The Muscadine Experience: Adding Value to Enhance Profits

try (Morris, 1985). Another juice that is widely accepted commercially isNiagara, also a Vitis labrusca, a white juice grape.

Flora (1979) showed that muscadine juice could be successfully blend-ed with commercial fruit juices without sacrificing quality and, in some cases,improving acceptability. Blends of Concord and Niagara juices with muscadinejuice can have good color and a refreshing taste. In addition, blending musca-dine juice with juices from different varieties of grapes can improve the accept-ability of the strong-flavored muscadine and therefore increase the marketpotential for muscadines.

Sistrunk and Morris (1985) looked at the acceptability and storage sta-bility of muscadine juice blends. Two varieties of muscadine grapes, Noble(black skinned) and Carlos (bronze skinned) were each blended at three levelswith apple juice, cranberry juice, Concord and Niagara grape juice, and witheach other. The Noble/Concord blends were found to be the most acceptable ofthe dark blends (data not shown). They also retained the most flavor during a12-month storage period. Carlos juice blended with light-colored apple juice orwith the light-colored Niagara grape juice was rated higher than blends withdarker juices. The light amber color of the Carlos-light juice blends was stableduring a 12-month storage period, and the flavor and overall acceptability rat-ings were the highest of all of the blends.

Another approach which needs to be investigated for increasing theacceptability of muscadine juice would be to blend it with Thompson Seedlessgrape concentrate. This white juice is used extensively commercially for blend-ing with other juices since it provides the light color preferred by consumers,but is inexpensive compared to other juices used in blending. Concentrate fromThompson Seedless has been successfully used commercially for many years tostretch the flavor of the Niagara (white) cultivar.

Muscadine Wine

Most of the commercial muscadine grape crop is used to produce wine.Wine made from suitable cultivars of muscadine grapes has a fruity flavor thatappeals to an increasing number of people. Procedures for making muscadinewine are described in Appendix A.

Muscadine grape wines are very susceptible to browning and overallloss of color quality during processing and storage (Sims and Morris, 1985).This color instability severely limits shelf-life and hinders marketing of musca-dine wines. In a comparison of the color stability of Noble muscadine wine andCabernet, Noble browned to a much greater extent during twelve months ofstorage. This browning was re vealed by greater increases in CDM ‘b’ andabsorbance (Abs.) at 420 nm in Noble than in Cabernet (Table 17). Apparently,chemical changes in the pigments of the Cabernet wine, measured as chemical

29

The Muscadine Experience: Adding Value to Enhance Profits

MuscadineLayout 10/18/04 11:14 AM Page 29

aging, served to protect this wine from darkening . The pigments of Noblechanged much less than those of Cabernet during storage as shown by a muchlower increase in chemical age.

Initial chemical content and conditions of processing and storage havebeen shown to influence the color quality and stability of muscadine wine(Sims and Morris, 1984). Raising the pH of muscadine wine causes the wine tohave a lighter color as indicated by higher ‘L” values and lower scores for visualintensity (Table 18). Lowered ‘a’ values and absorbance at 520 nm show thathigher pH also decreases redness of the wine. These effects of altering the pHwere seen initially and after three and nine months of storage. Higher pH ini-tially resulted in increased blueness, as indicated by lower ‘b’ values. However,at three and nine months, increased blueness was not observed, probablybecause of increased browning which caused ‘b’ values to go up.

30

AAES Research Report 974

Cultivar Increase in Increase in Increase in CDM ‘b’ Abs. @420nm Chemical Age

Noble 2.9a2 0.94a 0.098bCabernet 1.3b 0.68b 0.398a

1 Vitis rotundifolia , c.v. Noble, and Vitis vinifera , Cabernet Sauvignon2 Means within columns followed by different letters were significantly different at p≤0.05

Table 17. Effect of species1 on color changes of red wine during 12 months of storage (Sims and Morris, 1985).

Visual Absorbance

pH intensity1 @ 520 nm CDM L CDM a CDM b

2.90 9.0a2 0.185a 12.4c 25.5a 4.2a3.20 7.0b 0.118b 15.2b 24.8b 1.5b

3.80 5.0c 0.077c 18.8a 12.5c -0.4c

2.90 7.5a 0.118a 18.5c 18.8a 5.1c3.20 6.5b 0.095b 19.8b 16.8b 5.7b

3.80 4.3c 0.079c 21.4a 11.2c 6.0a

2.90 6.1a 0.103a 20.2c 13.1a 7.0c

3.20 5.4b 0.086b 21.2b 11.6b 7.3b3.80 4.7c 0.067c 24.0a 8.7c 8.2a

1Rated on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 = dark red color and 1 = light red color2Means within pH and storage time separated by a different letter are significantly different p ≤ 0.05

3 Months

9 Months

Initial

Table 17. Effect of species1 on color changes of red wine during 12months of storage (Sims and Morris, 1985).

Table 18. Effects of pH on the color of red wine from Noble muscadines initially and after 3and 9 months storage (Sims and Morris, 1984).


Storage temperature had a tremendous influence on the browning ofmuscadine wine (Table 19). During nine months of storage, as storage temper-atures increased, there were increases in visual browning, absorbance at 430nm, and CDM 'b' values, all of which indicate increased browning (Sims andMorris, 1984). This was probably due to greater destruction and/or chemicalchanges to the anthocyanin color pigments at higher temperatures. Wine storedat 104°F had browned to an unacceptable level after only three months, andwine stored at 86°F had become unacceptable after nine months of storage(data not shown). Wine stored at 68°F browned slowly during nine months, butwas still judged acceptable.

In a comparison of the color stability of Noble muscadine wine andCabernet, the Noble had better color initially (after four months), but hadbrowned to a much greater extent and lost more redness after ten and sixteenmonths of storage (Sims and Morris, 1985). The color and stability of the mus-cadine red wine were damaged by higher pH to a greater extent than those ofthe Vitis vinifera red wine.

Vinegar

The word vinegar means sour ("aigre") wine ("vin") in French. Vinegarscan be made from a variety of raw materials; however, with muscadines, vine-gar is usually produced by bacterial fermentation of wine. Wine connoisseursmay consider it a waste to convert good wine into vinegar, however, there areeconomic reasons why this could be a profitable plan. First, high quality vine-gars often sell for more than the wines from which they were made (Digg s,1999). In addition, an abundant crop of muscadines can result in a large quan-tity of wine. Placing an oversupply of even a very good wine on the market willlower the pr ice, but, storing it to control the market supply can be costly.Adding value by further processing the wine to vinegar will eliminate theseproblems while producing an additional or alternative product to place on themarket.

The production of vinegar is described in Appendix A. Those consider-

31


Increase in Increase in Increase in

CDM ‘b’ Abs. @420nm Visual Browning

68oF (20oC) 2.1c2 0.031c 2.5c

86oF (30oC) 5.7b 0.069b 4.3b

104oF (40oC) 9.3a 0.096a 7.0a

Storage Temperature

Table 19. Effect of storage temperature on color changes of Noble muscadine wine during 9 months of storage (Sims and Morris, 1984).Table 19. Effect of storage temperature on color changes of Noble musca-dine wine during 9 months of storage (Sims and Morris, 1984).


ing producing vinegar are cautioned to use separate facilities for their wine andvinegar production. Lactic acid bacteria used in the production of vinegar cancontaminate the fermenting wine, causing the development of poor appear-ance, undesirable aroma, and off-flavors.

Sweet Spreads

The process of making muscadine grape jelly, jam, preserves, butter, ormarmalade consists mainly of cooking the grapes and/or their juice in combi-nation with sweeteners and pectins to the proper solids level (See Appendix A).There are federal standards that dictate the ingredients, their proportions, andthe final concentration of soluble solids in each type of sweet spread. The min-imum total soluble solids to fruit as required by the Federal Food and DrugAdministration for grape jelly, jam, preserves, and fruit butter is:

Parts by WeightFinished Product Soluble Solids Fruit to SweetenerGrape butter 43% minimum 5 2Grape jelly 65% minimum 45 55Grape preserves/jam 68% minimum 45 55

Jam, preserves, and grape butter are made from whole or crushed fruits(Brady, 1995a). Preserves differ from jam, only in that the fruit pieces are usu-ally larger. Muscadine butter is made by cooking the screened fruit (seeds andskins removed) to a smooth, thick consistency. It differs from jam in its ratio offruit to sweetener and in the final solids concentration. Jelly is made from thefruit juice so that the product is clear and firm enough to hold its shape whenremoved from the container.

Making sweet spreads from muscadines is a challenge because thesegrapes have a characteristic thick, leathery skin that does not soften during nor-mal cooking and because muscadines tend to have a poor juice yield. A study byRizley et al. (1977) looked at various treatments to soften the skins of two cul-tivars of muscadines so that preserves could be made without removing theskins. Treatments investigated included water blanching, blanching in 2% citricacid, treatment with 0.4% pectinase prior to water or citric acid blanching, andpressure cooking.

Following pre-treatment with pectinase to soften the skins, muscadinepreserves could be made from the whole berries (Table 20). With the Noble cul-tivar, the enzyme treatments resulted in greater skin softening than pressurecooking. Neither blanching in citric acid or in water alone resulted in sufficientskin softening.

32



There was little variation in the color of the preserves due to skin soft-ening treatments. Sensory ratings of the preserved products indicated an over-all preference for products made from grapes that had been blanched in citricacid and pretreated with pectinase. The panelists in this study preferred darkerpreserves as indicated by higher sensory scores for preserves made from Noblegrapes than for those from Carlos.

Dried Products

Drying involves the removal of moisture from foods to inhibit micro-bial growth and prevent spoilage. At the same time, it is important to preserveas much of the product’s nutrit ive value, natural flavor, nutraceuticals, andquality as possible.

Produ ct devel opm ent ex peri m ents are being con du cted at theUniversity of Arkansas looking at the feasibility and technological requirementsfor commercially producing and marketing products containing dried mus-cadines such as trail mix and fruit leathers.

Fruit leathers get their name from the fact that, when dry, the product

33


Shear Color Flavor Texture OverallCarlos Water blanch 329 19.4 6.5 6.9 3.9 5.8 Citric acid blanch 442 21.9 6.8 6.6 2.8 5.4

Water blanch + pectinase 226 20.8 7.8 6.9 7.0 7.2

Citric blanch + pectinase 204 21.5 8.0 7.1 7.5 7.5

Pressure cooking 187 22.5 8.0 7.5 6.1 7.2

Noble Water blanch 428 8.2 8.5 9.5 3.8 7.3

Citric acid blanch 334 7.5 8.5 9.0 3.8 7.1 Water blanch +

pectinase 29 8.2 9.5 8.3 9.5 9.1 Citric blanch +

pectinase 21 8.3 9.5 8.5 9.5 9.2 Pressure cooking 144 8.3 9.7 9.3 6.8 8.6

1 Percent white standard plate L = 92.12 Scale: 1 = poor to 10 = best

Table 20. Effect of cultivar and pretreatment to soften skins on quality of muscadine preserves (Rizley et al., 1977).

Cultivar and pretreatment

Color Lightness -

‘L’ value1

Sensory Ratings2

Table 20. Effect of cultivar and pretreatment to soften skins on quality of muscadine pre-serves (Rizley et al., 1977).


is shiny and has the texture of leather (Brady, 1995b). Fruit leather is essential-ly the same as commercial fruit roll products. They are made by drying pureeof fruit on a flat surface. A single fruit can be used or purees of more than onefruit can be mixed to give a mixed fruit flavor. Sugar may be added to the leatherto reduce the tartness of the fruit, or sugar may be omitted to produce a prod-uct appropriate for use by those on a reduced sugar diet. The procedure formaking fruit leather is described in Appendix A.

By-Products and Nutraceuticals

In addition to research looking at processing muscadines into tradi-tional products like juice, wine, and sweet spreads, a great deal of interest hasrecently been focused on using muscadine by-products, most notably the skinsand seeds. Information regarding potential health benefits of muscadine con-sumption has led to interest in the development of foods and nutraceuticalproducts containing muscadine components.

