. With the sustainability programs lagging behind after the European farmers’ protests, attention may shift to peanuts as a high-protein plant. _
Peanut Market Data
_ Charts & Tables / 15
Peanut Farming
_ Difficult Harvesting Times for Brazil in 2024 / 20
. But Robson Fonseca explains to us why the peanut planted area may still grow significantly this year.
_
Industrial Processing
_ The Blanching Process / 24
The art of removing peanut skins from the kernels
_
Peanuts as a Superfood
_ Showing Skin in the Game / 36
. Once a discarded peanut element with no economic value, skins are now in the spotlight of food scientists thanks to their bioactive compounds.
_
Laws and Regulations
_ Looking for the Right Balance / 42
. It is not always easy to regulate the use of pesticides for crop protection. _
Nº 12
Calm and Rhythm
There is a general perception of calm in the peanut market at the moment as we move into the European summer holidays with the expectation of some relaxing days after a difficult 2023, in which everything was under stress.
To a good extent, this perceived calm is a direct outcome of the Argentine rhythm, which took longer than expected to happen but seems finally to be in full swing with shipments toward European ports finally reflecting the size of the generous crop and market expectations.
Any downside? Argentina’s imports in general are close to their lowest point, which means that empty containers and vessel spaces are not abundant. We have already started seeing containers at the port rolling from one vessel to the next one waiting to depart. We will have to monitor the situation during the coming weeks and months.
This calm and rhythm situation will likely linger for some time, probably for more months than many believed. With Brazil largely out of the game due to its bad crop (see our interview with Robson Fonseca in this issue), China and India suffering from increased freight costs due to the Houthis situation in the Red Sea, and the US reducing their exports to Europe, Argentina seems to be the only competitive option available for Europeans to source large quantities of high-quality peanuts.
In the next two to three months, the majority of shelling plants in Argentina will be busy processing their farmer stock to produce the seeds for the next planting season, taking place in October and November, thus limiting export availability. Markets outside Europe will still be receiving Brazilian peanuts, but no one can be sure for how long, leading to the question of whether this situation will put even more pressure on the already stretched Argentine industry. Going into 2025, we will have to see how the northern hemisphere crops develop according to the weather conditions. Next plantings in the southern hemisphere are another question mark. It seems that Brazil is expecting to increase its planted area a little, while in Argentina the experts predict a “la niña” pattern, which means lower rains and therefore lower yields.
All in all, it is time to enjoy the calm and focus on the rhythm, monitoring the shipments, arrivals and sales, while checking out the weather with your morning coffee.
In this issue of World Peanut Magazine, we cover the difficult cycle of the Brazilian crop with an interview with Coplana’s Robson Fonseca. We take a look at the Farm and Fork initiative in the European Union, the progress achieved in the last few years, and the effects of the unrest of European farmers during the first half of 2024. A related topic is the use of the pesticide chlorothalonil, a clear example of the trade-offs faced by policymakers when regulating pesticides. We continue our series on industrial processing by describing the blanching phase and, finally, we look at the features and potentials of a once under-rated peanut product: the skins.
_ Market Trends
This section of the wpm deals with the dynamics of the demand and supply of peanuts in the international markets. We will try to keep track of the changes in peanut consumption in the main areas of the world, the factors that can affect production, and the price shifts of the various peanut products.
_ Industrial Processing
This area of the magazine focuses on shellers as well as companies transforming peanuts into consumer products. We will focus on current industry standards, quality issues, new technologies and the different industrial solutions adopted by producing countries. A special section will be dedicated to new products and tools for peanut processing developed by the best manufacturers.
_ Science and Technology
The activities of the universities and other research institutes engaged in scientific research on peanuts are of paramount importance for the future of the business. We will follow the main discoveries, from the latest issues concerning peanut genetics to the development of projects on pathogens or the impact of peanut consumption on human health. The consequences of scientific research on the future of the industry are hard to overstate, so we will be putting them in perspective in order to try to understand where the sector is heading in the long term.
_ Laws and Regulations
The Laws and Regulations section of World Peanut Magazine analyses the impact of new legislation and regulations affecting the production and trade of peanuts. The main issues treated in this section are governmental measures directly affecting international trade (such as the introduction of tariffs or quotas), health safety issues (such as the establishment of Maximum Residue Limits for certain substances) but also legislation impacting distribution, packaging and sales.
_ Peanut as a Superfood
This section offers peanut professionals news and insights into the world of peanut consumption and all its aspects. Typical news is related to findings concerning the nutritional values of peanuts, the impact of peanut consumption on human health, and the development of peanut-based food.
_ Peanut Farming
The primary production is where the peanut business starts, of course, so we will have a dedicated section for all events, activities, techniques and equipment related to growing peanuts in different parts of the world. The general idea is to bring farming in the producing countries closer to all peanut professionals so that they can have a better grasp of the business from a grower’s perspective and maybe on what the future of peanut farming may look like.
