EVALUATION OF RANGE-GRAZED AND CONCENTRATE-FEDBEEF BY A TRAINED SENSORY PANEL, A HOUSEHOLD PANEL AND A LABORATORY TEST MARKET GROUP

A trained sensory panel and a household panel evaluated leaner range-grazed and higher grading concentrate-fed beef for sensory characteristics. The findings were compared to those from a laboratory test market study designed to determine the consumer appeal of branded range-grazed beef when compared to concentrate-fed beef. Broiled steaks from concentrate-fed steers were scored more flavorful, more tender, more juicy and more desirable overall than those from range-grazed steers by the trained sensory panel and by the household panel. In the laboratory test market study steaks from range-grazed steers were nearly equal in acceptance to those from concentrate-fed steers because consumers, although accustomed to concentrate-fed beef in their marketplace, compromised palatability for meat they perceived to be leaner and more healthful.     

CONFIDENCE ELLIPSES APPLIED TO THE COMPARISON OF SENSORY PROFILES

Our experiment involved seven panels and six chocolates – five dark chocolates and one milk chocolate. The aim of the study was to compare the sensory profiles of the chocolates. A natural question to ask is “Did the panelists detect any differences among the five dark chocolates or did they systematically contrast them with the milk chocolate?” The scatter plot of the chocolates obtained by principal component analysis was useless to answer that question, because of the proximity of the points. To overcome that, we used confidence ellipses calculated using bootstrap. The originality of the study lies in the fact that we applied those ellipses to hierarchical multiple factor analysis (HMFA): among the seven panels, six were composed of trained professionals and the last one was composed of untrained students, and through that method, we managed to compare the two types of panels and balance the role of each trained panel. HMFA provides in a single scatter plot a representation of the six chocolates for each panel, the trained panels and all the panels. Confidence ellipses around each chocolate show that the combined panels – the six trained panels and also the untrained panel – differentiate the five dark chocolates. They also show how much larger the untrained panel's variability is than that of the trained panels, and how comparable are the trained panels' variability to each other.     

A COMPARISON OF METHODS FOR EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE OF A TRAINED SENSORY PANEL1

Cluster analysis, consonance analysis, principal component analysis (PCA) and the GRAPES program (Schlich 1994) were compared for the evaluation of panel performance. Ten judges evaluated 25 Merlot wines for 24 color, aroma and flavor attributes. Cluster analysis grouped similar judges. PCA identified judges according to their attribute use. Consonance analysis determined a numerical index for attribute agreement and the GRAPES program compared judges in their use of the scale, reliability, discrimination and disagreement. Three of the four techniques provided a graphical representation of similarities and differences between judges. Methodologies were best used in conjunction with one another. Ultimately the application of these tools will serve to improve the quality of sensory evaluations.     

PANEL PERFORMANCE AND NUMBER OF EVALUATIONS IN A DESCRIPTIVE SENSORY STUDY

The assessor performance is a key point in a sensory evaluation. In particular, at the end of a session, a decrease of the performance can be feared. We propose to analyze this performance with various criteria: usual ones as the main product effect or the error variance; a new one measuring the perceived products variability. The performance can then be studied all along the session from two points of view: in taking into account the only products tested at a given instant (named instantaneous); in taking into account all the products tested up to a given instant (named cumulative). In the presented example, in spite of the large number of products successively tested by each assessor, the instantaneous performance of the panel shows no significant deterioration. Furthermore, when the number of products tested by each assessor increases, more significant product effects can be obtained thanks to the accumulation of the amount of data. This shows that the number of products that can be reasonably studied by one assessor during one session is generally underestimated.     

EFFECT OF SAMPLE NUMBERS ON THE SENSORY ACUITY OF A TRAINED GROUND BEEF TEXTURE PANEL

Trained sensory panelists evaluated 8,12 or 18 samples of ground beef at each meeting to determine the effect of sample numbers on panelist perception of certain sensory properties. Six ground beef formulations were selected to represent a broad range of fat and connective tissue content. Panelists evaluated samples for tenderness, connective tissue amount and juiciness. Sensory ratings were affected by formulation, anticipation of sample numbers and actual number of samples (sample x session). Although panelists discriminated among formulations presented in the last six samples somewhat differently from the way they discriminated among the same formulations presented in the first six samples, there was little evidence that the panel became less sensitive.     

A SIMPLE ALTERNATIVE TO GENERALIZED PROCRUSTES ANALYSIS: APPLICATION TO SENSORY PROFILING DATA

A statistical method for analyzing sensory profiling data obtained by means of fixed vocabulary or free choice profiling is discussed. The most interesting feature of this method is that it involves only simple statistical treatment and can therefore be performed using standard software packages. The outcomes of this method are compared to those of Generalized Procrustes Analysis on the basis of two data sets obtained, respectively, by means of fixed vocabulary and free choice profiling. A significance test is also discussed in order to assess whether the overall configuration of the products is meaningful. This significance test is based upon a simulation study involving the permutation procedure.     

CLASSIFICATION OF CHEESES ACCORDING TO THEIR CLOSENESS TO THE CHEDDAR CHEESE CONCEPT1

An important issue in consumer oriented studies is to measure how closely a specific product or perception matches the representation people have of it. We used a concept matching technique to assess the degree to which a variety of different cheeses matched subjects’ concepts of Cheddar cheese. Eighteen subjects made their judgments using their own past experiences with Cheddar cheeses. They made judgments in three separate conditions: only the odor, only the taste and texture and normal eating. This technique provided valid and reliable information on the extent to which the cheeses matched the subjects’ concept of Cheddar cheese. Agreement between classifications of cheeses based on taste and texture only and based on normal eating was high (R=0.90). Agreement between classifications based only on odor and those based on normal eating was weaker (R-0.59). Thus, the taste and texture of the cheeses were more useful than the odor for classifying cheeses as Cheddar.     

MAPPING IN PRODUCT TESTING AND SENSORY ANALYSIS: A WELL LIT PATH OR A DARK STATISTICAL LABYRINTH?

Mapping is a popularly accepted statistical method, currently used in many applications in order to reveal and perhaps understand relations between stimuli. This paper discusses some of the shortcomings of mapping as a procedure, specifically those having to do with the 'actionability' of the data. The paper recommends that mapping be used to embed the stimuli in a geometric space, but then the coordinates of that space be used as independent variables in a model. In this way the geometrical representation does not stop at being a 'pretty picture' without further utility, but instead incorporates within it the necessary tools to allow researchers to go from any location in the space to any other location.