TYPIC · A typical food product is representative of a category different from standardised products S A P S S S S S S S S S S A A A A A A S S S S S S S S S m q P k Catégorie 1 Catégorie

1

Typical Food Products in Europe:Typical Food Products in Europe:Consumer Preference and Consumer Preference and

Objective AssessmentObjective Assessment

TYPICTYPIC20032003--20052005 QLK1QLK1--CTCT--20022002--0222502225

FP5, 1998FP5, 1998--2002, Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources2002, Quality of Life and Management of Living ResourcesCall Identifier Call Identifier QoLQoL 2001/42001/4

2

G. G. GiraudGiraud, , J.N. SerraJ.N. Serrawith help ofwith help of II. . Colquhoun, UColquhoun, U. . Fischer, Fischer, P. P. RoncalesRoncales, , DD. . Bertrand,Bertrand, VV. . CheynierCheynier, ,

LL..MM. . AlbisuAlbisu, V, V. . BaetenBaeten, , D.L.D.L. GarcGarcíía Gonza Gonzáálezlez, , M. M. PetzoldtPetzoldt, A.I. , A.I. SanjuanSanjuan, , H. H. ResanoResano, , C. C. AmblardAmblard, , RR. . AparicioAparicio, , U. U. HennekingHenneking, E. , E. DufourDufour, A. , A. LebecqueLebecque, , I. I. TriguiTrigui, A. , A. LetortLetort, G. , G. LegallLegall, A. Smith, J. , A. Smith, J. SchroedenSchroeden, P. , P. CourcouxCourcoux, S. Preys, , S. Preys, G. G. MazerollesMazerolles, A. Samson, F. , A. Samson, F. RwagasoreRwagasore, , B. B. SchaerSchaer, , J.P. J.P. PomaPoma, A. , A. LucanLucan, ,

B. B. LabarbeLabarbe, V. , V. LempereurLempereur, A. , A. BarthBarthéélléémymy

Proceedings of the Final ConferenceProceedings of the Final ConferenceENITA ClermontENITA Clermont--FerrandFerrand FranceFrance

1515pmpm –– 1616amam December 2005December 2005

DELIVERABLE n°16DELIVERABLE n°16

2

3

Table of contentsSession 1 TYPICALITY ASSESSMENTWelcome G. Gosset ENITA Clermont p. 3Project’s objectives and implementation G. Giraud ENITA Clermont p. 5What is typicality? G. Giraud ENITA Clermont p. 13Sensory analysis of ham P. Roncales Veterinary Faculty of Zaragoza p. 16Sensory analysis of wine U. Fischer DLR Pfalz p. 26Development of typicality assessment methodology U. Fischer DLR Pfalz p. 33

Session 2 PHYSICO-CHEMICAL ANALYSISAnalytical methods for measurement of typicality of wine and ham

I. Colquhoun IFR Norwich p. 43Chemical analysis of dry cured ham aroma by electronic nose and SPME-GC

D.L. Garcia-Gonzalez CSIC Sevilla p. 58Factors influencing typicality of selected products, application to wine

V. Cheynier INRA Montpellier p. 69Prediction of sensory traits by analytical methods

D. Bertrand ENITIIA-INRA Nantes p. 82

Session 3 CONSUMER SURVEYConsumers’ hedonist preferences towards typical food products in Fr, Ge and Sp

G. Giraud ENITA Clermont p. 98

4

Consumers attitudes and price / preference trade-offA.I. Sanjuan CITA Zaragoza p. 107

Preferred attributes by consumers M. Petzoldt TU Munich p. 118Consumer purchasing behaviour towards typical food products in Fr, Ge and Sp

G. Giraud ENITA Clermont p. 127Is typicality legitimated? Focus on results of some specific differentiated products

H. Resano CITA Zaragoza p. 133

Session 4 OUTCOMES AND GUIDELINESPreference mapping of sensory profiles and hedonist tests

U. Fischer DLR Pfalz p. 138Segmentation of consumers with respect to their behaviour towards typical food

products in Fr, Ge and Sp G. Giraud ENITA Clermont p. 152How to build up and improve food products typicality

L.M. Albisu CITA Zaragoza p. 159Guidelines how to control typicality V. Baeten CRAW Gembloux p. 166How to promote food products typicality L.M. Albisu CITA Zaragoza p. 181Implementation of the project in Germany: DC Pfalz U. Fischer DLR Pfalz p. 188Conclusion and perspectives G. Giraud ENITA Clermont p. 195Who are the participants of the conference? Y. Kebede ENITA’s student p. 201

3

5

SESSION 1SESSION 1Typicality AssessmentTypicality Assessment

Welcome p. 3

G.Gosset, ENITA Clermont

Project’s Objectives and Implementation p. 5G. Giraud, ENITA Clermont

What is Typicality? p. 13 G. Giraud, ENITA Clermont

Sensory analysis of ham p. 16P. Roncales, Vetenary Faculty of Zaragoza

Sensory analysis of wine p. 26U. Fischer, DLR Pfalz

Development of a typicality assessment methodology p. 33U. Fischer, DLR Pfalz

6

Welcome toEnita Clermont

Georges Gosset Georges Gosset DirectorDirector

4

7

A few figures about Enita Clermont

�� 1 300 engineering graduates (Master’s degree)�� 400 students�� 35 teachers-researchers�� 93 teaching-research, administration & service staff�� 3 teaching departments �� 5 research units

8

The partners

�� National Institute for Agronomic Research (INRA)

�� Cemagref

�� Universities

�� Agricultural Chambers, Agro- food industry enterprises, Technical Institutes, Territorial communities, …

5

9

Domains of competences

The production systems and the environment for a sustainable agriculture

The quality of food products linked with

their origin

The development of rural areas and the diversification of

activities

Typical Food Products in Europe:Typical Food Products in Europe:Consumer Preference and Consumer Preference and

Objective AssessmentObjective AssessmentTYPIC TYPIC 20032003--20052005 QLK1QLK1--CTCT--20022002--0222502225

Final ConferenceFinal Conference1515pmpm –– 1616amam December 2005December 2005

Project’s Objectives and ImplementationProject’s Objectives and ImplementationPr G. Pr G. Giraud Giraud ENITA ClermontENITA Clermont

