sign in sign up
<<
Home , Apricot, Apricot (color), Peach (color), Prunus armeniaca

Nutritional Quality of New York and Oluranti E. Campbell1, Ian A. Merwin2 and Olga I. Padilla-Zakour1 1Department of Food Science, NYSAES, Cornell University, Geneva, NY, 14456 2Department of Horticulture, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853

each ( persica) and () teins and lipids. Research thus far indicates that these compounds are two of the most consumed stone worldwide. work against the incidence of cardiovascular diseases, cancers and However, New York grown peaches and apricots have not aging. Antioxidant capacity in these fruits is derived from both P enjoyed the same phenolic and compounds. For instance, chlorogenic “New York peaches and apricots are scale of cultiva- and neochlorogenic acids have been found to be chemopreven- significant sources of antioxidants, tion and patron- tive against breast cancer, while β-carotene has been suggested polyphenolic compounds and age relative to to have preventive benefits against lung and colorectal cancer other production (Fraser and Bramley, 2004; Noratto et al., 2009). , with apricots ranking areas (e.g. Califor- Peaches and apricots are also sources of A precur- higher than peaches in all categories. nia) or other local sors, namely carotenoids β-carotene (primarily), α-carotene On a 100 g weight basis, phenolic and fruits (e.g. apples) and β-cryptoxanthin. plays a role in vision and its antioxidant capacity of apricots and owing to signifi- deficiency can lead to xerophthalmia, blindness and premature antioxidant capacity of peaches were cant environmen- death; it remains a leading cause of child mortality in developing equivalent to those reported for grapes, tal and socio-eco- countries. and , although lacking provitamin A nomic challenges abilities, accumulate in the macular tissue of the eye and protect with ‘Hargrand’ having more than double involved in their against age-related macular degeneration (Fraser and Bramley, the average phenolic and antioxidant cultivation in this 2004). content of grapes. Considering the region (Merwin, With current trends of increased consumption of fruits and additional presence of carotenoids, 1994). The best vegetables, and greater awareness about health complications these fruits are more nutritionally a r g u m e n t f o r and diseases linked to poor diet choices, consumers are looking diverse than either apples or grapes. The public attention for good quality products with proven health benefits. This -ar to these fruits is ticle shares some of our findings in an ongoing study to develop nutritional and commercial potential of the increasing physical, chemical and nutritional profiles for and apricot both fruits warrant their consideration evidence of the varieties commercially available in NY, and to investigate the ef- as high value specialty crops.” various health fects of production practices and processing procedures on these benefits of fruit characteristics. The primary aim of this project is to provide and vegetables. information about NY peach and apricot varieties, categorized as Both fruits are nutrient-rich reserves of healthful compounds, specialty crops, and increase knowledge about the health benefits primarily antioxidants, polyphenolics and carotenoids, as well as of local varieties by assessing their nutritive value (polypheno- , , fiber and (Gil et al., 2002; Dragovic- lics, antioxidants and carotenoids). Qualitative and quantitative Uzelac et al., 2007). data obtained will be included in promotional information and Polyphenolics are widely distributed in tissue and play contribute towards the appeal and marketability of NY varieties. a role in fruit and taste. Major phenolic compounds in both stone fruits include catechin, epicatechin and chlorogenic acid. Experimental Procedures Carotenoids are regarded as the most widespread pigments in Physical and chemical characterization Nine peach and four nature and are responsible for ranging from to apricot varieties were procured in 2010 from local orchards, be- . Predominant carotenoids in these fruits are β-carotene, tween August 4 – August 29 for peaches, and July 16 – August α-carotene, zeaxanthin and lutein. 4 for apricots (Figure 1 and 2). Upon harvest, fruit was stored at The main health benefits of peaches and apricots are attrib- 32-34 °F until analysis. All analysis was performed in triplicate, uted to their antioxidant content. Antioxidants are compounds allotting 5 fruit per replicate. L, a and b color values were mea- effective against free radical that can damage DNA, pro- sured with a HunterLab UltraScan XE meter (Hunter Associates

A B C D E F G H I Figure 1. Peach varieties studied: ‘Bounty’ (A), ‘Harrow Beauty’ (B), ‘John Boy’ (C), ‘John Boy II’ (D), ‘PF 22007’ (E), ‘PF 23’ (F), ‘PF Lucky13’ (G), ‘RedHaven’ (H) and ‘Vivid’ (I).

12 NEW YORK STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY and means compared with the Tukey Significant Difference test at 95% confidence interval. Nutritional data were reported per 100 g edible portion (flesh and skin) of fresh fruit. Results and Discussion

A B C D Fruit and varietal characterization. Soluble solid content was Figure 2. Apricot varieties studied: ‘Hargrand’ (A), ‘Harlayne’ (B), ‘Harogem’ greater in apricots than in peaches, but a similarly high titratable (C) and ‘Tomcot’ (D). acid content resulted in peaches possessing a higher -to-acid ratio (Table 1). Since this influences the perception of sweetness of a fruit and its acceptability, this characteristic – together with Laboratory Inc., Reston, VA); two measurements each were taken the larger size and vivid color (blush) of peaches – provides insight of skin and flesh. Firmness readings were obtained using a TA- into peaches’ greater appeal in the fresh market. XT2 Texture Analyzer (Texture Technologies Corp., Scarsdale, Overall, total phenolic content (Figure 3) and ORAC antioxi- NY). Soluble solids (Leica Auto ABBE refractometer; Leica dant capacity (Figure 4) for apricots were more than double that of Inc., Buffalo, NY), pH (Accumet Basic AB15 pH meter; Fisher peaches. Carotenoid concentration reported as β-concentration, Scientific, Waltham, MA) and titratable acidity in malic acid was approximately 10 times as high in apricots as in peaches equivalents (Mettler Toledo 20 compact titrator; Mettler-Toledo (Figure 5). ‘PF22007’ peach had the highest phenolic content Inc., Columbus OH) were measured from juice extracted using a and antioxidant capacity and average values per 100 g for both food processor. Moisture content values were obtained from the parameters were 60 mg GAE and 1990 µmol TE, respectively. weight difference before and after lyophilisation. ‘Harrow Beauty’ and ‘Bounty’ peaches showed highest carotenoid Nutritional profilingTotal phenolic content was assessed by content with the overall average being 490 µg. In apricots, ‘Har- a colorimetric assay using the Folin-Ciocalteu (FC) reagent and grand’ ranked highest in three categories, with average phenolic, expressed as mg gallic acid equivalents (mg GAE) (Kim and Lee, ORAC antioxidant and carotenoid values being 170 mg GAE, 2002). Individual phenolic compounds were identified via high 4100 µmol TE and 4030 µg respectively. performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) (Kim and Padilla- In peaches, the predominant phenolic compounds identi- Zakour, 2004). Carotenoid profiles were developed by HPLC fied were cyanidin-3-glucoside and catechin, with significant and reported as µg/100 g (Craft 2005; Kwasniewski et al., 2010). amounts of epicatechin, kaemferol-3-rutinoside and chlorogenic Total antioxidant capacity was assessed using the fluorometric acid, and relatively minor amounts of neochlorogenic acid and oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) procedure (Huang epigallocatechin. In apricots, the predominant phenolic com- et al., 2002; Held 2005). pound was catechin, with significant amounts of epigallocatechin, Effect of maturity at harvestThree peach and three apricot neochlorogenic acid, chlorogenic acid, rutin and epicatechin, and of nutritional or commercial importance were selectively relatively minor amounts of cyanidin-3-glucoside, quercetin- harvested at two stages – commercial and full maturity – in 3-glucoside and a quercetin derivative. Extremely high values line with farmers’ schedules as well as established indicators of of catechin were noted in ‘Hargrand’ theorized to be the main maturity (changes in size, color and firmness). The two points of factor behind its outstanding phenolic and antioxidant content. harvest were 6 to 10 days apart, depending on variety. Fruit were Beta-carotene was the main carotenoid in both fruit types, with analyzed as previously described. other identified compounds being beta-cryptoxanthin, lutein, Statistical analysis Tests were conducted in triplicate and zeaxanthin and lycopene. analyzed with JMP 9.0 Statistical Software (SAS Institute Inc, Because peaches are often consumed fresh, we also con- Cary, NC). Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) ducted sensory evaluations (n=20). On a hedonic scale, ‘Bounty’ and ‘PF 23’ were deemed most acceptable. Table 1. Range and average values of physical and chemical parameters of selected NY peaches Considering this together with their high and apricots harvested in 2010. nutritional content, these varieties could be promoted for fresh consumption. With apri- Peach Apricot cots, ‘Hargrand’ proved superior across the Parameters Average Range Average Range board. Although nutritional value is just one Soluble solids (%) 10.9 ± 1.2 9.2 – 12.5 13.7 ± 1.5 11.2 – 14.7 factor driving the selection of fruit varieties pH 3.6 ± 0.1 3.4 – 3.8 3.6 ± 0.1 3.5 – 3.7 by growers, ‘Hargrand’ shows great potential Titratable acidity (g malic acid/ 100 mL) 0.6 ± 0.1 0.4 – 0.7 1.4 ± 0.4 1.0 – 1.8 for promoting the NY apricot market from Sugar-to-acid ratio 17.6 ± 3.6 13.7 – 22.0 10.5 ± 3.5 6.6 – 14.5 Moisture content (%) 87.9 ± 1.2 86.1 – 89.4 84.3 ± 2.6 80.9 – 87.8 a health-benefit perspective. Firmness (kg) 4.1 ± 1.2 2.5 – 5.2 1.0 ± 0.2 0.7 – 1.2 Effect of maturity at harvestIn prac- Unit weight (g) 180.7 ± 53.8 95.9 – 296.4 42.8 ± 11.2 24.4 – 49.6 tice, time of harvest depends on the intended Cross-sectional diameter (mm) 69.8 ± 7.2 56.5 – 83.3 42.8 ± 5.0 35.1 – 47.8 purpose or target market of fruit. Fruit Edible portion (%) 95.3 ± 0.9 93.2 – 96.6 93.7 ± 1.2 91.8 – 94.4 Skin color (L) 46.0 ± 3.0 42.6 – 56.5 53.4 ± 2.9 50.8 – 56.5 intended for long-term storage or wide- Skin color (a) 23.5 ± 3.0 19.9 – 27.1 25.1 ± 3.5 20.2 – 18.7 range distribution is harvested earlier (at Skin color (b) 23.3 ± 4.3 18.9 – 34.2 37.8 ± 3.7 34.4 – 41.7 commercial maturity) while fruit intended Skin color ( angle) 41.7 ± 4.4 35.5 – 56.9 55.9 ± 5.1 48.5 – 60.0 for local markets or immediate consump- Flesh color (L) 62.2 ± 3.7 57.2 – 66.6 50.0 ± 5.6 42.8 – 56.2 Flesh color (a) 11.3 ± 1.5 9.6 – 12.9 20.2 ± 1.4 19.6 – 21.1 tion can be harvested later in the season (at Flesh color (b) 45.5 ± 3.2 42.4 – 50.4 36.5 ± 3.9 31.6 – 40.5 full maturity). With this latter group, taste, Flesh color (Hue angle) 75.8 ± 2.4 72.5 – 78.3 60.9 ± 3.0 56.3 – 63.7 juiciness, flavor and the aroma of fruit are at

NEW YORK FRUIT QUARTERLY . VOLUME 19 . NUMBER 4 . WINTER 2011 13 Figure 5. β-carotene concentration of selected New York peach and apricot varieties harvested in 2010. Figure 3. Phenolic content of selected New York peach and apricot varieties harvested in 2010. their peak but shelf-life is substantially reduced. Early harvest, on the other hand, sacrifices optimum aesthetic and eating quality for longer shelf-life. The impact of these practices on nutritional parameters remains a subject of considerable interest. Our study therefore compared fruits harvested at commercial maturity to those harvested at full maturity to investigate nutritional changes occurring with on-tree . Three peach (‘John Boy II’, ‘PF 23’ and ‘RedHaven’) and three apricot (‘Hargrand’, ‘Harogem’ and ‘Harlayne’) varieties were used for this section of the study. In both fruits, ripening was marked by an increase in Brix, pH, sugar-to-acid ratio, and a concomitant decrease in titratable acidity and firmness. In peaches, phenolic content decreased from commercial to full maturity. Average antioxidant capacity and carotenoid concentration remained statistically unchanged; however, the observed trend appeared to be a decrease in antioxidant capacity and an increase in carot- enoid concentration with maturity (Figure 6). Apricots responded similarly, with the exception being that carotenoid increase with maturity was particularly pronounced in apricots, showing as much as a three-fold increase from commercial to full maturity. The findings in this study were generally in agreement with earlier studies by Dragovic-Uzelac et al. (2007) and could potentially inform decisions concerning harvesting schedules, depending on the intended use or proposed promotion niche of fruit products. Impact/Implications of research findings This study has provided useful information on a representative selection of local peach and apricot varieties. The discovery of exceptional varieties Figure 4. ORAC antioxidant capacity of selected New York peach and like ‘Hargrand’ could contribute to a renewed interest in these apricot varieties harvested in 2010. fruits in New York and the Northeast.

14 NEW YORK STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY Summary New York peaches and apricots are significant sources of antioxi- dants, polyphenolic compounds and carotenoids, with apricots ranking higher than peaches in all categories. Maturity at harvest has an effect on the levels of these healthful compounds. The nutritional and commercial potential of both fruits warrant their consideration as high value specialty crops.

Acknowledgements Funding for this project was provided by the New York Depart- ment of Agriculture and Markets Specialty Crop Block Grant Program with support from the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station (NYSAES). We appreciate the donations of fruit samples from Maloney Orchards, NYSAES Farms and other local orchards. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Herb Cooley, Tom Gibson and David Manns.

