author: corcoran, michelle, consumer acceptance and

1

Author: Corcoran, Michelle, Title: Consumer Acceptance and Purchase Intention of Sauerkraut as Affected by

Packaging Modification The accompanying research report is submitted to the University of Wisconsin-Stout, Graduate School in partial

completion of the requirements for the

Graduate Degree/ Major: MS Food and Nutrition Sciences

Research Advisor: Cynthia Rohrer, Ph.D.

Submission Term/Year: Spring, 2013

Number of Pages: 66

Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th edition

X I understand that this research report must be officially approved by the Graduate School and that an electronic copy of the approved version will be made available through the University Library website X I attest that the research report is my original work (that any copyrightable materials have been used with the permission of the original authors), and as such, it is automatically protected by the laws, rules, and regulations of the U.S. Copyright Office. X My research advisor has approved the content and quality of this paper.

STUDENT:

NAME Michelle Corcoran DATE: 5/10/2013

ADVISOR: (Committee Chair if MS Plan A or EdS Thesis or Field Project/Problem):

NAME Dr. Cynthia Rohrer DATE: 5/10/2013

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----

This section for MS Plan A Thesis or EdS Thesis/Field Project papers only Committee members (other than your advisor who is listed in the section above) 1. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: DATE:

2. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: DATE:

3. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: DATE:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- This section to be completed by the Graduate School This final research report has been approved by the Graduate School.

Director, Office of Graduate Studies: DATE:

2

Corcoran, Michelle, R. Consumer Acceptance and Purchase Intention of Sauerkraut as

Affected by Packaging Modification

Abstract

Sauerkraut has typically been packaged in glass or metal containers, however due to the

combination of the liquid brine and the solid kraut, sauerkraut has not been previously packaged

in plastic squeezable containers. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the

consumer acceptance level of sauerkraut formulated to be packaged in a plastic squeezable

container. A sensory taste test was conducted to compare the new formulation of sauerkraut to

two commercial products currently on the market. The results of one hundred-eight untrained

panelists showed that there was no difference in appearance or texture attributes (crunchiness,

juiciness, and overall texture) among any of the samples. For flavor attributes (sourness,

saltiness, cabbage flavor, aftertaste, and overall flavor), the prototype ranked significantly

lowest, being significantly different (P<0.05) than one of the commercial samples. Twenty-three

percent of the panelists were likely to purchase the product, but only eleven percent were likely

to purchase it from a squeezable container. These findings show that sauerkraut formulated to be

package in a squeezable container has an acceptable texture but is lacking in flavor. Consumers

also need to be alerted to the convenience of this new product, in an attempt to increase likeliness

to purchase.

3

Acknowledgements

First of all I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Cynthia Rohrer, for agreeing to take on

me and this project. Thank you for all you sensory insight, input into this paper and overall joy

with which to work. I would also like to thank Katie Shafer for letting me know about this

project being done by the Discovery Center. Without you, I would probably still be looking for a

thesis project! Many thanks to the helpers I had on the day of my taste test including Amanda

Linsmeier, Dipak Pokhrel, Tracy Lundberg, and Deanna Scheff, who helped make my taste test a

success. Also, thank you to my mom, uncle, in-laws, and family friend, for making the trip to

Menomonie to participate. I appreciate you taking the time to drive such a long distance for only

a fifteen minute survey.

I also need to thank my wonderful husband, Kevin, for all your support during not only

this time of conducting and writing my thesis, but for the entire time I have been pursuing my

master’s degree. The words of encouragement, taking on many (if not all) of the household

duties, and your technical support have all been invaluable. Also, thanks to my girls, Elizabeth

and Gabrielle, for your much appreciated patience during this time.

4

Table of Contents

.................................................................................................................................................... Page

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................2

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................6

Chapter I: Introduction ....................................................................................................................7

Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................9

Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................9

Assumptions of the Study ..................................................................................................10

Limitations of the Study.....................................................................................................10

Definition of Terms............................................................................................................11

Chapter II: Literature Review .......................................................................................................12

Sauerkraut ..........................................................................................................................12

Sensory Properties .............................................................................................................14

Consumption Patterns ........................................................................................................16

Packaging ...........................................................................................................................17

Acceptance of New Packaging ..........................................................................................21

Product Transformation .....................................................................................................24

Chapter III: Methodology ..............................................................................................................26

Research Design/Description of Variables ........................................................................26

Subject Selection and Description .....................................................................................26

Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................26

Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................................27

Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................28

5

Limitations .........................................................................................................................29

Chapter IV: Results and Discussion ..............................................................................................30

Demographics ....................................................................................................................30

Sensory Analysis of Sauerkraut .........................................................................................33

Table 1: Top comments panelists made to what they liked about Sample A-the prototype

and the percentage of panelists who responded similarly. .......................................42

Table 2: Top comments panelists made to what they disliked about Sample A-the

prototype and the percentage of panelists who responded similarly. ......................44

Likeliness to Purchase........................................................................................................45

Chapter V: Conclusion ...................................................................................................................49

Recommendations ..............................................................................................................51

References ......................................................................................................................................52

Appendix A: Sauerkraut scorecard ...............................................................................................55

6

List of Figures Figure 1: Gender distribution of panelists .....................................................................................31

Figure 2: Age distribution of subject .............................................................................................31

Figure 3: Temperature preference of sauerkraut ............................................................................32

Figure 4: Consumption patterns .....................................................................................................32

Figure 5: Mean panel scores for the appearance of the three sauerkraut samples .........................34

Figure 6: Mean panel scores for the sourness of the three sauerkraut samples .............................35

Figure 7: Mean panel scores for the saltiness of the three sauerkraut samples .............................36

Figure 8: Mean panel scores for the cabbage flavor of the three sauerkraut samples ...................37

Figure 9: Mean panel scores for the aftertaste of the three sauerkraut samples ............................38

Figure 10: Mean panel scores for the overall flavor of the three sauerkraut samples ...................39

Figure 11: Mean panel scores for texture attributes of the three sauerkraut samples ....................40

Figure 12: Mean panel scores for the overall opinions of the three sauerkraut samples ...............41

Figure 13: Mean panel scores for likeliness to purchase ...............................................................46

Figure 14: Percent of 108 untrained panelists who indicated 'probably would purchase' or

‘definitely would purchase’ each sample of sauerkraut ....................................................46

Figure 15: Mean panel scores for likeliness to purchase from a squeezable container .................48

Figure 16: Percent of 108 untrained panelists who indicated 'probably would purchase' or

‘definitely would purchase’ each sample of sauerkraut from a squeezable container ......48

7

Chapter I: Introduction Background

Condiments are described by the Merriam-Webster dictionary (2013) as a food item,

especially a pungent seasoning, which is often used to enhance the flavor of a food product. This

distinct flavor given to foods could include ketchup, mustard, or even salt and pepper. Another

condiment, thought to have been invented in Germany, but was originally started in China by

laborers building the Great Wall of China over 2000 years ago, is sauerkraut (Food History,

n.d.).

Sauerkraut, German for ‘sour cabbage’, is made by the fermentation of cut and salted

cabbage by naturally occurring lactic acid bacteria (Johanningsmeier, Fleming, Thompson, &

McFeeters, 2005). In 2001, of the three billion pounds of cabbage consumed in the United States,

twelve percent was consumed as processed cabbage, mainly sauerkraut (Uva, Cuellar, &

Roberts, 2006).

Currently sauerkraut can be found packaged in metal cans and glass jars. As a condiment,

sauerkraut packaged in these materials is not advantageous. While these materials are great

packaging materials, glass having the advantages of being an excellent barrier to moisture vapor,

gases, and odors (Robertson, 2006), although is breakable, and metal having strength, toughness,

ductility, and impermeability (Robertson, 2006), although is not able to be resealed once opened,

makes these materials inconvenient. Sauerkraut as a condiment is often used on hotdog and

bratwurst at ballparks, picnics, and tailgating. A disadvantage of sauerkraut in these types of

packaging is that a utensil is required for serving of the product, once opened the product is

exposed to the open air including potential insects if being used at an outdoor event, and the

possibility of misplacing the lid, or not even being able to replace the lid in the case of the can as

was noted by Tracy Lundberg, general manager of XYZ Company (personal communication,

8

January 9, 2013) Eau Claire, WI. Other condiments, often found at the same venue as sauerkraut

including ketchup and mustard, can be found in a plastic package that allows for a single line of

distribution on a food product due to the small narrowed opening in the spout of the flip top lid,

and then which can be closed allowing any remaining product future use. However, consumers

cannot use sauerkraut in the same manner as ketchup and mustard for example, since it is not

currently available in packaging that allows for squeezable distribution out of the narrow spout

of the flip top lid of the sauerkraut. In 1983, Heinz ® Company made headlines by becoming the

first company to have their condiment packaged in a polypropylene-based Gamma bottle that

was used for squeezable ketchup (Moskowitz, 1991). From that time until 1989, as a result of the

glass replacement, an estimated 2.5 billion plastic containers were on the market (Moskowitz,

1991).

