Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sensory characterisation of an Irish PGI bread: Waterford Blaa

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Food Research and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Waterford Blaa is an Irish Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) product. To date, no studies have been undertaken to fully characterise Waterford Blaa. The objective of this study was to use a trained sensory panel to determine whether Waterford Blaa could be differentiated from six other bread products utilising Napping, and to create a complete sensory profile for Waterford Blaa using a Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA) style method. When comparing all ten bread products, the experienced trained panel grouped the four Blaa products together using Napping, on the basis of aroma, flavour and texture. A representative sample of breads, along with the Waterford Blaas was used by the panel to develop a QDA-style lexicon and attribute definitions. In addition to the geographic basis for its PGI award, our Napping data demonstrate that Waterford Blaa occupies a separate sensory space from other baked bread products. A complete lexicon was created for Waterford Blaa for created addressing all relevant attributes for this niche product. Rating the Waterford Blaa products using these attribute scales it was possible to differentiate between products produced by each authorised Waterford Blaa producer. This is the first reported characterisation of Waterford Blaa. The sensory specifications identified for each authorised Waterford product provide clear points of differentiation within this market segment and could be of use to the artisan producers in developing individualised marketing strategies going forward.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

QDA:

Quantitative descriptive analysis

PGI:

Protected geographical indication

PDO:

Protected designation of origin

TSG:

Traditional speciality guaranteed

References

  1. European Commission (2017) European Commission. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/schemes/index_en.htm. Accessed 12 April 2018

  2. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (2018) Protecting geographical food names. Available at: http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/gi/pdopgitsg-protectedfoodnames/. Accessed 1 Oct 2018

  3. Database of Origin and Registration (DOOR) (2018) European Commission. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/door/list.html. Accessed 1 Oct 2018

  4. Conneely R, Mahon M (2015) Protected geographical indications: Institutional roles in food systems governance and rural development. Geoforum 60:14–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fotopoulos C, Krystallis A (2003) Quality labels as a marketing advantage: The case of the “PDO zagora” apples in the Greek market. Eur J Mark 37(10):1350–1374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Verbeke W, Pieniak Z, Guerrero L, Hersleth M (2012) Consumers’ awareness and attitudinal determinants of European Union quality label use on traditional foods. Bio-Based Appl Econ 1(2):213–229

    Google Scholar 

  7. Stefani G, Romano D, Cavicchi A (2006) Consumer expectations, liking and willingness to pay for speciality foods: do sensory characteristics tell the whole story? Food Qual Prefer 17:53–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. European Commission (2017) EU information and promotion campaign on geographical indications (PDO/PGI) in China 2015. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/events/gi-campaign-china-2015_en.htm. Accessed 12 April 2018

  9. Grunert KG, Aachmann K (2016) Consumer reactions to the use of EU quality labels of food product: a review of the literature. Food Control 59:178–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Carpenter M, Larceneux F (2008) Labelling equity and the effectiveness of value-based labels; an experiment with two French protected geographical indication labels. Int J Consum Stud 32:499–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Botonaki A, Tsakiridou E (2004) Consumer response evaluation of a Greek quality wine. Acta Agric Scand Sect C Food Econ 1:91–98

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mintel (2017) Artisan food—attitudes to provenance—Ireland November 2017. Available at: http://academic.mintel.com/display/869275/?highlight#hit1. Accessed 1 Oct 2018

  13. Zannoni M, Everitt M (2016) Meeting report of E3S PDO group. Email to Margaret Everitt and Mario Zannoni, 9th June 2016

  14. Lalou S, Hatzidimitriou E, Papadopoulou M, Kontogianni VG, Tsiafoulis CG, Gerothanassis IP, Tsimidou MZ (2015) Beyond traditional balsamic vinegar: compositional and sensorial characteristics of industrial balsamic vinegars and regulatory requirements. J Food Compos Anal 43:175–184

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Arias-Carmona MD, Romero-Rodríduez MA, Muñoz-Ferreiro N, Vázquez-Odériz ML (2012) Sensory analysis of protected geographical indication products: an example with turnip greens and tops. J Sens Stud 27:482–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Castro-Vázquez L, Díaz-Maroto MC, de Torres C, Pérez-Coello MS (2010) Effect of geographical origin on the chemical and sensory characteristics of chestnut honeys. Food Res Int 43:2335–2340

