Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 99 items for :

  • "sensory panel" x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All
Full access

Stacy A. Adams, Ellen T. Paparozzi, and W.W. Stroup

`Dark Red Annette Hegg' poinsettias (Euphorbia pulcherrima Willd. ex Klotzsch) were grown in a 1 peat : 1 perlite : 1 vermiculite medium using a pinched production schedule with varying N and S fertilizer application rates. Fifty-six treatments consisting of eight N levels (100 to 275 mg·L−1 in 25-mg·L−1 increments) and seven S levels (0 to 75 mg·L−1 in 12.5-mg·L−1 increments) were supplied. Other required nutrients were supplied at commercial recommendations for all treatments. Foliage of each plant was evaluated quantitatively by chromometer readings every 3 weeks. Marketability was determined by sensory evaluations from commercial producers, retailers, and consumers. Results indicated distinct color differences (hue, chroma, value) between S levels of 0 and 12.5 mg·L−1 and a slight difference between S at 12.5 and 25 mg·L−1. The foliage of plants receiving 0 S was lighter, more vivid, and more yellow-green in color. As N levels increased, there was a linear response; foliage became more green, darker, and more dull. Commerical and consumer evaluators rated plants that received S at 0 or 12.5 mg·L−1 at all N levels and plants receiving N at 100 mg L−1 as unmarketable. This research indicates that `Annette Hegg' poinsettia requires S at a minimum of 25 mg·L−1 and N at a minimum of 125 mg·L−1 for commercial acceptance, and commercial N application rates may be greatly reduced when adequate S is supplied.

Free access

Brian A. Kahn and William G. McGlynn

in likelihood of purchase to the lighter green (by both objective and subjective measures) ‘Brio’ in 2001. Table 3. Objective analyses and sensory evaluations of raw snap bean samples. z Fig. 5. Green bean sensory panel ratings for intensity of green

Free access

Cari A. Schmitz, Matthew D. Clark, James J. Luby, James M. Bradeen, Yingzhu Guan, Katherine Evans, Benjamin Orcheski, Susan Brown, Sujeet Verma, and Cameron Peace

improved on with changes in TA or SSC ( Harker et al., 2008 ). These findings highlighted the use of genetic markers to select for fruit texture traits. Studies of apple texture have used both sensory panels and instrumental measures (e.g., Evans et al

Free access

Michael P. Dzakovich, Celina Gómez, and Cary A. Mitchell

/EC meter (9813-6; Hanna Instruments, Woonsocket, RI). Citric acid equivalent content was later determined titrimetrically using 0.1 m sodium hydroxide solution (Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) until pH 8.1 ( Lees, 1968 ). Organoleptic sensory panels. Fruits

Free access

Steven J. McKay, James M. Bradeen, and James J. Luby

.g., Chauvin et al., 2010 ; Karlsen et al., 1999 ). Sensory panels have been used to dissect the texture trait characteristics of apple genotypes, frequently a small number of named cultivars (e.g., Daillant-Spinnler et al., 1996 ; Harker et al., 2002

Full access

Maite A. Chauvin, Matthew Whiting, and Carolyn F. Ross

.1. Trained panel. The sensory panel was composed of 12 panelists (five men and seven women), all between the ages of 25 and 69, with an average age of 41. Panelists were recruited using advertising from the Washington State University/Pullman community based

Free access

Michael P. Dzakovich, Celina Gómez, Mario G. Ferruzzi, and Cary A. Mitchell

and carotenoids. We also included a consumer sensory panel in Expt. 2 to gauge how ratios of red, blue, and far red light affect the sensory attributes of greenhouse-grown tomatoes. Materials and Methods Plant materials and growing conditions. For Expt

Free access

Molly Felts, Renee T. Threlfall, John R. Clark, and Margaret L. Worthington

= scar present). Table 1. Lexicon developed for fresh-market muscadine grape attributes by a descriptive sensory panel with eight trained panelists. Design and statistical analysis After harvest, the fruit from each of the six genotypes were completely

Free access

Domingos P.F. Almeida and Maria Helena Gomes

consumers or a trained sensory panel were unable to distinguish 1-MCP treated from untreated fruit. This result indicates that differences in the sensory evaluation of kiwifruit treated with 1-MCP at harvest are only the result of the comparison of different

Free access

Darin A. Sukha, Pathmanathan Umaharan, and David R. Butler

(bean roasting and liquor preparation) processing were conducted using the methods described in Sukha et al. (2008) . Sensory panel training as well as flavor evaluations were also carried out according to the methods described in Sukha et al. (2008