such as aroma, texture, and flavor. Assessing Consumer Preferences of Therefore, it is critical that sensory Scab-resistant Apples: A Sensory Evaluation performances of these characteristics be evaluated for each apple. This in- formation helps growers make pro- Kathleen Kelley1,4,6, Jeffrey Hyde2,4, James Travis3,5, and duction and marketing decisions as Robert Crassweller1,5 breeders develop new cultivars, as lesser-known cultivars from abroad are imported, and as heirloom culti- ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS. attitudes, behaviors, marketing, demographic, local, vars are rediscovered. organic, segmentation, Malus ·domestica A substantial amount of research is necessary to determine the feasibil- SUMMARY. One hundred forty-nine consumers participated in a sensory evaluation, conducted on 14 Nov. 2008, at The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, ity of introducing consumer products PA, to determine consumer acceptance and perceptions of scab-resistant apples into the market place and assess po- (Malus ·domestica). Consumers were exclusively screened for liking and eating tential consumer demand. Among the apples. The study provides tree fruit growers and marketers in the mid-Atlantic tools available for this process, sensory United States with information on consumer preferences for apples that might evaluation is used by marketers to in- substitute for common cultivars that require frequent apple scab pesticide vestigate consumer preference for new applications. Resistant cultivars are also attractive in organic production systems. food products, helping to narrow po- During the 10-minute sensory evaluation, panelists rated five scab-resistant apples tential market introductions to a man- [‘Crimson Crisp’, ‘GoldRush’, NY 75907– 49 (NY 49), ‘Crimson Topaz’, and ageable number. In addition to being ‘Sundance’] and a commercially available non-resistant cultivar, Jonagold, on subjected to other selection criteria, appearance, aroma, texture, flavor, and overall liking using a nine-point hedonic scale (9 = ‘‘like extremely’’ and 1 = ‘‘dislike extremely’’). Three of the four apples many commonly recognized cultivars tested with a red peel (‘Crimson Topaz’, NY 49, and ‘Crimson Crisp’) were rated such as ‘Fuji’, ‘Braeburn’, and ‘Gala’ significantly higher than the other apples on the basis of appearance, receiving mean (McCracken et al., 1994) underwent ratings that were between ‘‘like moderately’’ and ‘‘like very much,’’ a rating of 7 and sensory evaluation before becoming 8, respectively. In regards to texture, ‘Crimson Topaz’ and ‘Crimson Crisp’ were readily available at grocery stores and significantly higher than ‘Jonagold’ and NY 49, with mean ratings between ‘‘like supermarkets. Retail introduction of slightly’’ and ‘‘like moderately.’’ For overall liking scores, ‘Crimson Crisp’, which a new apple cultivar is risky for pro- was rated between ‘‘like slightly’’ and ‘‘like moderately,’’ was not significantly ducers (because they must plant an different from ‘Crimson Topaz’ and ‘GoldRush’; however, ‘Crimson Crisp’ was orchard that may last for 25 or more rated higher than ‘Jonagold’, NY 49, and ‘Sundance’. Panelists also responded to years) and retailers (because they must questions regarding their food-purchasing attitudes and behaviors. Sixty-two percent of panelists purchased fresh apples for themselves and/or other household bear costs of advertising and promotion members at least ‘‘two or three times a month’’ during an average year. Only 2.7% and allocate shelf space that could go to responded that they purchased fresh apples ‘‘more than once a week.’’ This study of another product). Therefore, it would consumer preferences provides an initial assessment of the feasibility of marketing be ideal to identify cultivars that pro- new apple cultivars and organic apples within the mid-Atlantic U.S. region. Those vide consumers with direct (e.g., flavor, that performed well in the sensory evaluation should be candidates for additional texture, increased shelf life) and/or market research. indirect (e.g., countryoforigin,locally grown, certified organic, reduced pes- ticide use) benefits. s growers consider strategies apples labeled certified organic, pesticide- As interest in certified-organic to differentiate their busi- free,orintegrated pest management,itis products continues to increase in the Anesses and identify a competi- essential to investigate consumer at- United States, with further growth tive advantage, such as producing titudes toward these labels and to expected during the next decade (The determine if apples suitable for these NPD Group, 2009), apple cultivars Use of trade names does not imply endorsement of the production systems have a pleasing resistant to apple scab (caused by products named or criticism of similar ones not taste, texture, and visual appearance. the fungus Venturia inaequalis) are named. Consumers are able to accurately de- candidates to fulfill demand for or- The authors thank the Nesbitt Faculty Program De- velopment Award for funding this research. tect apple maturity based on visual ganic apples and