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. European Commission (1996) DOOR Idiazabal PDO (ES/PDO/0117/0082) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/door/registeredName.html?denominationId=354. Accessed 22 Feb 2019

  18. Barron LJR, Redondo Y, Flanagan CE, Pérez-Elortondo FJ, Albisu M, Nájera AI, De Renobales M, Fernández-García (2005). Comparison of the volatile composition and sensory characteristics of Spanish PDO cheese manufactured from ewes’ raw milk and animal rennet. Int Dairy J 15:371–382

  19. Abilleira E, Schlichtherle-Cerny H, Virto M, De Renobales M, Barron LJR (2010) Volatile composition an aroma-active compounds of farmhouse Idiazabal cheese made in winter and spring. Int Dairy J 20:537–544

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Barcenas P, Pérez-Elortondo FJ, Albisu M (2004) Projective mapping in sensory analysis of ewes’ milk cheeses: a study on consumers and trained panel performance. Food Res Int 37:723–729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ojeda M, Etaio I, Pilar Fernandez Gil M, Albisu M, Salmeron J, Perez J, Elortondo F (2015) Sensory quality control of cheese: going beyond the absence of defects. Food Control 51:371–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. European Commission (2009) DOOR Aceto Balsamico di Modena PGI (IT/PGI/0005/0430) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/door/registeredName.html?denominationId=1830. Accessed 22 Feb 2019

  23. Galletto L, Rossetto L (2015) A hedonic analysis of retail Italian vinegars. Wine Econ Policy 4:60–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. European Commission (1999) DOOR Jamón Serrano TSG (ES/TSG/0007/0012) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/door/registeredName.html?denominationId=363. Accessed 22 Feb 2019

  25. Morales R, Guerrero L, Claret A, Guàrdia MD, Gou P (2008) Beliefs and attitudes of butchers and consumers towards dry-cured ham. Meat Sci 80:1005–1012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cannata S, Ratti S, Meteau K, Mourot J, Baldini P, Corino C (2010) Evaluation of different types of dry-cured ham by Italian and French consumers. Meat Sci 84:601–606

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Resano H, Sanjuàn AI, Albisu (2012) Consumers’ response to the EU quality policy allowing for heterogeneous preferences. Food Qual Pref 37:355–365

    Google Scholar 

  28. Resano H, Sanjuán AI, Cilla I, Roncalés P, Albisu LM (2010) Sensory attributes that drive consumer acceptability of dry-cured ham and convergence with trained sensory data. Meat Sci 84:344–351

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Resano H, Sanjuàn AI, Albisu (2009) Consumer acceptability and actual choice. an exploratory research on cured ham in Spain. Food Qual Pref 20:390–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Resano H, Sanjuàn AI, Albisu (2007) Consumers’ acceptability of cured ham in Spain and the influence of information. Food Qual Pref 18:1064–1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. The Waterford Blaa Bakers Association (2012) Department of agriculture, food and the marine. Available at:http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/agri-foodindustry/geographicalindicationsprotectednames/SpecificationWaterfordBlaaFINALVersion061014.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2018

  32. ISO 8586 (2012) Sensory analysis—General guidelines for the selection, training and monitoring of selected assessors and expert sensory assessors

  33. Pagès J (2005) Collection and analysis of perceived product inter-distances using multiple factor analysis: application to the study of 10 white wines from the Loire Valley. Food Qual Prefer 16(7):642–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Meilgaard MC, Civille GV, Carr BT (2006) Sensory evaluation techniques, 4th edition, Chap. 10, CRC press, New York, pp 180

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Lawless HT, Heymann H (2010) Sensory evaluation of food: principles and practices. 2nd edition, Springer, Berlin, pp 234

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Louw L, Oelofse S, Naes T, Lambrechts M, Van Rensburg P (2015) Optimisation of the partial napping approach for the successful capturing of mouthfeel differentiation between brandy products. Food Qual Prefer 41:245–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Perrin L, Symoneaux R, Maître I, Asselin C, Jourjon F, Pagès J (2008) Comparison of three sensory methods for use with the Napping® procedure: case of ten wines from Loire Valley. Food Qual Prefer 19(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Escofier B, Pagès J (1994) Multiple factor analysis. Comput Stat Data Anal 18:121–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tomic O, Berget I, Naes T (2015) A comparison of general procrustes analysis and multiple factor analysis for projective mapping data. Food Qual Prefer 43:34–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. European Commission (2000) DOOR Timoleague Brown Pudding PGI (IE/PGI/0005/0093) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/door/registeredName.html?denominationId=702. Accessed 22 Feb 2019

  41. AEuropean Commission (1999) DOOR Clare Island Salmon PGI (IE/PGI/0005/0058) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/door/registeredName.html?denominationId=251. Accessed 22 Feb 2019

  42. European Commission (2007) DOOR Connemara Hill Lamb PGI (IE/PGI/0005/0366) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/door/registeredName.html?denominationId=263. Accessed 22 Feb 2019

  43. European Commission (2013) DOOR Waterford Blaa PGI (IE/PGI/0005/00980) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/door/registeredName.html?denominationId=5663. Accessed 22 Feb 2019

  44. European Commission (1999) DOOR Imokilly Regato PDO (IE/PDO/00050070) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/door/registeredName.html?denominationId=355. Accessed 22 Feb 2019

  45. European Commission (2016) DOOR Oriel Sea Salt PDO (IE/PDO/0005/01318) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/door/registeredName.html?denominationId=14401. Accessed 22 Feb 2019

  46. European Commission (2016) DOOR Oriel Sea Mineral PDO (IE/PDO/0005/01319) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/door/registeredName.html?denominationId=14402. Accessed 22 Feb 2019

  47. Callejo MJ (2011) Present situation of the descriptive sensory analysis of bread. J Sens Stud 26:255–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Fernández-Vázquez R, Hewson L, Fisk I, Vila DH, Mira FJH, Vicario IM, Hort J (2014) Colour influences sensory perception and liking of orange juice. Flavour 3(1):1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Lawless HT, Heymann H (2010) Sensory evaluation of food: principles and practices. Springer, Berlin, pp 283

    Book  Google Scholar 

  50. Irish Heart Foundation (2016) Heart failure. Available at: http://www.irishheart.ie/iopen24/heart-failure-t-7_19_63.html. Accessed 15 March 2016

  51. Zandstra E, Lion R, Newson RS (2016) Salt reduction: Moving from consumer awareness to action. Food Qual Prefer 48:376–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Girgis S, Neal B, Prescott J, Prendergast J, Dumbrell S, Turner C (2003) A one-quarter reduction in the salt content of bread can be made without detection. Eur J Clin Nutr 57:616–620

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Bolhuis DP, Temme EHM, Koeman FT, Noort MWJ, Kremer S, Janssen AM (2011) A salt reduction of 50% in bread does not decrease bread consumption or increase sodium intake by the choice of sandwich fillings. J Nutr 141(12):2249–2255

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Heenan SP, Dufour JP, Hamid N, Harvey W, Delahunty CM (2008) The sensory quality of fresh bread. Descriptive attributes and consumer perceptions. Food Res Int 41:989–997

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Waterford Blaa Bakers Association and Sensory Dimension, United Kingdom for their collaboration on this project. This research was made possible through grant aid funding under the Food Institutional Research Measure (FIRM), which is administered by the Irish Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, (DAFM).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UCD School of Agriculture and Food Science, UCD Institute of Food and Health, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland

    R. Kelly & A. G. M. Scannell

  2. Sensory Dimensions, Unit F1-F2, Cowlairs, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 9RA, UK

    T. Hollowood

  3. Sensory Food Network Ireland, Dublin 15, Ireland

    R. Kelly & A. G. M. Scannell

Authors
  1. R. Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Hollowood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. G. M. Scannell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Kelly.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Compliance with ethics requirements

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of Sensory Dimensions, United Kingdom.

Informed consent

All participants of the QDA and Napping panels were provided with consent forms before taking part in this study at Sensory Dimensions.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kelly, R., Hollowood, T. & Scannell, A.G.M. Sensory characterisation of an Irish PGI bread: Waterford Blaa. Eur Food Res Technol 245, 1307–1319 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-019-03251-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-019-03251-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation