'_' ———-————_ , - . - - | c. ' .c:\- '~".C"vo'0""VIVD'-' ""-‘U".I"" ---‘uVV-'~.v-—--- 7. . . EFFECT 0F VARIGUS GOMEZ-NATIONS. A . F URN AND SUCROSE SYRUPS .. . . ON THE QUALITY OF CANNED AND: . FROZEN. FRUIT 5i Thesis .fo “the Degree of M S. .. Q '- ' ~ MICHIGA“;STATE UNIVERSITY _ 1 - . 1' : , , * K-OBER FOSTER: _ - . . . _ o -' . < ' ' c ‘ ' ' . ‘ ' ‘ o . . , ' s . . . . . I! ' . . ‘ ' I I r .— ‘ ' . g.— ' u - ' . . . - o . l I I u o a 0 I . .... . ' ‘ ‘ . I.. . - . ' ' ' ' n o , ‘I , o ' c . I —- . . . I- . I . ._ . . .,. . u ' , ‘- . . , . . . ,- o - . 4 ‘ - - _ . . ‘ ' . n A .. . - l o . _ ' I ' . - ,1. , I I ‘ . _ _ . y , . o I ’l ' o ' I 7' , I _ 1r '. I ‘ A . .a- _ ' . ' ‘ . - . a , . . , I I - a " ' - ‘ - , - . - I no '. - . . . a - .. ,. , n _ o , _ . I - . 4. a _ ' , . ' - . .. .. ' - ‘-- I a . . , ’ , - . . . . . ' . .. . . . - . - , . , , \ ' . . . o . u- ’ . , . _ ._. ' \ . , Iv . ‘4 v , ‘ ’. _ n l ' ' ' ‘ 1 . . . , ‘ . _ l ' ‘ ’ ‘ ' I . . .‘ -'r' - ' . . r ' r ' l I " . I ‘ ’ 1 I ‘ ). . . .. , , - ,. . o , I . _ . . A- n . n . , . ‘ . , .., , . . . ‘ . ., -. ‘ , _ _ . ‘ ' ‘.. . » .. . — _. _.‘. . . . . . - . n- . ‘ . _ . .. . . _ | " .. j .. . . .. .- . . ,_ . , .-" . .- - ~ ,. , . . , r ‘. ' - - . .. . . — .' . 1" . , . . , . . ,,. . I o . ’ _ . ."I. 1. . F. I u ' ‘O ' " ' ' 1’ .. . . ‘ . ' . ' l . . i ' . ' "ll‘a I :- . . . . . ' I . - a — . I .. .. . -. ' .. ~- :.A . r»- ' . . . , ‘ . ' '. ' . . . - . . . , , . K " ' . I .. . .. . , . .- . J I . I . . , .. . . . ' - Jr '. - - -' . .. n. . In ' ',' . o - n .1 r V ‘ l- l - o .a ._ . _ 7-3.... . ' v . .. - . --n .. - - .-- ‘- .-' . v" . - -- «r .‘ .,,. ‘ . ' - . . -. l o . ’ '--- ' II - ,,. ,_.-, , , . ‘ - . v: I’ - , .. , ' ‘ v . ' . - - . ,.., . v . . . - - . . .' r -,o . ., _ - a. r I y . r-- I ' - - . r, V . . _ ‘ _- '. . - . . , . . - : , . , -- l .'l-'n'- _ I . ,. ' , . . ‘ . . .\. . . , , , . . ‘ . r' ' -' ‘ " ' . 9‘ ' . ' - ,I- r v--. . - ', . -' .- , ' . . . - ' v . - t - - '~ '«4 o; o, f. ,. r “ _ _ » . ' . 0" , . . , , - 5 ,‘ .v r a .v t- - - ..v o _ .., . ." '.., _.. In. _ _. . _,.. _ . .. a -- I I t ' r, . . , . _ , q , , . . ‘ . I - I . . . ,..,-. o .. , , " .. . .,> 'N. a, ' I , _ . ‘ ‘ . . O , . ,' . o a: I ‘ l ' ' ‘ .--r'l ; . -' . ,’, , " I n l . I. " ' ‘ ' .‘ ,. ' ' .4, .- ‘ . ""‘ . .. ‘ » , . _. ., ~- I I ’/ ' ‘ ' v I _ - -, . . . _ V . - x . , . ... A -‘- .. -. . . - - v- . ,I - .. .. .. , .. .-. ‘ " - .v. .I.. I. .-- ’vz ' . " " I ' 1 I' - . ,_ .v. ' . . , p. . . . , ’. . . - . I ‘ 'v - ‘ ' "' ' ' " I . n-. ‘ .. ,. , . -a . . - . 'I'l - - o 'I- ' I'- o - I . - .. , . .., , _ -. Io - . . ¢ ,. .;'. . .. 9-; '- r o , ~ 7' ' .. o < ' ‘ . , _ ' , .' < .. 4 . .. . 5 . .o .. . o I ' u..._. .«. .. . ,o .. _. .' fl "' - p . . .t - ..v I n [I '. -c'. I . _’ a r ‘ c - r I a . I- . 4.... - . 0 I .n u. l ' -‘ . . a 1' ’. ‘ I' ’ " "‘ - - -' . . - -. .... ‘ ' . ; . . . , , ‘n . . . . o . . . .p a .. . 3-; .~I, . - .p . , ... - ' g .. 0| - t". 0 l ' ' '7 . ‘. , . . . . . , ;. , . .1 - . . . I -!o' a . 4 . c c . , . . .-~l / 3 ~ . o . . . . . l . . ..o.:-- . I I. , ‘t - I c ' . , .o«: I a _ I _ . . . .,- b u- v , . at . ' J .0' .-. ' . I . . I - . . ,' . . ... . ., nn- ~ 0' a; ., , , . .l-- ’U' ‘ ‘ . ‘ ' n . v I. -I l I I ’- 1' I v . co ,.. I ’ . . a 'o-. -o ‘ " l l v - . .I-\.. . .. . . . -- . . - l , a ' I - ,. u v I. . . u .c I. p I up ‘ . 0- .- .- “ - 'u g. a - Ic. ’. . - ‘ - v I. - I,, - . . . ‘ ' I . c . b - In . -‘ v- n .. ,' . I— . .I. I a . ... I. . . ... .I ‘ - .. . ‘ I l -- - p l 4 A .n . '1 ‘-.‘ »- u - ..‘ ' ¢ - ‘ “ ‘ ‘ A----. ._ ABSTRACT EFFECT OF VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF CORN AND SUCROSE SYRUPS ON THE QUALITY OF CANNED AND FROZEN FRUIT BY Mark Ober Foster The suitability of blends of corn sugars and syrups with sucrose for canning Schmidt sweet cherries, Halehaven and Elberta freestone peaches and Bartlett pears, and for freezing Midway strawberries and Halehaven peaches was studied. ECorn sugars and syrups used were£®égggmééi_ levulose, maltose, corn syrup #1631 (39% dextrose, 32% maltose and 29% higher saccharides), and invert syrup. Blends of corn sugars and syrups were formulated and sub- stituted for 25% of the sucrose. The blends were compared 5”,...“ W I 7 I . . . toglOO% sucroseéby taste panels us1ng the paired comparison M procedure. The blends found sweeter than 100% sucrose were substituted at 25% and 33% levels for sucrose in fruit processing. Additional blends were also formulated and used in processing. Panelists evaluated fruit packed in the various syrups for flavor preference using the rank procedure. Very few significant differences were found for canned Mark Ober Foster Schmidt cherries, Bartlett pears and frozen Halehaven peaches, although these fruits packed in 100% sucrose were 22"" —--—... ‘A-n generally preferred. Midway strawberries frozen in 100% sucrose and a blend of 67% sucrose, 13% levulose, 13% #1631 and 7% maltose syrups, and Halehaven peaches canned in 75% sucrose, 10% levulose, 10% #1631 and 5% maltose syrup were significantly preferred. Elberta peaches canned in 75% sucrose, 10% dextrose, 10% invert syrup, and 5% levulose and 75% sucrose, 15% levulose, and 10% dextrose syrups were preferred. No significant differences were found between drained weights, soluble solids, pH's, total acidities or brix-acid ratios, respectively, of each fruit pack. These data indicated that any differences obtained among the various syrup packs were due to the degree of sweetness of the syrups and its effect on the flavor qualities of the fruit. EFFECT OF VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF CORN AND SUCROSE SYRUPS ON THE QUALITY OF CANNED AND FROZEN FRUIT BY Mark Ober Foster A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition 1971 f) h . y (7 “(if/)6? 7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to gratefully thank Dr. C. L. Bedford for his help and guidance during the course of this project and for his invaluable assistance in the preparation of this manuscript. The author thanks Drs. L. E. Dawson and J. W. Allen for their participation on the examining committee and for their helpful comments. Thanks are extended to the Moffett Technical Center of CPC International Inc. for funding a generous stipend towards this research and for the corn sugars and syrups used. The author thanks his fellow graduate students who aided in fruit processing and to the faculty, staff and graduate students who participated in taste-panel testing. Finally, and by no means least, the author thanks his fiancee, Gilda, whose moral support, advice, and typing skills were necessary for the completion of this project. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . MATERIALS AND METHODS. . . . . . Materials . . . . . . . . . . Sugars and syrups. . . . . Syrup blends and standards Fruits . . . . . . . . . . Methods . . . . . . . . . . . Blend formula testing. . . Fruit processing . . . . . Taste panel procedures . . Objective measurements . . Statistical analysis . . . RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . Taste Panel Data. . . . . . . Objective Measurements. . . . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 iii Page iv 13 13 13 13 15 16 16 16 18 21 23 24 24 24 43 45 50 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Composition of corn and sucrose syrups. . . . . 14 2. Codes used to identify fruit packs by variety, processing method and harvest year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3. Relationship between sweetness of each syrup blend and sucrose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4. Consumer acceptance of frozen strawberries (STB, STC) in various syrups, 1969, 1970 . . 26 5. Consumer acceptance of canned sweet cherries (CA) in various syrups, 1969. . . . . . . . . 