Journal of Food Processing & Technology

Studies on Physical and Bio-Chemical Traits Variation in Reddish-Brown and Brown Pulp Indian Date (Tamarindus indica L.) Genotypes

Rajender Kumar^*, A L Palande, V R Joshi, S S Kulkarni, P D Dalve and S M Choudhary Department of Horticulture, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Ahmadnagar, India
^*Correspondence: Rajender Kumar, Department of Horticulture, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Ahmadnagar, India, Email:

Received: 27-Mar-2020, Manuscript No. JFPT-24-3729; Editor assigned: 01-Apr-2020, Pre QC No. JFPT-24-3729 (PQ); Reviewed: 15-Apr-2020, QC No. JFPT-24-3729; Revised: 15-Jul-2024, Manuscript No. JFPT-24-3729 (R); Published: 12-Aug-2024, DOI: 10.35248/2157-7110.24.15.1116

Introduction

Tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.) is a hardy evergreen tropical tree which belongs to family ‘Fabaceae’ and is popularly known as ‘date of India’ which is derived from Arabic word “Tamar-ul- Hind”. The fruit is commonly used as a spice because of its acidic nature but the sweet types from Thailand are now dominating the tamarind market as a table fruit [1].

The sweet tamarind has been attributed to a point mutation. Occasionally isolated branches on a tree may bear sweet fruits while others bear normal sour ones. Bud sports of these trees have been propagated vegetatively and form the basis for a range of recent cultivars. In case of sweet tamarind, the dried ripe fruit is generally eaten straight from the pod.

The red tamarind is a rare mutant with scattered distribution. The fruit colour in unripe stage is red due to presence of anthocyanin the content of anthocyanin is high in red tamarind (180 mg/g to 360 mg/g of unripe fruit), while comparing with other anthocyannin rich fruits like grapes (80 mg/g-90 mg/g), cherry (70 mg/g-75 mg/g) and jamun (120 mg/g-130 mg/g). Red tamarind's anthocyanin also has rich antioxidant properties. Hence it will have wide scope for utilizing as potential biocolorant in food processing, pharmaceutical, brewery and confectionery industries to replace the existing use of carcinogenic inorganic colorants [2].

In present study many plus trees have been identified which were of seedling origin. There is need to develop the new variety of tamarind from the available local genotypes. Therefore, the present investigation was undertaken to study the variations in physical and qualitative characteristics with the objectives to study the tamarind genotypes for yield and sweet type quality parameters.

Materials and Methods

The present investigation entitled “evaluation of tamarind genotypes for growth, yield and quality” was conducted during the flowering and fruiting season of 2018-2019. The twenty genotypes were evaluated for various physico-chemical characters. The investigation was carried out at the instructionalcum- research farm, department of horticulture, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar (MS), India [3]. The tamarind trees were observed carefully for various parameters i.e., total number of pods along with other desirable fruit characters like big sized pod, small seed and attractive colour of measocarp, shape of pod and desirable taste of mesocarp. From the selected tree about twenty pods were randomly selected from all sides of plant at the time of their ripening stage. Fruit samples were packed in polyethylene bag and brought for further study in the laboratory of department of horticulture, post graduate institute, MPKV, Rahuri.

The physical parameters recorded during course of investigation were mature pod colour, mature pod shape, mature pod pulp colour, average pod weight (g), average pod length (cm), average pod breadth (cm), average shell weight (g), average pulp weight (g), average seed weight (g), average vein weight (g), number of seeds per pod, weight of 100 seeds (g), shell percentage (%), pulp percentage (%), vein percentage (%), seed percentage (%), yield per plant (kg) and yield efficiency (kg/m³). The data on physical parameters were recorded as per standard procedures with the help of electronic equipment. Yield efficiency was computed by dividing the total yield obtained per plant with canopy volume of that plant [4].

Results and Discussion

The genotypes were primarily evaluated for pulp colour and grouped accordingly into 2 categories which consist of 3 reddishbrown and 17 brown pulp genotypes.

