Lee, Soh Min :

Sirimuangmoon, Chirat :

Kitsawad, Kalmonate :

Ferguson, Louise

Guinard, Jean-Xavier

Sensorycharacteristicsandconsumeracceptanceofmechanically ( canopycontact harvester ) â?쳌 harvestedCaliforniablackolives:Reportfor2010 â?쳌 2011 Soh Min Lee , ChiratSirimuangmoon , KalmonateKitsawad , LouiseFerguson , andJean â?쳌 Xavier Guinard MaterialsandMethods The study examined the sensory properties and consumer acceptability of 10 California black table olives that wereproduced accordingto theexperimentaldesign shown in Figure1 below , and harvested either manually or with the canopy contact harvester method of mechanical harvesting . The labels used for the 10 samples throughout the report are shown in Table 1 . Our two industrial partners in this project ( Musco Family Olives and Bell â?쳌 Carter ) received identical samples that were then processed with two different methods . Thus , 8 treatments , with the olive fruits being harvested either by hand or mechanically [ i.e . 2 harvestingmethods ] , then shipped to processor A and B [ i.e . 2 processors ] , and then processed fresh or after being held in storage tanks [ i.e . 2 processing methods ] , and 2 commercial products , onefrom eachprocessor , wereused inthestudy ( Figure1andTable1 ) . Figure1 â?? Experimentaldesignforoliveproductionandharvest Table1 â?? Tableolivesamples Sample Harvesting Processing Processors Commercial Abbreviations methods methods A_Comm A Commercial â?쳌 â?쳌 A_Hand_F A â?쳌 Hand Fresholives A_Hand_S A â?쳌 Hand Stored olives A_Mach_F A â?쳌 Machine Fresholives A_Mach_S A â?쳌 Machine Stored olives B_Comm B Commercial â?쳌 â?쳌 B_Hand_F B â?쳌 Hand Fresholives B_Hand_S B â?쳌 Hand Stored olives B_Mach_F B â?쳌 Machine Fresholives B_Mach_S B â?쳌 Machine Stored olives Descriptiveanalysis The sensory properties of the olives were measured by descriptive analysis with a trained panel of 10 judges ( 8female , 2 male ) , allof themareundergraduateand graduatestudentsat UCDavis . This year , the panel developed a scorecard with 34 attributes of appearance , flavor ( taste and smell ) , texture , mouthfeel and after â?쳌 taste ( Table 2 ) . After the panel training , all the products were evaluated in triplicate , following a randomized complete block design . Olives were presented at room temperature ( 20 ° C ) , in a spherical glass covered with a plastic lid ( 3 wholeolives and onesliced in half ) . The intensity of the attributes was rated on a category line scale labeled with â?? low â?쳌 and â?? high â?쳌 at the ends of the scale , except for some of the appearance attributes and the lasting flavor which used the labels shown inTable2 below . Table2 â?? Sensoryattributesevaluatedinthedescriptiveanalysis Attribute References Attribute References SMELL ( AROMA ) Briny / Salty Olivebrine Size APPEARANCESmall â?쳌 â?쳌 â?쳌 big Ocean â?쳌 like Seaweed * Shape Round â?쳌 â?쳌 â?쳌 Oval Sugary / Sweet smell 1 ) Honey * Glossy / Shiny Matte â?쳌 â?쳌 â?쳌 Glossy 2 ) brown sugar * Fermented / Vinegar Surfaceroughness Smooth â?쳌 â?쳌 â?쳌 Rough 1 ) Sauerkraut * 2 ) applecidervinegar * Sautéed mushroom Sautéed mushroom * Degreeofdiscoloration Earthy / Musty Pottingsoil * Skinbrownness ( Darkbrown colorscale ) Lessgradient â?쳌 â?쳌 â?쳌 Moregradient Metallic / Canned Irontablet solution * Gradation ( Flesh ) Green / Grassy Parsley * Brightness â?쳌 Grey / Green ( Grey / green colorscale ) ( Flesh ) Floral Chrysanthemum * Brightness â?쳌 Grey / Brown ( Light brown colorscale ) ( Flesh ) Painty / Solvent â?