28 6. Consumer acceptance of canned Halehaven peaches (PA) in various syrups, 1969. . . . . 29 7. Consumer acceptance of Halehaven peaches (PH) canned and frozen in various syrups, 1970 . . 30 8. Consumer acceptance of canned Elberta peaches (PE) in various syrups, 1969. . . . . . . . . 31 9. Consumer acceptance of canned pears (PD) in various syrups, 1968. . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 10. Consumer acceptance of canned pears (PF, PK) in various syrups, 1969, 1970 . . . . . . . . 33 11. Objective measurements of canned sweet cherries (CA) in various syrups, 1969. . . . . . . . . 36 12. Objective measurements of canned Halehaven peaches (PA) in various syrups, 1969. . . . . 37 13. Objective measurements of canned Halehaven peaches (PH) in various syrups, 1970. . . . . 37 iv 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Objective measurements of peaches (PE) in various Objective measurements of in various syrups, 1968 Objective measurements of (PK) in various syrups, Objective measurements of (STB), (STC) in various juice, 1969, 1970 . . . Objective measurements of (STB), (STC) in various 1969, 1970. . . . . . . measurements of (PH) in various Objective peaches Objective measurements of peaches (PH) in various blended . . . . . . . . canned Elberta syrups, 1969. . . . canned pears (PD) canned pears (PF), 1969, 1970. . . . . frozen strawberries syrups--drained frozen strawberries syrups--b1ended, frozen Halehaven syrups, 1970. . . . frozen Halehaven syrups, 1970-- Taste panel data evaluation procedure using data transformation for analysis of variance using the statistic W. . . . . . Taste panel data evaluation procedure using normal score transformation and multiple range test. . . . . . . Composition of formula #3 blends. . . . . . . Page 38 38 39 40 41 42 42 51 52 53 INTRODUCTION The U.S. production of corn for the year October 1, 1968--September 31, 1969 was 4,375 million bushels, 48.4% of the world total (Newspaper Enterprises, 1970). Most of the "field corn" grown is used for livestock feeding, however, the grain equivalent of the corn starches, corn syrups, corn sugar, corn meal, corn oil, corn flour and other foods containing corn that consumers buy amount to one bushel per person per year (Corn Refiners Assoc., 1968). In the U.S. this amounts to over 200 million bushels. Corn sugar (dextrose) and corn syrups are used in the production of beverages, meat products, canned fruits and vegetables, breads, salad dressings, and dairy products (Corn Refiners Assoc., 1968). Corn syrups are made from corn starch using either acid (HCl) or acid-enzyme hydrolysis. In the acid process, the corn starch, as a slurry, is placed in a converter,{1 heated and dilute acid (HCl) is added. Hydrolysis is halted by addition of a neutralizing agent (NaCOB). In the acid-enzyme process, the acid hydrolysis is followed by addition of a purified diastatic enzyme, resulting in a high maltose content syrup. The dextrose-maltose ratio is influenced by both the type of enzyme employed and by the extent of preliminary acid conversion. The resulting hydrolyzate is skimmed (for fatty substances), filtered, partially evaporated, (to 60% solids) and passed through carbon filters for further clarification and decoloration. The resulting fluid is often passed through ion-exchangers for final purification (Corn Industries Research Founda- tion, 1965). The sweetness of corn sugars and syrups, with respect to sucrose, is dependent on the concentrations employed, whether or not they are combined with sucrose, the degree of hydrolysis, dextrose equivalent (DE), and even the conversion and refining method used (Dahlberg and Penczek, 1941), (Neiman, 1958), (Lewis, 1956), (Joslyn, 1957), (Pangborn e£_31. 1959). The FDA (Federal Food and Drug Administration) now allows the substitution of sucrose by corn sugars and syrups up to the 33% level as part of the standard of identity of canned cherries, peaches and pears. There are presently no standards of identity for frozen strawberries or peaches (The Almanac, 1970). Much of the canned fruit today contains corn syrup as a partial sweetener, however, the industry is constantly searching for new blends to improve the flavor and overall quality of the products marketed. This study was under- taken to determine the suitability of various blends of corn syrups with sucrose for canning freestone peaches, pears and sweet cherries, and for freezing freestone peaches and strawberries. The effect of the various combinations of sweetening agents on flavor was empha- sized. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Dahlberg and Penczek (1941) tested the relative sweetness of various sugars as effected by concentration using sucrose as the standard for comparison. Using sucrose as a standard at 100, they reported that 10 percent solutions of levulose, maltose, dextrose, and enzyme converted corn syrup to be 114.9, 47.4, 78.7, and 55.9 as sweet, respectively. Twenty percent solutions gave values of 119.8, 56.5, 91.7, and 70.9, respectively, and 40 percent solutions of dextrose gave a value of 100.0, i.e., equal to sucrose, and corn syrup a value of 80.0. A definite effect of one sugar upon another was reported. In a test where solutions of 15, 25, and 40 percent sucrose were made up as standards, and test solu- tions were made up of 2/3 sucrose and the rest of dex- trose or corn syrup necessary to bring the sweetness up to the level of the standard, the dextrose was rated at 94, 100, and 102 relative to sucrose at 100, and corn syrup at 79, 100, and 100, respectively. Thus, in a 25 percent solution dextrose was found to be as sweet as sucrose when in combination with sucrose (two parts sucrose to one part dextrose). Also, a high conversion corn syrup could replace sucrose on a pound for pound basis in a 25 percent solution. Both of these observations are also at the sucrose-dextrose 2:1 level. Sjostrom and Cairncross (1955) reported mixtures of isosweet solutions of sucrose (8.25%) and dried corn syrup D.E. 42 (22.0%) to be slightly sweeter than either solution by itself. Additional tests with these sweeteners showed similar trends at the 2.25% sucrose (9.25% dried corn syrup) sweetness level, but not at the 1.75% sucrose (6.75% dried corn syrup) level. A difference in the char- acter of sweetness of sweeteners was noted. The intensity of sweetness of a 21% dextrose solution dropped off sud- denly compared with a sucrose solution of equivalent sweetness (15%), which persisted for a longer time, dis- appearing gradually. The same comparison was noted with 3.75% dextrose and 2.0% sucrose solutions, but not with dextrose and sucrose solutions at their recognition thres- hold levels, 1.3% and 2.0% respectively. Nieman (1958) summarized data on the relative sweetness of different sugars compared to a 10% solution of sucrose. With the sucrose value set at 100, he rated maltose 46, d-glucose 69, d-fructose 114, and invert syrup 65. Lewis (1956) reported dextrose (glucose) to be 62% as sweet as sucrose in 2% solutions. He also reported dextrose and sucrose to be equally sweet at the_40% solids level. Dahlberg and Penczek (1941) reported dextrose 62.5% as sweet as sucrose in 2% solutions. Sather and Weigand (1948) reported on the appli- cation of corn syrup in the freezing preservation of fruit. The study consisted of freezing apricots, apples, black- berries, boysenberries, loganberries, peaches, pears, prunes, raspberries, rhubarb, sweet cherries, RSP cherries and strawberries in various combinations and concentrations of sucrose and three corn syrups. Superior texture, flavor and color were reported for packs with 40 or 50 Brix (B) ingoing syrup with 40% or 