Table 4.
Consumer liking responses and bids’ values for jambalaya MAPS-processed meals and a control (cooked and frozen meals) as evaluated by 50 and by 71 participants.
| Processing Method | Appearance | Aroma | Flavor | Texture Shrimp | Texture Chicken | Texture Sausage | Overall liking | Bids ($) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 50 | MAPS-processed | 5.66 a | 5.79 a | 6.00 a | 5.13 a | 4.95 a | 5.68 a | 5.61 a | 3.59 a |
| Control | 5.71 a | 5.92 a | 5.99 b | 5.35 a | 4.94 a | 5.70 a | 5.67 a | 3.48 a | |
| p-value | 0.78 | 0.40 | 0.94 | 0.32 | 0.98 | 0.92 | 0.70 | 0.48 | |
| n = 71 | MAPS-processed | 5.63 a | 5.68 a | 5.88 a | 5.16 a | 4.93 a | 5.63 a | 5.34 a | - |
| Control | 5.70 a | 5.85 a | 5.89 a | 5.27 a | 4.98 a | 5.77 a | 5.65 a | - | |
| p-value | 0.64 | 0.23 | 0.96 | 0.54 | 0.78 | 0.34 | 0.45 | - | |
Different letters within a column (a, b) indicate that the tested parameter mean value was different among processing methods p < 0.05 as determined by using Tukey’s HSD. Mean values are collapsed over participants and storage time. Results range between 1 and 7 due to the use of a 7-point hedonic scale.