Introduction Reid William and Koppel, Kadri Forms Kelly, Brendan Magnuson, Roasted M. Shelby and Raw in between Differences Flavor of Comparison A ute erdcinwtotpriso sprohibited is permission without reproduction Further 10.1111/1750-3841.13289 doi: otclue ea xeietFed assSaeUi. 90S 0hStreet, Koppel 90th author SW to [email protected]). 8960 inquiries (E-mail: Univ., Direct U.S.A. of State 67336, Dept. Kansas Kans. with Chetopa, Field, is 1310 Experiment Univ., Reid State Author Pecan U.S.A. Kansas Horticulture, 66502, Center, Kans. Analysis Manhattan, Dr., Sensory Park The Research with are Koppel and Kelly, u enl r oda itpcs ealclopcs n nbulk ( in outlets service and food packs, various cello or The retail outlets cream. gift-packs, wholesale ice as to and and boxes sold confections, sizes, are Pecan baking, flavors, kernels in 2016). of used Thompson variety are and kernels the (Grauke nut U.S., expansive the is cultivars in applications patented grown 161 With 2015). of (NASS produced pounds nutmeat 101858000 of from generated Simi- was $513591000 2015). 2014, (NASS in $460390000 larly, of revenue the into a brought generating and market, produced was alone, nutmeat 2013 of in pounds States, 106569000 United the In industry. in applications having of 2001). 2000, risk the others un- reducing and in of (Rajaram role levels disease a have high heart may have which also acids, Pecans fatty 2006). saturated others and Percival Tam and (Mertens-Talcott 2005; diseases diseases degenerative can- chronic other of and of types cer, some incidence disease, Parkinson’s the disease, Alzheimer’s lower as to such ability the antiox- have that found idants have Studies properties. antioxidant de- possess compounds that phenolic their contain of Pecans awareness in properties. increased growing nutritional an are sirable to Pecans due America. demand and North popularity to native tree nut portant S2112 umte 12/05 cetd3121.AtosMagnuson, Authors 3/1/2016. Accepted 11/20/2015, Submitted 20151928 MS C 06Isiueo odTechnologists Food of Institute 2016 h ea ( pecan The easaeahg au rpwt t ibradpcnkernels pecan and timber its with crop value high a are Pecans rcia Application: Practical Keywords: Abstract: easwl siti h euto fpoutwse h nraeo osmrapiain n h cnmcgot of growth economic the and application, consumer of the increase of the profiles waste, sensory product the of and industry. Understanding reduction defects, pecan consumers. flavor the or the have in manufacturers which to flavors, assist valuable similar will have be cultivars pecans can which that shows flavors study unique have This cultivars. which pecan of flavor the changes eas ohi a n ose tts n h hne htocrdrn hsprocess. of this during varieties occur different that between changes differences the flavor results and These of states, understand “Pawnee.” roasted extremes of manufacturers and demonstrating characteristics product raw buttery some in pecan the both with and or pecans, profiles growers “Lakota” flavor woody, of pecan unique astringency acrid, help displayed high caramelized, may the cultivars nutty-buttery, overall ID, example ID, the for pecan pecan of attributes, included attributes: Each certain These 8 bitter. cultivars. for cultivars and all another The across astringent, sweet. one oily, pecans and from roasted sweet, differences the overall significant for roasted, intensities exhibited higher caramelized, The were analysis. brown, descriptive nutty-buttery, attributes using nutty-grainlike, flavor nutty-woody, attributes 20 flavor nutty, from 20 the of each were of intensities evaluated cultivars measuring 10 panelists Trained The forms, of separately. roasted evaluated forms. and and raw roasted 2014) in and and season raw each (2013 seasons in growing “Chetopa”) 2 “Maramec,” from collected “Giles,” “Lakota,” “Major,” “Kanza,” “Witte,” ecitv nlss ao,pcn ose,sensory roasted, pecan, flavor, analysis, descriptive ay illinoinensis Carya h betv fti eerhwst xlr esr ifrne mn ifrn ea utvr (“Pawnee,” cultivars pecan different 8 among differences sensory explore to was research this of objective The eut rmti ril a sitpcngoesi nesadn o h osigprocess roasting the how understanding in growers pecan assist can article this from Results stems omrilyim- commercially most the is ) R ifrn utvr nrwadratdfrsoe rwn seasons analysis. growing 2 sensory 8 over descriptive among forms using roasted profiles and flavor raw in in differences cultivars of different objective determine the to mind, was in better study benefits this to these growers With pecan pecans. for their allow market would cultivars of differ- profiles pecan flavor in to different comparing perform and want cultivars creating Further, the who applications. for how ent manufacturers on useful information product be more pecan may gather roasting and growers during describing change pecan oxidation, of attributes context focus- flavor the mainly in how past, changes the flavor in how limited on found been ing has was pecans roasted and samples raw dif- the significant among No samples. lightness No pecan fla- internal either. words. roasted and anchor and for aroma raw rancid appropriate ference the the with recorded in of scale were found vor research line were intensities ran- this differences mm attribute significant and of 150 The lightness, a focus flavor. internal on The and crunchiness, aroma pecans. of cid roasted evaluation and on was raw both in and (Erickson pecans has impacts study roasting 1994). 