provide concerned The authors also thank Julie Peterson and Ellen characteristics (Richardson-Harman growers with a tool to decrease pesti- Mahan, Sensory Evaluation Laboratory, Department et al., 1997), which can be an indica- cide use. Identifying scab-resistant of Food Science, Pennsylvania State University for tion of eating quality. However, this is apple cultivars (which tend to be less their assistance with the sensory evaluation. an imperfect indication because apples known to the average U.S. consumer) 1Department of Horticulture, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 with similar appearances may have suitable for production in scab-affected very different sensory characteristics regions and for fresh consumption has 2Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University, Uni- versity Park, PA 16802 3Department of Plant Pathology, The Pennsylvania Units State University, University Park, PA 16802 To convert U.S. to SI, To convert SI to U.S., 4Associate Professor multiply by U.S. unit SI unit multiply by 5 Professor 29.5735 fl oz mL 0.0338 6Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]. ( F – 32) O 1.8 F C(1.8· C) + 32
• October 2010 20(5) 885 RESEARCH REPORTS been the subject of a select number of Rock Spring, PA, according to the before being served and placed on research studies. These studies used Pennsylvania Tree Fruit Production each serving tray in a randomized various methods such as small groups Guide (Crassweller, 2008) and were order, along with a 5–fl oz glass of of panelists trained to describe sen- delivered to the laboratory 4 d before water (for panelists to use to cleanse sory attributes (e.g., crispness, juici- testing and stored in a 35 F walk- their palate) and a napkin. Blind ness, perfumed flavor) for several in cooler. ‘GoldRush’ apples were samples were served to reduce any (n = 24) cultivars (Kuhn and Thybo, grown at the Fruit Research and possible bias (Resurreccion, 1998) 2001) and sensory evaluations involv- Extension Center, Biglerville, PA, be- participants might have for a particular ing European or other foreign audi- cause they are a late-maturing cultivar apple. A nine-point hedonic scale (9 = ences (Cmelik et al., 2007). Other that benefit from a brief period of ‘‘like extremely,’’ 5 = ‘‘neither like studies have used conjoint analysis storage, and were delivered the morn- nor dislike,’’ 1 = ‘‘dislike extremely’’) to identify the most important attri- ing of the test. Additional selection was used to evaluate appearance, bute (e.g., taste, skin color, method criteria for apples were based on their aroma, texture, flavor, and overall of production, price) and level of resistance to apple scab either de- appeal (Meilgaard et al., 2008) of attribute (e.g., sweet/tart, red-skin/ scribed in the released papers or lesser-known scab-resistant fresh ap- green-skin, conventionally grown/ determined by the breeder and suit- ples. This scale was chosen to measure organically grown) to consumers after ability for eating fresh. likeability since it is easy to understand reading product descriptions (Baker, The test was limited to six apples with minimal instruction (Stone and 1999; Jerko and Damir, 2008; Manalo, to prevent sensory fatigue (Meilgaard Sidel, 2004). Evaluations took place 1990). Research results from such et al., 2008). The cultivar ‘Jonagold’, in individual testing booths, using studies have indicated the importance which is scab susceptible, was selected CompusenseÒ five software (Compu- of indicating reduced pesticide use to serve as a control since it is com- senseÒ, Guelph, ON, Canada), a sen- in the product description (Baker, mercially available and has been used sory and consumer research data 1999). as a reference sample in other evalua- collection program. Objectives specific to this study tions (Cmelik et al., 2007). A descrip- Each participant signed a consent include: 1) investigating whether lesser- tion of the sensory profile for apples form that they met the screener crite- known scab-resistant fresh apple cul- tested is presented in Table 1. The ria and acknowledged that they would tivars suitable for production in the protocol and survey instrument were receive an incentive to participate. mid-Atlantic U.S. region appeal to approved by the Office for Research They were then instructed to sit at consumers who were selected because Protections and Biomedical Institu- a computer-equipped booth and to they indicated that they liked apples tional Review Board at The Pennsyl- begin the sensory evaluation by using and frequently ate apple slices; and 2) vania State University. All fruit were either the mouse or the keyboard to better understanding the attitudes, harvested on the basis of the Generic select their responses from the com- behaviors, and demographics of con- Cornell Starch Iodine Chart rating puter screen. Panelists were first asked sumers who desire locally grown and of 4 to 6, which is considered opti- to evaluate the appearance of whole certified-organic apples. mum maturity for fresh consumption apple versions of samples, presented as (Miller et al., 2005). images on