Enhancing Quality of Palmyrah (Borrasus Flabellifer) Jaggery

Enhancing Quality of Palmyrah (Borrasus Flabellifer) Jaggery STANDARDIZE AND ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF PALMYRAHÂ  (Borrasus Flabellifer) JAGGERY S. Mary, K. Velauthamurty, S. Srivijeindran, G.Sashikesh Palmyrah (borrasus flabellifer) Jaggery is one of the ancient sweetening agent known to man and is an integral part of traditional diet in many parts of Sri Lanka. Jaggery is produced by concentrating the Inflorescence sap of Palmyrah palm (Sweet Toddy) to a thick consistency. The product has sweet in taste and golden yellow in colour. However existing jaggery available in the market is inferior in its quality as liquefaction and deterioration of color. It shows poor keeping qualities due to the presence of moisture. Through this research attention to be made to eradicate its hydroscopic nature in the existing jaggery to upgrade it. Optimization of quick lime (CaO) and pH of sweet toddy to produce jaggery are to be carried out. In the period of May to June different areas in Jaffna peninsula four field trials were carried out to collect sap by using quick lime with above 95% purity produced at Palmyrah Research Institute. Physical and chemical quality characteristics of produced jagg ery in laboratory and commercial samples were studied according to comply with Sri Lankan standards for jaggery. Quality of jaggery was enhanced using proper technology and sweet sap with acceptable lime with higher degree of purity. For suitable jaggery production, 2.508 Â ± 0.411 grams of lime (96 % purity) per one liter of sweet sap was optimized and this jaggery was scored high score than jaggery from other field trials. Key words: Palmyrah (Borrasus flabellifer) Jaggery, quick lime and sweet sap Introduction Jaggery industry is one of the ancient and large cottage industries in palmyrah society. The product normally made in household level has bitter taste due to the presence of excess amount of lime with low purity. As sugars are known to be hygroscopic it is possible for melting of jaggery (Molasses) due to presence of excess moisture in the environment and other moisture absorbing impurities from quick lime and triple super phosphate for deliming the quick lime and minor improper practices in processing. Even if the demand for jaggery according to their food based applications is continuously growing in the rural, urban and semi-urban markets palmyrah jaggery cannot be marketed whole of the year, means up to next season. Because sweet toddy production is seasonal and produced jaggery shows poor keeping qualities. Quick lime used in the preparation of jaggery is generally obtained from furnacing oysters (mostly sea shell in Jaffna) using coconut husk charcoal and the temperature is not up to the optimum level to produce pure lime. Therefore there is a high possible for adulteration by impurities presence in quick lime. Traditionally lime used to prevent the fermentation of sweet sap, is produced mainly from sea shell and hardly from oysters. But no studies were yet carried out on the composition and purity of quick lime used in local production. Another major issue is the local tappers are using excess amount lime which present in sweet toddy. Availability of quick lime at higher degree of purity will ensure the maintenance of extreme alkaline pH of the sweet toddy with minimum amount of it.When tappers bring limed sweet sap to the production unit at different time periods few of them get fermented and it is also used for the production. This issue leads to the poor quality of jaggery. According to these basic principles this research is proposed for improving and standardizing the quality of palm jaggery. This project will upgrade the quality of palm jaggery and increase the market demand for palmyrah jaggery. Materials and Methods Matured and healthy female palmyah palms were labeled near to jaggery producing areas of Jaffna peninsula in the period of May to June. From this palm, well prepared and healthy inflorescence were identified for sap collection and the sap was collected in earthen pots, which