Implementation of the consumer profile technique for evaluation of value added poultry products

Transcription

1 Arch. Geflügelk. 22, 66 (4), , ISSN Verlag Eugen Ulmer GmbH & Co., Stuttgart Implementation of the consumer profile technique for evaluation of value added poultry products Einführung der Verbraucherprofilprüfung zur Beurteilung von value-added Geflügelprodukten Teresa Skrabka-Błotnicka, Katarzyna Ciez, Luiza Klimczak and Janina Wołoszyn Manuskript eingegangen am 4. Mai 21, angenommen am 18. November 21 Introduction Consumers draw their decisions on their perceptions rather than on the basis of the objective reality (Schiffman and Kanuk 1999). Sensory attributes play the leading role in food purchasing. According to the Polish consumers opinions the taste is recognized to be the most important sensory attribute of value added meat products. The further perceptions are: 2) appearance of cross section, 3) either smell or external appearance, 4) consistence and texture (Sikora and Glownia 1994, Urban and Szymanczuk 1998). The following consumer testing techniques are available: Acceptance, ranking or differences between samples, scaling (hedonic or graphical relative to the ideal product), profile deviation from an ideal product. The first three of the listed techniques provide information only on how the product is evaluated. However, the sensory profile technique provides the information not only on how the products are evaluated but why they obtained such an evaluation and what should be done to improve their quality as well. These data are essential for production of high quality products. Szczesniak et al. (1975) adapted the texture profile technique used by a trained panel in consumer s testing. It was done after findings that the texture is a meaningful food attribute to the consumers (Szczesniak and Kleyn 1963) and that the consumers even not trained in sensory assessment understand the qualitative meaning of texture descriptors in the same manner as the trained sensory panel (Szczesniak and Skiner 1973). Those statements were essential in the assurance of usefulness of the proposed technique. The analytical sensory profile method, especially the QDA quantitative descriptive analysis, belongs to more frequently used techniques in the evaluation of food quality. The task of those methods is the differentiation of the single attributes (notes, descriptors, characteristics) that contribute more or less to the total sensory effect of food evaluation. Szczesniak et al. (1975) elaborated the consumer texture profile technique for the evaluation of food products that needed only 3 untrained persons to assure the reliability of results. Dept. of Animal Food Technology, University of Economics, Wrocław, Poland Taking into consideration the above mentioned statements the Szczesniak s et al. (1975) technique seems to be very exciting. This technique corresponds to the analytical profile texture technique. In case of value added poultry products, the texture evaluation is not sufficient alone, as the sensoric profiles of the products are described by other very important descriptors from consumers point of view, as well. Therefore, the present proposed consumer profile technique corresponds to the QDA technique. The aim of the work was: 1) to set up a descriptors list for each of the assessed products, 2) to test if the consumers understand the meaning of those descriptors, 3) to determine whether the different consumers groups describe the ideal products in the same way, 4) to evaluate if the sensory profile for the ideal products manufactured from different kinds of meat are similar in consumers opinion, and 5) to check whether there exists a deviation of sensory profiles for commercial value added products from the ideal ones. Materials and Methods Four differently comminuted products were tested: 1) poultry Vienna roast finally comminuted, 2) red meat juniper sausage, 3) poultry juniper sausage-grinding, 4) turkey roll so called baleron coarsely particle products. The products for examination were taken directly from the Poultry Company of Wrocław and the Meat Company of Wrocław (red meat juniper sausage). They were tested two days after manufacturing. The modified Szczesniak s et al. (1975) technique was used for evaluation of the products. The modification consisted in: 1) the descriptors were related not only to the texture but to the taste, smell and appearance as well, 2) the notion general evaluation was used instead of the words good and bad, 3) a 1 point scale was used, 4) the intensity of descriptors for the ideal product was written as a digit, and 5) the sensory profiles for actual products were marked on the graphs as deviations from the ideal products (Figure 1). The modified technique includes two steps: 1. Choice of descriptors by the trained panelists for product assessment. 2. Description of an ideal sensory profile for a specific product and evaluation of an actual product in terms of the supplied descriptors by consumers.