50% replacement of sucrose with either Red or Blue Label Karo brand corn syrup. Higher drained weights were also reported for these syrup treat- ments. Oxidation or browning was observed in the Red label syrup packs. Organoleptic panels rated the flavor, texture, color and general appearance of all packs. A panel of six trained food technologists was used. Data from this panel correlated well with data from a panel of twenty-four members of an academic class studying frozen foods which also rated the products. In evaluating the effects of various sweetening agents on frozen strawberries for preserve manufacture, Aref et_§l, (1956) reported that a 25% replacement of sucrose by dextrose resulted in no significant difference in the drained weight, and a higher invert sugar content in the preserve than 100% sucrose. They also reported that the use of Frodex (a corn syrup) resulted in better colored whole berries than did sucrose, and that some of the effect was noticeable in the preserves. There were indications that the sucrose pack had superior flavor than did packs using other sweeteners. Leonard §E_§l. (1953) reported that the Brix—acid ratio was a good criterion of cling peach flavor and found a ratio of 25 to 32:1 to be optimum. They also stressed that fruit flavor rather than sweetness was the most important factor in the determination of acceptability. Simone et_al. (1956) conducted consumer studies on the sweetness of canned cling peaches and reported that samples with cut-out Brix readings of 23.5 to 24.2 B were most acceptable. These corresponded to Brix-acid ratios of 73.7 to 85.4. Joslyn et_al. (1957) using Halford clingstone peaches reported no real differences in acceptability between 25% replacement of sucrose by dextrose or by corn syrups and the straight sucrose pack. Flatness and lack of fruit flavor in corn syrup samples at higher re- placement levels (50 and 75%) was often noted. Moreover, granular dextrose did not affect loss in fruit flavor as much as the corn syrups used, but contributed to a peculiar and undesirable bitterness and off—flavor. They found that both sweetness and fruitiness were decreased in the corn syrup and dextrose packs. In adjusting the sweetness level in the corn syrup packs with sucryl, they found that sweetness was more important than fruitiness in flavor eval- uation. Slight changes in texture were noted for all blends at the 40% replacement level, but at 50% and above, panel members noticed the samples becoming "too firm, rubbery, or tough." With respect to the method of conversion and refining of the corn syrup, the 64 DE acid-enzyme converted to bone char and resin refined syrup was superior to the 54 DE and 42 DE acid-converted carbon refined syrups. At the 25% replacement level and 64 DE syrup was even pre- ferred over sucrose, while at 50% replacement the sucrose pack was rated highest followed by dextrose and corn syrup packs. With Elberta freestone peaches, Pangborn gt_gl. (1959) reported the best sample was 40 B ingoing, 22.56 B cut-out, pH 3.75, total acidity .349%, Brix-acid ratio 64.52:l when packs ranging from 30 B ingoing, 18.46 B cut—out, to 60 B ingoing 31.40 B cut-out were tested. They reported that texture differences closely resembled flavor differences. Increased acid did not improve sample flavor acceptability or texture even in very sweet samples. In- creasing percentages of corn syrups in the ingoing 40 B syrups decreased flavor acceptability, but at the 50 B ingoing level no significant difference was noted between sucrose and corn syrup packs. Off-flavor was detected with increasing amounts of corn syrup at the 40 B level. Exces- sive sweetness at the 50 B level masked flavor differences at the lower replacement levels. In general, firmness of the fruit increased with increasing corn syrup content. Pangborn and Leonard (1958) reported that in a consumer study on Bartlett pears of different total acidity canned with syrups of between 30 and 70 B readings, the fruit with high acidity (.160%) scored best (on a seven point hedonic scale) at a cut-out Brix of 22.8 B, while the low acid (.l35%) scored best at 18.5 B. The respective Brix-acid ratios were 142.5 and 129.6. Flavor was most frequently mentioned as a favorable characteristic. The panel made a positive association between sweetness and flavor. Texture and color were reported as being unaf- fected by sugar levels. Ranking tests require that judges arrange a series of two or more samples in ascending or descending order of intensity of a specific characteristic. In ranking tests for quality, the usual objective is to select one or two of the best samples rather than to test all samples thoroughly. Ranking is often used for screening inferior from superior experimental samples in product development and occasionally in training judges (Amerine gt_§1. 1965). Caul (1957) pointed out that inconsistencies in ranking may occur when a judge is asked to rank samples with only minor differences. The judge may then feel he has to distinguish between identical samples. Caul (1957) also stated that the major disadvantage of the ranking 10 method is that it disregards the degree of difference between samples. Kramer (1960) stated that the ranking method is a simple, accurate and rapid means for determining whether observed differences are real in terms of statistical differences. Bliss gt_§1. (1953) compared the ranking, scoring, and checking of descriptive terms methods for taste tests with mealiness of potatoes. Six samples were tested. It was stated that both scoring and descriptive terms assume a standard against which all samples are judged, whereas ranking sets its own standard in each test and the assigned scores are merely relative values. It was also stated that the standard can be included among the unknowns as a refer- ence point on the same scale as other points in the test. Boggs and Hanson (1949) referred to a standard as a means of relating unknowns to a sample whose quality is known. Bliss gE_al. (1953) reported that in computation, ranking is simplest. Dawson and Dochterman (1951), in comparing ranking and scoring methods for evaluating three samples of apple juice with three levels of lemon juice added, found no significant differences between the methods, in percentage of correct order answers, though ranking showed a slightly higher actual percentage. They reported that the ranking data were more easily tallied than numerical scores because 11 the answers were more decisive in the ranking test. They did report, however, that the scoring method indicated degrees of difference that were not shown by ranking. Murphy gt_gl. (1954) reported the ranking method better than scoring for evaluating strawberry texture by trained judges, because of their failure to use the full five point scale. Murphy gt_al, (1957) used the three methods of paired comparison, ranking and terms-scoring scale in detecting differences among three strawberry varieties with known flavor differences reported that the ranking and terms methods took about the same amount of material and time, while the paired method took more of each. Wide quality differences were picked up by the ranking and term methods, while the paired comparison test was found to be a more precise test than the other two. Giradot gt_al. (1969) reported that the paired comparison procedure and a three-sample rank order pro- cedure could be used equally well to discriminate between various strengths of instant coffee. The consumer pre— ference testing also showed a four-sample rank order pro- cedure to be slightly poorer than the above two methods when differences between samples were small. Consumer panels are very useful because they reflect a new product's projected