was kept under hygienic condition. Selected inflorescences were tapped in the evening between 5 to 6 p.m to ooze out sweet sap. Before attaching sap collecting pots with inflorescence according to tappers experience day before experiment day with the inflorescence underwent experiment, known amount of quick lime with 96 % purity was applied to arrest fermentation. Four field trials were carried out. Fresh sap exudation was collected at morning between 7 to 8 a.m. The pH of the sweet sap in each pot was measured by pH meter2 and brix was measured by hand refractometer. Collected sweet sap in separate cans was brought to laboratory in aseptic, sterile and dark condition. Within one hour whole samples were pooled an d pH of pooled sap was measured. Jaggery was produced and packed in polyethyene packets. Sensory evaluation of produced jaggery was carried out to select best samples on the basis of sensory attributes. The colour, odor, appearance, flavor and texture were evaluated by 12 untrained persons. The total acceptability of the samples was evaluated using five point hedonic scale subjectively. Collected data were statistically analyzed using the MINITAB statistical analysis package according to the Freedman nonparametric test at 5 % level of significance. Results and Discussion Different field visits were conduct to optimize lime for the processing of palm jaggery and all the summarized results were recorded in the table 01. In field visit 1 (T1), field visit 2 (T2), field visit 3 (T3) and field visit 4 (T4) amount of applied quick lime were 4.668 Â ± 0.847 g/L, 3.188 Â ± 0.242 g/L, 2.508 Â ± 0.411 g/L and 2.051 Â ± 0.833 g/L and pH of them were 11.51, 10.62, 9.43 and 8.23 respectively. According to Sri Lankan Standard1 fresh jaggery samples from T1, T2 and T3 field visits at the time of packaging moisture content of all was below 10 %. Sweet sap samples with pH between 7 and 8 quickly changed into acidic medium with time and this indicates the microbial activity is present considerably. Jaggery from field visits 4 shows melting property and moisture content was below 12.5 %. It was identified that fermented sweet sap also course melting of jaggery. Therefore pH of sweet sap needs to be maintained above pH 9 in large scale application. For the suitable jaggery production without deliming step 2.508 Â ± 0.411 grams of lime (96 % purity) per one liter of sweet sap was optimized. Table 01: Summary of all field visits Sensory evaluation Sensory data obtained through the five point hedonic evaluating test, revealed that there were significance difference in colour (p = 0.012), appearance (p = 0.003) and texture (p = 0.001) characteristic among the jaggery samples produced in the laboratory. However there were no significant difference in flaver (p = 0.296) and mouth feel (p = 0.145) among the samples. The sample code 115 gained the highest sum of the rank for the colour, appearance, and texture. Therefore code 115 sample was selected as best sample Produced jaggery in laboratory scale from all the field visits, according to the sensory evaluation quality of colour, texture and appearance were increased with decreasing pH. Produced jaggery sample from each field trials were in the figure 01. Table 02: sensory attributes of the jaggery Figure 01: Jaggery samples from four field visits (codes 175, 101, 115 and 142 were jaggery samples from first, second, third and fourth field visits respectively.) Conclusion Palmyrah jaggery would be a most popular sweetener in Srilanka. However it shows poor physico-chemical qualities. On the basis of facts jaggery can be produced without deliming step from fresh, unfermented and filtered sweet sap of palmyrah palm. Sweet sap should be maintain in pH 9 by using purified quick lime to arrest fermentation and it can be useful to get quality improved jaggery as high consumer acceptance in market. References SLS 512: 1981-Specification for jaggery – moisture content. Pp. 23 Mandal D, Tudu S, Mitra SR, De GC (2006). Effect of common packaging materials on keeping quality of sugarcane jaggery during monsoon season. Sugar Tech., 8(2/3): 137-142.

