Comparison of performance and quantitative descriptive analysis sensory profiling and its relationship to consumer liking between the artisanal cheese producers panel and the descriptive trained panel.

The aim of this research was to compare the performance and sensory profiling of a panel of artisanal cheese producers against a trained panel and their relationship to consumer liking (external preference mapping). Performance was analyzed statistically at an individual level using the Fisher's test (F) for discrimination, the mean square error for repeatability, and Manhattan plots for visualizing the intra-panel homogeneity. At group level, performance was evaluated using ANOVA. External preference mapping technique was applied to determine the efficiency of each sensory profile. Results showed that the producers panel was discriminant and repetitive with a performance similar to that of the trained panel. Manhattan plots showed that the performance of artisanal cheese producers was more homogeneous than trained panelists. The correlation between sensory profiles (Rv = 0.95) demonstrated similarities in the generation and use of sensory profiles. The external preference maps generated individually with the profiles of each panel were also similar. Recruiting individuals familiar with the production of artisanal cheeses as panelists is a viable strategy for sensory characterization of artisanal cheeses within their context of origin because their results were similar to those from the trained panel and can be correlated with consumer liking data.

[1]  Giovanni Bittante,et al.  Implementing Sensory Analysis Principles in the Quality Control of PDO Products: A Critical Evaluation of a Real‐World Case Study , 2013 .

[2]  Jérôme Pagès,et al.  Which value can be granted to sensory profiles given by consumers? Methodology and results , 2001 .

[3]  Dominique Valentin,et al.  The Odor of Colors: Can Wine Experts and Novices Distinguish the Odors of White, Red, and Rosé Wines? , 2009 .

[4]  Jérôme Pagès,et al.  Optimal nested cross-over designs in sensory analysis. , 2004 .

[5]  Alfredo Cesín-Vargas.  La leche y los quesos artesanales en México , 2014 .

[6]  Dominique Valentin,et al.  Pivot profile: A new descriptive method based on free description , 2015 .

[7]  U. Bütikofer,et al.  Sensory descriptive analysis and consumer acceptability of selected Swiss goat and sheep cheeses , 2008 .

[8]  M. Drake,et al.  Comparison of two methods to explore consumer preferences for cottage cheese. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

[9]  Jérôme Pagès,et al.  Inter-laboratory comparison of sensory profiles: methodology and results , 2001 .

[10]  Michel Tenenhaus,et al.  PLS methodology to study relationships between hedonic judgements and product characteristics , 2005 .

[11]  Michael Seadle.  Measurement , 2007, The Measurement of Information Integrity.

[12]  Tormod Næs,et al.  Visualization of sensory profiling data for performance monitoring , 2007 .

[13]  Miguelina Guirao,et al.  PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN TRAINED ASSESSORS AND WINE EXPERTS USING SPECIFIC SENSORY ATTRIBUTES , 2004 .

[14]  J. Herrera‐Corredor,et al.  Sensory profiles of artisan goat cheeses as influenced by the cultural context and the type of panel , 2017 .

[15]  J. Herrera‐Corredor,et al.  Typification of a fresh goat cheese of Mexico by path models , 2017 .

[16]  Fernando Cervantes Escoto,et al.  La genuinidad y tipicidad en la revalorización de los quesos artesanales mexicanos , 2011 .

[17]  Maximo Gacula,et al.  SAMPLE SIZE IN CONSUMER TEST AND DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS , 2006 .

[18]  Barbara A. Rainey.  IMPORTANCE OF REFERENCE STANDARDS IN TRAINING PANELISTS , 1986 .

[19]  Comparison of odour sensory profiles performed by two independent trained panels following the same descriptive analysis procedures , 2000 .

[20]  D. Labbe.  Commentary on Ares and Varela paper for Food Quality and Preference , 2017 .

[21]  Marine Cadoret,et al.  Construction and evaluation of confidence ellipses applied at sensory data , 2013 .

[22]  Tormod Næs,et al.  Some new tools for visualising multi-way sensory data , 2008 .

[23]  H. Heymann,et al.  Judging wine quality: Do we need experts, consumers or trained panelists? , 2014 .

[24]  S. Y. Lee,et al.  Mapping differences in consumer perception of sharp cheddar cheese in the United States. , 2009, Journal of food science.

[25]  Gregg E.A. Solomon,et al.  Conceptual Change and Wine Expertise , 1997 .

[26]  Tormod Næs,et al.  Analysing sensory panel performance in a proficiency test using the PanelCheck software , 2009 .

[27]  H. Moskowitz.  Consumers vs experts: Opinions by an outspoken psychophysicist , 2017 .

[28]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[29]  H. Macfie,et al.  DESIGNS TO BALANCE THE EFFECT OF ORDER OF PRESENTATION AND FIRST-ORDER CARRY-OVER EFFECTS IN HALL TESTS , 1989 .

[30]  F. J. Pérez Elortondo,et al.  SELECTION AND SCREENING OF A DESCRIPTIVE PANEL FOR EWES MILK CHEESE SENSORY PROFILING , 2000 .

[31]  G. Ares,et al.  Trained vs. consumer panels for analytical testing: Fueling a long lasting debate in the field , 2017 .

[32]  M. Drake,et al.  Invited review: Sensory analysis of dairy foods. , 2007, Journal of dairy science.

[33]  Sébastien Lê,et al.  Methodology for the comparison of sensory profiles provided by several panels: Application to a cross-cultural study , 2008 .

[34]  L. Frewer,et al.  Consumer perceptions of traceability: A cross-national comparison of the associated benefits , 2008 .

[35]  A. V. Gante,et al.  Physicochemical, microbiological, textural and sensory characterisation of Mexican Añejo cheese , 2010 .

[36]  Jérôme Pagès,et al.  Testing the significance of the RV coefficient , 2008, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..