crazy4byuidaho

Image Source

Ever wondered what a professional taste test report looks like? Here is an example of a report done for companies that complete taste tests through BYU-Idaho. A lot of work goes into these reports! It's just another one of those crazy things that we do for BYU-Idaho!

[COMPANY] Beef Jerky Taste Test Report

[PROFESSOR], Kaleigh Quick, [STUDENT]

BYU-Idaho Taste Testing Program

April, 2018

Summary

[COMPANY] company elected to compare three company flavors of meat jerky products, based on hedonic scaling of responses, to a benchmark competitor’s meat jerky product. This was done to ensure that the three company flavors were liked by consumers as often as, or more frequently than, the benchmark product. The majority of panel members were [GENDER 578], were ages 18-25, and purchased jerky products 3-4 times per year. It was noted that in aspects studied (appearance, flavor, texture, and overall liking), all four of the flavors presented (including the benchmark) had varying ratings. In 2-way ANOVA tests, significant differences were noted in appearance, flavor, texture, overall liking, and purchasing likelihood. Panelist comments were recorded.

Objectives

The test administrators obtained the jerky samples from [COMPANY] staff. The project objective was to indicate company flavors that were liked by consumers as often as, or more frequently than, the benchmark, competing jerky product. The test objectives were to (1) compare the four jerky products for hedonic “liking” on meaningful hedonic scales, (2) understand basic demographic information of participants, and (3) to obtain a measure of the reliability and significance of the results.

Experimental Design

Design: The four samples were prepared in the BYU-Idaho Sensory Science preparation facility and then appropriately held at room temperature, and then distributed to panelists per Compusense™ program serve order. Jerky samples were evaluated by 109 untrained panelists.

Sensory Evaluation: Jerky flavors were evaluated by 109 untrained panelists, who were selected for their lack of allergies, interest in meat products (participants indicated verbally or electronically that they “liked” general meat/jerky products), test time availability (during Tuesday March 20, 2018), and being of a minimum of 18-years of age. Each of the four jerky samples were provided only once to each panelist, one at a time, on one single day; Tuesday March 20, 2018, from 9:00 am to 2:00 pm. Each panelist evaluated all four samples.

Sample Preparation and Presentation: The jerky products were screened for being in normal, unflawed packaging, at room temperature. All jerky flavors were then prepared by [COMPANY] staff as well as BYU-Idaho test administrators, by cutting each product into 1-inch by 1-inch squares, approximately.

When the cut samples were handled, clean gloves were used to place samples in designated, pre-numbered cups, 2-oz plastic cups.  “[FLAVOR 1]” was assigned blinding code 282. “[FLAVOR 2]” was assigned blinding code 776. “[FLAVOR 3]” was assigned blinding code 588. The benchmark product was assigned blinding code 791. The samples in cups were then placed on designated, labeled trays in the facility and held at room temperature.  The samples were administered to panelists in white, daylight lighting to allow panelists to identify the appearance differences between samples. Samples were administered when indicated by the Compusense™ program, in different, assigned, random orders of presentation.

Statistical Evaluation: Demographic question results (gender, age group, and jerky product purchasing frequency) were analyzed using one sample t-tests at a 0.05 alpha level.

“Liking” question results (appearance, flavor, texture, and overall liking), and purchasing likelihood results, were analyzed using a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical test to examine the significance of difference of means between the 4 samples for attributes studied.

Comments were not statistically evaluated.

Results and Discussions

Demographic question results were analyzed using averages of presented demographic information.

Liking questions and purchasing likelihood questions were analyzed using 2-way ANOVA tests, in order to understand the interaction between the two or more independent variables on the dependent variable

The 2-way ANOVA calculations and demographic averages completed by Compusense™ Cloud.

Gender 

There were 61 [GENDER 578] panelists who participated in the taste test, and 49 [GENDER 271] panelists who participated. There were a total of 110 panelists who participated. However, there was one [GENDER 271] panelist with invalid test results. Her test results were excluded from the test, and thus only 48 [GENDER 271] panelist results are recognized.

The majority of panelists were [GENDER 578], and [GENDER 578]’s made up 55.96% of participating panelists.

Age 

There were 90 of the 110 panelists who were ages 18-25, 11 panelists who were 26-35, 1 panelist who was 36-45. There were 5 panelists who were ages 46-55, 2 who were ages 56-65, and no panelists were older than 66.

