Upload
hoangkien
View
218
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Sensory testing with consumersConor DelahuntyFood Science [email protected]
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
1.0
Principal Component 1 (12%)
23
4
6
89
1216
■
■
♦ ■
♦
♦
♦
●
♦
♦♦
■
▼
▼★
●
●
★
♦
▼
♦
♦
♦
★
▼
●
▼
★
■
● d
♦
♦
●
●
★
■
♦
♦
●
■
■
▼
♦ ▼
▼b
▼
▼
■ c
▼
■
■
●
■
♦
▼
▼
♦
▼a
♦
▼
♦
★
●
★
▼
●
▼
●
★
♦
●
Prin
cipa
l Co m
pone
nt 2
(9%
)
-1.0
-1.0 1.0
1.0
Principal Component 1 (12%)
23
4
6
89
1216
■
■
♦ ■
♦
♦
♦
●
♦
♦♦
■
▼
▼★
●
●
★
♦
▼
♦
♦
♦
★
▼
●
▼
★
■
● d
♦
♦
●
●
★
■
♦
♦
●
■
■
▼
♦ ▼
▼b
▼
▼
■ c
▼
■
■
●
■
♦
▼
▼
♦
▼a
♦
▼
♦
★
●
★
▼
●
▼
●
★
♦
●
Prin
cipa
l Co m
pone
nt 2
(9%
)
-1.0
-1.0 1.0
Mahogany red, IrelandBottle conditioned, Belgium
Red, Ireland
Traditional, Ireland
Monastic, Belgium
Craft, Ireland
Bitter, England
Organic, Scotland
Mahogany red, IrelandBottle conditioned, Belgium
Red, Ireland
Traditional, Ireland
Monastic, Belgium
Craft, Ireland
Bitter, England
Organic, Scotland
Cluster 3Cluster 3
Cluster 4Cluster 4
Cluster 2Cluster 2
1.0
Principal Component 1 (12%)
23
4
6
89
1216
■
■
♦ ■
♦
♦
♦
●
♦
♦♦
■
▼
▼★
●
●
★
♦
▼
♦
♦
♦
★
▼
●
▼
★
■
● d
♦
♦
●
●
★
■
♦
♦
●
■
■
▼
♦ ▼
▼b
▼
▼
■ c
▼
■
■
●
■
♦
▼
▼
♦
▼a
♦
▼
♦
★
●
★
▼
●
▼
●
★
♦
●
Prin
cipa
l Co m
pone
nt 2
(9%
)
-1.0
-1.0 1.0
1.0
Principal Component 1 (12%)
23
4
6
89
1216
■
■
♦ ■
♦
♦
♦
●
♦
♦♦
■
▼
▼★
●
●
★
♦
▼
♦
♦
♦
★
▼
●
▼
★
■
● d
♦
♦
●
●
★
■
♦
♦
●
■
■
▼
♦ ▼
▼b
▼
▼
■ c
▼
■
■
●
■
♦
▼
▼
♦
▼a
♦
▼
♦
★
●
★
▼
●
▼
●
★
♦
●
Prin
cipa
l Co m
pone
nt 2
(9%
)
-1.0
-1.0 1.0
Mahogany red, IrelandBottle conditioned, Belgium
Red, Ireland
Traditional, Ireland
Monastic, Belgium
Craft, Ireland
Bitter, England
Organic, Scotland
Mahogany red, IrelandBottle conditioned, Belgium
Red, Ireland
Traditional, Ireland
Monastic, Belgium
Craft, Ireland
Bitter, England
Organic, Scotland
Cluster 3Cluster 3
Cluster 4Cluster 4
Cluster 2Cluster 2
Content
1) Some background
2) Consumer sensory test methods
3) A comparison of methods
4) Consumers measuring sensory attributes
5) Consumer sensory testing in context
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
Note: The focus will be on consumers response to the sensory properties of foods and beverages
1) The value of sensory testing with consumers
What are the sensory properties of your products that lead to liking, and that sustain liking and continued purchase?
How does liking for the sensory properties of your products compare with that for your competitors products
How do the ingredients and production variables that you use to manufacture your products influence sensory properties that are most liked?
Who are the consumers that like the sensory properties of your products, and in what situation do they like them most?
Are you positioning your products optimally in the marketplace, to target the consumers most likely to like them, using appropriate labeling, pricing etc. ?
Understanding the likes and dislikes of consumers for the sensory properties of foods and beverages is vital for success in the marketplace
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
Perceptual innovation and new products
How can you create new products with innovative sensory properties that will sustain liking for a long time?
Familiar NovelFamiliar Novel
Maximum chance of success
Understanding “what the consumers wants”, and communicating this knowledge through to technical know how
It is important to know the match between liking for sensory properties, production variables, and product variables that are non-sensory, as it is the strength of the understanding between these that leads to product success
KP1KP2
KP3 } NovelVariedSatiatingComplexKP1
KP2
KP3
KP1KP2
KP3 } NovelVariedSatiatingComplex
Building holistic properties and perceptual contrast into new products
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
Innovation in product development
Consumer sensory, objective sensory, and product composition / product understanding data related and modeled
Consumer Sensory AnalysisObjective Sensory AnalysisProduct Analysis
Descriptive sensory analysis using a trained
panel
Identification of product
freshness using targeted
consumers
Measuring product
composition
Consumer-oriented understanding of baked product freshness
Data analysis and modelling
Baked Product Freshness Mapping
Consumer Sensory AnalysisObjective Sensory AnalysisObjective Sensory AnalysisProduct Analysis
Sensory analysis using a trained
panel
Product acceptance
with targeted consumers
Production variables and
product composition
Consumer-oriented understanding of product acceptance
Data analysis and modelling Product Acceptance Mapping
Understanding “what the consumers wants”, and communicating this knowledge through to technical know how
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
Acceptance is based upon an integrated perception of multi-modal stimuli
Tastee.g., sweet, sour
Odour / aromae.g., strawberry, banana
Chemesthesise.g., fizzy, cooling
Appearancee.g., colour, uniformity
Texturee.g., melting, sticky
Accept or Reject
Sounde.g., crisp, crunchy
It is acceptance / preferences, or hedonic response to stimuli, rather than the stimuli
themselves, that determine behaviour towards food and relate best to food choice and intake
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
Sweet Salt
Sour Bitter
Sweet Salt
Sour Bitter
Familiarity with sensory properties is strongly related to acceptance
Experience with food begins at the start of life, and continues as we age
The sensory properties of a food that is regularly consumed will be intrinsically learned
The senses function as “gatekeepers” to our body
The sensory properties that are acceptable will often be those that are most familiar, and perceptual innovation must step forward from this.
The selectivity of the “gatekeeper” is individual, although there are general principles regarding evolution of experience, and commonalities in likes and dislikes, e.g. sweetness, fat, particular off-flavours
Steiner, J.E. 1974Rosenstein and Oster, 1988
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
2) Consumer sensory test methods
There are two main approaches to consumer sensory testing: ─ The measurement of preference─ The measurement of acceptance
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
Measuring preference In preference measurement, the consumer
assessors have a choice. One product is to be chosen over one or more
other products. Preference measurements can be performed
directly or indirectly. The most commonly used Preference
Measurement Tests are:─ Paired Preference Test─ Ranked Preference Test
There has been recent interest in Best-Worst Scaling
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
Paired Preference Test
Each consumer is presented with two samples simultaneously
“Which wine do you prefer?”
324 579
A B
324 579
A B312 528
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
Consumers are presented with sample triads or tetrads, from which they select the samples representing the largest difference in liking.
516 139 826
“Which apple do you like the most?”“Which apple do you like the least?”
Best-worst scaling
Finn, A. & Louviere, J. J. (1992). Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 11, 12-25.
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
Ranked preference test
Consumers are presented with 5 samples, and asked to rank them in order of preference
342 417 902 739 184
“Assign rank 1 to the sample you prefer most, rank 2 to the sample you prefer next, and so on..”
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
Measuring acceptance To measure acceptance or liking, scales are used. The consumer assessors rate their liking for the product(s) on
a scale. Acceptance measurements can be on single products and do
not require a comparison to another product. The most efficient procedure is to determine consumer’s
acceptance scores in a multi-product test and then to determine their preferences indirectly from the scores.