Due to the switch in packaging, some condiments, including mayonnaise, have been

studied for their quality preservation when packaged in plastic versus the traditional glass. One

study on samples of mayonnaise packaged in glass and in plastic presented to a sensory panel in

a triangle test indicated that the panel of twelve judges were unable to distinguish between the

samples stored in glass versus the samples stored in plastic (Sensidoni, Leonardi, Possamai,

Tamagnone, & Peressini, 2004.) An additional condiment food item, olive oil, packaged in glass,

plastic and tinplate has also been studied for its sensory properties. The results from a sensory

study of a seven-member trained descriptive panel evaluating olive oil stored for a period of

sixty days, using a ‘just about right’ (JAR) scale showed that glass containers had the lowest

changes in sensory values for color (4.5 to 3.9 after 60 days), astringent taste (4.6 to 4.3 after 60

days), rancid flavor (4.7 to 4.4 after 60 days), and rancid odor (4.6 to 4.3 after 60 days), followed

by plastic (3.6, 4.0, 3.9, 3.9, respectively), then tinplate (3.2, 3.5, 3.4, 3.6, respectively) (Rabbah,

9

Feng, Yang, Eriefej, & Al-Omoush, 2011.) This study on olive oil using glass and plastic

indicates that glass is best for maintaining quality attributes, plastic is still an option for

packaging although some quality may be lost. Even though plastic has quickly been replacing

glass packaging for many food items, sauerkraut has not been packaged in plastic before;

therefore consumer studies regarding the sensory properties of sauerkraut packaged in a

squeezable plastic container having a flip top lid with a narrow spout have not been conducted.

Statement of the Problem

Sauerkraut has typically been packaged in glass jars or metal cans, but is often less

convenient than other condiments such as ketchup or mustard in plastic squeezable bottles.

Sauerkraut, cut cabbage that has been salted and fermented through the addition of lactic acid

bacteria, contains not only the solid cabbage portion, but also brine, the liquid that is produced

during the fermentation process. As noted by Tracy Lundberg, general manager of XYZ

Company (personal communication, January 9, 2013) Eau Claire, WI, an issue with packaging

sauerkraut into a squeezable bottle is that the brine tends to leak out before solid sauerkraut

particles as well as exit issues of clogging the container. Therefore, it is theorized that with the

addition of natural ingredients, the texture and flavor attributes of sauerkraut are preserved along

with brine remaining in the product and not prematurely removing out before solid particles of

the sauerkraut. Due to the novel nature of this product, studies have not been conducted to

determine the acceptability of this type of product.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine the acceptance level of sauerkraut specifically

formulated to be packaged in a squeezable container compared to sauerkraut products currently

10

on the market, among students, staff, and visitors on the University of Wisconsin-Stout campus.

More precisely, the study addressed the following questions:

1. How do panelists rate the appearance of the new formulated sauerkraut?

2. How do panelists rate the flavor of the new formulated sauerkraut including the sourness,

saltiness, cabbage flavor, overall flavor and aftertaste?

3. How do panelists rate the texture of the new formulated sauerkraut including the

crunchiness, juiciness, and overall texture?

4. What do panelists think of the new formulated sauerkraut, including what they like and

dislike and overall opinion?

5. How likely are consumers to purchase the new formulated sauerkraut?

Assumptions of the Study

An assumption of the study was that the panelists answered the survey questions

truthfully and accurately as well as all participants would typically consume sauerkraut.

Limitations of the Study

One limitation of the study included the restricted population as the study was conducted in

the sensory testing lab on the University of Wisconsin-Stout campus. Another limitation was that

participation was voluntary. Although advertising was done throughout the University of

Wisconsin-Stout campus, students in the Food and Nutrition Science concentrations may have

received extra credit for their participation. Panelists were also offered monetary compensation

for their participation, so some panelists may have participated with the only intention of

receiving the compensation without liking or wanting to taste the sauerkraut.

11

Definition of Terms

The following term and its operational definition will be used throughout to address the

research questions.

Hedonic scale. According to Bender (2005), a hedonic scale is, “A term used in tasting

panels where the judges indicate the extent of their like or dislike for the food.” A seven point

hedonic scale was used to rate the sauerkraut, with 1 being dislike very much and 7 being like

very much.

12

Chapter II: Literature Review




More precisely, the study examined how consumers rated the sauerkraut samples on appearance,

flavor, texture, overall opinion, and likeliness to purchase. The following review of literature will

address these topics.

Sauerkraut

Cabbage (Brassica oleracea) is the main ingredient for the production of sauerkraut. It is

rich in vitamin C and is regarded as the most important member of the Cruciferae or mustard

family as it is commercially grown for its large leafy head (Perez, Harwood, & Somwaru, 1995).

Grown as an annual crop, cabbage production by the United States was the world’s sixth largest

producer in 1992, with seventy-five percent of production located in New York, Texas,

California, Florida, and Georgia (Perez, Harwood, & Somwaru, 1995). According to USDA’s

National Agriculture Statistics Service, in 1994, ninety-two percent of harvested cabbage was for

the fresh market, while the rest was used for kraut production (Perez, Harwood, & Somwaru,

1995). Cabbage that is used for processing into kraut is primarily grown in Wisconsin and New

York, with ninety-eight percent of what is grown being sold under contract while the remaining

two percent being sold on the open market (Perez, Harwood, & Somwaru, 1995).

Sauerkraut is produced by the fermentation of cut and salted cabbage by naturally

occurring lactic acid bacteria (Johanningsmeier, Fleming, Thompson, & McFeeters, 2005). The

process is as follows: quality control of delivered cabbage; outer green and dirty leaves are

removed and cores of the heads partly removed; cabbage is shredded to 0.7-2.2 millimeter wide

13

strips; shredded cabbage is salted with 0.7 to 2.5% sodium chloride; salted, shredded cabbage is

placed into fermentation containers; fermentation takes place within a few hours and continues

between seven days and several weeks (Holzapfel, Schillinger, & Buckenhüskes, 2008).

Fermentation occurs under anaerobic conditions where the fermentable sugars affect the

development of lactic acid bacteria that convert the carbohydrates into lactic and acetic acids

(Holzapfel, Schillinger, & Buckenhüskes, 2008). The four basic steps of spontaneous

fermentation can be described as: fermentation starts as soon as the cabbage is filled into

containers, aerobic bacteria decrease immediately and the deprivation of oxygen causes a change

in pH; the more anaerobic, lower pH environment favors the facultatively anaerobic lactic acid

bacteria which soon become the predominant organisms; another shift in the lactic population

occurs when the homofermentative lactobacilli become the predominant organisms; finally, only

in unpasteurized sauerkraut will the final stage of fermentation occur, Lactobacillus brevis and

other heterofermentative species become dominant (Holzapfel, Schillinger, & Buckenhüskes,

2008). The major changes that take place during fermentation are the conversion of carbohydrate

to lactic and acetic acid resulting in an increase in total acidity and a decrease in pH, along with

alterations in the chemical and physical properties of the cabbage (Holzapfel, Schillinger, &

Buckenhüskes, 2008).

The addition and even distribution of salt (sodium chloride) is one of the most critical

points in the production of sauerkraut (Holzapfel, Schillinger, & Buckenhüskes, 2008). Salt is

needed for the development of anaerobic conditions, the type and extent of microbial growth,

and also for the sensory properties of the final product (Holzapfel, Schillinger, & Buckenhüskes,

2008). The sodium chloride causes the osmotic withdrawal of water from the cabbage cells, of

which the emerging liquid fills up the space between pieces of cabbage and supports the

14

development of anaerobic conditions, which comprise the selective basis for the lactic acid

fermentation (Holzapfel, Schillinger, & Buckenhüskes, 2008). The amount of salt added affects

the microbial population. An increased amount limits the growth of undesirable microorganisms

and promotes the growth of desirable bacteria, lactic acid bacteria (Holzapfel, Schillinger, &


In addition to salting, filling is another critical point in the production of sauerkraut. The

amount of air between the particles needs to be removed as much as possible to support the lactic

acid fermentation and to prevent mold and yeast growth (Holzapfel, Schillinger, &

Buckenhüskes, 2008). This also involves covering the container completely to exclude oxygen

and microbial contamination (Holzapfel, Schillinger, & Buckenhüskes, 2008).

Temperature also plays a key role in sauerkraut fermentation. The ideal temperature is

between 15 and 20°C (Holzapfel, Schillinger, & Buckenhüskes, 2008). Lower temperatures will

hamper the start of fermentation and higher temperatures can cause an accelerated acid

production, which can lead to products with a green and immature flavor (Holzapfel, Schillinger,

& Buckenhüskes, 2008). It is a combination of all the processes that produce the desired sensory

properties of the final sauerkraut product.

Sensory Properties

Salty, sour, and sulfur notes are characteristics flavors and key components in the quality

grading of sauerkraut (Johanningsmeier, Fleming, Thompson, & McFeeters, 2005). The salt

flavor is from the addition of sodium chloride during the fermentation process. The amount of

salt added during fermentation has a direct correlation in the intensity of the salty taste of the

kraut (Johanningsmeier, McFeeters, Fleming, & Thompson, 2007). It is a major flavor with

15

finished sauerkraut products containing between 0.6 and 2% sodium chloride (Holzapfel,

Schillinger, & Buckenhüskes, 2008).

Sourness is produced from the naturally occurring lactic acid bacteria, which influences

the flavor of fermented foods such as sauerkraut (McFeeters, 2004). It is a result of the

production of acid and lowered pH that increases the sour taste (McFeeters, 2004). The amount

of salt used during the fermentation process does affect the degree of acidity, and ultimately the

sourness, by influencing the amount of lactic acid bacteria produced (Holzapfel, Schillinger, &


Kraut sulfur is the typical sulfurous odor and flavor associated with properly fermented

sauerkraut (Johanningsmeier, McFeeters, Fleming, & Thompson, 2007). The sulfur flavor is

from sulfur compounds which are derived from S-methyl cysteine sulfoxide and glucosinolates

in raw cabbage, which, during the fermentation process, have a major effect on the flavor

(McFeeters, 2004). The finished sauerkraut product and its juices contain volatile sulfur

compounds including hydrogen sulfide, methanethiol, dimethyl sulfide, and allyl isothiocyanate

which have a great impact on the flavor (Holzapfel, Schillinger, & Buckenhüskes, 2008).

A study by Johanningsmeier, Fleming, Thompson, and McFeeters (2007), used a

commercial reference sample for the sensory analysis, where kraut sulfur flavor had an intensity

of 12, sourness had an intensity of 9, and saltiness had an intensity of 6, on a scale of 0 (not

detectable) to 15 (very strong). The sensory analysis also included intensity ratings for textural

attributes of firmness and crunchiness.

Firmness and crunchiness are texture attributes associated with sauerkraut. Both firmness

and crunchiness are texture attributes that are dependent upon the amount of salt used in the

fermentation process of the cabbage. Too low of a salt concentration used during the

16

fermentation process can result in a soft product (Holzapfel, Schillinger, & Buckenhüskes,

2008). In a study by Johanningsmeier, Fleming, Thompson, and McFeeters (2007), they found

that when trying to reduce the amount of salt added to shredded cabbage to produce sauerkraut, a

starter culture of Leuconostoc mesenteroides was needed to prevent softening of the cabbage.

They also found that firmness decreased with decreased salt concentrations, and that less salt

may allow the production of softening enzymes leading to soft, less crunchy sauerkraut

(Johanningsmeier, Fleming, Thompson, and McFeeters, 2007). Although the addition of a starter

culture maintained the structural integrity of the sauerkraut, the sodium chloride concentration

played a role in the perceived crunchy texture (Johanningsmeier, Fleming, Thompson, and

McFeeters, 2007). The soft and less crunchiness of the sauerkraut was a less desirable

characteristic among the trained panelists of their study. The commercial reference sample used

in the study had an intensity of 8 for firmness and 7 for crunchiness on a scale of 0 (very soft/not

crunchy) to 15 (very firm/very crunchy) (Johanningsmeier, Fleming, Thompson, and McFeeters,

2007). Firmness and crunchiness are the two distinct characteristics that give sauerkraut what

consumers are looking for in this type of product, and decides if consumers are going to purchase

a certain brand or not.

Consumption Patterns

According to a study by Uva, Cuellar, and Roberts (2006), of the three billion pounds of

cabbage consumption in the United States, twelve percent was consumed as processed cabbage,

mainly sauerkraut. While the consumption of fresh cabbage has increased, consumption of

sauerkraut has declined, from 2.2 to 2.3 pounds per capita in the 1960’s and 1970’s to 1.3 pounds

in recent years (Uva, Cuellar, & Roberts, 2006). Men consume about twenty-five percent more

cabbage per capita than women, and both men and women over the age of forty are stronger

17

consumers of cabbage, including sauerkraut, compared to younger consumers (Uva, Cuellar, &

Roberts, 2006). Caucasian populations consume ninety-one percent of all sauerkraut, with the

Midwest and the East being where three-fourths of the total consumption in the U.S. is

concentrated (Uva, Cuellar, & Roberts, 2006).

In a mail survey exploring consumer preferences, Uva, Cuellar, and Roberts (2006) found

that seventy-two percent of the individuals surveyed had had sauerkraut in the twelve months

prior to the survey, and that most sauerkraut consumers ate sauerkraut once a month or less. The

survey also found that sixty percent of sauerkraut consumption took place at home, and that

seventeen percent of consumers indicated consumption both at home and away from home (Uva,

Cuellar, & Roberts, 2006). With sixty percent of sauerkraut consumption occurring in the

home, consumers have decisions to make at the grocery store on how they are going to purchase

the sauerkraut they buy, with options at this time being glass or metal cans.

Packaging

At this time sauerkraut is currently packaged either glass jars or metal cans. While both

types of packaging have their advantages, both have disadvantages for the products they contain.

Glass.

Glass is one way that sauerkraut is currently packaged. Glass has been around for a very

long time, with the first glass vessels that were sculpted dating back the 3000 BC, and articles of

glass becoming common in Roman households by 200 AD (Robertson, 2006). Since the 1920’s

automatic production processes have occurred resulting in a wide range of glass containers for

packaging (Robertson, 2006). Bottles (which have narrow necks) and jars (which are wide

openings) are the two main types of glass containers used in food packaging, with bottles

18

containing about seventy-five percent of food products and jars containing the other twenty-five

percent (Robertson, 2006).

A major advantage of glass used as packaging material it its capability to be formed into

a wide range of shapes which have specific end uses and customer requirements (Robertson,

2006). While there is a basic nomenclature for glass containers, the shape of the container is

determined by the nature of the product. While liquid products have smaller diameter finishes

(top of the container called this as it was the part of the container to be fabricated last) for easier

pouring, solid products require larger finishes for filling and removing the contents (Robertson,

2006).

A critical aspect of the glass package is the closure which can consist of a cap, lid, cork,

or plug to see the jar or bottle (Robertson, 2006). While glass itself is an excellent barrier to

moisture vapor, gases, and odors, a correctly designed closure is needed to protect the food

products from deterioration and uphold the benefits the glass has to offer (Robertson, 2006). If

properly sealed, glass does offer this wide array of benefits including consumers seeing it as a

superior product, the glass is one-hundred percent recyclable, and it offers good shelf life

(Moskowitz, 1991). However glass, because of its amorphous structure, is brittle and can break.

Another type of packaging material used for sauerkraut, one that does not need to worry about

being broken, is metal.

Metal.

Four types of metal are commonly used for packaging of foods and include steel,

aluminum, tin, and chromium, with a combination of the metals referred to as tinplate

(Robertson, 2006). While tinplate was first introduced in England in 1699, in 1810, the French

inventor Phillipe de Girard patented the idea of substitution of glass jars and bottles with tin

19

cases (Robertson, 2006). The American Civil War was an opportunity for canning to become a

great industry and for many years cans were made slowly and laboriously by hand (Robertson,

2006). Today, tinplate and aluminum have become the materials that are manufactured for

containers and closures, largely due to several important qualities of these metals including

mechanical strength and resistance to working, low toxicity, superior barrier to gases, moisture,

and light, ability to withstand wide extremes of temperature, and ideal surfaces for decoration

and lacquering (Robertson, 2006).

Over the years, cans have gone through several transformations. Three-piece can

manufacture has included cans that have welded side-seams, soldered side-seams, and double

seaming, and the 1950’s introduced a two-piece aluminum can manufacture and the 1970’s a

two-piece tinplate can manufacture, which have technical, economic, and aesthetic advantages

(Robertson, 2006).

The can end or lid is the other main part of the can. While in the past, can openers were

required to open a can, there has been a demand for increased convenience. Canned beverages,

which started with a ring-pull tab, transitioned to an inseparable tear strip known as the stay-on

tab; and easy-open ends were developed including those that provided a pouring apertures for

dispensing liquids products and those that give a near full aperture opening for removing more

solid products (Robertson, 2006).

While metals, which combine properties of strength, toughness, ductility, and

impermeability, are important materials for the packaging of foods, their chemical structure that

gives these valuable properties also is responsible for its main weakness, susceptibility to

corrosion (Robertson, 2006). One way to prevent corrosion is to provide a protective coating.

Internally enameled metal containers, containers in which organic coatings have been applied to

20

the inside, are used so the metal of the can does not interact with the food product inside,

reducing the shelf life or the quality of the product (Robertson, 2006). The use of enamels does

not guarantee the prevention of corrosion, and some food products may actually accelerate

corrosion, including sauerkraut, which has been classified as highly corrosive from a

corrosiveness point of view (Robertson, 2006).

While cans provided a new way to package food, it still remains that once a can is opened

it cannot be resealed. This leads consumers to the dilemma of either finishing the contents of the

food product they’ve opened, finding new packaging for the unconsumed portion of the food

product, disregarding the unused portion, or leaving it in the can either opened to air or needing

to find something to cover it with such as plastic wrap or aluminum foil. Regardless, metal cans

are not convenient unless the contents of the entire can are to be used.

Plastic.

Due to the problems of glass breaking, and inconvenience of being unable to reseal cans,

new advances in packaging have been made. The 1980’s saw plastic shatter glass’s position in

the food packaging market (Moskowitz, 1991). Although not a new, plastic, meaning easily

shaped or deformed, is a generic term used to describe macromolecular organic compounds

obtained from molecules with a lower molecular weight or by chemical alteration of natural

macromolecular compounds (Robertson, 2006). The development of the plastics industry began

in the 1860’s when an English chemist, Alexander Parkes, displayed a new homemade material

he had made by treating cotton with a mixture of nitric and sulfuric acids (Robertson, 2006).

Developments continued to occur, with the 1930’s to 1940’s being when the major

thermoplastics of today (polystyrene, poly (vinyl chloride), and polyolefins) were developed

(Robertson, 2006). Further developments continue, and with the food industry a major user of

21

packaging materials made of plastic, new combinations of established plastic materials continue

to be developed to perform specific functions in more efficient and cost-effective ways

(Robertson, 2006).

While plastics are another option for packaging, they are not without their disadvantages.

Packages made from thermoplastic polymers are permeable to small molecules, and with the

transmission of organic compounds such as flavors, aromas, odors, and solvents, the quality of

the product inside can be left undesirable (Robertson, 2006). Packaging needs to protect the

contents against contamination of foreign odors while also ensuring that flavors from within the

food are not lost (Robertson, 2006).

Although with disadvantages, plastics, being able to be formed into a wide array of

shapes and able to have the contents squeezed out of them, offers new options for packaging of

new products. Regardless of the type of packaging however, it is important that the sensory

properties of the product inside are maintained.

Acceptance of New Packaging

While many condiments have been packaged in metal cans and glass jars, many have

transitioned to new forms of convenience packaging over the years, such as ketchup, mustard,

and mayonnaise in squeezable containers. Sauerkraut is one condiment that has not transitioned

to this convenience due to the combination of the solid kraut and the liquid brine. According to

Rebollar, Lidon, Serrano, Martin, and Fernandez (2012), “A product’s packaging, besides

protecting the contents and expediting transport, handling, and storage, serves to grab the

attention of potential buyers, to influence their willingness to buy and even to increase the

acceptance of the product, once purchased.” New packaging of a current product needs to be

22

accepted by consumers not only for the convenience it may provide, but also for the sensory

characteristic standards consumers know and expect from that product.

Montouto-Grana, Cabanas-Arias, Porto-Fojo, Vazquez-Oderiz, and Romero-Rodriguez

(2012) realized that consumer acceptance of new products is needed for them to succeed on the

market, and that obtaining information about consumers’ preferences is relevant not only for

modifying or improving a product but also for developing a new product. They conducted a

study where they examined new packaging for fresh-cut potatoes and what consumers’ opinions

were. The study revealed that the three-hundred member consumer panel liked the potatoes, and

scored both potatoes packed under vacuum and under modified atmosphere values above a 4 on

a 7-point scale for appearance, taste, texture, and overall experience, where 1 = dislike very

much and 7 = like very much (Montouto-Grana, Cabanas-Arias, Porto-Fojo, Vazquez-Oderiz, &

Romero-Rodriguez, 2012.) The one characteristic they found that influenced the consumer the

most was the texture (Montouto-Grana, Cabanas-Arias, Porto-Fojo, Vazquez-Oderiz, & Romero-

Rodriguez, 2012.) Among a panel of twelve trained tasters, texture, along with moistness in the

mouth and pastiness of the boiled potatoes, were where the differences between the difference

types of packaging were seen (Montouto-Grana, Cabanas-Arias, Porto-Fojo, Vazquez-Oderiz, &

Romero-Rodriguez 2012.) This acceptance and liking of potatoes shows that products can be

packaged in new materials and still uphold the characteristics that are expected of them. New

concepts in packaging and acceptance of it can also apply to condiments.

Two other studies evaluated sensory perception on packaging of condiments, including

mayonnaise and olive oil. The results of a seven member trained descriptive panel for sensory

analysis of olive oil stored in glass containers for a period of sixty days, using a ‘just about right’

(JAR) scale showed that glass containers had the lowest changes in sensory values for color (4.5

23

to 3.9 after 60 days), astringent taste (4.6 to 4.3 after 60 days), rancid flavor (4.7 to 4.4 after 60

days), and rancid odor (4.6 to 4.3 after 60 days), followed by plastic (3.6, 4.0, 3.9, 3.9,

respectively), then tinplate (3.2, 3.5, 3.4, 3.6, respectively) (Rabbah, Feng, Yang, Eriefej, & Al-

Omoush, 2011.) A triangle test conducted between mayonnaise packaged in glass and in plastic

containers showed that it took more than five months of storage before the twelve member panel

was able to detect a significant difference in the packaging of the mayonnaise using sensory

analysis (Sensidoni, Leonardi, Possamai, Tamagnone, & Peressini, 2004.) These studies show

that condiments can be placed into new packaging without affecting sensory properties.

Although the olive oil packaged in glass had the greatest values, plastic was the next with

moderate ratings, and for the mayonnaise, the difference between glass packaging and plastic

packaging was not even noticeable until five months of storage. These studies demonstrate the

potential for other condiments to undergo packaging transformation.

It is noted from 1983 to 1989, 2.5 billion plastic containers were on the market as a result

of glass replacement even though many products still remain in glass packaging (Moskowitz,

1991). The desire for products to be “environmentally friendly”; the industry needing a resin that

provides sufficient barrier properties such as being able to withstand hot-filling and providing

glass like clarity; and glass being seen as a higher quality product, are the main reasons why

many products have remained in glass containers (Moskowitz, 1991). In 1983 Heinz ® Company

introduced the first polypropylene-based Gamma bottle that was used for squeezable ketchup

(Moskowitz, 1991). Many other condiments have followed suit, including mustard, mayonnaise,

and even pickle relish (Moskowitz, 1991). Sauerkraut is one condiment that as of yet as not been

able to transition to the plastic packaging and convenience of a squeezable bottle because of the

combination of the solid kraut and liquid brine. The brine leaks out before solid sauerkraut

24

particles as well as exit issues of the kraut clogging the container. It is believed with the addition

of natural ingredients, it is hopeful that that the solids and liquid will exit the bottle at the same

time, while still preserving the texture and flavor attributes.

Product Transformation

Viscosity is the term used to describe the flow properties of a food; “It’s what decides if

the ketchup is going to run out of the bottle or refuse to budge” (Murano, 2003).

While there are many factors that can influence a product’s viscosity including processing

conditions such as pumping or shear rate effects; packaging characteristics such a wide mouth

bottle versus a narrow mouth which influences the ease in which a product will begin to flow; it

is a formulation changed that is used in the case of liquids to increase their viscosity (Murano,

2003).

Formulation changes are achieved through the use of hydrocolloids, also called gums,

which are natural or synthetic in origin, and consist of complex polysaccharide derivatives

(Penfield & Campbell, 1990). Sources of gums include seed, plant exudates, seaweed extracts,

and microorganism derivatives (McWilliams, 2012). Seed gum includes guar and locust bean

(carob); plant exudates include gum arabic, gum ghatti, gum tragacanth, and gum karaya;

seaweed extracts include agar, carrageenan, and alginates; microbial exudates include xanthan

gum, curdlan, and gellan gum; and synthetic gums include cellulose, microcrystalline cellulose,

methylcellulose, and hydropropy-Imethyl-cellulose (McWilliams, 2013). The basic property that

all these hydrocolloids, or gums, have in common is their ability to absorb large amounts of

water (Penfield & Campbell, 1990). By absorbing the water, or liquid portion of a product, the

viscosity of the product is increased (Penfield & Campbell, 1990). Besides absorbing water,

hydrocolloids can also control crystallization, prevent the settling out of solids, reduce syneresis,

25

reduce evaporation rate protect an emulsion, from a gel structure, and contribute to special

textural effects, such as gumminess (Penfield & Campbell, 1990).

In the case of sauerkraut, where it is a combination of liquid brine and the solid kraut, a

transformation must be made to allow the combination of the product to have the viscosity to exit

a plastic squeezable bottle at the same time. To achieve this transformation, ingredients must be

added to the product. It is because of these ingredients that this study was conducted, in order to

determine if changing the formulation of the sauerkraut will still preserve the texture and flavor

attributes associated with a quality sauerkraut product.

26

Chapter III: Methodology





flavor, texture, overall opinion, and likeliness to purchase. This chapter will address description

of the variables, subject selection, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis.

Research Design/Description of Variables

The research design for this study was a consumer sensory taste test with a survey

methodology utilized. The independent variables were the sauerkraut samples the panelists tasted

including the prototype and two commercial brands of sauerkraut currently on the market. The

dependent variables were the ratings of the sauerkraut samples for appearance, flavor, texture,

and overall opinion as rated by the panelists on a 7 point hedonic scale, where 1 was ‘dislike

very much’ and 7 was ‘like very much’.

Subject Selection and Description

Panelists for this study were students, faculty, and visitors of the University of

Wisconsin-Stout who chose to participate voluntarily in the taste test. Panelists were recruited

via advertisement for participation which was posted in Campus Life Today (a daily campus

wide email that is sent out to all students, faculty, and staff) as well as postings throughout the

campus buildings.

Instrumentation

Permission to conduct this study was obtained through the University of Wisconsin-Stout

Institutional Review Board. A survey using a computerized data acquisition system,

27

(Compusense five, version 5.0., Compusense, Inc., Guelph, ON, Canada), was used to gather

data from the panelists. The survey (Uva, Cuellar, & Roberts, 2006) included questions about the

sauerkraut samples that the panelists ranked on a seven point hedonic scale; 1 = dislike very

much, 2 = dislike moderately, 3 = dislike slightly, 4 = neither like nor dislike, 5 = like slightly, 6

= like moderately, 7= like very much. Questions included how well the panelists liked the

appearance, flavor (including sourness, saltiness, cabbage flavor, aftertaste and overall flavor),

texture (including crunchiness, juiciness, and overall texture) and overall opinion of the samples.

Questions regarding likeliness to purchase and likeliness to purchase in a squeezable container

were ranked on a five point hedonic scale; 1 = definitely would not purchase, 2 = probably

would not purchase, 3 = may or may not purchase. 4 = probably would purchase, 5 = definitely

would purchase. Preference on how panelists ate their sauerkraut was based on temperature (hot

or cold); the frequency of consumption question was based on a five point hedonic scale; 1 =

daily, 2 = weekly, 3 = monthly, 4 = yearly, 5 = never; and demographic questions were answered

as follows: gender (male of female) and age category the subject fit within (18-25, 26-35, 36-45,

46-55, and 55+). Finally, there were two qualitative questions panelists answered by typing in

freely on the keyboard, and included what they liked and disliked about the samples (Uva,

Cuellar, & Roberts, 2006). A hard copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix A.

Data Collection Procedures

Prior to the day of the survey, several samples of commercial sauerkraut products were

screened and two were chosen to be sampled against the prototype created by Tracy Lundberg,

general manager, XYZ Company, Eau Claire, WI (personal communication, January 9, 2013).

On the day of the survey, the brine from the commercial sauerkraut products was drained, and

then the sauerkraut was chopped using the same food processor for the same amount of time that

28

was used to chop the prototype sauerkraut created by Lundberg (personal communication,

January 9, 2013). Once the commercial sauerkraut products were chopped to the same size as the

prototype sauerkraut, the three different sauerkraut samples, one being the prototype developed

to be dispensed from a squeezable container and two being commercially prepared products

currently on the market (local grocer, Menomonie, WI), were portioned into individual two

ounce sample cups. Each sauerkraut sample had been assigned a random three digit number that

was used as an identifier that only the researcher was able to decode, and this number had

previously been written on the sample cups. Lids were placed on the sample cups and taken to

the sensory evaluation lab.

Panelists reported to the sensory evaluation lab located in Heritage Hall room 252 and

upon arrival, the panelists were seated at an individual testing both, panelists turned on a green

light which indicated to the researcher a new subject was ready to participate in the test. The

panelists were given an informed consent to sign which told them about the risks, benefits, time

commitment, right to withdraw, and explained the confidentiality agreement of the survey.

Panelists were provided with three samples, each coded with a three-digit random

number, that were presented sequentially under white lighting. Serving order was balanced.

Portions of white bread and spring water were provided as palate cleansing (Johanningsmeier,

Fleming, Thompson, and McFeeters, 2007).

Once the panelists completed all the questions, they were free to leave.

Data Analysis

Analysis of the data was accomplished using a computerized data acquisition system

(Compusense five, version 5.0. Compusense, Inc., Guelph, ON, Canada). For questions regarding

appearance, flavor, texture, overall opinion, and intent to purchase, the means, standard

29

deviations, and analysis of variance were calculated. Questions regarding temperature

preference, consumption patterns, gender, and age were all analyzed using percentage cross-

tabulation. Where the P values indicated a significant difference among samples means, Tukey’s

honestly significant difference (HSD) was used to examine significant differences (P<0.05).

Limitations

The panelists themselves may be a limitation as many may have participated only to

receive monetary compensation or extra credit in a class and may not actually frequently

consume sauerkraut.

30

Chapter IV: Results and Discussion





flavor, texture, overall opinion, and likeliness to purchase. The research design was a consumer

sensory taste test with subjective methodology utilized. This chapter provides all the statistical

information that was obtained through a computerized data acquisition system (Compusense five,

version 5.0. Compusense, Inc., Guelph, ON, Canada), that was used for the data collection of the

survey using ANOVA with Tukey’s HSD as post hoc at P<0.05. Means, standard deviations, and

mean of squares for each sauerkraut formulation were calculated.

Demographic Data

One hundred-eight people (thirty-one males and seventy-seven females aged 18 to over

55) were recruited from the University of Wisconsin-Stout campus, in Menomonie, WI, to

participate on the sensory panel. Figure 1 shows the distribution of gender. While the majority of

the panelists who participated were female, it should be noted that men consume twenty-five

percent more cabbage than females do, as found by Uva, Cuellar, and Roberts (2006).

31

Of the panelists who participated, the majority, seventy-two (66.7%) were between the

ages of 18-25; sixteen (14.8%) were between the ages of 26-35; six (5.6%) were between the

ages of 36-45, five (4.6%) were between the ages of 46-55; and nine (8.3%) were aged 55 and

older (Figure 2). It was not surprising that the majority of the panelists were between the ages of

18-25 as the study was conducted on a university campus were the majority of people are

students. While most of the panelists were at a younger age, it should be noted that Uva, Cuellar,

and Roberts (2006), found that people over the age of forty are stronger consumers of sauerkraut.

28.7%

71.3%

MaleFemale

Figure 1. Gender Distribution of Subject

66.7%

14.8%

5.6%

4.6% 8.3%

18-2526-3536-4546-5555+

Figure 2. Age Distribution of Panelists

32

The results from the question regarding at what temperature the panelists prefer their

sauerkraut found that sixty-three (58.3%) preferred to eat their sauerkraut hot, while forty-five

(41.7%) preferred to eat it cold (Figure 3). This indicates that slightly more panelists prefer

sauerkraut to be heated prior to consuming, although for this taste test the sauerkraut was served

at room temperature for ease of service.

When panelists were questioned on how often they typically consume sauerkraut, the

consumption patterns showed that no one ate sauerkraut daily (0), with the majority consuming

sauerkraut monthly (35.2%) which was only slightly greater than those who consume sauerkraut

yearly (34.2%) (Figure 4). In addition it was noted that eleven total (10.2%) of the panelists ate

sauerkraut weekly, and twenty-two (20.4%) never ate sauerkraut. These results are similar to

what Uva, Cuellar, and Roberts (2006) found in that seventy-two percent of the individuals

surveyed had sauerkraut in the previous year, and that most sauerkraut consumers (76%) eat

sauerkraut once a month or less.

58.3%

41.7% HotCold

Figure 3. Temperature Preference of Sauerkraut

33

Sensory Analysis of Sauerkraut

A total of fourteen questions were asked for each sample of sauerkraut and included:

appearance (one question); flavor including sourness, saltiness, cabbage flavor, aftertaste, and

overall flavor (five questions); texture including crunchiness, juiciness, and overall texture (three

questions); overall opinion of the sample (one question); and likeliness to purchase (two

questions). Panelists were also asked two additional questions regarding comments on what they

liked and disliked about each sample through an open-ended response format (two questions).

Two of the samples tasted were commercial brands of sauerkraut currently available on the

market (samples B and C), and the prototype (sample A) that was the product formulated to be

dispensed from a squeezable container.

Appearance.

Means, standard deviations, and mean of squares were calculated for the appearance of

each sauerkraut sample. No significant difference was found among the samples. The mean for

Sample B was 5.16, followed by Sample C 4.95, and finally Sample A (prototype) at 4.77, on a

scale of 1 to 7; with 1 = dislike very much and 7 = like very much (Figure 5). Analysis of

0.0%

10.2%

35.2%

34.3%

20.3% DailyWeeklyMonthlyYearlyNever

Figure 4. Consumption Patterns of Sauerkraut

34

variance was determined at p=0.14. The results for appearance, with ratings between ‘neither like

nor dislike’ to ‘like slightly’, are lower than what Ghosh and Chattopadhyah (2012) found in

their analysis of fermented foods, where most panelists declared ‘like very much’ for appearance

of fermented food samples they tested, including sauerkraut. Overall, the appearance of the

prototype was noted to be comparable to the commercial samples tested.

1Scale for appearance: 1 = Dislike very much, 2 = Dislike moderately, 3 = Dislike slightly, 4 =

Neither like nor dislike, 5 = Like slightly, 6 = Like moderately, 7 = Like very much

Basic tastes.

Two of the basic tastes, salt and sour, were tested. The results are listed below.

Sourness.

Scores for sourness of the sauerkraut samples showed that the prototype was significantly

lower (3.81) than Sample C (4.41), while not significantly different than Sample B (3.87).

