Premium honeys: Response of sensory panelists

Food Quality andPreference

(1991/2)

215-221

PREMIUMHONEYS: RESPONSEOFSENSORYPANELISTS Ruthann B. Swanson

& Carol E. Lewis

Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99’775-0080, USA (Received 28 November 1991; accepted 8 February 1993)

honeys in the US market are typically an ungraded blend relatively consistent in flavor and color. A small but growing segment of the retail honey market consists of exotic premium-priced honeys (Humann, 1991). In this gourmet market, single source or natural blends from floral sources of regional significance are commercially important (White, 1978). These products are further characterized by variability in color and flavor depending on seasonal and environmental factors. Environmental conditions influence color more than flavor; flavor is influenced primarily by floral source (White, 1978). Alaskan honeys are relatively new entrants in the gourmet market. In 1990, there were approximately 1000 bee colonies in Alaska which produced 60 000 lb of honey (Petersen, 1991). Important floral sources are fireweed, raspberry, wild rose, willow and clovers (Petersen, 1989). The relative acceptability of these honeys is unknown. The evaluation of the relative acceptability of similar food products may be enhanced by the use of the R-index when ranking is employed. This signal detection method allows detection of differences that may be easily obscured when traditional scaling techniques are used (O’Mahony, 1985). Although psychophysically valid, this technique has been applied to few food products and investigation of its use with products differing in sensory properties has been suggested (Vie et al., 1991). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative acceptability and willingness of consumers to buy selected Alaskan honeys using the R-index and the more traditionally applied ranked sums procedures. In affluent Western countries, it is likely that a large number of similar products from various production locations and floral sources will compete for market share. Factors such as nutrition, health and safety, as well as cost and availability, influence the consumers’ selection of a specific alternative product. Therefore, these factors were assessed in a survey. Some physical characteristics of these honeys were also determined using instrumental techniques as an indicator of similarity of the samples.

ABSTRACT Four honeys and one synthetic ‘honey ’ were ranked by 62 panelists for relative acceptability; willingness to buy was ranked after price information was provided. Data were analyzed with the R-index procedure and Friedman ranked sums test. Honey floral source and production location differed. Panelists completed a questionnaire concerningfood selection and perception and selection of honey. Instrumental techniques were used to characterize the honeys. Honey was perceived b these panelists to have a unique$avor and positive image. Alaska wild?ower; a fireweed table honey and Alaska $reweed/clover the most acceptable. Acceptability

were

did not necessarily

correspond to willingness to buy. Similar results were obtained from both the R-index lyses. The instrumental

and rank sums ana-

assessment of color and ac-

ceptability were significantly correlated. Generally, characteristics that distinguish premium from table honeys were unimportant

in the selection process used

by these panelists. Keywords: Premium honeys, Acceptability, R-index, Rank sums test.

INTRODUCTION Honey the

consumption

1980s

has been

in the USA and

increasing

in the other

throughout nine

major

In the USA, the largest increases have been in the processing and food service sectors; however, increases in the use of retail honey have also occurred (Hoff & Phillips, 1989). Retail honey

producing

countries.

0 1993 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd 0950-3293/93/$06.00 215

216

Ruthann B. Swanson, CarolE. Lewis

MATERIALS

AND

METHODS

Panelists The panelists (N = 62; 36M, 26F) were university employees, students and their friends. All but one panelist had attended college and 56.4% were college graduates; more than half (51.6%) were full-time students. Nearly all resided in households with four or less members; more than half lived in households with one or two members. Age distribution between the ages of 18 and 54 was platykurtic. When compared to the population over 18 years of age in the Fairbanks North Star Borough (Gramstad, 1991), these respondents were slightly younger and better educated. Average household size was about the same. Only panelists who had obtained honey during the last year were selected to carry out the sensory evaluation and complete the survey on a single day in April 1991. Of these, 75.8% used honey several times per month or more. The majority (87.1%) also consumed processed foods that contained honey. Approximately threequarters (75.8%) of them were the principal household food purchaser and 87.1% were the principal household food preparer.

Samples Three premium Alaskan honeys harvested in the fall of 1990 and one mass-produced table honey were evaluated. A synthetic ‘honey’ processed from Alaskan fireweed and clover blossoms and sucrose also was included.

