. 2019 Aug 14;6:115. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2019.00115

Table 1.

Results of the hedonic and preference tests for the three dishes prepared using local and biofortified millet varieties (n = 24^*).

Variety	Hedonic tests (mean score/5)			Preference test(rank)
	Color	Texture	Taste
WHOLE MILLET
Tô
Local Gampela	4.4^a	4.4^a	4.3^a	1^a
Biofortified Tabi	3.3^b	3.5^b	3.6^b	2^b
Biofortified GB 8735	3.1^b	3.4^b	3.3^c	3^b
p	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.05
Pancakes
Local Gampela	4.6^a	4.4^a	4.2^a	1^a
Biofortified Tabi	3.1^c	3.3^c	3.5^b	3^c
Biofortified GB 8735	3.5^b	3.8^b	4.0^a	2^b
p	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.05
Gruel
Local Gampela	4.6^a	4.2^a	4.2^a	1^a
Biofortified Tabi	3.7^b	3.8^b	3.8^b	3^b
Biofortified GB 8735	3.5^b	3.6^b	3.8^b	2^b
p	<0.01	<0.01	<0.05	<0.05
DECORTICATED MILLET
Tô
Local Gampela	4.7^a	4.4^a	4.5^a	1^a
Biofortified Tabi	3.4^b	3.6^b	3.4^b	2^b
Biofortified GB 8735	3.2^b	3.3^b	3.1^b	3^b
p	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.05
Pancakes
Local Gampela	4.6^a	4.1^a	4.2^a	1^a
Biofortified Tabi	3.6^b	3.7^b	3.7^b	2^b
Biofortified GB 8735	3.3^b	3.6^b	3.8^b	3^b
p	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.05

Data were compared with the ANOVA and Fischer's least significant difference tests (hedonic test scores), and the Friedman and rank sum multiple comparison tests to compare means for the preference test. Values in a column for the same dish with different superscript letters are significantly different (ANOVA; p < 0.05).

24 participants (12 women, 12 men) participated in the study. Each participant tasted each of the three dishes prepared with the three millet varieties by three different producers on three successive days.