_— —: —— _— ..—— _— 7 ,7 _— .— ||l THE EFFECT OF NEW WEIGHT AND PACKING MEDIA ON THE DRAENED WEQGHT OF YHAWED FRQZEN RED CHERREES 400..) ICDO (DOOM Thesis for Hm Degree of M. 5. MICHEGAE‘! STATE L EVEHSETE’ Donald. H. Billings £958 THE EFFECT OF PUT-IN WEIGHT AND PACKING d T:- I A . DIA ON THE DRAIHED WEIGHT OF THAWED t FROZEN RED CHERRIES By Donald H. Billings AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Food Technology 1958 Approved (:35Zf;¢{:§42€;j/z’ A M, f/ ’ 2 2 ’ 35 Donald H; Billings This study was carried out to determine the effect of put-in weight and packing media on the drained weight of thawed frozen red cherries. A direct relationship was found between amount of sirup added and drained weight. Highest drained weights were obtained in the lots having the least headspace after thawing, indicating that it is important to use sufficient sirup to cover the fruit and obtain maximum fill of the container at the time of packing. The sirup packs were found to give higher drained weights than the dry sugar packs. An increase in sirup concentration generally resulted in a decrease in drained weight. The drained weights showed a direct relationship with the put-in weight of cherries in all packs. With increase in sirup concentration the rate of increase of soluble solids in the drained sirup was much more than that in the fruit, indicating that the sugar concentration of the sirup had very little effect on the sugar absorption by the fruit. Within each.sirup concen- tration the soluble solids of the fruit generally increased with increase in amount of sirup added. In conclusion it was found that both put-in weight and packing media have a significant effect on the drained weight of thawed frozen red cherries. THE EFFECT OF PUT-IN WEIGHT AND PACKING KEDIA ON THE DRAIHED WEIGHT OF THAWED FROZEN RED CHERRIES By Donald H. Billings A TIESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of he requirements for the degree of EASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Food Technology 1958 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere thanks to Dr. C. L. Bedford for his assistance and guidance in this project and in the preparation of this manuscript. The author also wishes to express his appreciation to Mr. W. F. Robertson for his many helpful suggestions. TABLE OF IHTR'IDUCTIOII. . . . . . REVIEW 0? LITERATURE. . . EXPERISJNTAL ICEITHODS. . . RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. . SUiaiid'ARI AND CONCLUSIONS . TABLEI......... TABLEII......... LITERATURE CITED. . . . . Ai.PEII:)IXO o o o o o o 0 o CONTEST TS 10 13 11+ 15 17 INTRODUCTION The present method of determining quality of frozen cherries is a rather inadequate procedure. Three main factors are considered when grading a sample under U.S.D.A. standards (18). These are character, lack of defects, and color. Critical evaluation of grade by these standards requires considerable practice and familiarity with.the product and there is a need for the develoPment of objective standards of quality. Therefore it seemed desirable to determine whether or not drained weights could provide an objective measurement to aid in indicating the quality of the frozen cherries. However, before recommended drained weight standards can be established, it will be necessary to determine the effect of fruit characteristics, processing, thawing, and drained weight procedures on the drained weight. Fallscheer and Osborn (h) indicated that drained weights of frozen fruit showed promise as a rapid means of calculating fruit content of a container and Osborn and Hatmaker (12) have reported that the use of drained weight determinations under controlled conditions provided a rapid procedure for establishing the proportion of fruit in frozen fruit packs. This study was undertaken to determine the effect of put-in weight and packing media on the drained weight of thawed frozen red cherries. [‘0 REVIEW OF LITERATURE The red sour cherry is an important processing crop in Eichigan. more than half of the red cherries produced in the United States are produced in this state (10). The area within a hundred mile radius of Traverse