Mapas externos de preferencias de jueces entrenados y consumidores: comparación del desempeño y determinación de la preferencia
External preference maps of trained judges and consumers: a comparison of the performance and determination of the preference
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54167/tch.v6i1.684Palabras clave:
Perfiles sensoriales, consumidores, jueces entrenados, mapa externo de preferenciasResumen
Para la realización de este estudio se entrenó un panel constituido por seis personas, las cuales evaluaron los atributos: color blanco, textura granulosa al tacto, suave al tacto, olor a cuajo, salado, grumoso en boca, suave en boca y aroma a suero. También se contó con dos grupos de 400 consumidores, donde un grupo evaluó características sensoriales y el segundo grupo evaluó la apreciación global. Los resultados del ANOVA de tres factores mostraron que el panel entrenado fue discriminante en todos los atributos, mientras que el ANOVA de dos factores reveló que los paneles de consumidores fueron discriminantes en seis atributos; el ACP reveló similitudes entre ambos paneles para el posicionamiento de los quesos en el espacio sensorial. El MEP reveló que los consumidores del municipio de Asunción Ixtaltepec y de San Pedro Comitancillo pudieron identificar y preferir el queso que se elabora en su municipio, caso contrario a los consumidores pertenecientes a Santo Domingo Ingenio y Juchitán de Zaragoza. Los resultados del MEP generados con los datos descriptivos evaluados por el panel entrenado y el panel de consumidores fueron complementarios; esto quedó demostrado por el R2 ya que en algunos casos, la explicación de la preferencia de alguna clase no pudo ser determinada mediante el MEP con los datos del panel entrenado. Por tal motivo, el vocabulario que se genere a través de un panel entrenado también puede ser evaluado mediante paneles de consumidores para la generación del MEP, el cual es una alternativa rápida para la determinación de la preferencia basado en un lenguaje completamente de consumidores.
Abstract
For this study, a panel of six judges was trained to evaluate attributes in cheese as white color, granular texture to the touch, soft to the touch, smell of rennet, salty, lumpy in the mouth, soft on the palate and aroma to serum. There were also included two groups of 400 consumers; where a group evaluated the sensory characteristics and the second group evaluated the overall assessment. Three-way ANOVA results showed that the trained panel discriminated all attributes, while the two-way ANOVA revealed that the group of consumers discriminated six attributes. Principal components analysis revealed similarities between both panels to the positioning of the cheeses in the sensory space. The EPM revealed that consumers from the municipalities of Asuncion Ixtaltepec and San Pedro Comitancillo were able to identify and prefer the cheese made in their municipality; contrary to this, consumers from Santo Domingo Ingenio y Juchitan de Zaragoza were not able to identify or prefer their own. The EPM results generated with the descriptive data evaluated by the trained panel and consumer groups were complementary, and this was demonstrated by the R2 since in some cases the explanation of the preference of some kind, could not be determinated by EPM with the trained panel data. For this reason, the vocabulary that is generated by a trained panel can be also evaluated by a consumer panel to generate the EPM, which is a fast alternative for the determination of preference based on a language entirely of consumers.
Keywords: Sensory profiles, consumers, trained judges, external preference map.
Descargas
Citas
Bárcenas, P., J. Pérez & M. Albisu. 2000. Selection and screening of a descriptive panel for ewes milk chesses sensory profiling. Journal of Sensory Studies 15(1):79-99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2000.tb00411.x
Bárcenas, P., J. Pérez & M. Albisu. 2004. Projective mapping in sensory analysis of ewes milk cheeses: a study on consumers and trained panel performance. Food Research International 37(7):723-729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2004.02.015
Brighenti, M., S. Govindasamy-Lucey, K. Lim, K. Nelson & J. A. Lucey. 2008. Characterization of the Rheological, Textural, and Sensory Properties of Samples of Commercial US Cream Cheese with Different Fat Contents. Journal of Dairy Science 91(12):4501-4517. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1322
Callon, C., J. L. Berdague, E. Dufour & M. Montel. 2005. The effect or raw milk microbial flora on the sensory characteristics of Salers- type cheese. Journal Dairy Science 88(11):3840-3850. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(05)73069-1
Chollet, S & D. Valentin. 2001. Impact of training on beer flavor perception and description: are trained and untrained subjects really different? Journal of Sensory Studies 16(6):601-618. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2001.tb00323.x
Dairou, V & J.M. Sieffermann. 2002. A comparison of 14 jams characterized by conventional profile and a quick original method, the flash profile. Journal of Food Science 67(2):826– 834. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2002.tb10685.x