The majority of panelists were ages 18-25, and this age group made up 82.57% of participating panelists.

Purchasing Frequency

There were no panelists that stated they purchase jerky products 2 or more times per week. Only one panelist indicated that they purchase jerky products weekly. There were 14 panelists that indicated that they purchase jerky products monthly, while 49 panelists indicated that they purchase jerky products 3-4 times per year, 16 panelists said they purchase jerky products once per year, and 29 panelists indicated that they rarely purchase jerky products.

The majority of panelists purchase jerky products 3-4 times per year, and this purchasing frequency applied to 44.95% of participating panelists.

Appearance Liking

Please see Table 2.

Samples from group “a”, ([FLAVOR 1], [FLAVOR 3], and Benchmark) are not significantly different from each other regarding appearance. There was no significant difference in appearance liking between group “a” samples.

 “[FLAVOR 2]” was significantly less liked in appearance than group “a” samples. The appearances of “[FLAVOR 1]”, “[FLAVOR 3]”, and “Benchmark” were liked significantly more than the appearance of the “[FLAVOR 2]” product.

Referencing table 1.1, mean ratings closer to 6 indicate that appearances of [FLAVOR 1], [FLAVOR 3], and Benchmark were “Liked slightly”. [FLAVOR 2], with a mean rating closer to 5, indicates that the appearance was “Neither liked nor disliked”.

Flavor Liking

Please see Table 3.

“[FLAVOR 3]” flavor was liked significantly more than the “Benchmark” and the “[FLAVOR 1]” flavors. “[FLAVOR 2]” was liked in flavor significantly more than “[FLAVOR 1]”. “Benchmark” flavor was liked significantly less than “[FLAVOR 3]”. “[FLAVOR 1]” flavor was liked significantly less than “[FLAVOR 2]” and “[FLAVOR 3]”.

Referencing table 1.1, mean ratings closer to 6 indicate that [FLAVOR 3], and [FLAVOR 2] flavors were “Liked slightly”. Benchmark and [FLAVOR 1] flavors with mean ratings closer to 5, indicates that the flavor was “Neither liked nor disliked”.

Texture Liking

Please see Table 4.

Samples from group “a”, ([FLAVOR 1], [FLAVOR 3], and Benchmark) are not significantly different from each other regarding texture. There was no significant difference in texture liking between group “a” samples.

 “[FLAVOR 2]” was significantly less liked in texture than group “a” samples. The textures of “[FLAVOR 1]”, “[FLAVOR 3]”, and “Benchmark” were liked significantly more than the texture of the “[FLAVOR 2]” product.

Referencing table 1.1, mean ratings closer to 6 indicate that texture of [FLAVOR 1], [FLAVOR 3], and Benchmark were “Liked slightly”. [FLAVOR 2], with a mean rating closer to 5, indicates that the texture was “Neither liked nor disliked”.

Overall Liking

Please see Table 5.

“[FLAVOR 3]” was liked overall significantly more than “[FLAVOR 1]”.

There was no significant difference in overall liking between other samples.

Referencing table 1.1, mean ratings closer to 6 indicate that overall, [FLAVOR 3], was “Liked slightly”. [FLAVOR 2], [FLAVOR 1], and Benchmark products, with mean ratings closer to 5, indicate that the products overall were “Neither liked nor disliked”.

Purchasing Likelihood

Please see Table 6.

“[FLAVOR 3]” is significantly more likely to be purchased than “[FLAVOR 1]”. There was no significant difference in purchasing likelihood between “[FLAVOR 2]” and “Benchmark” products.

Referencing table 1.2, mean ratings closer to 3 indicate that [FLAVOR 3], “May or may not be purchased”. [FLAVOR 2], [FLAVOR 1], and Benchmark products, with mean ratings closer to 2, indicate that the products “Likely will not be purchased”.

Conclusion

Of the four samples tested, there were significant differences between means of liking attributes, and purchasing likelihoods.  [COMPANY]’s [FLAVOR 3] product was the most likely to be purchased out of all four of the products. [FLAVOR 3] received the highest averages in appearance, and overall liking categories.

[COMPANY]’s jerky products also frequently received higher liking averages than the benchmark jerky product.