acceptance into the marketplace. Cartwright et a1. (1952) stated that the determination of a 12 consumer preference is a useful application of organoleptic evaluation, particularly in developing a new formula based on an established product. Languil (1949) stated that consumers all are, or should be, taste conscious, and pointed out that food manufacturers recognize this and stress it in their advertising. He stated that accept- ability testing of products is done by both trained and consumer panels, and that little difference in taste pre- ference was noted between men and women. However, Pangborn (1964) pointed out that a problem may arise when an un- trained judge records his degree of liking by saying, "I like it because it has good flavor, and it has good flavor because I like it." It is generally recognized that certain people prefer their food (e.g., fruit) sweet, and others tart. The food industry should provide "natural" tasting products with the sugar-to-acid level where most people like it best. MATERIALS AND METHODS Materials Sugars and syrups Six basic sugars and syrups were used to formulate the syrup blends used in this study. The dry sugars were sucrose, dextrose, levulose, and maltose, and the syrups were invert syrup and Corn Products #1631 corn syrup. The invert syrup was 91% converted (9% sucrose by difference) with 72.1% soluble solids. The #1631 syrup was a 43 Baume (Be) (81.8% soluble solids), acid-enzyme converted, ion-exchanged and carbon refined corn syrup consisting of approximately 39% dextrose, 32% maltose and 29% higher saccharides. With the exception of sucrose the sugars used in this study were supplied by the Moffett Technical Center of the CPC International Inc. Syrup blends and standards Three standards were chosen for the study; 100% sucrose, 75% sucrose + 25% #1631, and 67% sucrose + 33% dextrose. Ten syrup blend formulas were made with 25% replacement of sucrose by various corn sugars, using available data in the literature on the relative sweetness of various sugars as a guideline. These formulas are shown in Table l. 13 14 Table 1. Composition of corn and sucrose syrups. Sugars Sucrose Dextrose Levulose Maltose #1631 Invert Standards Percent by weight SS 100 -- -- -- -- -- 81 75 -- -- -- 25 -- S2 67 33 -— -- -- -- Blend Formulas Code No. l 75 10 10 5 -- -- 2 75 --. 10 5 —- 10 3 75 -- 10 5 10 -- 4 75 10 5 -— -- 10 5 75 -- 5 10 10 -- 6 75 -- 5 -- 10 10 7 75 5 10 5 —- 5 8 75 5 -- 5 10 5 9 75 5 5 5 -- 10 10 75 5 5 10 -- 5 Series I 03 75 -- 10 5 10 -- 04 75 10 5 -- —- 10 05 75 -- 5 10 10 -- 06 75 -- 5 -- 10 10 Series II A3 67 -- 13 7 13 -- A4 67 13 7 -- -- 13 A5 67 -- 7 13 13 -- A6 67 -- 7 -- 13 13 Series III 20 75 15 -- -- -- 10 21 75 10 -- -- -- 15 22 75 -- -- 10 -- 15 23 75 -- 15 10 -- -- 24 75 10 15 -- -- -— 25 75 -- 15 -- -- 10 15 Fruits Bartlett pears harvested in 1968, 1969, and 1970, Midway strawberries harvested in 1969 and 1970, Schmidt sweet cherries harvested in 1969, Halehaven freestone peaches harvested in 1969 and 1970, and Elberta freestone peaches harvested in 1969 were used. (Table 2) Peaches were harvested at the firm-ripe stage and ripened at 70-75 F for 3-4 days before processing. Pears were stored at 32 F for 30-40 days after harvest and ripened at 70-75 F. Table 2. Codes used to identify fruit packs by variety, processing method and harvest year. Product Year of Crop Codes Canned Bartlett Pears 1968 PD 1969 PF 1970 PK Frozen Midway Strawberries 1969 STE 1970 STC Canned Schmidt Sweet Cherries 1969 CA Canned Halehaven Peaches 1969 PA 1970 PH Frozen Halehaven Peaches 1970 PH Canned Elberta Peaches 1969 PE 16 Methods Blen f rm i The syrup formulas were made up as 40 percent solutions (the ingoing B level of canned fruit) and eval- uated for sweetness by a taste panel using the paired compairson procedure. Each pair consisted of one of the blend formulas (1-10) (Table 1) and a sucrose sample. The panel results indicated that the 40 B syrups were too sweet and, at that level, it was difficult to distinguish between samples. Therefore, additional eval- uations were made at the 25 B level, the approximate cut- out B level of canned fruit. Fruit processing Strawberries Midway strawberries, 1969 crop, were obtained from the Keeler, Michigan area. They were washed, sliced and filled into 6 x 12 clear polyethelene bags to a put in weight of 7 ounces. Three ounces of 50 B syrup was added to each bag and the bags were heat-sealed and frozen at -10 F. A 50 B syrup was chosen in place of a 60 B because of the lateness of the season. The ripe to very ripe berries were considered to be low in acidity, thus oversweetness of a 60 B syrup was avoided. The 1969 pack consisted of berries packed in Series I, II, and II blend syrups and the three standard syrups (Table l). 17 Midway strawberries, 1970 crop, were packed as in 1969, however, 14 ounces of fruit and 6 ounces of 60 B syrup were filled into each bag. The syrups used were of SS, 03, A3, and 81 composition. Sweet Cherries Schmidt sweet cherries were obtained from the Hart- Shelby area of Michigan. They were washed and pitted with a Dunkeley junior cherry pitter. Pitted cherries were filled into 303 cherry enamel cans, covered with 160-170 F 40 B syrup, exhausted for approximately 7 minutes at 190 F, sealed and processed for 25 minutes at 210 F, cooled and stored. The put in weight of pitted fruit was 12 ounces. Syrups of the three blend series and the three standards were used. Peaches Halehaven and Elberta peaches of the 1969 crop were obtained. Peaches were washed, de-stoned by hand and steam-peeled. Peach halves were filled into 303 cans, covered with 160-170 F 40 B syrup, exhausted for seven minutes at 190 F, sealed and processed for 25 minutes at 210 F, cooled and stored. The put in weight of peach halves was 12 ounces. The three blend series syrups and the three standards were used for each variety. Halehaven peaches, 1970 crop, were prepared and processed as above, 18 however, only 40 B syrups of SS, 03, A3, and $1 composi- tion were used. Also, Halehaven peaches of the 1970 crop were frozen in 6 x 12 clear polyethelene bags with 12 ounces of fruit and 6 ounces of 40 B syrup filled into each bag. Pears Bartlett pears were hand-peeled and cored. Pear halves were filled into 303 cans, covered with 160-170 F 40 B syrup, exhausted for approximately 7 minutes at 190 F, sealed and processed for 25 minutes at 210 F, cooled and stored. The put in weight of fruit was 11 ounces. Three small lots of 1968 crop Bartlett pears were canned in various syrups of the Series I and the three com- parison standards (Table l) at 40 B and 25 B levels. A larger pack was put up including all of the standards and Series I syrups at an ingoing 30 B level. Bartlett pears of the 1969 crop were canned in 40 B syrups of the three series (Table 1). Standards were also packed. In 1970, pears were put up in 40 B syrups of the SS, 03, A3, and 81 composition. Taste panel procedures Syrup blends The paired comparison procedure was used to compare the various syrup formulas with sucrose. All samples were served at room temperature in clear plastic 1 ounce cups. 19 At one sitting, three pairs were presented to each panelist, each pair consisting of one test sample and one sucrose. Each cup was accompanied by a cup of water, a ballot, a pencil, and a napkin. The test was performed under white light, since all samples appeared similar. The panelists were asked to choose the sweeter sample and record. Data was analyzed for significance (Kramer and Twigg, 1966). Method of panel selection and testing environment Procedures concerning the testing environment and serving the samples were carefully monitored using those cited by Amerine gt_al. (1965) as a guideline. Taste panels used to evaluate the 1968 and 1969 fruit packs were considered to be laboratory panels. They consisted of 15-20 randomly selected people who either passed by the testing area (room 100 Food Science) or were Food Science students and staff. An expert panel was not sought, thus neither screening nor sensitivity tests were administered. The testing environment was quiet, comfortable and as orderly as possible. The importance of these factors being emphasized by Boggs and Hanson (1949) among others. The tests were generally performed either mid-morning, 10:00—-ll:00 a.m. or mid-afternoon 2:00--3:00 p.m. Harper (1949) preferred to serve sweet samples from 10:00--10:30 a.m. so as to avoid the influence of mealtimes. 