PRWESSINIG EFFECTS ON; STAMH Am '. BLUEFREE PLUM NECTAR, PLUM JUICE. AND CANNED PLUMS Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY RICHARD ALLEN PALMASANO 1972 ' v-‘vfim ”.00... LIBRARY MiChigan State University magma "A“; HUAE 4 SONS“ BIIIIK BRIBERY INC. 2 “$1“; 3'." ""1-2EJH I ABSTRACT PROCESSING EFFECTS ON STANLEY AND BLUEFREE PLUM NECTAR, PLUM JUICE AND CANNED PLUMS BY Richard Allen Palmasano Stanley and Bluefree varieties of Michigan-grown plums were examined. Five harvest dates of the Stanley and three of the Bluefree plums were harvested and sub- jected to various ripening treatments prior to canning. The canned plums were examined after six months of storage. The Stanley variety plums possessed deeper color, higher soluble solids content and lower acidity than the Bluefree plums. No one particular ripening treatment proved to be superior than the others, although an extended ripening resulted in weight and flavor losses. Plum nectar was prepared by pulping heated, halved, de-stoned plums. The puree was mixed with an equal volume of sugar sirup, adjusted to equilibrate at l7:.5°B, heated and bottled. Richard Allen Palmasano Plum juice was extracted from the processed puree. After a 24-hour pectinol treatment, the juice was filtered, clarified and bottled. Homogenization of the nectar, using high pressures (2000 + 1000 psig) prevented pulp sedimentation. Color changes in nectar and juice were examined periodically to study the effect of storage. A brown precipitate developed during storage and tended to mask the anthocyanin pigments. Samples stored in the dark resulted in the least color degradation. Temperature of storage, homogenization and pasteurization had little effect on the color stability. The addition of certain additives aided in the stability of the pigments. SO2 prevented anthocyanin losses at concentrations of 25 to 100 ppm in plum nectar. In juice samples, none of the additives completely inhibited color changes. However, color changes were controlled somewhat in the samples containing 802 and sodium hexametaphosphate. Optimum color extraction was observed at pulping temperatures above 180°F. The rate of enzymatic brown- ing was not retarded at temperatures below 180°F, and with temperatures over 200°F the percentage of total solids greatly increased due to evaporation. Richard Allen Palmasano Evaluation of sugar and acid levels showed that 21% soluble solids was the preferred concentration in nectar and juice; 0.35% acid was preferred in the nectar samples, while 0.45% was the preferred acid level for juice. PROCESSING EFFECTS ON STANLEY AND BLUEFREE PLUM NECTAR, PLUM JUICE AND CANNED PLUMS BY Richard Allen Palmasano 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 1972 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to thank his major pro- fessor, Dr. Clifford L. Bedford, for his assistance and suggestions throughout the course of this work and during the preparation of this manuscript. The author would also like to thank Dr. P. Markakis and Dr. A. L. Kenworthy for their suggestions in the Preparation of this manuscript and for their service on the examining committee. Appreciation is extended to the author's friends for their suggestions and time at various stages of this study, especially to Mr. Javier LaRosa for his assistance in the canning study. ii TABLE OF INTRODUCTION . . . . MATERIALS AND METHODS . Raw Material . . Canning Study. . Nectar Processing Juice Processing. Homogenization . Pasteurization . . Analytical Color Measurement 1970 Stanley Harvest 1971 Harvest . . Color Extraction. Color Stability . Sensory Evaluation . RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. 8 CONTENTS Canning of Stanley and Bluefree Varieties Vacuum . . . Gross weight . Drained weight Sirup Weight . Soluble Solids . pH and Total Acidity Sugar/Acid Ratio. Color . . . Sensory Evaluation Color . . . . Flavor . . . . Texture. . . . of Canned Plums Homogenization of Stanley Plum Nectar. iii Page 10 10 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 16 19 19 19 22 22 22 23 24 24 25 31 31 31 32 Page Color Measurements on 1970 Stanley Plum Nectar and Juice 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O 4 l Nectar O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 l Juice 0 O O O O O O C O O C O C O 4 1 Color Measurements on 1971 Stanley and Bluefree Plum Nectar . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Color Measurements on 1971 Stanley and Bluefree Plum Juice 0 O O O O O O I O O O O 44 Effect of Temperature and Time on Color Extraction of 1971 Bluefree Plum Nectar . . . 46 Effect of Chemical Additives on Color Stabili- zation in Stanley Plum Nectar and Juice . . . 50 Nectar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 JUice O O O O O O O O O O O C O O 54 Sensory Evaluation of Stanley Nectar and Juice. . 54 Sugar-Acid Levels . . . . . . . . . . 54 Sensory Evaluations of Stanley Plum Nectar and Juice at Various Dilutions . . . . . . . 60 Dilutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Sensory Evaluation of Plum Nectar Processed at Various Temperatures . . . . . . . . . 60 Effect of Storage on Nectar and Juice Flavor . . 62 Effect of Processing Time on Flavor in Nectar . . 63 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION O O O O O O O O O O O 65 REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O C O 68 APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O C O 7 2 iv LIST OF TABLES Table l. 10. 11. 12. Objective Measurements on 1971 Canned Stanley Pl‘ms O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Objective Measurements on 1971 Canned Bluefree Plums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paired Preference Analysis of Storage Con- ditions After Processing on Canned Stanley and Bluefree Variety Plums (Sample A = Room temperature Storage, B = Cold Storage) . . . Hedonic Scaling for Color, Flavor and Texture on Stanley Plums, Date vs. Ripening Treatment. Hedonic Scaling for Color, Flavor and Texture on Bluefree Plums, Date vs. Ripening Treat- ment 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O Hedonic Scaling for Color, Flavor and Texture on Stanley Plums, Date vs. Date . . . . . Hedonic Scaling for Color, Flavor and Texture on Bluefree Plums, Date vs. Date . . . . . Pulp Sedimentation of Nectar Samples Heated to 140°, 160° and 180°F . . . . . . . . . Pulp Sedimentation of Nectar Samples Heated to 140°F and Homogenized at 500-3000 psig . . . Pulp Sedimentation of Nectar Samples Heated to 160°F and Homogenized at 500-3000 psig . . . Pulp Sedimentation of Nectar Samples Heated to 180°F and Homogenized at 500-3000 psig . . . Pulp Sedimentation of Nectar, Samples Heated to 140°F Homogenized at 0 psig, Stored in Light and Dark at Room Temperature and in Cold Storage. . . . . . . . . . . . Page 20 21 26 27 28 29 30 33 33 34 34 37 Table Page 13. Pulp Sedimentation of Nectar, Samples Heated to 140°F Homogenized at 1000 psig, Stored in Light and Dark at Room Temperature and in Cold Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 14. Pulp Sedimentation of Nectar, Samples Heated to 140°F Homogenized at 2000 psig, Stored in Light and Dark at Room Temperature and in Cold Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 15. Pulp Sedimentation of Nectar, Samples Heated to 140°F Homogenized at 3000 psig, Stored in Light and Dark at Room Temperature and in Cold Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 16. Pulp Sedimentation of Nectar, Samples Heated to 160°F Homogenized at 0 psig, Stored in Light and Dark at Room Temperature and in Cold Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 17. Pulp Sedimentation of Nectar, Samples Heated to 160°F Homogenized at 1000 psig, Stored in Light and Dark at Room Temperature and in Cold Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 18. Pulp Sedimentation of Nectar, Samples Heated to 160°F Homogenized at 2000 psig, Stored in Light and Dark at Room Temperature and in Cold Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 19. Absorbance Values at 512nm of Stanley Plum Nectar Stored Under Three Different Storage Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 20. Absorbance Values at 512nm of Stanley Plum Juice Stored Under Three Different Storage Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 21. Differential Absorbance Values of Pasteurized and Homogenized Stanley Plum Nectar. . . . . 44 22. Differential Absorbance Values of Pasteurized and Homogenized Bluefree Plum Nectar . . . . 44 23. Effect of Time on Color Retention in 1971 Plum Juice; Absorbance Readings of Stanley and Bluefree Varieties . . . . . . . . . . 45 vi Table Page 24. Processing Temperature Effects on Color Extraction Bluefree Plum Nectar . . . . . . 50 25. Chemical Additives; Effects of Storage Time on Color Retention in 1971 Stanley Plum Nectar and Juice 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 51 26. Sensory Preference for Acid Levels in Plum Nectar (Sugar level = 171.5%, 80 panelists) . . 58 27. Sensory Preference for Sugar Levels in Plum Nectar (Acid level = 0.35%, 60 panelists). . . 58 28. Sensory Preference for Acid Levels in Plum Juice (Sugar level = l7i.5%, 80 panelists) . . 59 29. Sensory Preference for Sugar Levels in Plum Juice (Acid level = 0.45%, 80 panelists) . . . 