Sensory Profiling and Liking of Salami and Pancetta from Immunocastrated, Surgically Castrated and Entire Male Pigs
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Products
2.2. Experiment Design and Evaluation Procedure
2.3. Sensory Profiling
2.3.1. Training of the Assessors in Boar Taint Detection
2.3.2. Evaluation of the Meat Products
2.4. Consumers Tests
2.4.1. Participants
2.4.2. Scaling Method
2.4.3. Check-All-That-Apply (CATA) Questions
2.5. Sample Preparation and Presentation
2.5.1. Preparation of the Product Samples
2.5.2. Presentation of the Products Samples
2.5.3. Testing Conditions
2.6. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Sensory Properties of Salami and Pancetta Products (Quantitative Descriptive Analysis Results)
3.2. Sensory and Hedonic Perception of Salami and Pancetta Products by Consumers (CATA Results)
3.3. Liking of Salami and Pancetta Samples
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bonneau, M.; Weiler, U. Pros and cons of alternatives to piglet castration: Welfare, boar taint, and other meat quality traits. Animals 2019, 9, 884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Establishing Best Practices on the Production, the Processing and the Marketing of Meat from Uncastrated Pgs or Pigs Vaccinated Against Boar Taint (Immunocastrated)—Final Report. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/animals/docs/aw_prac_farm_pigs_cast-alt_establishing-best-practices.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2020).
- Mancini, M.C.; Menozzi, D.; Arfini, F. Immunocastration: Economic implications for the pork supply chain and consumer perception. An assessment of existing research. Livest. Sci. 2017, 203, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomasevic, I.; Bahelka, I.; Čandek-Potokar, M.; Čítek, J.; Djekić, I.; Djurkin Kušec, I.; Getya, A.; Guerrero, L.; Iordăchescu, G.; Ivanova, S.; et al. Attitudes and beliefs of Eastern European consumers towards piglet castration and meat from castrated pigs. Meat Sci. 2020, 160, 107965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thorslund, C.A.H.H.; Sandøe, P.; Aaslyng, M.D.; Lassen, J.; Dall Aaslyng, M.; Lassen, J.; Aaslyng, M.D.; Lassen, J. A good taste in the meat, a good taste in the mouth—Animal welfare as an aspect of pork quality in three European countries. Livest. Sci. 2016, 193, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Żakowska-Biemans, S.; Tekień, A. Free range, organic? Polish consumers preferences regarding information on farming system and nutritional enhancement of eggs: A discrete choice based experiment. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Clark, B.; Stewart, G.B.; Panzone, L.A.; Kyriazakis, I.; Frewer, L.J. Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies. Food Policy 2017, 68, 112–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Commission Special Eurobarometer 442 Report Attitudes of Europeans towards Animal Welfare. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/PublicOpinion (accessed on 20 July 2021).
- Aluwé, M.; Heyrman, E.; Almeida, J.M.; Babol, J.; Battacone, G.; Čítek, J.; Furnols, M.F.I.; Getya, A.; Karolyi, D.; Kostyra, E.; et al. Exploratory survey on european consumer and stakeholder attitudes towards alternatives for surgical castration of piglets. Animals 2020, 10, 1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kallas, Z.; Gil, J.M.; Panella-Riera, N.; Blanch, M.; Font-i-Furnols, M.; Chevillon, P.; De Roest, K.; Tacken, G.; Oliver, M.A. Effect of tasting and information on consumer opinion about pig castration. Meat Sci. 2013, 95, 242–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Font-i-Furnols, M.; Aaslyng, M.D.; Backus, G.B.C.; Han, J.; Kuznetsova, T.G.; Panella-Riera, N.; Semenova, A.A.; Zhang, Y.; Oliver, M.A. Russian and Chinese consumers’ acceptability of boar meat patties depending on their sensitivity to androstenone and skatole. Meat Sci. 2016, 121, 96–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aaslyng, M.D.; Koch, A.G. The use of smoke as a strategy for masking boar taint in sausages and bacon. Food Res. Int. 2018, 108, 