쳌 like Correctionfluid * Innerroughness Smooth / soft â?쳌 â?쳌 â?쳌 Rough Rancid / Oxidized Rancidoliveoil * TEXTURE / MOUTHFEEL Overallflavor â?쳌 TASTE / FLAVORFirmness Saltiness NaClsolution Crunchiness Umami MSG + brine Chewiness Bitterness Caffeinesolution Juicy / Moisturerelease Sweetness Sugarsolution Astringency / Dryness Steeped greentea Buttery * Meltedbutter Mouthcoating Aftertaste FlavorLasting * mixed witholives Consumertesting The olive samples were also evaluated by 109 consumers who were recruited among Picnic Day visitors and Davis Farmerâ??s Market customers . The screening criteria for participation were to be US Residents andblacktableolives users and liker . Each consumer was presented with 11 samples , with the first sample serving as a primer , for the purpose of eliminating the first â?쳌 order effect typically encountered in consumer tests â?? the first sample receives a higher hedonic score than the subsequent samples in the serving order . The presentation order of the other 10 samples was randomized across consumers . Consumers were instructed to rate overall degree of liking of each sample , followed by degree of liking of appearance , flavor , and texture on the 9 â?쳌 point hedonic scale , from â?? dislike extremely â?? to â?? like extremely , â?? and with â?? neither like nor dislike â?? in the middle . Two whole olives were served in plastic cups covered with lids at room temperature ( 20 ° C ) . Crackers and water were provided for rinsing and palate cleansing . Upon completion of the tasting , consumers filled an exit survey with demographic , attitude and olive usage information . Dataanalysis The descriptive analysis data was analyzed using a combination of univariate and multivariate statistics . Analysis of variance ( ANOVA ) was used to examine the effect of each source of variations in the design . Principal component analysis ( PCA ) was then applied to the matrix of mean intensity ratings across the samples to visuallysummarizethesimilaritiesand differencesamongtheproductsin thedesign . The consumer hedonic ratings were also analyzed using a combination of univariate and multivariate statistics.ANOVA was firstperformed to observethe effectof each sourceof variation in thedesign.The matrix of hedonic ratings of samples across consumers was then analyzed by preference mapping â?? a combination of factor analysis and classification methods designed to assess preference market segmentation and drivers of liking identification for product optimization purposes . Partial least square ( PLS ) regression was performed to examine the relation between the hedonic ratings by consumers and thesensoryattributes measuredbythedescriptiveanalysispanel . Resultsanddiscussion Descriptiveanalysis There were no significant differences between mechanically â?쳌 and hand â?쳌 harvested olives for most of the aroma , taste / flavor and texture / mouthfeel attributes . However , the harvesting methods were significantlydifferentinseveralappearanceandafter â?쳌 tasteattributes , aslistedbelow ( Table3 ) : Flavor â?? Earthy Taste â?쳌 Bitterness Appearance â?? Size , Surface roughness , Degree of discoloration , Skin brownness and Brightness ofgrey / green ( flesh ) After â?쳌 taste â?? flavor lasting This yearâ??s result confirms the result from year of 2008 â?쳌 2009 when canopy contact harvester was also applied that the differences between hand and machine harvested olives mostly lies in appearance and after â?