By-ProductsAfter muscadines are pressed to remove the juice, the remaining press

fraction, or pomace, consisting of skins and seeds (Figure 8), is a large percent-age of the fruit (Woodroof et al., 1956; Flora, 1977). Rizley et al. (1977) report-ed that the muscadines used in their study were approximately 40% skin, 50%pulp and 10% seed. Thus for processing operations like juice, wine, and jellyproduction, approximately half of the fruit may be lost as press fraction. Theuse of muscadine pomace could have an important economic impact on themuscadine industry both by increasing the market value per ton of fruit anddecreasing or eliminating waste disposal problems (Ector, 2001).


Figure 8.The seeds and skinsrepresent a largepercentage of themuscadine fruit.Pictured are thepomace portionsfrom (l to r) Ison,Carlos, and Nesbittmuscadines.

34


Research at Mississippi State University has led to the development ofa process to produce a seedless muscadine pomace puree (Ector, 2001). Thispuree has been used in a variety of products including fillings and toppings forbaked goods, fruit extenders and blends, fruit roll-ups, sauces, toppings, and asingredients in fruit drinks, frozen fruit bars, cakes, muffins, candies, and breads.

A variety of grape seed extract products are coming into the ingredientmarket. Individual manufacturers have developed their own systems for remov-ing components that contain nutraceutical pr operties from the grape seeds.These extract products have recently been the subject of a great deal of researchsince their antioxidant effects may both inhibit oxidative deterioration of prod-uct components, such as fats and vitamins, and may provide antioxidant bene-fits to human diets (Leigh, 2003). Grape seed extracts are currently being usedas nutritional supplements in fruit-flavored beverages and beverage mixes andwill soon appear in hot and cold ready-to-eat cereals, meal replacers, snack bars,yogurts, and frozen dairy desserts (Anon., 2004).

Grape seed oil is a by-product of the grape industry. The oil can beextracted from the seeds in a variety of ways including pressing, soluble extrac-tion, and through centrifugation (Axtell, 1992; Peterson, 2001). Grape seed oilis low in saturated fat and high in unsaturated fat (the heart-healthy kind). Atablespoon of grape seed oil has about 10 milligrams (14 IU) of vitamin E,slightly more than sunflower or safflower oil, which are also high in this vita-min. The RDA for vitamin E is 15 milligrams a day.

Grape seed oil has been used in soaps and paints and for food use. Itcan be used as a cooking oil since it has a high smoke point, meaning that it canbe used to cook at high temperatures. It is virtually tasteless, and so it is a goodcarrier for infused flavors like those from herbs and spices. The president of acompany making a mayonnaise-like product containing grape seed oil hasreported that, although this product costs about one third more than the com-pany’s canola-based variety, it is outselling the more traditional pr oduct(O’Donnell, 2004). The grape seed oil product is marketed as a hear t-healthyalternative to mayonnaise, and its packaging includes a hang tag that refers tostudies showing the oil’s ability to raise HDL cholesterol and lower LDL.

Pigments extracted from grape skins are other by-products of the juiceand wine industry that are receiving considerable attention as food ingredients.Depending on the level of usage, these pigments have the potential to bothcolor products and increase the nutraceutical content of the foods containingthem (Katz, 2004). Canandaigua Wine Co. has recently released two coloragents derived from grapes. The company has suggested that, since the colorpigments of these products are stable at pH 3 to 4.5, these pigments have poten-tial for use in acidic products where many other coloring agents fail.

All of the current commercial applications of grape seed extract, grapeseed oil, and grape pigment have been developed using seeds and skins of V.

35



vinifera or V. labrusca grapes. The large scale production of juice and wine fromthese grapes assures an abundant supply of these by-products. The much lowerlevel of production of muscadine products means their volume of seeds andskins is less; however, the excellent nutrient profile of muscadine materialswould suggest that niche market products from these grapes could be devel-oped and marketed successfully.

NutraceuticalsMuscadines are significant sources of several phytochemicals (chemi-

cals found in plant foods) that have been associated with disease prevention inhumans. High concentrations of gallic acid, catechin, epicaechin, ellagic acid,and resveratrol found in the seeds and skins give muscadines a high antioxidantcapacity (Ector et al., 1996; Striegler et al., 2004).

Antioxidants are substances that prevent or slow destructive oxidationreactions. They protect key cell components by neutralizing the damagingeffects of "free radicals," natural byproducts of cell metabolism. Free radicalsform when oxygen is metabolized or burned by the body. They travel throughcells, disrupting the structure of other molecules, causing cellular damage. Suchcell damage is believed to contribute to aging and various health problems.Antioxidants scavenge free r adicals, convert them to harmless substances,absorb them or attach to them before the free radicals can attack normal tissues,destroy cellular proteins or enzymes, or even cause DNA mutations leading tocancer.

A number of components contribute to the antioxidant capacity ofmu s c adine gra pe s . An ti oxidant com pounds inclu de vi t a m i n s , ph en o l s ,carotenoids, and flavonols. As interest in the antioxidant capacity of mus-cadines has increased, there has been expanded interest in quantifying theamounts of these materials in these grapes. Pastrana-Bonilla et al. (2003)looked at the phenolic content of various portions of the fruits of ten cultivarsof muscadines (five bronze and five purple). They found that most phenolics inthe grapes were located in the skins and seeds. Muscadine pulps were found tohave very low phenolic content. The main phenolics found in muscadines wereellagic acid, kaempferol, myricetin, and quercetin. The seeds were found to havethe highest antioxidant capacity compared to the other fruit parts.

L a bora tory tests frequ en t ly used to measu re anti oxidant capac i tyinclude tests for total phenolics, anthocyanins, and oxygen radical absorbancecapacity (ORAC). In general, the higher the values per equivalent weight offruit for each of these components, the more antioxidant potential the fruitcontains.

Threlfall et al. (2004) compared the nutraceutical levels of Black Beautymuscadines with those of Sunbelt (Vitis labrusca L.) grapes. Juice was pressedfrom the grapes using either a hot-press or cold-press method. Nutraceutical

36



analysis (total phenolics, anthocyanins, and ORAC) was completed on thejuices obtained from each cultivar by each pressing method as well as on thewhole frozen grapes and dried seeds and skins. The juice had lower levels of allthree nutraceutical components than the whole grapes except that the totalanthocyanin level of the juice from heated Black Beauty samples showed no dif-ference (Table 21). The juice from heated Black Beauty and Sunbelt sampleshad higher total phenolics and anthocyanins than juice from the cold-pressedsamples.

