A comparison of consumer response using paper and digital ballots for eating quality assessment of beef steaks

K. T. Mahagan, A. Garmyn, J. Legako, Mark F. Miller
{"title":"A comparison of consumer response using paper and digital ballots for eating quality assessment of beef steaks","authors":"K. T. Mahagan, A. Garmyn, J. Legako, Mark F. Miller","doi":"10.22175/mmb.12611","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A consumer study was conducted to determine if consumers scored beef palatability traits differently on paper vs. digital ballots. Beef subprimals were collected to represent four treatments with inherent variation in eating quality: USDA Select eye round aged 7 d postmortem, USDA Select strip loin aged 7 d postmortem, USDA Choice tenderloin aged 21 d postmortem, and USDA Prime strip loin aged 21 d postmortem. Accessory muscles, external fat, and connective tissue were removed from subprimals. Muscles were fabricated into 2.5 cm steaks and further divided into 2 equal halves for consumer testing. Consumers (n = 360) were served eight samples divided into two blocks representing the two ballot types. Select longissimus lumborum samples were always served in the first and fifth position to start each ballot block, with the remaining three treatments served in a randomized order between the latter three positions within each ballot block. Consumers rated each steak sample for tenderness, juiciness, flavor liking, and overall liking on either a paper or digital ballot, and then rated the paired steak halves on the opposite ballot during the second block of sample testing. Ballot type influenced (P < 0.02) all traits, as consumers scored tenderness, juiciness, flavor liking, and overall liking greater (P < 0.05) on paper ballots compared to digital ballots, regardless of treatment. The smallest margin between paper and digital ballots was observed for tenderness, where scores only differed by 1.8 units. However, juiciness, flavor liking, and overall liking all differed by 3.4 units in favor of paper ballots. Consumers scored palatability traits greater on paper ballots compared to digital ballots, and these findings were consistent across a range of eating quality outcomes. These results should be considered when comparing past consumer testing results using paper balloting systems to those where digital ballots were used.","PeriodicalId":18316,"journal":{"name":"Meat and Muscle Biology","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Meat and Muscle Biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.12611","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A consumer study was conducted to determine if consumers scored beef palatability traits differently on paper vs. digital ballots. Beef subprimals were collected to represent four treatments with inherent variation in eating quality: USDA Select eye round aged 7 d postmortem, USDA Select strip loin aged 7 d postmortem, USDA Choice tenderloin aged 21 d postmortem, and USDA Prime strip loin aged 21 d postmortem. Accessory muscles, external fat, and connective tissue were removed from subprimals. Muscles were fabricated into 2.5 cm steaks and further divided into 2 equal halves for consumer testing. Consumers (n = 360) were served eight samples divided into two blocks representing the two ballot types. Select longissimus lumborum samples were always served in the first and fifth position to start each ballot block, with the remaining three treatments served in a randomized order between the latter three positions within each ballot block. Consumers rated each steak sample for tenderness, juiciness, flavor liking, and overall liking on either a paper or digital ballot, and then rated the paired steak halves on the opposite ballot during the second block of sample testing. Ballot type influenced (P < 0.02) all traits, as consumers scored tenderness, juiciness, flavor liking, and overall liking greater (P < 0.05) on paper ballots compared to digital ballots, regardless of treatment. The smallest margin between paper and digital ballots was observed for tenderness, where scores only differed by 1.8 units. However, juiciness, flavor liking, and overall liking all differed by 3.4 units in favor of paper ballots. Consumers scored palatability traits greater on paper ballots compared to digital ballots, and these findings were consistent across a range of eating quality outcomes. These results should be considered when comparing past consumer testing results using paper balloting systems to those where digital ballots were used.
消费者对牛排食用质量评估的纸质和数字投票反应的比较
进行了一项消费者研究,以确定消费者在纸质选票和数字选票上对牛肉可口性特征的评分是否不同。收集了四种具有食用质量内在差异的处理方法:美国农业部精选死后7天的圆眼牛肉,美国农业部精选死后7天的里脊肉,美国农业部精选死后21天的里脊肉和美国农业部精选死后21天的里脊肉。从皮下切除附属肌肉、外部脂肪和结缔组织。肌肉被制作成2.5厘米的牛排,并进一步分成两等份供消费者测试。消费者(n = 360)被提供了8个样本,分为两个块,代表两种选票类型。选择的腰最长肌样本总是在第一个和第五个位置开始每个投票块,其余三个处理以随机顺序在每个投票块的后三个位置之间进行。消费者在纸质或数字投票上对每份牛排样品的嫩度、多汁性、风味喜好和总体喜好进行评分,然后在第二部分样本测试中,在相反的投票上对成对的两半牛排进行评分。选票类型对所有特征都有影响(P < 0.02),因为无论处理方式如何,消费者对纸质选票的柔软度、多汁性、风味喜好度和总体喜好度的评分都高于数字选票(P < 0.05)。纸质选票和电子选票之间的差距最小,在温柔方面的得分仅相差1.8个单位。然而,多汁性、口味喜好度和总体喜好度都比纸质选票高3.4个单位。与数字选票相比,消费者对纸质选票的适口性评分更高,这些发现在一系列饮食质量结果中是一致的。在比较过去使用纸质投票系统和使用数字投票系统的消费者测试结果时,应该考虑这些结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信