쳌 taste characteristics . Compared to the year of 2009 â?쳌 2010 when trunk shaker was applied , there were fewer differences in sensory attributes between mechanically â?쳌 and hand â?쳌 harvested olives , though thedifferences in theappearanceand after â?쳌 tasteattributes stillremain . There were many significant differences across a range of appearance , flavor , texture , mouthfeel and aftertaste attributes mainly between fresh â?쳌 processed olives and olives stored before processing ( i.e . Processing method ) ; and also , between the 2 commercial olives and the other samples ( i.e . commercial vs.non â?쳌 commercial ) . Table3 . F â?쳌 valuesforpartitionedproductsourceofvariation . Harvesting Processing Harvesting Commercial Harvesting Processorx method method methodx Processors vs.non â?쳌 methodx Processing ( handvs . ( freshvs . ( Avs.B ) Processing commercial Processor method machine ) stored ) method Briny / Salty 6.38 0.32 4.64 0.14 0.32 0.08 0.61 Ocean â?쳌 like 6.91 1.60 28.39 0.23 1.36 0.58 1.27 Sugary / Sweet smell 37.82 0.04 52.28 0.23 0.52 0.06 10.38 Fermented / Vinegar 39.58 1.35 39.78 0.11 1.24 1.69 9.91 Sautéed mushroom 3.72 1.79 4.73 1.44 0.13 0.14 12.88 Earthy / Musty 4.28 0.06 22.15 0.00 0.14 10.51 3.45 Metallic / Canned 44.60 2.58 76.47 0.28 1.63 2.17 17.17 Green / Grassy 22.91 2.49 68.01 2.09 1.35 0.82 4.44 Floral 9.27 0.02 1.64 2.48 2.19 0.13 1.26 Painty / Solvent â?쳌 like 35.85 0.94 74.26 4.81 0.06 1.35 2.69 Rancid / Oxidized 30.35 3.10 30.61 0.24 0.26 3.10 0.03 Overallflavor 13.34 3.66 1.97 1.68 0.14 1.71 1.22 Saltiness 31.75 0.00 2.14 0.07 0.46 1.21 4.32 Umami 12.96 0.06 36.04 0.07 0.00 3.57 1.63 Bitterness 4.64 2.54 94.93 18.55 5.20 0.93 11.21 Sweetness 12.00 0.06 70.46 0.05 2.66 0.41 0.35 Buttery 3.90 1.47 133.38 3.94 3.23 0.05 1.61 Size 34.66 4.63 23.50 15.73 10.16 7.73 1.86 Shape 4.37 0.02 0.10 0.13 0.02 0.87 0.02 Glossy 7.91 0.44 0.45 6.32 0.18 0.32 0.00 Surfaceroughness 25.62 0.49 3.45 7.21 2.69 4.08 17.46 Degreeof 34.66 4.63 23.50 15.73 10.16 7.73 1.86 discoloration Skinbrownness 11.18 35.68 26.51 59.45 5.69 20.56 1.53 Gradation ( Flesh ) 12.13 1.93 5.53 0.52 1.24 0.13 0.13 Brightness â?쳌 22.91 2.49 68.01 2.09 1.35 0.82 4.44 Grey / Green ( Flesh ) Brightness â?쳌 0.60 4.26 12.61 2.33 1.33 1.27 76.31 Grey / Brown ( Flesh ) Innerroughness 29.29 1.30 37.59 3.91 0.97 0.08 2.88 Firmness 74.22 0.19 6.97 6.29 0.40 0.34 13.29 Crunchiness 72.08 0.52 3.76 1.80 0.26 0.02 7.05 Chewiness 23.39 2.30 3.80 6.09 0.04 0.58 1.30 Juicy / Moisture 22.71 2.73 91.11 4.17 0.33 0.09 7.10 release Astringency / Dryness 1.11 1.11 26.36 18.72 3.04 1.21 0.27 Mouthcoating 0.38 0.28 55.18 3.26 0.42 0.44 2.34 FlavorLasting 2.09 4.39 7.63 4.53 0.50 2.60 0.16 Bolddenotes significantsourceofvariation ( P < 0.05 ) Principal component analysis ( PCA ) was employed to illustrate the relationships among the sensory attributes and theproducts in a 2 â?쳌 dimensionalsensory map . Theprincipalcomponent ( PC ) biplotshows the main sensoryfeatures of each tableolivesample â?? attributes located closeto a given sampletend to behigher for that sample , whereas attributes which arefound away from thatsample tend to be lower . Italsodepictstherelationshipsamongthesensoryattributes â?? attributes which arepositivelycorrelated tend to form small angles with each other or to be clustered together on the plot , whereas attributes whicharenegativelycorrelatedarefound atoppositeendsof theplot . The biplot of PC1 vs . PC2 is shown in Figure 2 below . PC1 and PC2 explained 75.49 % of the variation betweenproducts . Figure2 â?쳌 Principalcomponentanalysisofthedescriptiveanalysisdatashowingtheproducts ( left ) and sensoryattributes ( right ) . â?¢ The main difference among products was observed between processing method ( fresh processed vs . non â?쳌 fresh ( i.e . stored and commercial ) ) , as shown by PC1 ( 54.25 % ) . Fresh â?쳌 processed olives , regardless of harvesting method and processor , were characterized by green flesh , higher skin brownness , surface roughness , ocean â?쳌 like , sugary , sautéed mushroom aroma , umami , sweet buttery flavor and juicier mouthfeel . Olives held in storage tanks , especially by processor A were glossy , brighter flesh color , painty , rancid , metallic , briny , fermented , earthy , green aroma , bitterandlongerflavor lasting . â?¢ The next largest difference was observed between commercial from processor A vs . stored olivesfrom processorB , asshownbyPC2 ( 21.24 % ) . Olivesheld instoragetanksfromprocessor Bwerecharacterized bybrown flesh , moreastringent , firmer , crunchier , chewier and had higher overallflavor intensity . â?¢ There was no difference between harvesting method . The differences between olives were largelydueto processingmethod . Consumertest There was a significant difference in consumer acceptance between processing method ( fresh vs . stored ) . Processing method was the largest source of variation in overall and flavor liking . Commercial vs . non â?쳌 commercial was a rather important source of variation for texture liking , followed by processing method . Appearance liking was affected by the interaction effects between processor and processing method ( Table4 ) . Table4 â?? F â?쳌 valuesforpartitionedproductsourceofvariation Harvesting Processing Harvesting Commercial Harvesting Processorx Processors method method methodx vs.non â?쳌 methodx Processing ( Avs.B ) ( handvs . ( freshvs . Processing commercial Processor method machine ) stored ) method Overalldegreeof 0.75 0.00 6.52 0.56 0.62 0.00 0.37 liking Appearanceliking 0.36 0.14 1.43 0.95 2.76 0.01 6.66 Flavor liking 0.72 0.07 8.89 0.71 0.25 0.27 0.01 Texture / Mouthfeel 12.42 0.07 6.21 1.16 0.13 0.18 2.15 liking Bolddenotes significant sourceofvariation ( P < 0.05 ) . An examination of the mean hedonic ratings confirms the observations above ( Figure 3 ) . The mean hedonic ratings for overall liking indicated fresh â?쳌 processed olives were preferred over stored â?쳌 processed olives ( Figure 3a ) . There was no significant difference between mechanically â?쳌 and hand â?쳌 harvested olives . The findings were true for flavor and texture liking , but to a lesser extent for appearance liking ( Figure 3b ) . There was a higher degree of appearance liking for stored â?쳌 processed olives from processor B . In conclusion , thelargestsourceof variation inconsumer acceptancewas â?? processingmethod . â?? ( a ) ( b ) Figure3 â?? LSmeansforhedonicratingsofthe10olivesamplesfor ( a ) overalldegreeoflikingand ( b ) includingappearanceliking , flavorliking , andtextureliking ( N = 109consumers ) The overall degree of liking showed the highest correlation to flavor liking , and then to texture liking and appearance liking ( Table 5 , Figure 4b ) , similar to what we observed last year . This suggests that flavorcharacteristicsarethemostimportant determinantsofconsumelikingfortableolives . Table5 â?? Pearsonâ??scorrelationcoefficientsamonghedonicratingsbyconsumers Variables Overalldegreeofliking Appearanceliking Flavorliking Textureliking Overalldegreeof 1 0.596 0.914 0.734 liking * Values inboldaresignificantlydifferentfrom 0 witha significancelevelalpha = 0.05 Preferencemappingandconsumersegmentation Figure 4 showed the results of the internal preference mapping analysis as bi â?쳌 plot of the first two principal components ; showing the main direction ( as vectors ) of each individual consumerâ??s preferences for the 10 olives tested ( i.e . each dot represents each individual consumerâ??s main preferencedirection ) . The preference map showed that a number of consumers were located on bottom area of the plot , where fresh â?쳌 processed olive samples were located . The stored â?쳌 processed olive samples were on the upper area , with those from processor Blocated onthe upper right sidewhilethose from processor A located on the left side of the plot . This observation is comparable to the previous yearâ??s result ( i.e . fresh â?쳌 processed olives wereliked over stored â?쳌 processed olives ) . Unlikelast year , however , thelocations of mechanically â?쳌 and hand â?쳌 harvesting methods were placed closely on the plot . This indicated that harvesting method have little influence on consumer acceptance . The preference map also showed differences among the four stored â?쳌 processed olives , which were due to different processor . This was notthecaseinlastyearâ??sresearch . Figure4 â?? Internalpreferencemapgeneratedbasedonoveralldegreeofliking , showingindividual consumersandtheolivesamples ( N = 109 ) Consumer preference for Californian â?쳌 style black olives could be classified into three possible segments , using cluster analysis ( Pearsonâ??s dissimilarity proximity matrix ; Average â?쳌 linkage agglomerative method ) . The consumer segmentation results were shown in Figures 5 and 6 below . Processing method had the most influence on consumer acceptance . The majority of consumers ( cluster 2 , n = 57 ) preferred fresh â?쳌 processed olives . The findings , again , indicated thatharvesting method did not play an important role in consumer acceptance , while processors influence consumer acceptance to a certain extent . A smaller group of consumers in cluster 1 ( n = 14 ) did not displayed a common preference tendency , although preference towards processor A was noticed . Consumers in cluster 3 ( n = 38 ) tended towards fresh â?쳌 processed olives from processor B and commercial products ( Figure7 ) . Figure5 â?? Clusteranalysisdendrogramofthe109consumers Figure6 â?? Internalpreferencemappingwithsegmentation Examination of the interaction between cluster and product indicated that the three clusters were significantly different in overall liking , flavor liking andtexture liking , but not appearance liking ( Table 6 ) . Mean hedonic scores for overall liking ( Figure 7 ) supports the findings above . Mean scores for appearanceliking , flavorlikingand texturelikingfor eachcluster wereshown inFigure7 . Table6 â?? F â?쳌 valuesfordifferencesinlikingamongconsumerclusters Variables Overalldegreeofliking Appearanceliking Flavorliking Textureliking Clusterxproduct 5.68 1.31 4.49 2.59 Bolddenotes significant sourceofvariation ( P < 0.05 ) ( a ) ( b ) ( c ) ( d ) Figure7 â?? Meanhedonicscoresof10olivesamplesforeachcluster , showing ( a ) overallliking , ( b ) appearanceliking , ( c ) flavorlikingand ( d ) textureliking . The overall degree of liking showed the highest correlation to flavor liking , and then to texture liking and appearance liking ( Table 7 ) , similar to what we observed in the overall sample . This confirmed thatflavorcharacteristicsarethemost importantdeterminantsofconsumelikingfortableolives . Table7 â?? Pearsonâ??scorrelationcoefficientsamonghedonicratingsbyeachcluster Variables Overalldegreeofliking Appearanceliking Flavorliking Textureliking Cluster1overall 1 0.562 0.882 0.678 degreeofliking Cluster2overall 1 0.556 0.905 0.778 degreeofliking Cluster3overall 1 0.678 0.937 0.692 degreeofliking * Values inboldaresignificantlydifferentfrom 0 witha significancelevelalpha = 0.05 Identificationofdriversofliking PLS â?쳌 regression was performed in order to examine sensory drivers of consumer liking for black table olives ( Figure8 ) . This analysis provides a clearer insight of theblacktableolives preferencecharacteristic of each consumer segment . The analysis displayed the sensory attributes that were associated with overall degree of liking by each cluster , and more specifically , the appearance attributes that were associated with liking for appearance of olives ( Figure 8b ) , the flavor attributes that were associated with liking of flavor of olives ( Figure 8c ) and the texture attributes that were associated with liking of textureofolives ( Figure8d ) . ( a ) ( b ) ( c ) ( d ) Figure10 â?? PLS2 â?쳌 Regressionofeachclusterhedonicratings ( i.e.a ) overallliking , b ) appearanceliking , c ) flavorlikingandd ) textureliking ) ontothesensoryattributesfrom thedescriptiveanalysis Consumer segment profiles , including demographics and behavioral information are shown in Table 8 and9 . Table8 â?? Demographicprofilesofblack tableolivesconsumersegments Cluster1 ( % ) Cluster2 ( % ) Cluster3 ( % ) Overall ( % ) ( n = 14 ) ( n = 57 ) ( n = 38 ) ( N = 109 ) Gender Male 57.1 40.4 36.8 41.3 Female 42.9 59.6 63.2 58.7 Age 18 â?쳌 29 42.9 40.4 28.9 36.7 30 â?쳌 39 21.4 14.0 7.9 12.8 40 â?쳌 49 28.6 8.8 2.6 9.2 50 â?쳌 59 7.1 19.3 39.5 24.8 60 â?쳌 69 0.0 10.5 15.8 11.0 â?¥ 70 0.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 Ethnicity African / African 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.9 American Asian / Asian American 21.4 10.5 18.4 14.7 Caucasion ( non â?쳌 64.3 75.4 57.9 67.9 hispanic ) Hispanic / Latino 7.1 3.5 7.9 5.5 MiddleEastern 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.9 NativeAmerican 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pacific Islanders 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other ( specify ) 7.1 10.5 10.5 10.1 Maritalstatus single 35.7 40.4 34.2 37.6 married 42.9 52.6 60.5 54.1 divorced / separated 14.3 3.5 0.0 3.7 widowed 0.0 1.8 2.6 1.8 Number ofchildren none 71.4 75.4 86.8 78.9 under 18 yearsold 1 7.1 14.0 10.5 11.9 2 14.3 5.3 2.6 5.5 3or more 7.1 5.3 0.0 3.7 Student 35.7 31.6 15.8 26.6 Occupation unemployedstudent 21.4 19.3 10.5 16.5 retired 0.0 14.0 15.8 12.8 unemployed 14.3 1.8 7.9 5.5 employed 64.3 64.9 63.2 64.2 Exercise ? everyday 28.6 15.8 23.7 20.2 2 â?쳌 3 / week 50.0 56.1 47.4 52.3 oncea week 14.3 22.8 13.2 18.3 oncea month 0.0 5.3 7.9 5.5 never 7.1 0.0 7.9 3.7 Highesteducation HSdiploma / GED 21.4 21.1 13.2 18.3 BachelorsDegree 57.1 40.4 44.7 44.0 Masters 7.1 19.3 15.8 16.5 Ph.D 14.3 10.5 23.7 15.6 ProfessionalDegree 0.0 8.8 0.0 4.6 Income less than $ 50,000 28.6 33.3 26.3 30.3 $ 50,000 â?쳌 $ 100,000 21.4 21.1 23.7 22.0 $ 100,000 + 35.7 35.1 28.9 33.0 Don'tknow / prefer no answer 14.3 10.5 18.4 13.8 Table9 â?? Behavioralinformationofblacktableolives consumersegments Cluster1 ( % ) Cluster2 ( % ) Cluster3 ( % ) Overall ( % ) ( n = 14 ) ( n = 57 ) ( n = 38 ) N = 109 ) Did you eatolivesin â?