Study on the appearance quality of flue-cured tobacco selection materials in Yunnan production area

doi:10.14088/j.cnki.issn0439-8114.2026.08.022

Abstract

Abstract: In order to clarify the appearance quality characteristics of flue-cured tobacco selection materials from the Yunnan production area, taking flue-cured tobacco selection materials of eight production areas in Yunnan as the research object, the differences in appearance index scores of tobacco selection samples of the same grades were analyzed, and principal component analysis and correlation analysis were performed on the flue-cured tobacco samples. The results showed that the coefficient of variation of color scores for flue-cured tobacco in the Yunnan production area was the largest, while that of oil scores was the smallest, and there were significant differences in the maturity scores of flue-cured tobacco samples from different production areas. The ranking of the total appearance scores of C1F, C2F, C3F and C4F selected leaf grades for flue-cured tobacco were C1FA > C1F > C1FB > C1FC, C2FA > C2F > C2FB > C2FC, C3FA > C3F > C3FB > C3FC, C4FA > C4F > C4FZ, respectively. The ranking of the total appearance scores for B1F and B2F selected leaf grades were B1FA > B1F > B1FZ, B2FA > B2F > B2FZ, respectively. Most of Yunnan flue-cured tobacco samples were orange, the maturity was mostly ripe, leaf structure was open-firm, the body was medium, the oil was oily, and the overall appearance quality of tobacco leaves was good. There was a significant positive correlation among all appearance indices of the Yunnan flue-cured tobacco samples.

Key words: flue-cured tobacco, leaf selection, appearance quality, Yunnan production area

CLC Number:

S572

FAN Yun-tao, LIU Yuan-shang, LIU Chun-kui, XU Chun-ping, TAN Hong-xiang, ZHAO Zhen-bo, GUO Xiao-kun, QU Li-li, LI Ke-du. Study on the appearance quality of flue-cured tobacco selection materials in Yunnan production area[J]. HUBEI AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, 2026, 65(8): 146-152.

References

[1] 王桂瑶,郭文,李玉娥,等. 不同香型区烤烟外观区域特征差异及其与感官质量的关系[J]. 中国烟草科学,2022,43(3):64-70.
[2] 刘春奎,贾琳. 烟叶分级[M]. 北京:中国纺织出版社,2024.
[3] 张楠,金淮,张留臣. 津巴布韦与中国云南烤烟生产收购对比分析及建议[J]. 现代农业科技,2026(2):143-147,157.
[4] 孙浩巍,张轲,周恒,等. 专分散收模式下云南省烤烟工商交接等级质量及其影响因素[J]. 中国烟草学报,2019,5(3):98-103.
[5] 吕乔,陈长清,刘晓晖,等. 云南烤烟和津巴布韦烤烟的质量差异分析[J]. 河南农业科学,2009(7):54-57.
[6] 申忠. 昭通烟区K326烟叶质量特征及综合评价[D]. 长沙:湖南农业大学,2012.
[7] 刘春奎,王建民,李葆,等. 云南烟区烤烟品种K326主要化学成分特点分析[J]. 郑州轻工业学院学报(自然科学版),2010, 25(5):44-48.
[8] 王育军,邵建平,赵杰,等. 曲靖烟叶质量评价指标间的相关性分析[J]. 作物研究,2014,28(5):496-500,505.
[9] 文大荣,邓建华,逄涛,等. 云南省各州市烤烟外观质量差异分析[J]. 湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2009,35(S1):5-7.
[10] 赵炜,吉松毅,任艳萍,等. 云南烤烟外观质量综合评价及指标间的关系分析[J]. 郑州轻工业学院学报(自然科学版),2010,25(5):53-56,60.
[11] 于川芳,李晓红,罗登山,等. 玉溪烤烟外观质量因素与其主要化学成分之间的关系[J]. 烟草科技,2005(1):5-7.
[12] 彭漫江,程昌新,黄建明,等. 保山烟区烤烟外观质量与化学成分的关系[J]. 郑州轻工业学院学报(自然科学版),2014,29(1):48-53.
[13] 谢利丽,卢秀萍,解燕,等. 曲靖烤烟油分与烟叶品质指标的关系分析[J]. 河南农业大学学报,2015,49(6):742-747.
[14] 王彦亭,谢剑平,李志宏. 中国烟草种植区划[M]. 北京:科学出版社,2010.
[15] 吴元华,刘光亮,刘阳,等. 基于数字化描述的烤烟中部叶外观质量评价方法研究[J]. 中国农学通报,2024,40(22):158-164.
[16] 陈壮壮,陈雨峰,何澎,等. 工商交接烟叶包内等级内在质量一致性评价[J]. 烟草科技,2021,54(5):23-30.
[17] 郭伟,韩毅,任昭辉,等. 精选对烤烟C3F等级质量的影响[J]. 延边大学农学学报,2016,38(2):171-174.
[18] 王端飞,岳超,毛静静,等. 烟叶工业分选的研究现状及展望[J]. 安徽农学通报,2025,31(19):82-85.