6

11

TYPIC TYPIC works works onon

•• DryDry--cured ham cured ham from Spain andfrom Spain and FranceFrance

•• Red wine fromRed wine from France France and Germanyand Germany

12

TYPIC TYPIC works works onon Consumer preference and actual behaviour

Spain, France andGermany

7

13

ConsortiumConsortiumENITA, ClermontENITA, Clermont--FdFd, France, Pr. G. Giraud, France, Pr. G. GiraudIFR, Norwich, UK, Dr I. IFR, Norwich, UK, Dr I. ColquhounColquhounDLR, DLR, NeustadtNeustadt, , GermanyGermany, Dr U. Fischer , Dr U. Fischer CSIC, Sevilla, CSIC, Sevilla, SpainSpain, Dr R. , Dr R. Aparicio Aparicio INRA, Nantes, France, Dr D. BertrandINRA, Nantes, France, Dr D. BertrandINRA, Montpellier, France, Dr V. INRA, Montpellier, France, Dr V. CheynierCheynierCITA, Zaragoza, CITA, Zaragoza, SpainSpain, Dr L.M. , Dr L.M. Albisu Albisu FfMFfM, Munich, , Munich, GermanyGermany, Dr U. , Dr U. Enneking Enneking CRAW, Gembloux, CRAW, Gembloux, BelgiumBelgium, Dr V. , Dr V. BætenBæten

14

AssociatedAssociatedVeterinary FacultyVeterinary Faculty of of SaragossaSaragossa, , SpainSpain, P. , P. RoncalesRoncalesSICAREX Beaujolais, SICAREX Beaujolais, VillefrancheVillefranche/Saône, France/Saône, FranceCarrefour Group, Carrefour Group, Madrid, Zaragoza, Madrid, Zaragoza, SpainSpainChampion Champion SupermarketsSupermarkets, , Paris, ClermontParis, Clermont--FdFd, France, FranceEcoZeptEcoZept, Munich, Montpellier, Munich, Montpellier, , GermanyGermanyMeat TechnicalMeat Technical Centre, Centre, Rodez, FranceRodez, FranceAgricultural Agricultural Council PfalzCouncil Pfalz, , GermanyGermany

8

15

WorkWork--planplanSensory profiles

Assessment of the organoleptic properties of typical food products

Selection of typical / non-typical food products

Objective characterisation

Physico-chemical markers of typicality in food products

Choice of the best protocols

Statistical analysisInteractions models

on typicality physico-chemical markers and consumer perception

in case of congruenceidentification of the factors of consumer

acceptability

in case of divergenceidentification of the factors of consumer

unwillingness

Guidelines- to build,

- to promote - to control

food products typicality

Consumer survey

Measurement of consumer purchases and acceptability of typical food products

Decision on scanned data panel

16

European addedEuropean added--valuevalue (EU-15)

PDO/PGI PDO/PGI priceprice premium (x 2 premium (x 2 higherhigher))

ConsortiumConsortium 63% EU Wine and Ham prod.63% EU Wine and Ham prod.WineWine 174 billion hl. 174 billion hl. EU prod. PDO 42.1%EU prod. PDO 42.1%HamHam 17.5 million t. 17.5 million t. EU EU pork meat prodpork meat prod., Dry, ., Dry, saltedsalted or or smoked hamsmoked ham 10.2% 10.2% weightweight, 17.3% , 17.3% value, PDO/PGI 25.2%value, PDO/PGI 25.2%

Consumption of selected food products categories in the consortium’s countries1997 (Eurostat) D B F E UK

Wine liter per capita 22.3 19.7 61.6 40.7 12.3Dry smoked ham kg per capita 1.8 0.3 0.8 4.5 0.1

9

17

SocioSocio--economic implicationseconomic implicationsSafety, Safety, welfarewelfare andand trusttrust

local local foodsfoods andand native native traditional flavourstraditional flavoursAuthenticationAuthentication

PDO labels: intelligible traceability by consumersPDO labels: intelligible traceability by consumersbarrier against unfair competitionbarrier against unfair competition

The European consumerThe European consumeracceptability of PDO/PGI from foreign regionsacceptability of PDO/PGI from foreign regions

Employment and sustainable development in Employment and sustainable development in lagging European regionslagging European regions

PDO/PGI come from mountain or rural areasPDO/PGI come from mountain or rural areasSocial role Social role (EU(EU--15)15)

780 000 780 000 farmsfarms, 260 000 , 260 000 agroagro--food SMEsfood SMEs

18

Technical CommitteeTechnical Committee 18 e18 external membersAgricultural producers organisations

Enrique Bayona, Rafael Navarro, Regulatory Council Designation of Origin TeruelNorbert Weber, German wine growers associationRoland Furrer, Swiss association of Denomination of Origin & Protection of OriginErik Thevenod-Mottet, Service Romand Vulgarisation Agricole, LausanneRafael del Rey, Spanish Wine FederationArmin Göring, German Wine InstituteBernd Wechsler, Center wine marketing Rheinland-PfalzEdwin Schrank, Viticultural association Pfalz

Agro-Food Industry and Distribution representativesJavier Salinas, Carrefour, ZaragozaJean-Pierre Poma, Meat Technology Center, RodezAnne Bouhour-Arnaud, Champion, Consumer marketing, Paris

European consumer associationsEleni Alevritou, EKPIZO Consumer association, Greece, BEUC

Food policy administratorsFrançois Roncin, Hervé Briand, National Institute Denomination of Origin, INAOChristine Ton-Nu, National Agency for Innovation and Research, ISEO-AnvarRichard Balling, Bavarian State Ministry Food Agriculture & ForestryPilar De las Heras, Spanish Ministry of Agriculture

10

19

CrossCross--tabulated measurementstabulated measurements

Selected products 30 wines / 20 hams

Trade-off

Trade-off

Consumer hedonist

test

Panel purchases

Physico-chemical analysis

Sensory profiles

Selected products 30 wines / 20 hams

Physico-chemical analysis

Sensory profiles

Consumer hedonist

test

Panel purchases

Country A Country B

20

French red wine segmentationFrench red wine segmentationCountry of origin Country of origin -- Cultivar Cultivar -- Label, no label Label, no label -- Region of origin Region of origin -- Type Type -- NumberNumber