59 30. Sensory Preference for Dilutions of Plum Nectar (Sugar level = 18.5%, acid level = 0.35%, 80 panelists) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 31. Sensory Preference for Dilutions of Plum Juice (Sugar level = 201.5%, acid level = 0.45%, 80 panelists) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 32. Sensory Preference for Plum Nectar Processed at Different Temperature (Sugar level = l8i.5%, acid level = 0.35%, 24 panelists) . . . . . 62 33. Effect of Storage Time on Nectar Flavor (Sugar level = 181.5%, acid = 0.45%). . . . . . . 63 34. Effect of Storage Time on Juice Flavor (Sugar level = 18:.5%, acid level = 0.5%) . . . . . 64 35. Color Absorbance at Different wavelengths. . . 72 36. Effect of Time on Buffers, After Oxalic Acid Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 37. Effect of Time on Oxalic Acid--Color Development with Oxalic Acid Before Filtering . . . . . 73 38. Sedimentation, Regression Analysis on 1970 Stanley Plum Nectar vs. Time . . . . . . . 74 vii Table Page 39. Chemical Additives; Regression Analysis on Plum Juice and Nectar, All Concentrations vs. Time 0 O O O O ‘0 C O C O O I O C 75 40. Color Extraction; Regression Analysis on Plum Nectar, Processed at Different Temperatures and Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 41. Color Changes; Regression Analysis on Color Changes in 1970 Stanley Plum Nectar and Juice Stored Under Different Conditions. . . . . . 76 42. Color Changes; Regression Analysis on 1971 Stanley and Bluefree Plum Juice vs. Time . . . 77 43. Chemical Additives; Regression Analysis on Plum Nectar and Juice vs. Time. . . . . . . 78 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure l. 10. Effects of O psig Upon Pulp Sedimentation Homogenized at 140°F, 160°F and 180°F, Stored in Light at Room Temperature . . . Effects of Pressures, 500-3000 psig, Upon Pulp Sedimentation Homogenized at 140°F, Stored in Light at Room Temperature . . . Effects of Pressures, 500-3000 psig, Upon Pulp Sedimentation Homogenized at 160°F, Stored in Light at Room Temperature . . . Effects of Pressures, 500-3000 psig, Upon Pulp Sedimentation Homogenized at 180°F, Stored in Light at Room Temperature . . . Juice. Color Changes in 1970 Harvested Stanley Plums, Stored in Cold Storage and at Room Temperature in Light and Dark vs. Time Juice. Effect of Storage and Time on the Anthocyanin Content in Stanley Plum Juice Processed at 170°F. . . . . . . . . Juice. Effect of Storage and Time on the Anthocyanin Content in Stanley Plum Juice Processed at 180°F. . . . . . . . . Juice. Effect of Storage and Time on the Anthocyanin Content in Bluefree Plum Juice Processed at 170°F. . . . . . . . . Juice. Effect of Storage and Time on the Anthocyanin Content in Bluefree Plum Juice Processed at 180°F. . . . . . . . . Nectar. Effects of the Holding Period Before Pulping Upon Color Extraction at Various Temperatures. . . . . . . . . . . ix Page 35 35 36 36 42 47 47 48 48 49 Figure Page 11. Effects of Varying Concentrations of $02 on the Anthocyanin Content in Nectar . . . . . 52 12. Effects of Varying Concentrations of Ascorbic Acid on the Anthocyanin Content in Nectar . . 52 13. Effects of Varying Concentrations of Na16Pl4O43 on the Anthocyanin Content in Nectar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 14. Effects of Varying Concentration of $02 on the Anthocyanin Content in Juice. . . . . . . 55 15. Effects of Varying Concentration of Ascorbic Acid on the Anthocyanin Content in Juice. . . 55 16. Effects of Varying Concentrations of Na16P14O43 on the Anthocyanin Content in JU1ce O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 56 17. Effects of Varying Concentrations of P.V.P. on the Anthocyanin Content in Juice . . . . 56 INTRODUCTION The Stanley and Bluefree plum varieties have gained in importance in the Michigan plum industry. Since 1959, when only one-third of the state's pro- duction was of these varieties, their control of the state's production has increased to over 90% (Antle and Grieg, 1969). In 1970, approximately 97% of the 10,000 harvested tons were processed (88% canned, 9% frozen) and 3% was sold fresh (Agricultural Statistics, U.S.D.A., 1971). In 1971 the production increased 80% to approxi- mately 18,000 tons, with most of the product being utilized by the canning industry. The maturity of the plums and ripening conditions after harvest are the major factors in producing a good sound product. During the past few years, investigations have dealt with these factors and the effects of storage on the pre-canned product. Ernest, Birth and Sidwell (1958) developed a technique for measuring the internal color, thus predicting the plums maturity so that a properly matured product could be harvested. Sorber (1942) recommended post-harvest storage conditions of 31-32°F and a relative humidity of 80-85%. Any decrease in the relative humidity may cause shriveling of the skins while any increases might cause a splitting of the skins (Hulme, 1970). According to Gerhardt and English (1946) this low-temperature storage should follow a holding period at higher temperatures to avoid flesh discolorations and a mealiness of the pulp. These storage conditions, unless modified or controlled, produce flavor and weight losses over time (Couey, 1961, Handbook No. 66, U.S.D.A., 1968). Shutak and Christopher (1948) showed that these losses could be controlled with the addition of less than 40% CO2 and that a somewhat tart taste could be added to the flavor. CO2 increased storage life and aided in the prevention of plum rot. The increase in plum production has also resulted in the search for new plum products. A plum juice Product is made by pulping the product and adjusting the sugar levels to enhance the juice's natural flavor (Paul, 1944). This juice product is, however, basically a puree containing the juice and fruit pulp. Before pulping the whole plums and exposing the anthocyanin pigments to the air, causing oxidation, a heating treat— ment should be completed to inactivate any enzymatic reaction. Pederson, Beattie and Stotz (1947) reported that both enzymes and 02 produced off-flavors in addition to the browning reactions. Cruess, Rivera and Gibson (1950) showed that unheated juice from prunes quickly browned in the presence of air. The heat treatment should be high enough to inactivate the enzymes but not too high as to produce any off flavors. Kilbuck (1948) found that any temper- ature over 185°F produced a burnt flavor. Ponting (1960) suggested a temperature of 180°F as the critical point for enzyme inactivation, and that over 194°F the flavor and texture qualities of plums decreased. In another study, Beavens and Beattie (1942) reported that, in pulpy juice, the pulp should be removed to produce the clear, Sparkling red juice because this pulp tended to mask the red color. Walker and Patterson (1954) and walker §E_al. (1950) made use of a filtering procedure to remove the pulpy material. The plums were heated, extracting the color, and pulped to produce a puree. This puree was treated with pectic enzymes to break down the pulp structures; then the mixture was filtered, with filter aids, to produce a clear sparkling juice. Another field of study being investigated is that of a plum pie. Various combinations, such as a plum-apple, apple as well as a whole plum pie, have been processed and market studies involving consumer acceptance have been carried out. Antle and Grieg (1969) reported, While apple pie was ranked highest by the largest number of consumers a significant number ranked plum pie or plum-apple pies as their first preference. The results of the taste panel test and a subsequent questionnaire indicated that over two-thirds of the consumers thought that the "overall appeal," "color," and "taste" of both the plum pie and plum-apple pie was "good." A major area of concern involves the color sta- bility of a plum juice or nectar after processing. During this period, certain chemical reactions take place which cause a browning effect or a brown precipi- tation in the product. Anthocyanin pigments produce the natural red color in the plum product. Naturally occurring in the epidermal layers of the fruit, they tend to be more stable than other pigments once they are formed. This stability is due to the pigment not being fat soluble and being located in the cytoplasm of these layers (Goodwin, 1965, Hulme, 1970). However, when the cells are broken open by processing, the pigments are exposed to the air and to possible oxidation. These oxidation or enzymatic reactions produce a browning effect and/or a brown precipitation. Many ideas have been proposed as to the origin of these color changes. Pederson, Beattie and Stotz (1947), Meschter (1953) and Lukton (1956) have found that it was basically an oxidation reaction of phenolic type compounds resulting in a brown precipitate. Others, such as Nebesky, Esselen, McConnell and Fellers (1949) believed that because of these reactions the anthocyanin pigment could possibly have been destroyed or that a new pigment could have been formed. A substantial amount of work has dealt with observing the effects of processing and storage on the products color retention. Tressler and Pederson (1936) and Joslyn (1942) proposed that both the time and temperature of processing and the amount of 02 the product is exposed to affects the amount of color loss. They also concluded that pH, sugar levels and light play minor roles in color degradation. After processing