20 Fruit packs Flavor evaluations.--The drained fruit was cut into small pieces, mixed thoroughly in an enamel pan to obtain a homogeneous mixture. The mixed fruit pieces and syrup were served in 1 ounce clear plastic cups. The cups were coded using a two-digit number from a random number table. The sample cups were randomly placed on a paper plate. This plate along with a ballot, a pencil, a cup of water, a spoon, and a napkin were served to each panel member. The panel members were not given specific instructions on whether or not to swallow the samples, what order to taste them, whether or not to rinse between tastes, or the time between tastes (Dove, 1947), (Laue gt_al., 1954), (Tompkins and Pratt, 1959). Panelists encountering trouble in distinguishing between samples were told to concentrate on tasting the syrup more than the fruit. The panelists were told that the samples were edible. Ranking method and sample serving procedures Samples from the 1968 and 1969 packs were analyzed similarly using the ranking method to differentiate between samples. In each test, each judge was presented with 5 or 6 coded samples in labelled cups. The judge was asked to rank all the samples according to his personal preference 21 by writing the codes for the samples in descending order on the ranking sheet (Table 16). Whether the test would consist of 5 or 6 samples was determined by which standard or standards was compared with a series of sample blends. In each case, a set of four sample blends were used since each of the three series consisted of four blend samples. In one instance, the SS standard was compared with a blend series, making 5 total samples. Another set of tests compared the same blend series with the $1 and 82 standards, making 6 total samples. A replicate was run in each case, except for the 1969 strawberry pack. Since the 1970 packs were packed for consumer panel evaluation, only four syrups were used. They were SS, 03, A3, and $1. The frozen peaches were presented to panels of 20 persons in duplicate. The canned peaches and pears and the frozen strawberries were subjected to evaluation by a panel of 50 individuals. It was important that judges had not participated in previous taste panels of this study. Objective measurement Drained weights, soluble solids of syrup, pH, and total acidity were determined for all canned fruits and the Brix-acid ratio calculated. In addition, color was determined for the cherries. Frozen peaches and 22 strawberries were analyzed only for soluble solids, pH, and total acidity of the drained juice and of the blended contents of each package. Drained weight was determined according to the U.S. Standards for Grades (The Almanac, 1970). The soluble ‘solids content of the drained juice was determined with an Abbe refractometer; pH and total acidity were determined using a Beckman glass electrode pH meter. For total acidity, 5 or 10 ml aliquots of juice in 50 ml distilled water were titrated to pH 8.0 with 0.1N NaOH. Color determinations on the cherry juice were made as described by Bedford and Robertson (1962). Twenty-five ml of juice were added to 25 ml of 0.5% oxalic acid mixed, let stand for 10-15 minutes, then filtered through Whatman No. 5 filter paper into an Erlenmeyer flask. The first 5 ml were discarded, 10 ml of the clear filtered syrup was pipetted into a 50 ml Volumetric flask, 9 ml of pH 3.4 citrate buffer was added, and made to volume with distilled water. The transmittance of the resulting solution was read at 515 nm on a spectrophotometer (Bausch and Lomb Spectronic-ZO). Transmittance readings were converted to absorbance values by using an apprOpriate conversion table. 23 Statistical analysis The paired comparison test data were analyzed for significance by using the X2 distribution and appropriately computed table by Kramer and Twigg (1966). The taste panel data from the ranking of the pack samples were analyzed in more than one way. The rank sum method (Kramer, 1960, 1963) was applied as a test for significant differences between samples for the 1968 pack of pears. A11 ensuing data were analyzed by the data transformation for analysis of variance method, using the coefficient of concordance W, with modification for using the X2 distribution to determine significance, (Friedman, 1937), (Kendall, 1948), (Reimer, 1957) and the normal score transformation method for analysis of variance. Both methods were applied to data from the sum of two replicates, and the latter to each separate panel. The multiple range test (Duncan, 1955) was applied where X2 and F tests showed significance. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Taste Panel Data Syrup blends Corn sugars and syrups are generally less sweet than sucrose, and since sweetness is an important factor in acceptability of canned and frozen fruit (Leonard gt_al., 1953), (Joslyn, 1957), (Pangborn and Leonard, 1958), syrup blends of sweetness comparable to sucrose were sought. Results of paired comparison tests of formulations 1-10 with sucrose showed syrup blends 3, 4, 5, and 6 to be significantly sweeter than sucrose. These four blends were selected for use in fruit processing (Table 3). Table 3. Relationship between sweetness of each syrup blend and sucrose. Syrup Blend No. Panelists No. Sweeter than Sucrose 1 15 8 2 15 8 3 15 r12* 4 2o 16** 5 20 15* 6 20 k12«q 7 16 12 8 16 12 9 19 12 10 19 12 * *significant at 5% level significant at 1% level 24 25 Strawberries 1969 pack In the testing of the Series I blends with the SS (straight sucrose) as the standard, the SS sample was preferred, but was not significantly ranked over the 03 and 04 blends. Syrup blends 06 and 05 received the lowest total rank scores (Table 4). In the Series II blends with SS, no significant dif- ference between samples was obtained. Blend A3 had the lowest rank score. Comparison of the $1 and $2 blends with Series II blends showed no significant preference (Table 4). No significant differences in flavor were found between 23, 25, 24, and 22 blends of Series III while blends 21 and 20 received the lowest scores (Table 4) and, therefore, were not used in further acceptance testing. Blends 22-25 showed no significant differences in preference when compared with the SS standard. The 22-25 blends were ranked slightly higher than the 81 and S2 blends. 1970 pack A consumer acceptance type panel did not signifi- cantly differentiate between A3, 03, and SS syrup blend packs although A3 had the highest rank score. The 81 syrup blend was considered the poorest (Table 4). 26 Table 4. Consumer acceptance of frozen strawberries (STB, STC) in various syrups, 1969, 1970, Weighted Weighted Weighted Code rank * Code rank- NS Code rank NS 1969 SS 206 SS 95 A5 118 04 193 A5 95 51 112 03 184 A4 94 A6 108 06 160 A6 91 A3 104 05 157 A3 75 $2 98 A4 90 No panelists 60 30 30 x2 11.95 3.89 4.68 1969 1970 ** 23 244 23 223 A3 149 25 224 24 223 03 131 24 213 25 218 SS 119 22 206 22 207 81 101 21 196 $2 203 20 177 81 186 No panelists 60 60 50 x2 12.90 5.10 14.69 NS values not significantly different *significance at 5% level; **significance at 1% level; Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 27 From these data it would seem that syrup blends A3, 03, and 04 could be used in place of straight sucrose syrup for packing of strawberries for freezing. Cherries No significant differences in preference were found within either Series I or Series II blends. Comparison of Series III blends with the SS standard also showed no significant differences. In testing of Series III blends with syrup blends 81 and S2, blends 22, 81, 24, and 32 were preferred over 23 and 25. For the entire pack, 03 and SS samples were preferred and 23 and A5 scored low (Table 5). Peaches 1969 Halehaven Comparison of Series I blends with the SS standard showed SS samples to be preferred but not significantly preferred over syrup blends 03 and 05. Comparison of Series I blends with the 81 and 82 blends showed 03, 06, and 05 to be preferred but not significantly different from 04 and S2. Blend 81 received the lowest total rank score (Table 6). No significance was found when Series II blends were compared with the SS standard, although SS and blend A3 had the highest scores. When compared with $1 and S2 blends, A3 received the highest score but did not 28 significantly differ from A4, A5 and 81. Blends 82 and A6 received the lowest scores. (Table 6). Table 5. Consumer acceptance of canned sweet cherries (CA) in various syrups, 1969. 40 Panelists Weighted Weighted Weighted Code rank NS Code rank NS Code rank NS 03 138 SS 130 SS 131 06 124 A3 124 25 125 05 120 A6 121 22 118 SS 110 A4 113 24 117 04 108 A5 112 23 107 x2 5.84 2.30 3.28 03 159 A4 160 22 168 82 144 81 150 81 153 06 141 A6 150 24 147 04 136 $2 131 $2 128 05 133 A3 129 25 123 $1 127 A5 120 23 121 X2 4.38 10.58 12.82* NS values not significantly different *Significance at 5% level; Duncan's Multiple Range Test. No significant differences were found when Series III blends and the SS standard were compared. Blends 25, SS, and 24 were ranked higher than blends 22 and 23. In testing of Series III blends with the $1 and 82 standards, blends 25 and 24 were significantly preferred and blend 81 received the lowest score (Table 6). 29 Table 6. Consumer acceptance of canned Halehaven peaches (PA) in various syrups, 1969. 40 panelists Weighted Weighted Weighted Code rank NS Code rank NS Code rank NS ss 147 es 139 25 125 03 130 A3 132 ss 124 05 116 A4 116 24 123 06 104 A5 108 22 114 04 103 A6 105 23 114 x2 13.90 8.90 1.02 03 158 A3 162 25 189 I 06 157 A4 149 24 166 I 05 155 A5 147 23 144 04 141 s1 146 52 123 $2 128. 32 120 22 120 51 101 A6 116 $1 98 x2 17.88** 11.62* 39.60** I NS values not significantly different *significance at 5% level; ** significance at 1% level; Duncan's Multiple Range Test. These data show blends 03, A3, and 25 to be preferred syrup blends in the canning of Halehaven peaches and of com- parable flavor acceptance to a 100% sucrose pack. Blends 81 and A6 received low scores. Evaluation of canned samples showed blend 03 to be significantly preferred over blends $1 and A3 but not significantly different from the SS standard. Blends 03 and A3 were preferred in separate testing in 1969, however, in 1970, it was shown that 03 was preferred over A3, and 30 was considered to be of comparable flavor acceptance to a 100% sucrose pack (Table 7). No significant differences were found between frozen samples (Table 7). Table 7. Consumer acceptance of Halehaven peaches (PH) canned and frozen in various syrups, 1970. Canned ’ Frozen Weighted . Weighted Code rank * Code rank NS 03 145 SS 110 SS 133 I 03 100 $1 112 S1 100 A3 110 A3 90 No panelists 50 40 x2 8.19 3.00 NS values not significantly different *significance at 5% level; Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 1969 Elberta In the comparison of Series I blends with the SS standard blend 04 received the highest score and blend 05 the lowest score. Comparison with the S1 and 82 standards showed syrup blends 05 and 04 to be significantly pre- ferred. Blend S2 received the lowest score (Table 8). 31 Table 8. Consumer acceptance of canned Elberta peaches (PE) in various syrups, 1969. 40 panelists Weighted Weighted Weighted Code rank NS Code rank NS Code rank NS 04 131 A3 133 24 139 03 124 A6 125 23 120 SS 120 SS 121 SS 116 06 114 A4 114 25 113 05 111 A5 107 22 112 x2 2.82 4.00 4.90 05 169 A4 158 22 164 04 167 A6 158 24 161 03 143 A3 148 25 155 $1 130 82 132 82 124 06 121 81 126 81 122 82 110 A5 118 23 114 x2 21.00** 10.40 17.84** NS values not significantly different **significance at 1% level; Duncan's Multiple Range Test. No significant preference was found when Series II blends were compared with the SS or the 81 and 82 standards, however, blend A5 received the lowest score in both tests (Table 8). Blend 24 received the highest score and blend 22 was the least preferred when Series III was compared with the SS standard. Testing with blends $1 and 82, blends 22 and 24 were significantly preferred and blend 23 was least preferred (Table 8). 32 Blends 04 and 24 could, therefore, be considered desirable syrups for the canning of Elberta peaches. Blend A5 is not recommended. Pears 1968 pack Pears packed in SS (straight sucrose) were found to be significantly preferred over the Series I blends. No significant differences were obtained when the Series I blends were compared with the 81 standard. Series I blends (06, 03, 04) were found to be significantly pre- ferred over the 52 standard blend (Table 9). No significant X2 values were obtained in tests with the 1969 or 1970 packs. The 100% sucrose samples were preferred in the 1969 pack but not in the 1970 pack (Table 10). Table 9. Consumer acceptance of canned pears (PD) in various syrups, 1968. 40 panelists Weighted Weighted Weighted Code rank * Code rank NS Code rank * SS 150 04 130 06 135 03 122 05 123 03 133 04 121 06 120 04 127 05 111 03 114 05 113 06 106 81 113 82 92 x2 11.62 2.14 11.36 NS values not significantly different *significance at 5% level; Duncan's Multiple Range Test 33 Table 10. Consumer acceptance of canned pears (PF, PK) in various syrups, 1969, 1970. Weighted Weighted Weighted Code rank NS Code rank NS Code rank NS 1969 SS 133 SS 126 SS 137 05 133 A6 124 24 129 06 116 A4 119 25 123 03 112 A3 117 23 117 04 106 A5 114 22 104 No panelists 40 40 40 x2 6.14 0.98 6.44 03 151 A4 155 23 151 82 151 A3 146 24 150 06 142 $1 142 S1 149 05 140 A5 136 S2 145 04 134 82 131 25 133 S1 122 A6 130 22 112 No panelists 40 40 40 x2 4.43 3.30 8.28 1970 03 - 131 A3 131 81 125 SS 113 No panelists 50 x2 2.60 NS values not significantly different 34 Objective Measurements Syrup blends The mean soluble solids content of all the syrup blends were 40.1 and 25.1 B respectively, while those of 100% sucrose and of the other two standards (81 and S2) were 40.1 and 25.0 B respectively, at the time of taste evaluation. Fruits The different syrup blends had no effect on the drained weight, pH, total acidity, soluble solids content or Brix-acid ratio of canned Schmidt sweet cherries, Halehaven and Elberta freestone peaches and Bartlett pears (Tables 11—18). Frozen Midway strawberry and Halehaven freestone peach packs did not equilibrate, therefore, soluble solids content, total acidity and Brix-acid measurements of the drained juice were variable, although the pH values were relatively constant (Tables 19, 20). The pH, total acidity, soluble solids and Brix- acid ratio of the blended composite of each treatment were not significantly different. The panel members were served a representative mixture of diced fruit and syrup, therefore, it is unlikely that judgments were influenced 35 by the lack of uniformity in the acidity and soluble solids determined on the drained juice. Since the objective measurements for sweetness and acidity were not significantly different, the flavor differences found were based on the degree of sweetness and/or tartness of each treatment and the flavor effect of the individual sugars. The Brix-acid ratios of the canned Elberta peaches as well as those of the canned pears were within the range reported by Pangborn et_al. (1959) and Pangborn and Leonard (1958) for optimum acceptability. 