Literature Cited Craft, N.E. 2005. Chromatographic techniques for carotenoid separation. In: Handbook of food analytical chemistry, water, , enzymes, lipids and . Wrolstad RE, Acree TE, Decker EA, Penner MH, Reid DS, Schwartz SJ, Shoemaker CF, Smith D, Sporns F, editors. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons Inc. p 91-106. Dragovic-Uzelac, V, Levaj, B., Mrkic, V., Bursac, D. and Boras, M. 2007. The content of and carotenoids in three apricot cultivars depending on stage of maturity and geographical region. Food Chemistry. 102: 966-975. Fraser, P.D. and Bramley, P.M. 2004. Review: The biosynthesis and nutritional uses of carotenoids. Progress in Lipid Research 43:228–265. Gil, M.I., Tomas-Barberan, F.A., Hess-Pierce, B. and Kader, A. 2002. Antioxidant capacities, phenolic compounds, carot- enoids and vitamin C contents of nectarine, peach and cultivars from . J Agric Food Chem. 50: 4976−4982. Held, P. 2005. Performing oxygen radical absorbance capacity assays with Synergy™HT. Biotek Application Note. (Accessed February 2011). Available at http://www.biotek.com/re- sources/articles/performing-orac-assays.html Peach Apricot Huang, D, Ou, B., Hampsch-Woodill, M., Flanagan, J. and Prior, Figure 6. Average changes in phenolic content, ORAC antioxidant capacity R. 2002. High-throughput assay of oxygen radical absorbance and β-carotene concentration in three peach (‘John Boy II’, ‘PF 23’, capacity assay using fluorescein as the fluorescent probe. J ‘RedHaven’) and three apricot (‘Hargrand’, ‘Harlayne’, ‘Harogem’) Agric Food Chem 49:4619-4626. varieties from commercial (CM) to full maturity (FM). Kim, D-O, Lee, C.Y. 2002. Extraction and isolation of polyphe- nolics. In: Current protocols in food analytical chemistry. Wrolstad, RE, editor. John Wiley and Sons Inc. I1.2.1-I1.2.12. Apricots, which generally receive less attention than peaches Kim, D-O, Padilla-Zakour, O.I. 2004. Processing effect on phe- in NY, proved to be nutritionally richer, possessing twice as much nolics and antioxidant capacity in anthocyanin-rich fruits: phenolic and antioxidant compounds and up to ten times higher cherry, plum, and raspberry. J Food Sci. 69(9): S395–S400. carotenoid content than peaches evaluated in this study. On a Kwasniewski, M, Vanden Heuvel, J., Pan, B. and Sacks, G. 2010. 100 g weight basis, phenolic and antioxidant capacity of apricots Timing of cluster environment manipulation during and antioxidant capacity of peaches were equivalent to those grape development affects C13 norisoprenoid and carotenoid reported for grapes, with ‘Hargrand’ having more than double concentrations in Riesling. J Agric Food Chem. 58(11):6841- the average phenolic and antioxidant content of grapes (USDA, 6849. 2010). Considering the additional presence of carotenoids, Merwin, I. 1994. Growing stone fruits in New York. Cornell these fruits are more nutritionally diverse than either apples or Gardening Resources, Cornell University. (Accessed Febru- grapes. Following current guidelines, apricots can be classified ary 2011). Available at http://www.gardening.cornell.edu/ as good sources of vitamin A, providing on average 30% of the factsheets/ecogardening/growstone.html recommended daily intake for vitamin A per serving (1/2 cup) Noratto, G, Porter, W., Byrne, D., Cisneros-Zevallos, L. 2009. (USDA, 2011). Identifying peach and plum polyphenols with chemopreven- NEW YORK FRUIT QUARTERLY . VOLUME 19 . NUMBER 4 . WINTER 2011 15

tive potential against estrogen-independent breast cancer ryDRIs/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/ cells. J Agric Food Chem. 57(12):5219-5226. RDA%20and%20AIs_Vitamin%20and%20Elements.pdf US Department of Agriculture Nutrient Data Laboratory 2010: USDA database for the oxygen radical absorbance capacity Oluranti E. Campbell is a graduate student working with Dr. (ORAC) of selected foods, Release 2. May 2010. (Accessed Olga Padilla-Zakour in the Department of Food Science at February 2011). Available at http://www.ars.usda.gov/ Cornell’s Geneva Experiment Station. Olga Padilla-Zakour SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/Data/ORAC/ORAC_R2.pdf is a research and extension professor of Food Science and US Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Center. 2011. Director of Cornell’s Food Venture Center. Ian A. Merwin is Dietary reference intakes (DRIs): Recommended dietary al- a professor of Horticulture who specializes in ground cover lowances and adequate intakes. (Accessed February 2011). management of fruit crops. Available at http://iom.edu/Activities/Nutrition/Summa- WWaafflleerr NNuurrsseerryy Quality Apple, Cherry and Pear Trees

CCALLALL TTODODAAYY FORFOR YYOUROUR SPRINGSPRING Custom OFOF 20122012 TREETREE NEEDS.NEEDS. Order for 2014 and SA GiselaGisela 66 && GiselaGisela 1212 VE! CherryCherry RootstockRootstock NoNoww AAvvailable!ailable!

GGrreeaatt TTrreeeess —— GGrreeaatt PPrriicceess!!

10748 Slaght Rd. Wolcott, NY 14590 • Phone: 315-594-2399 • Fax 315-594-8829 Toll-free 877-397-0874 • www.waflernursery.com • E-mail: [email protected]

16 NEW YORK STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY