Better sausage at lower cost. Is it possible?

Devro
Wiener Sausages Preference Test
October / November 2011
isi Devro | Wiener Sausages Preference Test | November 2011 Page 1
 Introduction
Collagen casings allow sausages to be produced at significantly lower
costs than sausages in sheep casings but how do consumers rate the
two products.

ISI were asked to independently and impartially compare and

measure consumer perceptions. Could retailers and producers
increase their margins on sausage without risking sales volumes and
consumer perceptions of quality.

isi Devro | Wiener Sausages Preference Test | November 2011 Page 2

 Content



Introduction

Key findings

ISI Profile

Detailed analysis of the preference tests

Full report

isi Devro | Wiener Sausages Preference Test | November 2011 Page 3




Sausage appearance – for shelf appeal

Key Finding 1| On first seeing the sausage Collagen Casing is

preferred and the respondents like the appearance. Collagen
achieved significantly higher mean values than Sheep Casing.
Data that proves it:
•
In terms of the appearance (visual sample)
there are significant acceptance differences
between - Sheep Casing and Collagen Casing.
•
Analysing the open-ended questions of the test
persons who specified that they dislike the
appearance of Sheep Casing, it can be seen
that especially the “wizen shape” (mentioned 7
times) and the “uneven
appearance” (mentioned 6 times) are disliked.
•
When only looking at the sample that is
evaluated first, the optic advantage of the
sausage with Collagen Casing is confirmed -
due to the low sample size (n=40) this is not
statistically significant.

What has changed ?:

•
Sausages in the latest generation of
collagen casings can be produced with a
curved appearance giving the shape
consumers expect for wieners.
•
This means the traditional collagen
appearance benefits – consistent colour,
size and surface texture are now recognised
by consumers.
isi Devro | Wiener Sausages Preference Test | November 2011 Page 4



Overall acceptance – do consumers reject a product

Key Finding 2 | In total the results show that both sausage samples
achieve similar acceptance scores. No significant differences exist in
the main sensory dimensions.

Data that proves it:

•
In total, there are no statistically significant
acceptance differences between Sheep Casing
and Collagen Casting. Effectively there is no
distinction between the product preferences.
•
The same can be concluded when analysing
only the first evaluated sample (“monadic
approach”): Both samples receive a good
overall acceptance score of 7.4.
•
Also in terms of the most sensory dimensions
(like bite, snap/knack, chewiness, etc.) both
samples score on a similar level .
•
Therefore, one can state that the sample
with Collagen Casing is performing on the
same high sensory acceptance level than
the sample with Sheep Gut Casing.

isi Devro | Wiener Sausages Preference Test | November 2011 Page 5




Individual attributes – is there any area of consumer concern?

Key Finding 3 | Collagen casing scored optimally at or above the ISI

benchmark for product acceptance, on all the sensory dimensions.

Data that proves it:

•
Analysis of the responses to the diagnostic
questions allows one to identify potential JAR Scales:
need for further improvement.
Sheep Gut Casing Collagen Casing
•
The sausage with Collagen Casing is
“optimal” in all measured sensory
dimensions, meaning that 66% or more
respondents perceive these impressions as
“just right”.

What’s new?:
•
Consistently acceptable performance is
the key to the new generation of
collagen casings. The variability found
in sheep gut casing has been eliminated
ensuring consistently good consumer
ratings rather than highs and lows.

0.3

isi Devro | Wiener Sausages Preference Test | November 2011 Page 6

 
Acceptance of the samples

Penalty analysis | Comparison of the two products

Comparison of the two products

By using Penalty analysis the impact of suboptimal sensory dimensions on the overall
acceptance score can be calculated. Ideally, every dimension is “green“. All dimensions marked in red show a need for
improvement.
colour colour
MS snap/knack bite
Total (visual sample) (taste sample)
overall liking
- + - + - + - +

7.0 (a) 0.3

Sheep Gut Casing

6.9 (a)
Collagen Casing

x.x Product attributes that are criticised by many respondents (> 30%) and cause a significant overall
acceptance mean drop (x.x shows the degree of mean drop). Top priority for optimisation!

