Consumeracceptanceof - PDF document

Consumeracceptanceof‘Brooks’and‘Bing’cherriesismainlydependentonfruitSSCandisualskincolorCarlosH.Crisosto,GayleM.Crisosto,PaulMetheneyDepartmentofPomology,UniersityofCaliforniaatDaisKearneyAgriculturalCenter,9240SouthRierbendAe.,Parlier,CA93648, *Correspondingauthor.Tel.:1-559-646-6596;fax:559-646-6593E-mailaddress:carlos@uckac.edu(C.H.Crisosto).estBiologyandTechnology28(2003)159 ier.com/locate/posthar0925-5214/02/$-seefrontmatter2002ElseierScienceB.V.Allrightsreserved.PII:S0925-5214(02)00173-4 unpublished)thataromamayplayanimportantcompensationrolewhenSSCislacking.MinimumqualitystandardsbasedonSSCtoassureconsumersatisfactionhaebeenproposedfor‘Bing’(Cliffetal.,1996;Deeretal.,1996;Drakeetal.,1989;Kappeletal.,1996;Guyeretal.,1993;Schotzko,1993)and‘Ranier’(DrakeandFellman,1987)cherries.WebelieethattherelationshipbetweenSSCandTAandappearanceplaysanimportantroleinconsumeracceptanceasitisreportedforothercommoditiessuchascitrus(PehrsonandIans,1988);tablegrapes(Guelf-ReichandSafran,1971;Nelsonetal.,1973;CrisostoandCrisosto,2002);kiwifruitGoriniandLasorella,1990;CrisostoandCri-sosto,2001)andmango(Malundoetal.,2001Therefore,itisimportanttounderstandthepotentialinementofTAincherryconsumeracceptancepriortoproposingaminimumqualitystandard.ThisrelationshipbetweenSSCandTA,andconsumeracceptancemayalsobecultispecificandeenrelatedtoethnicgroup.‘Bing’hasbeenthedominantcommercialcherryar,butrecentlynewcultiarsthatmatureearlierorlaterthan‘Bing’arenowbecomingcommerciallyimportant(Crisostoetal.,2002;Kappeletal.,2002).Forexample,‘Brooks’ripens7daysafter‘EarlyBurlat’andabout712daysbefore‘Bing’(Crisostoetal.,1993).‘Brooks’wasselectedintheUniersityofCaliforniacherry-breedingprogramamongtheprogenyofacrossbetween‘Ranier’(whiteflesh)and‘EarlyBurlat’Hanscheetal.,1988Thepurposeofourresearchwastodetermineconsumeracceptanceof‘Brooks’and‘Bing’cher-riesinrelationtoSSCandTA,andtheimportanceisualcherryskincoloronconsumers’decisiontobuy.Understandingtherelationshipsbetweentheconsumer,cherryqualityattributesandin-dustry-widequalitysureyswillhelptodeelopaminimumeatingqualityindexforthesetwo2.Materialsandmethods‘In-store’consumertestswerecarriedouton‘Brooks’and‘Bing’cherriesfortwoseasons.Atotalof581and596consumersatamajorsuper-market,locatedinFresnoCounty,wereinter-iewedfor‘Brooks’and‘Bing’cherries,ely.Basedonourpreiousyears’indus-try-widesureys(Crisosto,1997;Crisostoetal.,2002;Mitchametal.,1998,1999,2000)todefineaminimumqualityindex,eachconsumerwaspre-sentedfourcherrysamplesatthefourtargetedskincolorsforeachcultiar.Priortotasting,nondestructiefirmness(Durofel,COPA-TECH-NOLOGYS.A.,France)andcolor(Minoltacolorimeter,Minolta,CR-200,Japan)weremea-suredononecheekofeachwholecherrysamplebeforecuttingitinhalftotastetoaoidusingtoosoftcherries.Ashueanglewasthemostimportantcolordescriptor,cherryskincolorwasexpressedonlyashueangle(h).Thehueangleisexpressedindegreesandisameasureofcolorthat,forexample,from0to90spansfromredtoorangetoyellow.