City, Michigan produces the major portion of this crop. Pioneering of freezing pitted red cherries was started in 1922 by the Grand Traverse Packing Company, Traverse City, Michigan. The 50 gallon barrel was the principal container used for the frozen pack during the 1920's and has been used in the hiddle West and East in each of the past 15 years (9). The 150 pound container came into use in 1936 and reached the peak of its popularity in 19h2 when 13 million pounds (nearly one third of the frozen pack) were packed in it. The preferred container for frozen red cherries today is the 30 pound size. During 1950-1956 approximately 95 percent of the frozen cherries were packed in this container (9). There has been a growth of interest in frozen cherries by the commercial bakers and institutional users. Because the frozen cherry preserves the fresh fruit flavor and results in a relatively high prOportion of fruit to free liquid, it is finding increasing favor with the institutional users. As quickly as facilities for keeping cherries in low temperature storage grew, it was found that the demand grew for them proportionately. As a result, cherry packers who formerly shipped hot pack units into certain areas exclusively are finding that the same areas are calling for the frozen product. This increased demand for the frozen pack by commercial bakers and institutional users resulted in a demand for the dry sugar pack because of the belief that this pack gave the higher drained weight. Initial studies by Tressler (15) and marshall (10) indicated that cherries packed with dry sugar gave a maximum drained weight. Studies by Loutfi, Bedford, and Robertson (8) showed no differences in drained weight between dry sugar and sirup packs. Hewever, subsequent studies by Bedford and Hirzel (1,5) indicate that maximum drained weights are obtained by use of sirup packs rather than by the dry sugar ones. Perry and Cruess (13) found that fruits packed with dry sugar and frozen lost much more weight than when packed in MOO Brix sirup. Josyln (0) found that the sirup pack gave the higher drained weight. Loutfi, Bedford, and Robertson (8) also found that in the sirup packs the drained weight tended to increase with increase in sirup concentration. Variations in drained weight have been attributed to many factors such as growth conditions, spray treatments, soaking procedures, thawing procedures, put-in weight, and packing media. Studies by Bedford and Robertson (3) have shown no significant differences between sprays or orchards. They did find differences in drained weights between various years, indicating that cultural and climatic conditions may result in variations in drained weight. Langer and Fisher (7) found that wax emulsion sprays had a tendency to lower the soluble solids of the fresh fruit and drained weight of canned fruit. Werk by Swingle (1h) also indicated this to be true. Unfortunately the commercial packer has little control over climatic conditions and ways must be found to obtain maximum drained weights by other means. Whittenberger (19) found that high drained weight was associated with a high degree of tissue cohesiveness which in turn was dependent on the strength.of the intercellular cement. He found that cells could be easily seperated from tissues of fruit of low drained weight, but not from tissues of those of high drained weight. Factors which strengthened this cement were found to be post harvest aging of the raw tissue and treatment withcalcium.ions.d True (16) found that cells adhered to each other in calcium-containing water but dissolved into their component cells in water free from calcium. Bedford and Robertson (2) found that the addition of calcium salts had no effect on drained weights. harshall, Robertson, and Bedford (11) have found that length of soaking time has no effect on drained weights. Their studies indicate an overall loss due to cull fruit, pitt loss, and juice loss with longer soaking periods. Work y Hirzel (5) indicates that the thawing temperature can have a significant effect on the drained weight of frozen cherries. He found that thawing at 68°F gave the nest