4.5 Article

Correlation of cooking time with water absorption and changes in relative density during boiling of cassava roots

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 56, Issue 3, Pages 1193-1205

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ijfs.14769

Keywords

Cooking quality; relative root density; dry matter content; high-throughput phenotyping (HTPP); cassava quality; breeding; consumer preferences

Funding

  1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1178942]
  2. CGIAR Trust Fund
  3. Postharvest Quality laboratory (CIAT)
  4. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1178942] Funding Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study improved the evaluation method for cassava root cooking time and found that water absorption during boiling affects the root's relative density and cooking time. Genotypes were classified into three groups, and correlations were found between cooking time, water absorption, and relative density.
Consumers prefer cassava roots that cook quickly during boiling. Current methods to evaluate cooking time (CT) are slow and labour-intensive. This article describes improved protocols for assessing CT in roots. We evaluated CT in 36 genotypes monthly at 8-11 months after planting. CT showed differences for plant age at harvest and among genotypes. During boiling, roots absorbed water (WAB) and thus reduced their relative density (DEN). We classified three groups of genotypes with increasing CT (<= 25 min, 25-40 min and >40 min), associated with decreasing WAB, respectively, 15.3 +/- 3.1, 10.7 +/- 1.7 and 4.9 +/- 3.8% of initial root weight. A similar trend was observed for changes in DEN (46.3 +/- 9.8, 54.5 +/- 11.1 and 75.9 +/- 6.9% of initial DEN, respectively). The highest correlations between WAB and DEN with CT (r(2) > 0.6) were found at 30-min boiling. These alternative protocols facilitate screening large numbers of cassava genotypes for CT.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available