sHiffi*
BEAMS
mom m
OHEGOM
A THESIS
submittQd to
OREGOH STASS CQLKGE
in partial fulfillmsnt of
the requirements for the
degyee of
MASTEE OF SCIEMGE
June 1951
APPBOVBD;
r
professor of food TQohnoti
moiogy
M Cbarg® of Hajof
■iMf'ig.f Bm'.Lj.ii^rrrM-iwumx&xQ&tMatzm. \>x...m*iK<i ,i*: 2*ii2mx?fa"TTT^- ia*~^*a!WimJtqm=**
lead of Department of Food Ifeqlmology
CMlrfflaa of Scfcool Graduat® Coamlttaei
rry arir gf.ff a&j»iacnaB WHys
Qeiaa of Graduate School
Date thesis is presents*!
Tjped by Clara Hoaijer
Jfv /^/
Th% author is deeply gratefu}. t© Dsp, Oliver ^»
f/ortiiiagton for suggesting th® subject ®f this iirork
and foff hid guifiaace ancL super^ialou,*
'ladebtedaess is also aoknowledged to Dr, H«
Daewim Eeese who gaf© ©o^st^motlva o^itioism and en*
oouragoaeat t&roughout the work.
fhanlcs are also due to Dae. Thomas' B. Miveiij
Dr* Earl E, Litwilleff and professor Thomas Onsdorff
for their helpful auggcistiojas.
TABJM OF COBraMfTS
gage
Chafftei'
I
3S3TOODUCTIQH .........
1
II
BEYXBW OF XrlTEHAIPURB . . » * .
3
111
BIPlEIlElfia, PRQCBBTJKB . . * *
10
rr
i
A.
Ma^82?ials
.. # . ♦ »
10
B*
stothods of Aaaiysls *
10
BSSTSLfS
4 , . * . ■..' ♦ . « *
17
* . * ♦
17
A.
Fresdntatloji-
So
.Discussion of Results .
17
atMMst Am cmcwsiom « . * .
30
BlBLIOCBaAPfflr
»
»
•
•
APPENDIX
«.
•
♦
♦
»
■#
♦
4
■♦
33
■ ♦■
■•
*
37
USfS OF TIME®
fabl®
I
B©aa Varieties Listed "in Order of Percanfc
Of Seeds by Weight (Wet) ..*♦.*
22
IX
Bean ¥arl©ti®s Llat©a la QrQ&r of Percent
of Pibroua Jlaterial #«»*»«*»
24
IIJ
Beam T^rlttle© tinted %® Oyday o:f Olarltj
Of Liciuoy * * . * . . . . • • . • •
26
I?
Comblaed List izom 22 Vaafi©ti©s Best In
Mil Tkm® ^majLltjr-Faotora . , * *' .
2S
?
List of Varieties Poorest in Tteee
^uailtj faetors
.. ♦*•♦.#..,
28
?X-
duality f@atora tor 40 fa^ietiaa of
Ssap Bdans (Canned) (Two Pioklnga of
a Few Ya2*i&ti0S)
.........
37
Mst of fatlatiQs, Dat© Canned and Bat®
.AiiaJLjzed . * *. « ■. •. * * .# * * * . .
42
Figure i
Quality Faotoys for 40 fa3?l#tie3 of
snap B©®as (banned) * , • * . * . »
59
111
QmiTy WJyLHOTOH OF CiffllES BtBH
SMM> mm& GROW Bl OBBGOB
MfBODUGflOH
Snap '(sfcring, greea) Beauas (Phaseolngi yuligagi^ !«),
tM gart@n varieties developod for ©dlblo pods, are of
two comoa groups;
wax.
©peea-podded and yellowpodded or
fhrougli breeding, tbe "3tringa,s have been so reduc-
ed as to T/arrant th© naaa "stringless", (36, p. 347).
Oregon ranked seoond among all states in the total
tonnage of beans produced in 1946.
It ranked first in
yield obtained per aere» with an average yield 3 tlaes
larger than the national average.
Si Oregon beans are
quite widely grom for canning and freezing.
In 1934*
only 900 acres of beans were grotafti for prooessing.
In
1949, approximately 6,600 acres of land nwre planted to
this crop for canning and freezing> (3, p* 3)*
The cost of picking Pol® Beans Is very high.
Labor accounted for about SO percent of their total
cost of farm production, (10, p. 4).
A aechanical bean
harvester has already been developed, but the ideal
snap bean adapted for the aechanical harvester has not
yet been developed, (38, p. 40).
TMS stm&jr Is an attest to evaluate til© canning
tualitF of 40 vafieties of saap beans gwown. in Oregcm t>y
aofciagg a»a e©spaa?lag t&e factors■:
1.
Percent of seeds
ftjr weigiit (wet ana <aa?F seeas)^ 2.
Percent of fibrous
mtBTiatt and 3.. tio?bi4ity nt*Bito@3? of the canned bean
UqUOJ?*
CHAPTER It
HEVIBW OS L1SHAT0BI
"tiritttmaolc, in his iaTestigations of seeds of Peruvian toabs, found a nmato©? which he identlfiad as
varieibies of Phaseoltia vulgarja and obtained ©fid©noe
©onGlugif© enough ^o eom?ine@ M Gandoile that the
epdolea l& of South Amrlaoxk orleiot,t'($6t p» 347).
fha $.n©p Dean id an lupartaaft and widely gro^n
ifQgstabi© crop with, aanjr faofeors eoatributing %o its
iirid^ distribution*
^hese factors ar© adaptability for
growth on a wide range of soil t#pd8$ th© short period
from planting to usable jaatftritjr whioh allows the crop
to fit easily into cropping systeasf and breeding
ssleotlon whieh has adapt©d the plant to each graat
a^rioulteral region in the tfolted States 5 (4, i>p.
309*311).
S^aaQr (24* pp» 38-46> tells us that the three
idportant factor® of quality for gre^n feeanfl ar$
laaturity, siae, and laek of fibrousaess* H© states
that maturity may b@ iasasured by the proportion of the
weight of s@eds to the pod®j sis© by deteriaining the
fflsan diaaiter froa suture to suture? and fibrousness
fey alkali digestion,
mturity is apparently judged in
various ways* such as ratio of hull to seed, size of
4
pod* ana length of se®<l.
The Ifialted, States staufi^as for grades of oasaeS
^aen beass (30* p# 1) a^e eoaeeyned with the following
factors:
oleggmess of lltttox*, co'lox-j. absaac© of gefeots,.
and fflat;«rlty.
fke relatlvs i^ortano© of eaeto factor Is
ea^rQssed nuaerlcallj 03a the scale of 100.
fh® ffla^liauii
nuaber of points that may be given each factor is:
Folats
1*
Glearndsd of liquev •., •..,.. *
10
&*
vQ*|*w*r
6 O ♦ 0 0 0 O O * # * O > • # ♦ o * * .» » o #
Xp
3.
Absence of d^f^cta ,.*»„*. * ♦■ .*
35
ftj.».
1®.wUrity 9 * o o « e * o * » « • * » a « i <> « »
w»Q
Total Score *««* 100
Ths factor of jaaturlty refers to the degree of
development of gods and seeds and the tenderness of the
pods.
Stark and Mahoney (34* pp* 353-359) have shown
that the parchaent or fibrous eheath of the side walls,
as tuey call its ^s' aotuaHjr in the inner atssooarp*
The
tissue eterts as a on@*celled layer of parenchyma and
later iovelops .Into a region several cells la thickness*
fhese workers, have shovm that' the variety Bountiful
differentiates these -Siaall close«*flttlng parenchmatous
cells into fibers three days sooner than the variety
Giant Stringiass Green Pod, but at twenty days after
anthesls.,, both varieties show equal developiaent and
thiokness ©f the cells of the flbrlllar layer*
fhey
further atUMr that oool temperatures aad abundant rainfall
produce less tbiekeni&g of tl^ese 6tils aafi tliat Mgh
teiqp«rati>rea aeoelerate eell wall tfeieftealne*
Harris'
■(20, pp*. 44*47) Ms sh&m that the- seed weight la ©orre*
lateft with the relative positioa la the pod as mil as
with th© smiab&r of aeada per pod*
€ii3$epp«? <9* pp. 357*1??) stat®at
n
TM iralue of
a»y vegetable as a food product depemds priuaasrily upon.
its coi^Oiiitioii and palatability.
