See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230120669

Evaluation of ideal wine and cheese pairs using a

deviation-from-ideal scale with food and wine experts

Article  in  Journal of Food Quality · August 2005

DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-4557.2005.00033.x

CITATIONS READS

38 1,241

2 authors, including:

Margaret Anne Cliff

University of British Columbia - Vancouver
145 PUBLICATIONS   3,478 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

instrument crispness and juiciness determinations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Margaret Anne Cliff on 21 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKJFQJournal of Food Quality0146-9428Copyright 2005 by Food & Nutrition Press, Inc., Trumbull, Connecticut.2005283245256Original Article WINE AND CHEESE PAIRSM. KING and M. CLIFF

EVALUATION OF IDEAL WINE AND CHEESE PAIRS

USING A DEVIATION-FROM-IDEAL SCALE WITH FOOD
AND WINE EXPERTS

MARJORIE KING1 and MARGARET CLIFF

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Pacific Agri-Food Research Center
Summerland, BC V0H 1Z0
Canada

Accepted for Publication August 4, 2004

ABSTRACT

Most information regarding the suitability of wine and cheese pairs is

anecdotal information. The objective of this research was to provide recom-
mendations based on scientific research for the most desirable “wine & cheese
pairs” using nine award-winning Canadian cheeses and 18 BC wines (six
white, six red and six specialty wines). Twenty-seven wine and food profes-
sionals rated the wine and cheese pairs using a bipolar structured line scale
(12 cm). The “ideal pair,” scored at the midpoint of the scale, was defined as
a wine and cheese combination where neither the wine nor the cheese domi-
nated. For each cheese, mean deviation-from-ideal scores were determined
and evaluated by analysis of variance. Scores closest to six were considered
“ideal,” while higher or lower scores represented pairs where the “wine” or
the “cheese” dominated, respectively. In general, white wines had mean
scores closer to six (“ideal”) than either the red or specialty wines. The late
harvest, ice and port-type wines were more difficult to pair. Judges varied
considerably in their individual assessments reflecting a high degree of per-
sonal expectation and preference.

INTRODUCTION

Wine and cheese have had a long history of food pairing. Archaeologists
have found evidence that cheese making dates back to at least 6000 BC. It is
thought that early nomadic tribes used animal-skin bags to transport cow and
goat’s milk. The fermentation of the milk sugars caused the milk to separate

1
Corresponding author. TEL: 250-494-7711; FAX: 250-494-0755; EMAIL: KingM@agr.gc.ca

Journal of Food Quality 28 (2005) 245–256. All Rights Reserved.

© Copyright 2005, Blackwell Publishing 245
246 M. KING and M. CLIFF

into whey which was drunk; and curds which were removed, drained and
salted to create a high-protein food (Smith 1995). Wine also dates back
thousands of years. As a fermented beverage it was safer to drink than water
and provided some level of nutrition (Phillips 2000). Because fermentation
was one of the earliest forms of food preservation, cheese and wine were a
natural combination providing a safe source of a complete protein along with
a thirst-quenching liquid that was safe to drink.
The early production of both wine and cheese was very rudimentary
resulting in crude products that did not resemble the quality products we see
today. Wine was produced in dirty open vats, fermented to a lower alcohol
than most modern wines and was generally unbalanced. It was consumed as
a daily commodity and was not expected to have a shelf life of more than a
year. Cheese was consumed with wine that was produced in the same region.
It has been suggested that both cheese and wine styles are a reflection of their
terrior so that wines and cheeses fermented in the same region have a natural
pairing (Moessner 2003).
With time, wine and cheese moved away from being a daily staple to an
increased emphasis on quality and style. People began to try products from
different regions and experiment with different combinations of wine and
cheese. General guidelines for positive wine and cheese pairings can be found
on the Internet (E&J Gallo Winery 2002). For example, E&J Gallo Winery
(2002) suggests that: Softer cheeses need wines with acidity, mild cheeses that
taste slightly sweet make dry wines seem acidic and strong cheeses require
strong wines.
It is generally acknowledged that there are a multitude of cheese and
wine combinations and the perfect match for any individual has an element
of personal preference. There are several factors that contribute to personal
choice. Within the human population there is a wide range in perceived
intensities of basic tastes based on taste-bud density, so to some extent there
is a physiological basis for preference differences (Bartoshuk 2000). Addi-
tionally, both cheese and wines are highly aromatic with a wide range of
textures. The overall impression of flavor is an integration of aroma and taste
with other mouth-feel sensations such as texture and pungency. Psychological
factors also play a role in this integration with perceived quality being asso-
ciated with past experiences with a particular odor or taste (Noble 1996).
Despite the many factors that contribute to the variability in good wine
and cheese matches, it is generally agreed that some wine and cheese pairings
are better than others. Conventional wisdom dictates that the intensity of the
wine must match with that of the cheese (Jackson 2002). Suitable pairings are
often determined by group discussion or by one or two individual “experts.”
However, there has been very little research conducted under controlled con-
ditions to evaluate, under blind conditions, if a group of food and wine
 WINE AND CHEESE PAIRS 247