The most commonly used scales in Acceptance Testing are:
─ 9-pt hedonic scale ─ Unstructured hedonic line scale ─ Labelled affective magnitude scale
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
Gre
ates
t Im
agin
able
Lik
e
Lik
e E
xtre
mel
y
Lik
e V
ery
Muc
h
Like
Mod
erat
ely
Like
Slig
htly
Sl
iSlig
htly
N
eith
er L
ike
Nor
Dis
like
Disl
ike
Slig
htly
Disl
ike
Mod
erat
ely
Dis
like
Ver
y M
uch
Disl
ike
Extr
emel
y
Gre
ates
t Im
agin
able
Dis
like
Labelled affective magnitude scale
9pt hedonic scale
dislikeextremely
dislikeverymuch
dislikemoderately
dislikeslightly
neitherlike nordislike
likeslightly
likemoderately
likeverymuch
likeextremely
dislikeextremely
dislikeverymuch
dislikemoderately
dislikeslightly
neitherlike nordislike
likeslightly
likemoderately
likeverymuch
likeextremely
likeextremely
likeextremely
neither likenor dislikeneither likenor dislike
dislikeextremelydislike
extremely
Unstructured hedonic line scale
likeextremely
likeextremely
neither likenor dislikeneither likenor dislike
dislikeextremelydislike
extremely
Commonly used scales in acceptance testing
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
3) Comparison of Five Common Acceptance and Preference Methods
Objectives To provide a better understanding of individual methods
sensitivity to sample differences. To determine whether method choice will result in data
that leads to different managerial decision making. To gain insight into method application from the
consumers’ point of view, and in terms of practicality of application.
Hein, K.H., Jaeger, S.R., Carr, T. and Delahunty, C.M. (2007). Comparison of common acceptance and preference methods. 7th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, 12-16 August. Minneapolis, USA.
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
Methods Samples: Six commercial breakfast bars of similar style, all
an oven baked pastry with an extruded fruit filling of similar flavor.
Consumers: Between groups design. A total of 233 consumers, assigned to one of the five methods (N=47±4) to create groups of similar demographics with respect to age and gender.
Method comparison: The acceptance methods used were the 9-point hedonic scale, unstructured line scale and the labeled affective magnitude scale. The preference methods used were best-worst scaling and preference ranking.
Questionnaire: Method application from the consumers’ point of view.
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
Between sample discrimination
Significant sample effects (p<0.001) resulted for both replications of acceptance methods and for best-worst scaling.
For acceptance methods, larger F-ratios resulted from ANOVA of a second replicate. Most notable with the 9-point hedonic scale (Rep1: F=5.19; Rep2: F= 15.20).
Overall, discrimination by preference ranking was less significant than that achieved by acceptance methods or best-worst scaling.
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
p=0.03
p=0.01
F-ratio p-value
rankrank
rankrank
rank
rank
hed
hed
hed
hed
hed
hed
lam
lam
lam
lam
lam
lam
usl
usl
uslusl
usl
usl
bw
bw
bw
bw
bw
bw
S1
S2
S3S4
S5
S6
-1.5
1.5
-1.5 1.5
35%
25%
hed: Hedonic category scale
lam: Labeled magnitude scaleusl: Unstructured line scale
bw: Best-worst scalingrank: Preference ranking
hed: Hedonic category scale
lam: Labeled magnitude scaleusl: Unstructured line scale
bw: Best-worst scalingrank: Preference ranking
Method comparison by Generalised Procrustes Analysis
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
Method application
Accurate Information
Method ease-of-use
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
Practical considerations Preference and acceptance methods differ considerably
regarding practicality in terms of set-up, number and quantity of sample tasted, and testing time needed.
Best-worst scaling is the most practically demanding as the test comparing six samples required consumers to compare ten sample triads, which led to tasting of 30 samples total
For preference ranking consumers were presented with six samples simultaneously, but in order to rank these it was most likely that each sample was tasted more than once.
Acceptance methods on the other hand require consumers to only taste each sample once.
When selecting a test method, the type of data produced and the appropriate data analyses need to be considered in order to meet the test objective.
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
Method comparison: Conclusions While all acceptance and preference methods were found comparable,
improved discrimination was observed by best-worst scaling [compared with one replicate for acceptance testing]. Use of a second replicate in acceptance testing should be investigated
further Best-worst scaling was also identified as easy to use and better able to
allow consumers to provide accurate information. Additional factors must be taken into consideration when selecting a
consumer test method, including practicality, the type of data produced, and how it can be analyzed and interpreted. Best-worst scaling is not suitable for products from a satiety
perspective, or when dealing with strongly flavored products (e.g. cheese, dark chocolate, hot peppers, containing mint), and product in which the volume consumed must be limited (e.g. caffeine or alcohol containing beverages).
From a managerial point of view, regardless of the test method applied, the conclusions drawn as a result of sample testing would be unchanged.
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
4) Consumer measurement of sensory properties
Attribute acceptance: How much do you like the texture of this apple? [dislike very much – like very much].
Quality: Please score your assessment of the quality of fruit for firmness during eating [A highest quality fruit should receive a score of 10 / 10].
Just right and ideals: Please rate the level of sweetness of this biscuit [not sweet enough - just about right - too sweet]
Intensity: How sour is this orange juice? [not at all sour – most sour ever]
Holistic attributes: natural, fresh, refreshing, familiar, complex, surprising, balanced, etc.
Open ended questions: Asking consumers what attributes they would like to experience in a product. E.g. What are the sensory attributes that you seek in a cappuccino coffee?
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
Should one ask consumers to measure sensory properties?
Consumers lack ability to correctly describe sensation. Even incorrect description of basic tastes is high, e.g. bitterness.
Consumers show bias in use of scales. Halo effects are common. There is an influence of attribute ratings on measures of overall liking
/ acceptance Respondent fatigue is a concern, particularly in multi-product tests
Use a trained panel whenever possible to measure intensity / perceptual differences between products, and relate this data to acceptance or preference
Consumer ratings can provide useful insights, but one should not rely on consumer ratings alone for quality control or to inform product development
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
5) Consumer sensory testing in context: Influence of non-sensory variablesThe consumer Culture, past eating experiences, age, gender, demography, hunger
state, variety seeking tendency, neophobia, attitudes, differences in sensitivity, etc.
Context / situation The food context: situation / occasion and appropriateness of use,
combinations within a meal The eating context: physical environment, social environmentProduct attributes Brand, product origin, ingredients, production technology, label, price
Non-sensory variables are very important in product choice. The role in sensory acceptance is less clear. In blind tasting, consumer variables are likely to be most influential, followed by context. However, the influence of context on appreciation of sensory properties is not well understood, neither is the influence of product attributes
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
The context for measurement of sensory acceptability may be created to match that of a real eating situation
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
Dynamics of acceptanceShort term Stimulus perception and dynamic
contrast during consumption Packs with numerous pieces: piece-to-
piece sensory relationship and variety Portion size: sensory specific satietyLonger term Regular repeat purchase and
consumption Development of monotony
Portion size
Variety
Once you pop, you can’t stop!
disli
ke ex
trem
ely
neith
er li
ke n
or d
islik
elik
e ext
rem
ely
12
34
56
78
9di
slike
extre
mel
yne
ither
like
nor
disl
ike
like e
xtre
mely
12
34
56
78
9
Initial liking
Day 0 Day 14
Monotony
Increased acceptance= Regular consumer
= No longer a consumer
disli
ke ex
trem
ely
neith
er li
ke n
or d
islik
elik
e ext
rem
ely
12
34
56
78
9di
slike
extre
mel
yne
ither
like
nor
disl
ike
like e
xtre
mely
12
34
56
78
9
Initial liking
Day 0 Day 14
Monotony
Increased acceptance
disli
ke ex
trem
ely
neith
er li
ke n
or d
islik
elik
e ext
rem
ely
12
34
56
78
9di
slike
extre
mel
yne
ither
like
nor
disl
ike
like e
xtre
mely
12
34
56
78
9
Initial liking
Day 0 Day 14
Monotony
Increased acceptance= Regular consumer
= No longer a consumerdislike extremely neither like nor dislike like extremely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9dislike extremely neither like nor dislike like extremely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
Liking and perceived quality Liking and preference are measures of acceptance, and in blind
tasting are mostly based upon sensory stimulus. Perceived quality refers to a consumers perception of the level
of quality a product offers or provides, and even in blind tasting will require a consumer to consider beyond liking only.
