170 MISC. PUBLICATION 5 4 0, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 



reasons why one sample rates higher than another, and gives no clues 

 as to when, where, or why quality is impaired. 



A second procedure is to set up each day a standard sample, call 

 in a relatively small but trained jury, and ask them to rate the new 

 material as equal to, above, or below the standard. There are many 

 advantages in this method. It yields concrete information, it takes 

 relatively little time, and it makes possible a consistency in evaluations 

 otherwise difficult to achieve. The limiting factor in its use for dehy- 

 drated products as in others is in the impracticability of maintaining 

 a uniformly constant standard over any great length of time. 



The third procedure, while it appears more complicated to the 

 uninitiated, lends itself to standardization of quality in samples 

 gathered over wide areas and over great lengths of time and hence 

 is recommended as being satisfactory for plant testing. In this pro- 

 cedure each specific quality factor is graded, either subjectively by 

 trained graders or objectively by some standardized technique. The 

 plan, as developed at the Western Regional Research Laboratory, in- 

 cludes (1) color grading by direct comparison with Munsell standard 

 color chips, (2) form, shape, and size by direct measurement and by 

 direct comparisons of fresh-blanched and rehydrated pieces, and (3) 

 subjective evaluations of taste, flavors, texture, odor, and consistency. 

 Each jury includes three or more individuals. The rating sheets are 

 arranged so as to permit checking of the quality point. A three-point 

 scale is used (table 17). This procedure focuses the attention of the 

 grader on the specific taste, flavor, and texture factors in the material, 

 and when his opinions are properly summarized and combined with 

 the results on color, form, shape, and consistency, a very satisfactory 

 estimation of the quality of the sample is obtained. 



Table 17. — Organoleptic testing schedule: Data summary of jury of 10 opinions 

 of quality on 2 samples of carrots 1 



Characteristic 



Scale 



Number of 

 opinions 



Evaluation -' 





P767 



P119 



P767 



P119 



Sweetness 



[None 



{Mild 





 8 

 2 

 9 

 

 1 



10 

 

 



1 



8 

 1 

 4 

 6 

 

 8 

 

 2 

 

 

 

 



1 

 1 



8 



6 

 3 

 1 



10 

 

 



10 

 

 

 3 





 10 

 





 

 5 

 5 

 1 

 

 

 2 

 7 

 1 

 



) • 



1 • 



1 • 



h 



+ 





[None 



{Mild 







Bitterness- . 



1 Pronounced 



fXone 



{Mild . 











Characteristic flavor . ______ 



[None 



{Mild 



++ 







Softness 



f Crisp or firm 



{Soft 



1 Mushy.. . . . 









[Tender 



{Hard 









1 Tough or fibrous.. 







[Strong or off but not stale 



{Mildly stale ... 



I) 





(Pronounced staleness. __ 







[Not acceptable 





Edible quality 



JPoor.. 





|Fair 











[Good- 











1 All samples were boiled 5 minutes without soaking. 



2 See Table 15 for full code. 



