Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Food Science and Technology logoLink to Journal of Food Science and Technology
. 2011 Jan 28;48(4):502–505. doi: 10.1007/s13197-010-0212-0

Development and quality evaluation of honey based carrot candy

Anisa Musarath Durrani 1,✉, P K Srivastava 2, Sangeeta Verma 1
PMCID: PMC3551186  PMID: 23572779

Abstract

Candy was prepared with 3 different combinations of honey and carrot by using 750 g honey + 1,000 g carrot (T1), 1,000 g honey + 1,000 g carrot (T2) and 1,250 g honey + 1,000 g carrot (T3). To establish the best product, sensory evaluation was done on 9-point Hedonic scale. T1 was found to be most preferred candy. Further the T1 candy was assessed for overall quality during storage at room temperature (25–30 °C) for 6 months. Candy can be preserved safely for 6 months in both glass and LDPE packaging materials.

Keywords: Honey, Carrot candy, Shelf-life, Sensory quality

Introduction

Candy is a sweet food prepared from fruits or vegetables by impregnating them with sugar syrup followed by draining of excessive syrup and then drying the product to a shelf stable state. Fruits and vegetables like apples, ginger, mangoes, guava, carrots and citrus peels have been used to prepare candies (Mehta and Bajaj 1984; Sharma et al. 1998; Ribeiro and Sabaa-Srur 1999; Chandu and Prasad 2006). Caronda, ber and Aonla candies have also been developed (Kaikadi et al. 2006).

White sugar is the usual sweetening agent used in preparation of candies. Such sugar contains sucrose (99.7%). Excessive consumption of sucrose quite often leads to variety of health problems viz. heart problems and coronary thrombosis (Alam 1999). Keeping in view the disadvantages associated with excessive sugar consumption, considerable interest is being taken to explore the possibilities of replacing sugar with alternate natural and artificial sweeteners. Srivastava et al. (2006) have recently developed jaggery based petha (Ash gourd) candy, which could be stored for 45 days under refrigerated condition.

Honey is a natural sweetener which is valued as food due to its high energy carbohydrate content, considered to be the best source of heat and energy and preferred as vehicle of medicine because of its freedom from any adverse effect and easy assimilation. Honey has antimicrobial and antifungal properties also (Molen 1992). Growth of bacterial species such as Escherichia coli, Staphylococus aureus Salmonella typhimurium and Shigella sp. are controlled by honey while its antimicrobial characteristics are due to osmotic effect, acidity, H2O2, flavonoids and aromatic acidic substances. Honey also has antioxidant properties (Shamala and Jyothi 1999). Addition of honey can improve the quality of a variety of food products. Honey cakes, honey cookies and biscuits made with honey have pleasant flavour and are much more nutritious than many of sugar based products (Singh et al. 1988). It has been used in formulation of bakery products like bread (Candert 1971; Voll 1974), ready-to-eat cereal products (Fast et al. 1971; Colangelo 1980), cookies (Schmidt 1978), honey fruit spread (Berthold and Benton 1968), sweetened peanut butter spread (Billerback et al. 1976), microwave cooked chiken patties with honey (Naveena et al. 2007) and honey based icecreams (Saxena and Jaiswal 2005). Verma et al. (2006) have developed Amla murabba (preserve) by using honey and found both the fresh and preserved honey based murabba had pleasant flavour, taste, colour, texture and overall acceptability and could be safely preserved for 6 months at room temperature (25–30 °C) in glass and pet jars.

Efforts were made to explore the possibility of utilizing honey in place of sugar as sweetening material for production of carrot candies. Carrot was preferred for candy preparation as it is a highly valued indigenous root vegetable containing high amounts of nutrients like carotenoids which are precursors of vitamin A. Besides, carrot also contains good amount of dietary fibre having laxative effect (Manay and Shadaksharaswamy 1997). Cooking increases carrot’s nutritional value as it breaks down the tough cellular walls that encase beta carotene. Carrots were processed to make carrot powder and grits by pressure cooking and drying at 50 °C for 18 h. These were incorporated into traditional food products at different levels to increase vitamin A precursor levels (Singh and Kulshrestha 2008). Owing to its seasonal character and perishable nature, a large quantity of carrots goes waste due to inadequate handling and storage practices. Though it is used as salad, vegetable and in development of sweet meats like Gajar halva and Gazrila, its use as candies may prove to be a shelf stable delicious addition in the list of carrot products. Madan and Dhawan (2005) have developed carrot candies by using sugar and jaggery syrups. Fresh coconut powder was used for enrolling sugar candies. Such candies, even on 60th day of storage at room temperature when packed in polyethylene bags scored above 7 on a 9-point Hedonic scale for sensory attributes. The carrot candy prepared in sugar syrup scored the highest for all sensory parameters in comparison to jaggery based candies, though liking for this product too was still above moderate. The fresh carrot candies prepared respectively in sugar, sugar and coconut powder and jaggery syrups had β- carotene contents of 13.3, 13.2 and 11.2 mg/100 g which decreased to respectively to 11.2, 11.3 and 8.0 mg/100 g on 2 months storage (Madan and Dhawan 2005).

