Effects of Environmental, Harvesting and Storage Factors of Raw

Effects of Environmental, Harvesting and Storage Factors of Raw Materials on
Krachai-Dam (Kaempferiapawiflora) Honey Wines Qualities: Sensory Evaluation
Sermsakul Pojanagaroon
Abstract
/
The present study was conducted to evaluate the most suitable process for Krachai-Dam
(Kaempfria pamiflora Wall ex Baker) honey wine by sensory evaluation. The factors influenced on
raw materials used for Krachai-Dam honey wine processing: plantation areas, planting months,
harvesting months, nurnbeg of crop cycle, storage methods and storage periods of rhizomes were
X
gubuimrimfl~r~iuw"~11~~~~~un~5wfi~1nu
(diulnzlnrieqgtio) d~rnot?Snthnimau 42160
Loei Plant Production and Technical Services Center (Phuma highland section), Amphur Phunra. Loei 42 160
$
studied during January to March 2007 at Department of Food Science and Technology, Chiang Mai
University, Chiang Mai. The results showed that Krachai-Dam honey wines processes could be
classified in 6 main groups using an UPGMA for grouping these samples by their similarities of 9
quality parameters (typical, chemical and pharmaceutical qualities of wines). Krachai-Darn honey
wines were evaluated various times (within and between groups) using a randomized complete block
design (RCB), a panelist was a block (replication), more than 15 panelists (blocks)/ treatment. It could
be found that the treatment combination number 2-28 was the most optimal process (wine produced
ffom Krachai-Dam rhizomes with raw materials 'Phurua-I0 (Rom-Klao)' cultivar (dark-purple
internal color) grown at Maechonluang area (1,350 m asl) in May, harvested in February, a I-year
crop growing, with a storage period of 0 month after being harvested and keeping rhizomes by layout
on the ground, at room temperature). Therefore, this research could be used as a guideline to
standardize the raw materials for producing Krachai-Dam honey wines.
Keywords : Krachai-Dam, Kaernpferia parvifora Wall. ex Baker, environmental factors, harvesting,
storage, sensory evaluation, honey wine
9 4
a
w
usu?u$ii~m~u~iudszffiwa"uw"ff~fe~i~u
~u~uw~flflis88flrruufl1s~~a~urrazflis~m~ix~
waar~dnisain"Fin i s w n f f ~ S l d i u d s z a i w ~ u f i ~ ~ ? s ~ ~ n stest)
i ~ da~ufliswnffsumaiuramfldis
(~alyti~~~
X
ran:wnaanra?awssmu numxrwwiz~ll$wmsreu~inai%~aiuisnw'aa~
~s?$?ums2n~ndu9
la
&
t
w
a9
msdszna~~uea"flw'~w%~~araz~immmiu~;a~~szq~~a~
X
v d
9 -
~mqn^um9iw%.lrwamaaPdd(ta?un~n,
2550) 8luau 56 nssu?$ (Table 1) ~mu~~a"fl~lm:qwniwwi9
dKe"
d9
sa
flluniw wi~an2taaxwi~mdrno~!auuiwans~~iuii
9 <n~mzauni3aai~'9niu?aumauab
Unweighted
pair group method cluster analysis (UF'GMA) miu~ima1un&i;7~n~96u
~ ~ & 2 f l ? l ~dendrogtam
i&
d W
s ~.??2
iw~unix~ma~~nnssu5~ni~~a'm~auii~~n~zviaiidanu~x~u~au~1~wma~u
q ~ n i w ~ a u u ~ ~ s n ~ z v i u i i $ i u P I sb ~mi u
w6~i~n~i ~K~am t 8 ~ n a a u ~ 1 ~ a i u ~ u m ~ u ~ i n n ~ u n ~ ~
d K 2
nisw~n?auuiwsn~zviuiidi~mniw$na"a~us6u
6ims~m~o~~~a~ds~iGuqmmw61uds~iw
ZuKa ( M e i t , 1996) ~muaisaawuniswmao~atuu~uau~~dnio~un~u
$aunis~G~wnaroui~J~u
d w 2 "
e n
Ynix~nduociisi4Biuauocil96ou 15 sierm'opr~ant~u~~ma~on~auiiw~n~zvium16~~unxaauunis
dK 2
u~uYu~niw?adqsqm%utda:niu
a a ~ z i ~ u ~ t G u ~ l 6 u s x 61ni~~ma8onYauuiwsnsxviu
n~i~n~u
ii~IJs'~lnzuuun1csuouYu~s~ni~%aodd~a~mu0~ta~amfluuia~tj(uutGuu~~%unisEmaGonsnud
1
( f l i l J d 0 ~ ~ 8 9 f lP,
i ~Q,
1 R, S, T tta:U) 3Qud2 (flfll. P, Q, R, S, T itR:U) LtAZ ~ 0 3 (PQR6itl~
~ 4
STU)
d Y 2
aw"oE~aa"on%w"!~nxsu5Zni~~a'm~aui1~~n~xv1ui~da~u~~~ud~m~u~oud
4 { l u a u 1 nssu5Z
6 i n i s 8 n ~ i mn i n ~ v 1 ? w u i ~ i a m ~ i i a ~ w n % u l a i n i snm:gmmnnssunistnumr
oini~
a a
unRwuia'uaiius%naio.a8o9 o.t%as%wni~jxn~isa6iouunsimu
619 uuinu 2550 ~ansi&+oyawi9n52
~ m ~ % f i d ~ i i f i ~ ~SPSS
~ lfor~Windows
~ ~ d vmion
~ l 411.5
~R'~
Table 1: Treatment
combinations of Krachai-Dam honey wines processing in crop season of 2005-2006.
Plantation areas
Planting anMths
Nakhonphanom
Phrae
Phurua
Maechonlnang
(1,350 m asf)
(150 mas])
1200 m asl)
(950 m asl)
Tr.2-1
Tr.2-2
Tr.2-3
Tr.2-4
May
June
Tr.2-5
Tr.2-6
Tr.2-7
Tr.2-8
Similarity index
Tretment
Nun
1.00
0.89
0.60
0.40
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
0.20
0.00
42
3
55
25
43
I
52
TI:-01
r2-30
I
30
26
I
A
27
Tr2-27
23
13
36
35
r2-33
H f ~ Tr2-41
~:g
34
38
41
37
TrZ-44
40
-
-1
-
%-$kc&
-
r2-39
35
I
S
-
E
2
7
6
--J
-
-
24
32
-
I5
16
19
28
20
I
-
Figure 1 Denhgram obtained 6um9 physical and chemical
ndu ~iuisoiaEisl6a8uniueiou?&aafi
[la: 2-33 n~ucioup.2 dssnou&au 4
-a d
nasuan no 2-30 2-31 2-29 2-27 am:
M
%-A 4 j 3 - 4 4
n4utiou ~ . ~ d ~ : n o u & a5un n u a n no 2-38 2-42 am; 2-45
M
ornuisnaaPis?&a3~2 niueiou lAaifi ndueiou 0.1 PlsxnouAau 5 ns5uau no 2-21 2-22
Pd d
2-18 2-ioaaas 2-25 ata: niutiou 0.2 ds:nou6au 1 nasua5 no 2-57
Sd
C
-* *
Sd
a7 r
aa
2-52 2-55 66%
a
~iuisnaaisl&?Iu2 n i u d e u IAaari n(oleiou RI elsznougau 5 flssolau n o 2-37 2-58
e
2-54 LttlX f l d ~ d R
8~
2 d 3 ~ f l ~ ~ l &4XflS4olab
J
no 2-50 2-51 2-49 66a; 2-09
M
~ ~ i u ~ n i ~ d e &dsznou$au
ufiua
2 nssolau no 2-39 ~aazz-53
-4
-
44 M
ndu T m o l i 4 m ~ i q Y A 4~n~~uo l d o uYAiifi nijolrioer T.I dszneu6au 5 nssuau n a 2-05 2-11
a
2-12 2-48 iiaz 2-60 n(ueieo T.2 d s z n o u i a o 3 nssuau no 2-02 2-07 aaax 2-06 fl+~eiou T.3
ds:nau$atr 3 nssuau n a 2-03 2-35 aaaz 2-08 i6az ndold~uT.4 dsxneu8as 4 nssuau n a 2-04 2-26
nP
94 M
2-28 6 6 E 2-36
-
94
A
a-
a
ndolu i i o s n ~ o l e i a u f i o a~ s d ~ z n o u A 5a nssolab
u
ne 2-19 2-202-23 2-32 iiaz 2-24
nisnls:Gu~mniw6iuniswnao~dszffi~
1. nisdsz6~w~sla~i,~~iuniswmff~~ldsz~i~1~uw"a
saui 1
niswn~enrlad~iisnszaio6i6iudszn~wZu
~~u%%$wmaou~1~~u~is3nduodi~~edi~
a
u
15 nu seudP 1(Table 2) wanisdm1 wuii E@JL i 5 nfiuieo $snssolab~n@i~on!~pdaan'~z
9 4 C I W
-A
niuriou Zo nssuasw 2-33 %un4ucioer
4
na a
P.3 (65.12) nssolas6 2-31 ? W ~ ~ U ~P.3O U
rioo
.05) ~6tWW&i?i$2-9
%pdflt$Jd~~
R2
4 fliu
(58.88)*~:
u t o n s s u 5 ~2-48
i %un4ol[iooT.I (64.14) nssu7;G 2-8 %u
u T.3 (68.30) ~ m nssui:i
z
2 - 2 8 F G 1 c b? ,zc
7
Table 2: Wine appreciation chart of Krachai-Dam honey wines by sensory evaluation of 15-23 panelists in
crop year 2005-2006 (round 1).
Wine appreciation score
Group Trrsbrm( Appearance
(10)
Color
(5)
Varietal sroms
&bouquet
Flavor
(15)
Acidity
(10)
Defeet
General
quality
(20)
Total
(100)
Table 2 (continued)
Wine appreciation score
Group TreabnmI Appearance
(10)
Color
(5)
Varietal aroma
&bouquet
Flavor
(15)
Acidity
(10)
Defect
(10)
General
quality
Total
(100)
2. flisdsr~~u9Pdgnamw$iuni'dwm~~uds:aiiwduw'ns~ui
2
iiniswmaiau~aniw~iudseariw~u~aja191os~aPd"~i$snsr'lciu6i~~~iu~raauuni~uouh
sad w
lnu%augsiqnsinndudou
p.1 $9 T.4
wam'j8nui wuii n s s u a u w n ~ t ~ ~ n ?2$ ~ u ~ ~ ' ~ ] ~
na d
sad
ldairi nssuauw 2-33 %unduP
67.11) nssuauwz-25 %uniuQ (70.44)
sad
sad
-a a
nnuauw 2-9 %unduR (67.06) nssuauw 2-39 iuniudou S (61.45) ns.suaud2-28 %unduT (68.55)
-a c;
liar nssuauw 2-24 %un+~
~(65.05)
-
F m u s a u g s ~ m i n nn"s
u ~U FmuGini~~m~a"8ns:wiiqn~w
P Q liar ~imznqh
s T uae U (Table4)
A
~snssuamwnnaSen?daS~wiu
PQR ID ns4uau6 2-25 ( n ~ ~ u ~ n i s u ~ u ~72.25)
' ~ ] ~liar
w~
n5sol%
sau
GEwaa"onYZ5~niu
STU So
n-a
Table 3:
W i n e appreciation chart of
Krachai-Dam honey wines by sensory evaluation of 15-23 panelists in
crop year 2005-2006 (round 2)
~
Groups Treatment Appearnu
(10)
varietal
&bouquet
Color
(5)
Flayor
(15)
General
quality
Defect
Acidity
(10)
(10)
Total
(100)
Table 4: Wine appreciation chart of Krachai-Dam honey wines by sensory evaluation of 15-23 panelists in
crop year 2005-2006 (mund 3 and 4).
Wine appreciation scores
Groups Iteahnent Appearance
2-39
CV (%)
Color
(10)
(5)
7.67
14.00
4.22 a
17.55
varirtalamma
&Bouquet
Flavor
Acidity
Defect
130)
(15)
(10)
(10)
1201
(100)
20.00
23.32
8.83
25.12
5.78
22.14
5.67
27.28
12.44
22.97
64.61
15.89
23.16
19.18
12.12
CV (%I
14.62
25.29
22.98
17.15
13.47
#Means within the same column withdifferent common lertersdiffeersigniticantly by DMRT;
Total
* = pc0.05; r s m ~ i ~ f i m n t
nths1sgmiu nxxu?~ni%wa"n!aPddd~~aa"nn~8~inniadn~1i~oo"u~~aaapla"~u
6 aoo"u$
muizaiudqa a a ~ ~ ~ ~ u n z a a r a u n i s u ~ ~ ] ~ uaz
u ~ nasZnmn~wwisani8iud?ui~
plu~a~~q~d~~
{SZU
a n s ~ x z n o u ~ u o F i n ~(TP)
~w%
a ~a~a ~ v ~ ~ i u ~(AOI)
~ ~q aa ~ n ~
v ion. ~ o i ~ m i ~ ~ n i ~ ~ i q
sad
aniaiazmi?~wuii IaPddmiu nssuauw 2-28 Z d ? u i TP
~ (38oun. GAEJIOOun.) aan
na d
4s~n~~u
TPi m
(296.58 un. GAUIOO un.) aaaz AOI (1.2
sad
nasuunixveus'pl$iunix~1~aip~'~1ds:aiimZuiai
wuii laPddmiunssua~w2-28 1;
Iadniunxsuauw 2-25
a i i u i ~ n a i ~ d ~nsxpl%i
6ii
2-28 s$ra
(1,350 rn as^) Iraa4ny
d
d
asds~nJw"Paiw5~inusnua
siazaisnosn"plw"edi
1
d7q;,wnlt113wn
nasrwwr. 323 W
sr d a
sn?unga WQwniqm. 2550. ~ w g w a v o s d u i d ~??nis
n
a~ax~xu:nain1sa~'~~nui~~~~~l1ns1~1~
8
r.Yd
~ ~ ~ 1 ~ b ~ ~ a l w ~ f l ~~ S: T
d~
l e~ d~ l~. ? ~ ~ ~ g ~ b l l H f l ~ 3S %ld9l~Lfl'tlFIS~d~SFf39
%~~fl~(al4~?9~
n?s$ 6 dsx41'3 2550 (20-21 ~gui!u 2550) u~i~wuia"uuasflab.
WPplqFan. vu"i68-69.
aduaiga waunilm. 2551. ~w~wavosw"u&l~n
mhudan ab>urhkua ~ t a z d i w a u ~ ~ ? i n s n i ~ d ~ n
9, d a
?.Y&
vosTngEusnsiwunoq~niwuo~w~n6mn"?auuiwsn~z~iuAi.
duuwi4rinisan~las
dsxB1'3 2551 uni?muitYuvouaafjW (28 unsinu 2551) m ~YosdsqundapGpn nmx
tn~nsmarw~uni?wui~uv~uaadu.
veuaariu (son15WPuG).
I
Linskens, H.F. and J.F.Jackson. 1988. Wine Analysis. Springer-Verlag. Heidelberg. 380 pp.
1
I,
I
Margalit, Y. 1996. Winery Technology & Opreations A Handbook for Small Wineries. The Wine
Appreciation Guide Ltd, San Francisco. 230 pp.