Abstract
Abstract Florunner peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) were grown during the 1984 season near Tifton, Georgia. Two planting dates spaced one month apart were used to obtain four weekly digging dates. Peanuts from each harvest were windrow dried for 4 days, mechanically harvested and placed into a ventilated wagon for 1 to 4 days. Peanuts were subsequently removed from the wagon, shelled at 8 to 22% moisture (wb), and microwave vacuum dried at nominal rates of 4, 8, 16, and 32 times the normal rate of conventional wagon drying. Harvest group, microwave treatment level, and order of processing were configured in a Latin Square design. Concurrent with each microwave run (MV), a separate portion of the shelled peanuts was deep bed dried (CS) and another portion was similarly dried but within shell (CH). Analyses of variance were performed to determine the significance of treatment type, microwave level, harvest group, and processing order differences on splitting and skin slippage tendencies, mold growth, and germination potential. No significant (p> .05) differences were observed among treatment types for splitting and skin slippage potential, though slight (p< .05) differences existed among microwave treatment levels (damage increasing with increasing microwave drying rate), and drying order within microwave treatment (damage decreasing with increasing drying order). Larger (p< .01) splitting and skin slippage differences existed among harvest groups. MV treatments had significantly (p< .01) higher presence of A. flavus than the CS and CH treatments though aflatoxin was not detected in any sample. The percentage of normal strong germinated kernels from MV treatments was significantly (p<.01) lower than from the CS and CH treatments, with germination decreasing with increasing microwave process rate.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment types did not differ significantly in splitting or skin slippage.
- Taxon
- Peanut
Arachis hypogaeat0 - Treatment
- treatment typese0
- Outcome
- splitting and skin slippage potentiale0
- Direction
- No significante0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No significant (p> .05) differences were observed among treatment types for splitting and skin slippage potential”
t0“Peanut Quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Damage increased as microwave drying rate increased.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- microwave drying ratee0
- Outcome
- damagee0
- Direction
- increasinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“slight (p< .05) differences existed among microwave treatment levels (damage increasing with increasing microwave drying rate)”
t0“Peanut Quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Damage decreased with increasing drying order.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- drying ordere0
- Outcome
- damagee0
- Direction
- decreasinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“drying order within microwave treatment (damage decreasing with increasing drying order)”
t0“Peanut Quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Harvest groups differed substantially in splitting and skin slippage.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Material
- harvest groupse0
- Outcome
- splitting and skin slippage differencese0
- Direction
- Largere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Larger (p< .01) splitting and skin slippage differences existed among harvest groups”
t0“Peanut Quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Microwave vacuum drying had higher A. flavus presence than the two comparison treatments.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- MV treatmentse0
- Interactor
- A. flavuse0pathogen
- Outcome
- presence of A. flavuse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- CS and CH treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MV treatments had significantly (p< .01) higher presence of A. flavus than the CS and CH treatments”
t0“Peanut Quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Aflatoxin was not detected in any sample.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Outcome
- aflatoxin was not detectede0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“aflatoxin was not detected in any sample”
t0“Peanut Quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Microwave vacuum drying reduced normal strong germination relative to CS and CH treatments.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- MV treatmentse0
- Outcome
- percentage of normal strong germinated kernelse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- CS and CH treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The percentage of normal strong germinated kernels from MV treatments was significantly (p<.01) lower than from the CS and CH treatments”
t0“Peanut Quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Germination decreased as microwave process rate increased.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- microwave process ratee0
- Outcome
- germinatione0
- Direction
- decreasinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“germination decreasing with increasing microwave process rate”
t0“Peanut Quality”
The same questions in other papers
processing · growth · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.