French wine

VDP

AOC

Outsider

Outsider

Outsider

Négrette 50%

Syrah VDP Outsider

Pinot OutsiderAOC

Gamay

AOC

VDQS

Outsider

Typical 20

1

1

1

1

1

1

Swiss wine

German wine

Gamaret

Dornfelder QbA

AOC Swiss

Pfalz

Outsider

Outsider

1

1

Val de Loire

Savoie

Beaujolais

Outsider 1

Maconnais

Vallée du Rhône

Sud Ouest

Auvergne

Sud Ouest

Vallée du Rhône Outsider 1

11

21

German red wine segmentationGerman red wine segmentationCultivar Cultivar -- Label, no label Label, no label -- RegionRegion of of originorigin -- Type Type -- NumberNumber

22

French dryFrench dry--cured ham segmentationcured ham segmentationBreedBreed -- RegionRegion of of originorigin -- Label, no label Label, no label -- NumberNumber

OnOn--farm processedfarm processed, , factory processedfactory processed / / PrivatePrivate--, commercial, commercial--, , distributordistributor--brandbrand

12

23

Spanish ham segmentationSpanish ham segmentationBreedBreed -- RegionRegion of of originorigin -- Label, no label Label, no label -- NumberNumber

OnOn--farm processedfarm processed, , factory processedfactory processed / / PrivatePrivate--, commercial, commercial--, , distributordistributor--brandbrand

24

Sensory analysis sessionSensory analysis session, , winewine

13

25

Spanish Hams French HamsSpanish Hams French Hams

WHAT IS TYPICALITY?A marketing and consumer approach

Categorization during consumer decision-making process

G. Giraud ENITA Clermont

14

27

TYPICALITYTYPICALITYfrom psychologyfrom psychology,, usedused in in categorisationcategorisation,, means bothmeans both

STEREOTYPESTEREOTYPEMost Most frequent exemplarfrequent exemplarRepresentative Representative //categorycategorySimilarity attributesSimilarity attributesCentralCentralResemblanceResemblanceTouristsTouristsBrandedBrandedConsumerConsumer--orientedorientedCognitive Cognitive shortcutshortcut

ARCHETYPEARCHETYPEGenuine Genuine typetypeVery different Very different Singularity attributesSingularity attributesAtypicalAtypicalDifferenceDifferenceConnoisseursConnoisseursLabelledLabelledProducerProducer--orientedorientedCognitive Cognitive loadedloaded

Potential Potential for consumer orientation for consumer orientation of of origin labelled food productsorigin labelled food products??

28

A A typicaltypical foodfood productproduct is representative is representative of a of a category different from standardised productscategory different from standardised products

S

A

P

S S

S

S

S

S

S

S

SS

AA

A

A

A

A

S

SS

SS

S

S

S

S

Pm qk

Catégorie 1 Catégorie 2

CaptionCaption: P prototype: P prototype ; S ; S stereotypestereotype ; A ; A archetypearchetypem, k, q: distance m, k, q: distance between objectsbetween objects (m > q > k)(m > q > k)

Objects categorisationObjects categorisation according according to to theirtheir similaritysimilarity•• Which object is representativeWhich object is representative, , salient salient of of category category 1?1?•• Which object is different Which object is different but but still belongsstill belongs to to categorycategory 1?1?•• Which object is different from categoryWhich object is different from category 1 1 andand belongsbelongs to to categorycategory 2?2?•• What is the meaningful What is the meaningful size of size of categorycategory??

Typicality assessment Typicality assessment in in order order to to better justify food diversity and better justify food diversity and to to avoid avoid standardisation to an unique prototypestandardisation to an unique prototype

15

29

Typicality as stereotype

30

Typicality as archetype

16

31

Typicalityand brand

And now let’s And now let’s go to go to the the presentationpresentationof of methods methods and resultsand results!!

32

Pedro Roncalés, Sara del Río and Irene CillaPedro Roncalés, Sara del Río and Irene Cilla

Dept. of Food TechnologyDept. of Food TechnologyFaculty of Veterinary SciencesFaculty of Veterinary Sciences

University of ZaragozaUniversity of ZaragozaSPAINSPAIN

[email protected]@unizar.es

��

SENSORY ANALYSIS OF HAM

17

33

��

41 DRY-CURED HAMS

� ��

� � � � � ��

� � � �� ! " # $ � ! %&

�� &

�� ' # ( )

� ��

� � � � � � * � ' +

� � � �$ * �� &

� � � , �� # � ''- .

�� * / � � 0 ! � &

�� # * ! � 1

�� 2 $ ! ! � 3

�� , �� # � ''- �

��

4 +, $ ! �� 1

&� �), $ ! �� +

�� +, $ ! �� 5

6 �&, $ ! �� 7

8 � ��

�$ ).

� � � �1

��

�! 9 � , �

�, '' 7

�� : �* , �+

� � 0 � �)

34

��

�$ * �� "�� ! %

� � � * � '�; �! , �� # � '' ! � $ * �

� 2 $ ! ! �� # * ! �

�* / � � 0 ! �

�� ! # � , �� # � '' ! � $ * �

18

35

��

��

� , : � � $ ! �! 0 <# * ��! 0 ! : ; # ( 0 �! 0

� , ; '� � � ! : �! 0 �$ ; � �! � � �

�� ! � $ � 2 ! '2 � �� , �# ' ! '2 � �� ! � �� * , � ! � ' ! '2 � �� $ ! � * , � � ! '2 � ��

�� ! � : � � �� ; ! � '�

�; �! "= � 0 $ > % )1� � ! � $ � 2 �� * ��

�� ! # � "� $ : � > % )+� � ! � $ � 2 �� * ��

� 2 ; �# '��2 � � � � � , � ! �� 2 9$ $ : # � �! � ? ; � � ��

36

�� @� � ! � $ � 2 � / '* ��$ !

