| Literature DB >> 35990319 |
Su Xu1,2, Yuze Liu1, Fengwei Ma1, Ni Yang2, Elias de Melo Virginio Filho3, Ian Denis Fisk2.
Abstract
A long experiment has been established since 2000 at CATIE (Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center), Turrialba, Costa Rica. Twenty agro-forestry systems with different shade types and managements (organic and non-organic) consisting of an incomplete randomized block-design with shade tree as main effect and subplots represented by management were set up. The effects of different managements and shade types on the aroma and color generation of roasted coffee beans were investigated. The total protein content was significantly higher (P < 0.05) under the intensive conventional (IC) (168 g/Kg) and intensive organic (IO) (167 g/Kg) managements than under the moderate conventional (MC) (153 g/Kg in IC vs. MC group, 157 g/Kg in MC vs. IO group). Comparing with the moderate conventional (MC) management, the intensive organic (IO) management had a stronger ability to generate more flavor and color. The total protein content was significantly higher (P < 0.05) under the full sun system (172 g/Kg) than under the shaded (159 g/Kg) and Erythrina system (155 g/Kg), under the service system (165 g/Kg) than under the timber system (146 g/Kg), under the legume timber system (170 g/Kg) than under the non-legume timber system (152 g/Kg). The full sun system had a greater flavor generation and color after roasting. Comparing with the timber system, the service system produced roasted beans with the more flavor and color. Comparing with the non-legume shade tree, the legume shade tree improved the performance of flavor and color in the roasted coffee beans.Entities:
Keywords: agro-forestry systems; aroma generation; coffee color; organic management; shade trees
Year: 2022 PMID: 35990319 PMCID: PMC9386424 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2022.968783
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
Agroforestry systems with main plot (Shade type) and subplot (Management) treatments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Managements | IC | IC | IC | IC | |||
| MC | MC | MC | MC | MC | MC | MC | |
| IO | IO | IO | IO | IO | IO | ||
| LO | LO | LO |
E, Erythrina poepiggiana; C, Chloroleucon eurycyclum; T, Terminalia amazonia.
IC, Intensive conventional; MC, Moderate conventional; IO, Intensive organic, LO, Low organic; (n = 3).
Characteristics of shade trees (22).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evergreen | Low compact | Yes | Service | |
| Deciduous | High spreading | Yes | Timber | |
| Deciduous | High compact | No | Timber |
Deciduous for about 20–30 days per year.
Mean shade tree density after thinning.
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| E | E | 360 | 285 | 241 |
| C | C | 381 | 154 | 65 |
| T | T | 317 | 167 | 73 |
|
| ||||
| C+E | C | 183 | 100 | 45 |
| E | 181 | 134 | 115 | |
| C+T | C | 166 | 77 | 39 |
| T | 170 | 77 | 34 | |
| E+T | E | 147 | 143 | 109 |
| T | 158 | 81 | 34 | |
E, Erythrina poepiggiana; C, Chloroleucon eurycyclum; T, Terminalia Amazonia.
Mean input levels of fertilizers (Kg ha−1year−1) and weed/disease control since 2006, adapted from Haggar et al. (23) and Noponen et al. (25).
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| IC | 287:20:150 | Six | 3–4 |
| MC | 150:10:75 | Five | 1–4 |
| IO | 248:205:326 | Four | Organic substances as required |
| LO | 66:2:44 | Four | No |
IC, Intensive conventional, MC, Moderate conventional, IO, Intensive organic, LO, Low organic. IO fertilization: Chicken manure 10 t ha.
Number of treatments applied per year.
Fertilization levels (Kg ha.
Principal contrasts used in the analysis of shade type and management effects.