Instrumental

analyses

Moisture content based on refractive index was determined in triplicate using the AOAC methods (Horwitz, 1975) with a Abbe-3L refractometer (Milton-Roy Co., Rochester, NY). Viscosity was determined in duplicate using a viscometer (Model DV-II, Brookfield Engineering Laboratories, Inc., Stroughton, MA) equipped with a helipath stand at a spindle speed of 12. A T-bar spindle E was used for the analysis. The room temperature was 21°C. A Lovibond 2000 Comparator (Tintometer Co., Williamsburg, VA) equipped with United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) honey color class discs was used to determine color. An Altex pH meter (Model 3500, Beckman Instruments, Inc., San Ramon, CA) was used to determine the pH in triplicate.

Sensory analyses Panelists ranked the five samples in order of relative acceptability. Samples were presented in clear plastic cups coded with three-digit random numbers and

tasted with white plastic spoons. Water at room temperature was provided for rinsing. Panelists were instructed to cleanse their palate by eating a portion of an unsalted cracker. No suggestion of retasting was made. The positions of the honey samples were randomized. Testing took place in a central location (Vie et aZ., 1991). Instructions and interaction with the panelists were both verbal and written; panelists did not interact with each other. After ranking for relative acceptability, the panelists were given price information for the honeys and asked to rank the samples in order of willingness to buy. It was not suggested that the ranking should change. Panelists were reminded that they had just sampled the products being evaluated and could retaste them if they wished. Prices of an 8 ounce jar of honey were $3.00 for the Alaska wildflower, a multifloral blend, $4.00 for the Alaska fireweed, and $3.50 for the Alaska fireweed-clover blend. The mass-produced table fireweed honey was $1.19. The price of the synthetic ‘honey’ was $0.89. After completing the sensory tests, panelists were asked to complete a survey. This survey was pilot-tested, revised and again pilot-tested prior to administering it to these panelists. Questions were either forcedchoice or open-ended. Questions elicited information regarding food selection in general, panelists’ opinions of honey and their honey consumption patterns. Completion of the sensory tests and the survey took approximately 15-20 min.

Data analysis Instrumental data except color measurements were analyzed by analysis of variance; a Student NewmanKeuls test was used for means separation ( p < 0.05). R-index values were calculated for the sensory data (Vie et al, 1991). The R-index estimates the probability that these consumers will choose a given honey sample over the baseline sample. Increasing values between 0.50 and 1.0 indicate increasing likelihood that a given sample will be preferred over the baseline sample. A Friedman ranked sums test for all treatments ( p < 0.05) was also used to analyze the sensory data (Watts et al, 1989). Kendall’s coefficient of concordance ( W) was used to determine the degree to which the panelists agreed with each other’s rankings of the honeys for relative acceptability and willingness to buy. The probability that ranking changed with price information was determined with the Goodman-Kruskal G coefficient (Daniel, 1990). Correlations between instrumental and sensory data were determined with Spearman’s rank procedure, when appropriate (Trant et al, 1981). For the survey data, the frequency of response was tabulated and significant relationships between variables were delineated using chi-square analysis ( p < O-05), when appropriate (SAS Institute, Inc., 1990).

Premium Honeys TABLE 1. Characteristics

of Honeys

2 17

Evaluated

Honey type

Moisture‘* (%)

Alaska wildflower Purchased fireweed Alaska fireweedclover Alaska synthetic Alaska fireweed

Viiosity ’ (% Brookfield)

16.1a 16.9b 17.2~ 19.4d 16.2a

Color d

33.7c 29.5b 281b 11.5a 42.5d

pH ’

White White Extra white Extra white Water white

4.23d 3.88b 4.Olc 3.62a 4.03c

“Means of three replicates; means followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Student Newman-Keuls test ( p < 0.05). ‘Moisture was based on refractive indices determined with an Abbe-3L refractometer. ‘Means of two replicates determined with a Brookfield viscometer equipped with a helipath stand at a T-bar spindle E speed of 12 rev/min; means followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Student Newman-Keuls test (P
Comparator.

RESULTS Chemical

AND

DISCUSSION

and physical characteristics

of the honeys

The chemical and physical characteristics of the honeys are reported in Table 1. Significant differences were found in the moisture content of the honeys evaluated. However, all except the synthetic ‘honey’ were below the maximum limit (186%) specified by USDA for the top two grades (White, 1978). Significant differences in viscosity were found, despite evaluation of the honeys under constant temperature conditions. Temperature, water content, and floral source determine honey viscosity. The color of honey according to the USDA classification ranges from water white to dark amber (White, 1975) with amber the typical color of retail honeys in the US market (Humann, 1991). The measurement of the color of the honeys in this trial showed it to be lighter than that of the most common retail honeys in the USA. Honey color is related to its mineral content and is characteristic of the floral source; mineral content has been reported to be lower in the two lightest color classes (White, 1978). Significant variation in TABLE 2. R-indices and Friedman

Rank Sums from

Honey

color of the fireweed honeys from different production locations was observed. The pH of these honeys was significantly different. However, all of the samples evaluated including the synthetic product were at the more acidic end of the range (3.42-6.10) reported in the literature (White, 1978). Overall, these honeys had very similar chemical and physical characteristics.

Acceptability

of the honeys

The Alaska wildflower, mass-produced fireweed and Alaska fireweedclover honeys did not differ and were the most preferred (Table 2) according to rank sums analyses. The R-indices also indicated that these honeys were the most acceptable. The Alaska fireweed honey, the least preferred sample, served as the baseline for calculating the R-indices. Both tests indicated that the Alaska synthetic was less acceptable than the three top ranked samples. This product approximated the acceptability of the Alaska fireweed honey, the baseline sample. In general, there was a consensus among the panelists regarding the overall ordering of samples for acceptability; Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) was 0.13 [X2 = 31.00 (df= 4, N= 62) p< 0.0051. Rankings

for Acceptability

and Willingness

to Buy when Price was

Known

Degree of acceptability Honey

Willingnessto buy

R-index

Honey

tYPe

we

Alaska wildflower Mass-produced fireweed Alaska fireweed/clover Alaska synthetic Alaska fireweed “Rank sum values within a column

Price (8 02)

0.73 0.71 0.70 0.53 0.50 followed

by different

150b 165b 169b 218a 228a

Mass-produced fireweed Alaska wildflower Alaska synthetic Alaska fireweed-clover Alaska fireweed

letters are significantly

different

( p < 0.05).

$1.19 $3.00 $0.89 $3.50 $4.00

R-index

Rank SUIYISfl

0.87 0.84 0.78 0.78 0.50

133c 163bc 173bc 197b 264a

218

Ruthann B. Swanson, Carol E. Lewis

TABLE 3. Panelists’ Perception of Honey

Statement

Concept

Image

No. of respondents

% of respondents saying: Strongly agree

Agree

Slightly agree

Diiee

Is too expensive Is a pure and natural product Usually contains additives and preservatives Is high in calories Is better for you than sugar

62 61

1.6 32.8

6.5 44.3

33.9 16.4

58.1 6.5

61

1.6

3.3

29.5

65.6

61 60

11.5 20.0

57.4 38.3

21.3 23.3

9.8 18.3

Product attributes

Has a unique flavor Improves food flavor Improves food texture Lighter the color, the better the quality

62 62 61 58

58.1 19.4 8.2 3.4

41.9 56.5 29.5 6.9

0 19.4 34.4 15.5

0 4.8 27.9 74.1

Handling and storage

Is difficult to cook with Is messy to use Can’t be stored for a long time

59 62 62

0 9.7 3.2

5.1 29.0 9.7

15.2 46.8 9.7

79.7 14.5 77.4

The Alaska fireweed honey, which was the least preferred

and most expensive

honey evaluated,

the least likely to be purchased was

provided.

honeys

However,

did not necessarily

to buy once

of the panelists nation

the

were

most

middle

should

of

tended price

Goodman-Krnskal association

between

instructions change,

rankings

to move

up or down

to change

However,

G coefficient, the rankings

indicated one

in the to

the strength

when

the

of the

for acceptability

to buy [Kendall’s

that place

Panelists

ranked

according

willingness to buy was O-73. Panelists were also in concordance the samples for willingness

75%

An exami-

was provided. samples

other

to willingness

panelist’s

scale.

the

their rankings.

information

likely the

not necessarily

did change

of individual

when

correspond

for

the price was known. Despite

that the rankings

the ranking

once price information

preference

Panelists’ honey selection criteria

remained

and

ranking

coefficient

W = 0.25; X2 = 62.00 (df = 4, N = 62) of concordance p < 0.0051. In general, there was an increase in the R-index values after price information was provided and the range of rank sums values also increased. The mass-produced fireweed which did not differ in acceptability from the Alaska wildflower and fireweed-clover honeys, but was less expensive, was statistically most likely to be purchased once the price was known. The synthetic ‘honey’ which was less liked but was the least expensive product evaluated, was more likely to be purchased when the price was known (Table 2). These changes suggest that price is used as a criterion when these panelists select among similar appropriately priced products. According to survey responses, honey is not perceived by these panelists to be too expensive (Table 3).

Although the table honey most frequently found in US supermarkets is a branded, ungraded blend, relatively consistent in color and flavor (Humann, 1991), honeys available in urban Alaska are typically graded, with floral source and production location identified. Gourmet or exotic honeys rely on their production location and floral source for market appeal (Hoff & Phillips, 1989). However, less than one-third of these panelists indicated that production location or brand name were either fairly or very important in their selection among available honeys (Table 4). Floral source, a major determinant of flavor, was a fairly or very important selection criterion for 50%. Interestingly, flavor was an important selection criterion for 85% (Table 4). The majority of these panelists further indicated that they were typically brand and label conscious (Table 5). It has been previously suggested that consumers primarily read labels to ascertain whether chemical preservatives and additives are present (Sloan, 1985). In this study, 82% of the respondents agreed to some extent (slightly agree, 34%; agree, 35%; strongly agree, 13%) that they would prefer to purchase organic or natural foods when available. The relative unimportance of label information on honeys may reflect the perception by most of these panelists that honey is a pure and natural product that does not contain additives and preservatives (Table 3). Panelists may also be unaware of the relationship between flavor and floral source. Only 54.7% of those panelists (n = 53) who regarded flavor as important in their selection of honeys also identified floral source as an important selection criterion.

Premium Honqrs

2 19

TABLE 4. Honey Selection Criteria Concept

Parameter

No. of respondents

% of respondentssaying: very important

Fairly important

Slightly important

Not at all important

Quality

Flavor Color Floral source Geographic location of production Grade

62 62 62 62 61

56.5 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.2

29.0 21.0 41.9 19.4 29.5

11.3 43.5 29.0 25.8 36.0

3.2 27.4 21.0 46.8 26.2

Marketing

Price Brand name Type of container

62 62 62

16.1 3.2 8.1

41.9 11.3 21.0

32.3 27.4 40.3

9.6 58.1 30.6

A significant sessment -0.95).

As color

creasingly milder, panelists the

(White,

the

product

differs

colors

1978).

Indeed,

responding quality’

instrumental was found from

are

became the

to the

survey

(Table

3).

inwith

sponse

may be task related

the survey immediately characteristics

of

these

as the panelists

after

of reference

honeys

the lightest

honeys

(Table color

of these

panelists

(Table

dis-

However,

this re-

cate

that

color

honey

than

(Table

4).

2). Survey responses is of lesser

most other

by the

do, however, indi-

importance

parameters

the

was the least ac-

and the least likely to be purchased

the color,

The

probably

1). Among

ceptable

query

answered

the honeys.

particular

served as a frame evaluated,

tasting

are more

the majority

that ‘the lighter

as(rs =

general

associated

flavors and therefore

with the statement

better

the

This

lighter

pleasant

when

between

acceptability

darkened,

that

more

acceptable

and

acceptable.

assumption

agreed

relationship

of color

in selecting

that affect

quality

TABLE 5. Panelists’ Attitudesabout Food Selection Concept

Statement

No. of respondents

% of respondentssaying: Strongly

Agree

SWtly ape

Disagree

agree Importance of quality

Brand/label conscious

When making a food purchase, quality is more important than price Quality of products available from speciality shops is usually better than similar products available in the supermarket Nutritional value is an important factor in my food selection Usually read labels to identify processing methods or ingredients used in food products Generic brands are just as good as brand name foods I usually do not purchase a similar product if my favorite brand is not available

62

25.8

32.3

35.5

6.5

60

8.3

25.0

35.0

31.7

62

45.2

51.6

3.2

0

61

26.2

36-l

19.7

18.0

61

9.8

21.3

45.9

22.9

62

4.8

8.1

30.6

56.5

220

Ruthann B. Swanson, CarolE. Lewis

Nearly 73% of the panelists in this study obtained honey most frequently from the supermarket, although 67.1% also obtained honey from other sources. There was a general impression among two-thirds of these panelists that the quality tends to be at least slightly better if the product is available in speciality shops as opposed to supermarkets (Table 5). At present, Alaskan honeys are marketed primarily through farmers’ markets, gift and gourmet shops and health food stores (Petersen, 1991). No significant relationships between purchase point for honeys and frequency of use, production location, floral source, or grade were discernable with chi-square analysis ( p > 0.05). There was a trend, although nonsignificant, toward the increasing importance of production location and grade when the respondents purchased food as gifts. More than half (66.1%) of these panelists purchased food as gifts and more than a quarter (25.8%) had received honey as a gift.

Perception

of honeys

All of these panelists agreed or strongly agreed that honey has a unique flavor. Most agreed that the honey improves food flavor. They were divided on its effects on food texture (Table 3). In national surveys, consumers in the USA claim to use honey for both textural and flavor effects (National Honey Board, 1989). By far, the majority of these panelists disagreed with the statement that honey was difficult to use in cooking, although they agreed that it was messy to use. They also indicated that storage of honey was not a problem (Table 3). US consumers sampled nationally report that honey is added to a wide array of home prepared food items (National Honey Board, 1989). Less than 20% of these panelists disagreed with the statement that honey is better for you than sugar, indicating that honey had a somewhat healthy image among this group despite the perception by most of them that it is high in calories. This result mirrors the opinions of US consumers sampled nationally (National Honey Board, 1989). These panelists were not told that a synthetic product was included among the samples evaluated. In national surveys in the USA, artificial honey is regarded with strong disfavor by consumers (National Honey Board, 1989). Honey has a nutritious image and an artificial product is perceived to lack positive nutritional attributes. Panelists in this study indicated that nutrition was an important quality criterion in food selection in general (Table 5). If these panelists were also to react negatively to an artificial honey product, this impression may have overridden the effect of price in ranking of the synthetic ‘honey’ for willingness to buy. This further suggests the usefulness of survey data in interpreting the results of sensory tests.

CONCLUSIONS Relative preference for the honeys evaluated differed; panelists tended to agree among themselves regarding the overall ranking of the samples. Price may also influence their selection in the marketplace, especially among samples perceived to be similar in acceptability. Product characteristics which typically distinguish premium from table honeys with the exception of flavor were unimportant when these panelists selected among available products. Many panelists were unaware of label information that could help identify a preferred flavor. The R-index and rank sums analyses provided similar information on relative acceptability and willingness to buy these honeys. Both were useful in assessing the effects of price information on willingness to buy similar honey products. The R-index did not provide more information about the relative acceptability and willingness to buy the samples evaluated than was found in the rank sums analysis. Information obtained from the survey data, in some cases, allowed the sensory data from the acceptability and willingness to buy analyses to be qualified and substantiated. This is important as consumers are increasingly using factors other than relative quality and price to make marketplace decisions. The usefulness of these tests in assessing the relative preference of honeys has been demonstrated.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks are expressed to Stephen Petersen, Toklat Apiaries, Fairbanks, AK for providing the honey samples used in this study; Mary Wright provided the synthetic product evaluated. The able assistance of Cathy Birklid in conducting the sensory panel and statistical analyses is appreciated. The refractive indices were determined with the assistance of Dr Mary Keskinen, Department of Geology/Geophysics, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

REFERENCES Daniel, W. W. (1990). Applied Nonparametric Statistics, 2nd edn. PWSKent Gramstad, Research

Publishing

Company,

M. (1991).

Personal

Center,

Fairbanks

banks, AK.

Boston,

MA.

communication. North

Star

Community Borough,

Fair-

Premium Honeys Hoff, F. L. & Phillips, J. K. (1989). Honey: background for the 1990 Farm Legislation. Commodity Economics Division, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture Staff Report No. AGES 89-43, Washington, DC. Horwitz, W. (ed.) (1975). O&ial Methods ofAnalysis of the Association of Oficial Analytical Chemists. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC. Humann, M. (1991). Personal communication. National Honey Board, Longmont, CO. National Honey Board (1989). Consumers love honey. Honey Hotline 4. O’Mahony, M. (1985). Sensory Evaluation of Food: Statistical Methods and Procedures. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 38997. Petersen, S. F. (1989). Beekeeping under the northern lights, American BeeJournal, 129(l), 33-5. Petersen, S. F. (1991). Personal communication. Interior Alaska Beekeepers Association, Fairbanks, AK.

221

SAS Institute, Inc. (1990). SAS User? Guide, Statistics. SAS Institute, Inc., Raleigh, NC. Sloan, A. E. (1985). Chemical confusion. Food Engineering, 57(9) 72. Tram, A. S., Pangbom, R. M. & Little, A. C. (1981). Potential fallacy of relating hedonic responses with physical and chemical measurements. Jownal of Food Science, 46, 583-8. Vie, A., Gulli, D. & O’Mahony, M. (1991). Alternative hedonic measures. Journal ofFood Science, 56, l-5,46. Watts, B. M., Ylimaki, G. L., Jeffery, L. E. & Elias, L. G. (1989). Basic Sensory Methods for Food Evaluation. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, pp. 65-7. White, J. W. (1975). Physical characteristics of honey. In Honqr A Comprehensive Survey, ed. E. Crane. Heinemann, London, pp. 207-39. White, J. W. (1978). Honey. Advances in Food Research, 24, 288-354.