�

19

37

�� @� � ! � $ � 2 �� * ��

� $ : � > "�� %= � 0 $ > "� � %

acceptabilitysweetnesspungency

acorn flavour rancid flavour

saltiness cured ham flavour

adhesivenesspastiness

fibrousnesscrumbliness

softness hardness

mould odouracorn odourrancid odour

cured ham aroma

marblingsheen

fat coloursubcut. fat

colour homog.colour smcolour bf

crust

melting texturefibrous textureelastic texturesticky texture

doughy texturefat greasy texture

dried texture

fat pungent flavourfat rancid flavourpungent flavourraw meat flavour

nutty flavourrancid tasesalty taste

cured ham flavour

smoke smellmouldy smell

nutty smellrancid smell

cured ham smellintramuscular fat

heterog. fat colourfat colour

subcutaneous fatheterog. red colour

red colourcrust

� 2 ; �# '��2 "� � %

MarblingCured ham aroma

HardnessSoftness

Cured ham flavourSaltiness

Acorn flavourSheen

�; ; � � ! # �

: $ * �

� � ? �* � �

�' / $ * �

�# # � ; � � �'��2

�� * , ; ��/ � '2

� � � � � � : � 2

9$ $ : # � �! � ? ; � � ��

A � � �� A� � � � : � ,

A �� ! � ,

38

PCA: Sensory attributes (Fr-Es)

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� � ��

� ��

� � ��

��

� ��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

� �

�

�

��

� ��

� ��

��

$ , ; -�"��-)1B %

$

,;

-)"

�5-�

+B%

� � ��

��0 � # $ � � � ' ��$ ! � � � �C � � ! �; ! �� ! : �� ! # � � � ! � $ � 2 ; � , � ��

D �� # $ , ; -@9' / $ * � <$ : $ * � <, � � '�! 0 <

� ! # �: ��2 < # $ � ! -

A �� # $ , ; -@; � ��! � � � < : � � � �/ � ! � � � <

� C , � �-

D )! : # $ , ; -@9�� $ * � ! � � � <� � : ! � � � -

A )! : # $ , ; -@� $ 9�! � � � <# � * , � '�! � � � -

20

39

Sensory profiles all hams (Es)

�<5 5

�<5 5

1<5 5

+<5 5

7<5 5crust

colour bfcolour sm

colour homog.subcut. fat

fat colour

marbling *

aroma *

rancid odouracorn odour

mould odourhardness *softness *crumblinessfibrousness

pastinessadhesiveness

flavour *

saltiness *

rancid flavour

acorn flavour *

pungencysweetness

sheen *acceptability

��

��

� � 0 � / � � � �'��2 , $ ! 0 � , � , ; '� �

40

Sensory profiles all hams (Fr)

�<5 5

�<5 5

1<5 5

+<5 5

7<5 5crust

red colourheterogeneous redcoloursubcutaneous fat

fat colourheterogeneous fat

colourintramuscular fatcured ham smell

rancid smellnutty smell

smoke smellmouldy smell

cured ham flavoursalty tasterancid taé&stenutty flavourraw meat flavour

pungent flavourdried texture

melting texture

fibrous textureelastic texture

sticky texturedoughy texturefat rancid flavourfat pungent flavourfat greasy texture

��

��

� � 0 � / � � � �'��2 , $ ! 0 � , � , ; '� �

21

41

Country-Breed

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

� ��

� �� !

�� !

� ��

��

�� !

��!��

� ��

��

�� !

�� !

� ��

�� !

��

��

��! ��

� � � �� ! " # $ � ! % � � � � � �� ' # ( ��

��

��

� � � �@� �0 � � � � � $ , <9' / $ * � ! : # # � ; � � �'��2 E'$ C � � �; � ��! � � � ! : � '��! � � �� @� �0 � � $ , <9' / $ * � ! : # # � ; � � �'��2 E, � : �* , ; � ��! � � � ! : � '��! � � �� @, � : �* , � $ , <9' / $ * � ! : # # � ; � � �'��2 E'$ C ; � ��! � � � E� �0 � � '��! � � �� @'$ C � $ , <9' / $ * � ! : # # � ; � � �'��2 E� �0 � ; � ��! � � � <, � : �* , � '��! � � �

42

Origin

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

� ��

� �� !

�� !

� ��

��

�� !

�� !��

� ��

��

�� !

�� !

� ��

�� !

��

��

��! ��

� � � �$ * �� * � ' � � � , �� # � ''-

�� 2 $ ! ! � �� * / � � 0 ! � �� # * ! � �� , �� # � ''-

��

��

� � � �� @� �0 � � � � � $ , <9' / $ * � ! : # # � ; � � �'��2 E'$ C � � �; � ��! � � � ! : � '��! � � �� * � '@� �0 � � $ , <9' / $ * � ! : # # � ; � � �'��2 E'$ C ; � ��! � � � @, � : �* , � '��! � � �� * / � � 0 ! � @'$ C � $ , <9' / $ * � ! : # # � ; � � �'��2 E, � : �* , ; � ��! � � � E� �0 � � '��! � � �� 2 $ ! ! � @, � : �* , � $ , <9' / $ * � ! : # # � ; � � �'��2 E� �0 � ; � ��! � � � <� �0 � � '��! � � �

22

43

Maturation

�

�

�

�

�

� ��

��

��

��

� ��

� ��!

�� !

� ��

��

��

� ��!��!��

��

� ��

��

�� !

��!

� ��

�� !

��

��

��! ��

4 +, $ ! �� &� �), $ ! �� +, $ ! �� 6 �&, $ ! ��

��

��

� �* � ��$ ! @ � �0 � � � # $ '$ * � < � $ , <9' / $ * � ! : # # � ; � � �'��2'$ C � � ; � ��! � � �

44

PCA: hams (S.A. Fr - Es)

" ��

" #��

" $��

" %��

" &��

" '��

" (��

" )��

" *��

"� ��

"��

"�#��

"�$��

"�%

"�&��

"�'��

"�(��

"�)��

"�*��

"# ��"#��

+ ��

+ #��

+ $��

+ %��

+ &��

+ '��

+ (��

+ )��

+ *��

+� ��+��

+�#��

+�$��

+�%��

+�&��

+�'��

+�(��

+�)��

+�*��

+# ��

��

,� ��

� ��

� �� -� ��

� � �

�

� �

� # .& # .&

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� � ��

� � ��

� ��

��

$ , ; -�"��-)1B %

$

,;

-)"

�5-�

+B%

�� ! � $ � 2 ; � $ 9�'�! 0 $ 9� , � ''$ C � : �� # � �, �! ��$ ! $ 9@� � � �� 9� $ , �� * � '9� $ , �� * / � � 0 ! � ! : �� , �� # � '' ! � $ * �� , �� # � '' ! � $ * � <�� 2 $ ! ! � ! : �� # * ! � � / � '$ C / '* � � $ ! � �

23

45

Typicality - Country - Breed

�

�

1

+

7� ��!

�� !

� �� !

� �� !

�� !

�� !

�� !

��!