The dried seeds had more phenolics and less anthocyanins than theskins (Table 22). The highest total phenolic level was in the Black Beauty seedsfrom cold-pressed samples (Threlfall et al., 2004). The skins of the cold-pressedSunbelt grapes had the highest amount of anthocyanins. Although the data forthe seeds and skins are on a dry weight basis, the press fraction had higher lev-els of phenolics and ORAC than the whole grapes and juice.

Striegler et al. (2004) looked at the ORAC values and nutraceuticalcomponents of the berries and juice from several cultivars of muscadines rec-ommended for production in Arkansas (Table 23). They found that all cultivarshave similar levels of total phenolics and ORAC values. As expected, there wereno measurable anthocyanins (the pigments that provide the red-purple color)in the bronze cultivars (Carlos, Granny Val, and Summit), and the levels in thedark cultivars (Black Beauty, Ison, Nesbitt, Southern Home, and Supreme), var-ied with the color intensity of the grapes. In the dark cultivars, the whole fruithad higher total anthocyanin levels than the juice.

37


Cultivar Processing Product Total Total ORAC3

Treatment Phenolics1 Anthocyanins2

Black Beauty Hot Juice 1354 b4 BC5 414 a C 25 b CGrapes 3461 a A 464 a C 28 a B

Cold Juice 424 c D 89 b E 5 c D

Grapes 3823 a A 451 a C 38 a B

Juice 1937 b B 513 b C 23 b C

Grapes 4028 a A 1312 a B 63 a A

Juice 880 c CD 247 c D 23 c C

Grapes 3684 a A 1424 a A 55 a A

1 Total phenolics expressed as mg/kg fresh weight for whole grapes or mg/ml fresh weight for juice2 Total anthocyanins expressed as mg/kg fresh weight for whole grapes or mg/ml fresh weight for juice

4Within a column and variety, numbers followed by the same lowercase letter are not significantly different P≤0.05 5 Within a column, numbers followed by the same uppercase letter(s) are not significantly different P≤0.05

3ORAC = oxygen radical absorbance capacity expressed as _mol of Trolox exuivalents (TE) per gram fresh weight for whole grapes and per milliliter for juice.

Sunbelt Hot

Cold

Table 21. Nutraceutical analysis of juice and frozen, thawed grapes from Black Beautyand Sunbelt grapes processed with and without heating (Threlfall et al., 2004).


38


Cultivar Processing Product Total Total ORAC3

Treatment Phenolics1 Anthocyanins2 (µM TE/g)

(mg/kg) (mg/kg)

Black Beauty Hot Seeds 77615 b4 B5 273 c D 893 a B

Skins 22944 d E 2489 b C 332 b E

Cold Seeds 95338 a A 65 c D 1100 a A

Skins 34543 c D 4942 a B 422 b DE

Sunbelt Hot Seeds 42665 ab D 187 c D 571 b CD

Skins 25732 c E 3743 b BC 383 c E

Cold Seeds 51389 a C 232 c D 667 ab C

Skins 40530 b D 11889 a A 700 a C

1 Total phenolics expressed as mg/kg dry weight 2 Total anthocyanins expressed as mg/kg dry weight 3 ORAC = oxygen radical absorbance capacity expressed as _mol of Trolox exuivalents (TE) per gram dry weight 4Within a column and variety, numbers followed by the same lowercase letter are not significantly different P≤0.05 5 Within a column, numbers followed by the same uppercase letter(s) are not significantly different P≤0.05

Cultivar Product Total Total ORAC 3

Phenolics1 Anthocyanins 2 (µM TE•g–1)Grapes

Black Beauty 3012 a4 E5 303 a D 23 a C

Carlos 9498 a A 5 a E 66 a A

Granny Val 5740 a BCD 7 a E 43 a B

Ison 4560 a CDE 612 a B 53 a AB

Nesbitt 5099 a BCD 422 a C 51 a AB

Southern Home 4417 a ED 298 a D 42 a B

Summit 6586 a B 5 a E 50 a AB

Supreme 6072 a BC 737 a A 45 a ABJuice

Black Beauty 297 b ABD 35 b C 2.9 b BC

Carlos 179 b D 2 a D 3.9 b A

Granny Val 356 b A 3 a D 2.6 b BC

Ison 251 a BCD 104 b A 2.5 b BC

Nesbitt 206 b CD 97 b A 2.1 b C

Southern Home 251 b BCD 83 b B 4.1 b A

Summit 373 b A 4 a D 2.6 b BC

Supreme 339 b AB 35 b C 3.4 b AB

1 Total phenolics expressed as mg/kg fresh weight for whole grapes or mg/ml fresh weight for juice2 Total anthocyanins expressed as mg/kg fresh weight for whole grapes or mg/ml fresh weight for juice

4Within a column and product, numbers followed by the same lowercase letter are not significantly different P≤0.05 5 Within a column, numbers followed by the same uppercase letter(s) are not significantly different P≤0.05

3ORAC = oxygen radical absorbance capacity expressed as _mol of Trolox exuivalents (TE) per gram fresh weight for whole grapes and per milliliter for juice.

Table 22. Nutraceutical analysis of dried seeds and dried skins from Black Beauty andSunbelt grapes processed with and without heating (Threlfall et al., 2004).

Table 23. Juice nutraceutical analysis from muscadine grape cultivars grown at theSouthwest Research and Extension Center, Hope, Ark. in 2002 (Striegler et al., 2004).


Nutraceutical analyses of the seeds and skins (dried press material),were compared (Striegler et al., 2004). The seeds had higher total phenolic lev-els in all cultivars than the skins (data not shown). The seeds also had higherORAC values in all cultivars than the skins. Although the data for the seeds andskins is on a dry weight basis, the press fraction had higher levels of phenolicsand higher ORAC values than the whole grapes and juice.

There has been a great deal of interest recently in resveratrol, a pheno-lic substance produced by plants, such as grapevines, in response to stress.Consumption of resveratrol has been shown to lower blood levels of low den-sity lipoproteins (LDL), bad cholesterol, and it also has cancer chemopreventa-tive activity (Ector et al., 1996). Resveratrol is the active ingredient in red winethat has been associated with its beneficial effects in reducing the risk of coro-nary heart disease. Ector et al. (1996) showed that resveratrol is a natural con-stituent of both bronze- and dark-skinned muscadine grapes with dark-skinned muscadine products having only slightly higher concentrations ofresveratrol than most bronze-skinned varieties. Although the seeds of V.vinifera or V. labrusca grapes have very little resveratrol, muscadine grape seedswere found to have a high resveratrol concentration.

Also present in muscadines is ellagic acid, a phytochemical which hasbeen shown to have a number of human health benefits, including a possiblerole in preventing some forms of cancer. Strawberries, raspberries, and black-berries are often cited as the best dietary sources of this material, however, theellagic acid content of muscadine grapes far exceeds that of the other berries(Ector, 2001; Akoh and Pastrana-Bonilla, 2002). Since ellagic acid is found pre-dominantly in the skins of the muscadines, development of consumer productsmade from this portion of the grape would not only aid in increasing consump-tion of this nutritional component, but would also make use of a major part ofthe waste from muscadine processing.

Muscadines are also an excellent source of fiber. The beneficial effectsof fiber consumption have been recognized for many years. Fiber-rich foodshelp prevent constipation, hemorrhoids, and diverticular disease. Some types offiber may have a cholesterol-lowering effect which could lead to reduced risk ofheart disease. In addition, fiber may reduce the incidence of certain types ofcancer, particularly those associated with the digestive tract; it may also be help-ful in controlling diabetes. Ector (2001) reports that the fiber content of bothlight- and dark-skinned muscadines is greater than that of most other fruitsand is almost three times higher than that of other types of grapes.

Ba s ed on the many ways mu s c adines can con tri bute to health,researchers and those in the muscadine industry have sought creative new waysto offer these grapes and/or their products to the public. For example, onegrower in Georgia has reported that he not only markets his muscadines on thefresh market, but also deseeds and extracts the juice from the pulp and skins,

39



freezes it, and sells it to a commercial winery. The winery uses it to make bot-tled juice and wine (Omahen, 2001). In addition, the grower grinds the seeds toa powder that is sold in capsules and is currently working on a way to also pow-der the skins for use as an ingredient in a variety of products.

Although muscadines have been shown to contain significant amountsof several compounds that are known to contribute to health, very littleresearch currently exists demonstrating the bioavailability of these compo-nents. Until this research is conducted, care must be taken in making market-ing claims about the health benefits of muscadines and products made fromthem.

Literature Cited

Ah m edu ll a h , M . and Hi m el ri ck , D. G . 1 9 8 9 . Gra pe managem en t . Ch a pt . 10 in Sm a llFruit Crop Ma n a gem en t , G a ll et t a , G . J. and Hi m el ri ck , D. G . , ed s . Pren ti ceHa ll , E n gl ewood Cl i f fs , N . J. p. 3 8 3 .

Ako h , C . C . and Pa s tra n a - Bon i ll a , E . 2 0 0 2 . Po lyph enolics and anti oxidant capac i ty ofmu s c adine gra pe cultiva rs grown in So uth Geor gi a .Ab s tract of talk pre s en t-ed at 2002 IFT An nual Meeti n g. Ava i l a ble on the In tern et at http : / / i f t . con-fex . com/ift/2002/ tech progra m / p a per _ 1 3 4 2 1 . h tm

Am eri n e , M . A . , Ber g, H . W. , Ku n kee , R . E . , O u gh , C . S . , Si n gl eton , V. L . , and Webb,A . D. 1 9 8 0 . Wi n ery by - produ ct s . Ch a pt . 18 in Tech n o l ogy of Wi n em a k i n g4th Ed. AVI Pu b. Co. In c . , We s tport , Con n . p. 6 4 3 .

An ders en , P. C . and Crocker, T. E . 1 9 9 4 . The mu s c adine gra pe . Un iv. of F l ori d a ,Coopera tive Ex ten s i on Servi ce , H S 7 6 3 .

An on . 2 0 0 0 . NC wi n ery history. North Ca rolina Dep a rtm ent of Agri c u l tu re andCon su m er Servi ce s . Ava i l a ble on the In tern et at w w w. n c wi n e . or g / wi n eh i s t . h tm .

An on . 2 0 0 4 . Nutra News You Can Use – Growing gra pe s . Prep a red Food s .1 7 3 ( 1 ) : N S 2 3 .

Ax tell , B. L . 1 9 9 2 . Gra pe s eed . In “ Mi n or Oil Crops – Pa rt I, E d i ble Oil.” Food andAgri c u l tu ral Orga n i z a ti on of the Un i ted Na ti on s , Rom e . Agri c u l tu ral Servi ces Bu ll etin #94. Ava i l a ble on the In tern et atw w w. f a o. or g / doc rep / X 5 0 4 3 E / X 5 0 4 3 E 0 8 . h tm

Ba ll i n ger, W. E . and Ne s bi t t , W. B. 1 9 8 2 . Po s t h a rvest dec ay of mu s c adine gra pe s( Ca rlos) in rel a ti on to stora ge tem pera tu re , ti m e , and stem con d i ti on .Am er.J. E n o l . Vi ti c . 3 3 ( 3 ) : 1 7 3 .

Ba te s , R . P. , Morri s , J. R . , and Cra n d a ll , P. G . 2 0 0 1 . Principles and Practi ces Of Sm a ll -and Med ium-Scale Fruit Ju i ce Proce s s i n g.FAO, Rom e .Agri c u l tu ral Servi ce sBu ll etin 146.

40



Brady, P. L . 1 9 9 5 a . Making sweet spre ads at home – In gred i en t s , equ i pm en t , and pro-cedu re s . AR Coopera tive Ex ten s i on Servi ce , Little Rock . Fact s h eetF S H E D 5 1 .

Brady, P. L . 1 9 9 5 b. D rying leathers , j erky, h erb s , s eed s , popcorn , and nut s . A RCoopera tive Ex ten s i on Servi ce , Little Rock . Fact s h eet FSHED57.

Ca rter, M . , S tri egl er, K . , Cl a rk , J. R . , and Phill i p s , M . 2 0 0 1 . Mu s c adine cultivar eva lu-a ti on in sout hwest Ark a n s a s . In Horti c u l tu ral Studies 2001, Cl a rk , J. R . a n dEva n s , M . R . , ed s .Ark .Agri c . Ex p. S t a . , Fayet tevi ll e . Re s e a rch Series 494, p. 1 3 .

Cl a rk , J. R . 2 0 0 1 . Eva lu a ti on of mu s c adine gra pe cultiva rs for produ ctivi ty, f ruit qu a li ty,and wi n ter hardiness in Ark a n s a s , 1 9 8 7 - 1 9 9 8 . Ark . Agri c . Ex p. S t a . ,Fayet tevi ll e . S pecial Report 203.

Cru e s s , W. V. 1 9 5 8 . Com m ercial Fruit and Veget a ble Produ ct s , 4th Ed. Mc Graw - Hi llBook Co. , New York .

Di ggs , L . 1 9 9 9 . Making flavorful vi n ega r. Wi n em a ker, Wi n ter. Ava i l a ble on theIn tern et at http : / / wi n em a kerm a g. com / fe a tu re / 8 7 . h tm l .

Di ll on , C . R . , Morri s , J. R . , Pri ce , C . , and Met z , D. 1 9 9 4 . The tech n o l ogical and eco-n omic fra m ework of wine and ju i ce produ cti on in Ark a n s a s . Ark . Agri c .Ex p. S t a . , Fayet tevi ll e . Bu ll . 9 4 2 .

E ctor, B. J. 2 0 0 1 . Com po s i ti onal and nutri ti onal ch a racteri s ti c s . Ch a pt . 16 inMu s c adine Gra pe s , Ba s i o u ny, F. M . and Hi m el ri ck , D. G . , ed s . ASHS CropProdu cti on Seri e s , ASHS Pre s s , Al ex a n d ri a , VA .

E ctor, B. J. , Ma gee , J. B. , Heg wood , C . P. , and Coi gn , M . J. 1 9 9 6 . Re s vera trol con cen tra-ti on in mu s c adine berri e s , ju i ce , pom ace , p u ree s , s eed s , and wi n e s . Am er. J.E n o l . and Vi ti c . 4 7 ( 1 ) : 5 7 .

E ll erm a n , J. , Fed ders , D. , and Fox , J. 2 0 0 1 . Di rect marketing as a va lu e - ad ded oppor-tu n i ty for agri c u l tu re . Ohio State Un ivers i ty Ex ten s i on . Fact s h eet A E - 8 - 0 1 .

F l ora , L . F. 1 9 7 6 . Ti m e - tem pera tu re influ en ce on mu s c adine gra pe ju i ce qu a l i ty. J.Food Sci. 4 1 ( 6 ) : 1 3 1 2 .

F l ora , L . F. 1 9 7 7 . Processing and qu a l i ty ch a racteri s tics of mu s c adine gra pe s . J. FoodS c i . 4 2 ( 4 ) : 9 3 5 .

F l ora , L . F. 1 9 7 9 . Opti mum qu a l i ty para m eters of mu s c adine gra pe ju i ce s , bevera ge s ,and bl en d s . J. Food Quality 2:219.

Hi m el ri ck , D. G . 2 0 0 3 . Ha n dl i n g, s tora ge , and po s t h a rvest phys i o l ogy of mu s c ad i n egra pe s : A revi ew. Sm a ll Fruits Revi ew 2(4):45.

Ka t z , F. 2 0 0 4 . The natu ral co l or of h e a l t h . Food Processing 65(4):54.Krewer, G . , Ha ll , M . , Ne Sm i t h , D. S . , Horton , D. , S ch erm , H . , Su m n er, P. , Tys on , T. ,

and We s tberry, G . 1 9 9 9 . G eor gia mu s c adine produ cti on guide . Un iv. ofG eor gia Coopera tive Ex ten s i on Servi ce . Bu ll etin 739. Ava i l a ble on thei n tern et ath t tp : / / w w w. s m a ll f ru i t s . or g / Mu s c ad i n e s / produ cti on / Mu s c ad i n e Gro / toc . h tm

L a n i er, M . R . and Morri s , J. R . 1 9 7 8 a . Ma tu ra ti on ra tes of mu s c adine gra pe s . Ark .Fa rm Re s . 2 7 ( 6 ) : 6 .

41



L a n i er, M . R . and Morri s , J. R . 1 9 7 8 b. Den s i ty sep a ra ti on of mu s c adine ga pe s . Ark .Fa rm Re s . 2 7 ( 5 ) : 4 .

L a n i er, M . R . and Morri s , J. R . 1 9 7 9 . Eva lu a ti on of den s i ty sep a ra ti on for defining fru i tm a tu ri ties and matu ra ti on ra tes of on ce - over harve s ted mu s c adine gra pe s .J. Am er. Soc . Hort . S c i . 1 0 4 : 2 4 9 .

Lei gh , E . 2 0 0 3 . Gra pe seed ex tract app l i c a ti on s . Prep a red Foods 172(2):59.Leon g, S . 2 0 0 1 . Ma rketi n g. Ch a pt . 14 in Mu s c adine Gra pe s , Ba s i o u ny, F. M . a n d

Hi m el ri ck , D. G . , ed s . ASHS Crop Produ cti on Seri e s , ASHS Pre s s ,Al ex a n d ri a , Va .

Ma i n , G . , Morri s , J. , and Cl a rk , J. 1 9 9 5 . Fruit and ju i ce qu a l i ty of mu s c adine gra pec u l tiva rs . Un p u bl i s h ed data.

Met z , D. 2 0 0 4 . Pers onal com mu n i c a ti on s . Pro s pero Equ i pm ent Corp. , 134 Ma rbl eAve . , P l e a s a n t vi ll e , NY 10570.

Mi tch ell , F. G . 1 9 9 1 . Cooling horti c u l tu ral com m od i ti e s . I . The need for coo l i n g.Ch a pt . 8 in Po s t h a rvest Tech n o l ogy of Horti c u l tu ral Crop s , 2nd Editi on ,Kader,A . A . , ed .Un ivers i ty of Ca l i fornia Divi s i on of Agri c u l tu re and Na tu ra lRe s o u rces Pu bl i c a ti on 3311.

Moore , J. N .1 9 7 2 . Perform a n ce of mu s c adine gra pe cultiva rs in Ark a n s a s .Ark . Agri c .Ex p. S t a . , Fayet tevi ll e . Report Series 200.

Moore , J. N . , Morri s , J. R . , and Cl a rk , J. R . 1 9 9 3 . ‘Su n bel t ,’ a new ju i ce gra pe of So ut h -cen tral Un i ted State s . Hort S c i . 2 8 ( 8 ) : 8 5 9 .

Morri s , J. R . 1 9 7 1 . Mu s c adine gra pe produ cti on in Ark a n s a s . Un iv. of Ark a n s a sCoopera tive Ex ten s i on Servi ce . Le a f l et 488.

Morri s , J. R . 1 9 8 0 . Ha n dling and marketing of mu s c adine gra pe s . Fruit So ut h4 ( 2 ) : 1 2 .

Morri s , J. R . 1 9 8 1 . Probl ems that inhibit the ex p a n s i on of the com m ercial mu s c ad i n egra pe indu s try. Fruit So uth 5(2):28.

Morri s , J. R . 1 9 8 3 . In f lu en ce of m echanical harve s ting on qu a l i ty of s m a ll fruits andgra pe s . Hort S c i . 1 8 : 4 1 2 .

Morri s , J. R . 1 9 8 5 . Gra pe ju i ce : In f lu en ce of pre - h a rve s t , h a rve s t , and post harve s tpracti ces on qu a l i ty. In Quality Eva lu a ti on of Fruits and Veget a bl e s . Pa t tee ,H . , ed . Van No s trand Rei n h o l d / AV I , New York .

Morri s , J. 2 0 0 4 . Vi n eya rd mech a n i z a ti on – A total sys tems approach . Wines andVines 85(4):20-24.

Morri s ,J. R .and Brady,P. L .2 0 0 4 .Tem pera tu re ef fects on produ ce degrad a ti on .In Produ ceDegrad a ti on : Re acti on Pa t hw ays and Th eir Preven ti on . O. L a m i k a n ra , ed . C RCPre s s , Boca Ra ton , F l a . In pre s s .

Morri s , J. R . and Stri egl er, R . K . 1 9 9 6 . Gra pe Ju i ce . Ch a pt . 7 in Processing Fru i t s :S c i en ce and Tech n o l ogy. Vol 2. Som ogyi , L . , ed . Tech n omic Pu b. Co.L a n c a s ter, Pa . p. 1 9 7 .

Morri s , J. R . , Si s tru n k , W. A . , Ju n e k , J. , and Si m s , C . A . 1 9 8 6 . E f fects of f ruit matu ri ty,ju i ce stora ge , and ju i ce ex tracti on , and tem pera tu re on qu a l i ty of ‘Con cord ’

42



gra pe ju i ce . J. Am er. Soc . Hort . S c i . 1 1 1 : 7 4 2 .Morten s en , J. A . 2 0 0 1 . Cu l tiva rs . Ch a pt . 4 in Mu s c adine Gra pe s , Ba s i o u ny, F. M . a n d

Hi m el ri ck , D. G . , ed s . ASHS Crop Produ cti on Seri e s , ASHS Pre s s ,Al ex a n d ri a , Va .

Moyl s , A . W. , S trach a n , C . C . , and At k i n s on , F. E . 1 9 6 2 . Making jam com m erc i a lly –Pri n c i p l e s , m et h od s , equ i pm en t , formu l a s . Ca n ada Dep a rtm ent ofAgri c u l tu re , Ot t aw a . Pu bl i c a ti on 1144.

Mu rphy, M . M . , P i cket t , T. A . , and Cow a rt , F. F. 1 9 3 8 . Mu s c adine gra pe s : Cu l tu re , va ri-eties and some properties of ju i ce s . Ga Agri c . Ex p. S t a . , Bu ll . 1 9 9 : 1 .

Nog u era , E . , Morri s , J. , S tri egl er, K . , and Th om s en , M . 2 0 0 4 . Produ cti on bu d gets forArkansas wine and ju i ce gra pe s . Ark . Agri c . Ex p. S t a t . Report Series (Inpre s s ) .

O’ Don n ell , C . D. 2 0 0 4 . Fu n cti onal futu re s . Prep a red Foods 173(4):NS2.Ol i en , W. C . 2 0 0 1 . In trodu cti on to the mu s c ad i n e . Ch a pt . 1 in Mu s c adine Gra pe s ,

Ba s i o u ny, F. M . and Hi m el ri ck , D. G . , ed s . ASHS Crop Produ cti on Seri e s ,ASHS Pre s s , Al ex a n d ri a , Va .

O m a h en , S . 2 0 0 1 . S tu dy finds Geor gia mu s c adines ch ock - f u ll of nutri en t s . G eor gi aDi s cover Re ad i n gs Seri e s . Ava i l a ble on the In tern et ath t tp : / / w w w. u ga . edu / d i s cover / edu c a tors / re ad i n gs / re ad 8 9 . p d f

O u gh , C . S . 1 9 9 1 . Wi n emaking Ba s i c s . Food Produ ct Pre s s , Bi n gh a m ton , N . Y.Pa s tra n a - Bon i ll a , E . , Ako h , C . C . , Sell a pp a n , S . , and Krewer, G . 2 0 0 3 . P h enolic con-

tent and anti oxidant capac i ty of mu s c adine gra pe s . J. Agri c . Food Ch em .5 1 : 5 4 9 7 - 5 5 0 3 .

Perk i n s - Ve a z i e , P. 2 0 0 2 . Gra pes (Mu s c ad i n e ) . In The Com m ercial Stora ge of Fru i t s ,Veget a bl e s , and Florist and Nu rs ery Crop s , Gro s s , K . C . , Ya n g, C . Y. , a n dSa l t vei t , M . , ed s . Agri c u l tu ral Re s e a rch Servi ce , Bel t s vi ll e , Md . D raft vers i onof revi s ed USDA Agri c u l tu re Ha n d book 66. On the In tern et ath t tp : / / w w w. b a . a rs . u s d a . gov / h b 6 6 / i n dex . h tm l .

Peters on , R . G . 2 0 0 1 . Com m on s ense wi n em a k i n g. Wines & Vi n e s , 8 2 ( 7 ) : 5 7 .Po l i n g, E . B. , Ma i n l a n d , C . M . , Bl a n d , W. T. , Cl i n e , B. , and Soren s on , K . A . 2 0 0 3 .

Mu s c adine gra pe produ cti on guide for North Ca ro l i n a . North Ca ro l i n aCoopera tive Ex ten s i on Servi ce , AG - 9 4 . Ava i l a ble on the In tern et ath t tp : / / w w w. s m a ll f ru i t s . or g / Mu s c ad i n e s / produ cti on / Mu s c ad i n e Gu i de 2 0 0 3 .p d f

Ra i n ey, R . L . 2 0 0 2 . Ma rketing opportu n i ties for horti c u l tu ral produ cers . Fa rmMa n a gem ent and Ma rketing News l et ter, Vo l . 10 No. 1 . Pu bl i s h ed byArkansas Coopera tive Ex ten s i on Servi ce . Ava i l a ble on the In tern et atw w w. a ra gri c u l tu re . org /news / f a rm m gm t / 2 0 0 2 / P D F / Ma rch 2 0 0 2 . p d f

Ri z l ey, N . F. , Si s tru n k , W. A . , and Morri s , J. R . 1 9 7 7 . Pre s erves from whole mu s c ad i n egra pe s . Ark . Fa rm Re s . 2 6 ( 5 ) : 2 .

Ru s h i n g, J. E . 1 9 9 5 . Ma nu f actu ring jelly and pre s erve produ ct s . North Ca rolina StateUn ivers i ty Coopera tive Ex ten s i on Servi ce , Ra l ei gh , N . C . Pu bl i c a ti on FSE

43



9 5 - 3 . Ava i l a ble on the In tern et atw w w. ce s . n c su . edu / dept s / food s c i / ex t / p u b s / m a nu j ellypre s erve . h tm l

Si m s , C . A . and Morri s , J. R . 1 9 8 4 . E f fects of p H , sulfur diox i de , s tora ge ti m e , and tem-pera tu re on the co l or and stabi l i ty of red mu s c adine gra pe wi n e . Am er. J.E n o l . Vi ti c . 3 5 ( 1 ) : 3 5 .

Si m s , C . A . and Morri s , J. R . 1 9 8 5 . pH ef fects on the co l or of wine from two gra pes pec i e s . Ark . Fa rm Re s . 3 4 ( 2 ) : 9 .

Si s tru n k , W. A . 1 9 7 6 . E f fect of ex tracti on tem pera tu re on qu a l i ty attri butes of ̀Con cord' gra pe ju i ce . Ark . Fa rm Re s . 2 5 ( 1 ) : 1 2 .

Si s tru n k , W. A . and Morri s , J. R . 1 9 8 2 . In f lu en ce of c u l tiva r, ex tracti on and stora getem pera tu re , and time on qu a l i ty of mu s c adine gra pe ju i ce . J. Am er. Soc .Hort . S c i . 1 0 7 ( 6 ) : 1 1 1 0 .

Si s tru n k , W. A . and Morri s , J. R . 1 9 8 4 . Ch a n ges in mu s c adine gra pe ju i ce qu a l i ty du r-ing cold stabi l i z a ti on and stora ge of bo t t l ed ju i ce . J. Food Sci. 4 9 : 2 3 9 .

Si s tru n k , W. A . and Morri s , J. R . 1 9 8 5 . Q u a l i ty accept a n ce of ju i ces of t wo cultiva rs ofmu s c adine gra pes mixed with other ju i ce s . J. Am er. Soc . Hort . S c i . 1 1 0 : 3 2 8 .

S tri egl er, R . K . , Ca rter, P. M . , Morri s , J. R . , Cl a rk , J. R . , Th rel f a ll , R . T. , and How a rd , L . R .2 0 0 4 . Yi el d , qu a l i ty and nutraceutical po ten tial of s el ected mu s c adine culti-va rs grown in So ut hwest Ark a n s a s . Hort S c i . ( In pre s s ) .

Th om s en , M . , Brady, P. L . , and Morri s , J. R . 2 0 0 4 . The import a n ce and role of va lu e -ad ded in the prof i t a bi l i ty of a farming opera ti on . AR Agri c . Ex p. S t a t . ,Fayet tevi ll e . Report Series (In pre s s ) .

Th rel f a ll , R . 2 0 0 2 . Prel i m i n a ry findings – Nutraceutical con tent of ju i ces from sever-al mu s c adine va ri eti e s . Pre s en ted in UA report at In i ti a tive for Futu reAgri c u l tu re and Food Sys tems Proj ect Coord i n a ti on Meeti n g,Bi l ox i , Mi s s . ,Decem ber 5.

Th rel f a ll , R . , Morri s , J. , Wa l ker, T. , How a rd , L . , and Brown m i ll er, C . 2 0 0 4 . Pre s s i n gef fects on yi el d , qu a l i ty, and nutraceutical con tent of ju i ce , s eed s , and skinsf rom ‘ Bl ack Be a uty ’ and ‘Su n bel t’ gra pe s . Hort Tech n o l . ( In pre s s ) .

Vi n e , R . 1 9 8 1 . The wi n ery and the labora tory. Ch a pt . 2 in Com m ercial Wi n em a k i n gProcessing and Con tro l s . AVI Pu blishing Co. , We s tport , Con n . p. 2 9 - 9 3 .

Vi n e , R . P. , Ha rk n e s s , E . M . , Brown i n g,T. , and Wa gn er, C . 1 9 9 7 . Wi n emaking – FromGra pe Growing to Ma rketp l ace . Ch a pman and Ha ll , New York , N . Y.

Wa l ker, T. L . , Morri s , J. R . , Th rel f a ll , R . T. , and Ma i n , G . L . 2 0 0 1 . Den s i ty sep a ra ti on ,s tora ge , s h el f l i fe , and sen s ory eva lu a ti on of Fry mu s c adine gra pe s . Hort S c i .3 6 ( 5 ) : 9 4 1 .

Wood roof , J. G . , Cec i l , S . R . , and Du pree , W. E . 1 9 5 6 . Processing mu s c adine gra pe s .G eor gia Ex p. S t a . Bu ll . AR 17.

44



Documents

The Muscadine Experience: Adding Value to Enhance Profits