Both are geEeraily
greatly influoaoad by the stage of maturity at which the
aaterial is prepared for m©.n WXm&i «t al, (12^, p.
419) amtioii that'with inoreaaisg maturity at the time
of haaryoat the yield progressively decreased from
2^9$ kg* P©3? acre for imaatur© beans to 734 kg. for
beans haryssted whea markedly ovenoature*
Eraser {2$^, pp. 55-63) states that quality may be
moasured by om of two matbodat
or the objective.,
either the organoleptic
fhe orgaaoiepti© method refers to
evaiuatiom by th® senaea, such as seeing with the unaided
eye,, feeii&g with the fingers., chewing or amtflliag* The
objectiye aethod Is one that la bas@d on th© use of an
■ia©ers©nal instrunient or by cheiaical procedurs-.
The
advantage of the organoleptic method is that the
deteriaiaation i@ made by employing th© very sane s^naes
fc&at are used by %k& cornvmr.
the organoleptic grader
does not possess a fixed point of reference, and for
that reason M may vary coiisiderably from day to day
and oertaii&y Between ©eaeons*
la. soiae cases where the
tuailty evaluations are not fcased on objective measures,
the defiaiiion of the factor of quality is not satis*'
factory-,
fh© objective method, m the other hand,
eiiminat©@ to a l^ge extent this possibility of dis*
agreeiaent beeause it automatically eliminates the hmian
eleaent.
Mo naatter how precise and accurate a Method say
be, it is not v^orth very meh if the determination is
aade oil an unrepresentative saa|>le# if the procedure is
not followed exaotiy, or if the particular instrument
used is not properly adjusted.
Gould |17,: p. ^4) statea that all of the laeasures
Of quality evaluated on canned snap bea»& (seed length,
tenderness, lack of fibes? and clearnees of liquor) were
found to correlate with maturity.
The value found to-
have the highest positive, correlation was seed length,,
fhis would ©eem to be an escellent objective measureaent
of maturity in contrast t© deseeding of the pericarps and
mighiM® the seeds,,
fhe length of the seeds could be
aeasured directly in the field, since wighing equipment
would not be needed and a very reliable indication of
maturity would result,
fhe values proposed as laaxiaiw
to corrsspoad with th& liamature, optiatumj sad aatur©
stages of aaturity are 9, 13, and 17 Millimaterst
respectively, fresh basis.
Glearness of liquor on the
carnied product gave a negatiim oorrelatioa of -0.63 witJH
pereeat by weiglit of seeds,
tt is possible that 6lomdy
lituors ©an be produced by using pieces of saap beans,
extra loag cd«>l£, ©arcessif© agitatloa,, or cloudy water.
$ottld*s laboratory has coastrueted att iastruaent
called the f#^ture©M@t®r, (14* pp» 26*27)» by which the
tenderness of ©aimed beang can be deteriained.
to use and to clean.
It is easy
Maturity in Gould's work was based
on percent of seMs by lueightj that is., the pods were de^
seeded and the seeds weighei.
Sables with B percent ©r
less seeds were considered grade 1 or imniature* 6 t© 16
peroent war® graded B ©r optiaua, and those with seed
content from 16 to 25 percent were graded c or mature♦
One of the iaajor problems confronting the snap
bean processors today is the masiauii tolerances set by
the Food and Srug Mainisfcratlon for fiber in the canned
product.
This value was originally (1947) set at
0*12 percent.
However, in ^une 194® the tolerance was
raised to 0.15 percent^ since few processors could meet
this lower level, (16, pp. 42-44).
The rapid procedure
set. up by Howe and Bonney was the method used in
determining the fiber content.
Th® Food and Drug Admisilstration (13, p. 3726) an*
aotmoed that th® details of t&e ohaMoal ntethod for
deteraiaing fibrous material ham not hem suffioisntljr
olear,. and suggested that a few eiiangas la its ward lug
\?otild joake it ©asi©r to apply,
the following ©panted
deseriptlon should b© used:
"fransf©r to tho metal ouf of a jaaltadlailk stirxer and mash with a pestlct. Was>h
aaterial adhering to th® pestl© back into
oup with 200 oc. of boilins water,. Bring
jolxture nearly to a b0il.# add 25 oo* of 50
peroent (by weight) sodium hydrosld© .solution and bring to a boll.. •(If foaming is
eattesaitre* 1 oo* of oapryl aleohol. nay b@
added.) Boil for 5 ainuta$., then stir for
5 aintttss with a aalted^iailk atirrer eapabi©
of a no-load sp@ed of at least 7200 r.p.m#
Use a roter with t\?o scalloped buttons.
Transfer th© Material from the cup to a
previously weighed 30-;ffl!3Sh aonel metal
sereen having a diaaister of. about 3i to 4
inohes and side x^alls about. 1 ineh high,j
and wash fiber on the screen with a stream
of. water,: using a pressure not exceeding a
head (vertical distance between upper level
of water and outlet of glass tube) of 60
inches, delivered through a, glass tube 3
inches long and 1/8 inch Inside diameter,
inserted into a rubber tube, of k inch inside
diameter, fash the pulpy portion of the
material through the scre#n and continue
washing until the remaining: fibrous material,
aolstened with phenolphthalein solution*
doe® not show any red color, after standing
$■ minutes. Again wash to remove phenolphtha*
lein,, DBfy the screen Qontaining the fibrous
material for 2 hours at 100° C*» cool, and
deduct vjeight of screen. Divide the weight
of fibrous material, by the weight of combined
deseeded pods, trimmings, and strings and
multiply by 100 to obtain the percentage of
fibrous material*"
JPercemt hy w©iglifc fiber (i5# pp., 26^70);
Acdord-
lag to aoujUlj, tm m^imm tor jgpeAQ A ©iioutM M 0,05 per*osat, for gro^e B O.IO peroant* ®nd for gfr&Se 0 0*15
peyoeaf*' ^ tlto eanmet pm&mk, varieties t£tat liQ' fowisa
tft M@tJ tM fi'ter dtandarfts 'of 0.15 p^rceat m& p©rc©at
fef n^ight of seada ima©r 16 peroent or la tte g^ad© A and
B range t»res Idaho Eofugs©., Oiant St^lagXess^ areen
m&t: Arngtrnt Stringldas GF©@n Poa^ ana kemas^tfes*' Striag*
l^ss Orcrea P©d«. Varieties that toejfe def in&tdly msultabie
for eaaniag t»etf« Boaatifislf fejm©sse© Grasa Poa,- Hopkias
Sarlidat B@d ?ax©atia$j 3iir© Crop Was, Striagless Blaek
faiaatiaa,, Florida 8eil«# strlagia^s H#fu^e@>, U» s. Ba*'
fixgae: »©■» 5, iE^rovad Ooffiaiodora.* Pamoll Pod Black Was,
aad icaystoiiian (19, p* Z$U
Slagel {3Z,. p* 18) aisalyised roQnd*>pod Aggrow
Strlaelaaa sraaa tean© w&ioh wera paokad In Wasfcera
BSaryladdtt Seat peroentaee wa® 3,7 to 14.6. fiteroua
loatarlal paroaataga rajagad from 0.003 to 0.069*
ooaeluaas tMt:
Gould
"Fifeeip is m i^aas of quality for eachvariaty at tjbd dlffere&t stagas of maturity,
and thm it should ba avaluated aoeordiaglyj
(16, pp. 42**44). fMs fact suggdata tliat
proaeaaora mmt Mr® varieties- avaluated
t^ltliia thair owa product ion araaa. If
C'liraatio aoaditlona do affact fiber daveldp*
meatj or praoaaaara eaaaot raly wholly on
seadaan*a atataaaata as to the aoauat of fiber
in th@ particialar varlatlaa at tJa© dlffarant
atagea of maturity."
10
CIPPM III
A.
Matgriala
Data viBTB ofetalnad on forty varieties of bush snap
todana (Table ?l) grovm is Oregon by the Horticulture Department of Oregon State College and oaaned by the Food
Teohaology Department in July, 1950, using a regular
bean oanning proeeas (8, pp. 220-223)«
fliere were a few
replieated lots and a few seooni pio&isgs'.
Those which
have numbers only wore from the Tftiited States Department
of Agrioultur© trials,
After four months storage at the
•warehouse of the Food feclmology Department m opened
each variety of beans and tested them for three quality
faotors by the ©bjeotive aethods described below.