� � � � � �� 2 ; �# � � ��

� � � � @�� $ 9�'� �� F * �� , �' � �! 9$ � , �$ �� 2 ; �# ' � � � � � � : � 2 � ? ; � � ��# $ � � � � � �A)-1; $ �! �� '$ C � � �� # � � �2 ; �# ; � $ 9�'� G

�� @�� $ 9�'� �� ! $ �� $ � �, �' ��# $ � � � � � � / � ! '$ C � � "� ? # -� '��! � � � %

��

��

46

Typicality - Country - Breed

�

�

1

+

7� �� !

�� !

� �� !

� �� !

�� !

�� !

�� !

��!

� � � �� ! " # $ � ! % �� ' # ( � 2 ; �# �� !

��

��

� � � �@�� $ 9�'� �� F * �� , �' � �! � � ; � �$ �� 2 ; �# ' � � � � � � : � 2 � ? ; � � ��# $ � � � � � �A)-1; $ �! �� '$ C � � �� # � � �2 ; �# ; � $ 9�'� G

�� @�� $ 9�'� �� ! $ �� $ � �, �' ��# $ � � � � � � / � ! '$ C � � <; � ��# * ' � '2 � � � � ! ! : # $ � ! "� ? -� '��! � � � %

24

47

Typicality - Origin

�

�

1

+

7� ��!

�� !

� �� !

� �� !

�� !

�� !

�� !

��!

� � � �$ * �� * � ' � � � , �� # � ''-

�� 2 $ ! ! � �� # * ! � �� * / � � 0 ! � �� , �� # � ''-

� � 0 � � �: �99� � � ! # � � �! � $ , ! : 9' / $ * � ! : � '��! � � �� H � � A �� * � '@, $ � �� , �' � �$ � 2 ; �# A� � �� 2 $ ! ! � @, $ � �� , �' � �$ � 2 ; �# A� � �� $ 9�� ! # � � , �� # � ''-@, $ � �: �99� � � ! �9� $ , � 2 ; �# A� � ��

��

��

48

Typicality - Maturation

�

�

1

+

7� ��!

�� !

� �� !

� �� !

�� !

�� !

�� !

��!

4 +, $ ! �� &� �), $ ! �� +, $ ! �� 6 �&, $ ! ��

� 2 ; �# �� ! � 2 ; �# � � ��

� � 0 � � �: �99� � � ! # � � �! � $ , ! : 9' / $ * � ! : � '��! � � �� $ , ! : 9' / $ * � �! # � � � � C �� , �* � ��$ ! ��, �� '��! � � � : � # � � � � � '�0 � �'2 C �� , �* � ��$ ! ��, �

��

��

25

49

PCA: Typicality

" )��

"�#��"�$��

"�%

"�&��

"�'��

"�)��

"�*��

"# ��

"#��

+ #��

+ %��

+ &��

+ '��

+ (��

+ *��

+� ��+�#��

+�$��

+�%��

+�&��

+�'��

+�)��

+# ��

��

" %��

" '��

" (��

" *��

"� ��"��

+ ��+ $��

+ )��

+��

+�(��

+�*��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

� ��

��

��

�#.&

#.&

�#.& #.&

S01

S02

S03

* S17

* S05

� Typic white

� Typic Iberian

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� � ��

� � ��

$ , ; -�"3.-+)B %

$

,;

-)"

��-�

1B%

� ��

��

� 2 ; �# '��2 ; � $ 9�'�! 0 $ 9� , � ''$ C � : �� # � �, �! ��$ ! $ 9@� � � �� 9� $ , �� * � '9� $ , ''�� <� ? # � ; �� 2 $ ! ! ��''�� 9� $ , ''� � <� ? # � ; �� 2 $ ! ! �

� 2 ; �# A� � �� ; � $ 9�'� �� ! � �: � �� $ 9� � � � � � * � '� 2 ; �# A�� ! ; � $ 9�'� �� ! � �: � �� $ 9� � A ��

50

� ��

�� ! � $ � 2 ; � $ 9�'�! 0 $ 9� , � � 2 �; ! �� ! : �� ! # � ; ! � '� C � � �0 � '2 # $ ! � �� ! �-

�� ! � $ � 2 ; � $ 9�'�! 0 $ 9� , � ''$ C � : �� # � �, �! ��$ ! $ 9� � � �� , � "�� ! %

9� $ , �� @

A � � � 2 � � # � � # �� > � : � 2 � �0 � , �* � ��$ ! < � $ , <9' / $ * � < # $ � ! 9' / $ * � <

� � � � ! ! : � ! # �: ! � � � -

A �''$ �� , � � � � � : '2 : �� # � �, �! �� : -

�; ! �� 9$ $ : # � �! � ? ; � � �� 0 � � � : � # � � �2 ; �# '�2 ; �# '��2 ; � $ 9�'� � 9$ � �� ! ! :

C � �� A� � � � : � , � -

� 2 ; �# '��2 ; � $ 9�'�! 0 $ 9� , � ''$ C � : �� # � �, �! ��$ ! $ 9@

A � � � �� 9� $ , �� -

A � � � � � � * � '9� $ , ''�� ! # � <� ? # � ; �� 2 $ ! ! � -

A �� ! # � 9� $ , �; ! �� <� ? # � ; �� 2 $ ! ! � -

� � � � � � * � ' ! : � � � �� 9�� $ � 2 ; �# A� � �� ! : � 2 ; �# A�� ! ; � $ 9�'� � <

� � � ; � # ��/ � '2 -� 2 $ ! ! � ! : � � � , �� # � '' ! � $ * � � � # '$ � � �$ � 2 ; �# � � � �� ; � $ 9�'� -

�-� $ ! # 'I � <�-� � '� J$ ! : �- �'' -

26

51

SensorySensory typicality assessment typicality assessment of of winewineBeaujolaisBeaujolais and Dornfelder red and Dornfelder red wineswines

��

U. Fischer1, J. Schröder1, A. Samson2, V. Cheynier2, V. Lempereur3, B. Labarbe3,

P. Courcoux4, D. Bertrand4

1 DLR-Rheinpfalz, Dept. Viticulture & Enology, Neustadt, Germany2 INRA - Sciences pour l’Oenologie - Montpellier, France

3 Sicarex Beaujolais, Villefranche sur Saone, France 4 ENITIAA-INRA, Unité de Sensométrie et Chimiométrie, Nantes, France