‘Brooks’cherriesweresegregatedaccord-ingtoskincolorbasedonourpreiousworkCrisostoetal.,1993,2002)asfulllightred(Hue26.15),50%brightred(Hue21.96),fullbrightred(Hue16.90),andfulldarkred(Hue11.85),while‘Bing’cherriesweresegregatedusingthechartfromtheCentreTechniqueInter-professioneldesFruitsetlegumes(CTIFL,France).‘Bing’cherryskincolorwasdefinedassalmon(Hue27),red(Hue20.4),mahogany15.0),anddarkmahogany(Hue13.3).Onecherryhalffromeachsampleinacolabeled29.6mlsouffle´cupwasimmediatelyplacedinanicechestandkeptcoldforimmediatetransporttotheF.GordonMitchellPostharLaboratoryforsubsequentchemicalanalysisofSSCandTA(CrisostoandCrisosto,2002).Forbothcultiars,eachconsumerthatsaidhe/sheatefreshcherrieswasaskedtotastefourcherryhalfsamplespresentedinrandomorderincoded29.6mlsouffle´cupsatroomtemperature.Inbothseasons,eachconsumerinteriewedwasaskedtoindicatetheiragerangeonachart;theinteriewernotedtheirgenderandethnicgroup.Thecon-sumerwasinstructedtoweardarkglassesduringthetastingtomasktheskincolor.Foreachcherrysample,theconsumerwasaskedifhe/she‘liked’,‘disliked’,or‘neitherlikednordisliked’thesample.Then,theconsumerwasaskedtoindicateC.H.Crisostoetal./PostharestBiologyandTechnology28(2003)159 his/herdegreeofliking/disliking:slightly,moder-ately,erymuch,orextremely.Theconsumer’sresponsewasrecordedusinga9-pointhedonicscale(1dislikeextremelyto9likeextremely).Theconsumerwasinstructedtosipbottledwaterinbetweensamplestocleansehis/herpalate.Consumeracceptancewasmeasuredasbothdegreeofliking(19)andpercentageacceptanceO’Mahony,1986).Thepercentageofconsumerslikingthecherrysamplewascalculatedasthenumberofconsumerslikingthecherrysample(score5.0)diidedbythetotalnumberofconsumerswithinthesample(LawlessandHey-mann,1998).Thepercentageofconsumersdislik-ingthecherrysample(score5.0)wascalculatedasthenumberofconsumersdislikingthecherrysamplediidedbythetotalnumberofconsumerswithinthesample.Thepercentageofconsumersthatneitherlikednordislikedthecherrysamplewascalculatedasthenumberofconsumersthatneitherlikednordislikedthecherrysample(score5.0)diidedbythetotalnumberofconsumerswithinthesample.Aftertastingthefoursamples,theconsumerwasinstructedtoremoethedarkglasses.Then,he/shewaspresentedoneofthreesetsof‘Brooks’or‘Bing’cherries.Eachsetconsistedoffourcupsinrandomorderofthreewholecherrieswithstemspercupofeachofthefour‘Brooks’or‘Bing’cherryskincolorspreiouslytasted.Theconsumerwasaskedtolookatthefourcupsofcherriesandindicatejustbylookingatthemwhichonehe/shewouldbuy.Thepercentageofconsumersthatwouldbuyaspecificskincolorbasedsolelyonisualskincolorwascalculatedasthenumberofconsumerschoosingeachskincolordiidedbythetotalnumberofconsumers.Thedegreeoflikingdatawassubjectedtoanalysisofariance(ANOVA)priortotheLeastSignificantDifferences(LSD)meanseparationLawlessandHeymann,1998)usingtheSASprogram.3.ResultsanddiscussionOncherriesusedforthese‘in-store’consumertests,single‘Brooks’cherrySSCmeasurements(581cherries)ariedfrom9.0to27.0%(Fig.1)andTAfrom0.24to1.02%(Fig.2)acrossskincolorstages,whilesingle‘Bing’cherrySSCmeasure-ments(596cherries)ariedfrom11.4to27.0%Fig.3)andTAfrom0.53to1.19%(Fig.4)acrossskincolorstages.For‘Brooks’,aerageSSCariedfrom12.8to21.6%andaerageTAchangedfrom0.47to0.67%ascherriesturnedfromfulllightredtofulldarkred.For‘Bing’,erageSSCariedfrom16.5to20.6%anderageTAchangedfrom0.78to0.90%ascherriesturnedfromsalmontodarkmahogany.Inbothcultiars,ateachgienskincolorstage,therewasalargeoerlapofSSCandTAamongthedifferentskincolorstages.Forexample,thedistributionofSSCin‘Brooks’wassimilarbe-tweencherriesatthe50%brightredandfullbrightredstages,whilethedistributionofSSCin‘Bing’cherrieswassimilarbetweencherriesatthemahoganyanddarkmahoganystages.AnelargeroerlapofTAoccurredbetweendifferentskincolorstagesfor‘Brooks’and‘Bing’cherries, Fig.1.Singlecherrysolublesolidsconcentration(SSC)for‘Brooks’acrossmaturitybasedonskincolorusing581cherries.erticallineisthemeanofthesample,outerlinesrepresent1S.D.aboutthemean.C.H.Crisostoetal./PostharestBiologyandTechnology28(2003)159 althoughtheaerageTAfor‘Brooks’wasalwayslower(ca.0.30%)thantheaerageTAfor‘Bing’ateachgienskincolorstage.Thisariabilityinqualityattributes(SSCandTA)withinagiskincolorstageanditsrelationshiptosensoryperceptionariabilitywasreportedearlierontablegrapes(Nelsonetal.,1963Inbothcherrycultiars,therewasalargeincreaseinSSCandasmallincreaseinTAasskincolorturnedfromlighttodarkresultinginanincreaseinSSC:TA.Asimilarsituationoccurredinour3yearindustry-widequalitysureyon‘Brooks’(Crisostoetal.,2002),whichindicatedthataerageTAchangesduringmaturation/ripen-ing(basedonskincolorchanges)aresmallbutdependontheorchard’sspecificconditionsandyearinfluence.Forexample,aerageTAfor‘Brooks’acrossorchardsandyearschangedfrom0.81to0.77%duringmaturation/ripeningwhileskincolorchangedfromfulllightredtofulldarkred.Duringthissamematurityperiod,SSCincreasedfrom15.3to20.4%andSSC:TAin-creasedfrom20.3to27.6.ThissmallchangeinTAduringmaturation/ripeningwasalsoobseredinour1997qualityattributessureyfor‘Bing’carriedoutduringMay822in36orchardslocatedintheStocktonarea(Crisosto,1997).Inthissurey,SSCrangedfrom13.8to18.0%,TAariedfrom1.00to1.20%,andSSC:TArangedfrom12to16for‘Bing’cherrieswithskincolorfromredtodarkmahogany.Mitcham’sgrouphasdescribedsimilarTAchangesfora‘Bing’orchardintheir3yearsofworkinCalifornia.(Mitchametal.,1998,1999,2000).Inthisorchard,‘Bing’cherryaerageTAwas0.85%whenmeasuredatthesalmonorthedarkmahoganyskincolor.TAdecreasedfrom0.85to0.81%whentheskincolorchangedfromsalmontored,butTAincreasedfrom0.81to0.85%whenskincolorchangedfrommahoganytodarkmahogany.Duringthissamematurityperiod,SSCincreasedfrom13.0to20.6%andSSC:TAfrom15.3to24.2.Whileskincolorturnedfromlighttodark,therewasalargeincreaseincherrySSCandasmallincreaseinTA.Inallofthesecases,theincreaseinSSC:TA Fig.2.Singlecherrytitratableacidity(TA)for‘Brooks’acrossmaturitybasedonskincolorusing581cherries.Centrallineisthemeanofthesample,outererticallinesrepresentS.D.aboutthemean. Fig.3.Singlecherrysolublesolidsconcentration(SSC)for‘Bing’acrossmaturitybasedonskincolorusing596cherries.erticallineisthemeanofthesample,outerlinesrepresent1S.D.aboutthemean.C.H.Crisostoetal./PostharestBiologyandTechnology28(2003)159 thatoccurredattheendofthematuration/ripen-ingperiodwasmainlyrelatedtoanincreaseinSSCratherthanadecreaseinTA.ItappearsthatTAleariedaccordingtocultiar,enmentalandorchardmanagementconditions,butTAchangesandthefinalTAleelwerenothighlyinfluencedbymaturation/ripening.Duringouriouswork,weobseredadecreaseinTAduringstoragefor‘Brooks’,‘Tulare’,‘King,’and‘Garnet’cherries(unpublisheddata).Similarob-ationshaebeenpublishedforothersweetcherrycultiarssuchas‘Bing’,‘Lapins’,‘Santina’,‘Skeena’,’SumnueCristalina’,‘Sweetheart’,etc.Kappeletal.,2002DegreeoflikinginoursinglecherrysampleswassignificantlyrelatedtoSSCandTA.Ingeneral,consumeracceptanceresponsesweredi-idedintotwogroupsbasedontherelationshipbetweendegreeoflikingandTAwithintheSSCrangetested.Therewasasignificantseparationinlikingbetween‘Brooks’cherrieswith0.60%TA0.60%TA(Table1).‘Brooks’cherrieswith0.60%wereacceptedby4964%ofcon-sumerswhiledegreeoflikingscoreariedfrom5.9to6.3.OncherrieswithTA0.60%acceptancerangedfrom76to95%,whiledegreeoflikingariedfrom6.6to7.4.For‘Bing’cherries,consumeracceptancewasalsodiidedintotwogroupsbasedontherelationshipbetweendegreeoflikingandTAacrosstheSSCrangetested.TherewasasignificantseparationindegreeoflikingbetweencherrieswithTA0.80%and0.80%.‘Bing’cherrieswithTA0.80%wereacceptedby49to55%ofconsumerswhiledegreeoflikingscoreariedfrom5.5to5.7.OncherrieswithTA0.80%acceptancerangedfrom66to80%whiledegreeoflikingscoreariedfrom6.0to6.6(Table2).Ingeneral,‘Brooks’cherrieswithTA0.60%and‘Bing’cherrieswithTA0.80%hadthehighestSSCleelsandthus,thehighestSSC:TA.TheincreaseinSSC:TAduringthematuration/ripeningperiodresultedfromthehigherincreaseinSSCthantheincreaseinTA.ThisexplainswhyconsumeracceptanceincreasedasTAincreasedinthesesamples.Inallofthecases,theincreaseinTAwasaccompaniedwithanincreaseinSSC:TA.Becausetherewassignificantinteractionbe-tweenSSCandTAonthedegreeofliking,consumeracceptancebasedonSSCfortwole Fig.4.Singlecherrytitratableacidity(TA)for‘Bing’acrossmaturitybasedonskincolorusing596cherries.Centrallineisthemeanofthesample,outererticallinesrepresentS.D.aboutthemean. Table1Consumeracceptanceof‘Brooks’cherriesbyAmericancon-sumersatdifferentleelsoftitratableaciditywithintheSSCrangetestedTArangeDegreeofliking(%)(19)(%)0.505.9b490.606.3b640.706.6a760.807.0a801.007.4a95alue0.0001TA,singlecherrymeasurementsexpressedaspercentagemalicacid.Degreeofliking:1dislikeextremely,2much,3dislikemoderately,4dislikeslightly,5likenordislike,6likeslightly,7likemoderately,8erymuch,9likeextremely.Sameletterswithinthesamecolumnindicatenosignificantdifferencebetweenmeans.C.H.Crisostoetal./PostharestBiologyandTechnology28(2003)159 ofTAwasanalyzedforbothcultiars.Inbothars,consumeracceptanceincreasedasSSCincreased.For‘Brooks’cherrieswithSSC,degreeoflikingwasnotsignificantlydiffer-entforcherrieswith0.60%TA(score3.9)andforcherrieswith0.60%TA(score3.7).Thenumberofconsumersthatlikedthecherrieswithinthiscategoryrangedfrom11.1to26.6%.Thusfor‘Brooks’cherrieswithSSC13.0%TAdidnotplayaroleinconsumeracceptance.Forcherrieswithinthe13.116.0%SSCrange,consumersliked‘slightly’(5.9score)‘Brooks’cherrieswith0.60%TA,whilethey‘neitherlikednordisliked’(4.7score)cherrieswith0.60%TA.Forcherrieswithinthe13.116.0%SSCrangewithTAconsumeracceptancewas66.7%whileitwasonly42.9%forcherrieswithinthesameSSCrange0.60%TA.For‘Brooks’cherrieswith16.0%SSC,TAdidnotinfluenceconsumerresponses.TAplayedanimportantroleincon-sumeracceptanceofcherrieswith16.0%SSCandTA0.60%.WithinthisrangeofSSCandTA,highSSCcompensatedforhighTA,orlowTAcompensatedlowSSC,thusSSC:TAwasmoresensitietoconsumeracceptancethanSSCwithinthisrangeofSSCandTA.Consumersliked‘moderately’(ca.7.3score),cherrieswith16.0%SSCdisregardingTAreachingthehighestconsumeracceptance(86.596.7%).Cherryaccep-tancedidnotsignificantlyincreaseoncherrieswith20%SSC(Table3).Inapreiousworkcarriedouton‘Ranier’,oneof‘Brooks’parents(andFellman,1987),aminimumqualityindexof16.0%SSCwasproposed.TheinfluenceofSSCon‘Bing’cherryconsumeracceptancewith0.80%TAand0.80%TAwasdetermined(Table4).For‘Bing’cherrieswith13.0SSC,degreeoflikingwassignificantlyloweroncherrieswith0.80%TA(score2.4)thanforcherrieswith0.80%TA(score4.1).Inbothcases,consumeracceptancewas31.8%orlower.Cherrieswithinthe13.116.0%SSCrangewere‘neitherlikednordisliked’(5.3score)dis-regardingTAandacceptanceariedfrom47.7to58.3%.Thesamesituationoccurredoncherrieswithinthe16.120.0%SSCrange;cherrieswereliked‘slightly’(6.1score)andacceptancefrom70.0to72.3%.Consumeracceptancein-creasedsignificantlyforcherrieswithSSC20.0%.Thesecherrieswereliked‘moderately’disregardingTA(ca.7.3score)andacceptancereachedapproximately90%.Inthiscultiar,TAonlyinfluencedconsumeracceptanceforcherries13.0%SSC.Howeer,consumeraccep-tancewasthehighestforcherrieswithInbothcultiars,thenumberofconsumersthatchosethe‘neitherlikenordislike’optionfrom22.2to0%.Basedontheresultsofourwork,‘Bing’cherrieswith16.0%SSCwithoutregardtoTAwerealwayslikedbyconsumersbutwithdifferentdegreesofliking.AminimumSSCof19.0%wasconsideredoptimumbytrainedsensorypanelsforseeralsweetcherrycultigrowninBritishColumbia(Kappeletal.,1996For‘Bing’,aminimumof17.0%SSChasbeensuggestedafteraninformalconsumertestSchotzko,1993Theinfluenceofcherryskincoloronthedecisionto‘buy’or‘nottobuy’‘Brooks’and‘Bing’cherrieswasalsotestedfordemographics,i.e.gender,ethnicgroup,andagerange.Consu-mersdecidedtobuycherriesaccordingtoskincolor;thedarkertheskincolorthehigherthepercentageofconsumersthatwouldbuythem.Genderandethnicgroup(Caucasian,Asian, Table2Consumeracceptanceof‘Bing’cherriesbyAmericanconsu-mersatdifferentleelsoftitratableaciditywithintheSSCrangeTArangeDegreeofliking(%)(19)(%)0.705.5b490.805.7b550.906.0a661.206.6a80alue0.0001TA,singlecherrymeasurementsexpressedaspercentagemalicacid.Degreeofliking:1dislikeextremely,2much,3dislikemoderately,4dislikeslightly,5likenordislike,6likeslightly,7likemoderately,8erymuch,9likeextremely.Sameletterswithinthesamecolumnindicatenosignificantdifferencebetweenmeans.C.H.Crisostoetal./PostharestBiologyandTechnology28(2003)159 HispanicandBlack)didnotaffectthedecisionto‘buy’accordingtoskincolor(datanotshown).Approximately64%oftheconsumersdecidedto‘buy’‘Brooks’cherrieswithfulldarkredcolor,approximately22%ofconsumersdecidedto‘‘buy’’fullbrightredcolor,andapproximatelylessthan14%ofconsumersdecidedto‘buy’cherrieswithlessthanfullbrightredcolor(datanotshown).Ingeneral,approximately80%oftheconsumersdecidedto‘buy’‘Bing’cherrieswithdarkmahoganycolor,approximately10%decidedto‘buy’mahoganycolor,andapproximatelylessthan10%ofconsumersdecidedto‘buy’‘Bing’cherrieslighterthanmahoganycolor.Consumeragerangeinfluencedthedecisionto‘buy’accordingtoskincolorinbothculti Table3Consumeracceptanceof‘Brooks’cherrybyAmericanconsumersatdifferentleelsofsolublesolidsconcentration(SSC)andtitratableacidity(TA)measuredaspercentagemalicacidQualityattributesDegreeofliking(1Acceptance(%)Neitherlikenordislike(%)Dislike(%)13.0%3.9c26.717.455.8SSC13.116.0%5.9b66.712.221.1SSC16.120.0%7.2a86.55.08.520.0%7.0a87.54.28.313.0%3.7c11.122.266.7SSC13.116.0%4.7c42.90.057.1SSC16.120.0%7.2a90.02.57.520.0%7.7a96.70.03.3alue0.0001Degreeofliking:1dislikeextremely,2erymuch,3dislikemoderately,4dislikeslightly,5neitherlikenordislike,6likeslightly,7likemoderately,8erymuch,9likeextremely.Sameletterswithinthesamecolumnindicatenosignificantdifferencebetweenmeans. Table4Consumeracceptanceof‘Bing’cherrybyAmericanconsumersatdifferentleelsofsolublesolidsconcentration(SSC)andtitratableacidity(TA)measuredaspercentagemalicacidQualityattributesDegreeofliking(1AcceptanceNeitherlikenordislikeDislike13.0%4.1d31.89.159.1SSC13.116.0%5.3cd47.714.437.9SSC16.120.0%6.1bc70.010.020.020.0%7.5a93.36.70.013.0%2.4e18.20.081.8SSC13.116.0%5.4c58.310.731.0SSC16.120.0%6.1bc72.36.321.420.0%7.1ab86.54.59.0alue0.001Degreeofliking:1dislikeextremely,2erymuch,3dislikemoderately,4dislikeslightly,5neitherlikenordislike,6likeslightly,7likemoderately,8erymuch,9likeextremely.Sameletterswithinthesamecolumnindicatenosignificantdifferencebetweenmeans.C.H.Crisostoetal./PostharestBiologyandTechnology28(2003)159 Table5).For‘Brooks’cherries,thepercentageofconsumersthatdecidedto‘buy’fulldarkredcherriesrangedfrom41.7to78.4%asconsumeragechangedfromunder18to60yearsoldorolder.Percentageofconsumerschoosingto‘buy’darkerskincolorcherriesincreasedastheybecameolderbutitreachedaplateau(ca.74%)forconsumers40yearsoldorolder.Thepercentageofconsumerschoosingto‘‘buy’’darkercolor‘Bing’cherriesdramaticallyincreasedfromunder18yearsoldto18yearsoldorolder.Thepercentageofconsumersthatdecidedtobuydarkmahogany‘Bing’cherriesremainedcloseto85%withinthe18yearsoldorolderrange,whileonly61.2%ofconsumersunder18yearsoldchosetobuythem.ThisworkpointsoutthatSSC,SSC:TAandisualskincolorinfluenceconsumeracceptanceofthesetwocherrycultiars.AlthoughTAplaysaroleinconsumeracceptance,withinagienSSCrangetheimportanceofTAmeasurementislessantthanSSCbecauseTAchangesaresmallincomparisontoSSCchangesduringthecherrymaturation/ripeningperiodwithinagienorch-ard.SSC,whichiseasilymeasuredincontrasttoTA,isthemajorcontributortotheSSC:TA,andtherefore,consumeracceptance.Becausehighconsumeracceptanceandahighpercentageofconsumersmakingthedecisiontobuywasbasedonfullbrightred(‘Brooks’)ordarkmahogany(‘Bing’)skincolor,weproposetheuseofSSCcombinedwithfullcolordeelopmentdictatedbythecultiarasaminimumqualityindexfor‘Brooks’and‘Bing’cherriesinCalifornia.ThefullskincolorrequirementwillalsohelptoassurealargenumberofcherrieswithSSC16.0%SSCatthepickingtimeforbothcultiars.OurproposedminimumqualityindexishigherthanthecurrentUSGradeandStandardsandthemoredemandingCaliforniaAgriculturalCodeindexesKader,2002).TheCaliforniaAgriculturalCoderequiresacherrysurfacewithatleasta‘solidlightred’and/or14.016.0%SSC,dependingonthear.Furtherworktounderstandtheinterac-tionofculturalpracticesandstorageperiod,andonconsumeracceptanceduringthematuration/ripeningchangesshouldbepursued.AcknowledgementsWewouldliketothankDr.AnneNobleforherhelpinplanningthesensoryealuationwork.ThankstotheCaliforniaCherryCommissionandCaliforniaCherryGrowersAssociationforfundingthiswork. Table5PercentageofAmericanconsumersthat‘willbuy’‘Brooks’and‘Bing’cherriesateachskincoloraccordingtoagerangesarAgerangeSkincolorUnder18182930394049505960orolderFulllightred11.54.83.81.18.71.750%Brightred17.09.56.36.66.16.6Fullbrightred29.733.327.619.912.213.3Fulldarkred41.752.462.472.473.078.4Salmon20.67.10.00.00.00.0Red8.80.10.00.00.02.7Mahogany9.47.113.39.215.48.1Darkmahogany61.285.786.790.884.689.2581consumersinter596consumersinterC.H.Crisostoetal./PostharestBiologyandTechnology28(2003)159 ReferencesBruhn,C.M.,1995.ConsumerandretailsatisfactionwiththequalityandsizeofCaliforniapeachandnectarines.J.FoodQual.18,241Cliff,M.A.,Deer,M.C.,Hall,J.W.,Girard,B.,1996.elopmentandealuationofmultipleregressionmodelsforpredictionofsweetcherryliking.FoodRes.Int.28,Crisosto,C.H.,1997.Sureyof‘Bing’cherryharestquality.CaliforniaDepartmentofFoodandAgriculture,Stockton,CA,3pp.Crisosto,C.H.,Crisosto,G.M.,2001.Understandingconsumeracceptanceofearlyharested‘Hayward’kiwifruit.Post-estBiol.Technol.22,205Crisosto,C.H.,Crisosto,G.M.,2002.UnderstandingAmericanandChineseconsumeracceptanceof‘Redglobe’tablegrapes.PostharestBiol.Technol.24,155Crisosto,C.H.,Garner,D.,Doyle,J.,Day,K.R.,1993.Relationshipbetweenfruitrespiration,bruisingsusceptibil-ity,andtemperaturesinsweetcherries.HortScience28,Crisosto,C.H.,Crisosto,G.M.,Ritenour,M.A.,2002.Testingthereliabilityofskincolorasanindicatorofqualityforearlyseason‘Brooks’(PrunusaL.)cherry.PostharBiol.Technol.24,147er,M.C.,MacDonald,R.A.,Cliff,M.A.,Lane,W.D.,1996.SensoryealuationofsweetcherrycultiHortScience31,150Drake,S.R.,Fellman,J.K.,1987.Indicatorsofmaturityandstoragequalityof‘Ranier’sweetcherry.HortScience22,Drake,S.R.,Williams,M.W.,Fountain,J.B.,1989.Stemlesssweetcherry(PrunusaL.)fruitqualityandconsumerpurchase.J.FoodQual.11,411Hansche,P.E.,Beres,W.,Doyle,J.,Micke,W.C.,1988.