2 SKRABKA-BŁOTNICKA et al., Consumer profile technique for evaluation of poultry products 183 1,5 more than 1,5 ideal descriptors less than -,5-1 Figure 1. Consumer sensory profile for juniper sausage Sensorisches Konsumentenprofil für Wacholderwurst Step 1. The choice of the descriptors for the products assessment was done by the panelists (12 persons) who have been trained in the sensory profile technique. At the beginning, each panelist submitted several descriptors that were listed in a randomized order in the left side of a ballot. Alongside of each descriptor there were two questions: acception and rejection. Every panelist received the ballot to check one of the two questions. The descriptors accepted by not less than 5% of panelists were set up in the list for assessment of products by consumers. The words other smell, other taste and other were added in order to assure if the list is complete. The expression general evaluation was enclosed on the list as well. Step 2. Each consumer was sitting at a separate Table in order to eliminate the contact with each other. They obtained ballots with listed words determining the sensory profile of a specific product, and that were selected by sensory experts from a list with several dozen descriptors. The task of consumers was to write a digit close to a descriptor expressing their imagination about the descriptor intenstity of the ideal product. The meaning of the used words was exactly explained and the product was de- Table 1. Descriptors used for value added poultry product assessment Verwendete Deskriptoren in der Konsumentenbeurteilung von Geflügelprodukten Juniper sausage Vienna roast Baleron 1. Drip loss Drip loss Drip loss 2. Binding Binding Binding 3. Juiceness Juiceness Juiceness 4. Fresh smell Fresh smell Fresh smell 5. Salty taste Salty taste Salty taste 6. Feeling of greasiness Feeling of greasiness Feeling of greasiness 7. Smoked taste Bitter taste Smoked taste 8. Sour taste Sour taste Elasticity 9. Spices smell Spices smell Stringiness 1. Smoked smell Boiled meat smell Smoked smell 11. Spices taste Spices taste Characteristic taste for Baleron 12. Surface defect Surface defect Fibrousness 13. Hardness Hardness Tenderness 14. Colour intensity on cross section Spice on surface Colour intensity 15. Juniper smell Roasted meat smell Gumminess 16. Colour intensity on surface Amount of binding matter Colour uniform 17. Fat centre number Air bubble amount 18. Ungrinded spices Roast meat taste 19. Crunchiness Boiled meat taste 2. Sticky 21. Juniper taste 22. Perception of connective tissue

3 184 SKRABKA-BŁOTNICKA et al., Consumer profile technique for evaluation of poultry products Table 2. Consumer sensory profiles for ideal baleron Sensorisches Konsumentenprofil für einen typischen Rollschinken N Descriptors Intensity [CU] SP CG1 CG2 AV SD 1. Drip loss Colour intensity Colour uniform Smoked smell Fresh smell Other smell (which) Salty taste Smoked taste Charact. taste for Baleron 9. b 7.2 a 7.5 a Other taste (which) Feeling of greasiness Tendernees 5.9 b 3.8 a 4.2 a Fibrousness Gumminess Elasticity 5.6 b 3.8 a 4.2 a Juiceness Binding Stringiness Other (which) General evaluation Number of panelists AV average values/mittelwert SD standard deviation/standardabweichung CU conventional unit/konventionelle Einheit a, b values with different letters differ at P <.5 SP sensory panel/sensorisches Panel CG consumer group/konsumentengruppe Table 3. Consumer sensory profiles for ideal Vienna roast Sensorisches Konsumentenprofil für einen typischen Hackbraten Descriptors Intensity [CU] SP GR1 GR2 AV SD 1. Surface defects Spices on surface Roasted meat smell Boiled meat smell Spices smell Fresh smell 9.5 b 9.3 b 8.1 a Other smell (which) Roasted meat taste Boiled meat taste Salty taste Spices taste Sour taste. b.8 a 1.4 a Bitter taste Other taste (which) Feeling of greasiness Amount of bindin matter 5. b 3.9 a 4.1 ba Juiceness 6.6 b 4. a 5.6 b Hardness Binding Air bubble amount 2.6 b 1. a 1.5 a Drip loss 3.4 b 1.3 a 3. b Other (which) General evaluation Number of panelists Description see Table 2 Table 4. Consumer sensory profiles for ideal juniper sausages Sensorisches Konsumentenprofil für typische Wacholderwürste Descriptors Intensity [CU] Poultry sausages Red meat sausages SP CG1 CG2 CG3 AV SD CG3 CG4 CG5 AV SD 1. Surface defect Drip loss Colour intensity of surface a 6.7 a 7.9 b Colour intensity on cross section 5. Fat centre number a 3.8 b 3.2 ab Ungrinded spices Perception of connective tissue.8 b 2.1 a 1.8 a.6 b Smoked smell a 5.6 a 7.7 b Spices smell Juniper smell Fresh smell Other smell (which) Smoked taste a 6.1 a 7.6 b Salty taste Spices taste Juniper taste Sour taste. b.8 a 1.3 a 1.2 a Other taste (which) Feeling of greasiness Crunchiness a 4.9 ab 6.3 b Juiceness 5.6 a 4.2 a 5.1 ab 5.4 b Hardness Binding Sticky Other (which) Gen.evaluation N. of panelists Description see Table 2

4 SKRABKA-BŁOTNICKA et al., Consumer profile technique for evaluation of poultry products 185 Table 5. General evaluation of the actual products [CU] Allgemeine Beurteilung der Produkte Baleron Vienna roast Poultry sausage Red meat sausage SP CG CG CG CG4 8.8 AV SD Description see Table 2 monstrated before filling of ballots by consumers. The 1 point scale was used for determination of descriptors intensity. As it is commonly practised in the sensory profile techniques, the extreme points of scale were defined only, and so: means not at all and 1 means very much so. The filled ballots were taken away from consumers. After a few minutes the samples of an actual product and graphs were delivered to the assessors. The profile of the ideal product was shown as a straight vertical line with an adjusted rating of for all descriptors on the graph. The consumers marked the profile of an actual product as a deviation from this ideal pattern (Figure 1). The products were evaluated by: 1) the trained sensory panel (SP) 12 persons, and 2) by the 2-3 consumers groups (CG). The evaluated products were dedicated for people in large interval of age and both sexes, therefore the assessors were not asked about age and sex. The CG covered students from secondary schools, and from university, teachers and employees from food companies. The Bartlett s test was used to check the homogenity of variances. The Duncan s multiple range test recommended by Bożyk and Rudzki (1977) for the use in food analysis was used for forming homogeneous groups of average values. Results and Discussion The chosen descriptors for all the assessed products are presented in Table 1. The data given in Table 1 confirmed the expectation that for more composed products more numbers of descriptors contribute to its sensory profile. The profiles of all investigated products are described only by six common descriptors. This was expected because each product is characterized by a specific sensory profile. The obtained data indicate that the descriptors for the sensory profiles were well chosen. Most descriptors values for the ideal poultry products given by the consumers and by the sensory panel did not differ significantly (Tables 2, 3, 4). Although, statistically significant differences were found in some descriptors values given by the SP and by the individual CG they did not largely deviate from the practical point of view. Most of them were near the threshold of significance. Taking into account the large differentiation in perception of the sensory attributes by the individual human being and the above mentioned consideration it can be concluded that the vast majority of the consumers established similar sensory profiles for the ideal products and the words used to describe them were understood by the consumers. Comparing the sensory profiles for both kinds of the ideal juniper sausages it was stated that the consumers imagined them alike (Table 4). However, the consumers preferred the more intensive crunchiness of the sausage from the Poultry Company of Wrocław than from the Meat Company of Wrocław (difference 1.3 CU). Besides that, according to the consumers opinion the sour taste should be hardly perceivable in the case of poultry sausage, whereas, in the case of red meat sausage it should not be sensible (Table 4). In spite of the fact that the products were tested by the different CGs at different times and that they came from different consignments of manufactured products, the individual sensory profiles for the actual products were similar within the specific products. The tested products fulfilled 1,4 1,2 1,8 Reihe3,6 deviation [CU ],4,2 -,2 -,4 -,6 -, descriptor numbers Figure 2. The profile of sensory descriptor deviations of the actual baleron from the ideal one The descriptors are listed in the same order as in Table 2. The series correspond to 1 SP, 2 CG1, 3 CG2 Abweichungsprofil der sensorischen Eigenschaften des geprüften vom typischen Rollschinken Die Deskriptoren sind in derselben Reihenfolge wie in Tabelle 2 aufgeführt. Die Serien entsprechen 1 SP, 2 CG1, 3 CG2

5 186 SKRABKA-BŁOTNICKA et al., Consumer profile technique for evaluation of poultry products,6,4,2 deviation [ CU ] -,2 -,4 -,6 Reihe3 -,8-1 -1, descriptor numbers Figure 3. The profile of sensory descriptor deviations of the actual Vienna roast from the ideal one The descriptors are listed in the same order as in Table 2. The series correspond to 1 SP, 2 CG1, 3 CG2 Abweichungsprofil der sensorischen Eigenschaften des geprüften vom typischen Hackbraten Die Deskriptoren sind in derselben Reihenfolge wie in Tabelle 2 aufgeführt. Die Serien entsprechen 1 SP, 2 CG1, 3 CG2 the expectations of the consumers. They were evaluated as good (general evaluation from 7.1 to 7.8 CU, Table 5). The obtained differences in general evaluation of Vienna roast and poultry juniper sausages given by consumers and by the sensory panel (Table 5) are the proof for the correctness of Surmacka Szczesniak s hypothesis that the best and probably only way for obtaining information on either acceptation or/and preference of food is the direct sounding of consumers opinion (Surmacka-Szczesniak 1993). The deviation of descriptors values for the actual products from the ideal ones exceeded 1 CU the absolute value in case: baleron only for the samples evaluated by CG1 for the intensity of colour uniformity (Figure 2), Vienna roast only for samples evaluated by CG1 for taste of roast meat (Figure 3), poultry juniper sausage the samples evaluated by CG 3 for the spices, smoked and juniper smell and taste, the samples evaluated by CG1 for the juniper smell (Figure 4), red meat juniper sausage for samples evaluated by CG3 for the feeling of greasiness (Figure 5). Therefore, the deviation of sensory profiles for the actual products from the ideal ones should be recognized as not large. Among the ways of data presentation we prefer the profile graphs as a deviation from the ideal products.,5 Reihe3 deviation[ CU ] -,5-1 Reihe4-1, descriptor numbers Figure 4. The profile of sensory descriptor deviations of the actual poultry juniper sausage from the ideal one The descriptors are listed in the same order as in Table 2. The series correspond to 1 SP, 2 CG1, 3 CG2, 4 CG3 Abweichungsprofil der sensorischen Eigenschaften der geprüften von der typischen Wacholdergeflügelwurst Die Deskriptoren sind in derselben Reihenfolge wie in Tabelle 2 aufgeführt. Die Serien entsprechen 1 SP, 2 CG1, 3 CG2, 4 CG3

6 SKRABKA-BŁOTNICKA et al., Consumer profile technique for evaluation of poultry products 187 1,4 1,2 1 deviations [ CU],8,6,4,2 -,2 -,4 -,6 -, descritor number Figure 5. The profile of sensory descriptor deviations of the actual red meat juniper sausage from the ideal one The descriptors are listed in the same order as in Table 2. The series correspond to 1 CG3, 2 CG4 Abweichungsprofil der sensorischen Eigenschaften der geprüften von der typischen Wacholderwurst aus Rotfleisch Die Deskriptoren sind in derselben Reihenfolge wie in Tabelle 2 aufgeführt. Die Serien entsprechen 1 CG3, 2 CG4 Conclusions The obtained data indicate that the proposed sensory profile technique can be successfully applied to the evaluation of different kinds of value added poultry products by consumers. It provides a very useful information for product formulation and improvement: 1) which intensity of descriptors should characterize the ideal product according to consumers opinion; 2) if the descriptors deviations of the actual products from the ideal ones mean either less or more than ; 3) in which degree the deviations effect the quality of products. Summary The proposed consumer sensory profile technique for the evaluation of poultry value added products consists in: 1) selection of the descriptors by a trained sensory profile panel as being applicable to the described specific product, 2) description of an ideal product in terms of these descriptors on a series of 1 point scale, ranging from not at all to very much so, and the evaluation of profile deviations for an actual product from an ideal product by consumers, 3) statistical treatment of results, 4) presentation of data in a graphic form. Keywords Sensory profile, value added poultry product, consumer Zusammenfassung 2. der Beschreibung des typischen Produktes mit diesen Deskriptoren bei der Verwendung der Zehnpunkte-Skala im Bereich von gar nicht bis sehr gut und auf der Beurteilung der Abweichungen des realen Produktes (beurteilt von den Konsumenten) von dem typischen Produkt, 3. der statistischen Bewertung der Ergebnisse und 4. der Darstellung der Ergebnisse in graphischer Form. Stichworte Sensorikprüfung, Geflügelprodukte, value-added, Verbraucher Literature Bozyk, Z. and W. Rudzki, 1997: Metody statystyczne w badaniu jakoci produktów żywnociowych i chemicznych, WNT, Warszawa. Schiffman, L. G. and L. L Kanuk, 1999: Consumer Behaviour. Prentice Hall Int. Inc. Sikora, T. and G. Glownia, 1994: Próby poznania konsumenckiej preferencji w zakresie jakośi wędlin. Gospodarka Mięsna 12, Surmacka-Szczesniak, A., 1993: Wpływ wymogów konsumenckich na kierunki badań w nauce i technologii żywnośi. Przemysł Spoż ywczy 5, Szczesniak, A. and D. H. Kleyn, 1963: Consumer awareness of texture and of other food attributes. Food Technol. 27, Szczesniak, A. and E. Z. Skinner, 1973: Meaning of texture words to the consumer. J. Texture Studies 4, Szczesniak, A., B. J. Loew and E. Z. Skinner, 1975: Consumer texture profile technique. J. Food Sci. 4, Urban, S. and S. Szymanczuk, 1998: Preferencje konsumentów przy zakupie wędlin w świetle badań marketingowych. Gospodarka Mięsna 2, Einführung der Verbraucherprofilprüfung zur Beurteilung von value-added Geflügelprodukten Die vorgeschlagene Verbraucherprofilprüfung zur Beurteilung der sensorischen Eigenschaften der value-added Geflügelprodukte beruht auf: 1. der Auswahl der Deskriptoren, die das sensorische Profil des spezifischen Produktes beschreiben, durch ein im Bereich der sensorischen Profilprüfung geschultes Team, Correspondence: Prof. Dr. Teresa Skrabka-Błotnicka, Department of Animal Food Technology. University of Economics, Komandorska 118/12, Wrocław, Poland; skrabka@credit.ae.wroc.pl