52

PDO

Beaujolais wines•Brouilly•Côte de Brouilly•Régnié•Morgon•Chiroubles•Fleurie•Moulin-à-Vent•Chénas•Juliénas•Saint-Amour

Beaujolais-Villages

Crus

Beaujolais

50%

25%

25%

production

Beaujolais Crus CR

Beaujolais Villages BV

Beaujolais BJ

27

53

German wine region PFALZ

�� !��

��"��##��

Viticultural area PFALZ –2004: 23 413 ha

White wines: 14 040 ha = 60%Riesling 4 799 haMüller-Thurgau 2 586 haKerner 1 385 ha

Red wines: 9 373 ha = 40 %Dornfelder 3 247 ha = 14%Portugieser 2 477 haPinot noir 1 506 ha

Wine growers 6 000Wine estates 1 800 30%Co-operatives 23 25%Wineries 20 45%

PDO Pfalz

54

Questions which will be addressed

Experimental design in the TYPIC project for wineHow do the wines differ by descriptive analysis?How reproducible are sensory panels?Assessment of typicality by food chain actors What determines typicality - drivers of typicality

28

55

Beaujolais and Dornfelder data sets

Differentiation due to quality hierarchy

5 Beaujolais Crus (CR)10 Beaujolais AOC (BJ)

5 Beaujolais Villages (BV)

5 outsiders variety (OC)5 outsiders region (OG)

10 Dornfelder wines

QDA 2003 vintage 1999-2002QDA 2004 vintage 2000-2003

Differentiation due to producer type10 wine estates (estate)

7 co-operatives (co-op)4 wineries (winery)3 discount chains (discount)2 outsider variety 4 geographic outsider

(estate, 2 co-op, discount)10 Beaujolais wines

QDA 2003 vintage 2002QDA 2004 vintage 2003

Common: 30 wines, two vintages, typic versus outsiderall were dry wines

56

3 Levels of sensory analysis

Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA) = trained panel80 wines at INRA Montpellier, 80 wines at DLR Rheinpfalz

Typicality assessment = Food Chain actors60 wines at SICAREX, France, 60 wines at LWK Neustadt, Germany

Preferences = 194 consumers in Germany= 77 consumers in France

29

57

Work place for Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA)

58

�

�

�

�

$

�

%

�

&Color

NuanceOintensity

Ored fruits

Oraspberry

Oblackcurrant

Ojam

OCherry

Oveggy

Odecaying plantsOempyreumatic

OgamyOspicy

GsweetGacidity

Gbiterness

Gastrigency

Gfruity

Gveggy

Gdecaying plants

Gspicy

GgamyGempyreumaticGaroma persistnecy

Beaujolais (B28) Beauj. Village (B27) Beauj. Cru (B15)

Sensory profile of 3 Beaujolais wines

30

What is the structure in the whole data set?

Principal Component Analysis

40 w

ines

28 sensory attributes 28 LOADINGS

40 S

CO

RE

SPC1, PC2 ...

PCA

60

sweet - fruity bitter - astringent

colour- fruit - body

sour - fuselalcohol - green

PCA Dornfelder + Beaujolais QDA 2003 -LOADINGS

31

61

discounter

Wine estates

co-opwineries

Beaujolais AOC

Beauj. Villages

CruBeaujolais

Outsider

Outsider

Outsider

Outsider

Outsider

PCA Dornfelder + Beaujolais QDA 2003 - SCORES

62

Is QDA a reliable analytical method?

Congruence between two trained panels

32

63

PCA Beaujolais and Dornfelder wines year 2 - QDA INRA

PC2 36%

PC2 23%

DLR 2002

INRA 2002

DLR Rheinpfalz, Neustadt

INRA Montpellier

64

PCA Beaujolais and Dornfelder wines year 2 - QDA INRA

PC2 36%

PC2 23%

DLR 2002

INRA 2002

DLR Rheinpfalz, Neustadt

INRA Montpellier

33

65

Development of a typicality assessment methodology

66

Focus group discussion with

Food Chain Actors

„Typicality“

in rooms of subcontractor

Landwirtschafts-kammer

Rheinland-Pfalz Neustadt

34

67

Typicality Assessment 08.04.2003 name: ........................................... Please assess the typicality of the presented 2002 dry Dornfelder redwine The typic mark in the middle of the scale refers to a Dornfelder which is purchased by an average consumer. The more the evaluated Dornfelder deviates from this sterotype, the more you have to place your mark to the left or right side. The assessed typicality does not refer to your personal ideal of a Dornfelder, but to the stereotype offered to consumers. ��

Wine Number: ........................

colour intensity typical too light too dark

colour hues typical

too brown to purple

sour cheery typical too weak too strong

black & elder berry typical

too weak t too strong

herbaceous typical too weak t too strong

spicy, roasted typical

too weak too strong

green vegetative typical too weak too strong

Typicality Assessment 08.04.2003 name: ........................................... Please assess the typicality of the presented 2002 dry Dornfelder redwine The typic mark in the middle of the scale refers to a Dornfelder which is purchased by an average consumer. The more the evaluated Dornfelder deviates from this sterotype, the more you have to place your mark to the left or right side. The assessed typicality does not refer to your personal ideal of a Dornfelder, but to the stereotype offered to consumers. ��

Wine Number: ........................

colour intensity typical too light too dark

colour hues typical

too brown to purple

sour cheery typical too weak too strong

black & elder berry typical

too weak t too strong

herbaceous typical too weak t too strong

spicy, roasted typical

too weak too strong

green vegetative typical too weak too strong

The assessed typicality does not refer to your personal ideal of a Dornfelder, but to the stereotype offered to the consumer��

68

Typicality Assessment through Food Chain actors

Landwirtschaftskammer Rheinland-Pfalz in Neustadt

at the SICAREX, Beaujolais

35

69

�

�

�

�

$

�

%

�

&COLOUR

HUE

FRUITY

FLORAL

SPICYSOUR

SOFT

TANNINS

TYPICALITY (mean 4.95)

Typic = 5 Beaujolais Beaujolais Village

Beaujolais Cru Outsider variety Outsider geographic

Typicality profile of 2004 evaluated Beaujolais wines

70

�

�

�

�

$

�

%

�

&colour intensity

colour hue

sour cherry

black berry / elder berry

herbaceous

spicy / roasted

green / vegetativesweet

sour

alcohol

body

tannins

overall typicality

typical discount (QZ 1,79) co-operative (QZ 2,90)winery brand (QZ 3,79) wine estate (QZ 4,33)

Typicality profile of 2002 Dornfelder winesof 4 producers

36

71

Congruence between trained panel(QDA) and expert assessment(Typicality)

30 w

ines

28 sensory attributes

30 w

ines

9 typicalityattributes

28 + 9 LOADINGS

30 S

CO

RE

SPC1, PC2 ...

PLS2

72

PLS2 Beaujolais only, no outsiders: QDA regressing on expert typicality 2004 – LOADINGS

37

73

Which sensory properties are linked with high typicalityrating ?

Drivers of Typicality for Dornfelder and Beaujolais

30 w

ines

28 sensory attributes30

win

estypicality

28+1 LOADINGS

30 S

CO

RE

SPC1, PC2 ...

PLS1

74

External Typicality Mapping Dornfelder 2002

Typicality Map 2002 Dornfelder

Typicality

coopD28

coopD27

discD26

wineryD24

discD23discD22

wineryD21

wineryD20

discD19

wineryD18estateD17

estateD16

estateD15

estateD14

� �/�$

estateD12

estateD11

estateD10

estateD9

estateD8coopD7

coopD6

coopD5

coopD4

coopD3

coopD2

coopD1

�'

�%

�#

#

%

'

�' �% �# # % '

�� '�'��(

Sensory Variables 2002 Dornfelder

colour intensitycolour hue

strawberry_O

berry fruit_Osour cherry_O

plum_gamy_O

rhubarb_O

green bean_Oherbaceous_O

oaky_Ocoffee_O

Black pepper_O

fusel alcohol_O

Buttery-cheesy_O

sweet_G

sour_G

fruity_G

vegetative_G

spicy_G

burning_G

body

density_G

astringent_Gbitter_G

rough_G

��

� �&

�&

1

�� & �& �

�� '�')�%*$�'+ ,'��(

Typicality

TypicestateD11

coopD4estateD16

estateD8estateD10

coopD3wineryD24wineryD21

coopD2wineryD20estateD15

coopD27estateD12

coopD5wineryD18

coopD7estateD13estateD17

coopD1coopD28

coopD6discD23

estateD14estateD9discD26discD22discD19

Drivers of typicality: colour, fruity, spicy, density, astringent

Negative drivers of typicality: sour, sweet, fusel alcohol, rough

38

75

External Typicality Mapping Dornfelder 2003

Typicality Map 2003 Dornfelder

TYPICALITY

outsiderD60

outsiderD59

coopD58

coopD57

discD56

wineryD55

wineryD54 discD53

discD52

wineryD51

wineryD50

discD49

wineryD48

estateD47

estateD46estateD45

estateD44

estateD43 estateD42

estateD41

estateD40estateD39

estateD38coopD37

coopD36

coopD35

coopD34

coopD33

coopD32

coopD31

�'

�%

�#

#

%

'

�' �% �# # % '

sensory Variables2003 Dornfelder

colour intensitycolour hue

strawberry_O

berry fruit_Osour cherry_O

plum_gamy_O

rhubarb_O

green bean_O

herbaceous_O

oaky_Ocoffee_O

Black pepper_O

Fusel alcohol_O

buttery cheesy_O

sweet_G

sour_G

fruity_G

vegetative_G

spicy_G

burning_G

body density_G

astringent_G

bitter_G

rough_G

��

� �&

�&

�

�� & �& �

�� '�')��*%�'+ ,'��(

TYPICALITY

Drivers of typicality: colour, fruity, sweet, body

Negative drivers of typicality: sour, astingent, rough, burning, fusel alcohol, vegetative,

TYPICALITYwineryD50estateD38coopD32coopD36

estateD42coopD35coopD37coopD58coopD34discD53

wineryD55coopD57coopD33

estateD39wineryD51

coopD31discD49

wineryD54estateD47estateD41estateD40estateD45estateD46wineryD48estateD43

discD52estateD44

outsiderD59discD56

outsiderD60

76

External Typicality Mapping Beaujolais 1st year

Drivers of typicality: colour hue, vegetative, raspberry, spicy

Negative drivers of typicality: gamay plants, empyreumatic, cherry odour, sweet?

Preference map

TYPICALITY

BJ B30BJ B29BJ B28

BV B27BV B26

BV B25

BV B24BJ B23

BJ B21

BJ B20

BJ B19

CR B18

CR B17

CR B16

CR B15BJ B04

CR B03

BV B02BJ B01

�)

�'

�%

�#

#

%

'

)

�) �' �% �# # % ' )

�� '�'��(

Variables (PC1 and PC2: 42.62 %)

colour intensity

colour hue tr

irritating_O

red fruits_O

raspberry_O

cassis_Ojam_O

cherry_O

vegetative_O

pepper_O

spicy_O

gamy_O

empyreumatic_O

chemical rubber_O

sweet_G

sour_G

bitter_G

astringent_G

fruity_G

vegetative_G

plants_G

pepper_G

spicy_Gchemical_Garoma persistency_G

��

� �&

�&

�

�� & �& �

�� '')�%*%&'+ ,'��(

TYPICALITYBJ B04BJ B01BV B27BJ B28BJ B23BV B24BV B25BV B26BJ B29BV B02BJ B21BJ B20CR B18CR B03BJ B19BJ B30CR B16CR B15CR B17

39

77

External Typicality Mapping Beaujolais 2nd year

Sensory Variable, Beaujolais 2nd year, no outsiders

colour intensity

colour hue tr

irritating_O

red fruits_O

raspberry_O

cassis_O

jam_O

fruit drops_O

vegetative_O

spicy_O

gamy_O

empyreumatic_ OChemical_O

rubber_O

dry wood_O

lactic_O

moldy_O

sweet_G

sour_G

bitter_G

astringent_G

fruity_G

vegetative_G

chemical_G

empyreumatic_G

aroma persistency_G

dry wood_G liquorice_G

fleshy_Gwarm_Gdense_G

��

� �&

�&

�

�� & �& �

�� ')$�*��'+ ,'��(

Typicality Map, Beaujolais 2nd year, no outsiders

TYPICALITY

BV B62BJ B61

BJ B60

BJ B59

BJ B58

BV B57

BV B56

BV B55

BV B54

BJ B53

BJ B51

BJ B50BJ B49

CR B48

CR B47

CR B46

CR B45

BJ B34

CR B33

BV B32

BJ B31

�)

�'

�%

�#

#

%

'

)

�) �' �% �# # % ' )

�� -�.#�'��'��(

TYPICALITYBV B55BV B62BJ B53BJ B59BJ B58BJ B34BJ B50BV B57BJ B61BJ B60BV B54BJ B31BV B56BV B32CR B47CR B46BJ B49CR B48BJ B51CR B33CR B45Drivers of typicality: raspberry,

sour, fruit drops, fruityNegative drivers of typicality: empyreumatic, cassis, dry wood, gamy, moldy

78-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

B02B31

B32B33

B34

B35

B36B37

B38

B39

B40

B41B42

B43

B44

B45

B46

B47

B48

B49B50

B51B52

B53B54

B55

B56

B57B58

B59

B60 B61

B62 B36

B45

B57

B60

For each expert, projection of the ‘ideal typical point’For each expert, projection of the ‘ideal typical point’(rating of 5 for each attribute)(rating of 5 for each attribute)

Are Are we ablewe able to to predict typicalitypredict typicality??

40

79

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

B02B31

B32B33

B34

B35

B36B37B38

B39

B40

B41B42

B43

B44

B45B46

B47

B48

B49B50

B51B52

B53B54

B55

B56

B57B58

B59

B60 B61

B62 B36

B45

B57

B60

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

34

4

44

4

45

5

5

5

5

56

66

6

7

7

7 88

99

Prediction of typicality by CVA dimensions(quadratic model)

80

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

B02

B31

B32B33

B34

B35

B36B37

B38

B39

B40

B41B42

B43

B44

B45

B46

B47

B48

B49B50

B51

B52

B53

B54

B55

B56

B57B58

B59

B60 B61

B62 B36

B45

B57

B60

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

66

6

7

7

7 8

89

9

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

12

2

3

3

4

4

5 5

6

6

7

78 8

BJ1 BV0

CR0

BJ2

OC0

OG2

OG1

OC1

OG2

OC2OG2

OC0

BJ1

OC2

CR0

CR0

CR1

CR0

BJ0

BJ2

BJ2

BJ2BJ2

BV2BV2

BV2BV2

BJ2BJ2

OC9

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

12

2

3

3

4

4

5 5

6

6

7

78 8

BJ1 BV0

CR0

BJ2

OC0

OG2

OG1

OC1

OG2

OC2OG2

OC0

BJ1

OC2

CR0

CR0

CR1

CR0

BJ0

BJ2

BJ2

BJ2BJ2

BV2BV2

BV2BV2

BJ2BJ2

OC9

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

12

2

3

3

4

4

5 5

6

6

7

78 8

12

2

3

3

4

4

5 5

6

6

7

78 8

BJ1 BV0

CR0

BJ2

OC0

OG2

OG1

OC1

OG2

OC2OG2

OC0

BJ1

OC2

CR0

CR0

CR1

CR0

BJ0

BJ2

BJ2

BJ2BJ2

BV2BV2

BV2BV2

BJ2BJ2

OC9

Beaujolais 2nd yearBeaujolais 1st year

Perception of typicality for Beaujolais wines(prediction using quadratic models)

Linear and quadratic model quadratic model

41

81

Example of the durability of typicality of wines(Sensory profile experiment)

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

B31

B32

B33

B34

B35

B36

B37

B38

B39 B40

B41 B42 B43 B44 B45

B46

B47

B48

B49

B50

B51

B52

B53

B54

B55

B56

B57

B58

B59

B60

B61

B62

D31 D33 D37

D38 D40

D45

D46 D50

D54 D56

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

B01B02

B03

B04

B05

B06B07

B08

B09B11

B12B13

B14

B15

B16

B17

B18

B19

B20

B21

B22 B23

B24B25B26B27

B28B29

B30

D01D03 B07

D08D10

D15D16D20

D24

D26

B10

��

��&

��&

/��!�� /��!��

/�%

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

/�%

Sevilla, 2004Zaragoza, 2003

82

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

D01

D02

D03

D04

D05D06

D07

D08

D09

D10

D11

D12D13

D14

D15D16

D17D18

D19

D20D21

D22

D23

D24

D26 D27D28

D31D32

D33

D34

D35D36

D37D38

D39

D40

D41

D42

D43

D44

D45

D46

D47D48

D49

D50

D51

D52

D53

D54

D55

D56

D57

D58

Prediction of typicality of Dornfelder from 2002 and 2003(quadratic model)

Linear and quadratic model

linear

quadratic

42

83

Bitter

Astring

Body

Burning

SpicyM

GreenVeg

FruityM

Sour

Sweet

Butter

Fusel

BlackPepCoffee

ToastedOakHerbaceous

GreenBean

RhubCookedPlum

SourChBerryfr

Strawb ColHue

ColInt

Typic

Tannins

BodyAlcohol

Sour

Sweet

GreenVeg

Spicy

Herbaceous

BlackBerSourCh

ColorHue

ColorInt

typicalitysensory

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

D01

D02

D03

D04

D05D06

D07

D08

D09

D10

D11

D12D13

D14

D15D16

D17D18

D19

D20D21

D22

D23

D24

D26 D27D28

D31D32

D33

D34

D35D36

D37D38

D39

D40

D41

D42

D43

D44

D45

D46

D47D48

D49

D50

D51

D52

D53

D54

D55

D56

D57

D58

84

ConclusionFor Beaujolais, a good separation was observed between typical wines and outsiders, however less between quality levels.

For Dornfelder, the type of producer and production for distinct distribution channels had a stronger impact on sensory and typicality properties than the geographic origin of the grapes.

The QDA of the same 20 wines gave very similar results from both panels.

Food chain experts gave consistent and reproducible results over two vintages, using the developed typicality scale. However, drivers for typicality differed strongly between both varieties and both countries.

For Dornfelder positive drivers of typicality were colour, fruity and body, negative drivers were fusel alcohol, vegetative, sour and rough mouth feel.

For Beaujolais positive drivers of typicality were fruity aspects like raspberry, vegetative, spicy notes; negative drivers were empyreumatic, gamy, but also sweet and fruity notes like cherry and cassis.

TYPIC · A typical food product is representative of a category different from standardised products S A P S S S S S S S S S S A A A A A A S S S S S S S S S m q P k Catégorie 1 Catégorie

Documents