the product can still be affected by the amount of 02 with which it comes into contact. Daravingas and Cain (1965) recommend a nitrogen packing to completely inhibit any color changes. Other studies discuss the role of chemical color inhibitors either in the product or added in its process— ing. The idea of ascorbic acid browning inhibition has proven puzzling. Chung-Yen Peng (1962) suggested that ascorbic acid serves as a H+ donor and, as with other antioxidants, inhibits browning. Beattie, Pederson, Wheeler (1943) and Pederson, Beattie, Stotz (1947) found that as the color changes in anthocyanins began to occur, the amount of ascorbic acid tends to decrease and that simply adding additional ascorbic acid did not inhibit these color losses. Malic acid has also been used during the processing steps to control enzymatic browning and, if necessary, is removed after processing by ionic exchange columns (Ponting, 1960). Two other inhibitors gaining widespread use for color stabilization are SO2 and polyvinyl pyrrolidone. Goodman and Markakis (1965) experimented with the use of $02 on a pure anthocyanin sample and suggested that the color inhibition might be due to a binding of the 802 to any carbonyl compounds which are present. They stated that, in a juice, possible higher concentrations of SO2 would be required for color stability. Bolin and Porter (1967) found that concentrations of approximately 100 ppm of SO2 could retard color deterioration for up to two weeks in a prune juice product. Similar investi- gations dealing with 802 found the same browning inhibition qualities (Pederson, Beattie, Stotz, 1947, and Ponting, 1960). Polyclar, the polyvinyl pyrrolidone food grade, is a relatively new product being used extensively in the wine and beer industries (Caputi and Peterson, 1965). It is added to the product, mixed in and allowed to stand for a period of time. Then, it is usually removed by some type of filtration. It is believed that the com- pound absorbs the naturally present polyphenols which are thought to oxidize to darker pigments. Some of the other possible advantages in using this product are that storage stability, color clarity and flavor may be enhanced (Clemens and Martinelli, 1958, Prescott and Lane, 1964). Possibly the best procedures to follow in pre- venting browning are the techniques proposed by Markakis, Livingston and Fellers (1957). First, they suggest work- ing with a product of high pigment and low ascorbic acid content and then the use of as low a processing temper- ature as possible. Next the removal of 02 from the product is required. The fourth suggestion is a lower- ing of the pH with citric acid and, last, avoid any contamination with metallic ions. Cruess (1958) also suggested this last step for he found that in unprotected cans, the product's color darkened. This study was undertaken not only to examine maturity levels and color changes but also to examine the effects of various processing procedures, storage conditions and color loss inhibitors on nectar and juice made from the Stanley and Bluefree varieties of plums. domesti years, obtaine sisted washed .IIIF ami fr Palmer both I were 1 into indiv lined Spree 101‘. y ‘} lots, MATERIALS AND METHODS Raw Material Stanley and Bluefree varieties of plums (Prunus domestica) were examined in this study. Two harvest years, 1970 and 1971, were used. The 1970 harvest was obtained from the southwestern area of Michigan and con- sisted only of the Stanley variety. These plums were washed, halved, de-stoned, packed 20+5 into 30-pound tins and frozen. The 1971 harvest was received from the Palmer Orchard in Leslie, Michigan and consisted of both the Stanley and Bluefree varieties. These samples were returned to the Food Science building and divided into two lots. One lot was washed, halved, de-stoned, individually quick-frozen and packed in polyethylene lined boxes. Approximately 15% additional sugar was spread over these samples before sealing. The second lot was used in the canning study. Canning Study The 1971 harvest of plums was divided into two lots, one frozen and the other used for a maturity and ripening study.* The two varieties, Stanley and Bluefree, were harvested at various stages of maturity. The Stanley variety was harvested on five separate dates at seven-day intervals. The Bluefree variety harvest was identical except only three dates were used. After the plums were picked, washed and cooled in cold running H20, they were divided into four separate lots. Lot one was canned immediately; lot two was stored at 70°F for one week and then canned; lot three was stored at 32°F for one week then at 70°F for one week and then canned; the last lot, number four, was stored at 32°F for two weeks, then at 70°F for one week and canned. 285 t 159. of fruit were packed in a 303 can covered with 200°F 40°B sugar sirup, exhausted to a center temperature of 160°F (1 minute) sealed and processed for 15 minutes at 210°F. Canned fruit was divided into two lots. One lot was stored at 36—38°F, and the second lot was stored at room temperature (70-75°F). After a storage period of six months, each variety, harvest date, ripening treatment and storage condition were examined by taste panels for color, flavor and texture. Representative lots of each ripening treatment were also halved, de-stoned and frozen. * This study was undertaken in cooPeration with the Horticulture Department at Michigan State University. 10 Nectar Processing The halved frozen plums were partially thawed and placed into steam jacketed stainless steel kettles and heated with constant stirring until the temperature of the plums reached 180° 1 10°F. After being held at this temperature 1-2 minutes, the fruit was pulped twice, using the .023-inch screens on the Langsenkamp laboratory pulper. A representative sample was taken and the soluble solids content determined, using a Bausch and Lomb refrac- tometer. The soluble solids were adjusted to 17.51.5% using an equal weight of sugar sirup. The acid level was then adjusted to 0.4%, using citric acid. The nectar was then heated to 180-185°F, filled into sterilized jugs, inverted for 2-5 minutes, cooled and stored at 36-38°F. Juice Processing Plum juice was made from the pulped plums. The pulp was cooled to 100°F, Zg /1 liter Spark L* was added and well mixed into the pulp and held overnight at room temperature. Cellulose pulp was added to warm H20 (100 grams of cellulose/2.0 gallons H20), thoroughly broken up and the excess H20 squeezed out with the aid of a sieve. The cellulose pulp then was mixed in with the enzyme-treated plum pulp and squeezed through a * Pectinol, name from Marschall Division of Miles Laboratories, 1127 Myrtle Ave., Elkhart, Indiana, 46514. 11 nylon press cloth into a stainless steel bucket. Since the juice was still cloudy, it was mixed with Hi—flo super cel and filtered using a Buchner funnel, no. 5 Whatman filter paper and a suction flask. Adjustments for sugar and acid levels were made again whenever required. The juice was then heated to 180-185°F and filled into sterilized bottles, inverted 2-5 minutes and stored at 36-38°F. Homogenization Nectar from the Stanley variety, 1970 harvest, was separated into three batches. The first batch was heated to 140°F, the second to 160°F, and the third to 180°F. Each batch was then divided into five lots, with each lot being homogenized at a different pressure, using a two-stage Manton-Gaulin homogenizer. The varying pressures were: lot 1 no pressure, control sample; lot 2 500 psig first stage; lot 3 1000 psig first stage lot 4 1000 psig first stage and 1000 psig second stage; lot 5 2000 psig first stage and 1000 psig second stage. All of the samples were placed into sterile bottles of approximately 350 m1 capacity. Pasteurization was accomplished in a water bath at l40-145°F for 30 minutes. The bottles were then cooled and stored at room temperature (75-80°F) in the dark. The samples 12 were examined periodically for sedimentation until no further settling was observed. A second homogenization experiment was conducted. The same procedure used above was followed, eliminating the 180°F batch and the 500 psig treated lot. The samples were placed into sterilized sealable test tubes to a volume of 60 mls. These samples were stored at room temperature in both the light and dark and in a cold room (36-38°F) in the dark. The amount of sedi- mentation was determined as above until no further settling was observed. Pasteurization Twenty-pound samples of both the Stanley and Bluefree varieties, 1971 harvest, were made into nectar using the nectar-processing procedure. After adjusting the sugar and acid levels each variety was divided into two batches with one being heated to 140°F and the other to 160°F. Each batch was homogenized at these respective temperatures at 3000 psig (2000 psig first stage + 1000 psig second stage). After homogenization, the batches were divided into two lots per batch for pasteurizations. One lot from each batch was pasteurized at 14513°F for 30 minutes (low temperature long hold) and the other lot was pasteurized at 170-180°F for 15 seconds (high temperature short hold). The samples were transferred 13 into sterilized bottles, cooled and stored at 36-38°F. Anthocyanin pigment changes were recorded periodically for 20 weeks. Analytical Color Measurements 1970 Stanley Harvest Nectar.