Socialcultural Influences on Consumer Behavior

Sociocultural Influences on Consumer Behavior. Marketing Trey Hampton September 22, 2012 There are lots of influences that take place on what consumers buy, these influences are called sociocultural influences. Sociocultural influences â€Å"involve personal influence, reference groups, family influence, culture, and subculture. †(Kerin, Hartley & Rudelius 108) Out of these categories, personal influence seems to have the biggest influence of all on what people buy. â€Å"A consumer’s purchases are often influenced by the views, opinions, or behaviors of others. (Kerin, Hartley & Rudelius 108) If it works for others, it will work for me is how this influence works. Two types of influences fall under personal influence, opinion leadership, and word of mouth. People seem to buy what they hear is good, rather than taking a shot in the dark and buying something they know nothing about, this is called word of mouth influence. Companies using celebrities to say their product works and is great is an example of opinion leadership. If someone famous uses it, it must be good! A company that uses personal influence to help sell their products is Gaspari Nutrition (www.Gasparinutrition. com). Gaspari nutrition uses big time champion bodybuilders, such as Flex Lewis, in their advertisement saying I use the product so the consumer believes that taking that product will surely give the same results. Also word of mouth plays a part on their success. At the gym they line the shelves with Gaspari products and the person selling them say â€Å"I take this every day, it gives real results. † However, it is common for people that not like their products and they will tell you how they wasted money on something that doesn’t work.All companies will have good and bad influences on their products, but if the product is good it shall overcome the bad and help the company succeed. Influence is everywhere for the good, or for the bad. People get influenced by seeing someone they idol using the product, or simply hearing how good it is by a friend. Influence has always been around and always will be. It’s a powerful thing that makes or breaks companies today. References: Kerin, Roger A. , Hartley, Steven W. , and Rudelius, William. (2011). Marketing The Core. (4th edition). New York McGraw-Hill/Irwin

Popular Conspiracy Theories About Lincolns Assassination

Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) is one of the most famous Presidents of the United States. Volumes are devoted to his life and death. However, historians have yet to unravel the mysteries surrounding his assassination. The Assassination Abraham Lincoln and his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln attended the play, Our American Cousin at Fords Theatre on April 14, 1865. They were to be accompanied by General Ulysses S. Grant and his wife Julia Dent Grant. However, Grant and his wife changed their plans and did not attend the play. The Lincolns attended the play with Clara Harris and Henry Rathbone. During the play, actor John Wilkes Booth entered Lincolns State Box undetected and shot him in the back of the head. He also stabbed Henry Rathbone in the arm. After shooting the President, Booth jumped out of the box onto the stage, broke his left leg and yelled something that some eyewitnesses reported as, Sic Semper Tyrannus (As always to tyrants). Failed Assassinations by Co-conspirators Co-conspirator Lewis Powell (or Paine/Payne) attempted to assassinate Secretary of State William Seward, but only managed to injure him. David Herold accompanied Powell. However, Herold fled before the deed was finished. At the same time, George Atzerodt was supposed to have killed Vice-President, Andrew Johnson. Atzerodt did not go through with the assassination. Booth and Herold escaped the Capital and traveled to Mary Surratts Tavern in Maryland where they picked up supplies. They then traveled to Dr. Samuel Mudds house where Booths leg was set. Lincolns Death Lincoln was taken to the Petersen House across the street from Fords Theater where he eventually died at 7:22 A.M. April 15, 1865. Secretary of War Edwin Stanton stayed with the Lincolns at the Petersen House and coordinated the efforts to capture the conspirators. Sentences of Deaths of the Conspirators On April 26, Herold and Booth were found hiding in a barn near Port Royal, Virginia. Herold surrendered but Booth refused to come out of the barn so it was set on fire. In the ensuing chaos, a soldier shot and killed Booth. Eight Lincoln conspirators were caught over the next few days and tried by a military court. They were found guilty on June 30 and given various sentences depending upon their involvement. Lewis Powell (Paine), David Herold, George Atzerodt and Mary Surratt were charged with conspiring with Booth along with various other crimes and hanged on July 7, 1865. Dr. Samuel Mudd was charged with conspiring with Booth and sentenced to life in prison. Andrew Johnson eventually pardoned him early in 1869. Samuel Arnold and Michael OLaughlen had conspired with Booth to kidnap President Lincoln and were found guilty and sentenced to life. OLaughlen died in prison but Arnold was pardoned by Johnson in 1869. Edman Spangler was found guilty of helping Booth escape from Fords Theater. He was also pardoned by Johnson in 1869. Pre-Assassination Abduction Was assassination the first goal? The general consensus today is that the first goal of the conspirators had been to kidnap the President. A few attempts to kidnap Lincoln fell through, and then the Confederacy surrendered to the North. Booths thoughts turned to killing the President. Up until recent times, however, there was a great deal of speculation as to the existence of an abduction plot. Some people felt it might be used to exonerate the hanged conspirators. Even the judge advocates feared talk of an abduction plot might lead to an innocent verdict for some if not all of the conspirators. They are believed to have suppressed important evidence such as John Wilkes Booths diary. (Hanchett, The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies, 107) On the other side, some people argued for the existence of a kidnapping plot because it bolstered their desire to connect Booth with a larger conspiracy masterminded by the Confederacy. With the abduction plot established, the question remains: Who was act ually behind and involved in the assassination of the President? The Simple Conspiracy Theory The simple conspiracy in its most basic form states that Booth and a small group of friends at first planned to kidnap the president. This eventually resulted in the assassination. In fact, the conspirators were to also assassinate Vice-President Johnson and Secretary of State Seward at the same time dealing a major blow to the government of the United States. Their goal was to give the South a chance to rise again. Booth saw himself as a hero. In his diary, John Wilkes Booth claimed that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant and that Booth should be praised just as Brutus was for killing Julius Caesar. (Hanchett, 246) When Abraham Lincoln Secretaries Nicolay and Hay wrote their ten-volume biography of Lincoln in 1890 they presented the assassination as a simple conspiracy. (Hanchett, 102) The Grand Conspiracy Theory Even though personal Secretaries of Lincoln presented the simple conspiracy as the most likely scenario, they acknowledged that Booth and his co-conspirators had suspicious contacts with Confederate leaders. (Hanchett, 102). The Grand Conspiracy theory focuses on these connections between Booth and Confederate leaders in the south. Many variations exist of this theory. For example, it has been said that Booth had contact with Confederate leaders in Canada. It is worth noting that in April 1865 President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation offering a reward for the arrest of Jefferson Davis in connection with the Lincoln assassination. He was arrested because of the evidence by an individual named Conover who was later found to have given false testimony. The Republican Party also allowed the idea of the Grand Conspiracy to fall by the wayside because Lincoln had to be a martyr, and they did not want his reputation sullied with the idea that anyone would want him killed but a madman. Eisenschmils Grand Conspiracy Theory This conspiracy theory was a fresh look at the Lincoln assassination as investigated by Otto Eisenschiml and reported in his book Why Was Lincoln Murdered? It implicated the divisive figure Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Eisenschiml purported that the traditional explanation of Lincolns assassination was unsatisfactory. (Hanchett, 157). This shaky theory is based on the supposition that General Grant would not have changed his plans to accompany the President to the theater on April 14th without an order. Eisenschiml reasoned that Stanton must have been involved in Grants decision because he is the only person other than Lincoln from whom Grant would have taken orders. Eisenschiml goes on to offer ulterior motives for many of the actions Stanton took immediately after the assassination. He supposedly left one escape route out of Washington, the one Booth just happened to take. The presidential guard, John F. Parker, was never punished for leaving his post. Eisenschiml also states th at the conspirators were hooded, killed and/or shipped off to a remote prison so they could never implicate anyone else. However, this is exactly the point where Eisenschimls theory collapses as do most other grand conspiracy theories. Several of the conspirators had ample time and opportunity to speak and implicate Stanton and numerous others if a grand conspiracy truly existed. (Hanchett, 180) They were questioned many times during captivity and, in fact, were not hooded through the entire trial. In addition, after being pardoned and released from prison, Spangler, Mudd, and Arnold never implicated anyone. One would think that men who reportedly hated the Union would relish the thought of toppling the leadership of the United States by implicating Stanton, one of the men instrumental in the Souths destruction. Lesser Conspiracies Numerous other Lincoln assassination conspiracy theories exist. Two of the most interesting, albeit incredible, involve Andrew Johnson and the papacy. Members of Congress tried to implicate Andrew Johnson in the assassination. They even called a special committee to investigate in 1867. The committee could not find any links between Johnson and the killing. It is interesting to note that Congress impeached Johnson that same year. The second theory as proposed by Emmett McLoughlin and others is that the Roman Catholic Church had reason to hate Abraham Lincoln. This is based on Lincolns legal defense of a former Priest against the Bishop of Chicago. This theory is further enhanced by the fact that the Catholic John H. Surratt, the son of Mary Surratt, fled America and ended up in the Vatican. However, the evidence connecting Pope Pius IX with the assassination is dubious at best. Conclusion The assassination of Abraham Lincoln has gone through many revisions during the past 153 years. Immediately following the tragedy, the Grand Conspiracy involving the Confederate leaders was the most widely accepted. Around the turn of the century, the Simple Conspiracy theory had gained a position of prominence. In the 1930s, Eisenschimls Grand Conspiracy theory arose with the publication of Why Was Lincoln Murdered? In addition, the years have been sprinkled with other outlandish conspiracies to explain the assassination. As time has passed, one thing is true, Lincoln has become and will remain an American icon lauded with an impressive strength of will and given credit for saving our nation from division and moral oblivion. Source Hanchett, William. The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1983.