Physical and bio-chemical characters of reddishbrown genotypes

The data presented in Table 1 indicate the variability among the genotypes for qualitative physical attributes. With respect to mature pod colour, out of three reddish-brown genotypes, two genotypes (RHRTG 1, RHRTG 16) were recorded for grey colour and one genotype (RHRTG 3) for brown colour pod. Similar findings were reported by Bhogave et al. where out of 26 genotypes, eight were recorded for light brown and eighteen for brown colour pod [5]. All the three reddishbrown genotypes (RHRTG 1, RHRTG 3 and RHRTG 16) were reported similar with regard to mature pod shape i.e., moderately curved and pulp colour i.e., reddish brown. Our results are in line with the finding of Nandini et al.

Data regarding quantitative physical attributes are presented in Table 2. The average weight and length of pod ranged from 17.90 g (RHRTG 16) to 22.53 g (RHRTG 1) and 11.15 cm (RHRTG 16) to 15.12 cm (RHRTG 1) respectively. RHRTG 1 was recorded superior for both of these characters. Our study is in close conformity with the findings of Mayavel et al. who has also reported variation in pod weight and pod length of tamarind in the range of 4.89 g to 13.94 g and 4.96 cm to 12.02 cm respectively.

Table 1: Qualitative physical characters of reddish-brown and brown pulp tamarind genotypes.

For pod breadth accessions ranged between 2.05 cm (RHRTG 16) to 2.38 (RHRTG 1) cm. The genotypes were found within the limit of general mean for this character [6]. The variation in pod breadth might be due to different genetical constitution of the individual genotypes. More or less similar kinds of variability in pod breadth in tamarind genotypes were observed by Bilcke et al.

The shell weight was recorded minimum in RHRTG 3 (4.19 g) and maximum in RHRTG 1 (5.62 g). The genotypes were found within the limit of general mean for all this characters also. Our study is in close conformity with the findings of who reported the shell weight in the range of 1.78 g (NTI-77) to 5.04 g (NTI-19). As is evident from the Table 2, pulp weight, seed weight and average vein weight ranged from 7.29 g (RHRTG 16) to 10.29 g (RHRTG 1); 4.15 (RHRTG 3) to 5.85 g (RHRTG 1) and 0.57 (RHRTG 16) to 0.80 g (RHRTG 3) respectively. The genotypes were reported within the limit of general mean for all these characters [7]. Our results are in the line with the findings of Challapilli and Benjamin and Seegobin. Seed test weight and number of seeds per pod ranged from 68.50 g (RHRTG 3) to 81.80 g (RHRTG 1) and 5.00 (RHRTG 3) to 7.67 (RHRTG 16) respectively [8]. The genotypes were reported within the limit of general mean for these characters. Our results are in the line with the findings of Divakara.

Table 2: Quantitative physical characters of reddish-brown pulp tamarind genotypes.

The bio-chemical parameters of different genotypes are presented in Table 3. Very less of variation in TSS content was reported in reddish-brown genotypes ranging from 30.48 (RHRTG 16) to 32.10°B (RHRTG 3). More or less similar variations were reported by Joshi, et al. where they recorded the TSS of 31°Brix in local tamarind followed by 27°Brix and 26°Brix in Ajantha and Thailand type’s tamarind varieties respectively. The acidity percentage was recorded minimum in the genotype RHRTG 3 (8.38%) and maximum in RHRTG 16 (11.18%). Our results are in the line with the findings of Tania, et al. The genotypes were recorded with in the limit of general mean for these characters [9].

Table 3: Bio-chemical characters of reddish brown pulp tamarind genotypes.

The percentage of total sugars, reducing sugars and mg of ascorbic acid per 100 g varied from 18.20 (RHRTG 16) to 21.40 per cent (RHRTG 1) and 13.28 (RHRTG 16) to 15.96 per cent (RHRTG 3) and 1.50 (RHRTG 3) to 2.70 (RHRTG 16) mg per 100 g respectively among reddish-brown genotypes. The genotypes were recorded with in the limit of general mean for all these parameters also. These results confirmed variations in early findings of Shankaracharya. Shukla reported that ascorbic acid content of tamarind pulp ranging from 1.81 (IGTAM-8) to 4.05 mg/100 g (IGTAM-11). As per coefficient of variation highest variability among reddish-brown genotypes was observed for yield efficiency, followed by ascorbic acid, vein per cent, yield per plant, number of seeds per pod, average vein weight, average seed weight, average pulp weight, seed percentage, average shell weight, average pod length, titratable acidity, average pod weight, pulp percentage, reducing sugars, non-reducing sugars, weight of 100 seeds, total sugars, average pod breadth, shell percentage and TSS content [10].