However, despite having higher liking averages than the benchmark product, no jerky product received higher averages than 6.15, or; “Like slightly”. There is room for improvement in the liking aspects of these products.

Despite having higher purchasing likelihood averages than the benchmark product, no jerky product received higher averages than 2.65, or; “May or may not purchase”. There is room for improvement in these products.

Data

Gender 

	Fe[GENDER 578]	[GENDER 578]	Total
Respondents	48	61	109

Age 

	18-25	26--35	36-45	46-55	56-65	66+	Total
Respondents	90	11	1	5	2	0	109

Purchasing Frequency

	More than 2 times per week	Weekly	Monthly	3-4 times per year	Once per year	Rarely	Total
Respondents	0	1	14	49	16	29	109

Products were rated in regard to liking questions, by each panelist, using the following hedonic scale:

Table 1.1            This table is for appearance, flavor, texture, and overall liking. Description	Value
Dislike extremely	1
Dislike very much	2
Dislike moderately	3
Dislike slightly	4
Neither like nor dislike	5
Like slightly	6
Like moderately	7
Like very much	8
Like extremely	9

Products were rated in regard to purchasing likelihood questions, by each panelist, using the following hedonic scale.

Table 1.2                                    This table is for purchasing likelihood Choice Label	Value
Definitely will not purchase	1
Likely will not purchase	2
May or may not purchase	3
Likely will purchase	4
Definitely will purchase	4

Appearance Liking

Table 2
Sample Number	Sample Name	Mean	Group	Significantly Different than Sample
3	[FLAVOR 1]	6.15	a	2
4	[FLAVOR 3]	6.15	a	2
1	Benchmark	6.14	a	2
2	[FLAVOR 2]	4.89	b	3, 4, 1

Flavor Liking

Table 3
Sample Number	Sample Name	Mean	Group	Significantly Different than Sample
4	[FLAVOR 3]	6.01	a	1, 3
2	[FLAVOR 2]	5.89	ab	3
1	Benchmark	5.34	bc	4
3	[FLAVOR 1]	5.13	c	4, 2

Texture Liking

Table 4
Sample Number	Sample Name	Mean	Group	Significantly Different than Sample
3	[FLAVOR 1]	5.81	a	2
4	[FLAVOR 3]	5.77	a	2
1	Benchmark	5.69	a	2
2	[FLAVOR 2]	5.04	b	3, 4, 1

Overall Liking

Table 5
Sample Number	Sample Name	Mean	Group	Significantly Different than Sample
4	[FLAVOR 3]	6.01	a	3
2	[FLAVOR 2]	5.43	ab
1	Benchmark	5.42	ab
3	[FLAVOR 1]	5.32	b	4

Purchasing Likelihood

Table 6
Sample Number	Sample Name	Mean	Group	Significantly Different than Sample
4	[FLAVOR 3]	2.65	a	3
2	[FLAVOR 2]	2.39	ab
1	Benchmark	2.35	ab
3	[FLAVOR 1]	2.28	b	4

Comments

Panelists provided the following comments (verbatim, typed) about the Benchmark product:

·         Too square shaped. I prefer the regular flat shaped jerky. Kinda smelled like dog food. Tasted just a little like it too.

·         Wasn’t too dry or too wet. Great consistency and flavor

·         I do not care for how soft the jerky was, the flavor was mild, the only thing I really cared for was the size of the portion but that is not going to save it.

·         This one was good, but basically just tasted like pepperoni. Left a residue in mouth.

·         This sample was sour and I have to be in a mood for sour foods. Another thing is the jerky wasn’t sitting on my tounge like the last sample. It wasn’t to sour which is why I said moderate and again the piece was a thick cut for my liking.

·         Loved the kick in the flavor

·         Great sweet taste! Love the flavor.

·         Tastes to much like meat loaf or a meat ball.

·         Savory, which is good. Not enough spice or extra flavor. Texture is unique, but not soft enough. Also a little too red.

·         Tasted slightly chemically to use the proper term

·         It’s more subtle on flavor but I like the amount of salt

·         I don’t buy jerky much due to it’s cost vs my budget, so take my responses with a grain of salt.

·         I do not usually like jerky but the sample today was better than most jerky’s that I have had.