--The plums were heated to 180°110°F, pulped and adjusted to 17.5% with a sugar sirup and to 0.4% acid using citric acid. The nectar was then divided and stored at room temperature in the light and dark and at cold room temperatures. These samples were examined periodically for up to 29 weeks for color changes. Ten grams of nectar was mixed with 30 grams of 0.5% oxalic acid. This mixture was allowed to stand one hour and then was filtered. (It was found that a one-hour period achieved the maximum effect of the acid, Appendix Table 37). A 4 m1 aliquot of this filtered nectar-acid mixture was then diluted to 20 ml with Na Citrate-HCL buffer, pH 3.5 and allowed to stand for 30 minutes for maximum color development. A Spectronic 70 (Bausch and Lomb) was set to 100% transmittance with a H 0 blank, and absorbance 2 was read, using a wavelength of 512 nm (this was found to be the optimum wavelength, Appendix Table 35). Juice.--Juice was made up according to the pro- cessing procedure. The juice was divided into three 14 lots and each lot was stored under a different condition, room temperature, in light and dark and cold room. These samples were then examined periodically for up to 32 weeks for color changes. A representative sample was taken and filtered. A 2 ml aliquot of this filtered juice was then diluted to 20 ml with Na-citrate-HCL buffer, pH 3.5. The color was allowed to develop for 30 minutes before an absorbance reading on the Spectronic 70 was taken. A H20 blank was used to set the instrument to 100% transmittance and the 512 nm wavelength was used. 1971 Harvest Nectar.--The pasteurization samples were examined periodically for a period of 20 weeks. A 10 gm sample was mixed with 30 gm of 0.5% oxalic acid, allowed to stand 1 hour and filtered. A 2 ml aliquot was taken and diluted to 10 ml with two Na citrate-HCl buffers, one at a pH of 2.0 and the other at a pH of 5.0. They were held for 30 minutes, and the absorbance was read on a H 0 blank adjusted Spectronic 70 unit. The 2 absorbance of anthocyanin pigment was recorded as the difference between absorbance at pH 2.0 and pH 5.0. Juice.--Juice samples of both Stanley and Bluefree 1971 harvest were used. A sample from each harvest date was prepared and stored under room temperature and cold room conditions. At specified intervals for a 15 period of 20 weeks, a representative quantity was taken from each sample, and the amount of color was measured. The juice was filtered and an aliquot of 1 ml was mixed with 9 m1 of buffer. Samples were mixed with both pH buffers, and the amount of anthocyanin present was recorded. Color Extraction ggigg.--Representative frozen samples from four harvest dates of the Stanley variety and two harvest dates of the Bluefree variety were thawed, pulped and juiced. Two heating periods were used, namely 170°F for 1 minute and 180°F for 2 minutes. The juice was prepared as previously described and the color was determined at pH 2.0 and pH 5.0. Nectar.--Eighteen one-pound samples of mature 1971 harvested Bluefree plums were thawed and heated to six different temperatures before pulping. These temperatures were 160°, 170°, 180°, 190°, 200° and 210°F. Three samples were used with each temperature, and they were held at these temperatures for three different time periods; 1, 2 and 3 minutes. The color differences between the heating treatments were measured using the two pH buffer method. 16 Color Stability 1971 Stanley variety plums were thawed, heated, pulped, adjusted and cooled. The nectar was then divided into three lots and each lot was treated with a different chemical additive. Sodium hexametaphosphate (Nal6 Pl4 O43)* was added at concentrations of .l%, .2%, .5% and 1% by weight. Lot two received .l%, .2%, .5% and 1% of ascorbic acid. The third lot was mixed with SO2 in the form of NaHSO3 at lOppm, 25ppm, 50ppm and lOOppm concen- trations. The samples were then stored at room temper- ature for 50 days. Color changes were measured to determine the effects of these additives on the color. This same procedure was followed using the juice. A fourth additive, P.V.P.*t was used here at concentrations of .l%, .2%, .5% and 1%. Control samples of both nectar and juice were made up and color losses were recorded. Sensornyvaluation Paired Preference.-—In the canning study, samples in cold room and normal room temperature storage were paired and the panelists were asked to indicate their preference of the two. This procedure was done comparing * O Monsanto Co., 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, Missouri. ** Polyvinyl Pyrrolidone, G.A.F. Corp., 140 W 51st St., New York, N.Y., 10020. 17 the harvest dates of each variety. The paired preference technique was also used comparing the effects of time in processing upon flavor quality in nectar. This pro- cedure involved samples processed at 200°F. The times examined were 3 minutes versus 1 minute. Hedonic Scale.-—The second procedure involved the use of a hedonic scale which measured the panel's evalu- ation of each sample for color, flavor and texture in the canned samples. The samples were first presented by harvest dates, then the three ripening techniques were evaluated with another harvest date, no ripening effect, sample. Both of these tests were made to deter- mine the optimum harvest date, ripening technique, and storage condition for both the Stanley and Bluefree plums. Ranking.--Nectar and juice samples were presented to the panelists, who were asked to rank them in order of preference of flavor, placing the most preferred sample first and the least preferred one last. Using this technique, sugar and acid were varied in both the nectar and juice to find the most preferred levels. In the nectar and juice, the acid levels were adjusted to 0.35, 0.45, 0.55 and 0.65%, with citric acid and the sugar levels were adjusted to 15, l7, l9 and 21% soluble solids. The results of these panels were examined statistically. 18 The ranking procedure was also used in a flavor dilution experiment. With both nectar and juice, dilutions of 1:1, 1:1 1/2 and 1:2 volume of fruit to sugar sirup were made up and the panelists asked to rank them in order of preference. The nectar samples contained 18.51.5% sugar and 0.35% acid. The juice samples contained 20.5:.S% sugar and 0.45% acid. Samples of different temperature treatments were ranked for preference on flavor. The temperatures were 160, 180, 200 and 210°F. The time variable was kept constant at 2 minutes. Numerical Rating Scale.--Representative samples of nectar and juice were presented to the panel. The samples differed only in the amount of time they were stored. Samples were taken from cold room storage (36-38°F) and allowed to warm up to 40°F. The panelists were asked to compare the flavor of each with a reference sample of newly made product. In the nectar procedure, the samples stored for 2, 4, 8 and 12 months were used. The juice samples were stored 4 1/2, 9 and 12 months. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Canning of Stanley and Bluefree Varieties The canned Stanley and Bluefree plums were examined after a six-month storage for vacuum, gross weight, drained weight, sirup weight, cut out soluble solids, pH, acid, sugar/acid ratios and color (Tables 1 and 2). Initial soluble solids were recorded prior to canning. Vacuum Vacuum readings varied from .8 to 9.9 inches Hg averaging 4.5 inches Hg. No consistency was obtained in the measurements taken on the Stanley variety. The Bluefree unripened samples gave lower readings than any of the ripened plums. Gross_Weight In the Stanley variety, no differences were noted, but by observation it can be seen that these values decreased slightly in the more mature plums as the ripening time increased. Differences were noted in the 19 20 mmocmummeo uchHchmHm o: mumuHocH mumuumH mxHH Ci deEmm umoq C Im.z IWOZ ImOZ .mIz hNH.H m.Hh ov. m.n pov.m~ m.mH m.om~ o.mm~ m.Hoo m.v moon x3 H + momm mx3 N .o mmm. no.mm mow. hm.m ooo.m~ m.mH m.~mm o.mm~ m.ooo o.v moon x3 H + momm x3 H .0 Huh. n.mm mv. m.m oov.m~ m.mH m.ov~ m.hm~ v.mom m.v moon x3 H .m mom. ~.qn ov. m.m mom.m~ m.nH H.Hm~ m.H>~ w.how o.~ mcoz .4 Hn\H~\m .m mom. o.mw mm. m.m uo.H~ ~.o~ o.~v~ o.mm~ o.wmm m.v moon x3 H + momm ax: m .o mmm. nm.~h mom. hm.m hm.m~ m.o~ w.vm~ o.mmN m.hmm o.m moon x3 H + momm x3 H .u IIII IIII III III IIIIII IIII IIIII IIIII IIIII III «moon x3 H .m Hon. o.mh Ne. h.m www.mm m.mH m.mm~ o.Hh~ o.moo o.m mcoz .¢ Hn\mH\m .v Hnw. m.mh mm. m.m m>.n~ o.mH m.mm~ m.HmN n.0mm m.m moon x3 H + moan ax: N .0 mom. no.Hh mHv. hm.m oo.mm o.o~ ~.mm~ m.~n~ o.ooo m.v moon x3 H + mo~m x3 H .0 www. ¢.oh mm. n.m www.mm o.nH m.mb~ m.hm~ o.mom o.o moon x3 H .m owe. n.vw we. h.m mom.m~ w.hH o.vm~ o.mn~ o.voo m.~ mcoz .4 H~\m\m .m New. m.om Nm. m.m mom.m~ n.o~ m.Hm~ o.Hom m.how m.v moon x3 H + momm mxx m .o wmm. mm.mm nmm. ow.m m~.om m.om v.H- o.mom v.moo m.v moon x3 H + momm x3 H .O mmm. m.¢v Ho. o.m m~.om o.m~ 0.0mm m.nmm m.mow m.n moon x3 H .m hmH. m.mv om. m.m on.m~ o.oH n.mv~ 0.9mm n.mow o.v mcoz .4 Hn\om\m .m ova. ~.mm hm. o.m 0H.om m.mH m.mm~ m.mom m.ooo w.~ moon x3 H + noun mx: N .o vnH. mm.vv now. am.m hm.om o.- m.vmm m.Hom n.Hoo m.m each x3 H + momm x3 H .O mHH. ~.ne hm. o.m ono.n~ m.~H m.mH~ m.mom H.omm m.n econ x3 H .m who. o.nm Hm. m.m oom.mm w.MH m.hH~ m.mm~ m.Hmm m.~ wcoz .< Hn\m~\m .H mononuomnd a.» a o v m m: amzucH .uum .m.m a 0331 momH .m.m 1:; .u: .u: 36535. 