their computer screen, be- Materials and methods SENSORY EVALUATION PROCEDURE. fore evaluating the sample slices. Im- APPLES TESTED. A sensory evalu- Participants were recruited from the ages for each apple were presented ation was conducted on 14 Nov. 2008 university and local community through instead of real apples to preserve visual at the Sensory Evaluation Laboratory e-mail invitations sent to listserve quality throughout the evaluation and at The Pennsylvania State University, members, individuals who were re- to reduce visual variability between University Park, PA, to determine cruited by staff at the Sensory Evalu- apples. According to results from which lesser-known scab-resistant ation Laboratory or who asked to be a study where digital images were used fresh apples consumers preferred on added to the directory. All partici- to determine consumer preferences the basis of appearance, aroma, tex- pants were pre-screened to select con- for visual characteristics of apples, ture, flavor, and overall appeal. Ap- sumers who like apples and eat sliced digital imagery ‘‘is a powerful tool ples ‘Crimson Topaz’ (Brown and apples (Hampson et al., 2000). If their for controlling variation in visual sam- Maloney, 2008), ‘Jonagold’ (Greene answer to the screener criterion was ples’’ (Cliff et al., 2002). Each image et al., 1997), NY 75907–49 (NY 49; positive, they were asked to participate. included a side view, stem-end view, S. Brown, personal communication), A quantitative affective testing ap- and blossom-end view. Panelists were ‘Sundance’ (Janick et al., 2004), proach, conducted with an untrained then instructed to evaluate the aroma, ‘GoldRush’ (Crosby et al., 1994), panel, was implemented to determine texture, flavor, and overall liking for and ‘Crimson Crisp’ (Janick et al., the target audience’s level of accept- the corresponding apple slices. After 2006) were chosen on the basis of ability and preference (Meilgaard et al., all samples were evaluated, panelists previous sensory evaluations as show- 2008) for apples tested. were asked to rank them in order from ing promise for fresh market use During the sensory evaluation, most preferred to least preferred (Miller et al., 2005, 2007). However, apples were cored and cut into 10 (Resurreccion, 1998). they are not prevalent on retail slices of similar size, and three slices Panelists were then directed to shelves. Hence, the need to determine of each sample were served in clear answer a variety of psychographic and consumer acceptability is warranted. plastic cups labeled with three-digit behavioral questions that pertained to Five of the six apples were grown blinding codes. To minimize un- the following: 1) the frequency with at the Horticulture Research Farm, wanted browning, apples were cut just which they purchase fresh apples for
886 • October 2010 20(5) Table 1. Description of sensory characteristics for six scab-resistant apples evaluated during a sensory evaluation conducted on 14 Nov. 2008. Apples tested Sensory characteristics and descriptions ‘Crimson Crisp’ Cream-colored flesh and red peel. Very good rich flavor that is moderately acid and spicy. Parentage: CFW2–134 (a New Jersey selection) · PRI 669–205, from PRI program.z ‘Crimson Topaz’ Cream-colored flesh and red peel. Sharp sweet–tart combination flavor that is somewhat similar to ‘Granny Smith’. Parentage: ‘Vanda’ · ‘Rubin’, from the Czech Republic. NY 49 Red peel. High sugar-to-acid ratio with a white flesh and good firmness and crisp texture. Parentage: ‘Empire’ · ‘Redfree’, from a cross made in 1979 at the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station. ‘GoldRush’ Fruit are dark yellow with an occasional pink–orange blush. Flavor is tart to very tart at harvest, but changes in storage to a sub-acid slightly sweet in flavor. Parentage: Co-op 17 · ‘Golden Delicious’, from PRI program. ‘Jonagold’y Bicolor red over yellow peel. Fruit are sweet–tart and very juicy. Parentage: ‘Golden Delicious’ · ‘Jonathan’, from the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, introduced in 1968. ‘Sundance’ Whitish to cream flesh color and greenish color peel. Flavor is described as sweet and tart. Parentage: ‘Golden Delicious’ · PRI 1050–201 (1050NJ1), from PRI program. zThe PRI disease-resistant apple-breeding program is cooperative among Purdue University; Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; and University of Illinois. y‘Jonagold’ was selected to serve as a scab-susceptible control since it is commercially available and has been used as a reference sample in other evaluations (Cmelik et al., 2007). themselves and/or other household analyzed with SPSS (version 17; SPSS, of participants (69.1%) indicated that members; 2) the most important fac- Chicago, IL) using Pearson’s chi- no one in the household was a vege- tor when purchasing fresh apples to be square statistic (P £ 0.05). tarian, 24.2% responded that ‘‘a ma- eaten raw (e.g., apple cultivar or type, jority of the foods [they] eat are fruits apple sweetness/tartness level, price); Results and discussion and/or vegetables.’’ 