These
tests were run for every variety until the deviation of
the two results appeared reasonably irredueible.
£« .yethods of, Analygjg
Each variety of canned bush snap beans was analyzed for the following:
1,
Percent of seeds by iifeight
(wet and dry seeds)
2,
Fibrous material
3,
Turbidity number
IX
fft® iMthods of analysis were:
I* Pegceat of, Beeda ,by..welglit. (waft,and dry, seeds)
a.,
l&tseedfl*
The ganoral standard method
for detarmiaiiag th® poreant of seeds "by weiglat was follow*
^d with little oh&ngs, (3lf pp. 620*628).
the contents of the oan were transferred to a eontainer.
Two cens of water were added. Mixed, and spread
on an S-mesh screen.
The screen was tilted as much as
possible without shifting the beans, and they were drained for 2 jaiautea exactly by using an interval timer.
One hundred fifty grana of drained beans were
iireighed out.
The seeds t?©re separated fro® the pods by
u&ing a knifef and separated into aluminum weighing
boxes*
The seeds ($) and pods (B) mt® weighed
separately*
From these %%m weighings, the percent of seed by
v&igfet was calculated in this formula:
The pods were weighed accurately on a triple*beam
balance to the nearest 0.1 gsa. and estimated to 0.05 gm*
The seodd were weighed on an analytical balance to
greater accuracy.
12
b
*
Pgy.floedq*
The aethocl fot aetermina*
tioa of th© poroeat; by vjgigkt of da?jr seoda was aotj la tlid
literature.
It was tlouglit ttot it would be "better to
mafee dotermlaatioiss on the dry soedaj l^eoause imter
eolleeted oa th© seeds when thejr were foei&g pieked from
the pods*
fo get th© true weight of seeds« the aXumlaum
box of wet seeds
ITOS
d^ied in a 100° 0. oven foa? 2 hours,
cooled in a dssiecator, aad weighed oa an analytical
balanee* fereemt by weight ©f dry seeds was oaloulated
itt the same way as of wet seeds.
2* Fiteoua material.
The method Mop ted foa? the
fibroma »ater|al determination was eaientially that of
R©$e and Bonney {3%, pp.. 630*626),
One hundred grams.of
the pods, whloh had been separated froa the seeds, were
xselghed* fhase pods were out into pieces approximately
i| inch in length*
This cutting was done as the seeds
?jere pieteed from the pods. The samples were pulped in a
large mortar for flire minutes esaetly, without stopping j
and in the sane manner each time.
The pulp sauries
were transferred to the metal cup.of a malted jtoilR
miser with 200 oc. of boiling water to which was added
§ gras of paraffin.
The isistures were brought to a
teaiper&ture of 99° 0*» ^ad 25 ce. of 50 percent sodium
hydroxide solution were added.
hydroadd© solution
ITOS
(The 50 percent aodlum
prepared by disuol-rihg 50 graws
13
$oaium hyd£Oxi&® in tii© 100 ml, distilled wat^r,)
JUttertmrto sodlun hydroxide solution vm& added %®
th© mlztures*
Their xmv* foiled ©ss^otly 5 Mnutes; th©n
tftoy were atlirred for ©xastly 5 aimtes with a malted
milk stirrer (oapable of a ao-le&d speed of at least
7200 2*.-p.m#).
Th$ mixtures ware filtered witli suction
tferougfe a tared 30«-m&h mo&l metal d&resn fitted iato a
BueMer funael..
Vhd pillp was tmaiiQd tteougii the sereen with a
i^ineh stream of boiling distilled Tester.
After washing the fiber on the screen free of
alkaiinity (1*1,5 liters of water), it •was further washed
with a stream of boiling water until the pulp was reiooved
and the washings w&awj ©Mar.
torn and one-half liters of
boiling distilled water was?© used for ©trersr test,
fh©
food and Drug Adaini^tratioa method {13$ p. 3726) has
the dis-advantsge that a standard voiuias of wash xirater is
not called for*
■fhe screen and fibe^ were dried at 100° 0* otwwi
for 2 houra> cooled in a desioeator,. and vjeighed on an
analytioal balance.
fhe differene© in weighings vms reported as
fibrous material*
It was noticed that the original Rowe and Bonney
aetliodS' 13i» PP« 620*628) gave such direotione asj
14
a4 ^Pttlp the saapie in a large atprtar.1* Pe our-*
9©.iw© sat/ that a time length is adeeseary f©3? this
piftpiag* th« loager we pv&$M* the less fi:fe©x» we got,.
S© ?/$ pulped every eas&le foi? 5 aiuuteg aad easeroteed
oare t©' t^|> the S'a«^a,e tudt&raHy^
b.
6i,
S?iiig the wlxtuye to a boil aad add .aodima
hFtoosi«a©..w Sto^e it is iiffieult to detexmine the tigtt
tii© t© add sodiua- hytoosdde (gfeOE), because the eontaiaei'
10 mt&X and deep^. we Added HaOH whea ea^h aample ?ms at
'99° C, aad «» eoutiaued hsatiBg it tor esaetly 5 aiautesj
£o? if ^y tfer© boiled jptof nove thas 5 Ml&mtes, it iirould
^i©id im? fiber*
c« "W^ah the f ibejr usatil the pulp is removed and
washiugs a^e 6lea?+* It is'hard to tell whether or not
the mnhiugs are clear beoause email pieces of pulp are
al^ay# jpreeeat* We u$ea eseaetly 2*1 liters of water for
washing eaoh test* The aor® water we used, the less
fiber w® got* *
5?h©^© t-hre© ia©ro¥@aeats of Rowe and Bonney
methods were 'made by the Food and Drug Adoinistratloit
ale©,, but is different ways, (13, p.-3726):
3. turbidity;,.Mumber^ the torbidity tester of
Eertesa (.23, pp. 15-16} m® used for deteraining the
turbidity nutaber of bean liquor, The can was shaken
15
five timB up m&. &om m in bacteriology laboratory
teoh&taue* aai then it vjas opema.
^ke liquid was pour-
ed into tli© tostsr, and the nunfee? was r©a<a as rapidly
as possible.
fM Tupfeldlty Tester coasists of a pair of trredge*
shaped eoataiia©.ra obtained by diagoaal separation of a ,
bo^lik© structure ooastruoted from Plexiglas- or asy
other traaspareat material#
9*5 x 12.8
OM..
It ha^ two side walls of
dimQasioas* held together by tw® aarrou
plates | 2.5 x ;U*d «m* ia si&e.
The a true tare thuis
foriaid is opea on the bottoa aad the top but ie diagonal*
Jjr divided bjr a plate oa which a ereale is ©agraved.
For the determiaatioaj the top sectioa of the
iastrument is filled with the test liquidf aad then the
ob9erv©r*e vieioa ie directed horiJ5oatally from the
direotioa of the narrow side of the iastrument throu^gh
the liquid aad toward the dividiag plate with the
soale*
^he laet line which is still visible through the
liquid columa is establishedf aad then this poiat is
read to the aeayest 0,25 or 0,50 unit oa the scale*
Siaoe the scale indicate a the thieitnesa of the liquid
eolufiaa ia oeatiaeters at my of the different levels,
the reading, called the "furbidity luaber0 or Wf will
iadicate the maximum distance in centiasters through
ti?hioh the scale is vieible*
16
tt is 3?eo0mmended that tiie observer hold the device away fro® the light,, with th© major light source
behind his baok.
Within reasonable limits, the intensity
of the light and the coloring of the test llg,uld do not
affect the $8 values obtained.*
reading easier.
aood light aakes the
When a reading is eoajpleted, the test
liquid is poured out and the coatainer is rinsed,
fhereupon the device is turned upside doxm and the top
wedge is used for the next test while the other drains
.and dries*
17
A. Pyeaemtiatioa
The c©fl©l9|@ liaft of saap bftana {ghag®©i.us imlaqi?*
j^s. L*)
aud th© i^fsiiits of th& analyses az*© preeoated in
the 4ppdn&£x Ta^le VI* fhia tefel® shoifs for ©very
imjjistj of ^idiis. pexoeBt of mt se«a» b^ iTOigM* percent
of Sry seed® by weight, p$re*nt of fibrous material, aad
turbidity ausaber of iiqtt^.j iaeludiiig also their averages
aM d©Tiafeioas*
"fable VI! toeiudeg idantiifioatlon of tm beaas,.
date they were earned, aad date opeaed.
