4.5 Article

Sensory evaluation as a selection tool in apple breeding

期刊

EUPHYTICA
卷 111, 期 2, 页码 79-90

出版社

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1003769304778

关键词

appearance; flavour; fruit quality; Malus x domestica; methods; texture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several conventional sensory methods were adapted to provide a procedure that is suitable for screening apple (Malus x domestica) breeding selections for dessert quality. Trained judges were presented with randomized coded samples (apple slices) and asked to rate them on 0 to 9 bipolar hedonic (liking) scales for texture and flavour, and 0 to 9 unipolar intensity scales for skin toughness, crispness, hardness, juiciness, aroma, sweetness and sourness. Appearance liking was rated on coded samples of five whole apples, using the 0 to 9 hedonic scale. A minimum panel size of eleven judges was generally sufficient to obtain statistical discrimination of one point on the 0 to 9 scales. Panel mean scores for breeding selections relative to standards have been consistent from panel to panel and year to year. A subset of selections and cultivars was rated for appearance and taste by consumers in blind taste tests. In-house panel findings were comparable to consumer ratings for taste and appearance liking, with a few exceptions in appearance. Panel mean scores for texture and flavour liking were regressed on texture and flavour components. Crispness accounted for about 90% of the variation in texture liking. Juiciness, aroma, sweetness and sourness were all important to flavour liking, but their relative importance changed from year to year and in total accounted for only about 60% of variation in flavour liking. Perceived sweetness and sourness were better predictors of liking than analytical measurements of soluble solids and titratable acidity. Formal sensory evaluation can be used successfully for screening breeding selections, and may provide more reliable data than the opinions of only one or two people.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据