92.3 2 3mm umwim: uoHou (\m mm uwo HmHuHcH mduHm oochuo mmouo Eszum> 32. u o .mEde mchmum owccmo meH co mucwfiwuommmz m>Huomhno .H mamdfi 21 mwocmuwmeo ucmoHuHcmHm on oumoHocH muouuwH oxHH * Omoz OwOZ mlz .mtz Imoz .mOZ IwOZ mom. H.mv no. m.m mh.mm m.nH v.Hmm o.vn~ v.ooo m.v moon x3 H + mo~m mx3 N .0 How. m.nm mo. m.m 0¢.m~ m.eH m.mm~ m.>mm «.mmm m.~ moon x3 H + Lawn x3 H .u mNm. n.mv mm. v.m om.m~ m.mH v.~v~ o.~h~ v.mmm m.m moon x3 H .m HNN. w.mm ow. m.n 0H.w~ m.vH H.hv~ m.m>~ v.oow m. mcoz .4 Hn\H~\m .m mov. m.vv mm. v.m ov.w~ m.hH m.mv~ m.he~ ~.mmm m.m moon x3 H + mowm wxz N .o Hmm. o.om on. v.n n~.m~ m.hH m.v~m m.mm~ w.mmm m.o moon x3 H + mowm x3 H .u own. v.mm mo. m.n 0m.m~ v.mH m.mm~ m.nm~ o.mmm m.m boos x3 H .m omH. v.5m mo. m.m om.m~ o.vH m.~m~ o.mm~ m.mmm m.~ 0:02 .4 Hh\mH\m .N mmo. m.vv mm. v.m om.v~ m.mH m.v~m o.mm~ m.nmm o.m moon x3 H + momm mxz m .o mum. ~.mv mm. v.n om.n~ ~.nH m.nv~ m.mmm v.Hmm o.m moon x3 H + mowm x3 H .o Hmv. H.mv mm. v.m mm.m~ m.mH H.vn~ m.vm~ m.moo o.v moon x3 H .m mmH. «.mv os. m.m mm.m~ m.MH m.va o.hw~ m.moo m.H 0:02 .4 Hn\o\m .H vocabuOun4 w w m m m or monoaH I. wuum .m.m w a oHuum mom .m.w .uz .uz .uz ucmEuwmuu :Hcm Hm sumo umm>umz HoHou 4\m mm wmw HsHuHcH mauHm ouchuo amouu Essum> oHu4 .mEde owuuosHm ouccmo Han co mucmemusmmmz m>Huumflno .N mHm4a 22 Bluefree variety between the unripened and ripened plums. Overall, the unripened sample weights were higher than the ripened plums. Drained Weight Higher drained weights were obtained for the Stanley than for the Bluefree variety. In the Stanley samples the ripened plums generally gave higher drained weights than the unripened plums. This may be due to some water loss during the ripening period. The Bluefree variety plums did not show this effect. No relationship could be established between ripening treatment, maturity and the drained weight of the varieties studied. Sirup Weight The drained sirup from the drained weight measure- ments was also weighed. No differences were found between the unripened and ripened samples. In the Stanley variety a slight increase in weight was observed with a marked difference between the first harvest and the other four harvest dates. The Blvefree variety weights showed no noticeable differences (Table 2). Soluble Solids The initial soluble solids of the Stanley plums varied from 12.9 to 25.6 while those of the Bluefree 23 varied from 13.9 to 17.8. The unripened plum measurements were significantly lower than the ripened samples in both varieties. Higher readings were obtained in the samples ripened using the two shorter ripening periods; 1 week at 70°F and 1 week at 32°F + 1 week at 70°F (Tables 1 and 2). The cut out soluble solids content of the canned Stanley plums varied from 21.0 to 33.2. The Bluefree plums readings varied from 24.3 to 29.5. In both varieties no relationship was found between the harvest dates, ripening treatment and soluble solids content. The Stanley variety showed a slight increase in soluble solids content as the maturity of the plums increased (Table 1). pH and Total Acidity The Stanley variety pH readings increased as the product matured from approximately 3.5 to 3.9. The Bluefree readings stayed relatively constant between 3.3 to 3.4. The Bluefree variety gave higher acid readings and lower pH readings than the Stanley variety. Total acidity for Stanley plums decreased from .55 to .4 g/lOOg fruit as maturity advanced. The total acidity measurements of the Bluefree variety plums varied slightly but no differences were 24 noted as the plums matured. The values varied from .61 to .67 g/lOOg fruit. Within each harvest date no differences were found between the unripened and ripened samples for either variety. Sugar/Acid Ratio The sugar/acid ratio values obtained for the Stanley variety were significantly higher than those for the Bluefree variety. No differences were observed between the unripened and ripened samples of each harvest in the Stanley plums. An increase in these values was noted, however, as the product matured, initially calculated as 44.2 and increasing up to 79.3. The Bluefree samples showed differences between the unripened and ripened plums with the unripened plum readings being lower than those from the ripened samples. The S/A ratio from this variety fluctuated between 36 and 48.1 with harvest maturities. €219.11 Both varieties showed similar results. As the plums matured, the amount of color increased. In addition, within each harvest date, the use of any ripening treatment increased the amount of pigment present. 25 Differences were observed between the unripened and ripened samples from both varieties. The Stanley variety absorbance values increased from .075 to 1.127 while those for the Bluefree increased from .199 to .688. From the 9/6/71 harvest on, the readings for the Stanley variety were slightly higher than those from the Bluefree variety. Sensory Evaluation of Canned Plums After the objective measurements were completed, the plums were quartered, de-stoned and subjected to sensory evaluation. The first test conducted was that of a paired preference examination, Table 3 (Roessler, Baker, Amerine, 1956). Sample A was stored at room temperature, and sample B was subjected to cold room storage. No significant preference for either storage, in either variety was found. The second sensory evaluation procedure used was Hedonic scaling (Peryam and Pilgrim, 1959) involving color, flavor and texture. In Tables 4 and 5, the means of the panelists judgings are summarized for harvest date vs. each ripen- ing treatment within that harvest date. In Tables 6 and 7, the mean data for date vs. date are given. In this evaluation, the ripening treatments were examined with the same ripening treatment from another harvest. 26 TABLE 3. Paired Preference Analysis of Storage Conditions After Processing on Canned Stanley and Bluefree Variety Plums (Sample A = Room temperature Storage, B = Cold Storage). Variety Harvest Date Preference (freq.) A B Stanley 8/23/71 33 31 Stanley 8/30/71 27 37 Stanley 9/6/71 31 25 Stanley 9/15/71 21 27 Stanley 9/21/71 29 19 Bluefree 9/6/71 20 28 Bluefree 9/15/71 27 21 Bluefree 9/21/71 26 22 Overall harvest Dates Stanley 141 139 Bluefree 73 71 27 TABLE 4. Hedonic Scaling for Color, Flavor and Texture on Stanley Plums, Date vs. Ripening Treatment. Harvest Ripening Panel Means** Date Treatment Color Flavor Texture 1. 8/23/71 A. None 3.7a 4.9a 8.0g B. 1 wk 70°F 5.8c 6.1bc 5.7d C. 1 wk 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 5.8c 6.2bc 6.4e D. 2 wks 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 7.8g 6.2bc 4.2bc 2. 8/30/71 A. None 5.5b 6.5c 6.6ef B. 1 wk 70°F 7.1fg 7.3d 5.7d C. 1 wk 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 7.2fg 5.8b 4.80 D. 2 wks 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 6.2d 6.2bc 4.6c 3. 9/6/71 A. None 6.6e 6.5c 6.7ef B. 1 wk 70°F 6.7e 5.4b 4.2bc C. 1 wk 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 5.9cd 6.0bc 4.9c D. 2 wks 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 6.6e 5.1a 4.1b 4. 9/15/71 A. None * 6.7e 6.0bc 4.1b B. 1 wk 70°F --- --- --- C. 1 wk 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 7.0eg 5.9bc 2.6a D. 2 wks 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 6.6e 5.8b 3.1a 5. 9/21/71 A. None 5.8c 6.0bc 7.0fg B. 1 wk 70°F 7.59 6.7c 3.9b C. 1 wk 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 7.3fg 6.3bc 3.6ab D. 2 wks 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 7.7g 6.4c 3.3a * Lost sample ** Like letters indicate no significant differences within each column 28 TABLE 5. Hedonic Scaling for Color, Flavor and Texture on Bluefree Plums, Date vs. Ripening Treatment. Panel Means* Harvest Ripening Date Treatment Color Flavor Texture 1. 9/6/71 A. None 4.2a 5.7b 5.3c B. 1 wk 70°F 6.7e 6.8a 3.6a C. 1 wk 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 6.5e 6.7a 3.6a D. 2 wks 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 6.9f 6.1ab 4.3b 2. 9/15/71 A. None 4.8b 5.6b 3.9a B. 1 wk 70°F 5.4c 6.2a 3.8a C. 1 wk 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 6.7e 6.7a 3.9a D. 2 wks 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 6.1d 6.0ab 4.2ab 3. 9/21/71 A. None 4.7b 6.0ab 5.1c B. 1 wk 70°F 6.6e 6.2a 4.5b C. 1 wk 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 7.0f 5.5b 4.4b D. 2 wks 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 7.0f 6.2a 4.5b * Like letters indicate no significant differences within each column 29 TABLE 6. Hedonic Scaling for Color, Flavor and Texture on Stanley Plums, Date vs. Date. ** Harvest Ripening Panel Means Date Treatment Color Flavor ‘Texture 1. 8/23/71 A. None 4.2a 6.0ab 5.8cd B. 1 wk 70°F 6.2cde 6.0ab 4.8c C. 1 wk 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 4.6ab '5.5a 4.8c . 2 wks 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 6.7de 7.0b 4.7c 2. 8/30/71 A. None 5.8cde 6.3ab 4.9c B. 1 wk 70°F 7.0e 6.1ab 4.7c C. 1 wk 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 6.8de 6.4ab 4.8c D. 2 wks 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 6.6de 6.5ab 5.0cd 3. 9/6/71 A. None 6.2cde 6.3ab 6.0c B. 1 wk 70°F 6.6de 5.9ab 4.7c C. 1 wk 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 5.8cde 6.3ab 4.7c D. 2 wks 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 6.4cde 5.3a 4.0bc 4. 