EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT TREATMENT COMBINATION ON THE ORGANOLEPTIC ATTRIBUTES AND ECONOMICS OF GUAVA & PAPAYA LEATHER

RAJANI SINGH1*, C.S. PANDEY2, R.K. JHADE3, NAMITA PAL4
1Department of Horticulture, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, 482004 Madhya Pradesh, India
2Department of Horticulture, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, 482004 Madhya Pradesh, India
3Department of Horticulture, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, 482004 Madhya Pradesh, India
4Department of Horticulture, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, 482004 Madhya Pradesh, India
* Corresponding Author : rajanis3886@gmail.com

Received : 03-04-2018     Accepted : 12-04-2018     Published : 15-04-2018
Volume : 10     Issue : 7       Pages : 5771 - 5774
Int J Agr Sci 10.7 (2018):5771-5774

Keywords : Guava, Papaya, Mixed fruit leather, Pulp ratio, Colour, Flavour, Texture, Economy, B:C Ratio
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Author thankful to Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, 482004 Madhya Pradesh, India
Author Contribution : Rajani Singh - Principal Author, performed analysis, interpreted data, wrote manuscript and acted as corresponding author. Dr C.S. Pandey - Research Guide, supervised development of work and helped in data interpretation. R.K. Jhade and Namita Pal - Co-Au

Cite - MLA : SINGH, RAJANI, et al "EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT TREATMENT COMBINATION ON THE ORGANOLEPTIC ATTRIBUTES AND ECONOMICS OF GUAVA & PAPAYA LEATHER." International Journal of Agriculture Sciences 10.7 (2018):5771-5774.

Cite - APA : SINGH, RAJANI, PANDEY, C.S., JHADE, R.K., PAL, NAMITA (2018). EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT TREATMENT COMBINATION ON THE ORGANOLEPTIC ATTRIBUTES AND ECONOMICS OF GUAVA & PAPAYA LEATHER. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences, 10 (7), 5771-5774.

Cite - Chicago : SINGH, RAJANI, C.S. PANDEY, R.K. JHADE, and NAMITA PAL. "EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT TREATMENT COMBINATION ON THE ORGANOLEPTIC ATTRIBUTES AND ECONOMICS OF GUAVA & PAPAYA LEATHER." International Journal of Agriculture Sciences 10, no. 7 (2018):5771-5774.

Copyright : © 2018, RAJANI SINGH, et al, Published by Bioinfo Publications. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Abstract

The Present investigation was conducted with the objective to find out the suitable treatment combination of guava and papaya mixed fruit leather and its economic viability in market. Among the 18 treatment combinations, six pulp ratios of guava and papaya i.e. (80%, 70%, 60%, 50%, 40% and 30%) and three levels of sugar i.e. (15 gm, 30 gm, 45 gm per 100 gm) were used for preparation of mixed fruit leather. The oraganoleptic properties of the treatment combination were evaluated. The mixing of guava and papaya pulp in ratio of (80:20) with S2 (30 gm sugar/100 gm pulp) was recorded best. The organoleptic rating of mixed fruit leather showed that the values for flavor decreases while for colour, texture and overall acceptability increases with increase in sugar content. The economics of the treatments was calculated for 1 kg. of mixed fruit leather. The minimum cost was recorded with treatment combination T1 (80%:20%, 15gm sugar/100gm) while the maximum cost was registered with treatment combination T18 (30%:70%, 45gm sugar/100gm pulp). Different pulp ratio and level of sugar were the reason behind the cost difference. Highest B:C ratio was found in treatment combination T4 (50%:50%,15gm sugar/100gmpulp) whereas lowest B:C ratio was recorded with treatment combination T15 (60%:40%,45gm sugar/100gm pulp). Conclusively, it emerges that blending of papaya and guava pulp with different sugar level gave commercially acceptable product.

References

1. Castanon-Cervantes O., Lugo C., Aguilar M., Gonzalez-Moran G. & Fanjul-Moles M.L. (1995) Comp. Biochem. Phys. A., 110, 139-146.
2. Ogle J.T. (1992) Invertebr. Reprod. Devel., 22, 267-274.
3. Amrine M.A., Pangborn R.M. and Rossler E.B. (1965) Principles of sensory evaluation of food academic press, New York.
4. Aravind G., Debjit B., Duraivel S. and Harish G. (2013) Journal of Medicinal Plant Studies, 1(1), 7-15.
5. Babalola S. O., Ashaye O. A., Babalola A. O. and Aina J. O. (2002) African J. of Biotech., 1, 61–63.
6. Baramanray A., Gupta A.P. and Dhawan S.S. (1995) Haryana J.Hort.Sci., 24(2), 102-109.
7. Che man and Taufik Y. B. (1995) Fd Sci. and Technol. Abstracts Tropical Science, 35(3), 245-250.
8. Cherian B. and Cherian S. (2003) Abstracts. J. of Fd. Sci. and Technol. 40, 293-295.
9. Gilani, Imtiaz Hussain, Khan, S. N., Khan, M. R. and Iftikhar Shakir M. T. (2005) International J. of Agril. and Biology, 7, 6, 1038-1039.
10. Harsimrat Kalsi and Dhawan S. S. (2001) Haryana J. of Hort. Sci., 30, 187-189.
11. Jain P.K. and Nema P.K. (2007) Agric. Engg. Intl.the CIGRE J., 9, 1-9.
12. Prasad R. N. and Mali P. C. (2006) Indian J. of Hort., 63, 1, 86-87.
13. Samson J.A. (1986) Tropical fruits. Longman group, UK, p. 2.