With regard to shell weight, maximum value was recorded in the genotype RHRTG 6 followed by RHRTG 4 (5.87 g) and RHRTG 18 (5.72 g) and the minimum in genotype RHRTG 9 (3.65 g). Our study is in close conformity with the findings of Shivanandam who also obtained similar variations in shell weight among tamarind accessions between 2.94 g to 7.29 g. The weight of pulp which is expected to be more influenced by genetic control rather than environmental factors varied from 8.02 g to 17.45 g. The genotypes RHRTG 14 and RHRTG 18 (15.09 g) were reported superior for this character. More or less similar results were obtained by Divakara and Okello et al.

The average seed weight ranged from 2.37 g to 6.67 g. maximum seed weight was recorded in the genotypes RHRTG 6 followed by RHRTG 4 (6.43 g) and RHRTG 13 (5.73 g).

The pulp percentage ranged from 37.12% to 62.16%. The genotype RHRTG 14, RHRTG 10 (60.58%) and RHRTG 11 (59.57%) were recorded superior for pulp per cent. More or less similar results were obtained by Challapilli. Maximum seed percentage was recorded in the genotype RHRTG 4 (29.04%) followed by RHRTG 2 (24.86%), RHRTG 6 (24.36%) and RHRTG 9 (24.29%) and minimum in RHRTG 10 (12.32%), RHRTG 11 (13.84%) and RHRTG 18 (14.56%). Prabhushankar et al. evaluated 15 tamarind clones and reported the 11.42 per cent seed weight in Urigam and 35.13 per cent in P-13.

Yield is the principal objective for breeding but at the same time very complex phenomenon influenced by various biotic and abiotic factors. Yield of the selected genotypes varied from 9 to 85 kg/plant. The genotypes RHRTG 4 followed by RHRTG 12 (75 kg), RHRTG 14 (72 kg), RHRTG 11 (70 kg) and RHRTG 15 (68 kg) were recorded superior for yield character. A wide variation in yield pattern was reported by Agasimani et al. Yield efficiency ranged from 0.53 kg/m³ to 5.81 kg/m³. The genotypes RHRTG 4 and RHRTG 15 (5.09 kg/m³) were found superior for this character than rest of genotypes [11].

Data with regard to bio-chemical traits of brown pulp tamarind genotypes are presented in Table 4. In case of sweet tamarind TSS, acidity and pulp per cent are the major attribute which primarily decides the palatability of this crop as table fruit. During selection of superior genotypes for table fruit purpose breeder should focus more on these traits. Among 17 brown pulp genotypes, TSS content varied from 28.68°B to 34.80°B. The genotypes RHRTG 6 (34.80°B) followed by RHRTG 14 (33.00°B) and RHRTG 10 (32.76°B) were found superior than rest of genotypes. More or less similar kinds of variability were also observed by Osorio et al. The variation in TSS may be due to different genetical constitution of the individual genotypes. Fruit growing in arid region with limited water tended to more accumulation of dry matter and lower moisture may result in higher TSS in fruits [12].

Table 4: Bio-chemical characters of brown pulp tamarind genotypes.

Titratable acidity percentage is also one of the most important criteria, which also determine the quality of pods. Acidity percentage was found in the range of 8.08 to 9.85 percent. The minimum value of titratable acidity was recorded in RHRTG 2 (8.08 percent) and maximum in RHRTG 20 (9.85%), RHRTG 4 (9.75%) and RHRTG 5 (9.30%). More or less similar results were reported by Pooja et al. This is a fact in many fruits that, when TSS is increasing acidity is definitely decreased [13]. The variation among genotypes for acidity might be due to higher TSS and genetic makeup of plant (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Variation in genotypes with respect to pod weight, pulp weight and pulp percentage.