36 Hmm.a m.mm ova. mm.m m.¢~ m.oa h.m H.om :mmz ow~.H m.mm mmm. mm.m m.m~ w.oa m. ~.om md mam.a m.nm mvm. Hm.m a.mm b.0H m. N.o~ ma omm.H m.>~ mam. Hm.m a.mm m.oa m. m.om ed mm~.H m.h~ «mm. om.m o.m~ h.oa m. m.o~ m¢ bam.a H.5m mom. om.m o.m~ h.oH m. N.om mm dmm.a m.mm mam. om.m m.vm m.oa m. ~.om um oam.a m.>~ mom. om.m a.mm h.oa m. N.o~ mm vum.a m.wm cam. om.m m.mm m.oa w. N.o~ mm mmm.H ¢.m~ 0mm. mv.m v.vm w.oa m. H.o~ mo Nmm.H o.m~ ohm. m¢.m 6.8m m.oa m. a.ma mo wmm.a m.w~ mom. m¢.m 0.8m m.oa m. o.om vo mmm.H a.mm 5mm. mv.m m.v~ m.oH m. a.ma mo mam.a a.mm mvm. om.m m.¢m m.oa n. m.om mm mm~.H ~.m~ evm. bv.m b.8m m.oH w. m.om Hm Hem.a a.mm mmm. mm.m ~.vm o.HH H. H.o~ mm mocmnHOmnm OHDMH w mm w .No .cfi .No 0600 HoHou owom muwowom mUflHOm unoflm3 Edsom> uanwB waum Hmuoa mannaom Umcflmno Hmuoe .moma .mQSHMm m50flum> as Amuv mmflunwno umw3m cognac mo mucmEmHSmmmE w>wuomnno .HH manna 37 Table 12. Objective measurements of canned Halehaven peaches (PA) in various syrups, 1969. Total Drained Soluble Total Brix- weight Vacuum weight solids acidity acid Code oz. in. oz. % pH % ratio SS 20.6 5.1 11.6 21.6 3.78 .507 42.6 S1 20.5 5.6 11.9 21.1 3.81 .528 40.0 82 20.5 5.8 11.9 20.6 3.79 .510 40.4 03 20.4 4.7 12.0 21.7 3.78 .518 41.9 04 20.7 5.3 11.9 21.7 3.78 .518 41.9 05 20.5 4.3 11.8 22.1 3.70 .479 46.1 06 20.6 4.3 12.0 22.2 3.75 .510 43.5 22 20.5 4.1 11.8 20.6 3.81 .501 41.1 23 20.5 4.0 11.9 20.9 3.80 .497 42.2 24 20.5 4.4 11.8 21.1 3.84 .502 42.0 25 20.6 4.4 12.0 21.3 3.80 .513 41.5 A3 20.6 4.9 12.0 21.0 3.85 .480 43.8 A4 20.5 4.1 12.2 20.4 3.79 .547 37.3 A5 20.5 4.6 11.8 21.1 3.80 .524 40.3 A6 20.6 4.9 12.0 21.1 3.78 .529 39.9 Mean 20.5 4.6 11.9 21.1 3.80 .509 41.5 Table 13. Objective measurements of canned Halehaven peaches (PH) in various syrups, 1970. Total Drained Soluble Total Brix- weight Vacuum weight solids acidity acid Code oz. in. oz. % pH % ratio SS 20.2 3.0 11.1 20.6 3.97 .359 57.4 03 20.3 2.5 10.9 20.6 3.98 .366 56.3 A3 20.1 1.2 10.6 20.2 4.00 .339 59.6 81 20.0 2.5 10.9 20.5 4.03 .328 62.5 Mean 20.2 2.3 10.9 20.5 4.00 .348 57.2 38 Table 14. Objective measurements of canned Elberta peaches (PE) in various syrups, 1969. Total Drained Soluble Total Brix- Code weight Vacuum weight solids acidity acid oz. in. oz. % pH % ratio SS 20.4 7.5 11.3 20.4 3.74 .317 64.4 S1 20.5 7.0 11.3 20.6 3.72 .311 66.2 82 20.6 6.3 11.4 20.4 3.71 .317 64.4 03 20.2 9.3 11.2 20.2 3.67 .326 62.0 04 20.5 8.4 11.1 20.2 3.73 .312 64.7 05 20.5 9.0 11.3 20.4 3.73 .325 62.8 06 20.7 8.1 11.1 20.9 3.75 .311 67.2 22 20.4 6.9 11.1 20.2 3.74 .307 65.8 23 20.6 6.6 11.1 20.8 3.75 .308 67.5 24 20.4 7.8 11.1 20.4 3.74 .315 64.8 25 20.4 6.4 11.3 20.1 3.76 .329 61.1 A3 20.5 7.0 11.3 20.2 3.77 .325 62.2 A4 20.4 7.4 11.4 20.1 3.77 .349 57.6 A5 20.5 7.0 11.4 20.3 3.88 .296 68.6 A6 20.3 7.8 11.0 20.6 3.85 .299 68.6 Mean 20.5 7.5 11.2 20.4 3.75 .316 64.6 Table 15. Objective measurements of canned pears (PD) in various syrups, 1968. Soluble solids Code % PH SS 18.3 3.85 81 18.6 3.85 32 17.6 3.90 03 18.5 3.93 04 17.9 3.87 05 18.2 3.88 06 18.1 3.92 Mean 18.2 3.89 39 Table 16. Objective measurements of canned pears (PF), (PK) in various syrups, 1969, 1970. 4 Total Drained Soluble Total Brix- weight Vacuum weight solids acidity acid Code oz. in. oz. % pH % ratio SS 20.5 10.0 11.7 21.0 3.71 .194 108.2 81 20.5 10.3 11.6 20.9 3.67 .188 111.2 S2 20.4 11.2 11.8 21.3 3.71 .207 102.9 03 20.3 9.9 11.5 20.7 3.79 .212 97.6 04 20.4 11.0 11.6 20.5 3.79 .208 98.6 05 20.5 10.4 11.6 21.1 3.80 .214 98.6 06 20.5 9.5 11.5 20.8 3.78 .224 92.9 22 20.5 10.6 11.3 21.0 3.61 .236 89.0 23 20.4 10.6 11.5 21.2 3.72 .210 101.0 24 20.5 11.4 11.3 21.3 3.73 .196 108.7 25 20.6 10.9 11.3 21.2 3.73 .200 106.0 A3 20.4 10.0 11.5 20.8 3.75 .214 97.2 A4 20.5 11.0 11.4 21.2 3.74 .201 105.5 A5 20.4 10.4 11.7 21.2 3.78 .217 97.7 A6 20.5 10.3 11.6 21.0 3.80 .196 107.1 Mean 20.5 10.4 11.5 ‘ 21.0 3.74 .208 101.4 1970 SS 20.6 7.3 10.9 23.1 3.90 .169 139.8 03 20.4 10.5 10.8 23.1 3.90 .165 140.9 A3 20.4 6.5 10.5 23.2 3.93 .180 130.1 51 20.4 8.8 10.8 23.5 3.85 .184 122.8 Mean 20.4 8.3 10.8 23.2 3.90 .175 133.6 40 Table 17. Objective measurements of frozen strawberries (STB), (STC), in various syrups--drained juice, 1969, 1970. Code Soluble solids pH Total acidity Brix-acid % % ratio 1969 SS 53.0 4.00 .402 82.1 81 31.4 3.95 .432 72.8 82 28.8 3.93 .445 64.7 03 31.9 3.98 .432 76.5 04 31.2 3.98 .422 73.9 05 30.3 3.93 .473 64.0 06 32.2 3.93 .454 70.9 22 31.5 3.90 .409 76.9 23 30.0 3.93 .448 67.0 24 29.7 3.90 .467 63.6 25 31.0 3.93 .432 71.8 Mean 31.2 3.93 .437 71.3 1970 SS 35.3 3.53 .493 72.5 03 34.4 3.53 .543 63.9 A3 34.6 3.56 .495 74.6 81 37.7 3.55 .459 82.4 Mean 35.5 3.54 .497 73.6 41 Table 18. Objective measurements of frozen strawberries (STB), (STC), in various syrups--b1ended, 1969, 1970. A; Soluble solids Total acidity Brix-acid Code % pH % ratio 1969 SS 22.1 3.45 .498 44.4 S1 21.4 3.45 .523 40.9 82 21.6 3.50 .487 44.4 Mean 21.7 3.47 .503 43.2 A3 21.2 3.55 .533 39.7 A4 20.6 3.50 .498 41.3 A5 21.7 3.55 .490 44.3 A6 21.6 3.50 .504 42.9 Mean 21.3 3.53 .506 42.1 1970 SS 22.5 3.37 .610 36.8 03 24.0 3.40 .576 41.7 A3 26.6 3.40 .537 49.5 81 24.1 3.37 .590 40.8 Mean 24.3 3.39 .578 42.0 42 Table 19. Objective measurements of frozen Halehaven peaches (PH) in various syrups, 1970-- drained juice. Soluble solids Total acidity Brix-acid Code % pH % ratio SS 25.4 4.05 .277 89.5 03 25.9 4.00 .273 93.0 A3 25.0 4.10 .269 91.0 31 25.8 4.00 .269 95.9 Mean 25.5 4.04 .272 92.4 Table 20. Objective measurements of frozen Halehaven peaches (PH) in various syrups, 1970-- blended. 4 Soluble solids Total acidity Brix-acid Code % pH % ratio SS 20.5 3.85 .334 61.4 03 20.6 3.85 .380 54.2 A3 20.4 3.90 .328 62.7 51 20.9 3.85 .348 60.1 Mean 20.6 3.86 .348 58.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Syrup blends 03 (75% sucrose,10% levulose, 10% #1631 and.fi§;maltose)iand A3 (67% sucrose, 13% levulose, 13% #I%gl and 5% maltose) were found to be the most pre- h'n...‘ as...” 1" ferred blends in 1968-1969 fruit processing./“Corn syrup #1631 consists of 39% dextrose, 32% maltosefand 29% higher saccharides. Therefore, in packing of 1970 fruit for consumer type taste panel evaluation blends 03 and A3 were used, along with SS (straight sucrose) and the 81 (75% sucrose and 25% #1631) blend for comparison. Preference testing showed A3 to be the preferred blend for the freezing of Midway strawberries. Blends 03 and A3 were equally well preferred in canned Elberta freestone peaches. Blend 03 was selected as the best for canned Halehaven freestone peaches, A3 scoring low. All other packs--canned Bartlett pears, canned Schmidt sweet cherries and frozen Halehaven freestone peaches--showed little or no significant differences between samples. Therefore, the A3 (higher replacement) blend could be used with expected success in all but canned Halehaven freestone peaches, where the 03 (lower replacement) would have to be used. 43 44 The soluble solids content, pH and total acidity measurements for each sample were consistant with the entire pack for the most part, thus, differences in taste can be attributed to the different sugars used in a "homogeneous" fruit pack. No differences in color or ..... A .- _.. «a.m' ' _ .- 7 OHM-v1 1 "‘“ fl...