Consumer Attitudes and Acceptability of Wheat Pancakes with the Addition of Edible Insects: Mealworm (Tenebrio molitor), Buffalo Worm (Alphitobius diaperinus), and Cricket (Acheta domesticus)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Pancake Preparation
2.2. Nutrient Composition of Pancakes Enriched with Insect Meals
2.3. Colour Analysis
2.4. Acceptability of Insect-Based Pancakes
2.5. A survey on Attitudes towards the Consumption of Pancakes with Insect Meal Added
2.6. Statistical Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Nutritional Value of Lyophilised Edible Insects
3.2. Colour Measurement
3.3. Acceptability
3.4. Attitudes towards the Consumption of Pancakes with Added Insect Meal
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Onwezen, M.C.; Bouwman, E.P.; Reinders, M.J.; Dagevos, H. A systematic review of consumer acceptance of alternative proteins: Pulses, algae, insects, plant-based meat alternatives, and cultured meat. Appetite 2021, 159, 105058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Skotnicka, M.; Karwowska, K.; Kłobukowski, F.; Borkowska, A.; Pieszko, M. Possibilities of the development of edible insect-based foods in Europe. Foods 2021, 10, 766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- House, J. Consumer acceptance of insect-based foods in the Netherlands: Academic and commercial implications. Appetite 2016, 107, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ardoin, R.; Prinyawiwatkul, W. Product appropriateness, willingness to try and perceived risks of foods containing insect protein powder: A survey of U.S. consumers. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 55, 3215–3226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, H.J.; Yong, H.I.; Kim, M.; Choi, Y.S.; Jo, C. Status of meat alternatives and their potential role in the future meat market—A review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 33, 1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borges, M.M.; da Costa, D.V.; Trombete, F.M.; Câmara, A.K.F.I. Edible insects as a sustainable alternative to food products: An insight into quality aspects of reformulated bakery and meat products. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2022, 46, 100864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caparros Megido, R.; Gierts, C.; Blecker, C.; Brostaux, Y.; Haubruge, É.; Alabi, T.; Francis, F. Consumer acceptance of insect-based alternative meat products in Western countries. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 52, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gurdian, C.E.; Torrico, D.D.; Tuuri, B.; Li, G.; Prinyawiwatkul, W. Effect of Disclosed Information on Product Liking, Emotional Profile, and Purchase Intent: A Case of Chocolate Brownies Containing Edible-Cricket Protein. Foods 2021, 10, 1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gkinali, A.A.; Matsakidou, A.; Vasileiou, E.; Paraskevopoulou, A. Potentiality of Tenebrio molitor larva-based ingredients for the food industry: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 119, 495–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruby, M.B.; Rozin, P.; Chan, C. Determinants of willingness to eat insects in the USA and India. J. Insects Food Feed. 2015, 1, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartmann, C.; Shi, J.; Giusto, A.; Siegrist, M. The psychology of eating insects: A cross-cultural comparison between Germany and China. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 44, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szeja, N. Entomofagia–Aspekty Żywieniowe I Psychologiczne. Kosmos 2019, 68, 489–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meyer-Rochow, V.B.; Gahukar, R.T.; Ghosh, S.; Jung, S.C. Chemical Composition, Nutrient Quality and Acceptability of Edible Insects Are Affected by Species, Developmental Stage, Gender, Diet, and Processing Method. Foods 2021, 10, 1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Skotnicka, M.; Mazurek, A.; Karwowska, K.; Folwarski, M. Satiety of Edible Insect-Based Food Products as a Component of Body Weight Control. Nutrients 2022, 14, 2147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gravel, A.; Doyen, A. The use of edible insect proteins in food: Challenges and issues related to their functional properties. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2020, 59, 102272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rumpold, B.A.; Schlüter, O.K. Potential and challenges of insects as an innovative source for food and feed production. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2013, 17, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Payne, C.L.R.; Scarborough, P.; Rayner, M.; Nonaka, K. A systematic review of nutrient composition data available for twelve commercially available edible insects, and comparison with reference values. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 47, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zielińska, E.; Pankiewicz, U.; Sujka, M. Nutritional, physiochemical, and biological value of muffins enriched with edible insects flour. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ros-Baró, M.; Casas-Agustench, P.; Díaz-Rizzolo, D.A.; Batlle-Bayer, L.; Adrià-Acosta, F.; Aguilar-Martínez, A.; Medina, F.X.; Pujolà, M.; Bach-Faig, A. Edible Insect Consumption for Human and Planetary Health: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 11653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vangsoe, M.T.; Thogersen, R.; Bertram, H.C.; Heckmann, L.H.L.; Hansen, M. Ingestion of Insect Protein Isolate Enhances Blood Amino Acid Concentrations Similar to Soy Protein in A Human Trial. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roomi, M.A.; Mohammadnezhad, M. Prevalence Of Metabolic Syndrome Among Apparently Healthy Workforce. J. Ayub Med. Coll. Abbottabad JAMC 2019, 31, 252–254. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Van Huis, A.; Oonincx, D.G.A.B. The environmental sustainability of insects as food and feed. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 37, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Da Rosa Machado, C.; Thys, R.C.S. Cricket powder (Gryllus assimilis) as a new alternative protein source for gluten-free breads. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2019, 56, 102180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, S.S.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, H.M.; Ji, X.Y.; He, L.; Xing, D.F.; Ren, N.Q.; Ho, S.H.; Wu, W.M. A novel clean production approach to utilize crop waste residues as co-diet for mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) biomass production with biochar as a byproduct for heavy metal removal. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 252, 1142–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, J.; Han, T.; Kim, Y.Y. Mealworm (Tenebrio molitor Larvae) as an Alternative Protein Source for Monogastric Animal: A Review. Animals 2020, 10, 2068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International; Association of Official Analysis Chemists International: Rockville, MD, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Fernández-Artigas, P.; Guerra-Hernández, E.; García-Villanova, B. Browning Indicators in Model Systems and Baby Cereals. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1999, 47, 2872–2878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buera, M.P.; Lozano, R.D.P.C. Definition of colour in the non-enzymatic browning process. J-GLOBAL 2022, 32/33, 316–326. [Google Scholar]
- Kasim, R.; Kasim, M.U. Biochemical changes and colour properties of fresh-cut green bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L. cv.gina) treated with calcium chloride during storage. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 35, 266–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shimizu, T.; Okada, K.; Moriya, S.; Komori, S.; Abe, K. A high-throughput colour measurement system for evaluating flesh browning in apples. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2021, 146, 241–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beitane, I.; Technology, F.; Murniece, I. Sensory, colour and structural properties of pancakes prepared with pea and buckwheat flours. Foodbalt 2014, 2013, 234–238. [Google Scholar]
