An Approach to the Spanish Consumer’s Perception of the Sensory Quality of Environmentally Friendly Seabass
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Fish and Sampling Procedure
2.2. Sensory Assessors’ Selection and Procedure
2.3. Sensometrics Assays (CATA and PM)
2.3.1. CATA Analysis
2.3.2. Projective Mapping (PM)
2.3.3. Comparative Study between Methods (CATA vs. PM)
2.4. Statistical Analyses
2.5. Ethical Statement
3. Results
3.1. CATA
Penalty Analysis
3.2. Projective Mapping
3.3. Comparative Study between Methodology (CATA vs. PM)
4. Discussion
4.1. CATA
4.2. Projective Mapping
4.3. Comparative Study between Methodology (CATA vs. PM)
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018; The Sustainable Development Goals; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2018; ISBN 978-92-5-130688-8. [Google Scholar]
- Fishery Statistics. Eurostat Statistics Explained. 2016. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Fisherystatist (accessed on 5 August 2017).
- Calanche, J.; Beltrán, J.; Hernández, A. Aquaculture and sensometrics: The need to evaluate sensory attributes and the consumers’ preferences. Rev. Aquac. 2019, 12, 805–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tacon, A.G.; Hasan, M.R.; Metian, M. Demand and Supply of Feed Ingredients for Farmed Fish and Crustaceans: Trends and Prospects; Fish Technical Paper; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2011; ISBN 978-92-5-106933-2. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations (UN). Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment (accessed on 23 March 2020).
- Neori, A.; Troell, M.; Chopin, T.; Yarish, C.; Critchley, A.; Buschmann, A.H. The need for a balanced ecosystem approach to blue revolution aquaculture. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2007, 49, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qannari, A. Sensometrics approaches in sensory and consumer. Research Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2017, 15, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alexi, N.; Byrne, D.; Nanoub, E.; Grigorakis, K. Investigation of sensory profiles and hedonic drivers of emerging aquaculture fish species. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 98, 1179–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lê, S.; Lê, T.M.; Cadoret, M. Rapid Sensory Profiling Techniques and Related Methods; Elsevier: Kidlington, UK, 2015; pp. 197–213. [Google Scholar]
- Ares, G.; Barreiro, C.; Deliza, R.; Giménez, A.; Gámbaro, A. Application of a check-all-that-apply question to the development of chocolate milk desserts. J. Sens. Stud. 2010, 25, 67–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valentin, D.; Chollet, S.; Nestrud, M.; Abdi, H. Projective Mapping & Sorting Tasks. In Descriptive Analysis in Sensory Evaluation, 1st ed.; Kemp, S.E., Hort, J., Hollowood, T., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 535–559. [Google Scholar]
- Dehlholm, C.; Brockhoff, P.B.; Meinert, L.; Aaslyng, M.D.; Bredie, W.L.P. Rapid descriptive sensory methods—Comparison of free multiple sorting. partial napping. napping. flash profiling and conventional profiling. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 26, 267–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Risvik, E.; McEwan, J.; Redbotten, M. Evaluation of sensory profiling and projective mapping data. Food Qual. Prefer. 1997, 8, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Commission Regulation (EC) No. 889/2008. 2008. Laying down Detailed Rules for the Implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on Organic Production and Labelling of Organic Products with Regard to Organic Production, Labelling and Control. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2008/889/oj (accessed on 1 August 2021).
- ISO 8589:2007. In Sensory Analysis—General Guidance for the Design of Test Room; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
- ISO 5492:2008. In Sensory Analysis—Vocabulary; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
- Codex Alimentarius. Guidelines for the Sensory Evaluation of Fish and Shellfish in Laboratories CAC-GL3. 1999. Available online: www.codexalimentarius.com (accessed on 15 January 2020).
- Ares, G.; Tárrega, A.; Izquierdo, L.; Jaeger, S. Investigation of the number of consumers necessary to obtain stable sample and descriptor configurations from check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 31, 35–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hough, G.; Wakeling, I.; Mucci, A.; Chambers, E., IV; Mendéz, I.; Rangel, L. Number of consumers necessary for sensory acceptability tests. Food Qual. Prefer. 2006, 17, 522–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seafish. Sensory Assessment Scoresheets for Fish and Shellfish—Torry & QIM. Research & Development Department, UK. 2010. Available online: https://seafoodacademy.org/pdfs/sensory-assessment-scoresheets.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2021).
- AZTI. Frescura del Pescado: Guía Visual Para su Evaluación Sensorial; Publicaciones AZTI-Tecnalia; AZTI: San Sebastian, Spain, 2008; pp. 123–128. ISBN 978-84-930876-2-3. [Google Scholar]
- Jaeger, S.; Beresford, M.; Paisley, A.; Antúnez, L.; Vidal, L.; Silva, R.; Giménez, A.; Ares, G. Check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions for sensory product characterization by consumers: Investigations into the number of terms used in CATA questions. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 42, 154–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ares, G.; Jaeger, S. Check-all-that-apply questions: Influence of attribute order on sensory product characterization. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 28, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cadena, R.S.; Caimi, D.; Jaunarena, I.; Lorenzo, I.; Vidal, L.; Ares, G.; Deliza, R.; Gimenez, A. Comparison of rapid sensory characterization methodologies for the development of functional yogurts. Food Res. Int. 2014, 64, 446–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Valentin, D.; Chollet, S.; Lelièvre, M.; Abdi, H. Quick and dirty but still pretty good: A review of new descriptive methods in food science. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 47, 1563–1578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esmerino, E.; Tavares, E.; Thomas, B.; Ferraz, J.; Silva, H.; Pintoc, L.; Freitac, M.; Cruz, A.; Bolinia, H. Consumer-based product characterization using Pivot Profile. Projective Mapping and Check-all-that-apply (CATA): A comparative case with Greek yogurt samples. Food Res. Int. 2017, 99, 375–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fleming, E.; Ziegler, G.; Hayes, J. Check-all-that-apply (CATA). Sorting. and polarized sensory positioning (PSP) with astringent stimuli. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 45, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meyners, M.; Castura, J.C.; Carr, B.T. Existing and new approaches for the analysis of CATA data. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 30, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekström, J. The phi-Coefficient. The Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficient and the Pearson-Yule Debate. UCLA. Dept. of Statistic Papers. 2011. Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7qp4604r (accessed on 7 June 2020).
- Pagès, J.; Berthelo, S.; Brossier, M.; Gourret, D. Statistical penalty analysis. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 32, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pagès, J. Collection and analysis of perceived product inter-distances using multiple factor analysis: Application to the study of 10 white wines from the Loire Valley. Food Qual. Prefer. 2005, 16, 642–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Varela, P.; Berget, I.; Hersleth, M.; Carlehög, M.; Asioli, D.; Naes, T. Projective mapping based on choice or preference: An affective approach to projective mapping. Food Res. Int. 2017, 100, 241–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carlucci, D.; Nocella, G.; De Devitiis, B.; Viscecchia, R.; Bimbo, F.; Nardone, G. Consumer purchasing behavior towards fish and seafood products. Patterns and insights from a sample of international studies. Appetite 2015, 84, 212–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lazo, O.; Claret, A.; Guerrero, L. A comparison of two methods for generating descriptive attributes with trained assessors: Check-all-that-apply (CATA) vs. free choice profiling (FCP). J. Sens. Stud. 2016, 31, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Llobell, F.; Cariou, V.; Vigneau, E.; Labenne, A.; Qannari, E. A New approach for the analysis of data and the clustering of subjects in a CATA experiment. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 72, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reig, L.; Escobar, C.; Carrassón, M.; Constenla, M.; Gil, J.M.; Padrós, F.; Piferrer, F.; Flos, R. Aquaculture perceptions in the Barcelona metropolitan area from fish and seafood wholesalers, fishmongers and consumers. Aquaculture 2019, 510, 256–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banovica, M.; Reindersb, M.; Claret, A.; Guerrero, L.; Krystallis, A. “One Fish. Two Fish. Red Fish. Blue Fish”: How ethical beliefs influence consumer perceptions of “blue” aquaculture products? Food Qual. Prefer 2019, 77, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vasconi, M.; Caprino, F.; Bellagamba, F.; Moretti, V. Fatty Acid Composition of Gilthead Sea Bream (Sparus aurata) Fillets as Affected by Current Changes in Aquafeed Formulation. Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2017, 17, 451–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alhabeeb, M.J. On consumer trust and product loyalty. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2007, 31, 609–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Claret, A.; Guerrero, L.; Ginés, R.; Grau, A.; Hernández, M.D.; Aguirre, E.; Peleteiro, J.; Fernández-Pato, C.; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, C. Consumer beliefs regarding farmed versus wild fish. Appetite 2014, 79, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Socio-Demographic Data | Purchase Data | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variable | Categories | Frequency (%) | Variable | Categories | Frequency (%) |
Gender | Male | 60 | Buyer of fresh whole seabass | NO | 59 |
Female | 40 | YES | 41 | ||
Nationality | National | 70 | Place of purchase of fish | Hypermarket | 5 |
Foreigner | 30 | Food market | 7 | ||
Ages | 18–24 | 27 | Purchase frequency of fish | Supermarket | 88 |
25–34 | 34 | >once a week | 2 | ||
35–44 | 16 | once a week | 32 | ||
45–54 | 12 | <once a week | 39 | ||
55–65 | 11 | <once a month | 27 | ||
Economic status | Salaried | 57 | Way of sale (only fresh seabass) | Whole fish | 39 |
Self-employed | 10 | Eviscerated fish | 61 | ||
Unemployed | 4 | ||||
Student | 29 | ||||
Home income (per month) | <900 EUR | 16 | Size (only fresh seabass) | Big (600–1000 g) | 24 |
901–1800 EUR | 23 | Medium (400–600 g) | 68 | ||
1801–3000 EUR | 37 | Small (200–400 g) | 7 | ||
>3000 EUR | 22 | ||||
Children at home | NO | 82 | Origin (only fresh seabass) | Imported | 59 |
YES | 18 | Local | 41 |
No. | CODE | I. Odor | No. | CODE | II. Meat color |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | SWE | Sweet smell | 16 | YEL | Yellowish |
2 | BMILK | Boiled milk | 17 | WHI | White |
3 | COF | Corn flour | 18 | TTD | Toasted |
4 | SHF | Shellfish | 19 | PAL | Pale |
5 | SWD | Seaweed | 20 | PNK | Pink |
6 | BMEAT | Boiled meat | 21 | GRE | Greyish |
7 | GP | Green plant | |||
8 | NEU | Neutral | No. | CODE | IV. Texture |
9 | WSH | Wood shaving | 33 | COH | Cohesive |
10 | VAN | Vanilla | 34 | SUC | Succulent |
11 | TFF | Toffee | 35 | CRM | Creamy |
12 | CMILK | Condensed milk | 36 | LUM | Lumpy |
13 | BPOT | Boiled potato | 37 | PAS | Pasty |
14 | MKY | Milky | 38 | JUI | Juicy |
15 | LAC | Lactic acid | 39 | FIB | Fibrous |
40 | DRY | Dry | |||
No. | CODE | III. Flavor/Taste | 41 | SFT | Soft |
22 | WTY | Watery | 42 | CRB | Crumbly |
23 | MET | Metallic | 43 | FLO | Floury |
24 | STA | Starchy | 44 | CHW | Chewy |
25 | SWT | Sweet | 45 | FIR | Firm |
26 | MEATY | Meaty | |||
27 | VEG | Vegetable | |||
28 | FAI | Faint | |||
29 | INS | Insipid | |||
30 | SOR | Sour | |||
31 | BIT | Bitter | |||
32 | SUL | Sulphuric |
Attributes | CODE | p-Value | TESTED DIETS (Proportion Means) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CONTROL | 25% ECO | 30% ECO | 35% ECO | |||
Shellfish odor | SHF | 0.830 | 0.450 a | 0.470 a | 0.420 a | 0.430 a |
Seaweed odor | SWD | 0.463 | 0.300 a | 0.310 a | 0.350 a | 0.270 a |
White color | WHI | 0.034 * | 0.570 a | 0.720 a | 0.630 a | 0.720 a |
Toasted color | TTD | 0.003 * | 0.260 b | 0.160 ab | 0.110 a | 0.110 a |
Greyish color | GRE | 0.004 * | 0.160 b | 0.090 ab | 0.180 b | 0.050 a |
Sour taste | SOR | 0.046 * | 0.150 b | 0.040 a | 0.090 ab | 0.090 ab |
Faint flavor | FAI | 0.030 * | 0.110 a | 0.180 ab | 0.220 ab | 0.250 b |
Soft texture | SFT | 0.017 * | 0.150 a | 0.140 a | 0.200 ab | 0.290 b |
Variable | Level | Frequency | % | Sum (LIKING) | Mean (LIKING) | Mean Drops | Standardized Difference | p-Value | Significant | Penalties |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NEU | P(N)I(Y) | 80 | 20 | 248 | 3.10 | 0.35 | 1.476 | 0.304 | No | |
P(Y)I(Y) | 24 | 6 | 83 | 3.45 | 0.232 | |||||
WHI | P(N)I(Y) | 100 | 25 | 293 | 2.93 | 0.41 | 3.410 | 0.001 | Yes | |
P(Y)I(Y) | 228 | 57 | 763 | 3.34 | 0.248 | |||||
MEATY | P(N)I(Y) | 102 | 25.5 | 290 | 2.84 | 1.21 | 8.092 | <0.0001 | Yes | |
P(Y)I(Y) | 70 | 17.5 | 284 | 4.05 | 0.990 | |||||
FAI | P(N)I(Y) | 86 | 21.5 | 254 | 2.95 | 0.13 | 0.644 | 0.796 | No | |
P(Y)I(Y) | 34 | 8.5 | 105 | 3.08 | −0.166 | |||||
JUI | P(N)I(Y) | 100 | 25 | 281 | 2.81 | 0.99 | 5.821 | <0.0001 | Yes | |
P(Y)I(Y) | 52 | 13 | 198 | 3.80 | 0.653 | |||||
SFT | P(N)I(Y) | 144 | 36 | 446 | 3.09 | 0.51 | 3.097 | 0.006 | Yes | |
P(Y)I(Y) | 52 | 13 | 188 | 3.61 | 0.431 | |||||
CRB | P(N)I(Y) | 112 | 28 | 354 | 3.16 | 0.36 | 2.310 | 0.056 | No | |
P(Y)I(Y) | 68 | 17. | 240 | 3.52 | 0.349 |
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
Calanche Morales, J.B.; Tomás-Vidal, A.; Cusiyunca Phoco, E.R.; Martínez-Llorens, S.; Marquina, P.L.; Jover-Cerdá, M.; Roncalés, P.; Beltrán, J.A. An Approach to the Spanish Consumer’s Perception of the Sensory Quality of Environmentally Friendly Seabass. Foods 2021, 10, 2694. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10112694
Calanche Morales JB, Tomás-Vidal A, Cusiyunca Phoco ER, Martínez-Llorens S, Marquina PL, Jover-Cerdá M, Roncalés P, Beltrán JA. An Approach to the Spanish Consumer’s Perception of the Sensory Quality of Environmentally Friendly Seabass. Foods. 2021; 10(11):2694. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10112694
Chicago/Turabian StyleCalanche Morales, Juan Benito, Ana Tomás-Vidal, Edilson Ronny Cusiyunca Phoco, Silvia Martínez-Llorens, Pedro L. Marquina, Miguel Jover-Cerdá, Pedro Roncalés, and José Antonio Beltrán. 2021. "An Approach to the Spanish Consumer’s Perception of the Sensory Quality of Environmentally Friendly Seabass" Foods 10, no. 11: 2694. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10112694