|
|
|
|---|---|
|
| |
| IC vs. MC | IC(FS, E, T, CE) vs. MC(FS, E, T, CE) |
| MC vs. IO | MC(E, T, C, CE, CT, ET) vs. IO(E, T, C, CE, CT, ET) |
| IO vs. LO | IO(E, CE) vs. LO(E, CE) |
| IC vs. IO | IC(E, T, CE) vs. IO(E, T, CE) |
|
| |
| FS vs. shaded | FS(IC, MC) vs. E(IC, MC) + T(IC, MC) + CE(IC, MC) |
| Service vs. timber trees | E(MC, IO) vs. T(MC, IO) + C(MC, IO) + TC(MC, IO) |
| Legume timber vs. non-legume timber | C(MC, IO) vs. T(MC, IO) |
IC, Intensive conventional; MC, Moderate conventional; IO, Intensive organic; LO, Low organic; FS, Full sun. E, Erythrina poepiggiana; C, Chloroleucon eurycyclum; T, Terminalia Amazonia; CE, Chloroleucon eurycyclum and Erythrina poepiggiana; CT, Chloroleucon eurycyclum and Terminalia Amazonia; ET, Erythrina poepiggiana and Terminalia Amazonia.
Erythrina was regarded as a low canopy tree with low shade cover and compared with full sun.
Contrast results for total protein and sucrose contents (g/Kg) by dry weight of green coffee beans.
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| IC vs. MC | 167.62 | 17.25 |
| 91.52 | 9.12 | 0.544 |
| 152.53 | 90.09 | |||||
| MC vs. IO | 157.11 | 21.31 |
| 88.12 | 11.25 | 0.053 |
| 166.51 | 92.25 | |||||
| IO vs. LO | 162.39 | 12.18 | 0.94 | 86.97 | 6.91 | 0.915 |
| 161.92 | 87.33 | |||||
| IC vs. IO | 166.92 | 14.73 | 0.414 | 89.89 | 8.21 | 0.328 |
| 162.79 | 87.22 | |||||
|
| ||||||
| FS vs. S | 171.88 | 29.87 |
| 91.73 | 16.05 | 0.647 |
| 159.05 | 90.49 | |||||
| E vs. FS | 155.36 | 12.11 |
| 90.36 | 7.36 | 0.68 |
| 171.78 | 91.73 | |||||
| Ser. vs. Tim. | 165.33 | 30.24 |
| 88.50 | 16.18 | 0.984 |
| 146.29 | 88.56 | |||||
| LT vs. NLT | 170.33 | 12.21 |
| 84.21 | 6.87 | 0.077 |
| 152.26 | 90.14 | |||||
Values were presented as mean, standard error of the contrast difference (S.E.D), and significance of the difference (P-value), P-values <0.05 were shown in bold. IC, Intensive conventional; MC, Moderate conventional; IO, Intensive organic; LO, Low organic; FS, Full sun; S, Shaded; E, Erythrina poepiggiana; Ser., Service, Tim, Timber; LT, Legume timber; NLT, Non-legume timber.
Detection of sixty-four volatile aroma compounds in the roasted coffee beans in the different agricultural treatments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2,5-Dimethylfuran | m, r | 721 | 706 | Ethereal | Furan |
| 2 | 2-Methylfuran | m, r | 893 | 888 | Chocolate | Furan |
| 3 | 2-Methylbutanal | m, r | 918 | 930 | Malty | Aldehyde |
| 4 | 3-Methylbutanal | m, r | 950 | 934 | Malty | Aldehyde |
| 5 | 2,3-Butanedione | m, r | 983 | 1,000 | Buttery, cheesy | Ketone |
| 6 | Dimethyl-Disulphide | m, r | 1,053 | 1,050 | Onion | Sulphide |
| 7 | Hexanal | m, r | 1,063 | 1,064 | Grassy, green oily | Aldehyde |
| 8 | 2,3-Pentanedione | m, r | 1,078 | 1,072 | Oily buttery | Ketone |
| 9 | 2-Vinylfuran | m, r | 1,112 | 1,096 | Ethereal, rum, cocoa note | Furan |
| 10 | 2,3-Hexanedione | m, r | 1,154 | 1,138 | Buttery, cheesy, sweet, creamy | Ketone |
| 11 | 1-Methylpyrrole | m, r | 1,171 | 1,168 | White bread, woody | Pyrrole |
| 12 | 2,4,5-Trimethyloxazole | m, r | 1,219 | 1,200 | Green, woody, musty | Heterocyclic N |
| 13 | Pyridine | m, r | 1,225 | 1,213 | Bitter, astringent, roasted, burnt | Pyridine |
| 14 | 2-Pentylfuran | m, r | 1,239 | 1,235 | Fruity, green | Fruan |
| 15 | Furfuryl methyl ether | m, r | 1,262 | 1,243 | Nutty, rich, phenolic | Ether |
| 16 | Dihydro-2-methyl-3-furanone | m, r | 1,267 | 1,246 | Sweet, roasted | Ketone |
| 17 | 2-Methylpyrazine | m, r | 1,282 | 1,297 | Nutty, roasted, chocolate | Pyrazine |
| 18 | 4-Methylthiazole | m, r | 1,335 | 1,312 | Nutty, green | Heterocyclic N |
| 19 | Acetoin | m, r | 1,348 | - | Buttery, creamy | Ketone |
| 20 | 2,5-Dimethylpyrazine | m, r | 1,370 | 1,357 | Nutty, roasted, grassy, corn | Pyrazine |
| 21 | 2,6-Dimethylpyrazine | m, r | 1,375 | 1,362 | Nutty, sweet, fried | Pyrazine |
| 22 | 2-Ethyl-3-methylpyrazine | m, r | 1,382 | 1,363 | Nutty | Pyrazine |
| 23 | 2-Methyl-2-cyclopentenone | m, r | 1,388 | 1,366 | Fruity | Ketone |
| 24 | 2-Ethylpyrazine | m, r | 1,391 | 1,370 | Nutty, roasted | Pyrazine |
| 25 | 2,3-Dimethylpyrazine | m,r | 1,395 | 1,383 | Nutty, roasted, green | Pyrazine |
| 26 | 2,3,5-Trimethylpyrazine | m, r | 1,410 | 1,395 | Nutty, roasted | Pyrazine |
| 27 | 2-Ethyl-5-methylpyrazine | m, r | 1,416 | 1,397 | Nutty, roasted | Pyrazine |
| 28 | 2-Ethyl-6-methylpyrazine | m, r | 1,426 | 1,420 | Roasted, hazelnut-like | Pyrazine |
| 29 | Propyl pyrazine | m, r | 1,437 | 1,428 | Green | Pyrazine |
| 30 | Vinyl pyrazine | m, r | 1,446 | 1,434 | Nutty, green | Pyrazine |
| 31 | 2,6-Diethylpyrazine | m, r | 1,458 | 1,444 | Nutty, roasted | Pyrazine |
| 32 | Acetic acid | m, r | 1,471 | 1,454 | Sour | Acid |
| 33 | Furfural | m, r | 1,479 | 1,462 | Bread, almond, sweet | Aldehyde |
| 34 | 2-Ethyl-3,5-dimethylpyrazine | m, r | 1,483 | 1,464 | Nutty | Pyrazine |
| 35 | Acetoxy acetone | m, r | 1,491 | 1,469 | Buttery | Ketone |
| 36 | 2-Ethyl-3,6-dimethylpyrazine | m, r | 1,498 | 1,480 | Nutty, roasted | Pyrazine |
| 37 | 2-Fufurylmethylsulfide | m, r | 1,506 | - | Alliaceous, sulfurous | Sulphide |
| 38 | 2-Acetylfuran | m, r | 1,514 | 1,500 | Balsamic-sweet | Furan |
| 39 | Pyrrole | m, r | 1,518 | 1,512 | Nutty, hay-like, herbaceous | Pyrrole |
| 40 | 2,3-Dimethyl-2-cyclopentenone | m, r | 1,523 | 1,524 | Grassy, bitter | Ketone |
| 41 | Propionic acid | m, r | 1,536 | 1,527 | Sour | Acid |
| 42 | Acetoxy-2-butanone | m, r | 1,546 | - | Sour | Ketone |
| 43 | 2-Furfurylacetate | m, r | 1,552 | 1,566 | Fruity, green | Ester |
| 44 | 5-Methylfurfural | m, r | 1,562 | 1,566 | Sweet, caramel, bready | Furan |
| 45 | 3-Methylpyrrole | m, r | 1,574 | 1,569 | Woody | Pyrrole |
| 46 | 2-Acetylpyridine | m, r | 1,588 | 1,602 | Popcorn type, corn type | Pyridine |
| 47 | 1-Methyl-2-formylpyrrole | m, r | 1,593 | 1,626 | Bread, burnt, caramel | Pyrrole |
| 48 | 2-Furfuryl-5-methylfuran | m, r | 1,647 | 1,659 | Chocolate | Furan |
| 49 | g-Butyrolactone | m, r | 1,658 | - | Creamy, milky | Ester |
| 50 | Furfuryl alcohol | m, r | 1,671 | 1,662 | Burnt | Alcohol |
| 51 | Isovaleric acid | m, r | 1,681 | 1,682 | Cheesy | Acid |
| 52 | 2,5-Dihydrofuranone | m, r | 1,749 | 1,767 | Caramel | Ketone |