Analysis of variance was determined at p=0.02. Figure 6 shows the means for the sourness and it

is noted that most liked sourness was in Sample C, suggesting there may have been more

naturally occurring lactic acid bacteria in the manufacturing of Sample C. It is this bacterium that

4.77 5.16 4.95

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Sample A (Prototype) Sample B Sample C

Hed

onic

Sca

le

Sauerkraut Sample

Appearance

Figure 5. Mean panel scores for appearance of the three sauerkraut samples

35

causes the production of acid, lowering the pH, which ultimately increases the sour taste which is

characteristics of fermented products like sauerkraut (McFeeters, 2004). This finding would tend

to indicate that the prototype (Sample A) would need to increase the sourness to rate higher on

the scale, as sourness is one of the key characteristics tastes in sauerkraut (Johanningsmeier,

Fleming, Thompson, & McFeeters, 2005).

1Means with different lower case letters are significantly different (p<0.05).

Saltiness.

Figure 7 shows that the mean for Sample A (prototype) was lowest (4.08) for saltiness

among the three samples, but only significantly lower than Sample C (4.66). Analysis of

variance was determined at p=0.01. This indicates that Sample C may have been manufactured

with a larger quantity of salt. As found by Johanningsmeier, McFeeters, Fleming, and Thompson

(2007), the amount of salt added during the fermentation has a direct correlation in the intensity

of the salty taste of the kraut, which is one of the characteristic flavors and key components in

the quality grading of sauerkraut (Johanningsmeier, Fleming, Thompson, & McFeeters, 2005). If

3.81b 3.87ab 4.41a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Sample A(Prototype)

Sample B Sample C

Hed

onic

Sca

le

Sauerkraut Sample

Sourness

Figure 6. Mean panel scores1 for sourness of the three sauerkraut samples

36

saltiness increase is desired, this would indicate that the prototype (Sample A) would need to

increase the amount of salt used in the fermentation process.


Flavors.

Flavors for sauerkraut samples, including cabbage flavor, aftertaste, and overall flavor

were tested and in general the prototype was liked the least among the three samples. The results

are listed below.

Cabbage flavor.

As evident from Figure 8, Sample C was liked significantly more (4.89) in cabbage flavor

(p<0.01) than the other samples, and the prototype (Sample A) was liked the least (4.16)

although not different than Sample B (4.18). Although Sample A (prototype) was rated as

‘neither like nor dislike’, raw cabbage flavor is not one of the key flavors associated with

sauerkraut, and was given an intensity of 1 on a scale of 0 (not detectable) to 15 (very strong) for

the reference sample of sauerkraut used in a study by Johanningsmeier, McFeeters, Fleming, and

Thompson (2007). Overall, cabbage flavor, not a key flavor characteristic, would not appear to

4.08b 4.20ab 4.66a

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Sample A(Prototype)

Sample B Sample C

Hed

onic

Sca

le

Sauerkraut Sample

Saltiness

Figure 7. Mean panel scores1 for saltiness of the three sauerkraut samples

37

need modification in this attribute since it may not affect the overall acceptance level of this

product.


Aftertaste.

It was noted that the prototype was significantly lower (3.74) than Sample C (4.48), but

not significantly different than Sample B (4.12), with an overall rating of ‘dislike slightly’ for the

aftertaste (Figure 9). Aftertaste, although not specifically described as a being a key flavor

attribute, should be desirable by consumers. Overall, this panel indicated that the aftertaste could

be modified, and may be accomplished with adjustments on the sourness and saltiness, key

flavor characteristics of sauerkraut. It should be important to determine if the ingredients used

for allowing the kraut to be dispensed from the squeezable container have an aftertaste

themselves, which could ultimately be affecting the overall aftertaste of the sauerkraut.

4.16b 4.18b 4.89a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Sample A(Prototype)

Sample B Sample C

Hed

onic

Sca

le

Sauerkraut Sample

Cabbage Flavor

Figure 8. Mean panel scores1 for cabbage flavor of the threee sauerkraut samples

38

Means with different lower case letters are significantly different (p<0.05).

Overall flavor.

Figure 10 shows the means for cabbage flavor and it can be seen that the prototype

(Sample A) was like significantly lower (3.83) than Sample C (4.62), but not significantly

different than Sample B (4.01), with an overall rating of ‘dislike slightly’. Salty, sour, and sulfur

notes are characteristics flavors of sauerkraut (Johanningsmeier, Fleming, Thompson, &

McFeeters, 2005) and while sulfur notes were not tested, it can be seen from these results that the

prototype was lacking in both salty and sour notes. By improving on these flavors, through the

fermentation process of adding adequate salt to not only improve on the saltiness which has a

direct correlation, but also affects the sourness by through the amount of acid produced, it would

be expected that the overall flavor would also be improved.

3.74b 4.12ab

4.48a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Sample A(Prototype)

Sample B Sample C

Hed

onic

Sca

le

Sauerkraut Sample

Aftertaste

Figure 9. Mean panel scores1 for aftertaste of the three sauerkraut samples

39


Texture.

For all three of the questions related to texture attributes, crunchiness, juiciness, and

overall texture, there was no significant difference among any of the three samples. Although the

prototype ranked the lowest for crunchiness (4.73), juiciness (4.35), and overall texture (4.53),

all samples were ‘neither liked nor disliked’ (Figure 11).

Crunchiness.

Crunchiness is a key attribute associated with sauerkraut and is dependent upon the

amount of salt used in the fermentation process. Too low of a salt concentration can produce a

product that is too soft (Holzapfel, Schillinger, & Buckenhüskes, 2008). Overall the crunchiness

of the prototype is acceptable for this product as it was similar to other commercial products

tested.

Juiciness.

Juiciness, while not a key attribute, could be associated with the amount of brine in the

kraut product. While Samples B and C had the brine removed prior to tasting, Sample A retained

3.83b 4.01b 4.62a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Sample A(Prototype)

Sample B Sample C

Hed

onic

Sca

le

Sauerkraut Sample

Overall Flavor

Figure 10. Mean panel scores1 for overall flavor of three sauerkraut samples

40

the brine in the formulation process to allow the product to be dispensed from a squeezable

bottle. Natural ingredients, in the form of hydrocolloids, or gums, are added to products to

absorb the water or liquid with the intention of increasing the viscosity (Penfield & Campbell,

1990).

The fact that none of the samples were significantly different indicates that the prototype

was able to maintain textural attributes, even with the addition of natural ingredients. Overall,

juiciness of the prototype is acceptable for this panel of consumers.

Overall texture.

Firmness and crunchiness are the key texture attributes associated with sauerkraut. Both

firmness and crunchiness are texture attributes that are dependent upon the amount of salt used in

the fermentation process of the cabbage. Adequate salt is needed during the fermentation process

of the cabbage to prevent a soft product (Holzapfel, Schillinger, & Buckenhüskes, 2008). The

overall texture was maintained with the addition of natural ingredients, and did not affect the

texture attributes significantly.

4.73 4.35 4.53 4.66 4.58 4.69

4.96 4.56

4.88

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Crunchiness Juiciness Overall Texture

Hed

onic

Sco

re

Texture Attributes

Sample A (Prototype)Sample BSample C

Figure 11. Mean panel scores for texture attributes of the three sauerkraut samples

41

Overall opinion.

Scores for overall opinion showed that the prototype was significantly lower (3.99) than

Sample C (4.59), but not significantly different than Sample B (4.24) (Table 12). Overall opinion

asked the panelists to consider all attributes including the appearance, flavor, and texture, of the

sauerkraut samples. These results were not surprising as Sample A (prototype) had consistently

ranked lower than Sample C and Sample B for notable flavor attributes and aftertaste, while

appearance and texture attributes were not significantly different among any of the samples.

Improving on the flavor attributes, particularly the key ones of salty and sour, could improve the

overall opinion of the prototype sample.


Likes and dislikes.

Questions regarding what panelists liked and disliked regarding each sample were an

open-ended response format allowing panelists to type in key words. A list of the top responses

that the panelists liked about Sample A, the prototype (Table 1) were not surprising that the top

two responses related to texture (crunchiness and texture), which were liked by 50% of the

3.99b 4.24ab 4.59a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Sample A(Prototype)

Sample B Sample C

Hed

onic

Sca

le

Sauerkraut Sample

Overall Opinion

Figure 12. Mean panel scores1 for overall opinion of three sauerkraut samples

42

panelists. Thirty-three panelists (30.5%) listed crunchiness as what they liked the most about the

prototype. Texture characteristics were the attributes in which the prototype was not significantly

different than any of the other samples. Appearance was the other attribute that the prototype was

not significantly different, which ranked as the sixth greatest for attributes the panelists liked

with nine (8.3%) of the panelists listing this. These results show that the prototype is acceptable

for texture attributes and that the addition of natural ingredients did not affect the crunchiness

and what is expected of a quality sauerkraut product.

Table 1

Top comments panelists made to what they liked about the prototype (Sample A) and the

percentage of panelists who responded similarly.

Comments Panelists Made

Number that made comment1

Percentage of Panelists

Crunchiness 33 30.5%

Texture 22 20.4%

Juiciness 11 10.2%

Flavor 11 10.2%

Taste 11 10.2%

Appearance 9 8.3%

Color 7 6.5%

Saltiness 7 6.5%

Sourness 7 6.5%

Cabbage flavor 4 3.7%

Size of cabbage pieces 4 3.7%

Smell 4 3.7%

Aftertaste 3 2.7%

43

Sweet taste 3 2.7%

Crisp 2 1.9%

Moistness 2 1.9%

Tasted Fresh 2 1.9% 1Panelists may have typed multiple reasons for why what they liked about this sample; therefore

the total number of comments is greater than 108.

N=108 total panelists

For the second open-response question, panelists typed in key words indicating what they

disliked about each sample (Table 2). It was not surprising that the top two responses for what

panelists disliked about the prototype related to flavor (aftertaste and flavor). Flavor attributes

were the characteristics where the prototype rated lower than the other samples, being

significantly lower than Sample C, and lower but not significantly than Sample B. Other flavor

attributes including taste, sourness, and bitterness, were all listed by six of the panelists (5.6%). It

is interesting to note there was not a single comment that had an overwhelming number of

panelists list as what they disliked. Aftertaste had the most comments with ten panelists listing it,

but was still less than ten percent of the panelists (9.3%). Based on these results there is no one

single attribute that panelists did not like about the prototype that would need to be improved.

However, considering that flavor attributes were liked significantly less than other samples, and

that flavor comments were five out of the top seven comments listed, it would be advised for the

prototype to improve the flavor to be improved overall.

44

Table 2

Top comments panelists made to what they disliked about Sample A-the prototype and the

percentage of panelists who responded similarly.

Comments Panelists Made

Number that made comment1

Percentage of Panelists

Aftertaste 10 9.3%

Flavor 9 8.3%

Smell 7 6.5%

Texture 7 6.5%

Taste 6 5.6%

Sourness 6 5.6%

Bitterness 6 5.6%

Saltiness 6 5.6%

Appearance 5 4.6%

Crunchiness 4 3.7%

Too juicy 4 3.7%

Bland flavor 4 3.7%

Size of cabbage pieces 3 2.7%

Lack of flavor 3 2.7%

Lack of crunch 3 2.7%

Dry 3 2.7%

Not enough juice 3 2.7%

Cabbage flavor 2 1.9%

Not enough cabbage flavor 2 1.9%

Not sweet enough 2 1.9%

45

Saltiness 2 1.9%

Weird taste 2 1.9%

Weird off taste 2 1.9% 1Panelists may have typed multiple reasons for why what they disliked about this sample;

therefore the total number of comments is greater than 108.

N=108 total panelists

Likeliness to Purchase

Means, standard deviations and percentage cross-tabulation were calculated for likeliness

to purchase for each sauerkraut sample. Figure 13 shows that Sample A (prototype) was ranked

as the least likely to be purchased with a mean of 2.36, being significantly different than Sample

C (2.91), but not different than Sample B (2.67). This was based on a scale of 1 to 5; with 1 =

definitely would not purchase and 5 = definitely would purchase. Of note was that all samples

received a rating of ‘probably would not purchase.’ The results of the percent cross-tabulation

showed that panelists who indicated they ‘probably would purchase’ or ‘definitely would

purchase’ each sample, was 23% for Sample A, being the lowest, followed by 32% for Sample

B, and most panelists choosing Sample C at 39% (Figure 14). This is not surprising as Sample C

ranked the highest for all the attributes tested and Sample A (the prototype) ranked the lowest.

Uva, Cuellar, and Roberts (2006) found that sixty percent of sauerkraut consumption occurs in

the home, which indicates consumers are purchasing this type of product. It should be noted that

twenty percent of the panelists of this sample surveyed indicated that they did not consume

sauerkraut so it would be expected they would not purchase this product.

46


2Scale for likeliness to purchase: 1 = Definitely would not purchase, 2 = Probably would not

purchase, 3 = May or may not purchase, 4 = Probably would purchase, 5 = Definitely would

purchase

Figure 14. Percent of 108 untrained panelists who indicated 'probably would purchase' or

‘definitely would purchase’ each sample of sauerkraut

2.36b 2.67ab 2.91a

1

2

3

4

5

Sample A(Prototype)

Sample B Sample C

Hed

onic

Sca

le

Sauerkraut Sample



Figure 13. Mean panel scores1,2 for likeliness to purchase

23.1%

31.5%

38.9%

Sample A (Prototype)

Sample B

Sample C

Likeliness to Purchase Top Two Box='Probably would purchase' and 'Definitely would

purchase'

47

As with likeliness to purchase, likeliness to purchase from a squeezable container

question showed the similar results with Sample A (prototype) being significantly lower (3.08)

than Sample C (3.56), but not different than Sample B (3.27) (Figure 15). With all samples

receiving a rating of ‘may or may not purchase’ for likeliness to purchase from a squeezable

container, which was greater than the ‘probably would not purchase’ value as found with

likeliness to purchase, it was surprising to see the results of the percent cross-tabulation that the

number of panelists who indicated ‘probably would purchase’ or ‘definitely would purchase’ was

only 11.1% for the prototype, 18.5% for Sample B, and 24.1% for Sample C (Figure 16). Once

again, twenty percent of the panelists indicated they do not consume sauerkraut. For those who

do consume sauerkraut, it was not indicated if they consumed it at or away from their home.

Since this is a novel concept, and the fact that it was not put into the context of how the

sauerkraut, being used as a condiment and dispensed from a plastic squeezable container, could

ease the use for consumers and eliminate waste, it was not surprising to see the low numbers for

those wanting to purchase this product. The use of a concept card would have been beneficial for

panelists to understand the concept of sauerkraut dispensed from a squeezable container and

helped them to make a more informed decision on whether or not to purchase this type of

product.

48


2Scale for likeliness to purchase: 1 = Definitely would not purchase, 2 = Probably would not

purchase, 3 = May or may not purchase, 4 = Probably would purchase, 5 = Definitely would

purchase

Figure 16. Percent of 108 untrained panelists who indicated 'probably would purchase' or

"definitely would purchase’ each sample of sauerkraut from a squeezable container.

3.08b 3.27ab 3.56a

1

2

3

4

5

Sample A(Prototype)

Sample B Sample C

Hed

onic

Sca

le

Sauerkraut Sample

Likeliness to Purchase from a Squeezable Container

Likeliness to Purchase froma Squeezable Container

Figure 15. Mean panel scores1,2 for likeliness to purchase from a squeezable container

11.1%

18.5%

24.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Sample A (Prototype)

Sample B

Sample C

Likeliness to Purchase from a Squeezable Container Top Two Box='Probably would purchase' and 'Definitely would

purchase'

49

Chapter V: Conclusion

Sauerkraut formulated to be served from a squeezable container was compared to sauerkraut

products currently on the market through sensory evaluation using students, staff, and visitors on

a college campus. The appearance, flavor, and texture were rated by each panelist (n=108) on a

seven point hedonic scale, where 1 = dislike extremely and 7 = like extremely, and it was noted

that there was no significant difference in the appearance or texture attributes among the samples

of sauerkraut, indicating that the appearance of the prototype was comparable to the samples

currently on the market and no differences in any of the texture attributes (crunchiness,

juiciness, and overall texture) is significant in that the natural ingredients added to the kraut,

which allow it to be dispensed from a squeezable container, did not affect the texture attributes.

However, the prototype rated the lowest, being significantly different, in all flavor attributes

tested including sourness, saltiness, cabbage flavor, aftertaste, and overall flavor. The difference

in flavor attribute ratings could have been a result of the base sauerkraut product currently being

used for the prototype. It may have been more or less salty, sour, or had an undesirable aftertaste,

as compared to the other commercial products. The difference in flavor attributes could also be

from the natural ingredients that were used to make the prototype to be dispensed from a

squeezable bottle.

Sensory ratings indicate that the top attribute panelists listed for what they ‘liked’ about

the prototype was the crunchiness (30.5%), followed by the texture (20.4%). This is significant

considering 50% of the panelists listed attributes relating to texture. Texture attributes were the

attributes that were not significantly different among the samples. This shows that the natural

ingredients used to make the sauerkraut dispensable from a squeezable bottle did not affect the

texture and that the prototype is comparable to other products currently on the market.

50

The top attribute panelists listed for what they ‘disliked’ was the aftertaste, which was

listed by only ten panelists (9.3%). While aftertaste was the attribute that had the most ‘dislikes’

it was not even ten percent of the panelists. No one key attribute was disliked by a large number

of panelists since all descriptors were found to be less than ten percent of the panelists. The

shows that no one single attribute needs improvement in the prototype sauerkraut.

When panelists were asked how likely they would be to purchase each of the sauerkraut

samples, only twenty-three percent indicated they ‘probably would purchase’ or ‘definitely

would purchase’ the prototype. It should be noted that twenty percent of the panelists never

consume sauerkraut, which is one fifth of the sample. It should be noted also that sixty-seven

percent of the panelists were between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, which is much

younger than what literature shows with the majority of sauerkraut consumers being over the age

of forty. Considering these statistics some of the results may be a bit skewed considering that

one-fifth of the panelists do not consumer sauerkraut, and the majority of panelists were not in

the age range of typical consumers.

The likeliness to purchase from a squeezable container question, which had a mean of

‘may or may not purchase’ was selected by only eleven percent of the panelists as ‘probably

would purchase’ and ‘definitely would purchase.’ The likeliness to purchase from a squeezable

container question was not presented in any specific context, so panelists may not have stopped

to realize the convenience it could provide if they purchased sauerkraut to be used as an

occasional condiment on hotdogs or bratwurst, or at a picnic or tail-gate party where other types

of packaging require additional serving utensils. Also, panelists would not have necessarily

thought about the packaging and that it would allow for the product to be re-capped and stored

for later uses. The use of a concept card used during the sensory testing may have helped to

51

clarify the squeeze bottle and the convenience the product has along with minimizing waste.

Considering the average response for likeliness to purchase from a squeezable container was

‘may or may not’ seems as though the prototype has potential.

Recommendations

1. Test other brands of sauerkraut used in the formulation of producing a product that can be

packaged in a squeezable container to improve on the overall flavor of the sauerkraut.

2. Conduct sensory taste tests to determine if any ingredients currently being added to the

formulation are not affecting the overall flavor of the sauerkraut.

3. Conduct further sensory tests using the idea of a concept card demonstrating how

consumers could actually dispense the product from the squeezable bottle to help

consumers realize the potential of the product.

52

References

Bender, D. A. (2005). A dictionary of food and nutrition. Retrieved http://www.encyclopedia

.com/doc/1O39-hedonicscale.html

Food History. (n.d.) The history of sauerkraut. Retrieved from http://www.kitchen

project.com/history/sauerkraut.htm

Ghosh, D., & Chattopadhyah, P. (2012). Application of principal component analysis (PCA) as a

sensory assessment tool for fermented food products. Journal of Food Science

Technology, 49(3), 328-334, doi: 10.1007/s13197-011-0280-9

Holzapfel, W., Schillinger, U., & Buckenhüskes, H. (2008). Sauerkraut. In E. R. Farnworth

(Ed.), Handbook of fermented functional foods, (second ed.; pp. 395-412). Boca

Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Johanningsmeier, S. D., Fleming, H. P., Thompson, R. L., & McFeeters, R. F. (2005).

Chemical and sensory properties of sauerkraut produced with Leuconostoc mesenteroides

starter cultures differing malolactic phenotypes. Journal of Food Science, 70(5), S343-

S349, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2005.tb09989.x

Johanningsmeier, S., McFeeters, R. F., Fleming, H. P., & Thompson, R. L. (2007). Effects of

Leuconostoc mesenteroides starter culture on fermentation of cabbage with reduced salt

concentration. Journal of Food Science, (72)5, M166-M172, doi: 10.1111/j.1750-

3841.2007.00372.x

McFeeters, R. F. (2004). Fermentation microorganisms and flavor changes in fermented foods.

Journal of Food Science, 69(1), 35-37, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2004.tb17876.x

McWilliams, M. (2012). Foods experimental perspectives (seventh ed.). Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

53

Merriam-Webster, Inc. (2013). Dictionary-condiment. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/condiment.

Montouto-Grana, M., Cabanas-Arias, S., Porto-Fojo, S., Vazquez-Oderiz, M. L., & Romero-

Rodriguez, M. A. (2012). Sensory characteristics and consumer acceptance and purchase

intention toward fresh cut potatoes. Journal of Food Science, 71(1), S40-S46. doi:

10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02453.x

Moskowitz, M. (1991). Glass-to-plastic conversions: Are the gravy days over? Plastics World,

49, 48-52.

Murano, P. S. (2003). Understanding food science and technology. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

Penfield, M. P., & Campbell, A. M. (1990). Experimental food science (third ed.). San

Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.

Perez, A., Harwood, J., & Somwaru, A. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Risk

Management (1995). Cabbage: An economic assessment of the feasibility of providing

multiple-peril crop insurance. Retrieved from http://www.rma.usda.gov/pilots/

feasible/PDF/cabbage.pdf

Rabbah T. M., Feng, H., Yang, W., Eriefej, K., & Al-Omoush, M. (2011). Effects of type of

packaging material on physiochemical and sensory properties of olive oil. International

Journal of Agriculture and Biological Engineering, 4(4), 66-72. doi: 10.3965/j.issn.1934-

6344.2011.04.066-072

54

Rebollar, R., Lidon, I., Serrano, A., Martin, J., & Fernandez, M. J. (2012). Influence of

chewing gum packaging design on consumer expectation and willingness to buy. An

analysis of functional, sensory, and experience attributes. Food Quality and Preference,

24(1), 162-170. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.10.011

Robertson, G. L. (2006). Food packaging principles and practice (second ed.). Boca Raton,

FL: CRC Press

Sensidoni, A., Leonardi, M., Possamai, A., Tamagnone, P., & Peressini, D. (2004). Study of an

innovative PET (polyethylene terephthalate) packaging for mayonnaise and evaluation of

product shelf life. Italian Journal of Food Science, 16(2), 139-149.

Uva, W. L., Cuellar, S., & Roberts, J. (2005). Evaluating consumer preferences and marketing

opportunities for new sauerkraut products. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 37(1),

174-180.

55

Appendix A: Sauerkraut Scorecard

WELCOME to COMPUSENSE five

To start the test, click on the Continue button below and

please switch the Light To GREEN: Panelist Code: ________________________

You will be given 3 samples of sauerkraut to taste today. Please taste the samples from LEFT to RIGHT. Eat at least two bites from each sample then answer the corresponding questions for each sample. When finished with each sample, eat a piece of bread and drink water before tasting the next sample. Use a new fork for each sample. There will be several questions for each sample.

Question # 1 - Sample ______ How well do you LIKE or DISLIKE the APPEARANCE of this sample? Appearance

Like very much

Like moderately

Like slightly

Neither like nor dislike

Dislike slightly

Dislike moderately

Dislike very much

56

Please now taste this sample to evaluate the different flavor attributes. Be sure to drink water and eat a piece of bread after tasting each sample. Thanks! Question # 2 - Sample ______ How well do you LIKE or DISLIKE the SOURNESS of this sample? Sourness

Dislike very much

Dislike moderately

Dislike slightly


Like slightly

Like moderately

Like very much

57

Question # 3 - Sample ______ How well do you LIKE or DISLIKE the SALTINESS of this sample? Saltiness

Dislike very much

Dislike moderately

Dislike slightly


Like slightly

Like moderately

Like very much

58

Question # 4 - Sample ______ How well do you LIKE or DISLIKE the CABBAGE FLAVOR of this sample? Cabbage Flavor

Dislike very much

Dislike moderately

Dislike slightly


Like slightly

Like moderately

Like very much

59

Question # 5 - Sample ______ How well do you LIKE or DISLIKE the OVERALL FLAVOR of this sample? Overall Flavor

Dislike very much

Dislike moderately

Dislike slightly


Like slightly

Like moderately

Like very much

60

Question # 6 - Sample ______ How well do you LIKE or DISLIKE the CRUNCHINESS of this sample? Crunchiness

Dislike very much

Dislike moderately

Dislike slightly


Like slightly

Like moderately

Like very much

61

Question # 7 - Sample ______ How well do you LIKE or DISLIKE the JUICINESS of this sample? Juiciness

Dislike very much

Dislike moderately

Dislike slightly


Like slightly

Like moderately

Like very much

62

Question # 8 - Sample ______ How well do you LIKE or DISLIKE the OVERALL TEXTURE of this sample? Overall Texture

Dislike very much

Dislike moderately

Dislike slightly


Like slightly

Like moderately

Like very much

63

Question # 9 - Sample ______ Please take a bite of the sample then wait 30 seconds to answer the following question. How well do you LIKE or DISLIKE the AFTERTASTE of this sample? Aftertaste

Dislike very much

Dislike moderately

Dislike slightly


Like slightly

Like moderately

Like very much

64

Question # 10 - Sample ______ Considering ALL characteristics (appearance, flavor, texture) what is your OVERALL OPINION of this sample? Overall Opinion

Dislike very much

Dislike moderately

Dislike slightly


Like slightly

Like moderately

Like very much

Question # 11 - Sample ______ Please indicate what you LIKED about this sample. Use WORDS not sentences. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Question # 12 - Sample ______ Please indicate what you DISLIKED about this sample. Use WORDS not sentences. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

65

Question # 13 - Sample ______ How likely would you be to PURCHASE this sample? Definitely would not purchase Probably would not purchase May or may not purchase Probably would purchase Definitely would purchase Question # 14 - Sample ______ How likely would you be to PURCHSE this sample if it were sold in a SQUEEZEABLE CONTAINER? Definitely would not purchase Probably would not purchase May or may not purchase Probably would purchase Definitely would purchase Question # 15. How do you prefer to eat your sauerkraut? Hot Cold Question # 16. How OFTEN do you consume sauerkraut? Daily Weekly Monthly Yearly Never Question # 17. Please indicate your gender below. Male Female Question # 18. Please indicate your age from the ranges listed below. 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 55+

66

THANK YOU

Thank you for participating in the sensory evaluation of

sauerkraut.

Please enjoy a treat on your way out!

author: corcoran, michelle, consumer acceptance and

Documents