In all 17 brown genotypes studied the genotype RHRTG 14 (Figure 2) was reported superior for all prime character like pulp weight, pulp percentage (Figure 1), yield and TSS content. The all brown pulp genotypes were reported in medium acidic range as per DUS grouping (i.e., 8% to 10%). But titratable acidity of some genotypes was recorded just slight above than sweet type range (i.e., below 8%).

Figure 2: Genotype RHRTG 14 having maximum pulp weight and pulp percentage.

Conclusion

Therefore, few genotypes like RHRTG 10, RHRTG 11 and RHRTG 14 were reported suitable for table fruit purpose because of their lessor acidity percentage and more of pulp percentage and TSS content. For culinary purpose genotypes like RHRTG 4, RHRHG 5 and RHRTG 20 were reported suitable because of their high titratable acidity percentage. Among reddish-brown genotypes, RHRTH 16 was reported for high titratable acidity percentage which can be utilized for storage purpose in confectionary. It is suggested that these promising types which are showing superior characteristics should be considered for further studies for the improvement of local elite types of tamarind by following standard breeding methods.

Acknowledgement

The first author is thankful to the Indian council of agriculture research, New Delhi for awarding the scholarship during the study period.

References

1. van den Bilcke N, Alaerts K, Ghaffaripour S, Simbo DJ, Samson R. Physico-chemical properties of tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.) fruits from Mali: Selection of elite trees for domestication. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2014;61:537-553.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

2. Divakara BN. Variation and character association for various pod traits in Tamarindus indica L. Indian For. 2008;134(5):687.

   [Google Scholar]

3. Fandohan B, Assogbadjo AE, Glele Kakai R, Kyndt T, Sinsin B. Quantitative morphological descriptors confirm traditionally classified morphotypes of Tamarindus indica L. fruits. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2011;58:299-309.

   [Google Scholar]

4. Okello J, Okullo JB, Eilu G, Nyeko P, Obua J. Morphological variations in Tamarindus indica LINN. Fruits and seed traits in the different agroecological zones of Uganda. Int J Ecol. 2018;2018(1):8469156.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

5. Greskevitch M, Kullman G, Bang KM, Mazurek JM. Respiratory disease in agricultural workers: Mortality and morbidity statistics. J Agromedicine. 2007;12(3):5-10.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

6. Parameswari K, Srimathi P. Influence of seed source variation on size grades of Tamarind (Tamarindus indica Linn.). Legume Res Int J. 2009;32(4):240-244.

   [Google Scholar]

7. Pooja GK, Adivappar N, Shivakumar BS, Lakshmana D, Sharanabasappa Kantharaj Y. Evaluation and character association studies on yield and quality parameters of tamarind genotypes. 2018;6(4):582-585.

   [Google Scholar]

8. Shankaracharya NB. Tamarind-chemistry, technology and uses-a critical appraisal. J Food Sci Technol. 1998;35(3):193-208.

   [Google Scholar]

9. Shukla AK, Singh J. Studies on physico-chemical evaluation of tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.) genotypes prevailing in bastar region of Chhattisgarh on physical characters. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2019;8(6):1873-1879.

   [Google Scholar]

10. Sulieman AM, Alawad SM, Osman MA, Abdelmageed EA. Physicochemical characteristics of local varieties of tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.), Sudan Int J Plant Res. 2015;5(1):13-18.

    [Google Scholar]

11. Olagunju OF, Ezekiel OO, Ogunshe AO, Oyeyinka SA, Ijabadeniyi OA. Effects of fermentation on proximate composition, mineral profile and antinutrients of tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.) seed in the production of daddawa-type condiment. LWT. 2018;90:455-459.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

12. Chimsah FA, Nyarko G, Abubakari AH. A review of explored uses and study of nutritional potential of tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.) in northern Ghana. Afr J Food Sci. 2020;14(9):285-294.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

13. Mahajani K. Physicochemical, functional properties and proximate composition of tamarind seed: Proximate composition of tamarind seed. J Agri Search. 2020;7(1):51-53.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]