1 others how only nuts, for other conducted for ef- described been the been Though has 1999). higher roasting of others as fect and the such (Saklar changes, properties brittleness flavor and textural some appear- crispness different with texture, has Along color, product pecans. the resulting of intensifies flavor that 2008). and others process ance, and chocolate- a (Lombardini as is popular such Roasting also form is prepared roasted a or covered in pecans Purchasing 2001). ic eerho h vlaino ao ifrne between differences flavor of evaluation the on research Since stability oxidative the assessed (1994) others and Erickson o.8,N.5 2016 5, Nr. 81, Vol. r ora fFo Science Food of Journal S1243

S: Sensory & Food Quality 8.0 = 4.0 3.0 9.0 5.0 6.0 = = = = = 5.0 4.0 = = 5.0 4.5 Kretschmer Wheat 4.5 = = = 7.5 1.5 2.5 9.0 = 7.5 4.0 = = 7.5 7.5 10.5 = 2.0 3.5 5.0 3.0 = = 9.0 7.5 = = 1.5 2.5 3.5 = 4.5 7.0 Preparation: Measure out 1 tbsp. of 2.5 = = = 1.5 = = = 1.0 5.0 ======C) before and after the shelling process ° 1 7.5 Mixture of Diamond Slivered and ± = C ° min. Let cool and serve in individual covered cups. opened bottle of Wesson Vegetable Oilbeaker. Heat to in a1000 the mL microwave oven glass Remove on from high microwave and power let for sitcool 3 at for min. room approximately 25 temperature min. to cool Then another heat 25 another min, 3 andLet min, heat beaker let for sit 1 on additional counter 3-min uncovered overnight. interval. each of the 8 raw30 cultivars s. into a Pour food into processor 1 and oz. blend cups. for Germ Kroger Chopped blenders for 45 s onthe chopped high nuts. speed. Serve Combineand in equal individual in 1 amounts oz. 1 of cups. oz Serve cups. pecans Diamond Shelled Walnuts Preparation: Microwave 1/3 cup of oil on high power for 2 1/2 Preparation: Add 300 mL of oil from a newly purchased and 0.030% Alum solution 0.050% Alum solution 0.075% Alum solution 0.10%Alum solution 0.020%CaffeineSolution 0.035%CaffeineSolution 0.025% Citric Acid Solution Ground Pecan pieces Gold Medal Whole Wheat Flour Preparation: Puree the almonds and hazelnuts separately in Diamond Pecan Halves Diamond Pecan Halves Diamond Shelled Walnuts Gold Medal Whole Wheat Flour Kretschmer Wheat Germ HyVee Dry Roasted and Salted Nuts Bush’s Best Pinto Beans (Canned) Preparation: Drain beans and rinseKretschmer Wheat with Germ de-ionized water. Alf’s Natural Nutrition Puffed Red Wheat Cereal Sliced Button mushroom Diamond Shelled Walnuts ‘Planters Dry Roasted Unsalted General Mills Wheaties Lorna Doone Cookie Kroger Slivered and Blanched Almonds HyVee Dry Roasted and Salted Macadamia Nuts conditions (–18 to maintain freshness2011). and delay The oil pecanfrom oxidation shelling when in the was the samples completed wereusing nuts received a over (Reid from Duke a Pecan each Cracker growing 2-moPoint, (Duke season, Pecan Miss., period Company, West U.S.A.), a DavebiltLakeport Nutcracker Calif., (Davebilt Company, U.S.A.), and15.24 Channel Lock cm model number cutting 436, pliers (Channel Lock Inc., Meadville, Pa., Vol. 81, Nr. 5, 2016 r 18.15 kg per cultivar, in shell) were  edge of the tongue and mouth. increased musty/dustiness and brown. characteristics are: sweet, oily, lightbuttery, brown, earthy, slightly woody, astringent, musty bitter, and/or andwheat so germ, on. certain Examples: whole nuts, grains. musty/dustiness, brown, astringent and bitter. musty/earthy, piney, woody, brown, sweet, buttery, oily,and astringent, slightly acrid aromatics.musty/dusty, floral/fruity, Other and/or aromatics fruity-dark. may include degree to which these characteristics fit together. These nutty increased fatty aromatics and musty/earthy character. of darkness generally associated withsweet). attributes (that is, toasted, nutty, baked or excessively browned in oil. vegetation, or cellar like characteristics. of a tree. temperature by dry heat. Does not include bitter or burnt notes. oil. Journal of Food Science Eight pecan cultivars ( Oxidized The aromatic associated with aged or highly used oil and . Microwave Oven Heated Wesson Rancid An aromatic commonly associated with oxidized fat and oils. Wesson Vegetable Oil Experimental Fields in Chetopa,cluded Kans., “Pawnee’, “Witte,” U.S.A. “Kanza,” The “Major,” “Lakota,” cultivars“Maramec,” “Giles,” and in- “Chetopa.” The samples were kept under frozen collected from located at Kansas State University’s Pecan Sweet A fundamental taste factor of which sucrose is typical. 1% Sucrose Solution BitterSour A fundamental taste factor of which caffeine is typical. A fundamental taste factor of which citric acid is typical. 0.010%CaffeineSolution 0.015% Citric Acid Solution Astringent A feeling of a puckering or a tingling sensation on the surface and/or S1244 Samples Materials and Methods 0 to 15 point numeric scale with 0.5 increments was used to rate the intensities of the attributes and references. Nutty-woody A nuttyNutty-grain-like aromatic characterized by A the nutty presence aromatic of characterized woodiness, by increased the presence of a grainy aromatic, Overall nutty A measurement that reflects the total of the nutty characteristics and the Pecan ID The aromatics commonly associated with pecans which include Table 1–Flavor attributes, definitions, and references forAttribute descriptive analysis of pecans. Definition Reference Raw and roasted pecan flavor . . . Nutty-buttery A nuttyBrown aromatic characterized by a buttery impression, and/or A rich, full aromatic impression always characterized with some degree Musty/earthy Humus-like aromatics that may or may not include damp soil, decaying CaramelizedAcrid A round, full-bodied, mediumBurnt brown aromatic. The sharp/acrid, charred flavor note associated with something A over dark, brown, somewhat sharp, overbaked grain aromatic. C&H Golden Brown Sugar Alf’s Natural Nutrition Puffed Red Wheat Cereal RoastedOverall sweet Dark brown An impression aromatic characteristic associated of with products the cooked impression to of a sweet high substances. Post Shredded Wheat Woody The sweet, brown, musty, dark, dry aromatics associated with the bark Oily The light aromatics associated with vegetable oil such as corn or

S: Sensory & Food Quality ree h feno ro otsigadalwdt hwa room at thaw to allowed and (23 testing temperature to prior afternoon the the from removed freezer were evaluation raw for used 0.10 pecans The roasted. others and (Nelson standard 4.5% industry 0.09 below 0.10 within content fell moisture 1992). cultivars a with the 0.07 sale of for each 0.16 that ensure to Switzerland) 73/03 Greifensee, AG, HE Toledo 0.05 (Mettler-Toledo 0.06 Mettler Analyzer a Moisture 0.11 using measured (–18 was moisture frozen The percent U.S.A.). stored Fla., Sealing were Raton, Vacuum Boca vacuum samples Heat-Seal Inc., were FoodSaver Products and a (Sunbeam bags using System seal 3.01 vacuum storage Saver for Food sealed L 3.79 trans- to were 2.97 Samples 2.71 ferred shells. the from nutmeat the remove to U.S.A.) 2.45 3.59 2.37 2.48 3.20 Kanza Maramec Witte deviation Pawnee Standard Lakota Chetopa (%) moisture Major percent Average Giles season. Cultivar growing 2014 the from pecans in moisture 2–Initial Table . . . flavor pecan roasted and Raw trdi eldcnanrovernight. container sealed pecans a (23 the in temperature process stored ambient roasting to the cool roasted After to allowed roasting. were and of during sheets min g 8 baking 100 after separate of Total on 176 use. placed fol- at consumer was evaluation, to cultivar before relatable each afternoon method the a roasted lowing were (23 temperature to pecans room prior at The d thaw 2 to allowed freezer and the testing from removed were evaluation roasted for w rprto ehd eeue nti xeiet a and raw experiment: this in used were methods preparation Two ° o 0mn h easwr ie fe i and min 5 after mixed were pecans The min. 10 for C ° C ± 1 ° )pirt vlain h easused pecans The evaluation. to prior C) ° )utlaayi.Teinitial The analysis. until C) ° C ± ° C 1 ± ° )and C) 1 ° C). etdsg n apeevaluation sample and design Test analysis Descriptive ... a sdfrcletn esr aaadprogramming and data sensory collecting for used was U.S.A.) tdatiueitniisuiga0t 5pitnmrclsaewith scale numerical point 0.0 15 where to increments, 0 0.5 a using evalu- intensities panelists attribute The ated conditions. under temperature conducted and 2014 was lighting the evaluation ambient for The codes evaluation. from blinding season pecans 4-digit growing the (Solo and of season, lid evaluation growing the 2013 labeled plastic for the were code with cups blinding cup 3-digit The U.S.A.). a ounce with Ill., 3.25 Forest, Lake plastic Company, a Cup in cultivar each of design evaluation. test season the growing for 2014 used the was designs, test balanced customizable aeSnoySfwr ut (RedJade Suite Red- Software evaluation. Sensory season Jade growing 2013 the for U.S.A.) N.C., Cary, uaino h ai qae o ecitv vlainwscom- was evaluation Com- SAS study. descriptive with this for pleted Squares of Latin designs the test of the putation construct to used were 1996) analysis descriptive 1). hybrid (Table Twenty a method using periods. evaluated evaluation were the defi- attributes of attribute flavor each products, for the references with and itself experience nitions, familiarize to prior used panel had were the wide panelists orientation for of a the days Two with of samples. Five experience nut-related evaluating testing items. of food h of 2000 variety and over methodology, completed analysis had had descriptive panelist in panelists each training All general sam- season. of the h growing evaluate 120 2014 to selected the an were from with male) along ples 1 male) female, 1 (2 female, grow- 3 (4 2013 panelists additional these the of from Five samples season. ing pecan the for chosen of were U.S.A. evaluation Kans., descriptive Manhattan, in Univ. State Kansas at h onn feauto ahpnls a evd1 of g 10 served was panelist each evaluation of morning The eiso oie ila’ ai qaedsgs(Hunter designs Square Latin William’s modified of series A Center Analysis Sensory the from male) 1 female, (5 panelists Six o.8,N.5 2016 5, Nr. 81, Vol. R ttsia otae eso . SSIs.Inc., Inst. (SAS 9.3 version software, statistical 1 increments. 0.5 with ∗ 15 to 0 scale from a on measured were intensities All attribute cultivar. Chetopa of plot 1–Spider Figure a n ose ehd ( methods roasted and raw 03ad21 rwn esn ( seasons growing 2014 and 2013 ttsial infiatdfeec between difference significant Statistically ttsial infiatdfeec between difference significant Statistically = oentpeetad15.0 and present none/not r ora fFo Science Food of Journal R ewo hrs Calif., Shores, Redwood , P < 0.05). P < = 0.05). highest S1245

S: Sensory & Food Quality 0.05). < P 0.05). < 0.05). P < P Statistically 1 0.05). Statistically significant < ∗ P Statistically significant difference between Statistically significant difference between 2013 and 2014 growing seasons ( raw and roasted methods ( Figure 3–Spider plot of Kanza cultivar.attribute All intensities were measured on a scale from 0 to 15 withincrements. 0.5 Figure 2–Spider plot of Giles cultivar.attribute All intensities were measured on a scale from 0 to∗ 15 with 0.5 increments. 1 significant difference between 2013 and 2014 growing seasons ( difference between raw and roasted methods ( pecan was determined appropriatesampling to amounts ensure for approximately attribute equal intensityde-ionized scoring. water Reverse (both osmosis at roompeeled temperature carrot and slices, heated), 1.27 0.5ture, cm part cm Mozzarella skim; cheese Kroger cubes Company, Cincinnati, (low Ohio, mois- U.S.A.), and Vol. 81, Nr. 5, 2016 r Journal of Food Science S1246 and Chambers 2013, Cherdchu andreferences Chambers for 2014). the A flavor tray attributes with panelist (Table 1) along with was provided definition/reference for sheets. each A quarter piece of possible intensity. This evaluation procedure has been usedrecently in published other research (Suwonsichon and others 2012, Miller Raw and roasted pecan flavor . . .

S: Sensory & Food Quality ia o h 03goigsao,adi ulct o h 2014 the for duplicate in and season, cul- season. growing each growing for 2013 replicates the 3 for reduce in tivar roasted, to each and agents with raw samples rinse method, pecan preparation to 8 addition the evaluated a in Panelists cleansers. and carryover. used flavor sample, was palate per period as min rest used 10 5-min approximately were took slices evaluation cucumber Sample skinless cm 0.32 . . . flavor pecan roasted and Raw ttsia analysis Statistical cino hs atr tte5 ee fsgicne sn a Using significance. of level 5% the at inter- factors the season, these and growing of raw), variation, with action sample compared of (roasted method significance level preparation the 5% carried test was the ANOVA to 2-way at Further, out year. cultivars each across for attribute significance of flavor each of nificance nlsso aine(NV)wspromdt ettesig- the test to performed was (ANOVA) variance of Analysis o.8,N.5 2016 5, Nr. 81, Vol. 1 increments. 0.5 with 15 ∗ to 0 from scale a on measured were intensities All attribute cultivar. Major of plot 5–Spider Figure 1 increments. 0.5 with 15 ∗ to 0 from scale a on measured were intensities All attribute cultivar. Lakota of plot 4–Spider Figure a n ose ehd ( methods roasted and raw a n ose ehd ( methods roasted and raw 03ad21 rwn esn ( seasons growing 2014 and 2013 03ad21 rwn esn ( seasons growing 2014 and 2013 ttsial infiatdfeec between difference significant Statistically ttsial infiatdfeec between difference significant Statistically ttsial infiatdfeec between difference significant Statistically ttsial infiatdfeec between difference significant Statistically r ora fFo Science Food of Journal P P < < 0.05). 0.05). P P < < S1247 0.05). 0.05).

S: Sensory & Food Quality < < P P Statistically significant difference Statistically significant difference 1 1 0.05). 0.05). < < Statistically significant difference Statistically significant difference P P 0.05). 0.05). between raw and roasted methods ( between raw and roasted methods ( Figure 7–Spider plot of Pawnee cultivar. All attribute intensities were measured on ascalefrom0to15with0.5increments. ∗ Figure 6–Spider plot of Maramec cultivar. All attribute intensities were measured on ascalefrom0to15with0.5increments. ∗ between 2013 and 2014 growing seasons ( between 2013 and 2014 growing seasons ( circle visually depicts thevar inertia differences of for individual attributes eachconclusions on of on culti- the which growing attributesfactor seasons describe in map particular reveals order samples. relationships toder The between draw the the cultivar 2 profilesallows different un- for preparation the means cultivarsgroups. using to R be cluster classified software analysis into (RR., and uniquely Auckland, version New defined 3.1.1, Zealand) sub Ihaka was used R. to and perform Gentleman, this analysis. post hoc statistical software R Vol. 81, Nr. 5, 2016 r Journal of Food Science version 9.3, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N.C., U.S.A.) using R Multiple factor analysis (MFA) was used to evaluate the rela- S1248 Statistical analysis was performed with SAS Fisher’s protected least significantmeans separation difference was (LSD) also analyzed test, at the 5% level of significance. Raw and roasted pecan flavor . . . tionship(s) among attributeseffect and of cultivars growing as season well on as flavor profiles. to A see MFA the correlation PROC MIXED and PROC GLM. (SAS

S: Sensory & Food Quality epnet ieadtmeauecnla ovr nqeflavor vary unique can very composition acid to in fatty lead change and can compounds cultivar Phenolic temperature profiles. each and comprise time that to response compounds the how and species the from rfievariations Profile Discussion and Results . . . flavor pecan roasted and Raw hl aho h utvr srltdt n nte,being another, one to related is cultivars the of each While .illinoinensis C. hmclcmoiindifferences composition chemical , ut,rat,adfut rmtc a ecue yketones, by caused be may 2003). aromatics others fruity and and (Alasalvar roasty, acids Nutty, and hydrocarbons, including terpenes, aromatic hazelnuts, pyrroles, alcohols, roasted furans, pyrazines, in Seventy- aldehydes, detected 2003). ketones, were the others compounds when and (Alasalvar increased one volatiles occurred new existing process that roasting and determined was created it were flavors, volatiles roasting per- research on In 2009). formed others and (Malik cultivar the on depending o.8,N.5 2016 5, Nr. 81, Vol. circle. correlation analysis factor 9–Multiple Figure cl rm0t 5wt . increments. 0.5 with 15 ∗ to 0 from scale a on measured were intensities All attribute cultivar. Witte of plot 8–Spider Figure ( methods roasted and raw between rwn esn ( seasons growing 2014 and 2013 between difference P ttsial infiatdifference significant Statistically < 0.05). r ora fFo Science Food of Journal 1 ttsial significant Statistically P < 0.05). S1249

S: Sensory & Food Quality Figure 12–Multiple factor analysis factor map. Spider plots gave a visual representation of the flavor profile for Three attributes showed negligible results across all cultivars, One cultivar that showed many attribute intensity differences range could have contributed tothe some cultivars. of the differences between a selection oferal the shapes cultivars of (Figure thewithin 1 plots each were to cultivar similar, 8). between theremethods samples and Although were different clear with the growing differences different seasons, gen- significant. many preparation of these differences preparation methods,and and burnt growing attributes(Figure seasons: 1 were to rancid, 8). virtually oxidized, undetected inwhen the compared samples to theand preparation other methods cultivars was for “Lakota.”inclination The both to “Lakota” growing over-produce tree with seasons has agefor an (Reid this study 2013b). originated The from samples a tree over 30 years old. The kernel Figure 11–Multiple factor analysis groups representation plot. Vol. 81, Nr. 5, 2016 r Journal of Food Science Differences in initial moisture between the cultivars can fur- S1250 Figure 10–Multiple factor analysis partial axis plot. 2.37% in “Chetopa” to 3.58% in “Lakota” pecans (Table 2). This and therefore initial moisture in thecific pecans cultivars was and not did altered for not spe- from affect the the roasting 2014 procedures. In growing pecans season, the initial moisture ranged from can vary greatly. Seasonal variationand in differences rainfall, in storage chemical conditions, role makeup in of the the amountexperiment of pecans were moisture can examined in all under pecan consumer-available play nutmeat. conditions a Pecans in this thermore lead to flavor variation. Althoughextent this in is an controlled industry to setting, an for with requirements quality to and be below safety 4.5% purposes, the moisture content of pecans can be expected fromsee pecans, how but chemical further composition research canflavor is contribute differences to necessary between pecan to cultivars. flavor and aldehydes, and pyrazines. Sweet aromatics arecohols, due and to furans pyrazines, (Alasalvar al- and others 2003). Similar compounds Raw and roasted pecan flavor . . .

S: Sensory & Food Quality o aho h eaaegoigsaos eehgl corre- highly were 1 seasons, analyses, growing separate separate the 2 of the factors of the each plot that for axes revealed partial 10) The nutty- intensity. (Figure oiliness, caramelized and with intensity, astringency, compared buttery with musty/earthiness dimen- association and second to bitterness, the related raw in predominately method, sam- were differences preparation between sion while to due roasted, Differences were with dimensions. dimension compared first the the of in ples each to or inertia, contributions, be- attributes’ individual variation 9) of (Figure representation the visual plot gave of circle these correlation 20.47% The respectively. how and cultivars, and tween 38.11% illustrated 1 explained Dimension as 2 seasons. well dimension growing between as attributes differ cultivars individual set. contributions between compromise of a variation contribution creating the to and described seasons analysis growing This 2 data the normalizing from by cultivar, sets each within methods roasted and raw sets, data the utilized. analyze be to must (PCA) MFA ANOVA analysis traditional component using principal than and dif- rather cultivar, significantly each them- simultaneously within cultivars are ferent the factors between multiple differences Since assess selves. culti- to a difficult within is attributes it many var, for method preparation and season iue1–otl oa anala assSaeUiest’ ea xeietto ilsi 03ad21 Ceoa Kans.). (Chetopa, 2014 and 2013 in Fields Experimentation Pecan University’s State Kansas at rainfall total 13–Monthly Figure cultivars Comparing unique rather its 2013b). in (Reid resulted the and kernel influenced attributes have profile. the flavor could the of cultivar of quality “Lakota” intensity the the for on quality which effect This produced, an are clusters have nut large can when properly fill not does . . . flavor pecan roasted and Raw F losfrcmaio ewe utvr,icuigboth including cultivars, between comparison for allows MFA growing both between existed differences significant Because n Pwe”cliaswr oecreae ocharacteristics Interest- to attributes. caramelized correlated and nutty-buttery, oily, more to were relating cultivars “Major,” “Pawnee” “Kanza,” and and “Maramec,” raw Conversely, both conditions. and under roasted bitter, attributes related astringent, and dif- with attributes the correlation musty/earthy of higher tell a 4 showed “Chetopa” cultivars and and across “Giles,” 3 “Witte,” transcendence “Lakota,” clusters their methods. in and preparation themselves those cultivars with the in 2 ferences and 1 cultivars clusters to of due in correspondence samples the However, in roasting. This of variation presence explains 1. 4, the 1 and dimension dimension 3 as in clusters expected, predominantly from was differed counterparts, samples, form. roasted raw roasted in the their 4 2, cluster and and form 1 raw in Clusters 2 cluster 4, and comprised and 2 respec- “Pawnee” clusters “Giles,” and methods, “Witte,” “Major,” preparation “Kanza,” “Lakota,” roasted “Maramec,” tively. and of formed. raw consisted were under clusters 3 “Chetopa” distinct data and 4 1 normalized seasons; growing using Clusters 2 another, the one from to sets related samples different from originated in separation 2. similar the dimension very that to was related and differences seasons 1, growing dimension to 2 variation relation the the that for groups showed cultivars The further between cultivars. 11) trends (Figure of between plot terms differences representation in intensity samples individual attribute the for of another one to lated nest.Hwvr utvr hwdalreices nvariation in increase large caramelized a showed and cultivars intensity, 2 However, intensity. nutty-buttery oiliness, roasting musty/earthiness the with and with compared bitterness, astringency, consistent to relationships fairly relation cultivars’ in remained process the samples well; other dimension the as by to methods explained preparation variation across similar 2 had cultivars the ingly, atrmp(iue1)ple rmMAilsrtdhwthe how illustrated MFA from pulled 12) (Figure map factor A o.8,N.5 2016 5, Nr. 81, Vol. r ora fFo Science Food of Journal S1251

S: Sensory & Food Quality b method ∗ 0.9923 0.5334 0.9265 0.0001 < b b b b year Sample ∗ a 0.45010.8140.38610.90750.49250.7237 0.6565 0.9192 0.7549 0.657 0.6244 0.3506 0.9928 0.4481 0.6114 0.6871 0.0895 0.1167 0.4336 0.3259 0.5834 0.8046 0.0001 0.0006 0.035 0.0008 < b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b 0.2521 0.16390.14450.15240.4029 0.3705 0.3657 0.7957 0.2587 0.5966 0.5446 0.4833 0.0001 0.0386 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0055 0.0026 0.0011 < < < < < < < < < < < For pecan ID, nutty-woody, woody, roasted, astringent, and For 4 of the attributes, there were significant differences be- A total of 4 attributes (nutty-woody, nutty-grainlike, brown, ing season (Figure 1 tocaramelized, 8). being “Chetopa” followed the acaramelized similar only intensity trend cultivar from for the that 2013 season.oily did For attributes, nutty-buttery not there and was have no a clear higher trend between thebitter seasons. attributes, atintensities least in 1 the 2013 cultivar growingseason displayed season were significantly significantly while higher none higher (Figure fromwere 1 significantly the higher to 2014 attribute 8). intensities Conversely, in there the 2014 season for tween the(Figure 2013 1 to 8). and Of these 4were 2014 attributes, significantly 2 (nutty-grainlike higher growing and in brown) musty/earthy) seasons samples were significantly from higher for 2013 in samplesthough and from all 2 4 2014. Al- (acrid attributes cultivars and were2 not growing seasons significantly as differentdid a between not the whole show (Table anythe 3), significant basis only differences of 1 between individual each cultivars. attribute, season burnt, on and roasted) were higherson in for samples all from the cultivarsmusty/earthy, overall 2013 (Figure sweet, and growing 1 sweet) sea- to were higherfrom 8). the in Similarly, 2014 all growing 4 cultivars season. attributes Overall nutty,and nutty-buttery, burnt, (acrid, rancid intensity differences betweennificant the collectively seasons (Table were 3). not There sig- between was cultivar a and growing significant season interaction caramelized, for and pecan oily ID, attributes. nutty-buttery, Althoughaffected all of by the growing cultivars were significantly season so, for each these cultivarID, attributes, all was for of affected the 3 differently.“Pawnee,” samples For which attributes from exhibited pecan a 2013 higher were intensity higher in with the exception 2014 to grow- ness did not increaseever significantly roasting for did any have(Table 3). a of Roasting generally significant the increased oiliness, affect cultivars, withof the how- as exception “Lakota” pecans a which whole stayed on at the oiliness same levelTrends of in oiliness. growing season significantly increased for 4 of the cultivars with roasting. Oili- b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b 0.1281 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0307 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0023 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0021 0.0172 0.0005 < < < < < < < < < < < 0.05) between raw ࣘ 0.05). Woody intensity P < 0.05) between preparation P ࣘ b b b b b b b b Vol. 81, Nr. 5, 2016 P r 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0006 0.0036 0.0001 0.0006 0.0006 < < < < 0.05. ࣘ P -values of individual factors and factor interactions from ANOVA for flavor attributes. P Journal of Food Science Nutty-woody, nutty-grainlike and nutty-buttery are subsets of Including those attributes that were significantly higher for Six attributes differed significantly ( Significant factor or interaction for given attribute. Significance taken at Sour 0.6885 RoastedOverall sweetOily 0.1723 0.2908 Musty/earthyWoody 0.5554 Nutty-grainlikeNutty-buttery Caramelized 0.1932 Nutty-woody 0.8967 Oxidized 0.3344 Rancid 0.3739 0.2244 0.9425 0.3739 0.0851 Acrid Brown 0.5119 Sweet 0.2802 Astringent Bitter Burnt 0.4096 0.7933 significant increase in burnt intensity, “Maramec”icant showed a decrease signif- in musty/earthy intensity, andsignificant “Chetopa” increase showed in a bitter intensitywas ( significantly increased for 3 cultivars and sweet intensity was intensity with roasting, onlyand 6 3 of for nutty-grainlike theBetween raw increased cultivars and significantly for roasted (Figure nutty-woody forms, 1 only to “Giles” 8). cultivar showed a across all cultivars (Table 3). the overall nuttyoverall attribute nutty and nutty-buttery (Miller attributes and significantly increased others in 2013). Although ID, had a significantmethod interaction and ( cultivar, meaning that roastingcultivars did in not the affect all same of way the for pecan ID, albeit still significantly so roasted pecans acrossthe the attributes board werepoint (Figure affected (Table 3). 1 by The attributes roasting to notrancid, from affected oxidized, 8). astringent, by a roasting and All were sour. statistical acrid, One but of stand- the 5 attributes, pecan of the roasted pecans, 10nutty-woody, nutty-grainlike, of nutty-buttery, brown, the caramelized, attributesroasted, (pecan overall sweet, ID, and overall nutty, sweet) exhibited higher intensities for tributes (Alasalvar and others3 2003). attributes In this showedroasted study, no however, pecans: only significant oily, astringent, differences and between sour (Figure raw 1 and to 8). ter, burnt, coffee/chocolate-like, caramel-like, fruity, green/grassy, nutty, oily, painty, pungent, rancid, roasty, sour, sweet, and woody). There were no significant differences found for half of the at- pecan ID, overall nutty,roasted. nutty-buttery, brown, For caramelized, eachhigher and cultivar, in the flavortributes intensity. were roasted assessed In for form raw a and roasted was similar hazelnuts (aftertaste, significantly study, bit- sixteen flavor at- and roasted pecans for all 8 cultivars (Table 3). These were S1252 Effects of roasting due to astringent,roasting, bitter, namely “Pawnee” and and “Lakota.” musty/earthy characteristics with a b Pecan ID Overall nutty 0.4061 0.2382 Table 3– Flavor attribute Sample Year Method Sample Raw and roasted pecan flavor . . .

S: Sensory & Food Quality ilalwfrbte aktn n nrae plcto fpecans. of application profiling, increased flavor and with marketing better conjunction for acceptance in allow This, will consumer cultivars. as the well of each asso- as of changes methods the on preparation and focus with cultivars ciated will the research between Future differences nature. chemical oily “Lakota’s” more as characteristics “Pawnee’s” woody such and and others, bitter, Some astringent, than profile. with unique unique affiliation more a higher are has profiles cultivars the these analysis of of negligible sensory each however as that such intensities, revealed exist, has burnt cultivars and the oxidized, of Similarities rancid, each largely conditions. for profiles be environmental flavor can in in and variation cultivars these to certain to of attributed in specific most differences not seasons, are some growing differences were between there nut- samples sig- into Although corresponding increasing sweetness. categorized 6 in broadly and cultivars, be increase the tiness can an of attributes showed 8 These all 10 nificantly. study, for roasting this with in intensity examined attributes 20 Conclusion to contributor of primary the stages likely crucial is variation. the seasonal period in 2016). maturation rainfall (Reid 2014 of the rainfall amount minimiz- September lower effectively insufficient the wk, Ultimately, of 3 problem to the up primarily the which for is ing water in Fields retain Experimental soil can Pecan which the clay, the ended However, at and amount. grown rain are smaller of cultivars amount much 2013 large a the a Conversely, with with 13). (Figure began rain season with of ended maturation but amount beginning, September higher the much that and toward a rainfall July apparent total between is less season it much y, had maturation 2 pecan and the 2014 nutmeat between the the rainfall growing of between Comparing growth differences flavor seasons. the to stunt contributor a can be (Reid water potentially water of available filling lack of kernel amount A the and 2016). on nut-shape, nut-size, primarily determined the are time, this sched- growing During traditional ule. facility’s Kansas the July following at between September, development lies and Fields nutmeat seasons. Experimentation pecan growing Pecan University’s in 2 State time the between crucial rainfall most variation difference of The the the amount to of and by attributed be timing most affected However, can in seasons been 2013a). growing have 2 (Reid the may heat between specif- and of “Maramec” times lack and ripening this “Giles” temperatures later 2013a). cooler have filling (Reid the ically kernel approach before the fall completed and heat be of delayed of to be shortage unable The to 2013. process development in nut heat cause summer of can lack the to related higher. significantly being cultivars, season the 2013 of the some from for none sweet with and sour, oxidized, sweet, overall . . . flavor pecan roasted and Raw osigcngetyafc h ao rfieo eas fthe Of pecans. of profile flavor the affect greatly can Roasting ayo h ifrne ewe h rwn esn a be may seasons growing 2 the between differences the of Many etn-act U ecvlS.20.Elgcai n urei neatsnritclywith synergistically interact quercetin and acid Ellagic 2005. SS. Percival SU, Mertens-Talcott nutritional of Phenolic 2009. J. knowledge Braford L, Cisneros-Zevallos R, Consumer Cornacchia L, Lombardini JL, 2008. Perez NS, Malik JM. Zajicek TM, of analysis Waliczek Multivariate editors. L, E, Risvik Lombardini T, Naes In: design. Experimental 1996. EA. Hunter for resources genetic of collection national program: breeding pecans: Pecan roasted TE. and Thompson raw LJ, in Grauke stability Oxidative case 1994. a ME. Malingre characteristics: CR, sensory Santerre descriptive MC, on Erickson carriers of Turkish Effect 2014. roasted E. and Chambers natural P, Cherdchu of Comparison 2003. KR. Cadwallader F, Shahidi C, Alasalvar References Contributions Author Acknowledgment odB.20.Pouto ntted n rc hrceitc ihnteUie ttspecan States United the within characteristics price and Bergman trends unit S, Production 2001. Bakshi BW. Wood A, Suttie L, Lomnitski G, Kissling RR, Maronpot A, Nyska for lexicon NN, Sensory Tam 2012. C. hazelnuts Oupadissakoon roasted V, Kongpensook of IV, crunchiness E and Chambers S, crispness Suwonsichon Instrumental 1999. S. Katnas S, Ungan middle S, across Saklar and Kansas from: in Available pecans from: growing 2013. Available on Dec observations 2013. 24 pecans: Dec produces? Northern 2 2016. over W. Lakota kernel. Reid when fill happens to What time 2013b. of W. out Reid ran that Cultivars August 2013a. Communication, W. Personal kernels. Reid walnut black for conditions Storage 2011. W. Reid Sabat T, Myint B, Connell K, Burke S, Sabat Rajaram K, RF Burke by B, kernels Connell pecan T, and Myint S, in Rajaram moisture Sensing 1992. C. summary. characterizing Kandala 2014 nuts: K, and and Lawrence Defining S, Noncitrus 2013. 2015. Nelson Agriculture. DH. of Department Chambers States United J, NASS, Lee A, walnut Jenkins black E, for Chambers characteristics flavor AE, of Miller analysis Descriptive 2013. DH. Chambers AE, Miller otiue odatn n dtn h manuscript. the editing and study, and the drafting planned to K. samples, contributed the manuscript. acquired the Reid W. drafted and and Koppel results, interpreted data, gathered funding partially for Crops study. Alternative this and Agriculture tainable opud n at cdcmoiino rai n ovninlgonpcnkres J kernels. pecan grown 18: conventional and HortTechnology 89:2207–13. organic Agric of behavior. Food composition Sci acid purchasing fatty and affecting compounds factors and pecans 481–8. of attributes 37–70. p Science. Elsevier Amsterdam: science. sensory in data Accessed http://cgru.usda.gov/carya/. from: 23. Available January ARS-USDA. 2016 . and pecans 59:1234–8. Sci Food J measurements. sensory and physical chemical, 29:272–84. Stud Sens J sauce. soy with study 51:5067–72. Chem Food Agric J analysis. sensory ( hazelnut tombul nerypottcnolsi ein nTAPmc ydeayatoiat.Pott 66: Prostate antioxidants. 11:110–8. HortTechnology dietary injuries industry. oxidative/nitrosative by mice of TRAMP attenuation in Differential lesions 2006. neoplastic 57–69. SM. prostatic early Ho in 27:148–60. S, Stud Grossman Sens J M, ripeness. of stages and cultivars by affected as mango 64:1015–9. Sci Food J assessment. sensory with correlations and Accessed http://northernpecans.blogspot.com/. from: 24. Available January 2016 2016. January 16 America. 20. November 2015 Accessed www.northernpecans.blogspot.com. 20. November 2015 Accessed www.northernpecans.blogspot.com. 2011. Nutr J women. and men healthy of profile lipid 131:2275–9. serum the alters favorably 14:A293–A293. diet J pecan-enriched FASEB women. and men healthy in lipoproteins and lipids 27:171–4. JMPEE measurements. impedance 27:1–7. Pref Qual Food categories. food across attribute “nutty” the 78:S887–93. Sci Food J cultivars. leukemia human in arrest cycle 218:141–51. cell Lett transient Cancer cause and cells. apoptosis of induction the in resveratrol .Mguo n .Klycletvl odce h studies, the conducted collectively Kelly B. and Magnuson S. Sus- for Center Kansas acknowledge to like would authors The o.8,N.5 2016 5, Nr. 81, Vol. oyu avellana Corylus . oaie n ao yDAG/Saddescriptive and DHA/GC/MS by flavor and volatiles L.) r ora fFo Science Food of Journal .20.Amnustrtdftyacid–rich fatty monounsaturated A 2001. J. e .20.Efc fpcnrc ito serum on diet rich pecan of Effect 2000. J. e ´ ´ S1253

S: Sensory & Food Quality