Product attributes that are not meeting the isi benchmark (> 66% “just about right“) but where this
is not causing a significant mean drop in overall liking. Recommendation: Optimization need of - +
secondary relevance.

Product attributes that meet the isi benchmark (> 66% “just about right“).
n=80

isi Devro | Wiener Sausages Preference Test | November 2011 Page 7

 
Acceptance of the samples

Sensory dimensions | In almost all sensory dimensions both

samples reach similar mean scores - only in terms of the appearance
Collagen achieved significantly higher mean scores than sheep gut.

Acceptance of the several sensory dimensions

like 9
very much Appearance Snap/knack Bite Mouth feel* Chewiness Taste Aftertaste
of heated sample
8
7,4 7,4 7,3
7,3 7,2 7,0 7,1 7,2
7,0 7,0
7 6,9 6,8
6,7 6,6

neither
5
nor

2
dislike b a a a a a a a a a a a a a
very much 1
Top3 65 74 76 75 78 64 70 75 69 69 73 68 59 68

SD 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.8

Variant 2 - Natural Casing Mean Scores and % (Top 3) |

Collagen Casing * 1=unpleasant; 5=neither unpleasant nor pleasant; 9=pleasant
n=80
isi Devro | Wiener Sausages Preference Test | November 2011 Page 8
 
Acceptance of the samples

Assignment of characteristics | On all statements the collagen

scored more positive comments than the Sheep Gut casings

Assignment of characteristics
•
Besides asking for overall acceptance and acceptance of other sensory dimensions, it is interesting to
determine, how the consumers perceive the samples and what characteristics they assign to the
products.
•
To answer this question, every respondent received a list of characteristics (in rotated order per
respondent and sample) after tasting the respective sample. The respondents were asked to decide
which of these characteristics apply to the product. Respondents were allowed to tick all, just a few,
one or none of the shown characteristics

Sheep Gut
This Wiener Sausage… Collagen Casing
Casing

…is extraordinarily tasty. 30 41

…tastes extraordinarily unique / tastes different than other Wiener
16 (b) 31 (a)
Sausages.
20 (b) 34 (a)
…tastes extraordinarily natural.
…can be eaten easily. 83 84
…has the “typical snap/knack” of a Wiener Sausage. 71 74
…seems to be a high-quality product. 51 53
a) and b) significant statistical difference

in % | n=80

isi Devro | Wiener Sausages Preference Test | November 2011 Page 9

isi Devro | Wiener Sausages Preference Test | November 2011 Page 10



Research Background

This research report contains the results of the Sensory Consumer

Test regarding “Collagen casings sausages vs. Sheep Gut casings
sausages”.

Background
•
Devro plc. produces casings for sausages from collagen.
•
ISI , on behalf of Devro, conducted an independent and impartial consumer test in which the consumer’s
acceptance of the sausages with different casing types is measured.
•
A commercially produced sheep gut casings sausage was compared to a sausage in collagen in a sensory
consumer test in order to reveal the acceptability and preferences.

Research objectives
The project shall
•
identify if the collagen casings sausage has the potential to achieve similar / better liking scores than the sheep
gut casings sausage.
•
show how the consumers perceive both samples in key sensory dimensions such as appearance, bite, snap/
knack etc.
•
measure the consumer preference for both products.

isi Devro | Wiener Sausages Preference Test | November 2011 Page 11




Research Background

Research approach | A sensory product evaluation was run with in

Cologne (Germany) in November 2011.

Method of Evaluation: Accomplishment as blinded test. The consumers only know the product category “wiener
sausages”. 15 minutes computer-assisted web interview based on EQUIP® software and
fieldwork conduction according to isi Best Practices.
1 session per respondent, each respondent evaluates both samples with regard to the defined test criteria. Location:
Conduction under standardized sensory lab conditions in isi
Sensory Laboratory Cologne

Period: 7th November - 8th November 2011

Sample size: n=80

Sample quota: 50% male | 50% female

33% 20-35 years | 33% 36-50 years | 33% 51-65 years

All consumers eat sausages (wiener, frankfurter etc.) at least once a month

None of the respondents reject beef or pig meat.