9/15/71 A. None * 6.2cde 6.2ab 6.1c B. 1 wk 70°F ---------------- C. 1 wk 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 6.3cde 5.7a 2.7ab D. 2 wks 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 5.5c 4.8a 3.3ab 5. 9/21/71 A. None 6.8de 6.3ab 6.2d B. 1 wk 70°F 5.4b 5.8ab 4.7c C. 1 wk 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 6.7de 6.2ab 3.1ab D. 2 wks 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 6.2cde 6.2ab 2.6ab * Lost sample ** Like letters indicate no significant differences within each column 30 TABLE 7. Hedonic Scaling for Color, Flavor and Texture on Bluefree Plums, Date vs. Date. Panel Means* Harvest Ripening Date Treatment Color Flavor Texture 1. 9/6/71 A. None 5.3abc 6.0a 5.0c B. 1 wk 70°F 5.3abc 6.4a 3.4ab C. 1 wk 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 6.2bc 6.4a 3.9ab D. 2 wks 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 6.9cd 6.6a 5.7c 2. 9/15/71 A. None 4.3ab 5.8a 4.8c B. 1 wk 70°F 6.6cd 6.3a 4.0ab C. 1 wk 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 6.0bc 6.0a 3.4ab D. 2 wks 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 6.0bc 6.1a 4.0ab 3. 9/21/71 A. None 4.7ab 6.1a 4.8c B. 1 wk 70°F 6.0bc 5.8a 3.3a C. 1 wk 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 7.5d 6.2a 4.6bc D. 2 wks 32°F and 1 wk 70°F 6.3bc 6.4a 3.1a * Like letters indicate no significant differences within each column 31 These four tables of data were analyzed by analysis of variance and Duncan's multiple range test at p = .05 (Mendenhall, 1968; Sokol and Rohlf, 1969). 20.13 In the Stanley variety, maximum color ratings were obtained for the third and fourth harvests (Table 4). With the Bluefree variety the color ratings increased between the first and second harvest but there was no further increase in the third harvest. Color ratings increased for all ripening methods and in general the highest ratings were obtained for the longest ripening time. No significant differences were found between color ratings when ripening methods of each harvest date were compared (Tables 6 and 7). The color ratings are in general agreement with the absorbance color measurements. Flavor The flavor ratings were similar for all treat- ments indicating that neither harvest maturity nor ripening methods had any marked effect. These results also indicated that a relatively wide range in sugar/acid ratios had little effect on the flavor of the canned plums. Texture The texture ratings decreased with increased fruit maturity and with increased ripening time after harvest. 32 The scale rating of 5 indicates neither a soft nor tough texture. A range of 41.2 to 61.2 indicates the most desirable texture. Ratings below or above this range indicate either a soft or firm texture. In the Stanley variety unacceptable firm texture readings were recorded in the harvests of 8/23/71, 8/30/71, 9/6/71 and 9/21/71 in the unripened samples. Undesirably soft texture ratings were found in the longer ripening treat- ment samples of the last two harvests. In the Bluefree variety no samples were found to be too firm. The shorter ripening periods produced too soft ratings in the first two harvests. Homogenization of Stanley Plum Nectar Homogenization pressure effects the amount of sedimentation more than storage or temperature of pro- cessing (Tables 8-11, Figures 1-4). Without homogeni- zation sedimentation occurred throughout the storage period for all three extraction temperatures and the total amounts of sediment were similar at the end of 56 days. Initial sedimentation was significantly higher in the 180°F extraction (Table 8). Significant linear relationships were established in all samples (Figures 1-4). Increasing the homogenization pressure from 500 to 3000 psig decreased the amount of sedimentation with little or no sedimentation at 3000 psig. Higher amounts 33 TABLE 8. Pulp Sedimentation of Nectar Samples Heated to 140°, 160° and 180°F. Time (days) 0 (3 hrs) 2 4 7 14 28 56 l40°F 3.0 35.0 60.5 73.5 82.5 103.5 108.5 160°F 4.0 39.0 65.0 81.0 85.0 99.5 112.5 180°F 18.5 63.5 89.5 105.0 110.0 114.0 120.0 Solid lines denote no significant sedimentation from initial time. TABLE 9. Pulp Sedimentation of Nectar Samples Heated to 140°F and Homogenized at 500-3000 psig. Time (days) 0 (3 hrs) 2 4 7 14 28 56 mls ** 500 psig 0.0 1.0 1.8 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.3 ab 1000 psig 0.0 2.5 5.3 6.5 7.0 7.8— 8.5 b 2000 psig 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 a 3000 psig 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0» 0.3 0.3 a ** Like letters indicate no significant differences between pressures Solid lines indicate no significant sedimentation from initial time 34 TABLE 10. Pulp Sedimentation of Nectar Samples Heated to 160°F and Homogenized at 500-3000 psig. Time (days) 0 (3 hrs) 2 4 7 14 28 56 mls ** 500 psig 0.0 0.8 1.5 3.0 4.3 4.8 4.8 ab 1000 pSig 0.0 3.0 4.0 5:8 6.5 7.0 7.0 ' 2000 psig 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.8 1.0 a 3000 psig 0.0 0:0’ 0.0 0.0 ’0.0 0.0 70.0 a between pressures * Like letters indicate no significant differences Solid lines indicate no significant sedimentation from initial time TABLE 11. Pulp Sedimentation of Nectar Samples Heated to 180°F and Homogenized at 500—3000 psig. Time (days) 0 (3 hrs) 2 4 7 14 28 56 mls ** 500 psig 0.0 8.3 12.5 13.8 13.8 14.8 14.8 a 1000 psig 0.0 4.3 6.8 7.8 8.0 8.3 8.5 ab 2000 psig 0.0" ‘2;0 5.5 6.8 7.5 8.0 7.8 ab 3000 psig 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 1.0 1.0 b ** Like letters indicate between pressures Solid lines indicate no from initial time significant sedimentation no significant differences 35 m135" 3 1 = 140°F r = .736* E 1 y = l.47x+43.17 8 2 = 160°F r = .726* :3 y = 1.43x+46.7l ‘U * 2 3 = 180°F r = .643 % 9o-I y = 1.17x+70.12 F6 0) U) 0.4 H . :1 D4 451 ’ 01 I I o 28 56 storage time (days) Figure 1. Effects of O psig Upon Pulp Sedimentation Homogenized at 140°F, 160°F and 180°F, Stored in Light at Room Temperature. 1o~ 1 ‘6 ,_..| .5 g 1 = 1000 psig r = .401* .3 y = .11x+3.61 4" * 3 _ 2 = 2000 psig r = .440 5 5 y = .01x+.12 * 25 3 = 3000 psig r = .390 g y = 0005X+—0014 04 ,...| :1 0.. .4—2 0 L3 ‘58 56 storage time (days) Figure 2. Effects of Pressures, 500-3000 psig, Upon Pulp Sedimentation Homogenized at 140°F, Stored in Light at Room Temperature. * Significant at 5% level 36 10I :Q 2 5 * g l = 500 psig r = .531 g y = .077x+1.50 4.) g 1 2 = 1000 psig r = .587* 5 SI y = .088x+3.35 * ;§ 3 = 2000 psig r = .544 m y = .019x+.017 U) 0.. H :1 0 28 56 storage time (days) Figure 3. Effects of Pressures, 500-3000 psig, Upon Pulp Sedimentation Homogenized at 160°F, Stored in Light at Room Temperature. 18f ,‘ 1 m * a l = 500 psig r = .458 - y = .le+8.74 I: _ * .3 2 = 1000 p51g r = .537 D y = .09x+4.78 m u 2 . * 5 3 3 = 2000 p81g r = .586 5 y = .01x+3.78 o m U) m H o 04 0- 1 I 0 28 56 storage time (days) Figure 4. Effects of Pressures, 500-3000 psig, Upon Pulp Sedimentation Homogenized at 180°F, Stored in Light at Room Temperature. * Significant at 5% level 37 of sedimentation occurred in the 180°F heated nectar. There was no marked differences between 140°F and 160°F heated nectar. Most of the settling occurred during the first 7 days of storage (Tables 9-11). Homogenized plum nectar stored at 70°F in the light and dark and at 36-38°F in the dark showed no dif- ferences in sedimentation except that the 140°F, 2000 psig, 70°F dark storage sample had less sediment than the 36-38°F stored sample (Tables 12-18). As in the previous study, increased homogenization pressure decreased the amount of sedimentation and in the 160°F 3000 psig sample no sedimentation was observed. Most of the settling occurred during the first 14 days of storage. TABLE 12. Pulp Sedimentation of Nectar, Samples Heated to 140°F Homogenized at 0 psig, Stored in Light and Dark at Room Temperature and in Cold Storage. Time (days) 0 (3 hrs) 14 28 56 84 112 mls 70°F light 0.8 15.0 17.8 18.3 18.3 18.3 70°F dark 1.4 17.4 18.2 18.8 18.8 18.8 36°-38°F 1.3 16.3 17.5 18.3 18.3 18.3 38 TABLE 13. Pulp Sedimentation of Nectar, Samples Heated to 140°F Homogenized at 1000 psig, Stored in Light and Dark at Room Temperature and in Cold Storage. Time (days) 0 (3 hrs) 14 28 56 84 112 mls 70°F light 0.0 3.7 4.3 4.4 4.7 5.0 70°F dark 0.0 4.6 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.1 36°-38°F 0.0 4.6 4.7 5.1 5.2 5.2 TABLE 14. Pulp Sedimentation of Nectar, Samples Heated to 140°F Homogenized at 2000 psig, Stored in Light and Dark at Room Temperature and in Cold Storage. Time (days) 0 (3 hrs) 14 28 56 84 112 mls * TV, 70°F light 0.0 a 0.55 1.8 1.95 2.2 2.2 ab 70°F dark 0.0 a 0 7 0.75 1.2 1.25 1.25 b 36°—38°F 0.0 b 2 41 2T6' 2.8 2.8 2.8 a * Like letters indicate no significant differences between storages Solid lines indicate no significant sedimentation from initial time 39 TABLE 15. Pulp Sedimentation of Nectar, Samples Heated to 140°F Homogenized at 3000 psig, Stored in Light and Dark at Room Temperature and in Cold Storage. Time (days) ° '3 hrs' 14 28 56 84 112 mls * * 70°F light 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.6 a 0.7 0.7 a 70°F dark 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 b 0.4 0.4 b 36°-38°F 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 b 0.4 0.4 b * Like letters indicate no significant differences between storages TABLE 16. Pulp Sedimentation of Nectar, Samples Heated to 160°F Homogenized at 0 psig, Stored in Light and Dark at Room Temperature and in Cold