Devine, C. M., J. Sobal, C. A. Bisogni & M. Connors. 1999. Food choice in three ethnic groups: Interactions of ideals, identities and roles. Journal of Nutrition Education 31(2):86-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3182(99)70400-0
Drake, S. L., K. Lopetcharat, S. Clark, H. Kwak, S. Y. Lee & M. A. Drake. 2009a. Mapping differences in consumer’s perception of sharp cheddar cheese in the United State. Sensory and Food Quality 74(6): S276-S285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01219.x
Drake, S. L., K. Lopetcharat & M.A. Drake. 2009b. Comparison of two methods to explore consumer preferences for cottage cheese. Journal of Dairy Science 92(12):5883-5897. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2389
Faye, P., D. Bremaud, P. Duran, A. Courcoux, H. Giboreau & H. Nicod. 2004. Perceptive free sorting with naive subjects: an alternative to descriptive mappings. Food Quality and Preference 15(7-8): 781-792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.04.009
Faye, P., D. Brémaud, E. Teillet, P. Courcoux, A. Giboreaur & H. Nicod. 2006. An alternative to external preference mapping based on consumer perceptive mapping. Food Quality and Preference 17(7-8):604-614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.05.006
Gallerani, G., F. Gasperi & A. Monetti. 2000. Judge selection for hard and semi-hard cheese sensory evaluation. Food Quality and Preference 11(6):465-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(00)00019-7
Gámbaro, A., G. Ares, A. Giménez & S. Pahor. 2007. Preference mapping of color of uruguayan honeys. Journal Sensory Studies 22(5): 507-519. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2007.00125.x
Gellynck, X., B. Kuhne, F. Van, D. Van & K. Dewettinck. 2009. Consumer perception of bread quality. Food Quality and Preference 53(1):16-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2009.04.002
Gómez, J., M. Gaya, M. Núñez & M. Median. 1996. Effect of Lactobacillus plantarum as adjunct starter on the flavor and texture of a semi hard cheese made from pasteurised cow’s milk. Journal Lait 76(5):461–472. https://doi.org/10.1051/lait:1996535
Gómez, T., M. Hernández, J. López, C. Santiago, L. Ramón, J. Juárez & E. Ramírez. 2010. Caracterización sensorial del queso fresco «cuajada» en tres localidades de Oaxaca, México: diferencias en la percepción sensorial. Revista Venezolana de Ciencia y Tecnología de Alimentos 1(2):127-140. https://tinyurl.com/5n82ae46
Guàrdia, M.D., P.S. Aguiar, A. Claret, J. Arnau & L. Guerrero. 2010. Sensory characterization of dry-cured ham using free-choice profiling. Food Quality and Preference 21(1):148-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.08.014
Guerrero, L., A. Romero, P. Gou, N. Aleta & J. Arnau. 2000. Sensory profiles of different walnut (Junglas regia L.). Food Science and Technology International 6(3):207-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/108201320000600303
Guinard, J., B. Uotani & P. Schlich. 2001. Internal and external mapping of preferences for commercial lager beers: Comparison of hedonic ratings by consumers blind versus with knowledge of brand and price. Food Quality and Preference 12(4):243-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(01)00011-8
Hersleth, M., R. Berggren, F. Westad & M. Martens. 2005. Perception of bread: A comparison of consumers and trained assessors. Journal Sensory and Nutritive Qualities of Food 70(2):S95-S101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2005.tb07123.x
Hirst, D., D. D. Muir & T. Naes. 1994. Definition of the sensory of hard cheese: a collaborative study between Scottish and Norwegian panels. International Dairy Journal 4(8):743-761. https://doi.org/10.1016/0958-6946(94)90005-1
Husson, F., S. Lê-dien & J. Pagès. 2001. Which value can be granted to sensory profiles given by consumers? Methodology and results. Food Quality and Preference 12(5-7):291-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(01)00014-3
Husson, F. & J. Pagès J. 2003. Comparison of sensory profiles done by trained and untrained juries: Methodology and Results. Journal of Sensory Studies 18(6):453-464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2003.tb00400.x
Issanchou, S. 1996. Consumer expectations and perception of meat and meat product quality. Meat Science 43(1):5-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(96)00051-4
ISO 11035. 1994. Analyse Sensorielle. Recherche et sélection de descripteurs pour l’élaboration d’un profil sensoriel par approche multidimensionnelle. ISO/TC 34/SC 12. https://www.iso.org/fr/standard/19015.html
Lelièvre, M., S. Chollet, H. Abdi & D. Valentin. 2008. What is validity of the sorting task for describing beers? A study using trained and untrained assessors. Food Quality and Preference 19(8):697-703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.05.001
Martin, N., P. Molimard, H. Spinnler & P. Schlich. 2000. Comparison of odor sensory profiles performed by two independent trained panels following the same descriptive analysis procedures. Food Quality and Preference 11(6):487-495. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(00)00021-5
Mazzucchelli, R. & J. Guinard. 1999. Comparison of monadic and simultaneous sample presentation modes in descriptive analysis of milk chocolate. Journal of Sensory Studies 14(2):235-248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1999.tb00114.x