387–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Škrlep, M.; Tomašević, I.; Mörlein, D.; Novaković, S.; Egea, M.; Garrido, M.D.; Linares, M.B.; Peñaranda, I.; Aluwé, M.; Font-i-Furnols, M. The use of pork from entire male and immunocastrated pigs for meat products—An overview with recommendations. Animals 2020, 10, 1754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mörlein, J.; Meier-Dinkel, L.; Gertheiss, J.; Schnäckel, W.; Mörlein, D. Sustainable use of tainted boar meat: Blending is a strategy for processed products. Meat Sci. 2019, 152, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peñaranda, I.; Garrido, M.D.; Egea, M.; Díaz, P.; Álvarez, D.; Oliver, M.A.; Linares, M.B. Sensory perception of meat from entire male pigs processed by different heating methods. Meat Sci. 2017, 134, 98–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Škrlep, M.; Čandek-Potokar, M.; Lukač, N.B.; Povše, M.P.; Pugliese, C.; Labussière, E.; Flores, M. Comparison of entire male and immunocastrated pigs for dry-cured ham production under two salting regimes. Meat Sci. 2016, 111, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Candek-Potokar, M.; Skrlep, M.; Lukac, N.B. Raising Entire Males or Immunocastrates—Outlook on Meat Quality. Procedia Food Sci. 2015, 5, 30–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pauly, C.; Spring-Staehli, P.; O’doherty, J.V.; Kragten, S.A.; Dubois, S.; Messadène, J.; Bee, G. The effects of method of castration, rearing condition and diet on sensory quality of pork assessed by a trained panel. Meat Sci. 2010, 86, 498–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Čandek-Potokar, M.; Škrlep, M. Factors in pig production that impact the quality of dry-cured ham: A review. Animal 2012, 6, 327–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elsbernd, A.J.; Patience, J.F.; Prusa, K.J. A comparison of the quality of fresh and frozen pork from immunologically castrated males versus gilts, physical castrates, and entire males. Meat Sci. 2016, 111, 110–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kress, K.; Weiler, U.; Schmucker, S.; Čandek-Potokar, M.; Vrecl, M.; Fazarinc, G.; Škrlep, M.; Batorek-Lukač, N.; Stefanski, V. Influence of housing conditions on reliability of immunocastration and consequences for growth performance of male pigs. Animals 2020, 10, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Heyrman, E.; Kowalski, E.; Millet, S.; Tuyttens, F.A.M.M.; Ampe, B.; Janssens, S.; Buys, N.; Wauters, J.; Vanhaecke, L.; Aluwé, M. Monitoring of behavior, sex hormones and boar taint compounds during the vaccination program for immunocastration in three sire lines. Res. Vet. Sci. 2019, 124, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kress, K.; Millet, S.; Labussière, É.; Weiler, U.; Stefanski, V. Sustainability of Pork production with immunocastration in Europe. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grela, E.R.; Świątkiewicz, M.; Kowalczuk-Vasilev, E.; Florek, M.; Kosior-Korzecka, U.; Skałecki, P. An attempt of implementation of immunocastration in swine production—Impact on meat physicochemical quality and boar taint compound concentration in the meat of two native pig breeds. Livest. Sci. 2020, 232, 103905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Font-i-Furnols, M.; Gispert, M.; Guerrero, L.; Velarde, A.; Tibau, J.; Soler, J.; Hortós, M.; García-Regueiro, J.A.; Pérez, J.; Suárez, P.; et al. Consumers’ sensory acceptability of pork from immunocastrated male pigs. Meat Sci. 2008, 80, 1013–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Čandek-Potokar, M.; Prevolnik-Povše, M.; Škrlep, M.; Font-i-Furnols, M.; Batorek-Lukač, N.; Kress, K.; Stefanski, V. Acceptability of Dry-Cured Belly (Pancetta) from Entire Males, Immunocastrates or Surgical Castrates: Study with Slovenian Consumers. Foods 2019, 8, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Panella-Riera, N.; Blanch, M.; Kallas, Z.; Chevillon, P.; Garavaldi, A.; Gil, M.; Gil, J.M.; Font-I-Furnols, M.; Oliver, M.A. Consumers’ segmentation based on the acceptability of meat from entire male pigs with different boar taint levels in four European countries: France, Italy, Spain and United Kingdom. Meat Sci. 2016, 114, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Beldarrain, L.R.; Etaio, I.; Morán, L.; Sentandreu, M.Á.; Barron, L.J.R.; Aldai, N. Effect of ageing time on consumer preference and sensory description of foal meat. Food Res. Int. 2020, 129, 108871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jorge, C.; Cristina, A.; Mendes, G.; Emygdio, B.; Pereira, H.; Rogério, P.; Lemos, A.; De Ramos, S.; Mendes, E.; Jorge, E. Application of a check-all-that-apply question for evaluating and characterizing meat products. Meat Sci. 2015, 100, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ares, G.; Varela, P. Comparison of Novel Methodologies for Sensory Characterization. In Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling; CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014; pp. 365–390. ISBN 978-1-4665-6629-3. [Google Scholar]
- Škrlep, M.; Poklukar, K.; Kress, K.; Vrecl, M.; Fazarinc, G.; Lukač, N.B.; Weiler, U.; Stefanski, V.; Čandek-Potokar, M. Effect of immunocastration and housing conditions on pig carcass and meat quality traits. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2020, 4, 1224–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kress, K.; Verhaagh, M. The economic impact of German pig carcass pricing systems and risk scenarios for boar taint on the profitability of pork production with immunocastrates and boars. Agriculture 2019, 9, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heyrman, E.; Janssens, S.; Buys, N.; Vanhaecke, L.; Millet, S.; Tuyttens, F.A.M.; Wauters, J.; Aluwé, M. Developing and understanding olfactory evaluation of boar taint. Animals 2020, 10, 1684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stone, H.; Bleibaum, R.N.; Thomas, H.A. Chapter 6—Descriptive Analysis. In Food Science and Technology, 4th ed.; Stone, H., Bleibaum, R.N., Thomas, H.A., Eds.; Elsevier Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 233–289. ISBN 978-0-12-382086-0. [Google Scholar]
- Stone, H.; Bleibaum, R.N.; Thomas, H.A. Chapter 3—Measurement. In Food Science and Technology, 4th ed.; Stone, H., Bleibaum, R.N., Thomas, H.A., Eds.; Elsevier Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012; ISBN 9780123820860. [Google Scholar]
- Ares, G.; Jaeger, S.R. Check-all-that-apply questions: Influence of attribute order on sensory product characterization. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 28, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kessler, F.; Nielsen, M.B.R.; Tøstesen, M.; Duelund, L.; Clausen, M.P.; Giacalone, D. Consumer perception of snack sausages enriched with umami-tasting meat protein hydrolysates. Meat Sci. 2019, 150, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saldaña, E.; de Oliveira Garcia, A.; Selani, M.M.; Haguiwara, M.M.H.; de Almeida, M.A.; Siche, R.; Contreras-Castillo, C.J. A sensometric approach to the development of mortadella with healthier fats. Meat Sci. 2018, 137, 176–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stone, H.; Bleibaum, R.N.; Thomas, H.A. Chapter 2—The Organization and Operation of a Sensory Evaluation Program. In Food Science and Technology, 4th ed.; Stone, H., Bleibaum, R.N., Thomas, H.A., Eds.; Elsevier Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012; ISBN 9780123820860. [Google Scholar]
- De Almeida, M.A.; Villanueva, N.D.M.; da Silva Pinto, J.S.; Saldaña, E.; Contreras-Castillo, C.J. Sensory and physicochemical characteristics of low sodium salami. Sci. Agric. 2016, 73, 347–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Selani, M.M.; Shirado, G.A.N.; Margiotta, G.B.; Saldaña, E.; Spada, F.P.; Piedade, S.M.S.; Contreras-Castillo, C.J.; Canniatti-Brazaca, S.G. Effects of pineapple byproduct and canola oil as fat replacers on physicochemical and sensory qualities of low-fat beef burger. Meat Sci. 2016, 112, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Resurreccion, A.V.A. Sensory aspects of consumer choices for meat and meat products. Meat Sci. 2004, 66, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murray, J.M.; Delahunty, C.M.; Baxter, I.A. Descriptive sensory analysis: Past, present and future. Food Res. Int. 2001, 34, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Čandek-Potokar, M.; Škrlep, M.; Kostyra, E.; Żakowska-Biemans, S.; Poklukar, K.; Batorek-Lukač, N.; Kress, K.; Weiler, U.; Stefanski, V. Quality of dry-cured ham from entire, surgically and immunocastrated males: Case study on Kraški Pršut. Animals 2020, 10, 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Corral, S.; Belloch, C.; López-Díez, J.J.; Flores, M. Lipolysis and aroma generation as mechanisms involved in masking boar taint in sodium reduced fermented sausages inoculated with Debaryomyces hansenii yeast. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 2121–2130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corral, S.; Belloch, C.; López-Díez, J.J.; Salvador, A.; Flores, M. Yeast inoculation as a strategy to improve the physico-chemical and sensory properties of reduced salt fermented sausages produced with entire male fat. Meat Sci. 2017, 123, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Font-i-Furnols, M.; Francás, C.; Claret, A.; Guerrero, L.; Romero, A.; Gispert, M. Sensory characterization of muscle biceps femoris of dry-cured ham from pigs of different sexes. In Proceedings of the Production and Utilization of Meat from Entire Male Pigs: EAAP Working Group, IRTA, Monells, Girona, Spain, 13–14 November 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Gallas, L.; Borilova, G.; Svobodova, I.; Steinhauserova, I.; Steinhouser, L. Usability of meat from immunologically castrated male pigs for the production of dry-fermented sausages. In Proceedings of the 57th International Congress of Meat Acience and Technology, Ghent, Belgium, 7–12 August 2011; pp. 950–952. [Google Scholar]
- Jeong, J.-Y.; Choi, J.-H.; Choi, Y.-S.; Han, D.-J.; Kim, H.-Y.; Lee, M.-A.; Lee, D.-H.; Kim, C.-J. The Effects of Immunocastration on Meat Quality and Sensory Properties of Pork Bellies. Korean J. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2011, 31, 372–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bañón, S.; Costa, E.; Gil, M.D.; Garrido, M.D. A comparative study of boar taint in cooked and dry-cured meat. Meat Sci. 2003, 63, 381–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lunde, K.; Skuterud, E.; Hersleth, M.; Egelandsdal, B. Norwegian consumers’ acceptability of boar tainted meat with different levels of androstenone or skatole as related to their androstenone sensitivity. Meat Sci. 2010, 86, 706–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Font-i-Furnols, M. Consumer studies on sensory acceptability of boar taint: A review Maria Font-i-Furnols. Meat Sci. 2012, 92, 319–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lundstörm, K.; Matthews, K.R.; Haugen, J.E. Pig meat quality from entire males. Animal 2009, 3, 1497–1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Meier-Dinkel, L.; Sharifi, A.R.; Frieden, L.; Tholen, E.; Fischer, J.; Wicke, M.; Mörlein, D. Consumer acceptance of fermented sausages made from boars is not distracted by respective information. Meat Sci. 2013, 94, 468–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonneau, M.; Chevillon, P. Acceptability of entire male pork with various levels of androstenone and skatole by consumers according to their sensitivity to androstenone. Meat Sci. 2012, 90, 330–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonneau, M.; Le Denmat, M.; Vaudelet, J.C.; Veloso Nunes, J.R.; Mortensen, A.B.; Mortensen, H.P. Contributions of fat androstenone and skatole to boar taint: I. Sensory attributes of fat and pork meat. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1992, 32, 63–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cowan, C.A.; Joseph, R.L. Production and Quality of Boar and Castrate Bacon: 2. Consumer and Panel Response to Bacon and Fat Samples. Irish J. Food Sci. Technol. 1981, 5, 105–116. [Google Scholar]
- Aaslyng, M.D.; Honnens, E.; Lichtenberg Broge, D.; Brockhoff, B.; Christensen, R.H. The effect of skatole and androstenone on consumer response towards streaky bacon and pork belly roll. Meat Sci. 2015, 110, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Font-i-Furnols, M.; Guerrero, L. Consumer preference, behavior and perception about meat and meat products: An overview. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 361–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Issanchou, S. Consumer expectations and perceptions of meat and meat product quality. Meat Sci. 1996, 43, 5–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deliza, R.; MacFie, H.J.H. The generation of sensory expectation by external cues and its effect on sensory perception and hedonic ratings: A review. J. Sens. Stud. 2018, 11, 103–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piqueras-Fiszman, B.; Spence, C. Sensory expectations based on product-extrinsic food cues: An interdisciplinary review of the empirical evidence and theoretical accounts. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 40, 165–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuyttens, F.A.M.; Vanhonacker, F.; Langendries, K.; Aluwé, M.; Millet, S.; Bekaert, K.; Verbeke, W. Effect of information provisioning on attitude toward surgical castration of male piglets and alternative strategies for avoiding boar taint. Res. Vet. Sci. 2011, 91, 327–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weiler, U.; Font I Furnols, M.; Fischer, K.; Kemmer, H.; Oliver, M.A.; Gispert, M.; Dobrowolski, A.; Claus, R. Influence of differences in sensitivity of Spanish and German consumers to perceive and rostenone on the acceptance of boar meat differing in skatole and androstenone concentrations. Meat Sci. 2000, 54, 297–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Flavor | Taste | Texture | Hedonic/Emotional |
---|---|---|---|
meaty | salty | gumminess | familiar flavor |
not much meaty | sour | softness | unfamiliar flavor |
fatty | sweet | hardness | delicate |
spicy | pleased | ||
pungency | disappointing | ||
persistent | positively surprises | ||
irritating | intriguing | ||
negatively surprises | |||
satisfied | |||
interested | |||
friendly | |||
traditional |
Attributes | Salami | Pancetta | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EM | IC | SC | p-Value | EM | IC | SC | p-Value | |
Odor | ||||||||
odor meaty | 4.6 | 4.8 | 4.7 | 0.705 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 3.9 | 0.465 |
odor fatty | 4.3 | 4.3 | 4.7 | 0.175 | 5.4 | 5.8 | 5.7 | 0.103 |
odor acidic | 3.3 | 3.0 | 2.8 | 0.068 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 0.910 |
odor sweet | 1.2 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 0.384 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 0.418 |
odor fermentation | 3.4 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 0.293 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 0.644 |
odor yeast | 1.9 b | 1.6 ab | 1.4 a | 0.015 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 0.811 |
odor spicy | 2.7 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 0.063 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 0.530 |
odor sweat | 3.0 b | 1.7 a | 1.2 a | <0.001 | 2.1 b | 0.8 a | 0.9 a | <0.001 |
odor manure | 1.5 b | 0.9 a | 0.8 a | 0.002 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.065 |
odor sharp | 3.1 b | 2.5 a | 2.2 a | 0.006 | 3.0 b | 2.7 ab | 2.4 a | 0.015 |
overall odor intensity | 5.6 | 5.4 | 5.4 | 0.740 | 5.3 | 5.5 | 5.3 | 0.413 |
Texture | ||||||||
hardness | 6.4 b | 5.4 a | 4.9 a | <0.001 | 7.3 c | 6.5 b | 5.7 a | <0.001 |
gumminess | 6.4 b | 5.6 a | 5.4 a | <0.001 | 7.1 b | 7.0 ab | 6.6 a | 0.047 |
easy of fragment | 3.8 a | 4.8 b | 5.3 b | <0.001 | 2.2 a | 2.7 a | 3.4 b | <0.001 |
coating palate with fat film | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.8 | 0.288 | 6.2 | 6.5 | 6.4 | 0.389 |
Flavor and taste | ||||||||
flavor meaty | 4.8 a | 5.8 b | 5.5 b | <0.001 | 4.2 | 4.5 | 4.2 | 0.187 |
flavor fatty | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.1 | 0.799 | 5.6 a | 6.2 b | 6.0 b | 0.019 |
taste sour | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 0.716 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 0.068 |
taste salty | 5.3 | 5.0 | 5.3 | 0.403 | 4.5 a | 5.4 b | 4.8 a | 0.007 |
taste sweet | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.380 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.087 |
flavor fermentation | 3.4 | 3.4 | 3.4 | 0.972 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 0.513 |
flavor yeast | 1.7 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 0.164 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.232 |
flavor spicy | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.3 | 0.483 | 2.1 a | 2.7 b | 2.6 ab | 0.037 |
flavor sweat | 4.7 b | 1.5 a | 1.3 a | <0.001 | 3.4 b | 0.9 a | 0.7 a | <0.001 |
flavor manure | 1.8 b | 0.8 a | 0.6 a | <0.001 | 1.5 b | 0.9 a | 0.6 a | <0.001 |
pungency | 4.2 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 0.254 | 2.4 | 2.8 | 2.5 | 0.144 |
persistent | 4.4 b | 1.9 a | 1.9 a | <0.001 | 3.5 b | 1.6 a | 1.4 a | <0.001 |
overall sensory quality | 3.0 a | 5.2 b | 5.3 b | <0.001 | 3.2 a | 4.4 b | 4.7 b | <0.001 |
Attributes | Salami | Pancetta | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EM | IC | SC | p-Value | EM | IC | SC | p-Value | |
Flavor and taste | ||||||||
meaty | 69 a | 82 b | 76 ab | 0.049 | 53 | 51 | 48 | 0.703 |
not much meaty | 17 | 8 | 12 | 0.157 | 31 | 26 | 37 | 0.162 |
fatty | 48 | 51 | 60 | 0.170 | 51 a | 66 b | 79 c | <0.001 |
salty | 61 | 71 | 70 | 0.138 | 67 | 65 | 57 | 0.199 |
sour | 14 | 16 | 15 | 0.905 | 12 | 13 | 7 | 0.260 |
sweet | 9 | 7 | 13 | 0.229 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 0.558 |
spicy | 50 | 42 | 38 | 0.140 | 31 | 27 | 20 | 0.132 |
pungency | 8 | 14 | 6 | 0.094 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 1.000 |
persistent | 15 | 15 | 19 | 0.633 | 30 | 41 | 39 | 0.127 |
irritating | 13 b | 6 a | 5 a | 0.042 | 21 | 26 | 26 | 0.535 |
Texture | ||||||||
gumminess | 50 b | 31 a | 35 a | 0.006 | 55 | 49 | 48 | 0.437 |
softness | 31 | 33 | 39 | 0.426 | 14 | 16 | 24 | 0.078 |
hardness | 26 b | 23 ab | 13 a | 0.042 | 53 b | 43 ab | 33 a | 0.006 |
Hedonic/Emotional | ||||||||
familiar flavor | 35 | 42 | 33 | 0.172 | 19 | 13 | 15 | 0.326 |
unfamiliar flavor | 10 | 4 | 6 | 0.155 | 2 | 24 | 25 | 0.832 |
delicate | 24 | 27 | 26 | 0.862 | 25 | 22 | 16 | 0.148 |
pleased | 48 | 56 | 54 | 0.460 | 28 | 18 | 18 | 0.092 |
disappointing | 18 | 16 | 17 | 0.928 | 30 | 39 | 39 | 0.241 |
positively surprises | 18 | 18 | 18 | 1.000 | 12 | 5 | 6 | 0.129 |
intriguing | 14 | 12 | 13 | 0.902 | 13 | 13 | 18 | 0.396 |
negatively surprises | 12 | 10 | 12 | 0.852 | 30 | 30 | 34 | 0.701 |
satisfied | 27 | 36 | 27 | 0.191 | 12 | 11 | 9 | 0.727 |
interested | 40 | 33 | 42 | 0.321 | 34 b | 21 a | 18 a | 0.004 |
friendly | 24 | 35 | 37 | 0.083 | 22 | 17 | 13 | 0.234 |
traditional | 33 | 32 | 39 | 0.437 | 20 | 24 | 17 | 0.368 |
Liking Attributes | Salami | Pancetta | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EM | IC | SC | p-Value | EM | IC | SC | p-Value | |
odor liking | 6.0 | 6.2 | 6.2 | 0.642 | 5.6 b | 5.0 a | 4.8 a | 0.010 |
flavor/taste liking | 6.2 | 6.4 | 6.1 | 0.474 | 5.1 | 4.6 | 4.6 | 0.095 |
texture liking | 6.3 | 6.7 | 6.2 | 0.053 | 4.6 | 4.4 | 4.4 | 0.703 |
expected overall liking | 6.4 | 6.2 | 6.0 | 0.170 | 5.7 b | 5.0 a | 4.7 a | 0.001 |
experienced overall liking | 6.0 | 6.4 | 6.1 | 0.220 | 4.9 | 4.4 | 4.4 | 0.087 |
willingness to buy | 5.5 | 5.9 | 5.5 | 0.393 | 4.1 | 3.6 | 3.5 | 0.081 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Żakowska-Biemans, S.; Kostyra, E.; Škrlep, M.; Aluwé, M.; Čandek-Potokar, M. Sensory Profiling and Liking of Salami and Pancetta from Immunocastrated, Surgically Castrated and Entire Male Pigs. Animals 2021, 11, 2786. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11102786
Żakowska-Biemans S, Kostyra E, Škrlep M, Aluwé M, Čandek-Potokar M. Sensory Profiling and Liking of Salami and Pancetta from Immunocastrated, Surgically Castrated and Entire Male Pigs. Animals. 2021; 11(10):2786. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11102786
Chicago/Turabian StyleŻakowska-Biemans, Sylwia, Eliza Kostyra, Martin Škrlep, Marijke Aluwé, and Marjeta Čandek-Potokar. 2021. "Sensory Profiling and Liking of Salami and Pancetta from Immunocastrated, Surgically Castrated and Entire Male Pigs" Animals 11, no. 10: 2786. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11102786
APA StyleŻakowska-Biemans, S., Kostyra, E., Škrlep, M., Aluwé, M., & Čandek-Potokar, M. (2021). Sensory Profiling and Liking of Salami and Pancetta from Immunocastrated, Surgically Castrated and Entire Male Pigs. Animals, 11(10), 2786. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11102786