Is Farm to Fork Moving Too Slowly?
With the sustainability programs lagging behind after the European farmers’ protests, attention may shift to peanuts as a high-protein plant.
About three years ago we dedicated several pages of World Peanut Magazine to the European Union’s Farm to Fork strategy, a major initiative to achieve more sustainable agriculture with a significant impact on farming within the continent and abroad. Of course, the potential consequences on the way peanut is farmed and processed was relevant for the exporting countries, starting with Argentina, the US, Brazil, China, Nicaragua and others. We decided to take a look at the status of the strategy today; to say that the perspective has changed would probably be an understatement.
The “State of Play” of the Farm to Fork strategy is summarized in the tables recently published by the EU Parliament (see tables 1 and 2 on page 10 and 11) and, according to many, it hardly meets the initial promises. The fact is that the world has changed since then and while the war in Ukraine certainly played a part, perhaps the most significant phenomenon between the beginning of the Farm to Fork initiative and now is the protest of farmers all across Europe at the end of last year and especially during the first months of 2024. The peak of the protest occurred in February when almost one thousand tractors jammed the streets right in the center of Brussels to get the attention of the EU authorities. In some cases, the protesters clashed violently with the police, tires were set on fire, liquid manure was sprayed, and eggs were thrown. In some instances, the police, in full riot gear, had to respond with water cannons. The protests were by no means limited to Belgium: in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain, as well as most other European countries, the tractors cruised to the cities to make their voices heard. What did they want? In many ways, farmers appeared to feel left out of the crucial political decisions taken by the EU and the member states’ governments. They complained about low food prices and particularly about the competition from non-EU producers, mainly Ukraine and the South American countries of the Mercosur, with whom a trade agreement signed a few years ago is still awaiting ratification. But a great element of discontent among farmers were EU regulations, both issued and expected, concerning the development of the Green Deal and Farm to Fork. In accordance with the announced plan of making the European Block carbon neutral by 2050, farmers would need to devote 4% of the land available for agricultural production to non-productive uses. They would also have to reduce the application of fertilizers by 20%, and cut pesticide use, along with agreeing other restrictions.
What was the response of the EU authorities? To a good extent it was to slow down the sustainability projects while assessing the situation. Even before the farmers’ protest, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had announced a Strategic Dialogue to foster “more dialogue and less polarisation” in agricultural policymaking by bringing together food producers, NGOs and various farming stakeholders to share views. The general idea was to get together a total of 29 European food organizations, divide them into working groups, and address four key issues: 1. Economic growth (How can we provide our farmers and the rural communities where they live with a better perspective, including a decent standard of living) 2. Sustainability (How can we support agriculture within the limits of our planet and its ecosystem?) 3. Innovation (How can we better take advantage of the tremendous opportunities offered by knowledge and technological innovation?) and 4. Covering of the entire value chain (How can we promote a bright and prosperous future for the European food system in a competitive world?).
The discussions were chaired by Peter Strohschneider, former head of the Commission for the Future of Agriculture, an agency of the German government, and the objective was to announce the group’s conclusions by September. The main effort is centered on making the various goals compatible. As Gijs Schilthuis, Head of Unit, Policy Perspectives, at the Commission’s DG AGRI, said, “There is a strong debate in society around food and farming, which has become increasingly polarised. That is one of the lessons we have drawn from this mandate. We need to work and make agriculture and the protection of natural resources go together. We must strengthen dialogue.” According to some observers, the Farm to Fork strategy remains largely unaccomplished. The Senior Food Policy Officer of BEUC (Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs), Emma Calvert, remarked during the discussion that, “Consumers want to eat more healthily and sustainably but they find it difficult. Many of the policies promised by the Farm to Fork strategy and beyond remain unpublished, unfinished, and unfulfilled. Without having a strategy to deal with how we produce and consume food in the EU, we will not have a complete Green Deal.”
In the meantime, the EU Council has been working on its own plan regarding the development of European agriculture and at the end of June it presented a report with 20 points (see the table on page 13) to the Ministers of Agriculture of the member states, who all voted in favor except for Romania (while Slovakia abstained). Within the report we can find good news for peanuts. The chapter on “Resilience to climate change and preservation of the environment” includes point n. 23, which “RECOGNISES the progress made to date and the many efforts already made by farmers to help achieve the EU’s climate, biodiversity, environmental, animal welfare, and other sustainability objectives; RECOGNISES that the agricultural sector will need to continue those efforts to reach these objectives while taking into account the socio-economic reality, competitiveness and profitability of the agri-food sector; UNDERLINES that various climatefriendly agricultural practices can provide solutions to environmental and climatic challenges, including through carbon farming; CALLS for enhanced attention to the availability and diversification of plant protein sources in the Union.”
Once again, as one of the plants with the highest protein content, peanut is confirmed not only as a healthy food option but also a sustainable crop.
Table 1.