Storage. Time (days) 0 (3 hrs) 14 28 56 84 112 mls * 70°F light 0.6 a 15.5 18.3 18.8 18.8 18.8 70°F dark 1.2 b 16.7 18.2 18.8 18.8 18.8 36°-38°F 0.7 a 16.7 18.3 18.8 18.8 18.8 * Like letters indicate no significant differences between storages 40 TABLE 17. Pulp Sedimentation of Nectar, Samples Heated to 160°F Homogenized at 1000 psig, Stored in Light and Dark at Room Temperature and in Cold Storage. Time (days) 0 (3 hrs) 14 28 56 84 112 mls * 70°F light 0.0 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.85 2.85 a 70°F dark 0.0 3.25 3.6 3.9 3.9 3.9 b 36°-38°F 0.0 2.55 2.75 2.8 2.85 2.85 a * Like letters indicate no significant differences between storages TABLE 18. Pulp Sedimentation of Nectar, Samples Heated to 160°F Homogenized at 2000 psig, Stored in Light and Dark at Room Temperature and in Cold Storage. Time (days) 0 (3 hrs' 14 28 56 84 112 mls * 70°F light 0.0 2.5 3.1 3.25 3.25 3.25a 70° dark 0.0 2.1 1.95 2 05 2 05 2.05 b 36°-38°F 0.0 2.16 2.65 2.7 2.7 2.7 ab * Like letters indicate no significant differences between storages 41 Color Measurements on 1970 Stanley Plum Nectar andeuICe In the nectar samples no linear relationship was observed between storage time and color changes. In the juice samples correlations were found in all treatments (Figure 5). Nectar Absorbance readings decreased slightly during the first 108 days of storage and then increased. Visual observations indicated that the increase was associated with the development of a brown coloration that tended to mask the anthocyanin pigment (Table 19). This is in agreement with results reported by Beavens and Beattie (1949). Slightly less brown coloration occurred in the samples stored at 70°F in the dark than those stored in the light at 70°F or in cold storage at 36-38°F. The absorbance readings obtained on the juice showed the same trend as that of the nectar. However, juice stored at 36-38°F showed slightly less brown coloration than the other stored samples during the storage period (Table 20 and Figure 5). Color Measurements on 1971 Stanley and Bluefree Plum Nectar Anthocyanin content was not significantly affected by either the homogenization or pasteurization 42 * 1 = rm. temp. dark r = .651 y = .0002x+.163 2 = rm. temp. light r = .726* y = .0003x+.155 * 3 = cold storage r = .473 y = .0001x+.l75 .215 I- 32 WA 3 00) mt) cs: 133.185 . L)H 0 3:4 '33 o .155 ‘L . . 0 112 224 storage time (days) Figure 5. Juice. Color Changes in 1970 Harvested Stanley Plums, Stored in Cold Storage and at Room Temperature in Light and Dark vs. Time. * Significant at 5% level 43 noH. chH. vnH. omm. an. mmH. omm. omm. mom. mmH. mommIomm HmH. an. hmH. mmH. mmH. mom. mmH. mmH. oom. mmH. xumo moon OHN. omH. onH. moH. mmH. an. mvH. Hom. HmH. mmH. uanH moon vmm omH mmH oeH NHH em mm mm «H o immeec msHa .meHuHocoo mossouw ucmumMMHo mouse noon: omuoum mUHSb Ede mchmum mo EcmHm um mwsHm> mochHOmn4 .om mHm4B mmH. th. onH. mmH. moH. mmH. omH. HmH. an. mnH. mommIomm vnH. mmH. mmH. mMH. HmH. mmH. omH. mmH. meH. NBH. Hump moon mmH. th. HmH. mvH. mNH. mmH. mnH. MMH. mVH. mnH. ucmHH moon mom mmH mmH mMH mOH em mm mm 4H 0 Amseec mess .mGOHuHocou mmmuoum ucmumMMHo mouse noon: omuoum umuumz Ede mchmpm mo EsmHm um mmsHm> mocMQHOmH4 .mH mHm4B 44 procedures. Loss of color occurred during storage. The loss was not significant for Stanley nectar after 140 days of storage but was significant for the Bluefree nectar with maximum loss occurring after 84 days of storage (Tables 21-22). TABLE 21. Differential Absorbance Values of Pasteurized and Homogenized Stanley Plum Nectar. Time (days) 0 28 56 84 112 140 Low T long hold .353 .342 .341 .330 .322 .314 High T + short hold .362 .346 .320 .316 .302 .297 Solid lines indicate no significant changes in absorbance TABLE 22. Differential Absorbance Values of Pasteurized and Homogenized Bluefree Plum Nectar. Time (days) 0 28 56 84 112 140 Low T long hold .182 .161 .151 .147 .105 .092 High T + short hold .187 .166 .147 .131 .092 .074 Solid lines indicate no significant changes in absorbance Color Measurements on 1971 Stanley and Bluefree Plum Juice Color extraction from the plums processed at 170°F was much less than that obtained from the plums processed at 180°F (Table 23). During the l40-day storage period the anthocyanin color loss in the 170°F 45 mommlmm I mmmooum coco n mu «moon I mosamomafimu Eooo u 2m ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. mo oooo manomsom ooxoo\o moo. mom. moo. mmm. ooo. moo. 2m oooo mmomwsom oo\oo\m omo. ooo. ooo. omo. ooo. ooo. mo oooo mmummsom oo\mo\o oom. ooo. omo. oom. mom. omo. 2m oooo mmommsom oo\mo\o ooo. moo. mom. oom. ooo. ooo. mo oooo mmocmum ooxooxo ooo. ooo. mom. oom. oom. ooo. 2m .ooo smocmum oo\oo\o moo. mom. ooo. ooo. ooo. omo. mo oooo omocmum oo\oo\o moo. moo. moo. omo. mom. ooo. 2m .ooo mmocmum ooxooxm omm. oom. oom. omm. omm. oom. mo oomo omocmom oo\om\o ooo. ooo. ooo. moo. mom. oom. 2m .omo omocmom oo\om\o mom. omm. mom. omo. ooo. mom. mo oooo mmocmum oo\mo\o moo. mmo. omo. ooo. moo. ooo. 2m oomo mmoamum oo\mo\o ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. moo. omo. mo °ooo omummsom oo\oo\o ooo. moo. ooo. ooo. omo. omo. 2m .ooo mmommsom oo\oo\o ooo. ooo. moo. ooo. omo. omo. mo oooo «mommsom oo\mo\o ooo. ooo. ooo. moo. moo. omo. 2m oooo mmommsom oo\mo\o ooo. moo. moo. ooo. ooo. omo. mo oooo mmoamom oo\oo\m moo. moo. omo. moo. moo. moo. 2m .ooo smoamum oo\oo\o ooo. moo. ooo. ooo. omo. ooo. mo oooo mmocmum oo\mo\o ooo. moo. moo. ooo. ooo. moo. 2m .ooo mmoamum oo\mo\o ooo. ooo. ooo. omo. moo. moo. mo oooo moocmum oo\om\o ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. omo. ooo. 2m oooo smocmom oo\om\o ooo. moo. ooo. ooo. ooo. omo. mo .ooo mmoamum oo\mo\o ooo. ooo. moo. omo. moo. mmo. 2m oooo smoamum oo\mo\o ooo ooo om mm mo o .msma mama mmmooum mcommmooum humoom> omomoo msoa m. uom>omm .mmmumoom> omommsam cam moocmum mo mmcwwmmm mocmnHOmnd “woman Edam ammo CH :omusmumm MOHOU so made mo pommmm .mm momma 46 processed juice was from 50 to 100% whereas in the 180°F processed juice the loss ranged from 20 to 70% (Table 23, Figures 6-9). This is in agreement with the results of Kilbuck (1948) and Ponting (1960) who indicated the critical temperature for enzyme inactivation to be 180°F. Color losses occurred at a more rapid rate and were greater in the samples stored at 70°F than in those stored at 36-38°F. In all of the samples there was a linear relation- ship between storage time and the amount of color loss. Effegtyof Temperature and Time On COIor‘Extraction offil97l Bluefree Plum Nectar The results of the extraction procedure are given in Table 24. A high degree of Correlation was obtained between the amount of color extracted and the temperature of processing, r = .965 (Figure 10). At temperatures below 180°F increased holding time resulted in better color extraction whereas above 180°F the results were variable, indicating that holding for more than 1 minute may not be necessary. Temperatures above 180°F tended to concentrate the pigment and produced higher absorbance readings. .13 - moo (DO) 00 =5 5%. 06 8 .8 ° 5W as 0V 0 \K\ g. 0r '7 3 l L. 0 70 l 0 storage time (days) ‘Cll‘3 .53 y = -.001x+.918 tam 51$ 8" rm - 70°F storage cs - 36-38°F storage .16 5 0‘ 1 . 3 0 70 140 storage time (days) Figure 9. Juice. Effect of Storage and Time on the Anthocyanin Content in Bluefree Plum Juice Processed at 180°F. * Significant at 5% level Color Changes (Absorbance) .30 O |-‘ U" 49 Tlmin. r = .958 = .005x+.03 szin. r = .965 = .004x+.061 T3min. r = .969 = .004x+.072 b L I I 1 I L 0'160 170 180 190 200 210 Temperature (°F) Figure 10. Nectar. Effects of the Holding Period Before Pulping Upon Color Extraction at Various Temperatures. * Significant at 5% level * 'k 'k 50 TABLE 24. Processing Temperature Effects on Color Extraction Bluefree Plum Nectar. Temperature (°F) of Processing Holding Period (minutes) 160°F 170°F 180°F 190°F 200°F 210°F Absorbance Readings .023 .066 .164 .173 .183 .283 .046 .132 .137 .177 .218 .269 .068 .134 .138 .186 .268 .273 DUMP Effect of Chemical Additives on Color Stabilizationfiin Stanley Plum Nectar and Juice Nectar The results are given in Table 25. Ascorbic acid was the least effective additive in preventing color destruction and the amount of destruction increased with increasing concentrations (.l-l.0%) (Figure 12). SO2 prevented color destruction the best and complete retention was obtained at levels of 25 to 100 ppm (Figure 11). Color destruction in the presence of (Nal6 P14 043) was similar to that obtained in the control sample (Figure 13). The color changes were significantly related to storage time except in the nectar samples containing 25 ppm concentrations of $02. 