- Shih, F.F.; Truong, V.D.; Daigle, K.W. Physicochemical properties of Gluten-free pancakes from rice and sweet potato flours. J. Food Qual. 2006, 29, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ritchey, P.N.; Frank, R.A.; Hursti, U.K.; Tuorila, H. Validation and cross-national comparison of the food neophobia scale (FNS) using confirmatory factor analysis. Appetite 2003, 40, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jebb, A.T.; Ng, V.; Tay, L. A Review of Key Likert Scale Development Advances: 1995-2019. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 637547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Willits, F.; Theodori, G.; Luloff, A. Another Look at Likert Scales. J. Rural. Soc. Sci. 2016, 31, 6. [Google Scholar]
- Janssen, R.H.; Vincken, J.P.; Van Den Broek, L.A.M.; Fogliano, V.; Lakemond, C.M.M. Nitrogen-to-Protein Conversion Factors for Three Edible Insects: Tenebrio molitor, Alphitobius diaperinus, and Hermetia illucens. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 2275–2278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Janssen, R.H.; Vincken, J.P.; Arts, N.J.G.; Fogliano, V.; Lakemond, C.M.M. Effect of endogenous phenoloxidase on protein solubility and digestibility after processing of Tenebrio molitor, Alphitobius diaperinus and Hermetia illucens. Food Res. Int. 2019, 121, 684–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Huis, A. Potential of insects as food and feed in assuring food security. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2013, 58, 563–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rumpold, B.A.; Schlüter, O.K. Nutritional composition and safety aspects of edible insects. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2013, 57, 802–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaglio, R.; Barbera, M.; Tesoriere, L.; Osimani, A.; Busetta, G.; Matraxia, M.; Attanzio, A.; Restivo, I.; Aquilanti, L.; Settanni, L. Sourdough “ciabatta” bread enriched with powdered insects: Physicochemical, microbiological, and simulated intestinal digesta functional properties. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2021, 72, 102755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garciá-Segovia, P.; Igual, M.; Martínez-Monzó, J. Physicochemical Properties and Consumer Acceptance of Bread Enriched with Alternative Proteins. Foods 2020, 9, 933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witzel, R.F.; Burnham, R.W.; Onley, J.W. Threshold and suprathreshold perceptual colour differences. JOSA 1973, 63, 615–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Khatun, H.; Van Der Borght, M.; Akhtaruzzaman, M.; Claes, J. Rheological Characterization of Chapatti (Roti) Enriched with Flour or Paste of House Crickets (Acheta domesticus). Foods 2021, 10, 2750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Indriani, S.; Bin Ab Karim, M.S.; Nalinanon, S.; Karnjanapratum, S. Quality characteristics of protein-enriched brown rice flour and cake affected by Bombay locust (Patanga succincta L.) powder fortification. LWT 2020, 119, 108876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dreese, P.C.; Hoseney, R.C. Baking properties of the bran fraction from brewer’s spent grains. Cereal Chem. 1982, 59, 89–91. Available online: https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US8221126 (accessed on 20 June 2022).
- Villanueva, M.; Pérez-Quirce, S.; Collar, C.; Ronda, F. Impact of acidification and protein fortification on rheological and thermal properties of wheat, corn, potato and tapioca starch-based gluten-free bread doughs. LWT 2018, 96, 446–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Larsson, K. Some Effects of Lipids on the Structure of Foods. Food Struct. 1982, 1, 55–62. Available online: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/foodmicrostructure/vol1/iss1/6 (accessed on 17 July 2022).
- Osimani, A.; Milanović, V.; Cardinali, F.; Roncolini, A.; Garofalo, C.; Clementi, F.; Pasquini, M.; Mozzon, M.; Foligni, R.; Raffaelli, N.; et al. Bread enriched with cricket powder (Acheta domesticus): A technological, microbiological and nutritional evaluation. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2018, 48, 150–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González, C.M.; Garzón, R.; Rosell, C.M. Insects as ingredients for bakery goods. A comparison study of H. illucens, A. domestica and T. molitor flours. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2019, 51, 205–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roncolini, A.; Milanović, V.; Cardinali, F.; Osimani, A.; Garofalo, C.; Sabbatini, R.; Clementi, F.; Pasquini, M.; Mozzon, M.; Foligni, R.; et al. Protein fortification with mealworm (Tenebrio molitor L.) powder: Effect on textural, microbiological, nutritional and sensory features of bread. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0211747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Severini, C.; Azzollini, D.; Albenzio, M.; Derossi, A. On printability, quality and nutritional properties of 3D printed cereal based snacks enriched with edible insects. Food Res. Int. 2018, 106, 666–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowalski, S.; Mikulec, A.; Mickowska, B.; Skotnicka, M.; Mazurek, A. Wheat bread supplementation with various edible insect flours. Influence of chemical composition on nutritional and technological aspects. LWT 2022, 159, 113220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowalski, S.; Mikulec, A.; Skotnicka, M.; Mickowska, B.; Makarewicz, M.; Sabat, R.; Wywrocka-Gurgul, A.; Mazurek, A. Effect of the Addition of Edible Insect Flour from Yellow Mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) on the Sensory Acceptance, and the Physicochemical and Textural Properties of Sponge Cake. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2022, 72, 2083–6007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barton, A.; Richardson, C.D.; McSweeney, M.B. Consumer attitudes toward entomophagy before and after evaluating cricket (Acheta domesticus)-based protein powders. J. Food Sci. 2020, 85, 781–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grossmann, K.K.; Merz, M.; Appel, D.; De Araujo, M.M.; Fischer, L. New insights into the flavoring potential of cricket (Acheta domesticus) and mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) protein hydrolysates and their Maillard products. Food Chem. 2021, 364, 130336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Adámek, M.; Adámková, A.; Borkovcová, M.; Mlček, J.; Bednářová, M.; Kouřimská, L.; Skácel, J.; Řezníček, M. Electronic nose in edible insects area. Potravin. Slovak J. Food Sci. 2017, 11, 446–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sogari, G.; Menozzi, D.; Mora, C. Exploring young foodies׳ knowledge and attitude regarding entomophagy: A qualitative study in Italy. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2017, 7, 16–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biró, B.; Sipos, M.A.; Kovács, A.; Badak-Kerti, K.; Pásztor-Huszár, K.; Gere, A. Cricket-Enriched Oat Biscuit: Technological Analysis and Sensory Evaluation. Foods 2020, 9, 1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çabuk, B.; Yılmaz, B. Fortification of traditional egg pasta (erişte) with edible insects: Nutritional quality, cooking properties and sensory characteristics evaluation. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 57, 2750–2757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mandolesi, S.; Naspetti, S.; Zanoli, R. Exploring edible insects’ acceptance through subjective perceptions: A visual Q study. J. Insects Food Feed. 2022, 8, 565–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, H.S.G.; van den Berg, E.; Stieger, M. The influence of product preparation, familiarity and individual traits on the consumer acceptance of insects as food. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 52, 222–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verbeke, W. Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a Western society. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 39, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hazarika, A.K.; Kalita, U.; Khanna, S.; Kalita, T.; Choudhury, S. Diversity of edible insects in a Natural World Heritage Site of India: Entomophagy attitudes and implications for food security in the region. PeerJ 2020, 8, e10248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hlongwane, Z.T.; Slotow, R.; Munyai, T.C. Nutritional Composition of Edible Insects Consumed in Africa: A Systematic Review. Nutrients 2020, 12, 2786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shiv, B.; Fedorikhin, A. Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making. J. Consum. Res. 1999, 26, 278–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Martins, Y.; Pliner, P. Human food choices: An examination of the factors underlying acceptance/rejection of novel and familiar animal and nonanimal foods. Appetite 2005, 45, 214–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, H.S.G.; Fischer, A.R.H.; Tinchan, P.; Stieger, M.; Steenbekkers, L.P.A.; van Trijp, H.C.M. Insects as food: Exploring cultural exposure and individual experience as determinants of acceptance. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 42, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, H.S.G.; Fischer, A.R.H.; van Trijp, H.C.M.; Stieger, M. Tasty but nasty? Exploring the role of sensory-liking and food appropriateness in the willingness to eat unusual novel foods like insects. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 48, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, H.S.G.; House, J. Consumer acceptance of insects as food: Integrating psychological and socio-cultural perspectives. In Edible Insects in Sustainable Food Systems; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 375–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ros-Baró, M.; Sánchez-Socarrás, V.; Santos-Pagès, M.; Bach-Faig, A.; Aguilar-Martínez, A. Consumers&rsquo. Acceptability and Perception of Edible Insects as an Emerging Protein Source. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 15756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halloran, A.; Flore, R. A New world of ingredients: Aspiring Chefs’ Opinions on insects in gastronomy. In Edible Insects in Sustainable Food Systems; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuccillo, F.; Marino, M.G.; Torri, L. Italian consumers’ attitudes towards entomophagy: Influence of human factors and properties of insects and insect-based food. Food Res. Int. 2020, 137, 109619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lensvelt, E.J.S.; Steenbekkers, L.P.A. Exploring Consumer Acceptance of Entomophagy: A Survey and Experiment in Australia and the Netherlands. Ecol. Food Nutr. 2014, 53, 543–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menozzi, D.; Sogari, G.; Veneziani, M.; Simoni, E.; Mora, C. Eating novel foods: An application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to predict the consumption of an insect-based product. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 59, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myers, G.; Pettigrew, S. A qualitative exploration of the factors underlying seniors’ receptiveness to entomophagy. Food Res. Int. 2018, 103, 163–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Verneau, F.; La Barbera, F.; Kolle, S.; Amato, M.; Del Giudice, T.; Grunert, K. The effect of communication and implicit associations on consuming insects: An experiment in Denmark and Italy. Appetite 2016, 106, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Modlinska, K.; Adamczyk, D.; Goncikowska, K.; Maison, D.; Pisula, W. The effect of labelling and visual properties on the acceptance of foods containing insects. Nutrients 2020, 12, 2498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gmuer, A.; Nuessli Guth, J.; Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. Effects of the degree of processing of insect ingredients in snacks on expected emotional experiences and willingness to eat. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 54, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skinner, J.D.; Carruth, B.R.; Bounds, W.; Ziegler, P.J. Children’s Food Preferences: A Longitudinal Analysis. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2002, 102, 1638–1647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Cosmi, V.; Scaglioni, S.; Agostoni, C. Early Taste Experiences and Later Food Choices. Nutrients 2017, 9, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Melgar-Lalanne, G.; Hernández-Álvarez, A.J.; Salinas-Castro, A. Edible Insects Processing: Traditional and Innovative Technologies. In Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety; Blackwell Publishing Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ingredient | Control g | 10% Insect Meal g | 20% Insect Meal g | 30% Insect Meal g |
---|---|---|---|---|
Milk | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100.0 |
Eggs | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 |
Oil [g] | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 |
Salt | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Wheat flour | 92 | 83 | 65 | 50 |
Insect meal | 0 | 9.2 | 18.4 | 27.6 |
Statement |
---|
1. I was afraid of trying the pancakes. |
2. All pancake variants looked equally appetizing. |
3. The addition of insect meal discouraged me from trying the pancakes. |
4. The flavour of pancakes with insects added positively surprised me. |
5. I would like to try other products with an addition of insects. |
6. I might consider incorporating pancakes with the addition of insects into my diet. |
7. I would recommend others try pancakes with an addition of insect meal. |
Sample | Designation | Energy kcal | Protein g | Fat g | Carbohydrates g | Ash g | Fibre g | Moisture g |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control | C | 255.32 c ± 3.1 | 8.13 b ± 0.19 | 7.93 a ± 0.1 | 34.23 a ± 0.88 | 0.98 a ± 0.05 | 1.13 a ± 0.06 | 40.32 a ± 1.22 |
T. molitor | 10% Mw | 263.74 b ± 2.4 | 9.29 a ± 0.54 | 9.15 b ± 0.12 | 29.39 b ± 0.76 | 0.96 a ± 0.01 | 1.26 b ± 0.01 | 40.68 a ± 0.94 |
(larve) | 20% Mw | 269.66 b ± 2.3 | 10.53 bc ± 0.68 | 10.84 b ± 0.52 | 24.33 c ± 0.45 | 0.96 a ± 0.01 | 1.35 b ± 0.01 | 43.02 a ± 0.95 |
30% Mw | 275.86 d ±2.6 | 11.73 c ± 0.38 | 12.37 e ± 0.22 | 19.65 cd ± 0.66 | 0.97 b ± 0.05 | 1.46 c ± 0.04 | 41.47 b ± 1.05 | |
A. diaperinus | 10% Bw | 260.87 a ± 1.9 | 9.98 a ± 0.16 | 8.70 b ± 0.37 | 29.73 bc ± 0.43 | 0.91 b ± 0.02 | 1.22 c ± 0.05 | 40.73 ab ± 1.29 |
(larve) | 20% Bw | 266.67 b ± 1.7 | 11.99 c ± 0.85 | 9.96 bc ± 0.45 | 25.05 c ± 0.33 | 0.87 c ± 0.04 | 1.27 c ± 0.05 | 40.63 ab ± 1.20 |
30% Bw | 260.87 a ± 2.1 | 14.00 d ± 0.29 | 11.10 e ± 0.1 | 20.55 ac ± 0.77 | 0.86 c ± 0.04 | 1.33 c ± 0.04 | 40.84 bc ± 0.61 | |
A. domesticus | 10% Cr | 260.87 a ± 0.9 | 10.48 bc ± 0.44 | 8.50 b ± 0.19 | 29.64 e ± 0.55 | 0.99 a ± 0.05 | 1.32 a ± 0.01 | 39.09 d ± 0.46 |
(imago) | 20% Cr | 260.87 a ± 2.7 | 13.05 e ± 0.34 | 9.54 bc ± 0.29 | 24.69 ce ± 0.88 | 1.12 b ± 0.04 | 1.51 d ± 0.01 | 40.53 ac ± 0.65 |
30% Cr | 260.87 a ± 3.2 | 15.66 ef ± 0.66 | 10.46 d ± 0.18 | 19.94 cd ± 0.26 | 1.21 b ± 0.06 | 1.70 e ± 0.08 | 43.03 a ± 0.92 |
Sample | Designation | L* | a* | b* | ΔE | Bl |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control | C | 48.89 a ± 2.21 | −0.49 a ± 0.25 | 24.15 abc ± 1.06 | 64.13 a ± 6.78 | |
T. molitor | 10% Mw | 55.90 cd ± 1.20 | 2.14 bc ± 0.31 | 23.47 abc ± 1.83 | 3.83 | 55.21 a ± 5.38 |
(larve) | 20% Mw | 57.68 d ± 1.54 | 5.66 e ± 0.82 | 24.54 bc ± 2.33 | 4.39 | 60.86 a ± 7.00 |
30% Mw | 67.23 e ± 2.19 | 8.35 f ± 0.79 | 25.31 c ± 1.22 | 9.41 | 54.93 a ± 3.56 | |
A. diaperinus | 10% Bw | 52.51 bc ± 1.87 | 1.74 b ± 0.18 | 24.04 abc ± 0.82 | 7.39 | 61.17 a ± 5.44 |
(larvae) | 20% Bw | 52.48 abc ± 2.43 | 2.98 cd ± 0.23 | 23.74 abc ± 1.29 | 10.2 | 62.09 a ± 5.69 |
30% Bw | 57.68 d ± 1.54 | 3.82 d ± 0.60 | 23.72 abc ± 1.11 | 19.98 | 55.97 a ± 3.99 | |
A. domesticus | 10% Cr | 50.70 ab ± 2.63 | 1.36 b ± 0.18 | 21.66 a ± 1.52 | 3.2 | 55.64 a ± 6.03 |
(imago) | 20% Cr | 51.16 ab ± 0.92 | 3.52 d ± 0.75 | 22.34 ab ± 1.45 | 4.19 | 60.24 a ± 4.90 |
30% Cr | 56.94 d ± 1.61 | 5.06 e ± 0.68 | 25.56 c ± 1.66 | 9.36 | 64.08 a ± 7.65 |
Sample | Designation | Hardness [N] | Cohesiveness [N] |
---|---|---|---|
Control | C | 1.670 a ± 0.044 | 0.760 a ± 0.040 |
A. diaperinus | 10% Bw | 1.664 a ± 0.015 | 0.753 a ± 0.031 |
(larvae) | 20% Bw | 1.667 a ± 0.039 | 0.760 a ± 0.020 |
30% Bw | 1.677 a ± 0.035 | 0.760 a ± 0.040 | |
T. molitor | 10% Mw | 1.680 a ± 0.034 | 0.780 ab ± 0.020 |
(larvae) | 20% Mw | 1.677 a ± 0.026 | 0.760 a ± 0.040 |
30% Mw | 1.906 b ± 0.098 | 0.793 ab ± 0.031 | |
A. domesticus | 10% Cr | 2.027 bc ± 0.108 | 0.827 ab ± 0.031 |
(imago) | 20% Cr | 2.112 c ± 0.065 | 0.833 ab ± 0.023 |
30% Cr | 2.844 d ± 0.026 | 0.860 b ± 0.040 |
Sample | Designation | Taste | Odour | Appearance | Structure | Preference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control | C | 7.09 a ± 2.86 | 7.36 ab ± 2.90 | 8.27 ce ± 2.00 | 7.22 cef ± 2.66 | 7.29 ab ± 2.78 |
T. molitor | 10% Mw | 6.06 ae ± 2.61 | 7.70 b ± 2.66 | 6.67 abce ± 2.60 | 6.15 abc ± 2.82 | 6.23 abde ± 2.61 |
(larve) | 20% Mw | 4.70 bde ± 3.07 | 6.66 abc ± 3.05 | 6.45 abc ± 3.03 | 6.17 abc ± 2.44 | 5.08 cde ± 2.65 |
30% Mw | 3.25 bc ± 2.98 | 5.96 abc± 3.14 | 5.17 ad ± 2.95 | 5.27 abd ± 2.93 | 3.35 fgh ± 3.08 | |
A. diaperinus | 10% Bw | 5.83 ade ± 2.75 | 6.30 abc ± 2.61 | 6.77 abce ± 2.59 | 6.67 bcef ± 2.83 | 5.78 acde ± 2.94 |
(larvae) | 20% Bw | 4.29 bcd ± 2.58 | 6.04 abc ± 2.85 | 5.83 abd ± 2.58 | 5.47 abd ± 2.90 | 4.22 cgh ± 2.81 |
30% Bw | 3.11 bc ± 3.01 | 5.07 c ± 3.20 | 4.54 ad ± 2.88 | 4.99 ad ± 2.84 | 3.09 fg ± 2.75 | |
A. domesticus | 10% Cr | 6.60 a ± 2.49 | 6.75 abc ± 2.42 | 6.20 abc ± 2.73 | 6.42 abce ± 2.53 | 6.73 abe ± 2.35 |
(imago) | 20% Cr | 4.81 bde ± 2.56 | 7.18 abc ± 8.20 | 4.67 ad ± 2.61 | 5.58 abc ± 2.46 | 4.82 cdh ± 2.31 |
30% Cr | 2.71 c ± 2.56 | 5.34 ac ± 2.93 | 3.70 d ± 3.31 | 3.83 d ± 2.95 | 2.51 f ± 2.49 |
Type of Additive | Regression Equation | R2 | F |
---|---|---|---|
Control | y = 0.032x1 + 0.691x2 − 0.064x3 + 0.330x4 | 0.92 | 47.402 |
A. diaperinus (in general) | y = 0.160x1 + 0.687x2 + 0.099x4 | 0.87 | 65.972 |
T. molitor (in general) | y = 0.141x1 + 0.691x2 + 0.081x4 | 0.87 | 82.495 |
A. domesticus (in general) | y = 0.237x1 + 0.545x2 + 0.162x4 | 0.89 | 79.672 |
Components of Attitudes | Positive | Ambivalent | Negative |
---|---|---|---|
1. I was afraid of tasting cakes | 13.33% | 6.67% | 80.00% |
2. All variants of the pancakes looked equally delicious | 33.33% | 5.00% | 61.67% |
3. The addition of insect meal discouraged me from tasting the pancakes | 63.33% | 6.67% | 30.00% |
4. The taste of the pancakes with the addition of edible insects surprised me positively | 43.33% | 21.67% | 35.00% |
5. I would like to try other products with the addition of insects | 48.33% | 20.00% | 31.67% |
6. I could include insect pancakes in my diet | 58.33% | 15.00% | 26.67% |
7. I would recommend that others try pancakes with the addition of insect meal | 65.00% | 15.00% | 20.00% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 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
Mazurek, A.; Palka, A.; Skotnicka, M.; Kowalski, S. Consumer Attitudes and Acceptability of Wheat Pancakes with the Addition of Edible Insects: Mealworm (Tenebrio molitor), Buffalo Worm (Alphitobius diaperinus), and Cricket (Acheta domesticus). Foods 2023, 12, 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12010001
Mazurek A, Palka A, Skotnicka M, Kowalski S. Consumer Attitudes and Acceptability of Wheat Pancakes with the Addition of Edible Insects: Mealworm (Tenebrio molitor), Buffalo Worm (Alphitobius diaperinus), and Cricket (Acheta domesticus). Foods. 2023; 12(1):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12010001
Chicago/Turabian StyleMazurek, Aleksandra, Agnieszka Palka, Magdalena Skotnicka, and Stanisław Kowalski. 2023. "Consumer Attitudes and Acceptability of Wheat Pancakes with the Addition of Edible Insects: Mealworm (Tenebrio molitor), Buffalo Worm (Alphitobius diaperinus), and Cricket (Acheta domesticus)" Foods 12, no. 1: 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12010001