Processed Meats in Schools: Putting Children at Risk for Cancer
Sensory Evaluation of Processed Meats Purpose
3
6/25/2015 1 68 th RECIPROCAL MEAT CONFERENCE Sensory Evaluation of Processed Meats LINDA PAPADOPOULOS, PH.D. , LP & ASSOCIATES, AND RACHEL GLASCOCK, TYSON FOODS, INC. 68 TH RECIPROCAL MEAT CONFERENCE Purpose • Follow up & extension to recently published Fresh Meats Guidelines • Processed meats excluded • Processed meats more complex • What factors to consider when designing? • Best practices to maximize test sensitivity How does Sensory Testing Differ? The sensory testing principles are the same, but with processed meat… More Factors to Consider Carcass to carcass variability + muscle to muscle variability + processing parameters + preparation method* = increased complexity More product categories to consider More consumer segmentation and flavor preferences BBQ Types, Spice level, etc. More complex questionnaire Increased number of attributes, different scale types 68 TH RECIPROCAL MEAT CONFERENCE Research Roadmap 1. Set a precise test objective 2. Select the appropriate test method 3. Execute the research 4. Analyze the data 5. Interpret the results 68 TH RECIPROCAL MEAT CONFERENCE Points to consider when designing a test What are you trying to learn? How will the results be used? How big of a difference are you trying to detect? How much variability is there within samples? How many factors do you need to test? DOE? The answers to these questions will help determine… • The right test method • Sample size • Location • Target respondent • How the test will be run • Questionnaire design 68 TH RECIPROCAL MEAT CONFERENCE Sensory Test Methods QUANTITATIVE *Statistically Analyzed ◦ Discrimination – method & panelist key ◦ Triangle, Tetrad, Duo-Trio ◦ Trained vs. untrained consumer ◦ Consumer panelists screened vs. unscreened ◦ Acceptance/Affective Testing (CLT, In-Home Use Test) ◦ Hedonic, JAR, Intensity, Open-Ended ◦ Descriptive Analysis QUALITATIVE *Directional Guidance (fewer panelists) ◦ Focus Groups ◦ Online Message Boards
Transcript of Sensory Evaluation of Processed Meats Purpose
6/25/2015
1
68th RECIPROCAL MEAT CONFERENCE
Sensory Evaluation of Processed Meats
LINDA PAPADOPOULOS, PH.D. , LP & ASSOCIATES, AND RACHEL GLASCOCK, TYSON FOODS, INC.
68TH RECIPROCAL MEAT CONFERENCE
Purpose
• Follow up & extension to recently published Fresh Meats Guidelines• Processed meats excluded
• Processed meats more complex• What factors to consider when designing?
• Best practices to maximize test sensitivity
How does Sensory Testing Differ?
The sensory testing principles are the same, but with processed meat…
More Factors to Consider Carcass to carcass variability + muscle to muscle variability + processing parameters + preparation method* = increased complexity
More product categories to consider
More consumer segmentation and flavor preferencesBBQ Types, Spice level, etc.
More complex questionnaireIncreased number of attributes, different scale types
68TH RECIPROCAL MEAT CONFERENCE
Research Roadmap
1. Set a precise test objective 2. Select the appropriate
test method
3. Execute the research 4. Analyze the
data
5. Interpret the results
68TH RECIPROCAL MEAT CONFERENCE
Points to consider when designing a test
What are you trying to learn?
How will the results be used?
How big of a difference are you trying to detect?
How much variability is there within samples?
How many factors do you need to test? DOE?
The answers to these questions will help determine…• The right test method• Sample size• Location• Target respondent • How the test will be run• Questionnaire design
68TH RECIPROCAL MEAT CONFERENCE
Sensory Test Methods
QUANTITATIVE
*Statistically Analyzed◦ Discrimination – method &
panelist key◦ Triangle, Tetrad, Duo-Trio
◦ Trained vs. untrained consumer
◦ Consumer panelists screened vs. unscreened
◦ Acceptance/Affective Testing (CLT, In-Home Use Test) ◦ Hedonic, JAR, Intensity, Open-Ended
◦ Descriptive Analysis
QUALITATIVE
*Directional Guidance (fewer panelists)
◦ Focus Groups
◦ Online Message Boards
6/25/2015
2
68TH RECIPROCAL MEAT CONFERENCE
Descriptive analysis panel to characterize
the differences.
Discrimination panel to determine if differences
are detectable.
Determining the Test Method
Maybe or No Yes
Qualitative Consumer
Evaluations
Preference test
Acceptance test with hedonics and intensity
and/or JAR scales
Quantitative Consumer Evaluations
YesNo
Differences detectable?
Which one ispreferred?
How do they differ in acceptability?
What is your hypothesis and/or objective(s)?
Differences detectable or
expected to be detectable?
Testing complete, test objectives met
How do the differences detected affect acceptability?
68TH RECIPROCAL MEAT CONFERENCE
Successful Sensory Testing
Control all sources of variability
Account & Accommodate for all sources of variability
Target the right respondent
68TH RECIPROCAL MEAT CONFERENCE
Control, Account, Accommodate: Sample acquisition
Where were samples made/purchased?
• Bench-top vs. Pilot Plant vs. pulled from production vs. grocery store
Product Age and Storage
• All samples tested at similar age
• Minimum aging time – 14+ days
How many batches/lots? • Academia – research focused, 3 reps• Industry- objective; cost/benefit/risk; production run vs. pilot plant
How many pulls/packages within batch?
• Reflect production run – beginning/middle/end
• Whole muscle: carcass to carcass variability
68TH RECIPROCAL MEAT CONFERENCE
Control, Account, Accommodate: Sample preparation
Select preparation method based on test objective
◦ If >1 preparation method:◦ Frequency of prep method
◦ May not be the predominant cooking method
◦ Best sensitivity & consistent product quality
◦ More likely to uncover/result in detectable differences?
◦ Use multiple preparation methods?
68TH RECIPROCAL MEAT CONFERENCE
Control, Account, Accommodate: Product Holding Considerations
Holding method selection◦ Minimum change to product integrity
◦ Consistent temperature
◦ Appearance, flavor, texture, breading texture
◦ How typically held – foodservice, etc.
Holding time
◦ Establish minimum & maximum
◦ Typical hold time - foodservice
68TH RECIPROCAL MEAT CONFERENCE
Execute the Research:Serving considerations
StandardizeAmount: Enough, but not too much • Representative
sample
• Account for variability
• Don’t overwhelm
Serve in application?
• Sandwich/bun vs. product only
• Test objective
Serving Temperature
• Consistently achievable, yet allow for any sensory differences to be detected
Time in between samples
• Minimize taste bud fatigue
• Number of samples per session
• Flavor profile
Avoid introducing variability
6/25/2015
3
68TH RECIPROCAL MEAT CONFERENCE
Execute the Research: Cheat Sheet
Product Amount Special Factors to consider
Dinner sausage links Serving size 2 ½” to 3” Trim off ends or include?
Hot dogs ½ to 1 whole link; ¼” coins for DA texture analysis
Breakfast Sausage; Links
2 links
Breakfast Sausage;Chubs (Patties)
2 patties Remove ends of chub and do not serve exterior slices.
68TH RECIPROCAL MEAT CONFERENCE
Execute the Research: Cheat Sheet
Product Amount Special Factors to consider
Lunch meats (pre-sliced cooked meats)
Serve 1-2 whole slices per treatment.
Discard outer 1-2 slices from package due to color fading and damaged slices.
Bacon 2 slices What degree of doneness?
Battered/breaded meats
2-3 nuggets, 1 strip, 1 fillet, 1 thigh, 1 breast
Do not store in a humid environment – i.e. wrapped in foil on a tray.
Whole Muscle Marinated Meats
2 oz slices What degree of doneness? With vs. without sauce/gravy?
Let’s taste some processed meats!
68TH RECIPROCAL MEAT CONFERENCE
JAR Results & Penalty Analysis
0.98
0.40
0.20
0.20
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Too firm/rubbery
Overall flavor too weak
Too moist
Surface too wet
Total Penalty - Processed
3%
43%
10%
20%
0% 0%
76%
50%
80%
70%
56%52%
21%
7% 10% 10%
44%48%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
SurfaceWetness
SurfaceTexture
FlavorStrength
Saltiness Firmness Moistness
JAR Distribution - Processed
Not Enough JAR Too Much
Questions?