¦ canape 7.1 24.6 7.9 16.5 pasta 57.1 63.2 65.8 63.3 pizza 92.9 86.0 89.5 88.1 salad 64.3 78.9 78.9 77.1 sandwich 64.3 38.6 42.1 43.1 cocktail 21.4 26.3 13.2 21.1 others ( description ) 21.4 31.6 18.4 25.7 Did you eatolivesby 71.4 77.2 71.1 74.3 themselves ? Consumption frequency â?¥ 2 â?쳌 3 timesa week 14.3 17.5 15.8 16.5 oncea week 14.3 35.1 26.3 29.4 once everyother week 35.7 21.1 28.9 25.7 oncea month 7.1 14.0 52.6 26.6 less than oncea month 28.6 8.8 26.3 17.4 Often eatolivesby themselves 2 â?쳌 3 + timesa week 0.0 14.0 5.3 9.2 oncea week 14.3 17.5 7.9 13.8 once everyother week 35.7 14.0 18.4 18.3 oncea month 21.4 19.3 71.1 37.6 less than oncea month 28.6 31.6 94.7 53.2 Doyoubuy . . . black ( whole ) 57.1 82.5 84.2 79.8 black ( sliced ) 35.7 38.6 34.2 36.7 green ( whole ) 50.0 66.7 57.9 61.5 green ( sliced ) 0.0 14.0 7.9 10.1 flavored / spiced ( black , whole ) 35.7 35.1 18.4 29.4 flavored / spiced ( black , sliced ) 7.1 5.3 0.0 3.7 flavored / spiced ( green , whole ) 50.0 50.9 26.3 42.2 flavored / spiced ( green , sliced ) 14.3 7.0 2.6 6.4 stuffed ( black , whole ) 7.1 19.3 13.2 15.6 stuffed ( green , whole ) 71.4 57.9 50.0 56.9 Source can / jar 85.7 77.2 78.9 78.9 deli 57.1 63.2 44.7 56.0 makemyown 7.1 8.8 7.9 8.3 Purchasingfrequency â?¥ 2 â?쳌 3 timesper week 0.0 3.5 0.0 1.8 oncea week 0.0 10.5 5.3 7.3 oncein everyother 21.4 19.3 15.8 18.3 week oncea month 21.4 38.6 47.4 39.4 oncein 3 months 21.4 17.5 10.5 15.6 less than oncein3 28.6 1.8 18.4 11.0 months never 7.1 7.0 2.6 5.5 Factors influencingchoice Type 85.7 89.5 92.1 89.9 Variety 50.0 64.9 65.8 63.3 Origin 28.6 35.1 23.7 30.3 Local 28.6 36.8 44.7 38.5 Package 28.6 35.1 34.2 33.9 Nutrition 14.3 12.3 28.9 18.3 Brand 21.4 24.6 36.8 28.4 Price 85.7 63.2 71.1 68.8 Responsiblefor groceries yes , 100 % 42.9 38.6 42.1 40.4 yes , partially 35.7 54.4 42.1 47.7 no 21.4 5.3 13.2 10.1 Consider yourself â?¦ conservative 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.9 somewhatconservative 0.0 10.5 5.3 7.3 neither 28.6 8.8 15.8 13.8 somewhatadventurous 28.6 40.4 50.0 42.2 adventurous 42.9 38.6 26.3 34.9 Conclusion The main conclusion of this yearâ??s research is that there were little differences in sensory quality between mechanically â?쳌 and hand â?쳌 harvested olives , which did not significantly influence consumer acceptance . Compared to last yearâ??s research , when we found notable differences between hand â?쳌 and mechanically harvested olives ( but with a trunk â?쳌 shaking device ) , this yearâ??s results found no significant differences between the two harvesting methods in both sensory qualities and consumer acceptance . The result was in line with the research done in 2008 â?쳌 2009 ( with a canopy contact device , similar to the device used this year ) . Moreover , thereweresomedifferences insensorypropertiesand consumeracceptance of stored â?쳌 processed olives between the two processors . We were able to identify three consumer segments which differed inpreferencefor blacktable olives : â?¢ Cluster 1 ( n = 14 ) : Stored â?쳌 processed olives â?¢ Cluster 2 ( n = 57 ) : Fresh â?쳌 processedolives â?¢ Cluster 3 ( n = 38 ) : Commercialolivesand fresh â?쳌 processedolivesfrom processor B . The majority of consumers exhibited preferences for fresh â?쳌 processed olives , thus fresh â?쳌 processed olives havestrongpotentialin theCalifornian â?쳌 olivemarket .