The present paper describes efforts made to optimize various process parameters and product quality evaluation of carrot candy containing honey.

Materials and methods

Fresh, mature and red carrots (Daucus carota) and honey were procured from local market. After washing, peeling and removing inedible portion, carrots were pricked with stainless steel fork and cut into pieces of 1.2–1.5 cm. These pieces were blanched in boiling water for 3 min and were placed on a dry cloth and excess water was allowed to drain off. The pricked and blanched pieces were soaked overnight in honey syrup with 3 combinations T1 (750 g honey +1,000 g carrots), T2 (1,000 g honey +1,000 g carrots) and T3 (1,250 g honey +1,000 g carrots) at room temperature (25–30 °C). Next day, the carrots were taken out from the syrup and syrup was boiled. The syrup was cooled and added again with carrots. The product was kept again for 24 h. On third day, the process was repeated with addition of carrots in hot syrup and product was kept again for 24 h. Next day, the carrots and syrup were cooked together till the candies were of 70° Brix. The pieces were dried at room temperature till they become non-sticky. The prepared candies were packed in glass jar and LDPE pouches of 500–600 μm film thickness and stored.

Moisture content, titratable acidity, reducing and total sugars were estimated as described by Ranganna (1986). Total soluble solids of candy were determined by using hand refractometer. Browning index and β-carotene of candy were determined by method recommended by Srivastava and Kumar (1994). Sensory quality was assessed by panel of 14 semi trained judges on 9-point Hedonic scale (Ranganna 1986). The statistical analysis of storage data was carried out by ANOVA and CD value was calculated (Mandal and Nambiar 2002).

Results and discussion

The average score of colour of T1 was 9.0 as compared to T2 and T3 samples which obtained the same score of 8.3 (Table 1). In case of flavour the average value for T1 was higher as compared to T2 and T3. Highest score values of 8.3 and 8.7 was awarded to sample T1 for its taste and texture respectively. So the overall acceptability score of T1 was highest over other 2 samples. The above results indicated that sample T1 prepared by incorporating 750 g honey in 1,000 g of carrot was the most preferred candy. Further studies were conducted with T1 sample only.

Table 1.

Effect of honey composition on sensory quality of honey based carrot candy

Treatments Colour Flavour Taste Texture O A
T1 9.0 ± 0 8.7 ± 0.57 8.3 ± 0.57 8.7 ± 0.57 8.7 ± 0.38
T2 8.3 ± 0.57 8.0 ± 0 8.0 ± 0 7.7 ± 0.57 8.0 ± 0.25
T3 8.3 ± 0.57 8.0 ± 0 7.0 ± 0 7.0 ± 0 7.6 ± 0.14
CD0.05 (n = 3) 0.13 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.24
Open in a new tab

OA Overall acceptability; T1, T2, T3: See text

The fresh candy had 28% moisture content which gradually increased to 32.5% in glass jar and up to 33.0% in LDPE pouch on 180th day (Table 2). Madan and Dhawan (2005) have reported moisture content values of 16.2, 14.2 and 21.0%, respectively in fresh carrot candies in sugar, in sugar and coconut powder and in jaggery. The TSS of candy increased from 72°Brix in fresh condition to respectively 84.5 and 84.0°Brix in case of packaging in glass jar and LDPE pouch. The fresh candy had 0.02 browning index value, which slightly increased to 0.06 in both packaging materials after 6 months storage. The increase in non-enzymatic browning may be attributed to the presence of sugars which support the formation of brown pigments. The fresh candies had acidity of 0.06%, while Madan and Dhawan (2005) reported acidity of 0.70, 0.076 and 0.73%, respectively in case of carrot candy in sugar, in sugar coconut powder and in jaggery

Table 2.

Effect of storage period and packaging material on physico-chemical and microbiological quality of honey based carrot candy (T1 samples)

Storage period, months CD 5%
6
Glass jar LDPE pouch P S
Moisture,% 28.0 ± 0.50 32.5 ± 0.10 33.0 ± 0.20 0.17 0.24
TSS, °Brix 72.0 ± 0.50 84.5 ± 0.10 84.0 ± 0.20 0.28 0.40
Acidity,% 0.06 ± 0 0.12 ± 0.0 0.12 ± 0.0 NS NS
Browning index 0.02 ± 0.005 0.06 ± 0.01 0.06 ± 0.005 NS NS
Reducing sugars,% 30.5 ± 0.10 38.7 ± 0.10 39.0 ± 0.11 0.12 0.17
Total sugars,% 78.0 ± 0.20 83.5 ± 0.10 83.8 ± 0.15 0.13 0.18
β-Carotene, mg/100 g 16.2 ± 0.25 11.2 ± 0.10 11.0 ± 0.10 0.09 0.13
TPC, log cfu/g ND 4.7 4.7 0.01 0.02
Y&M, log cfu/g ND 4.4 4.4 0.02 0.03
Coliform count ND ND ND NS NS
Open in a new tab

ND Not detected, NS Not significant (n = 3), P Packaging system

S Storage, TPC Total plate count, Y & M Yeast and moulds, T1 : See text

There was a gradual increase in acidity during storage in carrot candy as also reported by Madan and Dhawan (2005). The reducing sugar and total sugars increased from respectively 30.5 and 78.0% in fresh condition to 38.7–39.0% and 83.5–83.8% in preserved condition. Bajwa and Gupta (2007) also reported similar findings in carrot milk cake. Fresh carrot candies contained 16.2 mg/100 g of β-carotene, which gradually decreased during storage to 11.2 mg/100 g in glass jar and 11.0 mg/100 g in LDPE pouch. In comparison the β-carotene contents of carrot candies in sugar, in sugar coconut powder, and in jaggery, as reported by Madan and Dhawan (2005) were respectively 13.3, 13.2 and 11.2 mg/100 g. The variation in β-carotene content may be due to varietal difference. The decrease in β-carotene during storage may be attributed to its sensitivity to light and oxygen. Similar findings were earlier reported by Madan and Dhawan (2005) in carrot candies prepared in sugar, in sugar coconut powder and jaggery and by Premavalli and Arya (1991) in carrot Halwa. Microbes could not be detected in fresh carrot candy, because honey also had antimicrobial effect. Even after 6 months of storage candies were found microbiologically safe in both the packaging materials.

Sensory quality scores decreased during storage and scores in glass jar packed samples were higher than in LDPE packed samples (Table 3). Almost similar trend was observed in the sensory quality by Gupta et al. (2005) in khoa and milk based carrot cake and Manjunatha et al. (2003) in carrot kheer mix

Table 3.

Effect of packaging materials and storage life on sensory qualities of honey based carrot candy (T1 sample)

0 (Initial) After 3 months Storage After 6 months Storage
Glass jar LDPE Glass jar LDPE
Colour 8.7 ± 0.57 7.7 ± 0.57 7.5 ± 0.50 6.8 ± 0.28 6.8 ± 0.28
Flavour 8.0 ± 0 7.5 ± 0.50 7.2 ± 0.28 6.8 ± 0.28 6.8 ± 0.28
Taste 8.7 ± 0.57 7.8 ± 0.28 7.7 ± 0.57 7.0 ± 0 6.8 ± 0.28
Texture 8.0 ± 1.00 8.0 ± 0 7.7 ± 0.57 6.7 ± 0.57 6.7 ± 0.57
O.A. 8.3 ± 0.52 7.7 ± 0.19 7.5 ± 0 6.8 ± 0.14 6.8 ± 0.19
Open in a new tab

OA Overall acceptability, LDPE Low density polyethylene, T1 = See text

Conclusion

Honey based carrot candy of acceptable sensory, microbiological and physico- chemical characteristics can be developed and the product T1 (750 g honey + 1,000 g carrot) was better, based on sensory attributes in both glass and LDPE packaging materials. The product can be safely preserved for 6 months at room temperature (25–30 °C).

References

  1. Alam A. Industrial and policy issues including export potential of jaggery and khandsari industry in India. Lucknow: Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bajwa U, Gupta M. Quality evaluation of carrot-milk cake marketed in Ludhiana. J Food Sci Technol. 2007;44:70–73. [Google Scholar]
  3. Berthold R, Jr, Benton AW. Creamed honey-fruit spreads. Food Technol. 1968;22(1):83–84. [Google Scholar]
  4. Billerback FW, Everett LH, NcGowan PG, Pettinga PV (1976) Sweetened storage stable peanut bultis spread and method of manufacture. United States Patent US4000322
  5. Candert P (1971) Making long life bread. West German Patent Appl 2(012511)
  6. Chandu N, Prasad M. Development of guava candies. J Food Sci Technol. 2006;43:210–212. [Google Scholar]
  7. Colangelo K. Combo packed yoghurt and granola gives convenience a healthy image. Dairy Field. 1980;163(10):95–96. [Google Scholar]
  8. Fast RB, Hreschak BO, Spotts CE (1971) Honey-Graham Cereal. US Patent, 3554, 763
  9. Gupta M, Bajva U, Sandhu KS. Optimization of variables associated with processing of carrot-milk cake. J Food Sci Technol. 2005;42:16–22. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kaikadi MA, Chavan UD, Adsule RN. Studies on preparation and shelf-life of ber candy. Bev Food World. 2006;33:49–50. [Google Scholar]
  11. Madan S, Dhawan SS. Development of value added product ‘CANDY’ from carrots. Process Food Ind. 2005;8(3):26–29. [Google Scholar]
  12. Manay SN, Shadaksharaswamy M. Foods facts and principles. 3. New Delhi: New Age International (P) Ltd; 1997. pp. 206–207. [Google Scholar]
  13. Mandal RC, Nambiar PTN. Agricultural statistics techniques and procedure. Jodhpur, India: Agrobios; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  14. Manjunatha SS, Mohan Kumar BL, Das Gupta DK. Development and evaluation of carrot kheer mix. J Food Sci Technol. 2003;41:310–312. [Google Scholar]
  15. Mehta U, Bajaj S. Changes in the chemical composition and organoleptic quality of citrus peel candy during preparation and storage. J Food Sci Technol. 1984;21:422–424. [Google Scholar]
  16. Molen PC. The antibacterial activity of honey. 1. The nature of antibacterial activity. Bee World. 1992;73:5–28. [Google Scholar]
  17. Naveena BM, Sen AR, Vaithiyanathan S, Muthukumar M, Babji Y. Effect of honey and vitamin C on quality of microwave cooked chicken patties. J Food Sci Technol. 2007;44:505–508. [Google Scholar]
  18. Premavalli KS, Arya SS. Effect of vegetables oils on the stability of carotenoids in Carrot-Halwa. Indian Food Pack. 1991;45(4):22–26. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ranganna S. Handbook of analysis and quality control for fruit and vegetable products. 2. New Delhi: Tata Mc Graw-Hill Publ. Co. Ltd; 1986. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ribeiro MS, Sabaa-Srur AUO. Mango (Mangifera indica L.) cv. ‘Rosa Saturation’ with sugars. Cien Technol Aliment. 1999;19:118–122. doi: 10.1590/S0101-20611999000100021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Saxena SK, Jaiswal V. Wonders of golden liquid honey. Process Food Ind. 2005;8(10):42–50. [Google Scholar]
  22. Schmidt M (1978) Honey waffle. German Federal Republic Patent Application 2701765
  23. Shamala TR, Jyothi YS. Honey—It is more than just sweet. Indian Food Ind. 1999;18:349–357. [Google Scholar]
  24. Sharma S, Dhaliwal YS, Kalia M. Canied apple: a new perspective. J Food Sci Technol. 1998;35:79–82. [Google Scholar]
  25. Singh P, Kulshrestha K. Nutritional quality of food supplements based on carrot powder and grits. J Food Sci Technol. 2008;45:99–101. [Google Scholar]
  26. Singh N, Singh SJ, Bava AS, Sekhon KS. Honey—Its food uses. Indian Food Pack. 1988;42(6):15–16. [Google Scholar]
  27. Srivastava PR, Kumar S. Fruit and vegetable preservation Principles and practices. Lucknow: International Book Distributing co., Ltd; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  28. Srivastava AK, Singh OP, Srivastava PK. Development of jaggery based petha (ash gourd) candy, its quality evaluation and study on stability under ambient and refrigerated storage. Bev Food World. 2006;33:71–73. [Google Scholar]
  29. Verma S, Srivastava PK, Durrani A (2006) Organoleptic characteristics of honey based amla murabba. 40th ISAE Annual Convention, Tamilnadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 19–21 Jan
  30. Voll H. New adaptation of honey to bread making. Bakers Dig. 1974;48(4):45. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of food science and technology are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES