Effects of animal welfare on sensory acceptance scoring of yogurt

Figures & data

Figure 1.  The products used in the tasting experiments.

Table 1. Milk components for the samples obtained from HW and LW farm animals.

Components	HW samples	LW samples
Fat (%)	3.20	4.17
Non-fat dry matter (%)	10.28	9.79
Protein (%)	4.07	3.90
Lactose (%)	5.25	4.99
Density (kg/m^3)	1037.86	1035.31

Table 2. The experimental design of the three different tests carried out.

Test	Presentation	Type of evaluation	Type of rating
1	Yogurt	Tasting without information	Blind scoring
2	Information	Expectation	Expected scoring
3	Yogurt + information	Tasting with information	Actual scoring

Table 3. AIC and BIC fit statistics for different covariance structures for score in the tasting experiments.

Covariance structure	AIC	BIC
Compound symmetry	2604.4	2608.9
Auto regressive	2648.7	2653.2
First-order autoregressive moving-average	2604.4	2608.9
First-order factor analytic	2581.2	2635.9
First-order unstructured	2650.7	2678.1
Huynh-Feldt	2602.3	2631.9
Toeplitz	2556.0	2583.4
First-order banded Toeplitz	2670.4	2672.6
Heterogeneous Toeplitz	2650.7	2678.1
Variance components	2670.4	2672.6
Ante-dependence	2634.0	2686.4
Heterogeneous compound symmetry	2580.8	2610.4
Heterogeneous autoregressive	2630.3	2659.9

Table 4. Effects of the welfare and fat on consumer scores.

The tests	Plain yogurt, low welfare (PY-LW)	Plain yogurt, high welfare (PY-HW)	Low fat, low welfare (LF-LW)	Low fat, high welfare (LF-HW)	SE
Test 1	2.38^A,a	2.97^A,b	1.86^A,c	2.65^A,a	0.25
Test 2	1.98^B,a	3.58^B,b	2.09^A,a	4.06^B,c	0.25
Test 3	2.54^A,a	3.51^B,b	1.99^A,c	3.09^C,d	0.25
Note: Pooled standard error based on most conservative number in a row.
Column^A,B,C values or row^a,b,c,d values with different superscripts differ (P<0.05).