professionals can establish “ideal” pairings for still wine. However, some
interesting work has been done by Korbel Champagne Cellars in the 1980s to
determine how well “champagne” goes with nongourmet foods, resulting in
a Champagne Compatibility Index (Baldy 1995), but no such index is avail-
able for still wine and cheese. This study was designed to determine if such
a group of experts can determine, under controlled experimental conditions,
the suitability of a larger number of wine and cheese pairs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Judges
Twenty-seven judges, 8 restaurateurs and 19 wine-industry personnel
(winemakers and Vintners Quality Alliance [VQA] judges), were recruited for
the evaluation. All had extensive wine and food-matching experience. Judges
were given a brief training session on the technical aspects of cheese tasting
and the criteria to use for evaluating the “ideal” cheese and wine pair. The
“ideal pair” was defined as a combination of wine and cheese where neither
the wine nor cheese dominated and the pair together was better than each
individually.

Cheeses
Nine award-winning Canadian cheeses were provided by the Dairy Farm-
ers of Canada. They were selected to cover a broad spectrum of artisan cheeses
that are available in the Canadian marketplace. Hard cheeses were cut into
30-g (1 oz) cubes and soft cheeses were cut into 30-g wedges. Rind-ripened
cheeses were cut so that a section of rind was left on the sample. Cheeses
were randomly assigned an alphabetic code (A–I) and placed in covered 60-
mL plastic cups and served at room temperature. A list of cheeses and their
characteristics are presented in Table 1.

Wines
Eighteen commercial British Columbia (BC) VQA wines were selected
from the Okanagan Wine Festival wine library located at the Pacific Agri-Food
Research Center (PARC) Summerland, BC. Wines were selected by VQA
personnel who had extensive knowledge of the range of character and quality
associated with BC wines; six white, six red and six specialty wines were
chosen to be representative of their type. All wines were labeled with three-digit
random numbers and served in random order. Table 2 lists the varietals wines
and their known characteristics as summarized by a panel of VQA judges.
 248

TABLE 1.
DESCRIPTION OF NINE CHEESES USED IN STUDY

Name Category Taste Aroma Texture

Blue Benedictin Semisoft Piquant to strong and salty Slightly pungent Smooth, creamy, uses
(interior ripened) “penicillium roqueforti”
culture
Boerenkaas Firm Sharp Pungent Firm and slightly granular
Camembert Soft Creamy, buttery, fungal, Buttery, nutty Smooth, creamy, white
nutty, tangy as it ripens bloomy rind
Cheddar – medium Firm Buttery, lactic Milky, mild Smooth, somewhat springy
Cheddar, white 3 years Firm Acidulous, salty, lactic culture Milky, slightly fruity Smooth to grainy firm,
homogeneous, no openings
Le Migneron de Semisoft Fully ripe nutty flavor, butter Light notes of cream Washed rind, soft, supple,
Charlevoix (surface ripened) with a touch of acidity and a hint of yogurt slightly orange surface rind
M. KING and M. CLIFF

and sometimes slightly sticky

Oka – Classique Semisoft Creamy, buttery, nutty, slight Quite pronounced – aged Supple, tender and soft washed
(surface ripened) floral, sharper taste due to raw milk rind
Provolone sette fette Firm Light taste of butter, slightly tart Slightly milky, fruity Pasta filata, fibrous interior due
and tangy with full body with age to aging, gourd shaped, richer
yellow color
Swiss Firm Slightly almond, some sweetness Pleasant nutty, milky Uniformly distributed round
“eyes,” somewhat gritty,
shiny, supple
 WINE AND CHEESE PAIRS 249

TABLE 2.
DESCRIPTION OF 18 WINES USED IN STUDY

Wine Wine description

Sauvignon Blanc Slight herbaceous hints mixed with light pear and gooseberry fruit and a
hint of oak. Medium to light body with a spicy vanilla aftertaste
Chardonnay (unoaked) Apple pear and citrus aromas and flavors. No oak or malolactic character.
Full body with firm acid and long fresh fruity aftertaste
Pinot Gris Fruity, apple, pear aromas and flavors. Touch of honey. Clean wine with
good body and balance and a long smooth finish
Chardonnay Citrus, apple fruit on aroma and palate. Rich oak character with caramel
and butternotes. Firm acid with full body and a long aftertaste
Gewurztraminer Floral, perfume, spicy and lychee aromas. Some pear, pineapple and
tropical characters. Clean with good balance. Long smooth finish
Riesling Fruity and fresh with apricot, peach and apple aromas and flavor. Crisp,
dry, well balanced wine with medium body and length of finish
Pinot noir (light) Light clean berry, cherry fruit. Delicate character with some toasty vanilla
oak. Soft tannins with a relatively short finish
Pinot noir (oaked) Oaky with a toasty, caramel, spicy character. Jammy, cherry and strawberry
flavors. Soft round finish with a hint of residual sweetness
Merlot Lots of ripe jammy fruit, raspberry and cherry on aroma and palate. Spicy
character. A complex wine and toasty, caramel, vanilla notes
Meritage Toasted oak, black pepper and ripe fruit (cherry, plum and prune) aroma,
smokey character. Full tannins and good body. Long aftertaste
Foch Smokey, spicy, oaky aromas. Some earthy, cedar, vegetative character on
palate. Clean with good body and balance. Medium long finish
Sparkling Clean, fresh fruit. Ripe fruit with citrus, apricot and pear characters on both
aroma and palate. Good body and balance with a long smooth finish.
Nice mousse on palate
Gamay blush Fruity light clean wine. Light strawberry and raspberry character with a
hint of black pepper. Good body balance and long smooth finish
Gewuztraminer Lychee character with citrus, apricot, peach and pear fruit character. Some
(late harvest) perfume, floral and honey notes. Good late harvest concentration of
flavors. Sweet with lower acid
Riesling Icewine Concentrated apple and citrus fruit flavors with a touch of honey. High
residual sugar with acid to balance, with viscous mouth feel
Pinot noir Icewine Smokey baked-fruit character on nose. Some light raspberry and strawberry
on palate. Concentrated fruit, sweetness and acid with a full body and
long finish
Port type Dried fruit, plum and oak on aroma and palate. Slightly hot with some
residual sugar and sweet lingering aftertaste

Experimental Design
Wine and cheese pairings were assigned using a partially balanced
incomplete block design. The treatment combinations were arranged in a
Latin-square formation (Cochran and Cox 1957). In this design each cheese
and wine pair occurred in each tasting position (first, second, third) the same
250 M. KING and M. CLIFF

number of times, allowing experimental error from “carryover” or “residual”

to be balanced across all samples.
The wines were divided into three blocks of six white, red and spe-
cialty wines, respectively. The white and red wines were tasted in a random
order while the specialty wines had an assigned order of sparkling wine
first and Icewines last. This was thought to be necessary because Icewines
are very sweet and intense with a potential for a strong carryover effect that
could interfere with a judge’s ability to assess the other cheese and wine
pairs.
Using the incomplete block design, each judge tasted three cheeses with
six of the wines. The cheeses were systematically paired with the wines so
that after the three blocks of wines a judge had tasted all nine cheeses and
each cheese had been evaluated nine times with each of the wines. Judges
were asked to evaluate the suitability of the pairing for each cheese with all
of the wines in the block before moving on to the next cheese.

Tasting Process
Judges were instructed to take a small bite of cheese, sip the wine and
evaluate the appropriateness of the pair. The judges evaluated the match using
a variation of the “just right scale” (Shepherd et al. 1989). Judges scored the
deviation from an “ideal match” on a 12-cm line scale where the ideal match
was the midpoint of the line (6 cm). If the judges thought the cheese domi-
nated the wine they marked the line scale to the left of the midpoint; whereas,
if they thought the wine dominated the cheese the judges marked the line scale
to the right of the midpoint. The scale was labeled with “cheese dominates
excessively,” “cheese dominates moderately” and “cheese dominates slightly”
at 0, 2 and 4 cm. The other half of the scale was labeled with “wine dominates
slightly,” “wine dominates moderately” and “wine dominates excessively” at
8, 10, 12 cm, respectively.
Judges were given sparkling water, bread and melba toast in order to
clear their palates between evaluations. They were also instructed to take a
short break between cheeses. After the tasting the scorecards were collected
and the judges’ scores for each wine and cheese pairing were measured
(0–12) for data analysis and interpretation.

Statistical Analysis
A single factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) (Microsoft Excel, Seat-
tle, WA) was used to determine if there were significant differences in the
suitability of the match between each cheese with each wine. A Fisher’s
least significant difference (LSD) was calculated to determine if the “ideal”
scores were significantly different from each other. The average standard
 WINE AND CHEESE PAIRS 251

deviation from the mean was calculated for each cheese and wine combina-
tion. This was then averaged across all wines to give an indication of judge
variability.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results of the ANOVA are shown in Table 3. As might be expected, most

cheeses showed significant differences (P < 0.001) in the suitability of their
pairing with the 18 wines. More surprisingly, two cheeses (Swiss and medium
Cheddar) showed no differences in their suitability with any of the wines.
Table 3 tabulates the mean score for each of the wine and cheese pairs. An
ideal pairing would have a mean score of six; a mean score greater than six
would indicate that the wine dominated the cheese; a score less than six would
indicate that the cheese dominated.
Overall the relatively small deviations-from-ideal confirmed that wine
and cheese are compatible food pairings. In the three categories of wine, white
wines tended to be a better match with these cheeses. This was indicated by
an average deviation-from-ideal of 0.85 compared to a deviation of 1.2 and
1.7 for the red and specialty wines, respectively. The most versatile white wine
was the Riesling followed by the Sauvignon blanc and the Pinot Gris, as
reflected by the smallest deviations. The Pinot noir wine was the versatile red
wine, in that it paired best with the most number of cheeses. The specialty
sparkling and blush wines also paired well with many of the cheeses, while
the late harvest, ice and port wines were the most difficult to pair with many
of the cheeses. The Blue Benedictine, Oka and Provolone cheeses were the
most suitable match with these wines, thus supporting the general rule that
stronger flavored cheeses tend to be better matched with stronger flavored
wines. In general in this study, the specialty wines (late harvest, icewine, port
type) dominated the cheeses. However, the addition of other foods or a dif-
ference in the tasting method might change the perception of the pairing and
likely make these wines more compatible.
Four cheeses (aged white Cheddar, Migerone de Charlevoix, Swiss and
medium Cheddar) had mean scores greater than six indicating that the wines
were more strongly flavored than the cheese. Although the mean scores for
the 3-year old Cheddar were greater than six, the means for the white wines,
the Pinot noir and Merlot wines were not significantly different than six. This
indicated that there would be a range of wines that would be a suitable match
with this cheese. In general, the stronger flavored cheeses were the most
variable in their matches with the wines. This indicated that more care would
be required in selecting wines to pair with these cheeses. Figure 1 shows the
deviation-from-ideal for the match of the Benedictine Blue with each of the
 252
TABLE 3.
MEAN DEVIATION-FROM-IDEAL SCORES FOR 9 CHEESES PAIRED WITH 18 WINES (n = 9)

Wine Wine Wine La Blue Provolone Aged Migneron Boerenkass Camembert Swiss Medium Mean
type no. providence Benedictin 3 year de Cheddar (n = 81)
d¢ Oka Cheddar Charlevoix across all
cheeses

White 1 Pinot Gris 5.0 6.1 6.2 6.8 7.6 6.5 5.5 7.5 7.7 6.54
White 2 Riesling 5.0 5.1 5.5 6.9 7.3 5.8 4.6 6.5 7.9 6.07
White 3 Sauvignon blanc 4.0 4.4 5.1 6.8 6.1 5.7 6.4 6.7 7.2 5.82
White 4 Chardonnay (oaked) 5.8 7.0 8.5 7.5 6.3 6.5 3.7 7.7 7.2 6.69
White 5 Gewurztraminer 5.8 6.0 5.6 7.4 7.4 5.4 5.8 9.4 7.9 6.74
White 6 Chardonnay 6.0 7.6 8.2 7.9 7.6 7.0 5.7 7.2 8.2 7.27
(unoaked)
Red 7 Pinot noir (oaked) 5.2 5.9 5.8 6.5 7.7 7.1 6.8 6.5 6.7 6.47
Red 8 Red Meritage 5.6 6.8 5.4 8.4 8.7 7.0 6.9 8.9 7.5 7.24
Red 9 Foch (oaked) 4.8 6.5 8.0 8.3 9.0 7.6 7.0 8.7 8.6 7.61
Red 10 Syrah 5.1 6.5 6.4 7.3 8.4 6.3 7.1 8.6 7.1 6.98
Red 11 Pinot noir (light) 4.0 4.0 5.7 5.2 6.7 6.6 5.7 6.2 6.8 5.66
M. KING and M. CLIFF

Red 12 Merlot 5.2 5.8 6.7 7.6 9.2 8.6 6.3 8.5 8.2 7.34
Specialty 13 Sparkling 6.3 5.4 5.8 6.5 7.0 6.1 5.3 7.6 7.3 6.37
Specialty 14 Blush 4.7 4.7 4.0 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.3 6.9 6.8 5.78
Specialty 15 L.H. Gewurztraminer 8.0 7.0 9.6 7.8 8.6 7.5 7.0 7.5 8.3 7.92
Specialty 16 Riesling Icewine 7.9 7.3 8.7 8.3 9.7 8.2 8.3 9.0 10.0 8.60
Specialty 17 Pinot noir Icewine 7.7 8.0 8.3 8.7 7.2 7.8 8.1 9.2 9.7 8.30
Specialty 18 Port type 8.3 7.8 8.0 10.2 9.4 10.1 10.4 9.1 8.6 9.10
Standard Deviation 2.6 2.4 3.1 2.4 2.6 2.5 3.1 2.7 2.2 na
LSD 1.89 1.75 2.24 1.75 1.96 1.85 2.19 ns ns na
P£ 0.0004 0.004 9E-04 0.003 0.02 0.006 0.0006 ns ns na
Range 4.0–7.9 4.0–7.8 4.0–8.7 5.2–10.2 6.1–9.7 5.4–10.1 4.6–10.4 6.5–9.4 6.7–10
 WINE AND CHEESE PAIRS 253

2.5
Wine dominates

2 White wines
1. Pinot Gris Specialty wines
2. Riesling 13. Sparkling wine
3. Sauvignon blanc 14. Rose-Blush
1.5
4. C h ar d o n nay (o a k ed ) 15. Gewurztraminer L.H
5. Gewurztraminer 16. Riesling Icewine
6. Chardonnay (unoaked) 17 . P ino t n o i r I c ew i ne
1 18. Po rt type

0.5
Ideal match

0 4
1 6 8 9 10 15 16 17 18
5 7
12
–0.5 Red wines
7. Pinot noir (oaked)
8. Me rita ge 13
9 . F oc h
–1 2 10. Syrah
1 1 . P in o t n o i r ( l ig h t)
12. Merlot
–1.5 14

3 11
Cheese dominates
–2

FIG. 1. MEAN DEVIATION-FROM-IDEAL FOR BLUE CHEESE PAIRED

WITH 18 WINES (n = 9)

wines. In each of the wine categories there were wines where the cheese
dominated and others where the wine dominated.
The average standard deviation for each cheese across all wines ranged
from 3.1 to 2.2 (Table 3). This relatively high deviation indicated the judges
were not in agreement on their evaluation of the match. For a trained descrip-
tive panel using a 12-cm scale the standard deviation is generally 1–1.5.
Figure 2 showed the judge variation in assessing the match of Provolone
cheese for three of the wines. Although the mean score was not significantly
different from an ideal match of six, the wide range of judges’ assessments
was evident. For each of the three wines, some of the judges thought the
cheese dominated the wine while others thought the wine dominated the
cheese. Figure 3 showed that although there was some variation in the judge
assessment of how the medium Cheddar paired with the various wines, there
was better agreement that the wine tended to dominate the cheese. The dif-
ference in variability is most likely due to the cheese, with Provolone being
a stronger cheese and more difficult to match.
It was very important to recognize the extent of the judge variation in
cheese and wine assessments. Although all of the judges were individually
254 M. KING and M. CLIFF

8
Wine dominates

6
Sparkling wine
Pinot noir (light)
STD = 4.17
STD = 3.15

4
Gewurztraminer
STD = 3.61
2
Ideal match

–2

–4

Cheese dominates
–6

FIG. 2. DEVIATION-FROM-IDEAL FOR NINE JUDGE ASSESSING PROVOLONE CHEESE

WITH THREE WINES

8
Wine dominates

6
Gewurztraminer Pinot noir (light) Sparkling wine

STD = 2.69 STD = 2.66 STD = 2.47

4

2
Ideal match

–2

–4

Cheese dominates

–6

FIG. 3. DEVIATION-FROM-IDEAL FOR NINE JUDGE ASSESSING MEDIUM CHEDDAR

CHEESE WITH THREE WINES
 WINE AND CHEESE PAIRS 255

experienced in food and wine pairing, as a group their results under experi-
mental conditions were not always consistent, i.e., they did not always agree.
Therefore, the results obtained in this study are only broad recommendations
for possible cheese and wine pairings. In the light of the range of assessments
obtained by knowledgeable judges, it would be important to empower con-
sumers to have the confidence to make their own assessment of how much
they enjoy the cheese and wine pair.
In conclusion white wines were easier to pair with a broader range of
cheeses than red or specialty wines. The stronger, more flavorful cheeses were
more difficult to pair with the wines but were more likely to be a good match
for the late harvest and ice wines than other milder cheeses. The results of
this study were determined with a single tasting protocol and the wine and
cheese were tasted without other foods. The addition of other foods or a
greater time period between the assessments would change the perception of
the pairing. Finally the variation in judge assessment indicates a high degree
of personal expectation or preference associated with the suitability of wine
and cheese pairing. Round-table discussion and consensus development,
might produce “trained” judges with less variation in the assessments although
this might be difficult given the “respected” opinions of acknowledged
experts. Individuals should be encouraged to experiment to determine their
own preferences.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Reg Hendrickson of the Dairy Farmers
of Canada for donating the cheese, Christa-Lee Bond of the Okanagan Wine
Festival Society for allowing this research to be conducted as part of the
Icewine Festival events, Kimberly Dever for her technical assistance and the
BC Winemakers and restaurateurs who participated in the study.

REFERENCES

BALDY, M.W. 1995. The University Wine Course, p. 426, Wine Appreciation
Guild, San Francisco, CA.
BARTOSHUK, L.M. 2000. Comparing sensory experiences across individu-
als: Recent psychophysical advances illuminate genetic variation in taste
perception. Chem. Senses 25, 447–460.
COCHRAN, W.G. & COX, G.M. 1957. Experimental Designs, p. 611, John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
256 M. KING and M. CLIFF

E&J GALLO WINERY. 2002. Gallo of sonoma wine and cheese pairing
guide: ABC’s of wine and cheese. http://www.winewebcentral.com/
awineandcheese/abc.htm (accessed October 24, 2003).
JACKSON, R.S. 2002. Wine Tasting: A Professional Handbook, pp. 261–262,
Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
MOESSNER, M. Inniskillin’s guide to wine and cheese pairings. http://
www.wineandleisure.com/cheesepairing.html (accessed October 24,
2003).
NOBLE, A.C. 1996. Taste–aroma interactions. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 7,
439–444.
PHILLIPS, R. 2000. A Short History of Wine. Penguin Books, London.
http://www.intowine.com/shop/1282-0excerpt.html (accessed October
24, 2003).
SHEPHERD, R., SMITH, K. and FARLEIGH, C.A. 1989. The relationship
between intensity, hedonic and relative-to-ideal ratings. Food Qual.
Prefer. 1, 75–80.
SMITH, J. 1995. Cheesemaking in Scotland – A History. Scottish Dairy
Association, Scotland. http://www.efr.hw.ac.uk/SDA/book1.html
(accessed October 24, 2003).

View publication stats