·         A little too soft for me, but the flavor was really good.

·         I liked how this sample was thicker/meatier than the others. However, there was a tanginess to the flavor that I wasn’t a huge fan of.

·         Seemed like a slightly sweet flavor, I don’t think it went well with a jerky product.

·         This one looked more appetizing to me, however the flavor was unexpected to me as it was more sweet and even reminded me of Christmas. The texture was more firm and chewy which I liked, but still not like the other jerkey I have eaten before

·         Just as the first one, I liked the texture which made it easy to chew unlike normal jerky. I didn’t enjoy the flavor as much as the first one, but it wasn’t bad.

·         Outside looked good, interior looked similar to that of an traditional Eastern European sausage. Not bad, probably the best aperance out of the whole group. Texture was moderate, it was fairly good. However, this has the worst flavor out of the whole study. I am a jerky enthusiast, and I did not enjoy it. It had a similar taste to a cheap summer sausage. Flavors could be greatly revised.

·         Has a lemon flavor that I’m not enjoying

·         It tangyness of the jerky overcome the taste of the meat

·         Brighter red color not appealing

·         I just didn’t like the taste. I prefer a sweeter taste.

·         The flavor of this sample did NOT agree with me. I found it rather sour.

·         Originally I was going to mark the appearance as liked very much, but then I noticed the outside of the sample had what appeared and felt to be white fat, which caused me to mark the sample lower as that is a minus for me. Additionally, compared to the other samples, the outer crust(?) was just slight to hard to bite into for a pleasing effect.

·         Compared to other jerky products I could buy at a similar price I’m not sure I’d purchase this one.

·         Kind of a chunky feeling other than that I really liked it.

·         I like the thickness

·         The look seems like a half cooked piece of meat, and the texture is a little to hell cooked meatish

·         When i first saw it was not pleasing to the eye. But it was pretty good.

·         Good bite size jerky. Tastes great.

·         The sample looks undercooked and has little flavor.

·         The hickory note is a bit overpowering and creates an awkward sweetness when paired with the fatty salami taste.  I will also mention that something in this sample is getting stuck in my teeth.  The flavor is dynamic in a negative way.

·         Too sour of a flavor for me.

·         it was good overall and better than the last one in every way

·         I can tell you tried to go with a Smokey flavor with this one. However you used just a little too much vinegar I feel for a jerkey product. It overpowers the flavor a little. The texture is almost there. I would suggest making it a little more tough so the consumer feels like they are eating real meat.

·         Good thickness, however the flavor is bland.  Not much to it

·         The flavor was like dog food

·         Not a good taste at all.

·         Subtle flavor but very good. The texture is nice, it is easy to eat. Would benefit from a stronger flavor.

·         This one was my least favorite so far.

·         Didn’t have a ton of flavor

·         It was still kinda moist making it easier to taste what the desired taste was. The flavor was alright it tasted like an original jerky. Didn’t leave too much of an impression. If I bought it, it would be to suck on it since the flavor did last longer than most jerkies.

·         It tasted sour and not like an enjoyable savory meat product I would purchase for hikes and such.

·         From personal preference I like jerky with a more tough texture. This one falls apart in my mouth pretty easily.

·         Resembled dog food, but it wasn’t that bad

·         I like the texture and the after flavor

·         It has a very rich and meaty flavor.

·         The texture was a little better than others, though it is still a little too soft. I flavor was odd, almost like a sour flavor but it was not bad, just okay.

·         I would probably like it more if it was a little spicier or had a stronger kick to it

·         Took a longer than I thought before I noticed the flavor.  Subtle start.

·         Strong meat/jerky flavor but no flavoring to go with it. I like jersey but I like it better with some form of flavoring.

·         This one tasted like a slim Jim and I liked it a lot.

·         Do not continue to make sample 791.

·         Weird flavor plus texture wasn’t tough

·         Needs a little more flavor. Stronger spices.

·         This seemed the best of the three, but could use just a bit more salt

·         I did not enjoy the texture very much. It wasn’t as uniform as I would like it to be, and the taste was slightly weak.

·         Iwould prefer more flavor

·         It has an undesirable sweet flavor.

·         The sample did not look much like jerky- had a strong mustard taste and was greasy

·         This has been the best of the 4 so far. Just a hair too acidic.