| Literature DB >> 35938086 |
Irene Rumbidzai Mazhangara1, Eliton Chivandi2, Ishmael Festus Jaja1,3.
Abstract
There are strong perceptions regarding chevon consumption, with its strong aroma and smell and its stringiness and gaminess being chief among them. Processing chevon into by-products has resolved this negative perception associated with fresh chevon. A blind and nonblind comparative sensory evaluation was performed to investigate participant preference for the chevon sausage versus pork and beef sausages. The sausages were made from minced shoulder meat. After grilling the sausages, they were cut into 0.5 cm thick slices. There were 52 and 20 participants in the blind and nonblind sensory evaluations, respectively. Using a 9-point hedonic scale, the participants evaluated each sausage for its juiciness, flavor, tenderness, and overall satisfaction. During the blind sensory evaluation, the participants were also asked to identify one of the most distinct sausages since the identity of the sausages was not known. The results showed no significant differences (P > 0.05) in the preferences for any of the sausages during the blind sensory evaluation. The choice for the most distinct sausage showed that pork (57.69%), beef (32.69%), and chevon (9.62%) sausages were all recognized. In the nonblind sensory, knowledge of the identity of the sausage significantly (P < 0.05) influenced South African participants' liking of the chevon sausage, with pork and chevon being the most and least liked sausages, respectively.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35938086 PMCID: PMC9355773 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8736932
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Food Sci ISSN: 2314-5765
Proximate composition of beef, chevon, and pork sausages.
| Parameter (%) | Sausage type | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Beef | Chevon | Pork | |
| Moisture | 69.29 ± 0.877 | 72.90 ± 1.252 | 74.27 ± 1.322 |
| Protein | 25.60 ± 0.990 | 22.75 ± 0.071 | 25.92 ± 0.849 |
| Total fat | 10.60 ± 0.141 | 7.40 ± 0.424 | 15.35 ± 0.636 |
| Ash | 1.00 ± 0.042 | 1.01 ± 0.078 | 1.16 ± 0.007 |
Values expressed as mean ± SD, n = 2.
Demographic data of participants.
| Variable | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | 25 | 34.72 |
| Male | ||
| Female | 47 | 65.28 |
| Age | ||
| <20 | 3 | 4.17 |
| 20-25 | 27 | 37.50 |
| 26-30 | 26 | 36.11 |
| 31-40 | 14 | 19.44 |
| 41-50 | 2 | 2.78 |
| Nationality | ||
| South Africa | 53 | 73.61 |
| Nigeria | 11 | 15.28 |
| Zimbabwe | 6 | 8.33 |
| Uganda | 1 | 1.39 |
| Botswana | 1 | 1.39 |
Hedonic scores∗ for each sausage and attribute in blind sensory.
| Chevon sausage | Beef sausage | Pork sausage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tenderness | |||
| SA | 7.46bA ± 0.94 | 8.05aA ± 0.86 | 8.44aA ± 0.75 |
| NSA | 8.23aB ± 0.83 | 8.08aA ± 0.76 | 8.23aA ± 0.73 |
| Flavor | |||
| SA | 7.82aA ± 1.02 | 8.13aA ± 0.86 | 8.28aA ± 0.69 |
| NSA | 8.31aA ± 0.75 | 8.39aA ± 0.77 | 8.15aA ± 0.80 |
| Juiciness | |||
| SA | 7.56bA ± 1.10 | 8.31aA ± 0.73 | 8.36aA ± 0.74 |
| NSA | 8.31aB ± 0.86 | 8.39aA ± 0.77 | 8.15aA ± 0.80 |
| Overall satisfaction | |||
| SA | 7.39bA ± 1.04 | 8.18aA ± 0.79 | 8.46aA ± 0.68 |
| NSA | 8.23aB ± 0.83 | 8.15aA ± 0.80 | 8.46aA ± 0.66 |
∗9-point hedonic scale: 1 = dislike extremely, 2 = dislike very much, 3 = dislike moderately, 4 = dislike slightly, 5 = neither dislike nor like, 6 = like slightly, 7 = like moderately, 8 = like very much, and 9 = like extremely. SA = South African participant; NSA = non-South African participant. a,bMean with superscripts across a row indicates significant differences (P < 0.05). A,BMean with superscripts within a column indicates significant differences (P < 0.05).
Figure 1Percentage of participants who identified the chevon, beef, or pork sausage as being the most distinct of the three sausages (a). Contribution biplot representing the average liking of each sausage (b).
Figure 2Tenderness (a), flavor (b), and juiciness (c) of sausages based on the evaluation in the blind and nonblind sensory analyses. a,bMeans that are different on the same sausage indicate significant differences (P < 0.05). B1 = South Africans in blind sensory analysis; B2 = non-South Africans in blind sensory analysis; N1 = South Africans in nonblind sensory analysis; N2 = non-South Africans in nonblind sensory analysis. ∗9-point hedonic scale: 1 = dislike extremely, 2 = dislike very much, 3 = dislike moderately, 4 = dislike slightly, 5 = neither dislike nor like, 6 = like slightly, 7 = like moderately, 8 = like very much, and 9 = like extremely.
Figure 3Overall satisfaction (a) and liking (b) of sausages based on the evaluation in the blind and nonblind sensory analyses. a,bMeans that are different on the same sausage indicate significant differences (P < 0.05). B1 = South Africans in blind sensory analysis; B2 = non-South Africans in blind sensory analysis; N1 = South Africans in nonblind sensory analysis; N2 = non-South Africans in nonblind sensory analysis.