which compares favorably with previously published values of 10.6 and 24.3%. Heritability of the sweet sensory attribute was determined to be 25.9%, compared to previously published values of 14.3 and 37.0%. This suggests a potential for improving the roasted peanut and sweet attribute levels through using proper breeding strategies.

Full Article Available as PDF only - Use Download Feature

Keywords: Roasted flavor, nuttiness, sweetness, Arachis hypogaea, Groundnut, market types, broad-sense heritability

How to Cite:

Pattee, H. & Giesbrecht, F. & Isleib, T., (1995) “Roasted Peanut Flavor Intensity Variations Among U.S. Genotypes¹”, Peanut Science 22(2), p.158-162. doi: https://doi.org/10.3146/i0095-3679-22-2-16

34 Views

7 Downloads

Published on
01 Jul 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 and the North Carolina Agric. Res. Serv., Raleigh, NC 276957643. The use of trade names in this publication does not imply endorsement by the United States Department of Agriculture or the North Carolina Agric. Res. Serv. of the products named, nor criticism of similar ones not mentioned.