You are on page 1of 3

Department of Food Science and Technology Oregon State University, 100 Wiegand Hall, Corvallis, Oregon 97331-6602 T 541-737-3131

| F 541-737-1877 | http://oregonstate.edu/dept/foodsci/

Sensory Evaluation Report for Consumer Acceptance Testing of Meat Products


TO: Client (Company X)

Project Objective: To determine if proposed 10-month stored, enhanced meat product from Company X matches or exceeds target 10-month stored, non-enhanced meat product from the same company. Sensory Test Objective: To determine if the 10-month stored, enhanced meat product from Company X will be scored equal to or better than the same product stored without enhancement based on consumer acceptability of products through hedonic evaluations @ 95% confidence level. RESULTS Consumer comments for liking and disliking of samples are provided in appendices 5 and 6. Testing photos can be viewed in appendices 7, 8, and 9. Overall liking, flavor, and texture sample means (standard deviations) and significance values are provided in Table 1 below. Results are provided in cross tabulation percentage form in Tables 2, 3, and 4. Demographic results are given in Table 5. Top-line Summary for Overall Liking, Flavor Liking, and Texture Liking (tested at 95% confidence level) One-hundred and five consumers evaluated both products and the results showed that there were no significant mean differences for Overall Liking (P=.362), Flavor Liking (P=.563), and Texture Liking (P=.177) between enhanced and non-enhanced samples (Table 1). We have 95% confidence in the result of no difference between the two samples for Overall Liking, Flavor Liking, and Texture liking. The probability of making a mistake in accepting the conclusion that there are no sample differences for overall liking is less than 5%.

Table 1. Sample Means (Standard Deviations) and Significance for Consumer Acceptance Testing (n=105) 232 Attribute1 Overall Likingns Flavor Likingns Texture Likingns Enhanced Sample 6.8 (1.6) 7.0 (1.6) 6.5 (2.1) 415 Non Enhanced Sample 6.6 (1.7) 6.9 (1.5) 6.1 (2.1) P value* 0.362 0.563 0.177

*Multiple Comparison Test Used: Tukey's HSD 5%


1

9 Point hedonic scale = 9=like extremely, 7=like moderately, 5=neither

like nor dislike, 4=dislike slightly, 3=dislike moderately, 1=dislike extremely.

2
ns

Attributes were not significant at P<0.01

Cross tabulation Percentages (Tables 2, 3, and 4) The following interpretation of the 9-point acceptability scale will be used for discussion of the cross tabulation percentage results: Like Moderately to Like Extremely will be considered the positive or liked part of the scale, Dislike Slightly to Like Slightly will be considered the neutral part of the scale, and Dislike Moderately to Dislike Extremely will be considered the negative or disliked part of the scale (Tables 2, 3, and 4). Table 2. Overall, considering flavor and texture, how much do you like or dislike this beef jerky sample? NOTE: Percentage totals for each question may not result in 100%; results were rounded up or down to the nearest whole number. Like Like Like Like Neither Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike Like Sample Extremely Very Moderately Slightly Nor Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Much Dislike Much 8 28 33 17 3 5 5 1 1 Enhanced 3 32 31 16 2 9 5 3 0 NonEnhanced Table 3. How much do you like or dislike the FLAVOR of this sample? NOTE: Percentage totals for each question may not result in 100%; results were rounded up or down to the nearest whole number. Like Like Like Like Neither Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike Like Sample Extremely Very Moderately Slightly Nor Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Much Dislike Much 12 32 27 15 3 8 1 2 Enhanced 9 32 28 17 6 5 3 0 1 NonEnhanced Table 4. How much do you like or dislike the TEXTURE of this sample? NOTE: Percentage totals for each question may not result in 100%; results were rounded up or down to the nearest whole number. Like Like Like Like Neither Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike Like Sample Extremely Very Moderately Slightly Nor Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Much Dislike Much 11 35 17 11 5 11 5 5 2 Enhanced 6 29 26 6 7 14 6 5 3 NonEnhanced Overall Liking For Overall Liking, consumers liked both samples as indicated by the mean ratings of 6.8 (enhanced) and 6.6 (non-enhanced) (6=like slightly; 7=like moderately) (Table 1). Overall Liking had the majority of responses in the positive or liking end (69% for enhanced and 66% for non-enhanced) (Table 2). For both samples, less than 9% of the responses fell in the negative or disliking end of the scale. With 25% and 28% of responses falling in the neutral center for enhanced and non-enhanced samples, respectively (Table 2). Flavor Liking Consumers like the flavor of both samples as indicated by the means ratings of 7.0 (enhanced) and 6.9 (nonenhanced) (7=like moderately) (Table 1). Similar to Overall Liking results, Flavor Liking also had the majority of responses in the positive or liking end (71% for enhanced and 69% for non-enhanced) (Table 3). Only 3% (enhanced) and 4% (non-enhanced) of the responses fell in the negative or disliking end of the scale. With

