Year 2004 Tomato Cultivar Evaluation for Processing

Transcription

1 00 Tomato Processing Year 00 Tomato Cultivar Evaluation for Processing Matt Russell Gary Wenneker Frederick A. Bok Food Industries Center The Ohio State University, OARDC 0 Howlett Hall 00 Fyffe Court Columbus, OH 0 David M. Francis francis.@osu.edu The Ohio State University, OARDC 0 Madison Ave. Wooster, OH Horticulture and Crop Science Series No., 00

2 00 Tomato Processing Year 00 Tomato Cultivar Evaluation for Processing Introduction: In cooperation with the Ohio State University/OARDC tomato breeding program, the Food Industries Center evaluates tomato varieties for processing quality. The Food Industries Center pilot plant facilities support for research and tomato variety development for the Mid- America Food Processors Association and their affiliated processors and growers. Evaluations of quality expanded in 00 to include percentage loss following peeling, and this practice continued in 00 providing an opportunity to assess Procedures Utilized: All tomatoes were grown and were mechanically harvested at the OARDC Research Farm at Fremont, Ohio. The fruit were harvested into plastic totes and transported to the Food Industries Center Pilot Plant located in Howlett Hall on the OSU campus in Columbus, Ohio. The tomatoes were generally harvested the day previous afternoon and the transported to Columbus early the next morning for processing that day. The following is a flow chart for our Pilot Plant tomato juice operation: ) All tomatoes were washed in a soak tank with agitation ) Tomatoes were spray washed while being conveyed on a stainless steel chain conveyor. ) Tomatoes were sorted to remove off quality fruit. ) Tomatoes were chopped in a Fitzpatrick Mill equipped with a ¾ screen. ) Tomatoes were then pumped through a tube-in tube heat exchanger to reach a hot break temperature of +/-0 F. ) Tomatoes next were extracted in a Chisholm-Ryder Company Model CLE-0-D screw type extractor with a.0 screen. ) Tomato juice was filled into 00x0 cans, a Morton salt and acid tablet added, closed and processed at 0 F for 0 minutes The following is a flow chart for our Pilot Plant dice and whole tomato operation: ) Steps through were follow as above for tomato juice ) Tomatoes passed through a lye peeling soak tank for approximately 0 seconds with a concentration of % lye and a temperature of F. ) Tomatoes then passed over a reaction belt for minutes ) Tomatoes were then peeled using a rubber disk peeler while being sprayed with water. ) Tomatoes were hand sorted and trimmed. ) Tomatoes for dicing were run through an Urschel Laboratories, Inc. Model GK dicer set for ½ cubes. ) Whole and dice tomatoes were filled into 00x0 cans, a Morton salt and acid tablet added, closed and processed at 0 F for 0 minutes.

3 00 Tomato Processing Analytical Procedures: Analytical procedures were conducted on the tomatoes prior to processing, during processing operation after the hot break, and after the tomatoes had been processed. The test procedures included the following: ) The ph was determined using an Orion 0 ph meter; total acid was determined by titrating to a ph of. with a 0.N sodium hydroxide. ) Soluble solids were measured on an American Optic Abbey Refractometer. ) Raw Product color was measured in L, a, b color space using a Minolta CR00 Colorimeter. Measurements are reported for L (lightness to darkness) and Hue (degree of red) and for difference measurements (a measure of color uniformity). Percent Good Fruit (%GF) is a measure of top grade fruit (percentage number or A+B grade), estimated from color measurements and standardized to factory grades. ) Post-processing color was measured on an Agtron M-D colorimeter Replication: The multi-location trial is planted as a replicated trial with two plots per location in Wooster, OH; in Fremont, OH as an early planting and late planting; and on growers fields. Yield data (Table ) represents machine harvest yield from two-early season plots per variety and two late season plots per variety; quality data is averaged across all locations (Table ). Data on processing performance is based on a pooled sample from two plots, and is not replicated within a single year. Variety GEM was processed twice, from the early planting multilocation trial and the late planting multi-location trial (Table ). Source of Varieties: Varieties from six commercial seed suppliers and the OSU breeding program were included in the trial. Unilever varieties were included due to potential for high soluble solids and viscosity. The Sunseed variety Red Sky is a low gel variety and was included to evaluate for dice potential. Table. Source of Varieties Genotype Source Genotype Source GEM GEM Seeds FG00- OSU GEM GEM Seeds FG00- OSU GEM GEM Seeds FG00- OSU GEM GEM Seeds FG00- OSU GEM GEM Seeds FG0-0 OSU GEM GEM Seeds FG0- OSU GEM GEM Seeds FG0-0 OSU GEM GEM Seeds FG- OSU Red Sky Sunseeds FG- OSU TSH Tomato Sol. Ohio OSU TSH0 Tomato Sol. Ohio OSU TSH Tomato Sol. OX OSU (Hirzel) C0 Unilever OX OSU (GEM) U00 Unilever OX OSU (GEM) C Unilever H0 Heinz PS Seminis H0 Heinz

4 00 Tomato Processing Results Table. Field Performance of Canning Trail Varieties GENOTYPE Mean C0. C.0 FG00-.0 FG00-. FG00-. FG FG0-0. FG0-.0 FG0-0. FG-. FG-.0 GEM.0 GEM. GEM.0 GEM. GEM. GEM. GEM. H0. H0 0. O. OH. OX.0 OX.0 OX. PS. RedSKy. TSH. TSH0. TSH. U00.0 Yield Potential Ripe Yield FRT Sz Vine Disease Mean % Green % Cull (gm) Width In. Severity Mean LSD

5 00 Tomato Processing Table. Raw Product Evaluation Genotype L Hue Chroma Ldiff Hdiff %GF Brx C C FG FG FG00-. FG FG FG FG FG FG GEM GEM GEM. GEM GEM GEM 0..0 GEM H H0 0.. O. OH. OX OX OX PS RedSky TSH. TSH TSH U ph % Crack Mean LSD (0.0)

6 00 Tomato Processing Table. Processed product Genotype Date gm/frt % Loss ph % Acidity Brix Agtron Red Blue Green Yellow GEM // Ohio // GEM // FG00- // FG- // PS // C0 // OX // GEM // GEM // GEM // H0 // GEM // H0 // GEM // TSH // TSH0 // GEM // U00 // Red Sky // OX // FG0-0 // FG0- // FG- // FG0-0 // C // OX // TSH // FG00- // FG00- // FG00- // Ohio // Mean

7 00 Tomato Processing Conclusions: The data collected from the cultivar tests are presented in Tables -, above. Table lists field performance data for the varieties included in the Canning Trial. Table lists quality evaluation data for raw product, with data collected in Wooster, OH. Processed product quality data are from the Food Industries Center Pilot Plant, Columbus, OH. Each year we state that the environmental conditions for the past processing season deviated from those of the norm. This year, Ohio experienced cold and wet growing conditions, with precipitation unevenly distributed throughout the growing season. Despite heavy spring rains, precipitation for the growing season was only a few inches above normal for the season. Temperatures were below normal for the entire season. During processing and evaluation perceptions are made about the years crop. This year s tomatoes appeared larger, an observation that is supported by comparisons across years (Table, below). Percentage factory loss was lower in 00, and comparisons across two years suggests a strong environmental component (Figure ). Several varieties have had low factory loss two years in a row (Table ), these varieties are likely to produce higher factory yields per ton of raw paroduct. Figure. Comparison of Percentage Loss for varieties tested in 00 & % Loss % Loss Table. Comparison across years. % Solids Year Fruit Size Loss ph (Brix) nd nd nd... nd.. Table. Percentage loss, sorted by twoyear performance. Genotype Average H0..0. GEM..0. FG GEM OX... GEM PS...0 OX... C0... C.0.. GEM..0. GEM... OX...00 FG-... FG U00... GEM...0 FG FG GEM... Ohio... FG HCS Series number No., 00 All programs of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center are available to all potential clientele without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, disability, or Vietnamera veteran status.