consistent results. . nears, EXPERIIEHTAL METHODS Lature Hontmorency cherries grown and harvested in a commercial manner at the Iorticultural Farm.on the fiichigan State University Campus were used. The cherries were soaked in running water at MDOF for 6 hours, then pitted in a Dunkley cherry pitter of pilot plant capacity. The pitted cherries were frozen in Nb. 2 cherry enamel cans. To determine the effect of put-in weight and packing media, 15 and 16 ounces of pitted cherries were placed in each can. In the dry sugar packs 2.5, 3, and 3.5 ounces of sugar were added. The other packs included water and 50, 60, and 65 percent sirup. The amounts of sirup used were calculated so as to give equivalent amounts of sugar to those put in the dry sugar packs. This was 5, 6, and 7 ounces respectively for 50 percent sirup; n.2, 5, and 5.9 ounces for 60 percen sirup; and 3.9, h.6, and 5.5 ounces respectively for the 05 percent sirup. The cherries were frozen at -50F in a plate freezer and stored at 00F for 6 months. Thawing Procedure: The frozen cherries were removed from frozen storage, immersed in a circulating water bath at 68°F and thawed until the center temperature of the container reached a measured temperature of 68°F.- This took about two hours for the number 2 cans. This procedure was used since the studies made by Bedford and Hirzel (1,5) have shown that the most consistent results could be obtained using this method of thawing. Drained Weights: Drained weights were determined according to the U.S. Standards for Canned Red Cherries (17). The thawed cherries were drained for two minutes on an 8 inch, 8 mesh screen and the drained weights recorded in 01111033 0 Headspace: Headspace was determined in l6ths of an inch.by use of a headspace gauge. Soluble_§olids: The percent of soluble solids of the fruit, sirup, and fruit sirup mixture was determined with the Abbe refractometer. This percent was obtained directly on the sirup. The drained fruit was blended in a waring blender for three minutes and the soluble solids determined. The combined fruit and sirup were also blended for three minutes for the determination of soluble solids in the fruit sirup mixture. :ES'LTS AID DISCUSSION .4 The summary of results for drained weight and headspace is given in table I, and the results for soluble solids in table II. The complete data obtained is given in the Appendix, tables I to IV. Drained Weight: The drained weights for the dry sugar packs were siniliar and showed no relationship to the amount of dry sugar added (table I). The drained weights of the sirup packs were higher than those of the dry sugar packs. Within each.sirup concentration the drained weights increased as the volume of added sirup was increased. As the sirup strength was increased (50% to 65%) the drained weights decreased even though the amounts of sugar added at each of the three levels were constant. These results were similiar to those obtained in the initial studies made by Bedford (l) in 1956. Hewever, it was noted that the drained weights obtained in 1956 averaged 0.75 ounces higher than those obtained in the present study and that the differences between drained weights with different volumes of added sirup were somewhat greater. This showed the effect of seasonal conditions upon the fruit. It indicated that the magnitude of the differences between the drained weights with different added sirup volumes would be less when lower drained weights are obtained. The results Showed that the volume of sirup added seemed to have greater influence on drained weights than did the sirup strength. As shown in table I, the data obtained for the headspace of the thawed fruit showed a direct relationship with the drained weights. An increase in drained weight was noted with a decrease in the headspace. Since the fill of the container has a direct relationship to the drained weight it is important to use sufficient sirup to obtain maximum fill prior to freezing. The drained weights showed a direct relationship with the put-in weight of cherries. Soluble Solids: The soluble solids of the fruit packed with dry sugar were similiar to those packed with 50% sirup 'but lower than those frozen in 60 and 65% sirups. An increase in amount of dry sugar added (2.5 ounces to 3.5 ounces) increased the soluble solids of the fruit in the packs with a 15 ounce put-in weight but had no effect on the 16 ounce put-in weight lots. In the sirup packs the soluble solids of the fruit tended to increase with increasing amounts of sugar added and with sirup concentration. These differences, however, were not very large and would indicate that the amount of sugar or sirup concentration has only a slight effect on sugar absorption by the fruit. Since it was not possible to remove all of the sirup adhering to surface of the fruit, it might be expected that as the sirup concentration was increased, there might be a slightly greater adherence due to increased viscosity of the sirup, giving higher soluble solid values. As the volume of sirup added was increased less fruit was left uncovered by sirup and this could have decreased the loss of juice and soluble solids by leakage prior to freezing and during thawing. A higher percent of soluble solids was found in the drained sirup from the dry sugar packs than from.any of the other packs. This would be expected since no water was added. In the sirup packs the soluble solids of the drained sirups generally increased with increasing amounts of sugar added and with.increasing sirup concentration.. This occurred because the ratio of fruit to sugar or sirup was decreased. It also indicates that the amount of water removed from the fruit is similiar for all sirup concentrations and amounts. If more water had been removed from the fruit as the sirup concentration increased, the soluble solids of the drained sirup would have been relatively constant. Increasing the put-in weight of cherries decreased the soluble solids content of the drained sirup. This was due to the increased ratio of fruit to sirup and the resulting dilution of the sirup by the fruit juice. The soluble solids of the fruit sirup mixture showed a direct relationship with the soluble solids of the fruit and sirup. 10 SULE‘IARY AND CONCLUSIONS The drained weights of the thawed frozen red cherries were effected both.by the method of packing and the packing media. Sirup packs gave higher drained weights than dry sugar packs. An increase in amount of sirup used within each sirup concentration resulted in higher drained weights. Drained weights in both the water and sirup packs were increased by increase in volume of liquid. Since in the sirup packs the amount of sugar added was constant for each of the three levels of concentration, it appears that the fill of the container has a direct relationship to drained weight and that to obtain the highest drained weight it is important to use sufficient sirup to obtain maximum fill. The results indicated that the volume of sirup used has a greater effect on drained weight than does the sirup concentration. With increase in sirup concentration the rate of increase of the soluble solids in the drained sirup was much more than that in the fruit, indicating that the sugar concentration in the sirup had very little effect on the sugar absorption of the fruit. Within each sirup concentration the soluble solids of the fruit generally increased with increase in amount of sirup added. The water packs gave the lowest percent of soluble solids which.is understandable because as we add sugar we add soluble 11 solid: to both.the sirup and fruit. An increase in put-in weight had a tendency to increase the percent of soluble solids in the fruit of the dry sugar packs and decrease that of the sirup. With.the sirup packs, increased put-in weight decreased the percent of soluble solids in both the fruit and sirup. This increase in put-in weight had the effect of increasing the ratio of fruit to sugar. Although.no definite explanation can be given for the differences in drained weights of the various sirup packs, it would seem from the data obtained that the failure to cover the fruit with sirup plays a major role. In the packs using 16 ounces of cherries and 6 ounces of 50% sirup, 5.9 ounces of 60% sirup and 5.5 ounces of 65% sirup respectively, a maximum fill of the container was obtained. These packs upon thawing showed no difference in their drained weights even though there was a variation in sirup strength used. In the other packs where a maximum fill of container with sirup was not made, lower drained weights were obtained. In these treatments all of the fruit was not covered by sirup. This condition would permit an extensive breakdown and leakage of juice from the fruit prior to freezing and during thawing without the possibility of sugar absorption and recovery, in part, of the loss of weight. Therefore these cherries would contribute to lower drained weights obtained. It is realized that this only offers one possible eXplanation for these results, and it will be necrssary that additional research be done to determine the exact cause of the variations in drained weight. 12 Treatment Sugar Water 50% Sirup 60% Sirup 6 5;; Sirup 238W? NHN Gee MUN eoe geOOZe 6.002. 5.002. 0.002. 70002. #02020 SOOOZ o 50902. 309020 “40020 505020 13 TABLE I Comparison of Packing Methods on Drained Weights and Headspsce* Sugar Put-In Wt. (02s.) Headspace equivalent 15 10 léths of inch (ounces) Drained Wt e (OZSO) 15620 16020 10.9 11.6 16 16 11.1 11.8 16 16 10.8 11.8 16 16 0 10.9 12.1 6 h o 11.1 ---- u -- 2.5 12.5 13.1 6 6 3.0 12.5 13.3 7 t 3.5 1208 “—”" S -- 2.5 12.% 13.2 10 8 3.0 12. 13.1 9 7 3.5 12.7 13.a 8 5 2.5 12.1 12.8 16 9 300 1201' 1209 10 8 3.5 12.6 13.3 9 6 *These are the mean values of 6 determinations Comparison of Packing Methods on Soluble Solids Content of TABLE II FrUit: Sirup, and Fruit Sirup Mixture* Treatment Put-In Weight (ounces) 6 1 1h 15 Fruit Sirup Mixture Fruit Sirup Mixture Sugar 2.5020 18.8 36. 25.2 2006 3509 26.5 3.002. 19.6 8.h 26.8 20.8 7.9 26.5 3.502. 20.6 [.203 2800 2001 0.9 2709 Water 500020 1103 902 909 11.6 8.3 1007 (3.0020 1100 8.1 10.2 ---" “""' ""“"‘" 50%' 5.00z. 19.0 29.2 2 .3 18.8 28.5 22.2 Sirup 6.002. 19.6 30.6 21.0 19.0 30.2 23.6 7.002 20.1 32.5 25.5 ---- -——- ~ -- 430% h.Zoz. 22.6 31.8 26.0 21.0 30.5 2h.1 Sirup 5.002. 25.2 3u.8 27.2 21.2 32.7 25.6 .902. 22.7 3h. 20.6 21.1 35.1 26.3 <355 3.902. 21.3 32. 2h.g 22.9 32.5 22.9 34‘- 1113 1.1.0602. 2205 314.09 25:. 2100 3307 2503 50502. 2300 370 2503 2701 36.9 2701 .". e\ .l .L 1ese are t he mean values of 6 determinations 2. 3. 10. 11. 12. 13. 15 LITERATURE CITED Bedford, C. L. Unpublished data. 1956. Bedford, C. L. and Robertson, W. F. Effect of handling and processing methods on the firmness and quality of canned and frozen red cherries. Mich. ggg, Egg, §§g. Quart. Bull. he (1) 1957. Bedford, C. L. and Robertson, W. F. Effect of spray materials on the quality of canned and frozen Nontmorency cherries. Food Tech. 7 :lh2. 1953. Fallscheer, H. O. and Osborn, R. A. The estimation of fruit, sugar, and water content in frozen fruits. 5.1.0.1.0. 36:270-277. 1953. Hirzel, R. W. The effect of the method of defrosting on the drained weights of selected Michisan frozen fruits. Masters Thesis. Mich. State Univ. 195 . Josyln, M. A. Why freeze fruit in Sirup? Food Ind. 2: 350“3520 1930. Langer, C. A. and Fisher, V. J. Relation of wax.emulsion and fungicidal sprays to size, color, and composition of fresh and processed Kontmorency cherries. Proc. mere SOC. Etorte fl. 51.1.3163. 19,490 Loutfi, S. E., Bedford, C. L., and Robertson, W. F. The use of sugar and ascorbic acid in frozen Hentmorency cherries. Quick Frozen Foods 1h355-57. 1952. Marshall, R. E. Cherries and Cherry Products. Interscience. New Yerk-London. 195k. harshall, R. E. Some trends in the red cherry industry. Canner 10h:38. 19h7. Marshall, R. E., Robertson, W. F., and Bedford, C. L. The effect of the length of soak on the quality of canned and frozen Montmorency cherries. Food Tech. 5:110-118. 1951. ““"““ Osborn, R. A. and Hatmaker, C. G. Report on fill of container and fruit, sugar and water in frozen fruits. J.A.O.A:g. 37:309-317. 195h. .Perry, W. J. and Cruess, W. V. Observations on sugar penetrations in frozen fruits. Quick Frozen Foods 15 (ll):550 1953c 111. 15. 16 Swingle, C. F. Wax Sprays on sour cherries in Wisconsin. PI‘OCQ @9120 SOC. hOI‘to 5010 55:159. 