Abstract
This study evaluated the effectiveness of Purdue improved crop storage (PICS) bags in preserving the quality of two common bean varieties over three months in Uganda. Consumers' preferred Nambale short (NS) and yellow short (YS) bean varieties were studied. Results showed that NS beans stored in PICS bags outperformed those in PP bags (control) across several metrics: lower moisture content (10.51 ± 0.04 vs. 12.80 ± 0.04%), reduced insect infestation (3.50 ± 0.04 vs. 47.00 ± 0.04 insects), less grain damage (6.60 ± 0.08 vs. 37.26 ± 0.08%), lower weight loss (0.55 ± 0.13 vs. 3.15 ± 0.13%), shorter cooking time (183.75 ± 0.06 vs. 251.10 ± 0.06 min), a higher germination rate (95.00 ± 0.20 vs. 87.00 ± 0.20%), and greater overall acceptability (6.65 ± 0.18 vs. 6.04 ± 0.18). Similar benefits were observed for YS beans stored in PICS bags. The PICS bags effectively preserved the physicochemical, culinary, and sensory quality characteristics of NS and YS beans over three months, making them a viable storage solution for common dry beans.
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
For Nambale short beans, PICS bags lowered moisture content versus PP bags.
Verbatim
e0“NS beans stored in PICS bags outperformed those in PP bags (control) across several metrics: lower moisture content (10.51 ± 0.04 vs. 12.80 ± 0.04%)”
Claim · model-written summary
For Nambale short beans, PICS bags reduced insect infestation versus PP bags.
Verbatim
e0“NS beans stored in PICS bags outperformed those in PP bags (control) across several metrics: lower moisture content (10.51 ± 0.04 vs. 12.80 ± 0.04%), reduced insect infestation (3.50 ± 0.04 vs. 47.00 ± 0.04 insects)”
Claim · model-written summary
For Nambale short beans, PICS bags reduced grain damage versus PP bags.
Verbatim
e0“NS beans stored in PICS bags outperformed those in PP bags (control) across several metrics: lower moisture content (10.51 ± 0.04 vs. 12.80 ± 0.04%), reduced insect infestation (3.50 ± 0.04 vs. 47.00 ± 0.04 insects), less grain damage (6.60 ± 0.08 vs. 37.26 ± 0.08%)”
Claim · model-written summary
For Nambale short beans, PICS bags lowered weight loss versus PP bags.
Verbatim
e0“NS beans stored in PICS bags outperformed those in PP bags (control) across several metrics: lower moisture content (10.51 ± 0.04 vs. 12.80 ± 0.04%), reduced insect infestation (3.50 ± 0.04 vs. 47.00 ± 0.04 insects), less grain damage (6.60 ± 0.08 vs. 37.26 ± 0.08%), lower weight loss (0.55 ± 0.13 vs. 3.15 ± 0.13%)”
Claim · model-written summary
For Nambale short beans, PICS bags shortened cooking time versus PP bags.
Verbatim
e0“NS beans stored in PICS bags outperformed those in PP bags (control) across several metrics: lower moisture content (10.51 ± 0.04 vs. 12.80 ± 0.04%), reduced insect infestation (3.50 ± 0.04 vs. 47.00 ± 0.04 insects), less grain damage (6.60 ± 0.08 vs. 37.26 ± 0.08%), lower weight loss (0.55 ± 0.13 vs. 3.15 ± 0.13%), shorter cooking time (183.75 ± 0.06 vs. 251.10 ± 0.06 min)”
Claim · model-written summary
For Nambale short beans, PICS bags increased germination rate versus PP bags.
Verbatim
e0“NS beans stored in PICS bags outperformed those in PP bags (control) across several metrics: lower moisture content (10.51 ± 0.04 vs. 12.80 ± 0.04%), reduced insect infestation (3.50 ± 0.04 vs. 47.00 ± 0.04 insects), less grain damage (6.60 ± 0.08 vs. 37.26 ± 0.08%), lower weight loss (0.55 ± 0.13 vs. 3.15 ± 0.13%), shorter cooking time (183.75 ± 0.06 vs. 251.10 ± 0.06 min), a higher germination rate (95.00 ± 0.20 vs. 87.00 ± 0.20%)”
Claim · model-written summary
For Nambale short beans, PICS bags increased overall acceptability versus PP bags.
Verbatim
e0“NS beans stored in PICS bags outperformed those in PP bags (control) across several metrics: lower moisture content (10.51 ± 0.04 vs. 12.80 ± 0.04%), reduced insect infestation (3.50 ± 0.04 vs. 47.00 ± 0.04 insects), less grain damage (6.60 ± 0.08 vs. 37.26 ± 0.08%), lower weight loss (0.55 ± 0.13 vs. 3.15 ± 0.13%), shorter cooking time (183.75 ± 0.06 vs. 251.10 ± 0.06 min), a higher germination rate (95.00 ± 0.20 vs. 87.00 ± 0.20%), and greater overall acceptability (6.65 ± 0.18 vs. 6.04 ± 0.18)”
Claim · model-written summary
Yellow short beans stored in PICS bags showed similar benefits.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“Similar benefits were observed for YS beans stored in PICS bags”
The same questions in other papers
storage · quality: grain · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →storage · quality: general · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →storage · quality: postharvest · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →storage · growth · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →storage · pest · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
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.