No participation at Sensory Tests within the past 3 months.

isi Devro | Wiener Sausages Preference Test | November 2011 Page 12




Research Background

Conditions | The evaluation was accomplished under standardized

sensory lab conditions.

Test conditions: All samples were kept in a fridge at 6-7°C.

The sample presentation order varied systematically (complete experimental
test design) in order to avoid position effects.
Each sausage was heated for 10 minutes to approximately 75°C in Bain-
Maries.
Between the samples a neutralization period of 2 minutes was maintained so
that the respondents could neutralize their sense of taste by using white
bread and water.
Standardized lighting (daylight) and temperature (21 +/-1°C) conditions.

isi Devro | Wiener Sausages Preference Test | November 2011 Page 13




Research Background

Test products & procedure | The main focus was on two samples
(1/2). In a separate and additional preference test two collagen
samples (A/B) were also evaluated.

Coding by Taste Preference test Preference test

Info Visual sample
Devro sample 1 2

1 Collagen Casing 131 473 577 -

2 Natural Casing 255 727 686 -

A High-Q - - - 398

B Medium-Q - - - 610

Test approach:

Visual sample Taste sample Visual sample Taste sample Preference Test Preference Test
no.1 no.1 no.2 no.2 1 2

isi Devro | Wiener Sausages Preference Test | November 2011 Page 14




Research Background

Preliminary remarks | The order of the products is kept identical

on all slides.

Presentation of acceptance test results

•
On the next slides, the overall acceptance scores for all products is presented. The products’ order from top to
bottom and left to right is sorted according to the overall acceptance scores. For reading convenience, this
order will be maintained for all charts.

Statistical tests for significance of mean score differences (analysis of variance)

•
As the given results are based on a sample size of 80 respondents and not on the whole market, the findings
have to be extrapolated onto the population in general; meaning it is tested if the measured mean score
differences are only in our sample or generalizable for the whole market.
•
This happens via analysis of variance. The results of this statistical test indicate the likelihood that two or more
products are rated differently in reality.
•
To visualize this, the probability of error (p) is used. If this “p” is 5% or below, the mean scores are significantly
different . One can be very sure (more then 95%) that the acceptance mean scores differ not only in the tested
sample but also in the overall population.
•
Different mean scores between products have been further analyzed for pair-wise significance.
•
The bar charts contain letters which directly reveal pair-wise significances (ANOVA, Post Hoc: Duncan Test
p
0.05):
•
Equal letters (e.g. 6.4 a and 6.3 ab) indicate that no statistically significant differences exist. Different letters
(e.g. 6.4 a and 6.0 b) mean that these products were rated differently.

isi Devro | Wiener Sausages Preference Test | November 2011 Page 15

 
Acceptance of the samples

Appearance (visual sample) | When only looking at the sample that

is evaluated first, both samples receive similar acceptance scores.
Significant differences cannot be proven.
Appearance (visual sample; only for first
evaluated sample) Sig. MS Top3 Low3 SD

6,0 49 13 1.9
Sheep Gut Casing a

6,2
Collagen Casing a 55 12 2.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
dislike neither like
very much nor very much

Mean Scores and % | n=40

isi Devro | Wiener Sausages Preference Test | November 2011 Page 16

 
Acceptance of the samples

Appearance (visual sample) Likes and Dislikes | Variant 2 -

Sheep Gut Casing vs. Collagen Casing
What do you dislike about the appearance of the What do you like about the appearance of the sausage?
sausage? (1-4) (6-9)
n=20 n=50

-
wizen shape (n=7) -
pleasant colour (n=15)

Natural Casing

-
uneven appearance (n=6) -
appetizing (n=14)

Variant 2

-
colour too pale (n=3) -
crisp (n=12)

-
too watery (n=3) -
freshness (n=10)
-
boring appearance (n=3) -
pleasant thickness (n=8)
-
dark spots (n=3) -
pleasant length (n=7)
-
like a typical “Wiener Würstchen” (n=6)
-
slim (n=6)
-
regular form (n=4)
-
pleasant greatness (n=4)
-
waved skin (n=4)
n=9 n=60
Collagen Casing

-
colour too pale (n=4) -
pleasant colour (n=23)

Variant 1

-
too watery (n=2) -
crisp (n=19)

-
appetizing (n=18)
-
freshness (n=13)
-
smooth surface (n=6)
-
regular form (n=5)
-
pleasant greatness (n=5)
-
pleasant thickness (n=4)
-
pleasant appearance (n=4)
-
like a typical “Wiener Würstchen” (n=4)
-
slim (n=4)
-
pleasant length (n=3)

number of respondents | multiple responses (n
2)

| n=80
isi Devro | Wiener Sausages Preference Test | November 2011 Page 17
 
Acceptance of the samples

Penalty Analysis | Correlation between product attributes’

intensities and overall acceptance.

