╨╧рб▒с>■  `c■   a                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ье┴G ┐цbjbjО┘О┘ "0ь│ь│ц      ]&&&&&&&::::: F,:ы╢Ж(ооооо"╨ ▄░▓▓▓▓▓▓$бЇХШ╓&фоофф╓H&&ооЖHHHфю&о&о░::&&&&ф░HhH░&&░оrа╩ад╝╜::╥v░NE-183 Fruit Quality Evaluation Sensory/Organoleptic Evaluation Protocol - 1998 Select 5 fruits from each replicated tree that are representative for the cultivar in size, appearance, and stage of maturity (this should be at the УoptimumФ harvest date selected for your area). If less than five fruit are available, make a composite sample from several trees. Ideally, the evaluation should be performed on fruit with a Starch Index (SI) rating of no less than 4 or more than 6. Fruit must be at room temperature (approx. 21 to 25║C) for analysis. If fruit samples cannot be brought to room temperature and analyzed the day of collection, store at 1 to 5║C until analysis can be performed. Perform sensory analysis within 7 days of collection. If color readings are to be taken, rub surface lightly with soft paper towel (paper "Terri Towels" work well) to remove bloom, dust, spray deposits, etc.; do NOT polish fruit surface. Wash and dry fruits and cut wedges, slices, or transversely (or similar method that is convenient) for analysis. Rinse mouth with cool water between samples. Report the average rating for the five fruit for each factor. Follow the same procedures if you plan to evaluate fruit for long-term refrigerated storage (30,60, or 100 days) or CA storage (100-150 days) (NE103 will be conducting independent storage evaluations - coordinate where possible). COMMON EVALUATION FACTORS: Attractiveness Ц what does it look like (outside); appearance 1 = dislike (ugly) 2 = fair (somewhat attractive) 3 = like (acceptable) 4 = good (above average attractiveness) 5 = like very much (very attractive) Crispness Ц when eaten, is the flesh УcrispФ (has a distinct crunchy sound); complete opposite would be a mealy flesh 1 = not crisp 2 = somewhat crisp 3 = crisp 4 = above average crispness 5 = extremely crisp Juiciness Ц when eaten, juice that is expressed from the flesh 1 = dry 2 = slightly juicy 3 = moderately juicy 4 = juicy 5 = extremely juicy Sweetness Ц the degree of sweet taste in the flesh 1 = none detected 2 = slightly sweet (subacid) 3 = moderately sweet 4 = sweet 5 = very sweet Acidity - measure of tartness when eaten 1 = none detected (bland) 2 = weakly acidic 3 = moderately acidic (slightly tart) 4 = tart 5 = highly acidic (very tart) Flavor - overall, what does it taste like (aroma, sugar/acid ratio, etc.) 1 = dislike (poor, objectionable, unpleasant) 2 = fair 3 = acceptable 4 = good 5 = like very much (highly acceptable) Desirability Ц considering all factors, how do you like this apple; would you buy it? Would this apple be commercially acceptable in your area's production/marketing system? 1 = dislike (poor) 2 = fair 3 = acceptable 4 = good 5 = excellent OPTIONAL EVALUATION FACTORS: Color Ц 1 = dull; 5 = bright Sunburn - 1 = none present; 3 = moderate; 5 = severe Fruit Shape - 1 = uniform; regular; 3 = somewhat irregular; 5 = severely misshapen (lopsided) Skin Ц 1 = tender; 5 = tough Flesh Firmness Ц 1 = soft; 5 = hard (this is evaluation from tasting, not penetrometer) Astringency Ц 1 = low; 5 = high Flesh Color Ц 1 = greenish; 3 = white; 6 = yellow Cork Spot - 1 = 0 spots; 2 = 1 - 2 spots; 3 = 3 -5 spots; 4 = 6 - 10 spots; 5 = > 10 spots Bitter Pit - 1 = no pit; 2 = 1 - 5 pits; 3 = 6 -10 pits; 4 = 11 - 15 pits; 5 = > 15 pits Watercore - 1 = none present; 3 = moderate; 5 = severe 7/31/98 July 23, 1998 NE-183 Fruit Quality Subcommittee SUBJECT; Draft protocol for Sensory Evlauation TO: Randy Beaudry Susan Brown George Greene Curt Rom FROM: Steve Miller I appreciate the assistance of those who provided input and information resulting in this draft protocol for our project. I spoke with several participants in our project during the ASHS meeting in Charlotte, held several meetings with George, and spoke by phone with Susan. I also appreciate the meeting George arranged in Biglerville with Cindy Barden and the advice she provided from her experiences on taste panels and in post harvest evaluation (Cindy is the chair of the NE103 committee tasked to work with our project on post harvest evaluation). Included in this FAX is a draft for sensory/organoleptic evaluation which is the culmination of the meetings, inputs, and conversations I had over the last several weeks. Please critique and provide me with your thoughts, corrections, suggestions, etc. AS SOON AS POSSIBLE so I may finalize and send to all NE-183 Project participants. Remember we were asked to develop a simple system that would (could) be used by all for cultivar evaluation. Anyone who wishes to do a more detailed analysis is encouraged to proceed. Also included in this FAX is a revised fruit quality evaluation protocol that reflects the change on fruit weight data collection from our Ark meeting. I have also made a change to the titratable acidity analysis which I think will clarify and standardize to a method acceptable by all. If you wish to comment on this protocol, please do so. My phone number is 304-725-3451, ext 325. My FAX number is 304-728-2340. My new e-mail address is  HYPERLINK mailto:smiller@afrs.ars.usda.gov smiller@afrs.ars.usda.gov July 31, 1998 SUBJECT: Protocol for Sensory Evaluation NE-183 Apple Cultivar Evaluation Project TO: NE-183 Participants FROM: Steve Miller, Chair Fruit Quality Evaluation Subcommittee At the annual meeting last November a request was made to develop a standardized protocol for sensory/organoleptic evaluation of the apple cultivars in our project. The Fruit Evaluation Subcommittee (Randy Beaudry, Susan Brown, George Greene, Curt Rom and I) has wrestled with this subject over the past 4 weeks. We also had input from several of our project participants, which was quite helpful. The result is attached. Hopefully many of the participants will be able to collect some or even all the suggested data. The protocol is not perfect or all-inclusive. If you have comments or suggestions (ex. description for levels of sunburn) on any part of this protocol, please don't hesitate to communicate with me (or a subcommittee member) at anytime. My phone number is 304-725-3451,ext325; FAX 304-728-2340; e-mail (note, new)  HYPERLINK mailto:smiller@afrs.ars.usda.gov smiller@afrs.ars.usda.gov I have also included in this communication a slightly revised copy of the Fruit Evaluation Protocol which was originally developed and distributed in 1997. !О Ь d m O X ▐ ч p w   ╓ т 6=lwцъ]h~Й▒║ gpuzpqЭЮЯ╕╣¤■*+,EFц¤∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙¤ЇьЇщЇЇсЇщЇБjыU0JБjU jU5Б>*>*4 !QRq r Н О ╠ ═ с  > c d ║ ё Є    : N O О П №·ў·····їёээээээёёёээээээёёДаД╨$$ !QRq r Н О ╠ ═ с  > c d ║ ё Є    : N O О П Ч к ┐ ╔ ▌ ▐   $ A V ` o p Щ Ъ ┤ ╞ ь ї   ^ _ Н Ц е о ╒ ╓ ,А╢╖╩╙ты∙·56kl└хц\]}~░▒  fgЮЯабгмоп░▒┐№·cП Ч к ┐ ╔ ▌ ▐   $ A V ` o p Щ Ъ ┤ ╞ ь ї   ^ _ Н Ц е о √√√√√√ўў√√√√√√ўў√√√√√√ўў√√√√Д╨Дао ╒ ╓ ,А╢╖╩╙ты∙·56kl└хц\]}~░√√ўўўў√√√√√√їїўўўўўўўўўўўўўўД╨Да░▒  fgЮЯабгмоп░▒┐└ту&:Pabvwд√√√√√√√√√√∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙Д╨┐└ту&:Pabvwде▓│  ║╝╜╛┐└╬╧╨·78\]}╢╖GHхц'де▓│  ║╝╜╛┐└╬╧╨·78\]}╢╖GHхц¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ P░╨/ ░р=!░а"░#Ра$Ра%░ыD╨╔ъy∙║╬МВкKй smiller@afrs.ars.usda.govр╔ъy∙║╬МВкKй Bmailto:smiller@afrs.ars.usda.govыD╨╔ъy∙║╬МВкKй smiller@afrs.ars.usda.govр╔ъy∙║╬МВкKй Bmailto:smiller@afrs.ars.usda.gov [(@ё (NormalCJmH ,`, Heading 1$@&<A@Є б<Default Paragraph Font(U`вё( Hyperlink>*B*8C`8Body Text IndentД╨ц0    цП о ░дц┐цpЮ╕¤+EцX АX А   _Hlt425843584pш╣ш)5Ьд8?N Z g p %]`╛╔╒█╤▌OWmw-0#)BKЖН░│ш╨╪x ~ Щ г █ у wД▐ю.:Евг▒ш   Steve Miller#C:\My Documents\Fruit Eval Prot.doc @АххИ╧ЕххцP@GРTimes New Roman5РАSymbol3&Р Arial"qИ╨h:√'ж;√'ж┐[ -$е└┤┤А209  NE-183 Fruit Quality Evaluation Steve Miller Steve Miller■ рЕЯЄ∙OhлС+'│┘0|ИР╕─▄ш°  8 D P\dltф NE-183 Fruit Quality EvaluationE-1 Steve MillerQuatevNormali Steve MillerQua1evMicrosoft Word 8.0y@F├#@\Н_д╝╜@вPГд╝╜┐[■ ╒═╒Ь.УЧ+,∙оD╒═╒Ь.УЧ+,∙оd  hpФЬдм ┤╝─╠ ╘ фDell Computer Corporationr- 9│   NE-183 Fruit Quality Evaluation Title░(RZ▓ _PID_GUID _PID_HLINKSфAN{FF704C41-2875-11D2-B8E1-00C0F016E427}AЇ 9!mailto:smiller@afrs.ars.usda.gov9!mailto:smiller@afrs.ars.usda.gov ■    ■   "#$%&'(■   *+,-./0■   2345678■   ¤   ;■   ■   ■                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Root Entry         └FА┐цЯд╝╜а╩ад╝╜=АData             1Table    !WordDocument    "0SummaryInformation(            )DocumentSummaryInformation8        1CompObj            j            ■                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ■       └FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8Ї9▓q■ рЕЯЄ∙OhлС+'│┘0|ИР╕─▄ш°  8 D P\dltф NE-183 Fruit Quality EvaluationE-1 Steve MillerQuatevNormali Steve MillerQua2evMicrosoft Word 8.0y@Оъ╨@\Н_д╝╜@`XИї╛╜~Ь■ ╒═╒Ь.УЧ+,∙оD╒═╒Ь.УЧ+,∙оd  hpФЬдм ┤╝─╠ ╘ фDell Computer Corporationr6 s│   NE-183 Fruit Quality Evaluation Title8(RZ▓ _PID_GUID _PID_HLINKSфAN{FF704C41-2875-11D2-B8E1-00C0F016E427}A|9!mailto:smiller@afrs.ars.usda.gov9!mailto:smiller@afrs.ars.usda.gov!О Ь d m O X ▐ ч p w   ╓ т 6=lwцъ]h~Й▒║ gpuzpqЭЮЯ╕╣¤■*+,EFц(0ЦH¤∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙¤ЇьЇщЇЇсЇщЇ¤БjыU0JБjU jU5Б>*>*6 P░╨/ ░р=!░а"░#Ра$Ра%░ NE-183 Fruit Quality Evaluation Protocol Revised, July 1998 Treat each individual tree as a single replication and harvest and collect quality data from each tree. If tree has less than 10 fruits, indicate number of fruits. Report data as described in the memo dated November 6, 1995, "NE-183 Regional Project Data Collection". If data is collected on individual fruits for std. deviation analysis, use columns to report data for individual fruits, e.g. fruit weight would have 10 data columns each representing a single fruit's weight. Select at random a 10 fruit sample for quality evaluation and collect the following data: 1. Fruit weight. Record the composite weight of fruit to the nearest gram. 2. Fruit length and diamater. Record the total length and total diameter of the 10 fruit sample to the nearest millimeter. This can be easily done using a wooden trough with a meter stick attached in the bottom of the trough. 3. Soluble solids concentration (SSC). Determine the SSC and report in % to one decimal from a composite juice sample collected from all 10 fruit. 4. Starch index rating. Assign a starch index rating to each individual fruit and compute the mean SI for the 10 apple sample. Record the mean SI index rating. Use the procedure and the 1 to 8 rating scale described in Cornell Information Bulletin 221. Report SI rating to one decimal. The following data collection is optional: 1. Fruit weight. Report the weight of each of the 10 fruits to the nearest gram 2. Flesh firmness. Record the mean flesh firmness from two readings per fruit using a McCormick (Effigi) penetrometer, EPT-1 Electronic Pressure Tester (Lake City Tech. Products), or similar instrument. Use the standard 11.1 mm penetrometer tip. Read to the nearest 0.25 pounds. Report mean firmness as pounds firmness to the nearest one decimal. 3. Titratable acidity (TA). Determine TA on the composite juice sample. Add a 10 gram aliquot of juice to distilled water and bring to 100 grams. Titrate to an end point of pH 8.2 using 0.1 N NaOH. Report as % acidity (as malic acid) using formula: % acid = ml NaOH x 0.067 (mEqwt for malic acid). 4. Color space readings. Record the L*a*b* values from four quadrants of the fruit at the equator. If fruit has less than 90% surface red color (see option 5 below), record as many representative readings as possible (max. of 4 readings) from areas with red color or blush. Compute the mean L*a*b* value and report for each fruit. Report values to one decimal. Hue angle will be computed for each fruit and the mean for a cultivar by the statistician. 5. Fruit overcolor (red). Estimate to the nearest 5% the percent surface showing typical red overcolor for the cultivar. Report the mean for the 10 apple sample. 6. Fruit russet. Estimate the severity of russet on a scale of 0 = none to 5 = severe (25% or more of fruit surface with russet). Use the following scale: 0 = none, 1) = 0.1% to 5%, 2) = 5.1% to 10%, 3) = 10.1% to 15%, 4) = 15.1% to 20%, and 5) = 20.1% to 25%. Report the mean russet rating for the sample. *0|0~0д0ж0f4h455╕5║5Д7Ж7░8▓8°:·:P;R;<<р>т>@ABA┌D▄D&F(F¤··°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°Ў°Ў°°°°°$(FЦH¤де▓│  ║╝╜╛┐└╬╧╨·78\]}╢╖GHхц&0(0*0¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤·¤$ [(@ё (NormalCJmH ,@, Heading 1$@&0`0 Heading 2 $$@&<A@Є б<Default Paragraph Font(U@вё( Hyperlink>*B*8C@8Body Text IndentД╨&B`& Body Text0    ;xyЭЮ╛ў°ИЙ&')*JK{|Ы Ь ╖ ╕ Ў ў * @ h Н О ф   + > H d x y ╕ ╣ ┴ ╘ щ є   ; < N k А К Щ Ъ ├ ─ ▐ Ё =>ИЙ╖└╧╪ VкрсЇ¤ #$AB_`ХЦъ-.ЖЗзи┌█67РС╚╔╩╦═╓╪┘ў°RSабЖЗ@Alm╟╚45de12╫╪ШААШ@ААШ@ААШ@ААШ@ААШ@ААШ@ААШ@ААШ@ААШ@ААШ@ААШ@ААШ@ААШ@ААШ@ААШ@ААШААШААШААШААААША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!ША!А!ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ШАп ЦHП о ░д*0(FЦH%&┐ц  Unknown Steve Miller>lЖX А\d^jГМ╟╬ёЇS_╞╬b i xДСЪ╢╛7=?K╗╟9C╦╥∙¤?CMRW\ЛРОУ<EСЪгл╞уфЄ·  ви├═ .0ЛоНХ╡║9KЖНbk╓/uЪ╞╬   Steve Miller#C:\My Documents\Fruit Eval Prot.doc Steve Miller8C:\windows\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of Fruit Eval Prot.asd @АxКЕ▐▐░C$E╞Аb╩'  d'()*╪0^#@0А1@1"00$00&00@0(00ФHGРTimes New Roman5РАSymbol3&Р Arial"qИ╨h:√'жь(& ~Ь 6$е└┤┤А24s  NE-183 Fruit Quality Evaluation Steve Miller Steve Millerье┴G ┐цbjbjО┘О┘ Nь│ь│      ]~~~~~~Тр р р р ь <Т▄╢lВВВВВВВЪЬЬЬЬЬЬ$ТЇЖШ└~ВВВВВ└ж~~ВВ<0жжжВN~В~ВЪТТ~~~~ВЪжЇжЪ~~ЪВ(`UХї╛╜ТN р ╨╓ЪRoot Entry         └FА┐цЯд╝╜`UХї╛╜eData         1Table    !WordDocument    ^N         A    Q         ■   "#$%&'(■                                                                                                   CDEFGHIJKLMNOP■   BSTUVWXYZ[\]■   _b¤   ■   ■   fd■                                                                                                       SummaryInformation(            мDocumentSummaryInformation8         ЬCompObj            j0Table            R■   ■    ■                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   @`XИї╛╜~Ь■ ╒═╒Ь.УЧ+,∙оD╒═╒Ь.УЧ+,∙оd  hpФЬдм ┤╝─╠ ╘ фDell Computer Corporationr6 s│   NE-183 Fruit Quality Evaluation Title8(RZ▓ _PID_GUID _PID_HLINKSфA■       └FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8Ї9▓q■ рЕЯЄ∙OhлС+'│┘0|ИР╕─▄ш°  8 D P\dltф NE-183 Fruit Quality EvaluationE-1 Steve MillerQuatevNormali Steve MillerQua2evMicrosoft Word 8.0y@Оъ╨@\Н_д╝╜N{FF704C41-2875-11D2-B8E1-00C0F016E427}A|9!mailto:smiller@afrs.ars.usda.gov