1950. Tressler, D. K. and Du Bois, C. No browninv of cut fruit when treated by new process. Food Ind. 18:701. 19hh4 True, R. H. The significance of calcium for higher green plants. Science 55:1. 1922. U.S. Standards for Canned Red Sour (tart) Fitted Cherries. 17.33.11. 13.12.11. June, 19w. U.S. Standards for Frozen Red Sour (tart) Pitted Cherries. 211171900 U.S.DOA. POII'EOA. June, 19LL90 Whittenberger, R. T. Factors which effect the drained weight and other characteristics of heat processed red cherries. Food Research 17:299. 1952. APPENDIX 17 18 i l 1 TABLE I ’ Effect of Put-In Weight ani Packing Media on Drained Weight . 1 Put-In Weight 15 Oz. 1 Packing Hedia ‘1' H04 S. 60”] Si 65% blrup 6 5 5 Dry Sugar '1 acor :7 1’) lr’up ‘ 1'0 ' mp 3 O CO Z I 0 OZ 0 I 0 Z 0 2 Q 0 c O o g 0 . oz. 603. 502. 602. 703. b.1oz. Soz. Ooz. / u 5 Z 3 z 3 5 Z Drained Weight (ounces) n ,4 , , 12.1 12.5 12. 11.0 11. 10. 1000 11.3 12.:) 12.5 12.9 1.2-3 12.0 12..) 12.3 12.3) 19'; 11.3 11.; 11.5 10.8 11.0 12.5 12.5 12.3 12.5 12.1 12.5 12.1 12.5 5.2 i0_5 10.5 11.0 10.8 11.3 12.5 12.1 12.8 12.5 12.5 12.5 12,( 12,5 12,0 10.9 11.3 10.8 11.0 11.3 12.7 12.5 13.1 12.3 12.7 12.") 12.0 12.3 12.3 11.0 11.0 10.3 11.0 ”1.0 12.5 12.5 12.0 12.3 12.2 12.9 12,1 15.; 12.5 10-h 11.0 10.8 11.0 11.0 12.5 12.5 12.9 12.5 12.5 12.8 Put—In Weight 16 oz. 12.8 12.6 13.1 11. 12.0 11.8 13.5 ——- 13.0 13.3 -——— 13.3 13.0 13.3 12.8 13.0 13.2 11.13 11.8 11.9 12.9 --~- 13.0 13.3 -——- 13.? 13.3 13.2 12.8 12.8 13.2 11.“ 11.0 11.8 11¢) --~- 13-1 13.3 ———— 15-1 12-8 13.3 12.8 13.0 13.1 11.5 11.5 11.6 32.3 ~-—- 15.3 13.3 ~-~— 13.0 13.1 13.5 12.8 13.0 13.2 11.5 12.? 12.3 12-3 ---~ 13.0 13.3 -~-— 13.0 13.1 13.3 13.0 13.0 13.3 12.0 11.§ 11.6 12.0 ———- 13.0 13.5 -—~- 12.9 13.0 13.3 19 TABLE II Effect of Put-In Weight and Packing Media on Soluble Solids Content of Fruit Putnln Weight 15 oz. Packing Media / 50% Sirup 60% Sirup 05% "irnp , Dry Sugar 002. 502. Ooz. 702. h.loz. 502. 602. 3. oz. h.ooz. 5.50z. 2.502. 302. 3.502. Percent Soluble Solids 11.2 19.8 19.8 20.0 21.2 25.7 22.8 21.2 22.0 23.5 18.6 19.8 21.3 10.8 20.0 20.0 19.8 23.2 21.8 23.0 22.0 23.1 23.1 19.2 10.0 20.8 11.0 18.9 19.1.9- 20.11 22.3 25.0 23.8 21.1 23.3 22.3 16-8 19-0 20.0 11.1 19.5 19.2 20.0 23.5 25.2 22.0 20.1 21.2 23.1 1.8-6 ZO-LL 20d Put-In Weight 16 oz. ___- 19,0 18.8 --__ 20,8 21.0 21,0 22.» 20.3 27.h 22.0 20.6 20.2 ———_ 18,8 19,2 _-_- 21,2 22,1 21,2 22.8 21.0 27.2 21.0 20.h 19.8 ____ 19.0 1.3.3 1“. 20.3 20,3 31.1. 211.2 20.8 20.0 20.1 22.0 20.0 —-—- 1I,2 19,0 _--- 21,1 21,0 20,8 22.2 21.1 20.8 19.3 20.0 20.3 A .1.» «Irv n, ‘8 20 TABLE III Effect of Put—In Weight and Packing Media on Soluble Solids Content of Drained Sirup Put-In Weight 15 oz. Packing Media Water J 50% Sirup 60$ Sirup 652'Siru0 502. 002. 502. 602. 70:. 4.102. 502. 002. 3.902. h.6oz. 5.502. PePCent Soluble Solids 9'1 8'1 29'” 30-0 39” 31-3 35.8 36.1 31.0 31.5 37.1. 9.2 8.0 29.2 30.8 12.0 31.9 31.9 28.0 33.0 3h,8 37.2 9'3 8‘1 29'0 304 33'0 32-2 555-0 36.0 32.2 35,2 38.2 9.0 8.1 29.5 31.0 32.0 30.8 351.5 36.7 32.2 35.0 37.3 Put-In Weight 10 oz. 802 """""" 29.2 30.0 .._.._. "0‘2 31.8 31L.8 33.0 31,6 36.8 8.8 _-_- 28.0 30.8 M» 31.1 33.0 35.1 323-0, 30.; 30.0 $3 """" 28': 30'.“ “m 30.3 33.1 35.3 311% 23.0 37.11 ‘1 ' -- 281* 2.1; ---- 30.2 32.8 35.2 32.0 32. 36.11 Dry Sugar 20502. Lokoww owl-x] O\ 0 Q 0 0 42m 04: 302. . 135‘ O-F‘Fo .O "t a_ TABLE IV Effect of Put—In Weight and Packing Media on Soluble Solids Content of Fruit Sirup Mixture Put—In Wei ght 15 oz. Packing Uedia 5Q; Sirup 60$ sirup 65% SiruP , f 0 3oz. 502 . 50”. 702. 2.102. 502. 603. 3- />Z- !->OZ- 2-903- Percent Soluble Solids 10.5 23. 0 2 .8 25.2 20.3 27,4 QH-7 23.8 25. 26.0 10.0 23. 7 21.2 25.0 20.2 20.5 2 .0 20-§ g5-1 20.3 10.0 22 8 23.8 26.0 25.2 27,2 27,0 20.0 28.5 25.- 10.2 23 3 25.1 25_3 27.5 27.6 23.2 26.0 25.0 PINS—Ill Wclrnt 1.6 0’. --~- 22.0 23.8 21.0 25.0 20.2 22.1. 50 22.1; *‘"~ 22.8 23.2 -~-~ 28~3 25.8 20.2 23-“ @2-2 27-5 ~‘_— 22.! 23.2 --—'~ 21’4”.2 213’.) 26.) 2}!02 2.;302 20.13 """" 21.1% 2.‘1.0 --—- 221.0 25.24. 26.5:— 2'2 9.5.0 20. O mrom>m G\ $qu Dry Sugar 3020 27.9 20. 0 20.1 27J+ 26.1 20.2 2?.0 20.5 28.0 270L3- 28.2 800$ A USE 0““ 4.0tif; ’ w- #112 _.‘---_ A Ash- - . ..l J‘ ."K h"; '