Result presentation per sample

•
Besides focussing on the results of the “Just about right“ questions (product attributes’ intensities), it is of further
interest to consider the impact of products‘ “imbalances“ on the overall acceptance mean score.
•
By the statistically method of Penalty Analysis, attributes’ imbalances can be identified that cause a significant
mean drop. Thus, need for action resp. product optimisation priorities can be derived. The highest priority can be
assigned to those sensory attributes that are perceived as non-ideal by many respondents (> 30%) when at the
same time this perception leads to a significant reduction of overall liking.
•
On the following pages not only the results of the “Just about right“ questions are presented, but next to the bar
chart of the total sample the results of the Penalty Analysis are shown in “traffic light“ logic.

x.x Product attributes that are criticised by many respondents (> 30%) and cause a significant overall acceptance
mean drop (x.x shows the degree of mean drop). Top priority for optimisation!

Product attributes that are not meeting the isi benchmark (> 66% “just about right“) but where this is not
causing a significant mean drop in overall liking. Recommendation: Optimization need of secondary relevance.

Product attributes that meet the isi benchmark (> 66% “just about right“).

- +

isi Devro | Wiener Sausages Preference Test | November 2011 Page 18

 
Acceptance of the samples

Variant 2 – Sheep Gut Casing | This sample scores high in almost

every sensory dimension. Its minor weakness is the slightly too pale
colour of the visual sample with potential concern about bite.
Acceptance of the several How do you perceive Penalty
MW Top 3 Low3 SD
sensory dimensions the… ? Analysis

overall liking 7,0 73 4 1.6

colour 0.3
3 34 61 3
appearance (visual sample)
6,0 48 14 1.9
(visual sample)
appearance 4 1.5 colour
6,7 65 1 21 71 6
(taste sample) (taste sample)

snap/knack 7,3 76 3 1.8

7,2 5 1.7 snap/knack 3 23 69 5

bite 78

chewiness 6,9 69 6 1.9

bite 21 64 15
taste 7,2 73 6 1.9

aftertaste 6,6 59 5 1.9 much too a little too just about a little too much too
low low right high high
isi Benchmark <30 >66 <30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
dislike neither like like
very much nor dislike very much

MW Top 3 Low3 SD

7,0 70 3 1.8
mouth feel
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
unpleasant neither nor pleasant Mean Scores and % | n=80

isi Devro | Wiener Sausages Preference Test | November 2011 Page 19

 
Acceptance of the samples

Collagen Casing | Scores very high in every sensory dimension and

receives only slightly lower overall acceptance and taste scores than
Sheep Gut All dimensions were ‘just about right’.
Acceptance of the several How do you perceive Penalty
MW Top 3 Low3 SD
sensory dimensions the… ? Analysis

overall liking 6,9 68 9 1.8

colour
15 78 6
appearance (visual sample)
6,6 63 6 1.8
(visual sample)
appearance 1 1.6 colour
7,4 74 6 85 9
(taste sample) (taste sample)

snap/knack 7,4 75 6 1.8

snap/knack 19 68 10
bite 7,0 64 4 1.7

chewiness 7,1 69 3 1.6

bite 20 66 10
taste 7,0 68 11 2.0

aftertaste 6,8 68 5 1.8 much too a little too just about a little too much too
low low right high high
isi Benchmark <30 >66 <30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
dislike neither like like
very much nor dislike very much

MW Top 3 Low3 SD

7,3 75 5 1.8
mouth feel
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
unpleasant neither nor pleasant Mean Scores and % | n=80

isi Devro | Wiener Sausages Preference Test | November 2011 Page 20