‘Brooks’sweetcherry.HortScience23,644.Gorini,F.,Lasorella,M.,1990.Sensoryandobjectitionofkiwifruit.ActaHortic.282,309Guelf-Reich,S.,Safran,B.,1971.Indicesofmaturityfortablegrapesasdeterminedbyariety.VolcaniInstituteofAgriculturalResearch,Bet-Dagan,Israel.XVIIIInterna-tionalHorticultureCongress,Tel-A,Israel,March1725,1970.SeriesNo.1672E,13Guyer,D.E.,Sinha,N.K.,Chang,T.S.,Cash,J.N.,1993.PhysiochemicalandsensorycharacteristicsofselectedMichigansweetcherry(PrunusaL.)cultiars.J.FoodQual.16,355Kader,A.A.,1999.Fruitmaturity,ripening,andqualityrelationships.In:SymposiumonEffectofPreandPostestFactorsonStorageofFruit.ActaHortic.485,203Kader,A.A.,2002.Standardizationandinspectionoffreshfruitandegetables.In:Kader,A.A.(Ed.),PostharestandTechnologyofHorticulturalCrops,chapter23.UniofCalifornia,AgriculturalandNationalResourcesPub-lication3311.Kappel,F.,Fisher-Fleming,B.,Hogue,E.,1996.Fruitcharacteristicsandsensoryattributesofanidealsweetcherry.HortScience31,443Kappel,F.,Toionen,P.,Mckenzie,D.L.,Stan,S.,2002.StoragecharacteristicsofnewsweetcherrycultiHortScience37,139Lawless,H.T.,Heymann,H.,1998.Acceptanceandpreferencetesting.In:Lawless,H.T.,Heymann,H.(Eds.),SensoryaluationofFood,PrinciplesandPractices.ChapmanandHall,NewYork,pp.430Malundo,T.M.M.,Shewfelt,R.L.,Ware,G.O.,Baldwin,E.A.,2001.SugarsandacidsinuenceaorpropertiesofmangoMangiferaindica).J.Am.Soc.Hort.Sci.126,115Mitcham,E.,Tayfun,A.,Biasi,B.,Crisosto,C.,Gillespie,D.,1998.Determinationoftherelationshipbetween‘Bing’cherryharestmaturityandpostharestquality.ReporttotheCaliforniaCherryAdisoryBoard,29pp.Mitcham,E.,Tayfun,A.,Southwick,S.,Biasi,B.,1999.Determinationoftherelationshipbetween‘Bing’cherryestmaturityandpostharestquality.ReporttotheCaliforniaCherryAdisoryBoard.Mitcham,E.,Tayfun,A.,Southwick,S.,Biasi,B.,2000.Determinationoftherelationshipbetween‘Bing’cherryestmaturityandpostharestquality.ReporttotheCaliforniaCherryAdisoryBoard.Nelson,K.W.,Baker,G.A.,Winkler,A.J.,Amerine,M.A.,Richardson,H.B.,Jones,F.R.,1963.Chemicalandsensoryariabilityintablegrapes.Hilgardia34,1Nelson,K.E.,Schutz,H.G.,Ahmedullah,M.,McPherson,J.,1973.Flaorpreferencesofsupermarketcustomersfor‘ThompsonSeedless’grapes.Am.J.Enol.Viticult.24,O’Mahony,M.,1986.SensoryEaluationofFood.MarcelDekker,NewYork.Pehrson,J.E.,Ians,E.M.,1988.Variabilityinearlyseasonelorangeclonematurityandconsumeracceptance.Proc.Int.Soc.Citriculture,pp.1631Robertson,J.A.,Meridith,F.I.,1989.Characteristicsoffruitfromhigh-andlow-qualitypeachcultiars.HortScience23,Rodan,L.,1988.ConsumeracceptanceofFloridagrapesandgrapeproducts.ProceedingsoftheViticultureSciencesSymposiumTallahassee,FL.FloridaA&MUniCenterforViticulturalSciences,pp.119Schotzko,R.T.,1993.Freshsweetcherryeatingcharacteristics:somebaselinedata.WashingtonStateUni.Res.Bull.XB1028,3C.H.Crisostoetal./PostharestBiologyandTechnology28(2003)159