| 53 | 1-Furfurylpyrrole | m, r | 1,814 | 1,822 | Vegetable | Pyrrole |
| 54 | Guaiacol | m, r | 1,843 | 1,855 | Phenolic, woody | Phenolic |
| 55 | 2-Thiophenemethanol | m,r | 1,872 | 1,890 | savory | Alcohol |
| 56 | Phenylethyl alcohol | m, r | 1,902 | 1,896 | Floral | Alcohol |
| 57 | 2-Acetylpyrrole | m, r | 1,953 | 1,949 | White bread | Pyrrole |
| 58 | Difurfuryl ether | m,r | 1,991 | 1,977 | Coffee-like, toasted odour | Ether |
| 59 | Phenol | m, r | 2,011 | - | Smoky | Phenolic |
| 60 | 4-Ethylguaiacol | m,r | 2,042 | 2,034 | Phenolic | Phenolic |
| 61 | 2-Formylpyrrole | m, r | 2,048 | 2,036 | White bread, jasmine rice | Pyrrole |
| 62 | Furaneol | m, r | 2,053 | 2,037 | Fruity | Ketone |
| 63 | p-Cresol | m, r | 2,091 | 2,078 | Phenolic-type | Phenolic |
| 64 | 2-Methoxy-4-vinylguaiacol | m, r | 2,112 | - | Woody, smoky | Phenolic |
ID, Identification method; m, mass spectrum based on Mass library - NIST/EPA/NIH Mass Spectral Library. Version 2.0, Faircom Corporation, U.S.; r, identified by retention index; KI, Kovats index calculated by n-alkanes on the ZB-WAX Capillary GC Column (Length 30 m, inner diameter 0.25 mm, and film thickness 0.25 μm; Phenomenex Inc., Macclesfield, UK); Literature KI was collected from NIST database: webbook.nist.gov; Odor Description: data was collected from odor database: www.flavornet.org; origin-scifinder.cas.org).
Figure 1Gas chromatogram of head space of roasted coffee powders on ZB-WAX capillary column. The results showed the coffee beans from the intensive conventional management combined with the shade tree Erythrina poepiggiana.
Figure 2Comparison of volatile aroma compounds generation in roasted coffee beans between the different managements, results were presented as the mean value of three replicates. (A) Intensive conventional (IC) vs. moderate conventional (MC). (B) Intensive organic (IO) vs. moderate conventional (MC). (C) Intensive organic (IO) vs. low organic (LO). (D) Intensive conventional (IC) vs. intensive organic (IO). *represented significant differences (P < 0.05) of volatile compounds between different groups.
Figure 3Comparison of volatile aroma compounds generation in roasted coffee beans between the different shade types, results were presented as the mean value of three replicates. (A) Full sun vs. shaded. (B) Full sun vs. Erythrina. (C) Service vs. timber. (D) Legume timber vs. non-legume timber. *represented significant differences (P < 0.05) of volatile compounds between different groups.
Contrast results for the color of roasted coffee beans.
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||
| IC vs. MC | 50.77 | 2.01 |
|
| 53.96 | |||
| MC vs. IO | 54.02 | 2.21 |
|
| 50.26 | |||
| IO vs. LO | 53.04 | 1.33 | 0.085 |
| 54.52 | |||
| IC vs. IO | 53.16 | 2.21 | 0.102 |
| 54.03 | |||
|
| |||
| FS vs. S | 52.97 | 3.05 |
|
| 56.82 | |||
| E vs. FS | 57.70 | 1.21 |
|
| 52.97 | |||
| Ser.v. Tim. | 50.53 | 3.11 |
|
| 56.98 | |||
| LT vs. NLT | 52.09 | 1.27 |
|
| 59.48 | |||
Values were presented as mean, standard error of the contrast difference (S.E..