3
26% and 28% of responses falling in the neutral center for enhanced and non-enhanced samples, respectively (Table 3). Texture Liking The mean consumer response for the enhanced sample was 6.5 (6=like slightly; 7=like moderately) and the mean for the non-enhanced sample was 6.1 (6=like slightly) (Table 1). Close to two-thirds of consumer responses (63% enhanced; 61% for non-enhanced) fell in positive or liking end (Table 4). In the neutral center, enhanced and non-enhanced samples each had 27% of consumer responses (Table 4). With 12% and 14% of responses falling in the negative or disliked end for enhanced and non-enhanced samples, respectively (Table 4). METHODOLOGY Consumer Recruitment One-hundred and five consumers were recruited from the Corvallis community. Prospective consumers were screened on the following criteria: 1) between the ages of 18 and 55, 2) do not work (nor did anyone in their household) for an advertising agency, a marketing research firm, a food manufacturer, a food distributor, or a grocery or convenience store, and 3) have eaten particular meat product at least once in the last three months (Appendix 1).

Sensory Methodology Consumers were asked to sign a consent form (as required by Oregon State University) (Appendix 2). Acceptance testing was used to determine how much each sample was liked based on a 9-point hedonic scale for a set of attributes: overall liking, flavor, and texture where 9=like extremely and 1=dislike extremely. In addition, consumers were asked what they like and dislike about each sample (comment section) (Appendix 3). Consumers were asked to answer a demographic questionnaire at the end of testing. The following questions were asked: particular meat product consumption, age, and gender (Appendix 4).

Experimental Design and Statistical Analysis A complete randomized block design was used to provide a minimum of 100 observations on each sample. Six to seven consumers completed the sensory evaluation every 20 minutes. Consumers evaluated samples in individual testing booths under white lighting. In the booth, up to six consumers used a ballot on the computer screen to enter their sensory information (Compusense 5.0, version 4.6, Guleph, Canada). Extra consumers sat at a table outside the booth area (partitioned for privacy) and completed his/her observations on a paper ballot. Afterwards, sensory personnel entered the paper ballot information into the computer. Analysis of variance was conducted on the sample means for overall liking, flavor, and texture (Compusense 5.0, version 4.6, Guleph, Canada). Statistically significant attributes were further analyzed to see where mean differences existed using Tukeys HSD test at the 95% confidence interval (P< 0.05). Serving Order Two samples were served to each consumer in monadic order. The first sample served was removed before the consumer received the second sample. Serving order was randomized so that approximately 50% of the consumers evaluated the enhanced sample first and 50% of the consumers evaluated the non-enhanced stored sample first. Sample Preparation The meat products was received from Company X on Friday, November 15th and held in requested temperature until prepared for testing. After the pieces were selected for a test session, each sample container was closed tightly between session times. Sample weights ranged from 55 g to 60 g. Samples were served on white, paperboard 6inch plates. Each sample plate was identified by a three-digit random number.