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 the10-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 amistake 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)
232 415
Attribute
1
Enhanced Sample Non Enhanced Sample P value*
Overall Liking
ns
6.8 (1.6) 6.6 (1.7) 0.362
Flavor Liking
ns
7.0 (1.6) 6.9 (1.5) 0.563
Texture Liking
ns
6.5 (2.1) 6.1 (2.1) 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
Like
Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike
Sample Extremely Very
Much
Moderately Slightly Nor
Dislike
Slightly Moderately Very
Much
Extremely
Enhanced 8 28 33 17 3 5 5 1 1
Non-
Enhanced
3 32 31 16 2 9 5 3 0

Table 3. How much do you like or dislike theFLAVOR 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
Like
Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike
Sample Extremely Very
Much
Moderately Slightly Nor
Dislike
Slightly Moderately Very
Much
Extremely
Enhanced 12 32 27 15 3 8 1 2
Non-
Enhanced
9 32 28 17 6 5 3 0 1

Table 4. How much do you like or dislike theTEXTURE 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
Like
Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike
Sample Extremely Very
Much
Moderately Slightly Nor
Dislike
Slightly Moderately Very
Much
Extremely
Enhanced 11 35 17 11 5 11 5 5 2
Non-
Enhanced
6 29 26 6 7 14 6 5 3

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 (non-
enhanced) (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 6-
inch plates. Each sample plate was identified by a three-digit random number.