000152047 001__ 152047
000152047 005__ 20250326144155.0
000152047 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.3390/foods10112694
000152047 0248_ $$2sideral$$a126822
000152047 037__ $$aART-2021-126822
000152047 041__ $$aeng
000152047 100__ $$0(orcid)0000-0001-9660-8579$$aMorales J.B.C.$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza
000152047 245__ $$aAn approach to the spanish consumer’s perception of the sensory quality of environmentally friendly seabass
000152047 260__ $$c2021
000152047 5060_ $$aAccess copy available to the general public$$fUnrestricted
000152047 5203_ $$aSeabass is one of the leading aquaculture species in Europe. Sensory analysis is essential for new product development. This research focused on establishing and differentiating the opinion of consumers about seabass quality obtained with organic feeding. Fish were fed for 196 days with four treatments (a control diet with 30% fishmeal and three diets with different levels of fishmeal supplemented with organic vegetable ingredients: 25%, 30% and 35%). Experimental diets were compared with commercial samples from the retail industry that were considered as “adequate quality for fish”. Two sensory analyses were carried out, check-all-that-apply (CATA) to obtain feedback on consumers’ characterization towards a different type of fish evaluated and projective mapping (PM) to measure the similarity among a set of products and establish a comparison between results provided by both methods. According to the CATA results, white color, softness, meaty taste and juicy texture were considered relevant attributes, also showing a good relationship with an adequate cooked fish description. A penalty analysis confirmed that the previous characteristics were considered essential while fibrous was an undesirable attribute. The projective mapping showed a similar sensory configuration to the CATA, corroborating these findings that showed that commercial fish were placed in a position away from the rest of the treatments, and the organic diet with a higher level of fishmeal (35%) was the most distant from the control diet.
000152047 540__ $$9info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess$$aby$$uhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/
000152047 590__ $$a5.561$$b2021
000152047 591__ $$aFOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY$$b35 / 144 = 0.243$$c2021$$dQ1$$eT1
000152047 592__ $$a0.726$$b2021
000152047 593__ $$aFood Science$$c2021$$dQ1
000152047 593__ $$aPlant Science$$c2021$$dQ1
000152047 593__ $$aMicrobiology$$c2021$$dQ1
000152047 593__ $$aHealth Professions (miscellaneous)$$c2021$$dQ1
000152047 594__ $$a4.1$$b2021
000152047 655_4 $$ainfo:eu-repo/semantics/article$$vinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
000152047 700__ $$aTomás-Vidal A.
000152047 700__ $$aPhoco E.R.C.
000152047 700__ $$aMartínez-Llorens S.
000152047 700__ $$0(orcid)0000-0002-1905-5883$$aMarquina P.L.$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza
000152047 700__ $$aJover-Cerdá M.
000152047 700__ $$0(orcid)0000-0003-2205-6913$$aRoncalés P.$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza
000152047 700__ $$0(orcid)0000-0002-3764-0189$$aBeltrán J.A.$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza
000152047 7102_ $$12008$$2780$$aUniversidad de Zaragoza$$bDpto. Produc.Animal Cienc.Ali.$$cÁrea Tecnología de Alimentos
000152047 773__ $$g10, 11 (2021), 2694 [16 pp.]$$pFoods$$tFoods$$x2304-8158
000152047 8564_ $$s1711467$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/152047/files/texto_completo.pdf$$yVersión publicada
000152047 8564_ $$s2793090$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/152047/files/texto_completo.jpg?subformat=icon$$xicon$$yVersión publicada
000152047 909CO $$ooai:zaguan.unizar.es:152047$$particulos$$pdriver
000152047 951__ $$a2025-03-26-13:53:59
000152047 980__ $$aARTICLE