The raft? data from the Appeadisc Table ?! mm rearraaged in fables I* II, aad JH t© list the varieties
aad piekiags la order of aerit for each objective quality
faetor iavestigated.
■s* Dlsenssien .&£ Heaults
•«W
■»
1ii«|ii'-«i~. I
!•
III I!'
HI II!1 I r
njj- mi
HI
mi.
,
«. ii
Pereeat of pjet seeds by weight:
la the
Appeadisc appears fable ?1 which sununarizes the results of
perceat of wet seeds aad pereent of deviatioa.
Table 2
re-arraagea the varieties from Table TX ia order of
pereeat of seeds by weight.
The raage of perceat of
seeds ia bet1pa©a 2.02 aad 7.14 perceat as showa ia
is
fatel© I*
AXX BempleB haying leas than $ psresat seefia
a3?@ olaaslfied as gra4e A i»j Gould ♦s standasrda, (15,
pf>* 26*70).
fh@ 14 best varieties of ^eaas (Table 2?) hem
2.02*3.65 psrcseiat w@t seeds.
top Mti%h 2.402 pdpee&t«
'|a tiiia list Rival is on
W@ agree with otJuar workera
(19f p» 3$) tliat Bi^al is tbe be^t variety for percent
ts^t: se^d|: toeoaua* it giv©^ a vetf low peyeajatag® of ■
0@@ds*
(fable IV* >
0©^ «o Bival tfaakis ^li© new %ited States Bapart*
aQut of Agrie'altur© variety B" 2334'*1-1 with 2*05 percent
vj©t d96ds«
fliie va^ietr is also present ia the list of
varieties vfaleh. ma eo^piled from the 22 lest varieties
ia all ttoee quality factors (Sable 2V) for pereeat
fiber and tlftantasft of liquor of oamxed beaai*
/ Whan pioklns the seeds from tto pods and putting
thea into tha aluaia:um bosc, auoii ear© was esseroised ia
order not So colleot tmter with the seed^.
^his speoial
oare i^: aaeded tohan the seeds are amail in si^e because
in eueh oasea it Is difficult to pick the seeds without
ooileeting water, asad aoae inaocuraoy In the data aay
result.
2.
Percent of .dry, seeds by wei^ghti
from Appendix
fable VI we can see that the figure of percent of dry
19
deed* for tMm forty varieties, of isaap Mm® lias between
0,22 ani 1.16 pevoeat*
'fth® deviati@a of the rasulta is
v$3?y fo%g& ooaparea with tho wafc se®as data*
Pertopg the
iraryliig ^ises of tlie saeds oause them to eontaia differssit amounts of water, and in addition to instrusaental
error,, give these large percentage deviations in the results.
Algo this method is more ©pensive because it
rdCLUives iaore pooer, ffiore equipMant, and more tia©*
therefor®, it is not satisfaetorf, and no separate table
liatlng'the varieties aeeording to this factor was
eoi^ilei.
fiber)*
£toe figures for the fibrous material of forty
varieties bush snap beans show a range of 0.006-0,207
pereent (Table II)*
Bifferent varieties of even approxi*
mafeely the aame peroent wet seed give different peroe&t*
^ges of fiber*
from these varieties w© picked the 22 beet
varieties with a fiber eontent of 0*QO8«Q*G?1. percent*
fwenty^tw© varieties were chosen in order to have
Toporop* an in^ortant new variety* appear on all three
lists,
Eival variety ^^as in this list with 0*011 percent
fiber,
From these lists of 22 best varieties,, including
fopcropi which were selected for wet seeds, fiber and
turbidity jiUBber, we found only 14 varieties present on
20
all tiis?©© lists.
Some varieties are near the top ©sa ©a®
of the lists* but rask as infeidoi? on aaotfaar.
for ©s-*
aapls, tJhte mv Waited States Dapajptosnt of i^isultur©
variety,,. B 1229-1*2*6, is 5th m the wet sesas list
(Table !)> but 29t& oa tM fib©2?' list {Table II).
Topozo® is tli© nth best irariety (Tahls i?}.
This
r©suit for fopc»op does not quite agree with Wfegener
(35* pp* 54-56) ana SSautosye^ 089- p, 40)^ but ©us? var*
ieti©s ware ftot thd sam^ as tteiys iia evory iastano0.#
Wm d&unplet they ©e^ajed Toperop with Tende^greciny
Stfingleas G^e^E Pod* Stri&gless Black Taliatiae,,. ©te.j w©
did not test these va^i^tias*
3& general t wa fomd a low fiber eoatent iu heea
varieties*
Perhaps the o-linatie oOBdition eamsed this
result in 1950*
State*
Staris and Mahoaey D49 pp. 353*359)
n
l% appears that ©onditioas of high t©iaperat«re
and low- rainfall have an aoeelerating affect oa cell
mil thickening*"
4-
furbid.it^.Mt^ber;.
^a Appendix Table V3Et im
ha?e reeorded the result of this work,
(fable xxz)
In general,, ne found that the higher the fiber,, the
lower the turbidity nwaber*
A low turbidity nimber
indicates cloudy eanned bean liquor..
We did not find any other results oited in the
21
iiterafcyra, because the us© of a turbidity toater of
K&rteBz (23 f p* 3*5) Is s® new In this ft©lfi that reatats
of testa fame not yet been reported»
Rapid
6E<I
ddpdncl-*
abl© yegt&ts ©an be e>btain®d i^itfe this tester.
Of f ole Beans vm ran 4 varieties*
fli®y yielded.
Wtfy bieb tu^biSity nuabsrs, bigher than that of all
buib beans isssjept United States Dspa^tsent o£ A^ieuiturQ
%$15 1**7*1»2 frepXloate), Naturally^ it is not possible
to iaake a final eonelusion baa^t on any one factor•
(Tabl® 111).
(Jwfe
SABLB 1
Bean fariaties Listod in Order of Porceat
of Seeds ^jgr ITeig^f (Wat)
- -.
— .—
1
2
3
It
5
6
7
8
9
XO
n
12
13
Hi
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
2k
2$
26
27
28
29
30
varieigr
~ "* "*CSTB.AT
—■ - J^T^L - Rival
B 233^1-1
B 2869
B 288Mt*l
B 1229-1-2-6
B llt82-5-3-2
Pole baans FH 6$
l5l$~l-7-l-2
B 2095-1-2
Puregold
B 2669
Tondorlong
B 1661-7
Pol© beans 2066
B 22U8-1
Topcrop
SSGCA-^002
B
B
B
B
B
1801«4i
1763
11*68-1-17-12
11*68-1-17-12
lSl£-l-7-l-*2
wmk
Rival
B 2096-k~l
B 1763
2095-1-2
B 1762
B 1733
Topcrop
Bed© beans 2006
L* Schreiberj
Helva vtmL
Pol© Beans
Associated 231
s """" fmd' - - " ~ ~ •~ r "P@rc@n£ ojf" ~
0
! ^octoolo^ Code^ _ ^ _ ,- L H ! S^S^L, -. (ff* 7>
(PI, 16)
(tt* 28)
(Ff i. 31)
(Fi** 19)
(Pf. 52)
(n; 6k)
(fT. 58) (repUcate)
m* 60) (r©plicat©)
(Ft. 61) (replicate)
(FT* 38)
(Fil* 21)
(FT* la)
(St*
(f?*
(ff *
(W*
(PT*
(f*;
(Ff.
(Ff*
39)
18)
26)
62) (replicate)
29)
17) (2nd picking)
27)
53) (2nd picking)
(Ff *
(ff*
(ff.
(Ff.
(Ff.
(FT*
(If*
(FT*
(FT*
30)
20)
63) (r^jlicate)
15)
1*9)
1*5)
lit) (2nd picking)
21*)
59) (replicate)
(Ff * 12)
2.02
2.05
2.18
2.26
2.27
2*30
2.30
2*1*1
2.53
2.51*
2*91*
3.06
3.09
3*13
3.11&
3.25
3*1*3
3*W*
3*56
3.65
3*70
3.73
3.95
3*97
1**02
1**15
1**16
1**31
k&L
1**1*1
1**1*7
1**57
1**59
1**68
23
f AHLE I " Continued
MVM
«.«. - Jf^^iP^ -«*-.«.-.-.-.«.-.*.«.-.
•**
31
n
31
3k
30
36
37
38
39
^40
*" ** "CSTDTAT
— -. -^P^3! ,
Shwegold
B 9126
B 2637
B 1762
Ictegreen
B 1755-1*1
B 2095-1^2
Logan
Contender
«•* m
T * Food"
: fechnolo^; Ged©^
J
,-
":"" fercenE of" "*
- L lei Se«c^
(Pf. 11)
(Ff,.25)
(Ffl,* 6)
(ff,,56)
(FT.. 36)
, k)
m<
(It,, 10)
.m
(2nd picking)
(ff,
(Hf,. 9)
(VS.. 3)
•& All vas*i©ti©3 are griad© A by Gould's standards.
li.95
5.01
5.07
5.10
5.^3
5.57
6.06
6.50
6.90
7.111
24
fABLE II
Bean Varieties tisted in Order of ?erc©nt
of Fibrous l&t@i?ial
Fsreent of
<
Fibroias
«»^Ts^i^y*,
1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Hi
15
16
17
18
Puyegold
Rival
B 2095^1-2
Puregold
1515-1*7*1-2
B 221*8-1
fendergreen
l»ol© foeasia 2066
B 1762
B 1661-7
Rival
B 288^-4-l
Pol© Beans
Associated 231
Toperop
B 2096*ii-l
23
B 2637
B 233l;-l-l
B 1763
fenderlong
Pole Beans Fl 65
B 2669
B 1801-U
B 11*68-1-17-12
fopcrop
Pole beans 2006
Idagreen
2k
B l$l$~l-7-l-2
25
26
27
28
29
30
B 1763
19
20
21
22
B Hi68-I~17-12
2095-1-2
B 9126
Logan
B 1U82-5-32
«=. «•w
«a*
OK*
me*
mm- *»*
**»
•*"■
•«»•
•■o*
(ff,, 6l)(Eeplicato)
(W,. 7)
(ff,, 60)(Replicat©)
(Ft..11)
(ff,( 08)(Eoplicat©)
(n%. 39)
(Ff,. 62)(R@plicst©)
(F5?,.Ht) (2nd picking)
in.,1a)
(w,, 63)(Replicate)
(if.. 31)
(Ff,► $9)(Replicate)
(Ff.. 150
(Ff,. 28)
(W,. 6)
(Ff..16)
(Ff,, 17)(2nd picking)
(Ff,. 21)
(FT,►
,
(Ff,,
(Ff,.
m,
38)
29)
ft)(2nd picking)
18)
(Ff,► 36)
. 30)
(FT,f h9)
(Ff,.27)
(W,► W)
(F¥,. 25)
(Ff.. U3
(Ff,.52)
m.
MW
4p
» - J^^S^i
0.008
0.011
0.011
0,012
O.OII4
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.017
0.017
0,018
0.018
0.019
0.020
0.020
0.022
0.022
0.022
0.022
0.022
0.023
0.02U
0.02U
0.031
0.031
0.032
0.035
0.035
0.036
0,037
0.039
0.0U0
0.0U0
25
TABLE II * Continued
l^rcent of
Fibrous
- - I^i0!^1-,.
_. ?ari©^r
■31
32
33
31*
35
36
*37
W538
•{H3*39
KKifliiO'
B 1229-1*2-6
MGCA^002
B 1755*1*1
B 20^5*1*2
HGGA
B 1762
B 1733
Contender
L. Sefereiber
Helva wax
B 2568-1
(Wf.
(Ff.
(Fr.
(FT.
(ST.
(FT.
(FT.
(W.
19)
26)
1^)
10)(2nd picking)
20)
56)
2U)
9)
(Ft. 12)
(FJ. 3)
O.0U2
OaOWj
0.0145
0.0UB
OaOliS
OaOW
OaOU?
0.067
0.1114
0.207
■» 411 preceding are Grade J> by Gould's standards
■m
0rad©-B by Gould's standards
***
Graid© 0 by Gould's standarda
•iHKK>
Qmde .substandard by Gould's standards
26
3&BLE III
Bean Varieties Listed in Order
of Clarity of Liquor
Turbidity
?ari£t^
1
1515*1-7*1*2
(F£* 58) (replicate)
Pol^ b©an M 6$
Pol© b©an 2066
ML® Bean
Associated 231
Fol© bdsaa 2006
2
3
k
5
$
7
8
9
10
11
15
33
U*
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
tk
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
B 233lt-l-l
f©ndBTgemn
B 9126
Puregold
B 22140-1
B 2669
Pur^gold
Hival
B 1229-1-2-6
Tenderlong
2095-1-2
B 1763
B 11*82-5-32
B 2095*1-2
L. Sohreiber
(Helva wax)
1 2869
B 2096-U-l
B 1762
B 1763
foperop
B 180l-li
B 288U4t-l
B 1515*1-7-1*2
Idagresn
B 1762
B 1661-7
foperop
B 2637
B 2095*1-2
B 1733
Bival
11)
39)
38)
61) (r^)lieat®)
7)
19)
21)
1*5}
U9)
52)
60) (replicats)
8.50
6.00
7.75
7.50
7.25
7.00
7.00
6.75
6.75
6.50
6.50
6.50
6.5o
6.50
6.5o
6.50
12)
28)
15)
1U)
17)
18)
29)
31)
30)
36)
56)
Ul)
59
6
10
2h)
63)
6.25
6.00
5.75
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.00
5.00
5.00
U.75
lu75
li.5o
U.00
U.00
luoo
rs. 16)
FE. 62) (replicate)
ff. 25)
Pf.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
Ff.
(FT.
(FT.
(FT.
(FT.
(FT.
(FT.
(Ff.
(FT.
8.50
8.50
8,50
(2nd picking)
(2nd picking)
(replicate)
(2nd picking)
(replicate)
2?
TABLE III - Continued
Turbidity
JTariet^
53
3k
&
36
37
38
39
20
Logan
B 1^68*1-17*12
B X755-1-1
C<xifc©nd^r
laocui
B lli68-l-17-12
B 2568*1
MGai-5002
(FT.
(FT.
(PT.
(FT.
(FT.
(FT.
(FT;.
(W.
(replicdte)
53) (2nd picking)
20)
27)
3)
26)
3.75
3.50
3.5o
3.5©
3.50
3.25
aa
TAM I?
Combined Idst From 22 Varieties
Best in Ml Three Quality Factors
Percent of fereent of
'!2fet Seeds
Fiber
fSr(CB)
Variety
1
g
3
it
S
6
7
B
9
10
n
12
13
HA
Rival
B 233U-1-1
B 2869
B 288l|-^l
151^-1-7-1-2
B 2095-1^2
Furegold
B 2669
fenderlong
B 22U8-1
Topcrop
feadergreen
B 1801-k
B 1763
(ff. 7]
(FT.16]
(fT.28]
(FT .31)
(FT.58)
(FT.60)
(FT.61)
(Ff.38)
(FT.21)
(FT.39)
(FT.18)
(FT.62)
(FT.29)
(FT.17)
(rspHeate)
(replicate)
(replicate)
2.02
2.05
2.18
2.26
2.1*1
2.53
ZSh
2.914
3.06
3.1!A
3.2p
(replicate)
5.hk
y.%
3.65
Oil
022
020
018
Oil*
Oil
008
,022
016
031
016
021;
022
6.50
7,75
6.00
5.56
8.5o
6.50
6.75
6*75
6.50
7.00
5.50
7.50
5.50
5.50
TABLE ?
tist of Varieties Poorest in Three Quality Factors
Percent of Percent of
„ ]M. Seeds _ _ Fiber
?l(£m2
Variety
1
2
%
k
5
6
B 2568*1
Contender
kegan
B 1755-1-1
Idagreen
B 1762
(FT. 3)
(FT. 9)
(FT.U3)
(FT. k)
(FT.36)
(FT.56)
7.lJi
6.90
6.50
5.57
5.23
5.10
0.207
0.067
0.0U0
0.01*5
0.032
0.0U8
3.25
3.50
3.75
3.50
5.oo
5.00
FIG. I
.28
n
E
u
o
UJ
.24
c
.20
6
2
>-
Q TURBIDITY NO.
UJ
*
a>
il
Z
UJ
UJ
z
o .16 ■
u
i
K
CE
UJ
a. .12
a.
8
QUALITY FACTORS
FOR 40 VARIETIES OF
SNAP BEANS
(CANNED)
B WET SEED
■ FIBER
(/>
29
( FROM TABLE VI )
5
o
'~6
.08
4
.04-
2
6
4
2
0 J
0 J1
0J
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
12
10 -i
8
6 ■
4 .
2
0
16 ■
21
.16
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2S)
30
8
14
12
n
.12 ■
r
r |
j
10
.08
4
2
.04
0
0
4-
n
n
- 0 □
\\i H
31
32
33
91
34
h\
35
136
k
37
FU
38
i
39
-^M
8
6
40
30
SHiflART MB COSGLtBIOHS
fMs iav©sti@ation was an attempt to evaluate the
tualitjr of 40 varieties (includiag a few repiieatoa) of
hmh ^nap beaas (Fhaseolua M^^^ft 4* ^ g3?WEi ia OregoE,
BoXe varieties vrer* iaoluded for cojafai'i.soB.
Tile work
this year was p^elimiEary and of th® aaturo ©f sereaaisag
tests
%Q
seleet tbe iaost promising varieti©® tot further
e;osi>ariaotts •
fh® foliowiag faotors were uged as quality
indioaas
I, Fayoent ©f wet saeds by t&lghts
ROW© and Boimejr «tliod
2o percent of dry seeds toy welgbtt
a new uatliod
3. Peyceiit of fibrous' material;
aodif iad Howe and Bomiey aethod
4.
Turbidity Humbert
ICertesz* device
Mditioaal data on these beans have been obtained
by othar werfesra.
Brying the seeds in the oven before v/eighj^g increased the deviations of the results and was thus
proved t© be an unsuitable method.
for percent of fibrous aaterial determination,.
loprovejasnte in techniques over Roxf© and Boaney
method© were made on pulping time, on the teqpereture of
31
thu solmtioa vtfmzk adding sodliM byteoxytep and ©a t^e
use of a staiiiatd ir©l«®e ©f xmsh water.
Eertes^* deiriee (jag'# p» 15) for detezmini&s turbiditi' of liquor was found valuable aad ooairenieiit.
TMre
are n© data yet to tli© literature, m it© use for oanaed
snap beaaS:}. tli#refore:, the reeulta: here eamiOt. be
pared wltlj, the work of other intestlgators*
OOM*
The data
Mm reported om. Mlp is t&e f uturt drawing up of grade
standards for olatity of liquor of eawied aaap beaas.
Tb® ratr data fro© tke Appead&c.ftable Vl were
JW*
arranged in fables 1, ll, aad 111 to list tin farietiea
a&d pic^iag^ in ord^r of jasrit for eao'H ob|Qctite
quality factor inirestigatei.
0f thd 23 best varieties, includiag foporop, which
were tested for wet seeds, fiber a&d turbidity .auaber, we
fouad oaly 14 irarietiea present on all three lists of
best varieties# as follows:
1* Bival
2. B 2334-1*1
3,
B 2869
4* B 28g4-4-l
5#
1515*1-7*1*2
(replioate)
&•
B 2095*1*2
(replioate)
7*
Pureeold
(replicate)
8*
S 2669
32
9. Xeudeylong
XOo
B ZZkB"!
H♦
foperop
12',
$9iiaarg£edn
i3.
B 1801-4
X4.
B 1?63
(srdpxieata)
A mti&xj of the litQpature oa' Tarietios of aaap
^?a;aa (F^aaeolua vaa.^aria 1,.) for prooessing has bees.
presented*
33
X* AmerA^ea Gaa Gofflpaay. SJhe oasmod food voifotfo&eo
.aautial,. 3M ad* Sew DorK« H»T«, EogeyS'*
Eeliogg'^Stlilaoa.j 1947»
2* Association of Official Agrloql.tiiral C&eiaiats.
Official and tooLtative ffi©t^©da of analysis.
itk fd# Wasiiisigton 4s B.-CsA.O.A.C., 1945»
134 p*
3.. BO'situ©tt A» G.» B-. QrT&ed&g saap baaa© for matfcet
and for.saaufaotiwsi* ' Coxirall.is«, Oregon*.
■O^^oft atat© College Ssfeanaloki So^ioe^ 1950,
(Bulletisi 705)*
4* Caldwellj Joseph 3.« aai Charles W* Culpepper.
Snap beaa varieties suited to dehydratioa*
Canning Age*
24:309-31.1, 313* Iteyt ^943*
and 24s363-i364* 366*. 36S. jToae* 1943 »■ and
24:420* 4229 424* &&?» 1943.'
5. Qaiqplvailg- Clyde H« Oaii|>ballf's bo©^:; a mnual oa
oaaniag, plclslin^ &a& preserving* 3rd ed«
Chicago,: Vance,, 195Q» 3© P»
6.
C:®najyig frada. Green and ii?as beaa- standards
amended* The Canning Trade 70*7~$, 19-20,
24* 194©*
7* Chatfield, Charlotte, and Georgian Adams* Pros!*
iaate oo^osition of fresh vegetables.
WasMngton,. D*C.*, Ihitsd States Depaptnaut of
Agriculture^ January, 1931* (Circular 146).
®*. Cruess, W* v« Qomaerolai fruit and vegetable
products'* 3rd ed* Seif TorJ^, Mc0raw*Hiii,
194S* 220*223 p.
9o Culpepper, C. W» !l?he Effect of stage of maturity
of the snap bean upon its compositions and
its use as a food product. Food lesearch
1057*377. 1936*
Davis, Q* B.., and D# Curtiia MUEjford. Cost of
producing Pole Beans in the Willamette Yalleyj
§regon* Corvallis, O.S.C* Ixperiment Station,
April, 1943. (Bulletin 452)*
34
3.1. ©©Tiin, SdttB0th Arfeiauy* Determinal;ion of plQM,
m%iaatityt m& vitsMu C in single harvest Izmh
snap beeaa* CortmiXid}- Oregon^ M*S« the&ls
at tetg©& St at® 'Coll$gQ# 1949*"
12« fl^mn^ S>'a'Wa M*p et ai#. Bfffst of aattirity on
ntifrioats of aa^p beans* tToumal of the
MmlQm Pi&tetlo 'A8060iatldtt 23? 415*419. 1946,
13.. Food aa4. Brug Aiiatelstrationi. iaaaea nregetabJUa*'
mttoXttOM and atan^MfAd of idaaiityi quality
ant fill of eoataintr* Oanaed g3?©en fetans and
eaanei wax tuaana. ' Feteal B.egister 13x3724^
• 3728* JtAj 3, 194B*
-44.. domlfi,.. Wilfear 4'. SastrttBUftnt to- quickly yeteal 1
%uaiit.f of anap. an€ wm liaaiiak Food Back©*
30&2'4«27* Dect'enDeir* 194^*
5-5 •
.
What faotdra produce a fancjy pack fcaaiu
'^*^>aek@i» 31126-27* «» 70. imr»'1950*
■yitay eontenfc of inap bdasd aTaluatad hy
Vjei^iety, natm'i^r* Food Paolseir 31;42*44*
^ily, 1950.
—16.'
!?• 3-®*
Food
I..*.!;.....! I».;l
,
3*36 l0ag&& is good a<3asu3?& -of maturity for
fi&ap baaaa* .food Packer 31i54* August.» 1950.
Raaulta .from ohaaioal amaiystg of snap mmB*
Wm& Paole«v 33l*a6^27# 51*52* 54. Sapte^bory
• 1950*
^ • ' „,,,,„-,,,„ „ Q«ftiity avalyafcioa of f^ash^ frozen 'and cannad
snap baa&s-« fooatar* Olil©* ©Mo Agrioulttsral
l^a^iaent Stationj Fa^rua^y, If51.
immm®h bulletin 701K
20-.: Haxpifti ,3f.. ^tii^A fli® inflmnea. of position in the
pod upM ^ha weight of the fcaan sead, fha
Amafioan laturallat 49544*47*' 1-915•
21-i SQdgman.j. Charles 8. landlaooE of ohaoistry and
phyaioa* 31at ad* Glewland, Oht^-. GtoiBloal
Hubba^, 1949. 51,® p.
22*
jfeeaba* -fiteiwl* B-. She ohanlatiary a^ tsehnology of •
food and food pffaftuota* law Te>ri<-t intareoienea.
1944. 742 p* (1), and 335 p. (2).
35
25, Kisvt083&, Z. J* A sic^i© turbidity ^estea?.
Gtmrnz llOi 15-^16, May 20, 3.950*
The
24. Sramea?, iailiud* Corr^l^ioa of qugilifcy aad
natritlVQ factors)* Food factor 29t>fi# 40.» 42,
46* April, 1948.
—"^* -,..,-.. ,. BteasiupSHs haarvest qualities.. Food Fack#l»
'2f-j'55*56, 59*60> 62, 6$. Baoambea?, 1946,
^6. ^^^ aad H, 1. Siaitii. Froiliai&ary imiraatigatiOE
m ae&sur^jndnt of oolo^ la eaimed foods. Food
B&swth 11:14» 20-24,. 31* 1946*
2?* tmemhlv®) E* R. ¥iald and quality of saap feeaas
as iaflue&eM by iianrestin^ aatMods* Th®
■ Ga&nea? 74:55*. 56, 59*60* 63, Faferuapy 27, 1932.
|C@a^©atioa aumbar 1932)*
28* SlGkArzi A, and M. Boa Paul. A Aletioaary of oolor.
Maw To^k, MoGReaw^Hiilj) 1930*
29, Farka^, M* if.
ohaaioal
harvest.
Station,
and Hail W, Stuart« Changes in the
eoa^oositioa of groan snap baaas after
Maryland Agrieultural Ssparlmaat
1935* (Bullotin 383),
30. Froduetion and narrating Mainistration. Caitad
States Dapartmeat of Agrioultura standards
for grades of canned graea b&ans and. canned
mx beans* 4th issue. Septeiober 27» 1940*
31,. Rom, S, C* and ¥. B, Bonney. A study of eheoieal
and physical n^ihods for deterffliniag the
maturity of canned snap (stringless) ^®^as.
Journal of the Association of Official
%ricultural Chemists 19s620~620* 1936.
32* Siegal, Eaaurioa... ■ Minimuia standards of quality for
esyanad snap (str ingle as) tea ana. The Cannar
100:16i 18* Deeen^er 16* 1944.
33. Snadecor, Gaorg® W. Statistical Methods. 4th-ed*
itoea, lowa^. The Iowa State College Press* 1946.
34. Start., F* C, Jr*, and C* H, Mahoney. A study of
the time of developmant of the fibrous sheath
in the aids wall of edible snap bean pods
with respect to quality. Asaericaa
society of
horticultural science 41i353,*359. 1942.
36
35. Wegftaer, Joto B.* and Beverly H, Ba©r. ^ualitj
ooJi^parison favors fopcrop bean for freeziiig*
food Faoker 31:54*56, Odtofear, 1950*
36.
Winton* A« i...* and K, $• Winton. Structure and oojs#©sition of foods. H^w Tork^ JoM ?iJ£l©yt3.936. 347-357 P* (2).
37-
WfrckUnan* A<, 0. Jood Analysis.
M@araw-E£H,194l* 304 p*
4tli ed*
Hew Yorlc,
3B. 2atiti$yeT» W. f. foperop .is top^noteli ally £a
fight oa snap bean mosaic. Food Packer
3I»*3$>. 40, 42# 45* April* 1950*
A p■ P B 1 P .X
mmMwz
Qaalitg- Factors for 1*0 ¥«aideMes of Smp Bems (^msed)
(fso Piekings ©f a Few fsrieties)
-»"
•
i
Sai^le
^ So. , •
1
2
3
i*
wsmrrm
B 2568-1
B 1755-1-1
B 2637
m-^i
ContentJer
6
B 2095-1-2
8
TJET. SBEB
s
Ave.. : ftev.""" s
BET SBEB
s Atre. t
-JLJ JL-.i JL J
5
7
s
Puregold
L Selireibsr,
Helva «?ax
-0-
£TSgit_
ioHBipm
s Detr. s
_.£__! JLJ
. ^ X^L -
6.83
7.1t5
7.1U
9.08
1.12
1.20 1.16
0,,168
7.11* 0,,2^6 0.207
6.1*7
U.67
5.57
38.51i
0.99
0.67 0.83
hlM 0.,038 0.OU5
5.03
5.11
5*07
1.59
0.69
0.75 0.72
8.70 0.,021 0.022
9.52
1.79
2.25
2.02
25.70
0.21
0.23 0.22
0,,012
9.52 0,,009 bj&L
33.33
6^1
7^9
6.90 15.29
0.92
1.02 0.98
0,,073
9^8 0.,061 0.067
19.67
6.29
5.82
6.06
8.08
0.96
0.82 0.89
U.81
5.89
U.95
5.82
U.76
lt.59
7.69
a..051
3.25
U6.1i3
32t.2l
o,►023
0,.052
17.07 0..010
3.50
^50
6.50
?.5o
I1.00
0.02*8
20.93
0.62
0.6U 0.63
0,,012
3.23 0,►on 0.012
9.09
0.60
0.66 0.63
04,123
10.0 0,,105 ©.Hit
17 .H*
7.00
6.25
W
f ABLS fl - Ceatinaed
r — *-- ~ --"5_ JTARIKf iES^
s
' mw SUB
i
*
Av©. !
:"*"*" ~ & U.^.B.A.""^©."
•0
BBY SEED
I
• Av®. 1 Bev.l ~'
?
t
_KtBiat :
*"
fftJSBIDIfl
s
L JL 2 JF2-.9
10
11
12
13
Hi
15
16
17
B 1762
B 2096-k-l
B233ii-1-1
B 1763
Topcrop
B 1229-1-2-6
nm
TendeThmg
B1733
■0.60
0.,018
13.21
O,
,016
0.53 0.57
0.017
0,,016
0.5© 1*3.90 0.,023
0.020
1*3.75
Q.2k Q^k
0,£23
0.00 0;.016
0.022
75.00
0.1*6
0.1*7 0.U7
,019
2.13 0<,0214
0.022
26.32
3.00
3.25 16.33
0.1|1
0,.032
0.32 0.37 2B.13 0,.029
0.031
10.31*
2.38
2.15
2.27 10.70
0,.05U
0.30
0^23 0.27 30.10 0..029
0.01*2
86,21
3.7k
24.19
3.97
0.is7
0.52 0.50
mM o<,01*6
0.01*8
6.52
0.022
52.91*
0.01*9
15.56
U.61
U.21
UM
9.50
1.65
3.61^
14.15 27.75
1.83
2.27
2.05
3.66
3.63
3.1*9
0.59
3.65
2Jb.0l*
0.83
12.03
oak
0,.01*9
3.22
2.90
3.^ 11.03
0,.026
0.39
0.31 0.35 25.81 0..017
Jb.52
It*29
kM
,052
0.65
0.56 0.61 16.07 0..©1*5
5.36
5.50
12.50
5.75
7.75
5.50
5.50
6.50
3.50
6.50
U.00
^
TABLE VI - e©ntiirae<i
;
:
Sample i ."
i iM» .v* sa» *■» «■• mm mm ^m «^
MM
.«a» ap* w- •■■ mm .m
2
?A1I^IBS
s
& U.S,D.A. 1c. ;
HBT SEE©.
j
: Av©. t fiev. t
BET SEES
i
t &v®. s tsv. %
: OTBIDIW
yiUffit
s Am. s
L I _ J JL J JL - L i - J 1.
18
19
20
21
22
23
&
25
26
B 9126
K6GA-5002
B 2J468-1-17-12
B 2869
B 1801-li
B l5l5-l~7-l-2
B 288U-U-1
Idagreen
B 2669
k.9k
5.07
5.01
2.63
3.78
3,07
3^3
23.13
3.62
3.78
3.70
h.k2>
2#08
2.27
2^8
9.13
It .01
3.10
3.56
0.62
0.62 0.62
7.25
0.00 0.035
0.039
20.00
0.51
o.oi*5
0.27 0.39 88.89 0.0143
0.01*1*
14.65
0.5©
0M 0.1*9
0.01*6
1*.17 0.025
0.036
81*.0O
0.25
0.2lt 0.25
0.017
Uar 0.022
0.020
29.1*1
29.35
0.56
0,.030
0.37 0Jt7 51.35 0.,017
0.02k
76^7
U.57
3.32
3.95 37.65
0.62
0,,026
0.39 0.51 58.97 0,.01*3
0^5
65.38
2.17
2.314
2,26
7.83
0.27
0.25 0.26
0,,021
8.00 0,.015
0.018
1*0.00
0.77
0.66
0.62 0.61*
0,^6
6.1*5 0,,028
0.032
28.57
7.77
0.38
0.023
0.30 0.3% 26.67 0.023
5.25
5.21
3.05
2^3
5.23
2.9U
3.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
5.5o
5.00
0^)23
0.00
6.75
V0
o
o
I
03
•*
■^9.
•9
HT^I
>W
\si,
^.
i>m:
«
§
«J
A
t*.
OS
H
s&C-Cj
\0
t»-
00
00
O«
ON
&
N©
H
a
©
•UN
P
1*0
00
CM
JS
CD-
Jt
\f\.
q
o
o'd
O
o
o
o
o'o'o
o
o
trvjCM;
VAQ
Oxri
COOs
\0r^'
o
o
COM3
I»\NO
©q
©©
0\XA
00 qq qo
© © ' '© © ' © ©
P--4
©o
©©
qq qq
© o' & ©
£
£
..••*•
&
£
qq, ©q
00 o ©
i
£
9- 4
.
*
.
.
O©
vOCVI
CM «*>
©O
'WSVN
W^J
©©
Vv-Sf
O-NO
©©
«>-S1
CM <VI
©OHO©©©©©
©©
t>-H
-#v©
1R
H
^
?T
1
CM
CM CM
ON
CM
•
O©
9,
it
•
vOIA
\S\Xt\
•
*nH
*nO\
^
^
»
•3
<•">
CM
HO
e
«
CM
CV CM
tf1
^
"I
?
<n
»n
CO
V0
m
J^
CM
OO
m
7^
«
CM
<n
^r
3
cvi
CM
©©
*
«-4
1
-8»
V0#SO
fO
s©
m
5
H
P>
CM
SO
vOVk
»*r^
,
ON
1
W.
^*-*
Cjl
^
1
«
\A
a
©
«*N
Os
CM
c
©O
T
H
w
2
CO
CM
g,
«w\C\
-^1^
v6
lAfn
CM.q
T4
Ǥ.
^sr
PP
CM
CM
fCM
T&M£ ¥1 - Gontiiraad
wi ssa?
VABJESIBS.
s
SE? S^D
.
%
wmm
.
s t SBBIDIIT
Ho.
36
37
38
39
JjO
Tope^op
B 2095-l-«
' Paregcld.
1?eader^?e©B
MmL
POLE SmFBEAHS
1
5H 65
Beans 2006
U
^ansj Associated;
231
4.29
4.47
8.16
0,.020
0.63
0.52 0.58 21.,15 0 ►018 0. 019
11.11
2^8
2.57
2.0
3.63
0,.010
0.29
0 .26 0.28 11.,54 0 .011 0..on
IO.OO
ZJSk
2.53
2.54
0^0
0 .009
0.29
0.26 0.28 11. 54o(.007 0.008
28.57
3a6
3.71
3.44
i7.la
0,.017
0.39
0.46 0.43 17.!95 0,.014 0. 016
21 .B
4.71
3.33
4.02
4i.ii4
2.30
5^6
3.13
6.95
0,.015
0,.016
O.S016
6.67
4.57
9.63
0..033
0,►029
OJ031
13.79
4.68
3.92
0,.019
0,,016
0.1018
18.75
2.36
2.2l(.
3.23
3.02
4.78
4^6
4.77
4.59
0.66
75
6 5o
6 75
50
0..019
00
Ojjl 0.54 60,,98 0,.034 0. 017
35.71
0,.019
0.24
0^1 0.23 14. 29 0..024 0.1022
26.32
50
50
00
50
P
10
&
Iw
s
p^
o
■
*
*»■
r4 H HXTvSsiA
tAVWA ON ON ON
ON ON ON H H H
H H H ^
*»
0
t
try
*
{A©
«k
N©
■
n'^xn J^ ^ ??
ON ON
H H
*
WOO
® ON H
O O i
h2
CeS
'US'USV k \A in m IA 'us •us Cn
ONOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSON
HHrtHHHHHHH
O O ^3
© © ©
© o
rmrv
ON p iH CM t*\\£} f-O ON«S8
H c3 <M OJ CM w CVJ c5 CVJ «M
o o o o
a00« a0(5}
«
ONONONOSON^-Cjfll
O
O
0 0
s
ON ON I H H CM
ia*^1 ^ ^ B5 ^
H
CM
ONONCNONONONiO^O 4j ON
^c,^!l^!'
^11 ^^
® &
-4«M-^NO «n^
HOO CM CSSONQ
^J .a
^^S
\5eo»
$ ejw\ffi>
P p c^-o*
^S P
t*-.
o o o o o o o o & o
«4, «35 *^ «4 «fl' «4 gq gj <; «4
NO
o o 5
<ij <^ <3j.
HCM H
Kl 03 PJ
I
o o
<{ <4
•3
63
«> ON O H <t*V\vO UN-CO
H H CM CM CM CM CM (M CM
1
\Asq e-j
H H H
H «^
U CM
tt
g^ ffi g3 u^ CQ © j
i
csi-4
HH
•^o
•* K
ft
L •
CM
S0
t*
eq C! eo
CM CM H
0 Jq
A
H
60 O
a» ©3
1
Os
P-.CO Os O H CM
H HI H H H CM CM CM
apta M lAs©
{>-«?
o
O
CM
ft
^3 O
o
its
fit JQ ^5 ^Q ,o ^a
© © © © © ©
IS |S|. £, fe, fe Ji,
^H
S" (r4
S* (H
^ JH
?J fH
?*
6^
t«- ON 1^ CM 0\ fCM H CM CM r* CM
£? ^ jsp £? £?
3
3333
■ra *3 ■'a "a *»
e- oa oo -a so eo
CM iPJH (f»SVSNO
VAIAlUMfS^lA
o o o o o o
q o u o o o
«4j <E3 <? <2 <Q <^
m,^ SO'p-.. ON©.
r4
W H CM & fl CO
N0 w\ **\ H © CK
to
H CM CA-^lTssO
09 © 03 SB O CT
o
M
jj
i""! fl^ s^ 6^ T~t r^
ONONONONONHHHHHH
H H H H HV\Xr\lAlAXA\A
\Air\lA\ir\ VN ON ON ON ON ON ON
^4
H H H H H
<* * •! «- * «
*» ft «» ft ft © rj W\ vO CO ON
<*\f^vO CO ON«H H H H H H
4§
^^a^^a
©N&IONSNONONONONONONON
HHHHHHHHHHH
^^■^i
H H CM CJ CM f-'O* ON ON ON r-i
CMCMCMCMCMCMCOIHHHCM
«> r>- p c- f-vo ON!» OS N© -S
ft •>
\s\
\r\
\s\
H
ON
ft
O
«n
H
ON
CM
ON
H
ft
*st
CM
ON
H
ft
ON
H
NO
ft-
CM
{3
4
«,
ON
*
CM
V\
ft.
CM
ON
****
h3
© t^
ft I I
&
-a
ON
CM tr\
CM CM
CM
©\
ON ON
*^^
CH
S3
63
NO
£5
J
^
NO
CO
ON
&
m
Q
^
NO
J9
£G
S fr* C? &I ^ 64 6 &* § &*
©
OS)
\r\
:«r\i OH ®3
®-^ ©HO
Pi
H CM
**v
CH
(£3
S
ffcl
CM
iiM
ON
XlSt-i
<j <i3 <i «} <5 «aj <(J -ejj «4 ^ <a];
NO CO
oooooooouoo
oooooooco t> o
Q H NO a? 6N H c?5^ ON.W :«*\
HgNHr?
pq ra R cq « ».4 CM ra ra m
frv^lANO t~-«) ONO H CM <n
CVi CM CM CM CM CM CM fN rr\et\ m
I
p
I
If
i©
♦a
9
»
P
Is
&
^
H
a.
ON
2
^
ON
H
9
9
4
8a a»
«J'
(a
8
^
H
1
IQ
Jfe
W^
<9
CO
At
■.l»\
. 3
M
liU