Ongoing "farm to fork" strategy initiatives
INITIATIVE STATE OF PLAY
PLANT PROTECTION PRODUCTS (PPPS)
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY
In 2022, the Commission put forward a proposal on the sustainable use of PPPs, but Parliament rejected it, and the Commission announced its withdrawal in 2024.
In 2022, the Commission proposed a directive on corporate sustainability due diligence. Parliament and the Council agreed a provisional text that awaits formal adoption.
CARBON FARMING
In 2022, the Commission adopted a proposal on rules on certifying carbon removals on farms, which is currently being negotiated by Parliament and the Council in trilogues.
NEW GENOMIC TECHNIQUES (NGTS)
The Commission put forward a proposal on the NGTs in 2023. Parliament adopted its position in 2024 and the Council has yet to find a common position.
ANIMAL WELFARE
MARKETING STANDARDS
FOOD WASTE
In 2023, the Commission put forward a legislative proposal on the welfare of animals during transport, but not on other animal welfare aspects (see Table 2).
In 2024, Parliament and the Council reached a provisional agreement on the proposal on marketing standards for certain agricultural products (the "breakfast directives"), and are also working on the 2023 proposals on plant and forest reproductive material.
In 2023, the Commission proposed legally binding targets to reduce food waste, a lot less ambitious than in the strategy. The co-legislators are currently discussing it.
Table 2.
Pending "farm to fork" strategy initiatives
INITIATIVE STATE OF PLAY
SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS
FOOD LABELING
Subject of a public consultation in 2022 and announced in the Commission work program for 2023, this leading farm-to-fork initiative has yet to be put forward.
No proposals have been submitted for the revised rules on front of pack nutrition labeling, origin indication for certain products, and “use by”- and “best before”-date marking, announced for 2022. Similarly, the proposal on the sustainability labelling for food products, announced for 2024, has yet to be submitted.
ANIMAL WELFARE ASPECTS
NUTRIENT PROFILES
FOOD CONTACT MATERIALS
The announced legislative proposals on three aspects of animal welfare – keeping of animals, slaughter and labelling of animal products – have not yet been submitted.
Legislation on nutrient thresholds (announced for 2022) has not yet been put forward.
New rules on recycled plastic intended to come into contact with food entered into force in 2022, but the overhaul of EU food contact material laws, planned for 2023, is still awaited.
PROMOTION POLICY
MARKETING STANDARDS
FOOD PROCUREMENT AND SCHOOL SCHEME
FEED ADDITIVES
Following an evaluation, the Commission said it aimed to enhance the role of EU promotion campaigns for agri food products in sustainable production and consumption in 2022. The proposal has yet to be published.
The proposal on marketing standards for fish and seafood products is still outstanding.
The Commission announced it would propose minimum criteria for sustainable public procurement of food in 2023, but has not yet done so. The review of the legal framework for the EU school scheme is now expected by the end of March 2024.
Current feed additives rules were expected to be revised in 2021. The revision was initially postponed for 2023 and is now not expected to take place before the end of 2024.
Table 3.
The EU Council Presidency’s conclusions on the future of agriculture in the EU
(meeting on June 24, 2024)
1_ STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY.
Agriculture is crucial for food security and sustainability amidst challenges like climate change and geopolitical tensions.
2_ CAP OBJECTIVES.
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) must address fair income for farmers, market stability, and reasonable consumer prices, while adapting to environmental challenges.
3_ FARMER DISSATISFACTION.
Farmers’ concerns include low income, high costs, complex regulations, and the need for a level playing field.
4_ CAP STABILITY.
A stable regulatory framework is necessary for a competitive and resilient agricultural sector.
5_ STRATEGIC DIALOGUE.
The European Commission’s dialogue on the future of agriculture aims to balance agricultural and green transition debates.
6_ FOOD SYSTEMS APPROACH.
Policies must integrate all food chain actors to ensure affordable, sustainable food production.
7_ FINANCIAL RESOURCES.
Adequate CAP funding is crucial for meeting its objectives and ensuring fair distribution among Member States.
8_ RURAL DEVELOPMENT.
Agriculture supports rural cohesion and economic strength, requiring support for small farms and women’s roles in rural areas.
9_ FAIR FARMER INCOME.
Farmers need improved income through better food chain positioning and market opportunities.
10_ EU AGRI-FOOD CHAIN OBSERVATORY.
Strengthening farmers’ positions in the food chain and ensuring fair remuneration is essential.
11_ TRADE POLICIES.
A fair, rules-based trading system with health and safety standards is vital for EU agricultural exports and imports.
12_ EU ENLARGEMENT.
Future enlargements must consider agricultural impacts to avoid market disruption.
13_RESILIENCE.
Enhancing farming resilience to market volatility, geopolitical issues, and climate change is critical.
14_ INNOVATION AND COOPERATION.
Research in sustainable practices and innovation is key, supported by investment and knowledge exchange.