“ Won't-w“ testure were observed within any fruit pack, other than that due to normal variation in the raw fruit. Finally, results of this study indicate that the #3 formula (sucrose + levulose, #1631, maltose, x:2:2:1 respectively) of corn sugars and syrups could be used to replace up to 33% of sucrose without any loss in quality. LITERATURE C ITED Amerine, M. A., R. M. Pangborn and E. B. Roessler, 1965. Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food, Academic Press, N.Y. Aref, M., A. P. Sidwell and E. M. Litwiller, 1956. The effects of various sweetening agents on frozen strawberries for preserve manufacture. Food Tech. 10, 293-297. Bedford, C. L. and W. F. Robertson, 1962. Pro- cessed Montmorency Cherries. . . a ten year study. Michigan Agr. Exper. Sta. 45 (2), 334-344. Bliss, C. I., M. L. Greenwood and M. H. McKenrick, 1953. A comparison of scoring methods for taste tests with mealiness of potatoes. Food Tech. 1, 491-495. Boggs, M. M. and H. L. Hanson, 1949. Analysis of foods by sensory difference tests. Advances in Food Research 2, 219-258. Cartwright, L. C., C. T. Snell and P. H. Kelly, 1952. Organoleptic panel testing as a research tool. Analytical Chem. 24, 503-506. 45 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 46 Caul, J. F., 1957. The profile method of flavor analysis. Advances in Food Research 1, 1-40. Corn Industries Research Foundation, Inc., 1965. Corn Syrups and Sugars, Washington, D.C. Corn Refiners Association, Inc., Corn in the supermarket, 1968. Corn 24 (1), 1-8. Dahlberg, A. C. and E. S. Penczek, 1941. The relative sweetness of sugars as affected by Iconcentration. N.Y. State Agr. Exper. Sta. Tech. Bull. No. 258, 1-12. Dawson, E. H. and E. F. Dochterman, 1951. A com- parison of sensory methods of measuring differences in food qualities. Food Tech. 5, 79-81. Dove, W. F., 1947. Food acceptability--its deter- mination and evaluation. Food Tech. 1, 39-50. Duncan, D. B., 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11, 1-42. Friedman, M., 1937. The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. J. Am. Statis. Assoc. 32, 675-701. Giradot, N. F., D. R. Peryam and E. E. Lockhart, 1969. Relative efficiency of paired comparisons and rank order in preference discrimination among coffees. J. Food Science 34, 489-492. Harper, R., 1949. Food grading and its study. Food 18, 207-210. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 47 Joslyn, M. A., S. Leonard, E. Hinreiner and B. Filice, 1957. Effect of syrup composition on flavor and texture of canned clingstone peaches. Food Tech. 33, 170-176. Kendall, M. G., 1948. Rank Correlation Methods. Griffin, London. Kramer, A., 1960. A rapid method for determining significant differences from rank sums. Food Tech. 33, 576-581. Kramer, A. 1963. Revised tables for determining significant differences. Food Tech. 31 (12), 124-125. Kramer, A. and B. A. Twigg, 1960. Fundamentals of Quality Control for the Food Industry. AVI Publishing Company, Inc., Westport, Conn. Languill, K. B., 1949. Taste perception and taste preferences of the consumer. Food Tech. 3, 136-139. Laue, E. A., N. H. Ishler and G. A. Bullman, 1954. Reliability of taste testing and consumer testing methods. I. Fatigue in taste testing. Food Tech. 3, 387-388. Leonard S., B. S. Huh and E. Hinreiner, 1953. Flavor evaluation of canned clingstone peaches. Food Tech. 1, 480-485. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 48 Lewis, F. A., 1956. Corn sweeteners in food pro- ducts manufacture. Western Canner and Packer, Oct., 26-36. Murphy, E. F., R. M. Baily and M. R. Covell, 1954. Observations on methods to determine food palat- ability and comparative freezing quality of certain new strawberry varieties. Food Tech. 3, 113-116. Murphy, E. F., M. R. Covell and J. S. Dinsmore, 1957. An examination of three methods for testing palatability as illustrated by strawberry differences. Food Research 33, 423-439. Neiman, C., 1958. Relative Susskraft von Zuckeraten. Zucker-u. Susswarenwirtsch 33 (9). Newspaper Enterprise Association, Inc., 1970. 332_ World Almanac and Book of Facts, N.Y. Pangborn, R. M., 1964. Sensory evaluation of foods: A look backward and forward. Food Tech. 33 (9), 63-67. Pangborn, R. M. and S. J. Leonard, 1958. Factors influencing consumer opinion of canned Bartlett pears. Food Tech. 33, 284. Pangborn, R. M., S. J. Leonard, M. Simone and B. S. Luh, 1959. Freestone Peaches I. Effect of sucrose, citric acid and corn syrup on consumer acceptance. Food Tech. 33, (8), 444-447. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 49 Reimer, C., 1957. Some applications of rank order statistics to sensory panel testing. Food Research 33, 629-634. Sather, L. and E. H. Weigand, 1948. The application of corn syrups in the freezing preservation of fruit. Quick Frozen Foods 33 (10), 81-83, 107-108. Simone M., S. J. Leonard, E. Hinreiner and R. M. Valdes, 1956. Consumer studies on sweetness of canned cling peaches. Food Tech. 33, 279-282. Sjostrfim, L. B. and S. E. Cairncross, 1955. Role of sweeteners in food flavor. Advances in Chemistry Series 33, 108-113. The Almanac of the Canning, Freezing, Preserving Industries, 1970. Edward E. Judge and Sons, Westminister, Maryland. Tompkins, M. D. and B. G. Pratt, 1959. Comparison of flavor evaluation methods for frozen citrus concentrate. Food Tech. 33, 149-152. APPENDIX 50 Sample Score Sheet SCORE-SHEET Ranking Method of Flavor Evaluation Judge Date Rank the samples in the order of how well you like them, giving the best sample or the one you like best a rank of l and rank the others below. You may use your own judgment whether to swallow or not to swallow the product, and the time to wait between samples. Ranking 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 51 Table 21. Taste panel data evaluation procedure using data transformation for analysis of variance using the statistic W. 1969 Halehaven Peaches Series I and SS standard (40 panelists) No. times No. times ranked Samples (K) ranked Samples (K) SS 03 04 05 06 ' SS 03 04 05 06 First 14 8 5 8 5 First x5 70 40 25 40 25 Second 9 ll 7 6 7 Second x4 36 44 28 24 28 Third 10 10 5 7 8 Third x3 30 30 15 21 24 Fourth 4 5 12 12 7 Fourth x2 8 10 24 24 14 Fifth 3 6 ll 7 13 Fifth x1 3 6 ll 7 13 Total (n) 40 40 40 40 40 Totals (x) 147 130 103 116 104 Mean total x = 120 Deviations from mean (x-x): 27 10 -17 -4 -16 128(x-i)2 = 12(729+100+289+l6+256) 2 3 .0869 n (K -K) (1600)(125-5) W: x2: (n)(K-l)(W)= (40)(4)(.0869)= 13.90** Tabular X2 for (K-l), 4d-f- 5%“ 9.49 l%=13.28 **significance at 1% level 52 Table 22. Taste panel data evaluation procedure using normal score transformation and multiple range test. 1969 Halehaven Peaches Series I and SS standard (40 panelists) Transformation Code Weighted total Total Mean PASS 147 15.26 .38 PA03 130 5.82 .15 PA05 116 -1.84 -.05 PA06 104 -9.38 -.23 PA04 103 -9.46 -.24 Degrees Mean Freedom Square F Total sums of squares 132.80 160 Sample sums of squares 11.19 4 2.80 3.59** Error sums of squares 121.61 156 .780 Tabular F 4 d.f. 5% = 2.45 1% = 3.48 S; = Vms7n = /.780740 = .140 (S-)(Q)=R ex: for SS vs. 05 P=3; for 03 vs. X P 04 P=4. Rp is minimum difference for significance. For 1% significance (level of F value) Q 3P=2 P=3 p=4 P=5 R 3.70 3.86 ‘3.96 4.04 p .52 .54 .55 .56 Significant Difference SS 03 05 06 04 *significance at 1% level 53 Table 23. Composition of formula #3 blends Corn Sugar Ratio Sucrose + levulose + 1631 + maltose X + 2 : 2 : 1 03 15.0 2 2 1 A3 9.5 2 2 1 #1631 corn gyrup composition 39% dextrose, 32% maltose, 29% higher saccharides 25% replacement level Blend 03 75% sucrose 75% sucrose 10% levulose OR 10% levulose 10% 1631 9% maltose 5% maltose 3% dextrose 3% higher saccharides 33% replacement level A_3. 67% sucrose 67% sucrose 13% levulose 13% levulose 13% 1631 12% maltose 7% maltose 4% dextrose 4% higher saccharides "17'1111113111'17'11111111T