ARTICLES
Authors: David F. Brown , Olin D. Smith , Charles E. Simpson , Rudi J. Freund , Carl M. Cater
Starr (St), Spancross (Sp), Goldin I (GI) and Florunner (F1) peanuts were grown at Pearsall (latitude 28o 53' N) and Stephenville (latitude 32o 12' N), Texas, with the planting dates adjusted within locations to provide similar environments during pod maturation. Two harvests were made per location with the first harvest approximately 128 days after planting for St and Sp, and 150 days for F1 and GI, and the second harvest 143 and 165 days after the respective plantings. Yields averaged: F1 4,869, GI 4,638, St 4,500, and Sp 4,042 kg/ha. Quality factors including oleic/linoleic acid ratios, oil and protein contents and free fatty acid and peroxide numbers were affected slightly by growing period and location.
Peanut butters representing cultivars, locations, and harvests were prepared and evaluated by semitrained flavor panels prior to and at 40-day intervals during accelerated storage tests at 38°C. Statistically significant differences (p = 0.0001) were found between locations, cultivars and storage periods. Preferences for freshly prepared (0-day storage) peanut butters were St > F1 = GI > Sp. After 6 weeks or more storage the flavor and acceptance ratings of Fl and St were equivalent and much higher than for Sp and GI. Peanut butters from Stephenville-grown cultivars scored higher than Pearsall. Late harvest peanut butters were preferred, p = 0.05. Results indicate Florunner is adapted for production in southern portions of the Southwest peanut area, and the qualities of Florunner peanuts and peanut butter compare favor ably with traditional Spanish peanut cultivars.
Full Article Available as PDF only - Use Download Feature
Keywords: Arachis hypogaea, peanut butter stability, peanut quality, organoleptic comparisons, runner and Spanish genotypes
How to Cite: Brown, D. , Smith, O. , Simpson, C. , Freund, R. & Cater, C. (1976) “Comparative Quality of Florunner and Spanish Peanut Cultivars in Texas¹”, Peanut Science. 3(2). doi: https://doi.org/10.3146/i0095-3679-3-2-10