15_ REGULATORY SIMPLIFICATION.
Reducing administrative burdens and ensuring a stable regulatory framework for farmers is necessary.
16_ SUPPORT FOR YOUNG FARMERS.
Facilitating access to land and credit for new and young farmers is important for generational renewal.
17_ CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENVIRONMENT.
Sustainable practices and ecosystem preservation are essential for longterm food security and agricultural resilience.
18_ INCENTIVES FOR SUSTAINABILITY.
Supporting farmers in adopting sustainable practices through incentives is crucial.
19_ PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SUPPORT.
Both CAP and other instruments should aid farmers in meeting environmental and climate goals.
20_ FUTURE POLICIES.
The next Commission must address these issues in its agricultural policies.
peanut exports of brazil - kernels (mt 1202.42 + 2008.11) eu 27 imports, tm (shelled - 1202.42) &
eu 27 imports, tm (prepared 2008.11)
china future prices (settle value - rbm) TOTAL JAN-MAY 8.924 - 12.324 - 10.835
peanut exports of argentina - kernels (mt)
of Expana
Difficult Harvesting Times for Brazil in 2024
But Robson Fonseca explains to us why the peanut planted area may still grow significantly this year.
We
talked to Robson
Fonseca, excecutive of Coplana, one of the Brazil's main peanuts sheller and exporter.
For sure 2024 will not be remembered as the best year for harvesting in Brazil…
The flooding in the southern states of the country, particularly in Rio Grande do Sul, seriously affected wheat, maize and especially rice, 70% of which is produced in the South. But even before that, a rather severe drought had already affected the crops, and peanuts were no exception. Back in March, during the World Peanut Meeting held in Cordoba, Argentina, Beatrice’s Pablo Rivera forecast a figure for total peanut exports in 2024 of 280,000 metric tons. But now it seems that the number will be even smaller: 200.000 tons according to Robson Fonseca, executive of Coplana, one of the country’s main peanut sheller and exporters.
I understand you just came back from Snackex, Robson…?
Yes, Snackex is a classic for peanuts and it is always important to be there. The quality of the people, of the buyers that go there, is relevant; this year I was able to meet many new potential partners, especially companies from Eastern Europe, but also from Sweden as this year’s edition was held in Stockholm. Unfortunately, given the quality of the harvest, I did not have a lot to offer at this time…
By the way, congratulations on the elimination of the 30% compulsory controls for pesticides decided by the EU authorities just recently Yes, that is a great thing, but, at the same time, we cannot lower our guard. Regardless of the entry controls, if a supermarket inspects our peanuts and finds something that will have a problem they will go to our customer and, obviously, that will reflect poorly on us. We must keep up our controls at the origins and make sure all the peanuts that go to Europe are of the highest quality.
So, what is the situation that the Brazilian peanut sector faces right now?
Well, the 2024 drought is not the only problem. High production costs are also affecting our business. As you know Russia is our most important market. Well, in February we were at Gulfood in Dubai and we were seeking to sell our peanuts at 1,650 dollars per metric ton; but the Russians went mostly to India and bought peanuts for 1,400. They understand they will have quality problems, and that they will have to make some selections, but still… We could not really match those prices: in line with current production costs, a 25 kg in-shell bag of peanuts sells in the Brazilian market for 100 to 110 reais (the equivalent of 18-20 USD) which leads to a minimum selling price of 1,650.
Yes, I remember Pablo’s presentation back in March; he mentioned production costs going up to 2,200-2,400 dollars per hectare
We can say that is probably an average cost, but it includes the relatively cheaper areas in the states of Minas Gerais and Mato Grosso. But if you consider the traditional peanut area, let’s say the zone around Jaboticabal, then the cost has been more in the neighborhood of 3,000 dollars, of which 800 to 900 are for the lease of the lots. Other areas are cheaper but many producers prefer to stick to the familiar land in the state of Sao Paulo.
On top of everything else you had the flooding…
Yes, even though that affected mostly rice in Rio Grande do Sul…
And what is the situation with peanuts? Do you have stock?
I am quite sure there is some quantity of peanuts that is being retained by growers, mainly small producers. They are resisting selling, hoping for a better price tomorrow, but it is difficult to assess the quality of the products; we are talking about peanuts that have not been selected. But they wait maybe until August, then they may sell the peanuts as seeds. If the result is higher prices we can expect the planted area to grow. I would bet on a 10% increase for the 2024 planting season. But we could also envision a different scenario: producers with a lot of peanuts and low market prices. That would be quite bad for the industry.
What about availability for Europe?
The problem is that it is difficult to assess the quality of the peanuts available with the growers. But if normally we export 50 to 60,000 tons to Europe every year, in 2024 I would be surprised if we export more than 30,000.
So, what happens with the rest of the peanuts?
I believe that in the last quarter of the year, we could have a scenario similar to 2022, when the war in Ukraine disrupted our market. We can increase the oil production and sell it to China. Our capacity for oil extraction is quite big; in fact, it is probably twice as big as the current production: we could easily process up to 600,000 tons of peanuts every year. It is true that the demand in China is not particularly tight, but that market is so huge that I believe, if things get complicated, we shouldn’t have a problem moving 50 to 60,000 tons if the price is right.
Do you maintain an increased forecast for the 2024 planting?
Yes, I am relatively confident about a 10% increase, even though many think it is going to be closer to 5%. At Coplana we will definitely go up 10%, from 24 to 27,000 hectares. Many of these hectares will be in Goiás, where we expect yields close to 4.5 tons per hectare.
OK, but what about logistics?
These lots are about 600 km away from the plant but it is still worthwhile. And in the future, we can probably move some of the processing there, maybe in two or three years.
The Blanching Process
The art of removing peanut skins from the kernels
In the previous issue of WPM, we described the peanut blanching process from a general point of view. We stated that the most widely adopted processes involved the following steps:
_ HEATING.
Consists of a gentle heating, necessary to minimize the fragility and therefore the possibility of splitting. There are different technologies available, with heating temperatures normally not exceeding 95° –100° Celsius (in most cases the temperature is kept within the 75° – 95° Celsius range). The heating removes the moisture from the kernels, it passes through the skin, loosens it, and facilitates the further removal.
_ COOLING .
Consists of a cooling of the peanuts, also very gentle, aiming to take the kernels back down to an ambient temperature, thus helping the blanching.
_ TEMPERING.
The peanuts are stored for a few hours to allow the stabilization of both temperature and moisture of the kernels, resulting in better blanching conditions and less splitting.
_ BLANCHING.
This step consists of a mechanical procedure by which the skins are finally removed from the kernels. The most common technique involves abrasive rollers for skin removal. In this process, the operators face a trade-off between blanching efficiency and splitting; they may achieve a product with an acceptably low split level, but still with some unblanched kernels that needs to be re-blanched.
_ SORTING / HAND PICKING .
The last step consists of the mechanical or manual separation of the damaged or discolored kernels, as well as the still unblanched ones, in order to obtain the finished product: “Selected Blanched Peanuts”. If the desired finished product is whole-blanched peanuts, it is sometimes necessary to adjust the quantity of split kernels through a sieving machine.
In the current issue of WPM, we are covering step 4: Blanching
The most widely adopted blanching processes involve a heating step prior to blanching. We dug into history looking at the beginnings, when the industry pioneers were faced with the challenge of blanching peanut kernels while also preserving their physical, chemical, microbiological characteristics without negatively affecting the product’s shelf life.
There were many methods of blanching peanut kernels (as described by J. G. Woodroof in his book: Peanuts: Production, Processing, Products); they could be grouped as follows:
_ DRY BLANCHING
This method requires a heating step prior to blanching.
_ WET BLANCHING
In this case pre-heating is not needed, but the kernels have to be subjected to heating after blanching to restore the normal moisture.
Let’s take a closer look at both methods as they were implemented back in the 1940s.
Dry blanching
This method is the most common one in the peanut industry and requires heating, cooling and tempering prior to blanching as described in steps 1, 2, and 3 above.
Once the skin is loosened by the heating step, two methods can be adopted to remove the skin from the kernels
1. Buff blanching
This is the technology mostly adopted by the industry worldwide. The working principle involves two abrasive rollers moving at differential speeds at the point of contact with the kernels, producing the same effect as a person trying to blanche a single peanut kernel with two fingers. Machines performing buff blanching can be batch or continuous, the latter being the most employed one.
Figure 1 describes a continuous machine, displaying the flow of the kernels and the skin, which can be collected under the machine or aspirated.
2. Air Blanching
This method was also developed in the 1940s; however, the technology available at the time limited its ability to compete with buff. Nowadays we can count on many more opportunities and air blanching machinery is already installed and functioning in some plants, which brings new expectations in comparison with the traditional buff systems.
This technology employs compressed air as a peeling power, replacing the traditional sand roller peeling machine. Heated kernels are fed to a revolving cylinder equipped with an abrasive rough interwall surface, and a plurality of air jets located in the interior of the blanching chamber.
The jets are positioned in such a way as to cause the air flow to counter the rotation of the drum. As the drum rotates, peanuts move up the side of the cylinder and meet the air flow. The impact between the kernels and air jets, along with the abrasive surface, removes the skins from the peanuts. Peanuts are discharged from the blanching chamber, while skins are aspirated to a cyclonic collector.
According to many operators, this technology ensures a better quality of finished product in comparison with the buff blanching (the damage to the kernels is significantly reduced), although the lower processing capacity and the air usage are the two main disadvantages of this technology. The splitting rate in the two systems is still something to be evaluated.
BLANCHING. 1 Water blanching peanut plant. 2 Slitting peanut skins for water blanching. 3 Water blanching scrubber
Wet blanching
This method involves an external liquid source being added to the peanuts to help loosen the skin. It can be water or a chemical solution like alkali or hydrogen peroxide solutions. It doesn’t require prior heating, but it needs a step to bring back the product’s moisture to normal levels in order to preserve the shelf life of the peanuts.
1. Water Blanching
This technology was patented in the USA back in 1949. It was developed by the Seabrook Blanching Corp in Georgia. The first step was to cut the skins of the individual kernels longitudinally by rolling them between sharp stationary blades. After that, kernels would run through hot water sprays to loosen the skins, and then on a knobbed conveyor passing under an oscillating canvas-covered pad which rubbed off the skins. Needless to say, the water microbiological properties should be a critical control point to ensure product quality.
Kernels needed to be dried from approximately 12% moisture back to 5-6%. It meant a significant investment and to our knowledge, the method is no longer being adopted anywhere today.
2. Hydrogen peroxide blanching
This method was developed in Japan (by Takeuchi and Mazumoto in 1970) based on a biochemical reaction with catalase present in the nuts themselves. Peanuts are soaked in hydrogen peroxide for 30-60 seconds so that the skins swell, then the hydrogen peroxide is decomposed into water and oxygen gas by the action of the catalase in the skin and on the endosperm of the nuts.
The oxygen generated forms a jacket between the skin and the endosperm. The exfoliated skin is removed easily by a nut blancher either in wet or dry state. The whole process takes 10–15 minutes.
The hydrogen peroxide also sterilizes and bleaches the nuts. .
Industrial Process: General considerations
The technologies with the buff method for blanching peanuts currently available offer machines with capacities ranging from 500 to 2,000 kg/hour per unit.
The blanching process developed very quicky in Argentina in the last 20 years leading to the highest blanching capacity in the world. Brazil has also been slowly growing in blanching capacity in the last few years.
Today, Argentina’s blanching plants have high capacities: it is common to see a set of blanchers (5 to 20 units) working in parallel, being fed from bins and discharging the blanched product into common conveyors.
Every individual machine counts on two sets of abrasive rollers for blanching. These rollers are prepared by applying the abrasive material to a metal roller; its duration depends on the type of abrasive, the method of application, and the blanching procedure. This means that a single machine will have a different performance when bearing a new abrasive roller, as opposed to having a roller close to finishing its life cycle. It will be significantly more effective when new.
The operator in charge of this set of machines must pay close attention to every unit, as he should operate simultaneously machines with new, medium and old abrasive rollers. This fact is key to maximizing the plant output and to minimizing the splits, “the blanching operator is a key element in the art of blanching peanuts”.
Another important element of the blanching process is the quality of the raw material. We can highlight two situations:
_ UNIFORMITY OF THE KERNEL SIZE. Sizing is not defined at the blanching plant, but earlier on the pipe line, at the shelling plant. Peanut lots with high uniformity among the kernels will perform better at blanchers than non-uniform ones, as the mix of big and small kernels will create problems with the machine.
_ UNIFORMITY OF THE KERNEL MOISTURE. Peanut lots with high moisture uniformity will perform better at blanchers than nonuniform ones. In this regard, step 3 described above, tempering, helps level the temperature and moisture of the kernels before blanching.
Blancher operational parameters
When operating a blancher, there are a few variables that the operator must control.
_ SPEED OF THE ROLES. Some technologies have variable frequency drivers allowing the operator to speed up or slow down the rotative speed in order to optimize the process.
_ RETENTION TIME. The longer inside the blancher, the better the blanching process, but also the higher the splitting rate. Every technology has different ways of controlling this parameter, like the discharge valve; by closing it, the retention time is increased. Another way of controlling the retention inside the machine is by varying the inclination of the machine. With higher inclination, less time.
_ ABRASIVE MATERIAL: Different types of abrasive can be applied to the rollers, producing different results on blanching; more aggressive elements improve blanching but also produce more meal.
Another important point to consider in operating these blanching sets is the periodical cleaning of the machines, as meal tends to accumulate inside them, thus reducing their efficiency. Removing this accumulation brings back the machine to the optimal operational status.
Cleaning can be done mechanically by using any type of external tool. Compressed air can be used as an alternative.
After blanching the skin, meal and small pieces can be removed by screens or by aspiration in order to clean the blanched peanuts and reach the next step in the process: color sorting.
Blancher operational indicators.
The best indicators to measure the efficiency of the process and the quality of the finish products are:
_ PERCENTAGE OF UNBLANCHED KERNELS
_ PERCENTAGE OF RED NOSES
_ PERCENTAGE OF SPLITS
_ PERCENTAGE OF MEAL
Blanching peanut split kernels.
The processes described apply to the blanching of whole kernels, where keeping the peanuts whole and minimizing the splits is very important.
However, there is another process that involves the blanching of raw splits. Although the same technology can be applied to raw splits, there are alternatives specifically designed for this case, as shown in the following picture:
Instead of two abrasive rollers, the blanching process is performed between a belt and a rubber roller bearing a differential speed at the point of contact with the kernels. It is easier to blanche splits in this way, as the skin is not attached as hard to the kernels as is the case with whole kernels.
Showing Skin in the Game
Once a discarded peanut element with no economic value, skins are now in the spotlight of food scientists thanks to their bioactive compounds
Until just a few years ago, the peanut industry didn’t really pay a lot of attention to peanut skins. A by-product of the blanching process, the characteristic red, brownish or black (depending on the strain) skins were often considered a waste. Things are changing, though, as researchers are discovering new and interesting properties of this part of the peanuts, starting with their highly beneficial nutritional elements. The good news is that once peanut skin-based products are ready for the market we will be able to count on a relative abundance of it. Some estimates place the annual production in the US in excess of 20,000 metric tons; if we add another 15,000 from the blanching operations of Argentina, Brazil and other Latin American countries we have more than 35,000 tons of skins every year from the Americas alone, without even considering the two largest peanut producers in the world: China and India together produce about 24 million metric tons of peanuts, part of which gets blanched leaving many tons of skins in the process.
But what are the features of peanut skins? Like peanut kernels, skins contain proteins, carbohydrates, fats, minerals, vitamins and fibers. But probably the main reason skins are attracting the attention of food scientists and nutritionists around the world is their content of bioactive compounds such as phenols (see table on page xx), which work as antioxidants that help neutralize free radicals, i.e. molecules in the body that may damage cells. Like green tea and grape skins, peanut skins are particularly rich in these compounds. Among phenols, the most interesting one is probably resveratrol, which is known to help increase endurance, reduce inflammation and help protect against the risk of heart disease.
Currently, peanut skins, when not discarded, are mostly used as ingredients for animal feed. For example, in Argentina they are widely used for the production of balanced feed for cattle. But recently scientists have been exploring other potentials. Research chemist Ondulla Toomer, with the US Agricultural Research Service in Raleigh, North Carolina, alongside other scientists has worked on the antimicrobial properties of peanut skins and explored their ability to eliminate or reduce the risk of salmonella in poultry. Another interesting area of research is the employment of skins as natural food preservatives. Experts from Spain and Brazil, for example, have been evaluating the use of skins for the preservation of meat products and concluded that peanut skin is “an interesting source of natural antioxidants, mainly due to its high content in proanthocyanidin compounds”.
But the future of peanut skins, because of their potential benefits for human health, probably belongs to human consumption. Of course, skins are already been consumed by humans daily in snacks that include nonblanched roasted peanuts, while some brands of peanut butter add skins to their products, but there are several indications that this peanut element may become a lot more ubiquitous in the next few years.
An article on Applied Science (“Extracts of Peanut Skins as a Source of Bioactive Compounds: Methodology and Application” ) by Lisa Dean, a scientist at the US Department of Agriculture, summarizes the attempts to employ skins’ bioactive elements as food additives, for example in the form of “an infusion or tea”, or the “preparation of an encapsulated product from peanut skin extracts”, which “produced a free-flowing powder that could be used for incorporation into foods”. A downside is that, “using peanut skin extracts as an ingredient in food products causes problems due to the extreme bitterness and astringency properties of the material. These properties are attributed to the high tannin content. Using maltodextrin to encapsulate the extracts creates a free-flowing powder that is more easily handled and able to mitigate the negative flavor impacts.”. Despite this, the study concludes that improving extraction technologies “will increase the appeal of making use of peanut skins as a food ingredient and as a nutraceutical additive. As this becomes more widely known, the value of peanut skins will greatly increase.”
Phenolic and flavonoid compounds (mg/kg) of peanut skin extract powder
COMPOUND
Phenolic compounds
Flavonoid compounds
Pyrogallol Quinol
Gallic acid
Catechol
Hydroxy benzoic acid
Caffeine
Chlorogenic
Vanillic acid
Caffeic acid
Syringic acid
Vanillin
p-Coumaric acid
Ferulic acid
Benzoic acid
Ellagic
0-Coumaric acid
Cinnamic acid
Salicylic acid
Rutin
Quercitin
Rosemarinic
Myricetin
Kampherol
ND = Not detected
Source: Ahmed Mohamed Hadem, Soad Hassan Taha, Aliaa Ali Darwish, Esmat
Aly, “Antioxidant activity and some quality characteristics of buffalo yoghurt fortified with peanut skin extract powder”, Food Science Technology, 2022.
Looking for the Right Balance
It is not always easy to regulate the use of pesticides for crop protection.
When it comes to food production, it is quite evident that there is a clear trade-off between two important objectives: on one hand, the possibility of making affordable plants and animals available to large and growing groups of people around the world; on the other, the necessity to preserve the environment and avoid the excessive use of chemicals that may be potentially hazardous to human health. In some cases it is not easy to see exactly what the optimal balance is, but the solution should be pursued by using scientific methods and evidencebased arguments. In this article we take a look at a fungicide that plays a major role in peanut production in many countries: chlorothalonil, currently the main tool to control leaf spot.
Chlorothalonil, or tetrachloroisophthalonitrile, is an organic compound used mainly as a fungicide that became widespread in agriculture starting in the 1960s (it was first registered in the US in 1966). Besides its use to control fungi infection it is also employed against algae, bacteria and mold. According to data from the National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy, the most common use of the compound is in peanut production, which represents about one-third of its usage, followed by potatoes and tomatoes. The main problem addressed with chlorothalonil in peanuts is leaf spot, one of the major fungal infections of this crop in the US, Argentina and many other producing
countries (see the box on next page). While research is underway to test biocontrols adopting bacteria or fungal agents to contrast leaf spot, as of today chlorothalonil appears to be the only effective tool that peanut growers have. The compound is applied to start at around 90 days from planting when environmental conditions suggest that the threat of leaf spot is high. The enormous advantage of chlorothalonil is that it makes it very difficult for the fungus responsible for the disease to develop immunity. Instead of focusing on one part of the fungus’s physiology, it acts on many of its elements simultaneously and therefore makes it nearly impossible for resistance to emerge, unlike with many other fungicides. At present there are no viable alternatives to chlorothalonil for the effective control of leaf spot in peanuts. The other question is whether chlorothalonil presents a danger to humans and the environment.
According to ESFA (European Food Safety Authority), “Chlorothalonil presents a low acute toxicity profile when administered via oral or dermal routes; however, it was shown to be very toxic if inhaled … and an irritant to the respiratory tract … It is not a skin irritant but may cause serious eye damage and allergic skin reactions.”
Following experiments with laboratory animals fed diets containing chlorothalonil, there are indications that the compound is a possible carcinogen for kidneys according to the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). As far as the hazard for the environment is concerned, it is considered a “high risk for surface water” due to its toxicity to fish and aquatic invertebrates. On a few occasions, it has been detected in some US areas in the water and in ambient air. Last year traces of chlorothalonil were found in the water in Costa Rica.
As far as regulations are concerned, the EU Commission banned chlorothalonil in 2020, while in 2021 the Maximum Residue Limit was lowered from 0.1 to 0.01 parts per billion (which is the default low limit for any pesticide). In the US, as in several other countries, the compound is allowed as a fungicide and pesticide for many crops, and the residue limit is set at 0.05.
Peanut leaf spot
Each year peanut leaf spot is the most prevalent peanut disease in Florida. It causes defoliation and thus can be responsible for yield reductions of over 75% when not controlled; this figure drops to less than 5% when a total control program is utilized … Actually, two leaf spot diseases occur but together they are called peanut leaf spot. Early peanut leaf spot, caused by the fungus cercospora arachidicola, is usually the first to occur. It is characterized by a round brown-red spot and may have a yellow halo. Late leafspot is caused by a related fungus, cercosporidium personatum, and is characterized by a somewhat round spot that is black on the underside of the leaflet and it may or may not have a yellow halo. Lesions (spots) of either leaf spot disease may be found in leaflets, petioles, stems and pegs. However, lesions are not found in petioles, stems or pegs until later in the season or after numerous lesions have been found on leaflets. Occasionally, chemical burns from insecticides or cracking time herbicides cause dark spots that may be confused with leaf spot. Microscopic spores which are produced on the surface of the lesions are disseminated by wind, rain or irrigation. When the leaf, petiole or stem surface is wet, the spores germinate and penetrate the tissue. Within 10 to 14 days after these infections occur, new lesions with more spores are produced. Leaf spot causes premature leaf drop. Fallen leaves with lesions will provide primary inoculum (spores) for the next season if peanuts are planted in the same or adjoining fields.
Source: “Plant Pathology Fact Sheet – Peanut Leaf Spot and Rust”, Professor Tom Kucharek, Extension Plant Pathologist, 1979, Revised Nov 2000, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
This issue of the World Peanut Magazine has been completed thanks to the efforts of:
Tracy Grondine USA
American Peanut Council Jane Zheng
Qingdao Shengde Foods Co.
Kishore Tanna
Gabriela Alcorta
Soledad Bossio
Javier Martinetto
Edoardo Fracanzani
Sebastián Della Giustina
Argentina
cam (Argentina Peanut Chamber)
Robson Fonseca
Coplana
Graphic Design and illustrations. ese-estudio.com.ar · @ese.estudio.ok
Typography. Journalist by Sergio Rodriguez / Work Sans by
Gezer Amorim. Pexels /
Wei Huang / Noto Sans / Pictures.
Cámara Argentina del Maní 20 de Septiembre 855 “A”.
(X5809AJI) General Cabrera · Córdoba, Argentina Tel +54 358 4933118