Measures of perceived quality will rely more on product experience, and little is really know about consumers ability to judge “quality” in blind tasting [in non defective product], in particular compared with how an industry judges quality.
Example of Wine: there are numerous levels of quality, and what a consumer likes can differ at each level
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
Conclusions
Acceptance is based upon an integrated perception of multi-modal stimuli, but is dependent on the interaction between the consumer and the food.
When selecting a consumer test method, it should be noted that there are differences in test sensitivity, but practicality is also important.
Understanding of underpinning perceptual response to products, and influence on liking, can be used to push perceptual innovation boundaries
It is important to know the match between liking for sensory properties, production variables, and product variables that are non-sensory, as it is the strength of the understanding between these that leads to product success Consumer experience
with food category
neutral
Positive acceptance
negative acceptance
Measured ideal point
becomingmore
acceptable
becoming less
acceptable
New Product
Consumer experiencewith food category
neutral
Positive acceptance
negative acceptance
Measured ideal point
becomingmore
acceptable
becoming less
acceptable
Consumer experiencewith food category
neutral
Positive acceptance
negative acceptance
Measured ideal point
becomingmore
acceptable
becoming less
acceptable
New Product
Distance past consumer experience
Hot ice creams for cold daysLuminous lollies for eating in bed at nightEverlasting gobstoppersLickable wallpaper for nurseriesEatable marshmallow pillowsRainbow drops – suck them and you can spit in six different coloursWriggle sweets that wriggle delightfully in your tummy after swallowingInvisible chocolate bars for eating in classCharlie and the Chocolate Factory, Roald Dahl
Consumer experiencewith food category
neutral
Positive acceptance
negative acceptance
Measured ideal point
becomingmore
acceptable
becoming less
acceptable
New Product
Consumer experiencewith food category
neutral
Positive acceptance
negative acceptance
Measured ideal point
becomingmore
acceptable
becoming less
acceptable
Consumer experiencewith food category
neutral
Positive acceptance
negative acceptance
Measured ideal point
becomingmore
acceptable
becoming less
acceptable
New Product
Distance past consumer experience
Consumer experiencewith food category
neutral
Positive acceptance
negative acceptance
Measured ideal point
becomingmore
acceptable
becoming less
acceptable
Consumer experiencewith food category
neutral
Positive acceptance
negative acceptance
Measured ideal point
becomingmore
acceptable
becoming less
acceptable
New Product
Consumer experiencewith food category
neutral
Positive acceptance
negative acceptance
Measured ideal point
becomingmore
acceptable
becoming less
acceptable
Consumer experiencewith food category
neutral
Positive acceptance
negative acceptance
Measured ideal point
becomingmore
acceptable
becoming less
acceptable
New Product
Distance past consumer experience
Hot ice creams for cold daysLuminous lollies for eating in bed at nightEverlasting gobstoppersLickable wallpaper for nurseriesEatable marshmallow pillowsRainbow drops – suck them and you can spit in six different coloursWriggle sweets that wriggle delightfully in your tummy after swallowingInvisible chocolate bars for eating in classCharlie and the Chocolate Factory, Roald Dahl
Tastee.g., sweet, sour
Odour / aromae.g., strawberry, banana
Chemesthesise.g., fizzy, cooling
Appearancee.g., colour, uniformity
Texturee.g., melting, sticky
Accept or Reject
Sounde.g., crisp, crunchy
Tastee.g., sweet, sour
Odour / aromae.g., strawberry, banana
Chemesthesise.g., fizzy, cooling
Appearancee.g., colour, uniformity
Texturee.g., melting, sticky
Accept or Reject
Sounde.g., crisp, crunchy
rankrank
rankrank
rank
rank
hed
hed
hed
hed
hed
hed
lam
lam
lam
lam
lam
lam
usl
usl
uslusl
usl
usl
bw
bw
bw
bw
bw
bw
S1
S2
S3S4
S5
S6
-1.5
1.5
-1.5 1.5
35%
25%
hed: Hedonic category scale
lam: Labeled magnitude scaleusl: Unstructured line scale
bw: Best-worst scalingrank: Preference ranking
hed: Hedonic category scale
lam: Labeled magnitude scaleusl: Unstructured line scale
bw: Best-worst scalingrank: Preference ranking
rankrank
rankrank
rank
rank
hed
hed
hed
hed
hed
hed
lam
lam
lam
lam
lam
lam
usl
usl
uslusl
usl
usl
bw
bw
bw
bw
bw
bw
S1
S2
S3S4
S5
S6
-1.5
1.5
-1.5 1.5
35%
25%
hed: Hedonic category scale
lam: Labeled magnitude scaleusl: Unstructured line scale
bw: Best-worst scalingrank: Preference ranking
hed: Hedonic category scale
lam: Labeled magnitude scaleusl: Unstructured line scale
bw: Best-worst scalingrank: Preference ranking
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08
Questions? Conor DelahuntyFood Science [email protected]
1.0
Principal Component 1 (12%)
23
4
6
89
1216
■
■
♦ ■
♦
♦
♦
●
♦
♦♦
■
▼
▼★
●
●
★
♦
▼
♦
♦
♦
★
▼
●
▼
★
■
● d
♦
♦
●
●
★
■
♦
♦
●
■
■
▼
♦ ▼
▼b
▼
▼
■ c
▼
■
■
●
■
♦
▼
▼
♦
▼a
♦
▼
♦
★
●
★
▼
●
▼
●
★
♦
●
Prin
cipa
l Co m
pone
nt 2
(9%
)
-1.0
-1.0 1.0
1.0
Principal Component 1 (12%)
23
4
6
89
1216
■
■
♦ ■
♦
♦
♦
●
♦
♦♦
■
▼
▼★
●
●
★
♦
▼
♦
♦
♦
★
▼
●
▼
★
■
● d
♦
♦
●
●
★
■
♦
♦
●
■
■
▼
♦ ▼
▼b
▼
▼
■ c
▼
■
■
●
■
♦
▼
▼
♦
▼a
♦
▼
♦
★
●
★
▼
●
▼
●
★
♦
●
Prin
cipa
l Co m
pone
nt 2
(9%
)
-1.0
-1.0 1.0
Mahogany red, IrelandBottle conditioned, Belgium
Red, Ireland
Traditional, Ireland
Monastic, Belgium
Craft, Ireland
Bitter, England
Organic, Scotland
Mahogany red, IrelandBottle conditioned, Belgium
Red, Ireland
Traditional, Ireland
Monastic, Belgium
Craft, Ireland
Bitter, England
Organic, Scotland
Cluster 3Cluster 3
Cluster 4Cluster 4
Cluster 2Cluster 2
1.0
Principal Component 1 (12%)
23
4
6
89
1216
■
■
♦ ■
♦
♦
♦
●
♦
♦♦
■
▼
▼★
●
●
★
♦
▼
♦
♦
♦
★
▼
●
▼
★
■
● d
♦
♦
●
●
★
■
♦
♦
●
■
■
▼
♦ ▼
▼b
▼
▼
■ c
▼
■
■
●
■
♦
▼
▼
♦
▼a
♦
▼
♦
★
●
★
▼
●
▼
●
★
♦
●
Prin
cipa
l Co m
pone
nt 2
(9%
)
-1.0
-1.0 1.0
1.0
Principal Component 1 (12%)
23
4
6
89
1216
■
■
♦ ■
♦
♦
♦
●
♦
♦♦
■
▼
▼★
●
●
★
♦
▼
♦
♦
♦
★
▼
●
▼
★
■
● d
♦
♦
●
●
★
■
♦
♦
●
■
■
▼
♦ ▼
▼b
▼
▼
■ c
▼
■
■
●
■
♦
▼
▼
♦
▼a
♦
▼
♦
★
●
★
▼
●
▼
●
★
♦
●
Prin
cipa
l Co m
pone
nt 2
(9%
)
-1.0
-1.0 1.0
Mahogany red, IrelandBottle conditioned, Belgium
Red, Ireland
Traditional, Ireland
Monastic, Belgium
Craft, Ireland
Bitter, England
Organic, Scotland
Mahogany red, IrelandBottle conditioned, Belgium
Red, Ireland
Traditional, Ireland
Monastic, Belgium
Craft, Ireland
Bitter, England
Organic, Scotland
Cluster 3Cluster 3
Cluster 4Cluster 4
Cluster 2Cluster 2
Conor DelahuntyESN, Pretoria, SA15th April ‘08