Consumer-Assisted Selection of Blueberry Fruit Quality Traits
Consumer-Assisted Selection of Blueberry Fruit Quality Traits
Consumer-Assisted Selection of Blueberry Fruit Quality Traits
Among both sample populations, the two ‘‘mealy, pasty, and dry,’’ ‘‘lots of seeds, purchased fresh blueberries in the past year.
elements that scored highest in consumer a bit of grit,’’ ‘‘tough chewy skin,’’ ‘‘mushy, The data were grouped by reported gender,
favorability by InV (Table 2) were the flavor melts in your mouth,’’ and ‘‘meaty, not age, ethnicity, income groups, and relation-
elements ‘‘so sweet.no sugar added’’ and juicy.’’ In general, the elements with the ship status (Table 3) to see whether any
‘‘bold and intense blueberry flavor.’’ Also highest and lowest InVs were consistent a priori market segments could be distin-
among the five highest InVs in the final study between the two studies (Tables 1–3). guished (Green and Krieger, 1991). Flavor
were three elements from three separate Because the final study was a superior test elements remained among the top two most
categories: ‘‘full of juice,’’ ‘‘full of antioxi- of the complete set of blueberry traits, we favorable berry qualities in a majority of the
dants,’’ and ‘‘berries are dark blue through- present the data from the 2013 study in detail. groups, whereas tactile elements of seedi-
out.’’ In contrast, five quality traits most Of the 300 subjects who completed the ness, chewiness, mealiness, or mushiness had
detrimental to purchase were from the berry final study, 99% had previously purchased the strongest potential to decrease purchase
firmness and texture categories, including blueberries in their lifetime, and 96% had likelihood.
Age (years)
18–24 25–34 35–50 51–65
Ethnicity
White/Caucasian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino Asian
Base size 97 47 88 68
Constant 36 49 34 51
Highest So sweet, no sugar needed (17) So sweet, no sugar needed (16) Fruity flavor (13) Bold and intense blueberry flavor (13)
Highest Bold and intense blueberry flavor (13) Bold and intense blueberry flavor (12) So sweet, no sugar needed (12) Full of juice (7)
Lowest Mealy, pasty, and dry (–21) Meaty, not juicy (–25) Lots of seeds, a bit of grit (–21) Lots of seeds, a bit of grit (–16)
Lowest Mushy.melts in your mouth (–21) Mealy, pasty and dry (–34) Mealy, pasty, and dry (–23) Mealy, pasty, and dry (–18)
Income
<$30,000 $30,000–$39,999 $40,000–$49,999 $50,000–$74,999 $75,000–$99,999 $100,000–$124,999 $125,000+
Base size 54 29 37 72 47 24 37
Constant 54 32 56 27 47 56 22
Highest So sweet, no So sweet, no Bold and intense So sweet, no The biggest berries Full of juice (13) Bold and intense
sugar needed (9) sugar needed (20) blueberry flavor (13) sugar needed (17) you’ve ever seen (10) blueberry flavor (21)
Highest Full of juice (7) Full of Crispy berry. Bold and intense So sweet, no sugar Organic berries (12) Full of juice (19)
antioxidants (16) pops in your mouth (11) blueberry flavor (16) needed (10)
Lowest Lots of seeds, a Lots of seeds, a Tough, chewy skin (–21) Lots of seeds, a Mushy. melts in Lots of seeds, a Mealy, pasty
bit of grit (–23) bit of grit (–20) bit of grit (–15) your mouth (–25) bit of grit (–34) and dry (–12)
Lowest Mealy, pasty, Mealy, pasty, Lots of seeds, Mealy, pasty, Tough, chewy skin (–30) Mealy, pasty, Lots of seeds, a
and dry (–29) and dry (–28) a bit of grit (–28) and dry (–18) and dry (–37) bit of grit (–12)
Relationship status
Single Married Separated/divorced
Base size 118 151 26
Constant 37 42 49
Highest So sweet, no sugar needed (12) So sweet, no sugar needed (12) So sweet, no sugar needed (15)
Highest Bold and intense blueberry flavor (12) Bold and intense blueberry flavor (12) Berries that are a shade of light blue (10)
Lowest Lots of seeds, a bit of grit (–22) Tough, chewy skin (–19) Petite berries (–21)
Lowest Mealy, pasty, and dry (–23) Mealy, pasty, and dry (–23) Lots of seeds, a bit of grit (–27)
869
that 15% repeat consumers, there exists plenty
InV are relative to the baseline constant value (the percentage of subjects that would respond favorably to ‘‘The Ideal Fresh Blueberry’’ even if no elements were presented) to compare the tested elements and are presented
Table 3. (Continued) The two highest and lowest elements and interest values (InV, in parentheses) for the ‘‘The Ideal Fresh Blueberry’’ compared by reported gender, age, ethnicity, income, relationship status, neighborhood
of room for market expansion (Brazelton,
2013; Fresh Trends, 2011, 2012, 2013).
The development of cogent phrases to
Southwest
elements when reworded between the initial
52
53
and final studies in this article (Table 1).
52
61
induced a positive response from test subjects.
When the clarification ‘‘.like a grape’’ was
added to element A4 ‘‘Firm with no give.’’
Lots of seeds, a bit of grit (–19)
So sweet, no sugar needed (19)
Purchase location
U.S. region
purchasing interest.
The lexicon used to describe the
Lots of seeds, a bit of grit (–20)
So sweet, no sugar needed (12)
101
38
Fruity flavor (10)
Base size
Base size
Constant
Constant
Constant
Highest
Highest
Highest
Highest
Lowest
Lowest
Lowest
Lowest
Lowest
Lowest
supply chain. To target the largest population of the supply chain would do well to continue Cassidy, A., K.J. Mukamal, L. Liu, M. Franz, A.H.
segment, breeders should focus on improving highlighting the health benefits associated with Eliassen, and E.B. Rimm. 2013. High anthocyanin
blueberry flavor as experienced by the con- eating blueberry fruit. intake is associated with a reduced risk of myo-
sumer. This requires study of genetically cardial infarction in young and middle-aged
regulated blueberry biochemistry available women. Circulation 127:188–196.
Literature Cited Clark, J.R. and C.E. Finn. 2010. Register of new
to the breeder as well as the exploration of fruit and nut cultivars: List 45. HortScience
environmental variables controlled by the pro- Albrigo, L.G., P.M. Lyrene, and B. Freeman. 1980.
Waxes and other surface characteristics of fruit 45:716–756.
ducers that could affect flavor biochemistry Colquhoun, T.A., L.A. Levin, H.R. Moskowitz,
and leaves of native Vaccinium elliotti Chapm.
such as soil nutrients and postharvest storage J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 105:230–235. V.M. Whitaker, D.G. Clark, and K.M. Folta.
effects. Most importantly, these studies should Behe, B., R. Nelson, S. Barton, C. Hall, C.D. 2012. Framing the perfect strawberry: An
incorporate consumer flavor panels that em- Safley, and S. Turner. 1999. Consumer prefer- exercise in consumer-assisted selection of fruit
pirically determine flavor biochemistry goals ences for geranium flower color, leaf variega- crops. J. Berry Res. 2:45–61.
for the breeder. A similar approach should be tion, and price. HortScience 34:740–742. DellaVigna, S. 2009. Psychology and economics:
taken to eliminate genetics or environmental Behe, B.K. 2006. Conjoint analysis reveals con- Evidence from the field. J. Econ. Lit. 47:
variables that may cause the negative texture sumers prefer long, thin asparagus spears. 315–372.
HortScience 41:1259–1262. Fan, Z.L., Z.Y. Wang, L.L. Zuo, and S.Q. Tian.
qualities rejected by consumers belonging to
Behe, B.K., B.L. Campbell, C.R. Hall, H. Khachatryan, 2012. Protective effect of anthocyanins from
either segment. Marketing of individual blue- lingonberry on radiation-induced damages. Int.
J.H. Dennis, and C. Yue. 2013. Consumer
berry cultivars for superior flavor could also preferences for local and sustainable plant pro- J. Environ. Res. Public Health 9:4732–4743.
benefit consumers desiring an enhanced sen- duction characteristics. HortScience 48:200–208. Fresh Trends. 2011. The packer. Vance Publishing,
sory experience from their blueberries and Brazelton, C. 2013. 2012 World blueberry acreage Lenexa, KS.
could benefit producers by allowing them to and production report. North American High- Fresh Trends. 2012. The packer. Vance Publishing,
set premium price points. The marketing link bush Blueberry Council, Folsom, CA. Lenexa, KS.
z
The total sample data was separated by gender. The base sizes, constants, and interest ratings per element for each subject population are listed in the table. The
two elements with the highest interest ranking in each group are denoted by * and the bottom two ranked elements are donated by ‡.
z
The total sample data was separated by age. The base sizes, constants, and interest ratings per element for each subject population are listed in the table. The two
elements with the highest interest ranking in each group are denoted by * and the bottom two ranked elements are donated by ‡.
z
The total sample data was separated by ethnicity. The base sizes, constants, and interest ratings per element for each subject population are listed in the table. The
two elements with the highest interest ranking in each group are denoted by *, and the bottom two ranked elements are donated by ‡.
z
The total sample data was separated by income. The base sizes, constants, and interest ratings per element for each subject population are listed in the table. The
two elements with the highest interest ranking in each group are denoted by * and the bottom two ranked elements are donated by ‡.
z
The total sample data was separated by relationship status. The base sizes, constants, and interest ratings per element for each subject population are listed in the
table. The two elements with the highest interest ranking in each group are denoted by * and the bottom two ranked elements are donated by ‡.
z
The total sample data was separated by neighborhood classification. The base sizes, constants, and interest ratings per element for each subject population are
listed in the table. The two elements with the highest interest ranking in each group are denoted by * and the bottom two ranked elements are donated by ‡.
z
The total sample data was separated by subject?s U.S. region of residence. The base sizes, constants, and interest ratings per element for each subject population
are listed in the table. The two elements with the highest interest ranking in each group are denoted by * and the bottom two ranked elements are donated by ‡.
z
The total sample data was separated by blueberry purchase location. The base sizes, constants, and interest ratings per element for each subject population are
listed in the table. The two elements with the highest interest ranking in each group are denoted by * and the bottom two ranked elements are donated by ‡.