Consumer Hedonic Ratings and Associated Sensory Characteristics and Emotional Responses to Fourteen Pecan Varieties Grown in Texas
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Results
2.1. Pecan Kennel Consumer Hedonic Rating
2.2. Pecan Kernel Sensory Attribute Intensity
2.3. Pecan Kernel Off-Flavor
2.4. Consumer Emotional Response: Satiating, Energizing, and Others with CATA
2.5. Pecan Variety Difference
2.6. Drivers for Consumers’ Overall Acceptance
3. Discussion
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Pecan Samples
4.2. Consumer Test—Test Design
4.3. Consumer Test—Subjects
4.4. Consumer Test—Test Procedure
4.5. Statistical Analysis
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Prabhakar, H.; Sharma, S.; Kong, F. Effects of postharvest handling and storage on pecan quality. Food Rev. Int. 2020, e1817066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, T.E.; Conner, P.J. Pecan. In Fruit Breeding; Badenes, M., Byrne, D., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 771–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, G.; Capps, J.O.; Dharmasena, S. Demand analysis of peanuts and tree nuts in the United States: A micro-perspective. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2021, 24, 523–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alvarez-Parrilla, E.; Urrea-López, R.; de la Rosa, L.A. Bioactive components and health effects of pecan nuts and their byproducts: A review. J. Food Bioact. 2018, 1, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Atanasov, A.G.; Sabharanjak, S.M.; Zengin, G.; Mollica, A.; Szostak, A.; Simirgiotis, M.; Huminiecki, Ł.; Horbanczuk, O.K.; Nabavi, S.M.; Mocan, A. Pecan nuts: A review of reported bioactivities and health effects. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 71, 246–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ricci, G.; Bailey Norwood, F. A sensory analysis of raw native, ‘kanza’, and ‘pawnee’ pecans. HortTechnology 2020, 30, 725–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kharel, K.; Prinyawiwatkul, W.; Yemmireddy, V.K.; Graham, C.J.; Adhikari, A. Effect of hot water treatment of in-shell pecans on physicochemical properties and consumer acceptability of roasted pecan kernels. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 54, 1884–1891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gurbina, D.; Fruja, N.; Mot, P.; Cozma, A.; Stoin, D. Nutritional and sensory quality evaluation of gluten free cake with pecan nuts. J. Agroaliment. Process. Technol. 2019, 25, 227. [Google Scholar]
- Wagener, E.A.; Kerr, W.L. Effects of oil content on the sensory, textural, and physical properties of pecan butter (Carya illinoinensis). J. Texture Stud. 2018, 49, 286–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, L.; Yao, L.; Xie, P.; Li, W. An empirical study on consumer purchase intention for nuts and influencing factors—Survey based on consumers from Zhejiang. Food Control. 2020, 117, e107343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eitenmiller, R.; Pegg, R. Compositional characteristics and health effects of pecan [Carya illinoinensis (wangenh.) K. koch]. In Tree Nuts Composition, Phytochemicals and Health Effects; Alasalvar, C., Shahidi, F., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009; pp. 259–283. [Google Scholar]
- Jaeger, S.R.; Spinelli, S.; Ares, G.; Monteleone, E. Linking product-elicited emotional associations and sensory perceptions through a circumplex model based on valence and arousal: Five consumer studies. Food Res. Int. 2018, 109, 626–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sukkhown, P.; Pirak, T.; Chonpracha, P.; Ardoin, R.; Prinyawiwatkul, W. Seafood flavor perception, liking, emotion, and purchase intent of coated peanuts as affected by coating color and hydrolyzed squid peptide powder. J. Food Sci. 2019, 84, 1570–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Andersen, B.V.; Brockhoff, P.B.; Hyldig, G. The importance of liking of appearance, -odour, -taste and -texture in the evaluation of overall liking—A comparison with the evaluation of sensory satisfaction. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 71, 228–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaneko, D.; Toet, A.; Brouwer, A.; Kallen, V.; van Erp, J.B.F. Methods for evaluating emotions evoked by food experiences: A literature review. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, e1800911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Popper, R.; Rosenstock, W.; Schraidt, M.; Kroll, B.J. The effect of attribute questions on overall liking ratings. Food Qual. Prefer. 2004, 15, 853–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murley, T.; Kelly, B.; Adhikari, J.; Reid, W.; Koppel, K. A comparison of fatty acid and sensory profiles of raw and roasted pecan cultivars. J. Food Sci. 2020, 85, 2665–2672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Magnuson, S.M.; Kelly, B.; Koppel, K.; Reid, W. A comparison of flavor differences between pecan cultivars in raw and roasted forms. J. Food Sci. 2016, 81, S1243–S1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ribeiro, S.R.; Klein, B.; Ribeiro, Q.M.; dos Santos, I.D.; Genro, A.L.G.; Ferreira, D.D.F.; Hamann, J.J.; Barin, J.S.; Cichoski, A.J.; Fronza, D.; et al. Chemical composition and oxidative stability of eleven pecan cultivars produced in southern Brazil. Food Res. Int. 2020, 136, e109596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, Y.; Kerrihard, A.L.; Pegg, R.B. Characterization of the volatile compounds in raw and roasted georgia pecans by HS-SPME-GC-MS. J. Food Sci. 2018, 83, 2753–2760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gama, T.; Wallace, H.M.; Trueman, S.J.; Hosseini-Bai, S. Quality and shelf life of tree nuts: A review. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 242, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Köster, E.P.; Mojet, J. From mood to food and from food to mood: A psychological perspective on the measurement of food-related emotions in consumer research. Food Res. Int. 2015, 76, 180–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chambers, L.; McCrickerd, K.; Yeomans, M.R. Optimising foods for satiety. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 41, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- King, S.C.; Meiselman, H.L. Development of a method to measure consumer emotions associated with foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 168–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ng, M.; Chaya, C.; Hort, J. Beyond liking: Comparing the measurement of emotional response using EsSense profile and consumer defined check-all-that-apply methodologies. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 28, 193–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomson, D.M.H.; Crocker, C. A data-driven classification of feelings. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 27, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramirez, J.L.; Du, X.; Wallace, R.W. Investigating sensory properties of seven watermelon varieties and factors impacting refreshing perception using quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Res. Int. 2020, 138, e109681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chonpracha, P.; Ardoin, R.; Gao, Y.; Waimaleongoraek, P.; Tuuri, G.; Prinyawiwatkul, W. Effects of intrinsic and extrinsic visual cues on consumer emotion and purchase intent: A case of ready-to-eat salad. Foods 2020, 9, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mora, M.; Dupas de Matos, A.; Fernández-Ruiz, V.; Briz, T.; Chaya, C. Comparison of methods to develop an emotional lexicon of wine: Conventional vs. rapid-method approach. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 83, e103920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaya, C.; Eaton, C.; Hewson, L.; Vázquez, R.F.; Fernández-Ruiz, V.; Smart, K.A.; Hort, J. Developing a reduced consumer-led lexicon to measure emotional response to beer. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 45, 100–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geier, U.; Büssing, A.; Kruse, P.; Greiner, R.; Buchecker, K. Development and application of a test for food-induced emotions. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0165911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomson, D.M.H.; Crocker, C.; Marketo, C.G. Linking sensory characteristics to emotions: An example using dark chocolate. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 1117–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferdenzi, C.; Delplanque, S.; Barbosa, P.; Court, K.; Guinard, J.-X.; Guo, T.; Roberts, C.; Schirmer, A.; Porcherot, C.; Cayeux, I.; et al. Affective semantic space of scents. towards a universal scale to measure self-reported odor-related feelings. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 30, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ferdenzi, C.; Roberts, C.; Schirmer, A.; Delplanque, S.; Cekic, S.; Porcherot, C.; Cayeux, I.; Sander, D.; Grandjean, D. Variability of affective responses to odors: Culture, gender and olfactory knowledge. Chem. Senses 2013, 38, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Delplanque, S.; Chrea, C.; Grandjean, D.; Ferdenzi, C.; Cayeux, I.; Porcherot, C.; Le Calvé, B.; Sander, D.; Scherer, K.R. How to map the affective semantic space of scents. Cogn. Emot. 2012, 26, 885–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ferdenzi, C.; Schirmer, A.; Roberts, S.C.; Delplanque, S.; Porcherot, C.; Cayeux, I.; Velazco, M.-I.; Sander, D.; Scherer, K.R.; Grandjean, D. Affective dimensions of odor perception: A comparison between swiss, british and singaporean populations. Emotion 2011, 11, 1168–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Porcherot, C.; Delplanque, S.; Raviot-Derrien, S.; Le Calvé, B.; Chrea, C.; Gaudreau, N.; Cayeux, I. How do you feel when you smell this? Optimization of a verbal measurement of odor-elicited emotions. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 938–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chrea, C.; Grandjean, D.; Delplanque, S.; Cayeux, I.; Le Calvé, B.; Aymard, L.; Velazco, M.I.; Sander, D.; Scherer, K.R. Mapping the semantic space for the subjective experience of emotional responses to odors. Chem. Senses 2009, 34, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ng, M.; Chaya, C.; Hort, J. The influence of sensory and packaging cues on both liking and emotional, abstract and functional conceptualisations. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 29, 146–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spinelli, S.; Jaeger, S.R. What do we know about the sensory drivers of emotions in foods and beverages? Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2019, 27, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bi, J.; Chung, J. Identification of drivers of overall liking—Determination of relative importances of regressor variables. J. Sens. Stud. 2011, 26, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bi, J. A review of statistical methods for determination of relative importance of correlated predictors and identification of drivers of consumer liking. J. Sens. Stud. 2012, 27, 87–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, X.; Muniz, A.; Sissons, J.; Wang, W.; Juma, S. Consumer acceptance of egg white partially substituted with mushrooms and mushroom-egg white flavor pairing. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 9, 1410–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Size Liking | Interior Color Liking | Typical-Pecan Flavor Liking | Raw-Nut Flavor Liking | Overall Liking | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Session 1 | |||||
Tiemann | 5.9 bc | 5.7 bc | 5.6 c | 5.6 bc | 5.6 c |
Lakota | 7.0 a | 6.3 ab | 6.4 a | 6.2 ab | 6.4 ab |
Pawnee | 7.4 a | 6.8 a | 6.8 a | 6.7 a | 6.9 a |
1991-01-0026 | 7.0 a | 6.9 a | 6.8 a | 6.7 a | 6.9 a |
1997-09-0012 | 6.1 b | 6.3 ab | 6.5 a | 6.4 a | 6.7 a |
McMillan | 6.1 b | 5.4 c | 5.7 bc | 5.5 c | 5.6 bc |
Woodside Early | 5.3 c | 6.5 a | 6.4 ab | 6.3 ab | 6.5 a |
Significance | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
Session 2 | |||||
Williamson | 6.5 bc | 6.0 bc | 5.8 c | 5.8 bc | 6.0 cd |
86TX2-1.5 | 5.2 d | 6.1 abc | 6.7 a | 6.4 ab | 6.7 ab |
87MX4-5.5 | 4.6 d | 5.7 cd | 5.5 c | 5.3 c | 5.3 d |
Barton | 7.3 a | 6.5 ab | 6.8 a | 6.5 a | 6.8 a |
N2-43 | 6.0 c | 6.2 abc | 6.0 bc | 6.0 abc | 6.1 bc |
1996-12-0008 | 6.9 ab | 5.3 d | 5.9 c | 5.8 abc | 5.8 cd |
Harris Super | 6.7 ab | 6.7 a | 6.7 ab | 6.5 a | 6.8 ab |
Significance | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
Typical-Pecan Flavor intensity | Raw-Nut Flavor Intensity | Buttery Flavor Intensity | Sweetness Intensity | Astringency Intensity | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Session 1 | |||||
Tiemann | 5.3 b | 5.4 a | 4.5 a | 3.8 ab | 3.7 ab |
Lakota | 5.8 ab | 6.1 a | 4.0 a | 3.7 ab | 4.3 a |
Pawnee | 6.2 a | 6.2 a | 5.1 a | 4.5 a | 3.2 b |
1991-01-0026 | 5.9 ab | 5.9 a | 4.9 a | 4.5 a | 3.3 b |
1997-09-0012 | 5.8 ab | 5.7 a | 4.7 a | 4.5 a | 3.5 b |
McMillan | 5.1 b | 5.4 a | 4.6 a | 3.8 ab | 3.8 ab |
Woodside Early | 5.9 ab | 5.9 a | 4.7 a | 3.9 ab | 4.1 ab |
Significance | *** | ns | ns | ** | * |
Session 2 | |||||
Williamson | 5.5 abc | 5.5 a | 4.5 abc | 3.8 ab | 4.2 ab |
86TX2-1.5 | 5.8 ab | 5.6 a | 5.3 a | 4.5 a | 3.6 ab |
87MX4-5.5 | 4.8 c | 5.2 a | 3.6 c | 3.1 b | 4.5 a |
Barton | 5.9 ab | 5.5 a | 4.8 ab | 4.5 a | 3.4 b |
N2-43 | 5.1 bc | 5.2 a | 4.7 ab | 3.7 ab | 4.0 ab |
1996-12-0008 | 5.4 bc | 5.5 a | 4.2 bc | 4.2 a | 3.6 ab |
Harris Super | 6.3 a | 6.1 a | 5.3 a | 4.1 a | 3.6 ab |
Significance | *** | ns | *** | *** | ** |
Healthy | Premium | Eager | Enthusiastic | Curious | Interested | Cheerful | Joyful | Comfort | Satisfied | Relaxed | Calm | Nostalgic | Homey | Apathetic | Uninhibited | Disgusted | Others | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Session 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
Tiemann | 37.4 abc | 10.1 a | 4.0 a | 8.1 a | 18.2 a | 18.2 a | 9.1 a | 7.1 a | 15.2 c | 26.3 ab | 16.2 a | 24.2 a | 8.1 a | 10.1 a | 16.2 a | 12.1 a | 10.1 ab | 3.0 a |
Lakota | 50.5 abc | 18.2 a | 9.1 a | 10.1 a | 12.1 a | 21.2 a | 10.1 a | 6.1 a | 21.2 abc | 26.3 ab | 12.1 a | 16.2 a | 15.2 a | 15.2 a | 13.1 a | 10.1 a | 9.1 ab | 4.0 a |
Pawnee | 66.7 c | 20.2 a | 7.1 a | 15.2 a | 11.1 a | 24.2 a | 10.1 a | 14.1 a | 36.4 b | 46.5 a | 25.3 a | 21.2 a | 11.1 a | 18.2 a | 6.1 a | 7.1 a | 4.0 ab | 0.0 a |
1991-01-0026 | 50.5 abc | 15.2 a | 11.1 a | 14.1 a | 12.1 a | 24.2 a | 10.1 a | 11.1 a | 33.3 abc | 43.4 a | 15.2 a | 25.3 a | 8.1 a | 14.1 a | 10.1 a | 4.0 a | 1.0 a | 0.0 a |
1997-09-0012 | 52.5 abc | 18.2 a | 10.1 a | 9.1 a | 9.1 a | 19.2 a | 16.2 a | 17.2 a | 28.3 abc | 39.4 a | 18.2 a | 20.2 a | 11.1 a | 18.2 a | 9.1 a | 6.1 a | 4.0 ab | 2.0 a |
McMillan | 31.3 ac | 15.2 a | 7.1 a | 5.1 a | 11.1 a | 19.2 a | 7.1 a | 6.1 a | 15.2 ac | 19.2 b | 10.1 a | 11.1 a | 8.1 a | 19.2 a | 14.1 a | 13.1 a | 12.1 b | 6.1 a |
Woodside Early | 50.5 abc | 13.1 a | 6.1 a | 8.1 a | 8.1 a | 21.2 a | 8.1 a | 6.1 a | 25.3 abc | 30.3 ab | 13.1 a | 16.2 a | 10.1 a | 20.2 a | 10.1 a | 14.1 a | 6.1 ab | 4.0 a |
Significance | *** | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | * | ** | *** | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | * | ns |
Session 2 | ||||||||||||||||||
Williamson | 49.0 ab | 24.0 abc | 8.3 a | 11.5 a | 15.6 a | 18.8 a | 8.3 a | 6.3 b | 20.8 a | 34.4 ab | 6.3 a | 11.5 a | 6.3 a | 8.3 a | 13.5 a | 8.3 a | 9.4 a | 4.2 a |
86TX2-1.5 | 48.4 ab | 23.2 abc | 8.4 a | 11.6 a | 17.9 a | 24.2 a | 12.6 a | 14.7 ab | 21.1 a | 31.6 ab | 21.1 a | 17.9 a | 9.5 a | 12.6 a | 6.3 a | 4.2 a | 4.2 a | 4.2 a |
87MX4-5.5 | 36.8 b | 9.5 ac | 6.3 a | 5.3 a | 16.8 a | 10.5 a | 3.2 a | 3.2 b | 21.1 a | 20.0 a | 11.6 a | 13.7 a | 5.3 a | 8.4 a | 15.8 a | 8.4 a | 11.6 a | 4.2 a |
Barton | 56.3 ab | 31.3 b | 10.4 a | 12.5 a | 7.3 a | 24.0 a | 15.6 a | 17.7 a | 31.3 a | 40.6 b | 17.7 a | 11.5 a | 13.5 a | 12.5 a | 6.3 a | 8.3 a | 5.2 a | 2.1 a |
N2-43 | 44.8 ab | 14.6 abc | 8.3 a | 6.3 a | 12.5 a | 19.8 a | 9.4 a | 12.5 ab | 18.8 a | 26.0 ab | 13.5 a | 13.5 a | 8.3 a | 10.4 a | 12.5 a | 10.4 a | 5.2 a | 5.2 a |
1996-12-0008 | 46.9 ab | 11.5 c | 7.3 a | 4.2 a | 17.7 a | 18.8 a | 3.1 a | 8.3 ab | 15.6 a | 34.4 ab | 13.5 a | 11.5 a | 10.4 a | 9.4 a | 9.4 a | 7.3 a | 8.3 a | 2.1 a |
Harris Super | 62.1 a | 20.0 abc | 8.4 a | 12.6 a | 15.8 a | 20.0 a | 14.7 a | 17.9 a | 26.3 a | 40.0 ab | 15.8 a | 12.6 a | 11.6 a | 14.7 a | 6.3 a | 7.4 a | 4.2 a | 2.1 a |
Significance | * | ** | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ** | ns | * | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
Variables | Overall Liking | Typical-Pecan Flavor Liking | Typical-Pecan Flavor Intensity |
---|---|---|---|
Size liking | 0.499 | 0.500 | 0.557 |
Interior color liking | 0.880 | 0.839 | 0.782 |
Typical-pecan flavor liking | 0.989 | 1 | 0.890 |
Raw-nut flavor liking | 0.988 | 0.979 | 0.907 |
Overall liking | 1 | 0.989 | 0.900 |
Typical-pecan flavor intensity | 0.900 | 0.890 | 1 |
Raw-nut flavor intensity | 0.724 | 0.738 | 0.878 |
Buttery flavor intensity | 0.734 | 0.690 | 0.703 |
Sweetness intensity | 0.818 | 0.817 | 0.752 |
Astringency intensity | −0.590 | −0.590 | −0.543 |
Satiating effect | 0.881 | 0.867 | 0.858 |
Energizing effect | 0.941 | 0.927 | 0.899 |
Healthy | 0.842 | 0.815 | 0.871 |
Premium | 0.636 | 0.619 | 0.533 |
Eager | 0.680 | 0.694 | 0.409 |
Enthusiastic | 0.830 | 0.803 | 0.806 |
Curious | −0.533 | −0.509 | −0.363 |
Interested | 0.814 | 0.809 | 0.752 |
Cheerful | 0.764 | 0.728 | 0.657 |
Joyful | 0.778 | 0.758 | 0.643 |
Comfort | 0.831 | 0.816 | 0.711 |
Satisfied | 0.817 | 0.786 | 0.795 |
Relaxed | 0.640 | 0.652 | 0.588 |
Calm | 0.372 | 0.367 | 0.330 |
Nostalgic | 0.630 | 0.679 | 0.709 |
Homey | 0.474 | 0.469 | 0.526 |
Apathetic | −0.850 | −0.854 | −0.800 |
Uninhibited | −0.492 | −0.517 | −0.336 |
Disgusted | −0.886 | −0.856 | −0.707 |
Other feelings | −0.658 | −0.655 | −0.682 |
No off-flavors | 0.725 | 0.702 | 0.574 |
Yes, a little off-flavors | −0.571 | −0.553 | −0.401 |
Yes, a lot off-flavors | −0.900 | −0.869 | −0.844 |
Plant ID | Type * | Origin |
---|---|---|
Tiemann | Native | Colorado river bottom near La Grange in Fayette County, TX. |
Williamson | Native | Mill Creek in Johnson County, OK in 1911 by E.W. Kirkpatrick. |
86TX2-1.5 | Native | Zavala County, TX |
87MX4-5.5 | Native | Hidalgo, MX |
Barton | Improved | A progeny of ‘Mahan’ x ‘Major’ cultivars, made by L. D. Romberg at Brownwood, TX in 1964. USDA released in 2007. |
Lakota | Improved | A progeny of ‘Mohawk’ x ‘Starking Hardy Giant’, made by L. D. Romberg, Brownwood, TX in 1963. USDA released in 1984. |
Pawnee | Improved | A progeny of ′Moore’ x ‘Success’, made by L. D. Romberg in Brownwood, TX in 1937. USDA released in 1953. |
N2-43 | Cross | A progeny of ′Nuggett′ x ′Western′ originated In NM and was grafted onto ‘Riverside’ rootstock in Brownwood, TX in 1966. |
1991-01-0026 | Cross | A progeny from ′Barton′ x ′Pawnee′, made in Brownwood, TX by T. E. Thompson in 1991. |
1996-12-0008 | Cross | A progeny from ′Barton′ x (′Cheyenne′ x ′Pawnee′), made in Brownwood, TX by T. E. Thompson in 1996. |
1997-09-0012 | Cross | A progeny from ′Osage′ x (′Cheyenne′ x ′Pawnee′), made in Brownwood, TX by T. E.Thompson in 1997. |
Harris Super | Seedling | A chance seedling found at Gunnison in Bolivar county, MS in 1952. |
McMillan | Seedling | Holly Hills in Baldwin County, AL. |
Woodside Early | Seedling | Originated near Alexandria in Rapides Parish, LA. |
Session | Sample | Liking and Scale | Intensity and Scale | Off-Flavor | Feeling |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Session 1 Participants (N = 99) | Tiemann | Five hedonic questions: Size Interior color Typical-pecan flavor Raw-nut flavor Overall | Seven intensity questions: Typical-pecan flavor Raw-nut flavor Buttery flavor Sweetness Astringency Satiating Energizing | Single response question: No Yes, a few Yes, a lot | A CATA question related to feeling: Healthy Premium Eager Enthusiastic Curious Interested Cheerful Joyful Comfort Satisfied Relaxed Calm Nostalgic Homey Apathetic Uninhibited Disgusted Other feelings |
Lakota | |||||
Pawnee | |||||
1991-01-0026 | |||||
1997-09-0012 McMillan | |||||
Woodside Early | |||||
Session 2 Participants (N = 99) | Williamson | 9-point hedonic scale: 1 = dislike extremely 2 = dislike very much 3 = dislike moderately 4 = dislike slightly 5 = either like or dislike 6 = like slightly 7 = like moderately 8 = like very much 9 = like extremely | 0–10 line scale: Pips 0 = none 5 = moderate 10 = extremely strong | If yes, navigate to a multiple choice question for off-flavor: Burnt Sour Bitter Stale Rancid Sharp Moldy Other off-flavors | |
86TX2-1.5 | |||||
87MX4-5.5 | |||||
Barton | |||||
N2-43 | |||||
1996-12-0008 | |||||
Harris Super |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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
Du, X.; Wang, X.; Muniz, A.; Kubenka, K. Consumer Hedonic Ratings and Associated Sensory Characteristics and Emotional Responses to Fourteen Pecan Varieties Grown in Texas. Plants 2022, 11, 1814. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11141814
Du X, Wang X, Muniz A, Kubenka K. Consumer Hedonic Ratings and Associated Sensory Characteristics and Emotional Responses to Fourteen Pecan Varieties Grown in Texas. Plants. 2022; 11(14):1814. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11141814
Chicago/Turabian StyleDu, Xiaofen, Xinwang Wang, Adriana Muniz, and Keith Kubenka. 2022. "Consumer Hedonic Ratings and Associated Sensory Characteristics and Emotional Responses to Fourteen Pecan Varieties Grown in Texas" Plants 11, no. 14: 1814. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11141814