51 TABLE 25. Chemical Additives; Effects of Storage Time on Color Retention in 1971 Stanley Plum Nectar and Juice. . . Concen- Time Days Additive tration 0 2 12 25 50 Absorbance Readings Nectar control .296 .278 .255 .218 .222 SO2 10 ppm .296 .285 .267 .260 .248 25 ppm .296 .285 .270 .285 .291 50 ppm .296 .275 .281 .291 .327 100 ppm .296 .269 .287 .286 .312 Ascorbic acid .1% .296 .289 .248 .246 .126 .2% .296 .277 .232 .207 .065 .5% .296 .285 .195 .156 .045 1.0% .296 .293 .178 .163 .043 Sodium Hexameta Phosphate .1% .296 .298 .273 .271 .212 .2% .296 .303 .306 .288 .257 .5% .296 .295 .281 .261 .213 1.0% .296 .312 .303 .267 .195 Juice control .778 .691 .594 .492 .410 SO2 10 ppm .777 .769 .661 .545 .500 25 ppm .774 .767 .676 .541 .478 50 ppm .778 .743 .658 .649 .511 100 ppm .774 .648 .612 .527 .513 Ascorbic acid .1% .778 .717 .598 .372 .273 .2% .774 .554 .492 .365 .215 .5% .778 .485 .403 .208 .191 1.0% .773 .440 .270 .125 .082 Sodium Hexameta Phosphate .1% .778 .769 .662 .558 .497 .2% .778 .750 .684 .548 .481 .5% .778 .739 .665 .614 .522 1.0% .778 .645 .581 .500 .511 P.V.P. .1% .776 .726 .620 .404 .312 .2% .771 .563 .505 .388 .262 .5% .774 .593 .410 .246 .212 1.0% .778 .417 .269 .169 .111 -52 * control r =-.852 1 = .320 ' 3 y = -.001x+.279 * 2 = lOppm =-.922 4 y = -.0009x+.287 (an * go: 3 = 50ppm r = .829 5% y = .0008x+.279 * ‘33 I“ 4 = lOOppm r = .708 2§ -230 ’ y = .0005x+.280 £38 0V 0 .240 2 01 y 11 0 25 50 storage time (days) 'vv Figure 11. Effects of Varying Concentrations of 802 on the Anthocyanin Content in Nectar. * .300 l = control r =-.852 §§§__ y = -.001x+.279 * 2 = .1% r =-.970 m" 1 y = -.003x+.298* 38 3 = .2% r =-.985 55 y = -.004x+.293 * fig .165' 4 = ;5% r =-.982 ..8 2 y - -.005x+.283 * 33 5 = 1.0% r =-.958 8 y = -.005x+.283 3 4 .03qt 5 01 L l 0 25 50 storage time (days) Figure 12. Effects of Varying Concentrations of Ascorbic Acid on the Anthocyanin Content in Nectar. * Significant at 5% level 53 * control r =-.852 1 = y = -.001x+.279 * 2 = .1% r =-.970 y = -.002x+.299 * 3 = .2% r =-.890 y = —.0009x+.306 .320 +- * 4 = .5% =-.994 y = -.002x+.299 ma * q,w 5 = 1.0% r =-.954 g2 y = -.002x+.314 2'6 .0 03.260 - 3 $04") ofl 8V 1 2,4 .200 g 5 0 L I 1 0 25 50 storage time (days) Figure 13. Effects of Varying Concentrations of Nal6P14043 on the Anthocyanin Content in Nectar. * Significant at 5% level 54 None of the chemical additives completely pre- vented color destruction. As in the nectar, ascorbic acid was the least effective additive in preventing color loss and the amount of loss increased with increasing concentrations (Table 25, Figure 15). Both 802 and (Na16 P14 043) were effective in reducing color loss (Figures 14 and 16). There were no marked differences in the effect of the various concentrations. P.V.P. was more effective in preventing color destruction than ascorbic acid. However, as with ascorbic acid, increasing concentrations increased the amount of color loss (Figure 17). In the juice samples containing high concen- trations of (Na16 P14 043) no linear relationship was observed between color change and storage time. Sensory Evaluation of Stanley Nectar andfiJuice Sugar-Acid Levels Nectar.--Acid levels used were 0.35, 0.45, 0.55 and 0.65% and the sugar levels were 15, l7, l9 and 21%. Chi square values were calculated using the rank sums procedure (Kramer, 1960). The results showed a 1% preference for 0.35% acidity at the 17% sugar level. // H '1: control r =-.942 = -.007x+.7l4 lOppm r =-.935* = -.006x+.753 * 25ppm r =-.894 = -.006x+.758 * 50ppm r =-.94l = -.005x+.755 * lOOppm r =-.726 = -.004x+.692 .750 ‘<|I" omommsom one moocmum can such Boom moomamm oom mnumcmam>m3 msomom> momma UGSOM mm3 ucmEmHSmmmE conchoozucm How numcmam>m3 XHazmmmd 72 73 TABLE 36. Effect of Time on Buffers, After Oxalic Acid Treatment. Time (minutes) 0 5 15 30 60 90 120 180 240 300 Absorbance readings .252 .272 .272 .272 .281 .281 .281 .281 .281 .281 TABLE 37. Effect of Time on Oxalic Acid--Color Develop— ment with Oxalic Acid Before Filtering. Time (minutes) 0 15 30 60 120 180 240 300 Absorbance readings .174 .180 .183 .227 .228 .242 .233 .247 74 ooo.v m.oo moo.Iu omo.v om.o ooo.Iu mooo.v o.ooo oov.IIu mooo.v o.ov m.oomo oom m owwmmo enmwfi COHm GOHm 0.59 anon 9.393.; I . uouum I . . m on caused?» m .m scounoou .m scouaoou no non—mom nmuowm comm mama '“OU -uoo '“OU o I O o neon .606 .wcom m z m c acosuuoue ooo.v om.m oo.o oo.m ooo. me. some ooom ooo.v oo.mo oo.o oo.oo moo. mm.~ mood oooo m.ooo moo.v om.oo om.m oo.om ooo. vo.o mood oooo ooo.v oo.e mo.om o.moo omo. om.m some oom m.ooo moo.v oo.o ao.ooo oo.oomo oo. mo.mo some o m.ooo III III oo. oo. III III ooom ooom m.ooo moo.v oo.oo mm. om.m ooo. em. some oooo ooo.v mo.mo mm.m om.mm oom. mm.~ mood oooo m.ooo ooo.v oo.oo am.m oo.om ooo. em.o mode oom moo.v om.mo oo.mvo om.mmoo om. om.mo ooom o ooo.v mm.o oo. oo. ooo. mo. some ooom moovo ooo.v mo.o mo. om.o oo. oo.m some oooo m.ovo omo.v oo.. oo.mo mm.ooo mo. oo.. some oooo m.ooo ooo.v om.o oo.oo oo.oo oo. mo.m some oom moo.v oo.oo oo.omo oo.ooooo om. oo.mo moan o m.ooo a u wanna scouoouooz Am om ousmmeum ousuauomfiaa UCGEUGUHB .059 .n> uauumz 65.3 hoocoum chad co 9.3.352 scommoumom acououcoaduom .on was 75 mooo.v m.~e vvn.qu ooo.v v.no evm.luu mooo.v m.nm moo. can. on N ono. .m.>.m moose mooo.v m.mo ~mm.qu mov.v h. aoa.qu mooo.v o.oo ooo. Now. on N onH. .<.< woman mooo.v o.om omo.qu ooo.v o.oo mom.IIu mooo.v o.mm ooo. ooo. om o ooIo. momooaoodz moose mooo.v m.o~o mom.qu ovo.v ~.N hoo.qu mooo.v m.ow moo. moo. on N emdoooIoo om moose mooo.v m.mv. ~mm.qu Nam.v m. ovo.qu mooo.v m.~> ooo. moo. on N moIo. <.< Hmuooz mooo.v m.vwm mmm.IIu ooo.v o.mo sho.Inu mooo.v a.mmo ooo. vno. hm N «HIH. newcommonz Honouz omm.v m. wov. nu emo.v m.v omm. nu no.v m.~ ooo. ooo. hm N ammoooloo om Heuowz woman made .0300 Houum cowwmuumom Hound cowuwcumom .ucou o>muwcu< wawoz m m .owuuou m m .omuuou a m uOoou nooou .m.! .u.v unguwwuh. .osoh .m> accououusousou ood .umuooz use moose Edam co momhansd commumumom amm>oumnc< Anomsusu .mm Honda 76 ooo.v m.o ooo. moo. mooo. ooo. .ch.EEmu cooo moose mooo.v o.om ooo. ooo. mooo. ooo. .uoI.dsmu .so moose mooo.v o.mo ooo. ooo. mooo. ooo. .ocI.msco .so moose omo.v o.o ooo. ooo. oooo. moo. .ch.esdu cooo ocpodz omo.v o.m ooo. ooo. mooo. oo. .uoI.dsdu .au omuomz omm.v m. ooo. ooo. mooo. oo. .ch.msmp .2o oncomz uouum commmmummm n w mom5h\omuomz m m m m .m.z usmEummHB .mcoHumUcou ucmuommwn Hops: cmooum woman can Hmuomz Enam moocmum onmo so momcmnu HoHoo co momhamcm commmmnmmm «momcmno Hoooo .Hv momda mooo.v N.mmo ooo. «mo. mooo. No. .cmE m ooomIomH mooo.v m.mma ooo. nmo. mooo. No. .cmE N ooamIooH mooo.v o.NHH ooo. mno. mooo. hmo. .cmE H ooamIomH “ooom commmmommm mEmB musumoomEma m m cm mm .m.z usmEummua .oEmB use mousumquEmB ucmowm Immo um commoooum .umuomz Edam so manhomsm semmmmummm “Economuuxm HOHOU .ov Manda 77 mooo.v am.ooo ooo. ooo. oooo. moo. .m.o oo\oo\o moomo mmomddom mooo.v oo.ooo moo. oom. mooo. omo. .su oo\oo\o moooo mmoodsom mooo.v mm.am ooo. moo. aooo. ooo. .m.o am\mo\m mooma commodom mooo.v oo.oo ooo. ooo. mooo. moo. .eu ooxmoxo moooo moundsom mooo.v ¢~.vm aoo. mmo. mooo. mmo. .m.o an\a~\m mooma moacmum mooo.v om.ooo ooo. omm. mooo. mmo. .su oo\oo\o moooo mmoddum mooo.v om.ooo ooo. omo. moooo. oo. .m.o oo\o\o moooo smoccum mooo.v oo.om moo. oom. moo. ooo. .su oo\m\o moooo mmoccum mooo.v om.oo ooo. ooo. oooo. omo. .m.o oo\om\o moooo mmocmum mooo.v mo.om moo. ooo. oooo. ooo. .eu ooxom\o moooo mmodcum mooo.v oo.ooo ooo. ooo. oooo. moo. .m.o oo\mo\m moooo amoemum mooo.v moqom ooo. omo. mooo. moo. .su oo\mo\m moooo adoccum mooo.v mm.ooo ooo. moo. .m.o oo\oo\o moooo omomcaom mooo.v om.om ooo. ooo. ooooo. moo. .eu oo\oo\o moooo dduodsom mooo.v oo.oo ooo. moo. moooo. moo. .w.o oo\mo\o moooo denudaom mooo.v oo.oo ooo. ooo. ooooo. moo. .eu oo\mo\o moooo mmummsom mooo.v mo.ooo ooo. moo. ooooo. moo. .m.o oo\oo\o moooo mmoedum mooo.v oo.oo ooo. moo. ooooo. moo. .eu oo\oo\o moooo woodcum mooo.v oo.ooo ooo. moo. moooo. moo. .m.o oo\m\o moooo mmoccum mooo.v oo.om ooo. moo. ooooo. ooo. .su oo\o\o moooo mmoddum mooo.v om.oo ooo. moo. oooo. ooo. .m.o oo\om\m moooo odocdum mooo.v oo.oo ooo. ooo. oooo. ooo. .su oo\om\o moooo woodcum mooo.v oo.ooo ooo. ooo. ooooo. ooo. .m.o oo\mo\o e.ooo mmocdum mooo.v mo.mo ooo. ooo. ooooo. ooo. .su oo\mo\o moooo adodcum uouum scammmummm n m mmmnoum umm>umm mmmooum aumaum> m m m m .m.z ucmfiummua .mEaB .m> moadb Edam omommdam can amacmum anma do mammamcd scammmummm “momcmno Hoaou .Nv mamdfi 8 7 ooo.v o.o mmo. omm. moo. omo. oo.o .d.> m moose moo.v m.oo moo. omo. moo. omo. om. .m.> m moose ooo.v m.oo moo. ooo. ooo. ooo. mo. .m.> d moose ooo.v o.oo ooo. m. ooo. ooo. oo. .m.>.s moose mmm.v o.o moo. moo. ooo. moo. mo.o moo oom momz moose moo.v m. moo. moo. moo. mo. om. moo ooo momz moose ooo.v o.oo ooo. ooo. ooo. omo. oo. moo ooo momz moose mooo.v m.oo ooo. ooo. oooo. oo. oo. moo ooo momz moose ooo.v o.oo omo. ooo. moo. mmo. oo.o .<.< moose ooo.v o.oo moo. mom. moo. omo. mm. .4.« moose ooo.v m.mo ooo. omo. ooo. moo. oo. .m.4 moose ooo.v o.oo moo. oom. ooo. mmo. mo. .«.< moose moo.v o.oo moo. mmo. ooo. ooo. see ooo oom moose mooo.v m.om ooo. omo. mooo. mmo. sod om oom moose mooo.v o.om ooo. omo. ooo. omo. sod mo omm moose mooo.v o.mm ooo. ooo. mooo. moo. ass oo oom moose mooo.v m.mm ooo. mmo. mooo. mo. oooocoo moose mooo.v m.oo ooo. ooo. oooo. ooo. oo.o moo oom momz omoomz mooo.v o.mmm ooo. ooo. ooooo. ooo. om. moo oom momz omoomz ooo.v m.om ooo. moo. oooo. ooo. mo. moo ooo momz omoomz mooo.v o.moo ooo. ooo. oooo. moo. oo. moo oom momz omoomz mooo.v o.om ooo. mmo. mooo. mo. mo.o .d.4 omoomz mooo.v o.moo ooo. ooo. mooo. oo. om. .¢.4 omoomz mooo.v o.omo ooo. mmo. mooo. moo. oo. .¢.< smoomz mooo.v m.moo ooo. mmo. mooo. ooo. oo. .<.< omoomz ooo.v o.o ooo. ooo. oooo. ooo. sod ooo oom omoomz moo.v m.oo ooo. ooo. oooo. ooo. ads om oom omoomz oom.v o. ooo. ooo. oooo. oo. ass mo oom omoomz mooo.v m.mo ooo. moo. oooo. ooo. sod oo oom omoomz ooo.v o.oo ooo. ooo. mooo. moo. oooocoo I omoomz moadb o0 oooom coammmomom m>aoop©4 omuooz m m cm mm QOopmoucoocou .m.E ucmEummoB .oEaB .m> moadb cam omuooz Edam do mammamcd coammmomom omm>auacod amanmsu .mo momma