3) whether they and/or other house- Demographic profile hold members had dietary needs that Of the 149 participants, the most Sensory evaluation outcomes required a diet consisting mainly of common responses to demographic APPEARANCE. Samples ‘Crimson fruits and/or vegetables; 4) their atti- questions show that panelists can be Topaz’ (mean rating = 7.74), NY 49 tudes toward, and purchasing history characterized as follows: female (80.5%); (7.60), and ‘Crimson Crisp’ (7.54) of, locally grown and certified-organic Caucasian (88.6%); a member of a were rated significantly higher on ap- produce; and 5) their reasons for two-adult household (47.7%); with pearance than the other samples, re- purchasing produce directly from the no children at home (56.4%); age 37 ceiving mean liking ratings that fell farmer or from other sources, which years and older (60.4%); had either between ‘‘like moderately’’ (7.0) and is labeled locally grown.Someques- obtained some level of high school ‘‘like very much’’ (8.0) (Table 2). Sam- tions required a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ response education, were high school gradu- ples ‘Sundance’ (6.30) and ‘GoldRush’ while others asked participants to in- ates, or had obtained some level of (5.99) were rated significantly lower dicate their agreement or disagreement college/technical school education than the other samples. Higher liking based on a five-point Likert scale (5 = but had not graduated (58.4%); were ratings for ‘Crimson Topaz’, NY 49, ‘‘strongly agree,’’ 1 = ‘‘strongly dis- staff members at the university and ‘Crimson Crisp’, all having red agree’’). Participants also indicated the (67.8%); with a household income of peels, compared with ‘Sundance’ and frequency with which they take action, $74,999 or lower (61.1%). The num- ‘GoldRush’, both with yellow peels, including purchasing products. Demo- ber of consumers who participated in may be, according to research, because graphic questions were used to gather the study was deemed acceptable on consumers prefer apples with a red peel information pertaining to the panelists’ the basis of research results that in- (Cliff et al., 2002; Czernyszewicz, gender, age range, ethnicity, affiliation dicated a minimum of 112 consumers 2009; Jesionkowska et al., 2006). with the university, number of adults would be necessary for evaluations AROMA. Aroma results show that and children in the household, 2007 where an objective is to determine NY 49 apples (6.86) were rated signif- gross household income, education significant differences between sam- icantly higher for liking than ‘Crimson level, and city and state of their perma- ples (Hough et al., 2006). Topaz’ (6.40), ‘GoldRush’ (5.58), nent residence. Upon completion of Pertaining to issues that may ‘Jonagold’ (6.42), and ‘Sundance’ the sensory evaluation, participants impact the amount of fruits and/or (5.62) apples, but not ‘Crimson were given $10.00 for their participa- vegetables included in their daily diet, Crisp’ apples (6.54); the aroma results tion (Kelley and Sa´nchez, 2005). participants were asked to indicate if for the ‘Crimson Crisp’ apples were Liking scores for each sample they and/or another member of their significantly different from those for were analyzed using Tukey’s honestly household were vegetarians. Six par- the ‘GoldRush’ and ‘Sundance’ ap- significant difference (HSD) in Com- ticipants (4.0%) responded positively ples. Mean liking ratings of samples pusenseÒ five software. Rank was an- to this question, with four of these NY 49 and ‘Crimson Crisp’ fell be- alyzed using Friedman analysis of individuals indicating that they were tween ‘‘like slightly’’ (6.0) and ‘‘like rank (a = 0.05) followed by Tukey’s between the ages of 18 and 24 years moderately’’ (7.0), while mean liking HSD (a = 0.05) in CompusenseÒ five. and the other two indicating that ratings for the ‘GoldRush’ and Sun- Data pertaining to consumer behav- they were between the ages of 25 dance apples, which had significantly ior and preference questions were and 48 years. Even though a majority lower scores than the other samples,
• October 2010 20(5) 887 RESEARCH REPORTS
Table 2. Panelists’ rating of appearance, aroma, texture, flavor, and overall liking scores for six apples evaluated during a sensory evaluation conducted on 14 Nov. 2008 involving 149 consumer participants. Sensory characteristic Apples evaluated tested (1–9 scale)z ‘Crimson Crisp’ ‘Crimson Topaz’ ‘GoldRush’ ‘Jonagold’y NY 49 ‘Sundance’ Appearance 7.54 ax 7.74 a 5.99 c 7.12 b 7.60 a 6.30 c Aroma 6.54 ab 6.40 b 5.58 c 6.42 b 6.87 a 5.62 c Texture 6.99 a 6.92 a 6.56 ab 5.65 c 6.18 bc 6.60 ab Flavor 6.70 a 6.42 a 6.19 ab 6.36 a 6.20 ab 5.68 b Overall 6.72 a 6.56 ab 6.23 abc 6.09 bc 6.14 bc 5.76 c z9 = like extremely, 8 = like very much, 7 = like moderately, 6 = like slightly, 5 = neither like nor dislike, 4 = dislike slightly, 3 = dislike moderately, 2 = dislike very much, and 1 = dislike extremely. y‘Jonagold’ was selected to serve as a scab-susceptible control since it is commercially available and has been used as a reference sample in other evaluations (Cmelik et al., 2007). xMeans with different letters within rows are significantly different (P £ 0.05). Significance was determined using analysis of variance, followed by Tukey’s HSD in CompusenseÒ five software (CompusenseÒ, Guelph, ON, Canada). fell between ‘‘neither like nor dislike’’ ‘Crimson Crisp’ apples, both of which promotion (e.g., suggested by others, (5.0) and ‘‘like slightly’’ (6.0). were rated between ‘‘like slightly’’ samples available, in-store signage and TEXTURE. Samples ‘Crimson (6.0) and ‘‘like moderately’’ (7.0). advertising). As a whole, participants Topaz’, ‘GoldRush’, ‘Sundance’, ‘Crimson Topaz’, ‘GoldRush’ (6.23), selected ‘‘apple cultivar or type of and ‘Crimson Crisp’ did not differ ‘Jonagold’, and NY 49 samples were apple’’ (33.6%), ‘‘sweetness level’’ significantly in texture liking (6.92, not found to be significantly different (18.1%), and ‘‘past purchase of a par- 6.56, 6.60, and 6.99, respectively); from one another for overall liking; ticular apple cultivar’’ (15.4%) as the these mean scores range between ‘‘like ‘GoldRush’, ‘Jonagold’, and NY 49 top three characteristics they consider slightly’’ (6.0) and ‘‘like moderately’’ apples all received mean ratings just most important when purchasing fresh (6.0). ‘Crimson Topaz’ and ‘Crimson above 6.0 (‘‘like slightly’’). apples to be eaten raw. Crisp’ apples were rated signifi- Data were then analyzed to de- cantly higher than NY 49 (6.18) and Fresh apple–purchasing behavior termine if responses to this question ‘Jonagold’ apples (5.65), which re- When asked to report the fre- and others were significantly different ceived mean scores between ‘‘like quency with which they purchase based on several demographic charac- slightly’’ (6.0) and ‘‘neither like nor fresh apples for themselves and/or teristics. Based on education level, dislike’’ (5.0). ‘Jonagold’ apples re- other household members, the ma- participants who completed some col- ceived texture scores significantly lower jority of participants purchased fresh lege or had a technical degree were than all samples except for NY 49. apples ‘‘about once a week’’ (30.2%), more likely to select ‘‘sweetness level’’ FLAVOR. Liking scores for flavor followed by ‘‘two to three times a as the most important characteristic were not significantly different between month’’(28.9%), ‘‘about once a month’’ (33.3%) compared with participants the ‘Crimson Topaz’, ‘GoldRush’, (24.2%), ‘‘a few times a year’’ (13.4%), who had a high school diploma or less ‘Jonagold’, NY 49, and ‘Crimson and ‘‘more than once a week’’ (2.7%). (9.8%) (Table 3). The percent of Crisp’ apples (6.42, 6.19, 6.36, No differences existed when analyzed participants in these two groups who 6.20, and 6.70, respectively). Like- by demographic characteristic except selected ‘‘sweetness level’’ did not wise, scores for ‘GoldRush’, NY 49, when examined by income and for differ from those with either a bache- and ‘Sundance’ (5.68) were not found those who purchased fresh apples ‘‘a lor’s degree (17.6%) or a master’s to be significantly different. ‘Crimson few times a year.’’ Participants stating degree or higher (14.3%). Of the Topaz’, ‘Jonagold’, and ‘Crimson that they had an annual income be- differences detected, two-adult Crisp’ samples received significantly tween $50,000 and $74,999 were less households were less likely (7.0%) to higher flavor liking scores than ‘Sun- likely to purchase at this interval base fresh apple purchases on ‘‘past dance’. All samples received scores (2.7%) than those who reported hav- purchase of a particular apple cultivar’’ between ‘‘like slightly’’ (6.0) and ‘‘like ing an income less than $25,000 and than households with three or more moderately’’ (7.0) except ‘Sundance’, those with an income between adults (28.3%). Only one participant which scored between ‘‘neither like nor $25,000 and $49,999, 21.1% and stated that ‘‘apple is certified organic’’ dislike’’ (5.0) and ‘‘like slightly’’ (6.0). 25.7%, respectively (Table 3). was the most important characteristic. OVERALL LIKING. For overall lik- Participants were asked to select, Characteristics that were less than 10% ing scores, ‘Crimson Crisp’ apples from a list of 17 options, the one and were not significantly different (6.72) received significantly higher characteristic they consider most im- based on demographic segment were scores than ‘Jonagold’, NY 49, and portant when purchasing fresh apples as follows: nutritional value of the ‘Sundance’ apples (6.09, 6.14, and to be eaten raw. Options included apple, quantity of apples available, 5.76, respectively). ‘Sundance’ ap- apple features (e.g., cultivar/type, multiple number of apples in one ples, which were rated between ‘‘nei- sweetness level, visual appeal), pack- package, size of apple, sign or other ther like nor dislike’’ (5.0) and ‘‘like aging options (e.g., multiples in one in-store advertising, country where slightly’’ (6.0), received significantly bag, apples sold individually), pro- the apple was grown, apple that was lower overall liking scores than duction issues (e.g., country of origin, certified organic, and suggestion from ‘Crimson Topaz’ apples (6.56) and locally grown, certified organic), and family member or friend.
888 • October 2010 20(5) Conclusion ) Though the sample may not be completely representative of consumers 100,000 in the mid-Atlantic United States, we ‡ did not expect that it would be, based on how we selected panelists. However, we did realize a panel with diverse de- 99,999 mographic characteristics, as indicated 75,000– Continued on next page ( by the distribution of responses (e.g., nsory evaluation age range, 2007 annual household in- come, and education level). Since our 74,999 objectives were to learn whether 50,000– lesser-known scab-resistant fresh ap- ples appealed to panelists and if apples could be identified with potential to 49,999 include in further research, which is 25,000– a primary purpose of sensory evalua- 2007 Gross household income ($) tion (Schaefer, 1986), it was necessary to select consumers who represent the 25,000
target market (Meilgaard et al., 2008) £ and not the broader public. More directly, sensory analysis of the type 49 used in this study serves as an impor- ‡ tant first step in filtering out apples that are initial candidates for the retail fresh market. Those that are shown to 0.05) based on Pearson’s chi-square statistic. Analysis conducted using SPSS (version 17).
be preferred by those who regularly £ eat apples can then be subjected to P additional market research to deter- mine one or more consumer segments
that might find the specific apples to Age range (yr) be appealing. With ‘‘apple cultivar or type of apple’’ and ‘‘past purchasing of a par- ticular apple’’ among the top three characteristics panelists selected as the most important when purchasing fresh apples to be eaten raw, introduc-
ing acceptable apples into an already z crowded category at retail may present some challenges. Strategies for inform- ing and persuading consumers to pur- Gender chase lesser-known apples should be Male Female 18–24 25–36 37–48 done in the store, which was recently cited as the primary source where consumers first learn about new prod- ucts (SupermarketGuru.com, 2010). Promotions could include signage and sampling. However, these strate- gies received either no responses or relatively few participants, indicating that these were among the most im- portant characteristics considered when purchasing fresh apples to be eaten raw. It is possible that their characteristics could play a supporting role, especially if ‘‘tastes like ‘X’ apple’’ is used on signage, for example. Fur- ther investigation of how lesser-known scab-resistant fresh apples should be
marketed is warranted to develop a More than once a weekAbout (%) once a week (%)Two to three times aAbout month once (%) a month (%)A few times a yearI (%) have not purchased fresh apples (%)Apple cultivar or type ofSweetness apple level (%) (%)Tartness level (%) 3.6 21.4Visual Appeal (%)Past purchase of 21.4 0 a particularPrice apple of cultivar the 30.8 (%) apple 2.5 (%)Apples 39.3 sold individually (%)Apple was 32.5 grown locally 37.9 20.7 (%) 16.1Samples 14.3 of 0 apples 20.8 available 0 to taste (%) 29.0 32.5 14.3 29.6 13.3 35.5 0 22.2 3.7 21.9 25.0 40.0 20.7 19.4 25.9 0 25.0 0 28.0 37.0 5.0 17.3 0 0 18.5 7.4 3.4 17.5 3.4 40.0 15.8 6.9 37.5 28.1 2.0 22.0 12.5 1.7 15.0 15.8 7.5 7.5 0 0.8 25.7 8.3 10.5 36.0 36.8 5.8 14.0 18.5 8.0 0 28.6 3.1 36.8 6.3 37.8 0 15.8 0 17.1 9.4 21.1 2.9 a 0 12.5 29.7 45.7 27.8 14.8 7.4 0 25.7 29.7 a 16.0 5.7 0 7.4 0 0 41.7 3.7 27.0 21.1 30.5 2.5 22.2 2.7 7.5 b 18.9 5.0 7.5 25.0 27.8 10.0 0 0 14.3 2.5 8.3 6.0 ab 6.0 19.4 20.0 0 6.0 8.0 15.0 31.8 10.5 ab 18.9 0 5.3 0 18.2 5.0 5.3 0 0 22.2 0 0 8.6 11.4 0 13.6 8.6 2.9 10.8 5.4 0 2.7 0 8.1 2.7 8.3 2.8 8.3 2.7 5.6 0 13.6 0 9.1 0 4.5 0 0 Percentages with different letters within demographic categories (e.g., gender, age range, education) are significantly different ( Panelists within each demographic (no.)Panelists within each demographic (%)Participants purchase fresh apples for their household at the following frequencies 29 24.2 120The most 93.0 important characteristic participants consider when purchasing fresh 32 apples to be 21.5 eaten raw 27 18.1 26.8 40 33.6 50 12.7 19 23.5 24.8 35 24.2 37 14.8 36 22 promotional program for growers, Table 3. Panelists’ responsesconducted to on survey 14 questions, Nov. segmented 2008. by demographic characteristic (e.g., gender, age range, education), asked during aVariable se z
• October 2010 20(5) 889 RESEARCH REPORTS
brokers, and retailers to ensure positive 2
‡ consumer response. It is possible, as demonstrated by apples that were 17
£ once lesser-known and are now readily available (e.g., ‘Fuji’, ‘Braeburn’, and ‘Gala’), to introduce additional apples that command retail shelf space. Children in years old (no.) household Further understanding of con- sumer interest and potential demand of lesser-known apples is essential. Because of the limits on shelf space in retail outlets, which then limits
30 1 the quantity and variety of products ‡ available (Drury, 2007), it is very likely that a minimal number of new apples or substitutes would be incorpo- rated in a retailer’s product mix. Taking this into consideration, additional sen-
Adults in sory evaluations and market research should be conducted with ‘Crimson household (no.) Crisp’ and ‘Crimson Topaz’ and to a lesser extent with ‘GoldRush’ and NY 49. In conclusion, not only should research continue to identify new ap- ples that are strong market candidates,
or but educational efforts must also be
greater 1 2 implemented to reduce grower risk of Master’s altering their production plan.
B.A. Literature cited B.S. or Baker, G.A. 1999. Consumer preferences for food safety attributes in fresh apples: Market segments, consumer characteris- tics, and marketing opportunities. J. Agr. Resource Econ. 24:80–97. school Education level or tech. Brown, S. and K. Maloney. 2008. Scab
Some college resistant cultivars (varieties). NY Fruit Qrtly. 16(Winter):3–6. Cliff, M., K. Sanford, W. Wismer, and C. Hampson. 2002. Use of digital images for evaluation of factors responsible for visual
or less preference of apples by consumers. Hort- graduate
High school Science 37:1127–1131. Cmelik, Z., P. Zadravec, S. Tojnko, B. Schlauer, A. Vogrin, and T. Unuk. 2007. Sensory evaluation of fruit and some organically grown scab-resistant apple cultivars. Acta Hort. 737:53–58. Crassweller, R.M. (ed.). 2008. The Penn- sylvania tree fruit production guide. Pennsylvania State Univ. Publ, AGRS- 45. College of Agriculture Science, Penn State Cooperative Extension, Philadel-
) Panelists’ responses to survey questions, segmented by demographic characteristic (e.g., gender, age range, education), asked during a sensory phia, PA Crosby, J., J. Janick, P. Pecknold, J. Goffreda, and S. Korban. 1994. Gold- Rush apple. HortScience 29:827–828. Continued Czernyszewicz, E. 2009. Changeability of consumer preference for some sensory
More than once a weekAbout (%) once a week (%)Two to three times aAbout month once (%) a month (%)A few times a yearI (%) have not purchased fresh apples (%)Apple cultivar or type ofSweetness apple level (%) (%)Tartness level (%)Visual Appeal 4.0 (%) 30.0Past purchase of a particularPrice apple of 36.0 0 cultivar the (%) apple (%)Apples sold individually 16.0 (%)Apple was grown locally (%)Samples of 37.3 15.7 apples 33.3 available 14.0 0 to taste (%) 25.0 0 33.3 20.6features 19.4 16.7 2.9 26.5 9.8 8.3 b 32.1 26.5 0 of 9.8 0 0apples. 5.9 32.1 35.3 17.6 3.6 7.8 23.5 7.8 37.5 25.0 33.3a Electron. 25.0 42.9 10.7 0 6.3 25.4 15.6 5.6 7.1 5.6 17.6 ab 5.6 33.8 0 J. 37.5 5.6 15.6 28.9 ab 2.8 Pol. 1.4 23.9 14.3 ab 15.6 0 28.9 2.9 Agr. 7.0 0 23.8 38.0 b 8.8 15.6 31.1 2.2 5.9 15.5 37.9 2.9 0 32.1 28.3 a 23.9 0 3.6 26.2 31.0 21.1 14.3 2.4 34.3 0 7.1 10.7 8.9 10.7 33.3 20.7 25.7 15.2 0 6.7 0 0 36.7 3.1 15.5 22.9 9.4 3.1 21.4 6.3 0 25.7 10.3 31.4 5.7 7.0 0 16.7 0 11.4 4.2 8.5 7.0 1.4 11.4 6.5 0 8.7 1.4 8.7 4.3 2.2 6.0 0 8.3 6.0 0 4.8 0 0 b 10.0 13.3 3.3 6.7 0 a b 11.4 0 5.7 11.4 0 0 ab a 2.9 ab Table 3. ( evaluation conducted on 14 Nov. 2008. Variable Panelists within each demographic (no.)Panelists within each demographic (%) 51 34.2 36 24.2 34 22.8 18.8 28 21.5 32 47.6 71 30.9 56.4 46 20.1 84 23.5 30 35 Participants purchase fresh apples for their household at the following frequencies The most important characteristic participants consider when purchasing fresh apples to be eaten raw Univ. 12(1). 19 Feb. 2010. 890 • October 2010 20(5) ejpau.media.pl/volume12/issue1/art-08. Jesionkowska, K., D. Konopacka, and W. Miller,S.,R.McNew,R.Crassweller,D. html>. Plocharski. 2006. The quality of apples: Greene, C. Hampson, A. Azarenko, L. Preferences among consumer from Skier- Berkett, W. Cosgill, E. Garcia, T. Lindstrom, Drury, C. 2007. Management and cost niewice, Poland. J. Fruit Ornamental M. Stasiak, J. Cline, B. Fallahi, E. Fallahi, and accounting. Cengage Learning, Florence, Plant Res. 14:173–182. G. Greene, II. 2007. Performance of apple KY. cultivars in the 1999 NE-183 Regional Kelley, K.M. and E.S. Sa´nchez. 2005. Project planting. II. Fruit quality charac- Greene, D., R. Norton, C. Rom, and R. Accessing and understanding consumer Way. 1997. Apple, p. 13–117. In: R.M. teristics. J. Amer. Pomol. Soc. 61:97– awareness of and potential demand for 114. Brooks (ed.). The Brooks and Olmo edamame [Glycine max (L.) Merrill]. register of fruit and nut varieties. 3rd ed. HortScience 40:1347–1353. Resurreccion, A.V.A. 1998. Consumer ASHS Press, Alexandria, VA. sensory testing for product development. Kuhn, B.F. and A.K. Thybo. 2001. Sen- Aspen Publ., Gaithersburg, MD. Hampson, C.R., H.A. Quamme, J.W. sory quality of scab-resistant apple culti- Hall, R.A. MacDonald, M.C. King, and vars. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 23:41–50. Richardson-Harman, N., T. Phelps, S. M.A. Cliff. 2000. Sensory evaluation as a McDermott, and A. Gunson. 1997. Use selection tool in apple breeding. Euphytica Manalo, A.B. 1990. Assessing the impor- of tactile and visual cues in consumer 111:79–90. tance of apple attributes: An agricultural judgments of apple ripeness. J. Sens. Stud. application of conjoint analysis. North- 13:121–132. Hough, G., I. Wakeling, A. Mucci, E. east. J. Agr. Resource Econ. 19:118–124. Chambers, IV, I.M. Gallardo, and L.R. Schaefer, E.E. (ed.). 1986. ASTM manual Alves. 2006. Number of consumers nec- McCracken, V.A., B. Maier, T. Boylston, on consumer sensory evaluation. Amer. essary for sensory acceptability tests. Food and T. Worley. 1994. Development of Soc. Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA. Qual. Prefer. 17:522–526. a scheme to evaluate consumer apple variety preferences. J. Food Distrib. Res. Stone, H. and J.L. Sidel. 2004. Sensory Janick, J., J. Goffreda, and S. Korban. TM 25:56–63. evaluation practices. 3rd ed. Elsevier Ac- 2004. ‘Co-op 29’ (Sundance ) apple. ademic Press, San Diego, CA. HortScience 39:450–451. Meilgaard, M.C., G.V. Civille, and B.T. Carr. 2008. Sensory evaluation SupermarketGuru.com. 2010. Consumer Janick, J., J. Goffreda, and S. Korban. TM techniques, 4th ed. CRC Press, Boca first aware of new products at the shelf. 2006. ‘Co-op 39’ (CrimsonCrisp ) ap- Raton, FL. 10 May 2010. • October 2010 20(5) 891