McEwan, J. & D. Thomson. 1989. The repertory grid method and preference mapping in market research: a case study on chocolate confectionery. Food Quality and Preference 1(2):59-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(89)80003-5
Morgan, F., J. Pierre & P. Gaborit. 2001. Lien entre niveau de lypolise de lait de chèvre et la qualité sensorielle des fromages au lait cru ou pasteurisé. Lait 81(6):743-756. https://doi.org/10.1051/lait:2001161
Ngapo, T., J. Martin & E. Dransfield. 2004. Consumer choice of pork chops: results from three panels in France. Food Quality and Preference 15(4):349-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00082-X
Nogueira, H., C. Tinet, C. Curt, G. Trystram & J. Hossenlopp. 2006. Using the internet for descriptive sensory analysis: formation, training and follow-up of a taste panel over the web. Journal Sensory Studies 21(2):180-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2006.00060.x
Pagès, J., C. Bertrand, R. Ali, F. Husson & S. Lê. 2007. Sensory analysis comparison of eight biscuits by French and Pakistani panels. Journal of Sensory Studies 22(6):665-686. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2007.00130.x
Pagès, J. & F. Husson. 2001. Inter-laboratory comparison of sensory profiles: methodology and results. Food Quality and Preference 12(5-7):297-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(01)00015-5
Perrin, L., R. Symonneaux, I. Maître, C. Asselin, F. Jourjon & J. Pagès. 2008. Comparison of three sensory methods for use with the Napping procedure: Case of ten wines from Loire valley. Journal Food Quality and Preference 19(1): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.06.005
Prescott, J. 1998. Comparison of taste perceptions and preferences of Japanese and Australian consumers: overview and implications for cross-cultural sensory research. Food Quality and Preference 9(6):393-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(98)00021-4
Ramírez, E. J., L. G. Ramón, M. Camacho, V. Reyes, M. Rodríguez & J. Shaín. 2010. Correlación entre el perfil descriptivo cuantitativo y perfil flash de hamburguesas de pescado de barrilete negro (Euthynnus lineatus). Revista Nacameh 4(2):55-68. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3646516
Resurrección, A. V. A. 2003. Sensory aspects of consumer choices for meat and meat products. Meat Science 66(1):11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00021-4
Sahmer, K., E. Vigneau & E. Gannari. 2006. A cluster to analyze preference data: Choice of the number of clusters. Food Quality and Preference 17(3-4):257-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.03.007
Schilch, P & J. Mcewan. 1992. Cartographie des préférences: Un outil statistique pour lìndustrie agro-alimentaire. Sciences des Aliments 12(3):339-355.
Schmidt, T., M. Schilling, J. Behrends, V. Battula, V. Jackson, R. Sekhon & T. Lawrence. 2010. Use of cluster analysis and preference mapping to evaluate consumer acceptability of choice and select bovine M. longissimus Lumborum steaks cooked to various end-point temperatures. Meat Science 84(1):46-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.08.016
Semenou, M., P. Courcoux, M. Cardinal, H. Nicod & A. Ouisse. 2007. Preference study using a latent class approach. Analysis of European preference for smoked salmon. Food Quality and Preference 18(5):720-728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.12.001
Statistical Graphics Corporation. 2008. STATGRAPHICS® Plus 5.1. Warrenton, USA.
Stone, H., J. Sidel, S. Oliver, S. Woolsey & R.C. Singleton. 1974. Sensory evaluation by quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Technology 28:24-34.
Thompson, J., M. A. Drake, K. Lopetcharat & M. D. Yates. 2004. Preference mapping of commercial Chocolate Milks. Food Quality and Preference 69(9):S406-S413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2004.tb09958.x
Van Hekken, D., M. A. Drake, F. J. Molina, V. M. Guerrero & A. A. Gardea. 2006. Mexican Chihuahua cheese: sensory profiles of young cheese. Journal Dairy Science 89(10):3729-3738. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72414-6
Van Rijswijk, W., L. J. Frewer, D. Menozzi & G. Faioli. 2008. Consumer perception of traceability: a cross-national comparison of the associated benefits. Food Quality and Preference 19(5):452-464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.02.001
Verbeke, W. 2005. Consumer acceptance of functional foods: socio-demographic, cognitive and attitudinal determinants. Food Quality and Preference 16(1):45-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.01.001
Worch, T., S. Lê & P. Punter. 2010. How reliable are consumers? Comparison of sensory profiles from consumers and experts. Food Quality and Preference 21(3):309-318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.06.001
XLSTAT para microsoft excel 2009. Fahmy, T. París Francia.
Young, N. D., M. Drake, K. Lopetcharat & M. R. Mcdaniel. 2004. Preference mapping of Cheddar Cheese with Varying Maturity Levels. Journal Dairy Science 87(1):11-19. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73136-7
Publicado
Cómo citar
-
Resumen187
-
PDF114
-
HTML41
